HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY COUNCIL WORK MEETINGMINUTES FEBRUARY 19, 2003
CITY COUNCIL WORK MEETING
CITY OF REXBURG
City Hall Mission Statement: At Rexburg City Hall our goal is to improve the Community.
We Serve the citizens by striving to understand their needs and by responding with
quality work.
February 19, 2003
6:00 P.M.
Present:
Mayor Bruce Sutherland
Council Members: Glen Pond, Marsha Bjornn, Nyle Fullmer, Donna Benfield,
Paul Pugmire, Shawn Larsen.
The Mayor explained the protocol for the meeting. The discussion items would be discussed by
the City Council Members in a forum discussion. Some input from the public would be allowed.
The following minutes from a City Staff meeting were made available to the Council for
review:
City Staff Meeting
2/18/03
Council Agenda
Present: Val Christensen, Blair Kay, John Millar, Kurt Hibbert, Stephen Zollinger, &
Craig Rindlisbacher, Richard Horner, Mayor Sutherland.
Consent agenda for City Council and P&Z considered by the staff to be appropriate.
nd
Rezone on 2 East is relative to the western portion of the property, and would make it
consistent with the eastern portion which is already HBD. At the present time, discussions
relative to residential use are not before the P&Z or the Council. The staff recommendation is
that this request is in accordance with long term objectives, and that it should be approved. P&Z
feels that light industrial areas need to be established in other parts of the community.
Ordinance 889 is the creation and furtherance of LID 33. Staff recommends approval. Staff is
requesting a suspension of the rules after the public hearing portion so as to have the matter ready
for staff to put the project out to bid by the end of February. This is necessitated by the deadline
nd
imposed upon us by the State for the start of their Hwy Project on Main Street and 2 East which
th
will be starting near the 7 of July, 2003.
Resolution 2003-03 on 401k, this is just a house keeping matter to stay in compliance with the
IRS.
Resolution 2003-04 is minor maintenance on the fencing around the airport. The Airport board
1
has already approved and recommended this action.
Compensation Review Contract with BDPA is intended to give us current data relative to salaries
of various city positions. It is the recommendation of the staff and mayor that this company be
retained for the purpose of bringing our current job descriptions and salary ranges into
consistency with other Idaho cities.
Resolution 2003-05 is the Urban Renewal Plan, and staff has reviewed it and considers it ready
for council approval as you deem it appropriate. It is in relationship to the downtown area, and
ndrd
would apply to an area from 2 East to 3 West one block either side of Main.
Final plat for City Creek Division #1 is a correction of right-of-way that is being done to address a
void in the current design requested by the City.
With respect to the P&Z agenda, reviews of the proposed subdivisions are going to be
preliminary, and will be modified if RR2 is finished. Hyde Park #2 is a preliminary review of a
Planned Residential Development. Staff will give further enlightenment as it becomes available.
Mayor Sutherland opened the work meeting with a 15 minute time period for public input.
Brooke Passey – 9773 South Snake River Road – Indicated that he was interested in the direction
the Council was heading with this annexation proposal. It may have some bearing on
future decisions the County will be making for County residential developments.
Richard Horne – District 7 Health Department was available to answer questions from the City
Council or County residents.
Some of the residents requested input from the Council on the proposed zoning that would be
applied to their subdivisions. The Mayor indicated that there had been no decisions
made at this time on the zoning for each area. Residents in Rexburg Acres were reported
to be against the annexation proposal.
Mayor Sutherland – Led the discussion to bring different options to the table for this annexation
Proposal:
1)What does the City want to annex?
2)What mitigation factors are available to the City?
3)What time line should the Council propose for annexation?
Paul Pugmire – Indicated that the City should offer the following incentives to the residents:
1)Waiver of front foot fees and connection fees for 12 months.
2)Require hook up to the sewer system when the sewer system fails.
Glen Pond – Recommended running both water and sewer lines at the same time and forgo
annexation if the neighborhood does not want to be annexed.
Paul Pugmire – Indicated that spot zoning would be undesirable where you have some properties
annexed into the City and other properties in the same subdivision outside of the City.
2
Marsha Bjornn – Commented on the idea of charging an average City lot size for the front
footage fees. She mentioned the County requirement for a resident to hook up the City
sewer system if they have a septic system failure in an area of concern for ground water
contamination. This could be required if the City sewer system is within a “reasonable”
distance from the resident.
Brooke Passey – Mentioned to the group that the County does require residents to connect to the
City sewer system or install an enhanced septic system if they are located in an
“area of concern” with a lot less than two acres.
Paul Pugmire – Requested the definition for a fail septic system.
Richard Horne mentioned that the State of Idaho definition for a failed system is one that does
not accept water. Richard indicated that if a private septic system fails within the City’s
Impact Zone and it is reasonably close to the City’s sewer line, District 7 Health would
not issue a permit for a new septic system. Some of the limiting conditions used to
define an “area of concern” are the following:
1)High water table
2)Clay soil
3)Lots under 2 acres
4)Areas of high density, etc.
Shawn Larsen – Inquired if the Environmental Protection Agency had studies available for the
concerning density related to ground water quality degradation. Richard did
not have any studies that would identify a particular area. The studies are more generic
in nature.
The Council began discussing possible ways to mitigate the impact of the annexation proposal.
1)Window of opportunity during construction phase to waive front foot fees.
2)Reduce front foot fees to an average City lot. (example: 100 feet)
3)Waive front fees and connection fees during a 12 month period.
4)Only annex properties that request annexation
Mayor Sutherland – Reminded the Council of the need to annex for the orderly planning and
growth of the City. It is important to proceed in a manner that will not set a precedent.
5)Offer a one time septic system credit to those who connect to the City sewer system
within the window of opportunity.
6)Combination of using the average lot size and the window of opportunity.
Paul Pugmire – Reiterated the negative impact of spot zoning. He is against imposing
annexation costs on residents when City growth is the reason for the expansion of
th
City services. Paul mentioned the 5 West annexation as an example of what the City
could offer to residents in this annexation proposal with some semantic tweaking.
3
Glen Pond – Favored the idea of annexing the parcels of property on a time table that would be
driven by the residents. Glen mentioned that Rexburg Acres does not need to have the
sewer installed when annexed. The City could just install the water line in that
subdivision.
Discussion on the cost to the residents if the connection was delayed to a future date. It would
be less expensive to connect to the City services when the lines are being installed.
Future connections may have additional costs due to inflation and environmental issues.
Stephen Zollinger – Commented on the City of Idaho Falls costs per foot for water and sewer.
The total cost is $35.00 per foot.
Paul Pugmire – Introduced the idea of adding a fiber optics conduit to the trench when the other
services are being installed.
Shawn Larsen – Put forth the idea of having a Construction Window for hookup. (Short window)
Paul Pugmire – Preferred to offer existing neighborhoods an incentive to connect to the City
services.
Glen Pond and Shawn Larsen – Offered the idea of staggered incentives. They would be willing
to reduce front fees instead of waive them entirely.
The Council indicated that they were in favor of offering some kind of incentive to connect to
City services within a given time period.
Shawn Larsen and Glen Pond – Indicated that maybe the City should back off the annexation
proposal and annex those properties that request annexation.
Glen Pond – Offered the following proposal:
1)Annex the properties with 100 foot front foot fees
(Charge the current proposed rates during the construction phase)
2)Annex later at the actual cost of those who choose their own time table.
Nyle Fullmer – Indicated that the window of opportunity could be up to two years.
Mayor Sutherland – Preferred to annex all of the proposed areas at the same time with the
following conditions:
1)Time specific hook up period at the current rate
2)Allow an average size lot size fee
3)Offer a septic system credit
John Millar – Referred back to the approval given by Planning and Zoning. The Commission
preferred to annex larger areas and avoid spot annexations. This approach would
enhance the planning of the area west of U.S. Hwy 20. Selected annexations would limit
4
contiguous growth of the City.
Paul Pugmire – Again commented on his desire to annex parcels in blocks with incentives for
existing homes.
Nyle Fullmer and Marsha Bjornn – Favor the window of opportunity for incentives and avoid
spot annexations.
Glen Pond – Favored the removal of neighborhoods from the annexation proposal if they are
against the annexation. (Rexburg Acres and Widdison Addition and some individual
home owners have been opposed to the annexation proposal).
th
Mayor Sutherland – Announced a work meeting for next week the 26 of February at 7:00 p.m.
The Mayor indicated that the Council had made some progress with this discussion.
The Council will present two proposals that can be reduced to one proposal for
annexation for the work meeting.
Adjourned
5