Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.06.02 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF REXBURG June 02, 2004 6:30 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Madison ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Shawn Larsen Council Members: Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Financial Officer Richard Horner P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger 6:00 p.m. County/City issues work meeting (Agenda set by County Commissioners) - Deferred (Location will be the County Commissioners Office) 6:30 p.m. County/City/Sugar City work meeting : Location will be the County Commissioners Office) ( The County Clerk, Marilyn Rasmussen will provide a more detailed account of this portion of the meeting. Representatives from the “Trails of Madison County Committee” address their concerns with changing the proposed route of the trail from Rexburg to Sugar City. Keland Draney and Joseph West from the Trails Committee indicated that the original route along the railroad tracks from Rexburg to Sugar City would be the route with the least possible delays. They recommended pursing the original route that was proposed on the grant application that was awarded to Sugar City. 1 Joseph West spoke about the bylaws planned for the Committee. The Trails of Madison County and the local Lyons Club is sponsoring a fund raising event to raise money for the trails system. They are planning a “spud” race down the Teton River for their first fund raising event. The money will be put to good use in the Nature Park for camp sites. The tickets for the race will be sold at the rate of 6 spuds for $25.00. Joseph noted that the spuds are made of material that will float. They had the appearance on an actual potato. John Millar reviewed the route with the Idaho Transportation Department during the initial application phase. He covered the environmental requirements that would be imposed on the trail from the Transportation Department. John recommended keeping the original proposal due to the limited time to re-address those environmental issues with ITD by August, 2004. The grant requires a point to point proposal from Rexburg to Sugar City. An Engineer would have to be contracted to do the engineering for the trail and there is not enough time to make major changes to the route without overrunning the deadline for the grant. The trail engineering must be done by federal standards at an estimated cost of from $50,000 to $100,000. The railroad route would require a fence along the railroad to separate the trail from the railroad. The group discussed the possible route of the south end of the trail to go behind the nd Deseret Industries Building and cross the Teton River Bridge on 2 East. The trail system would head west to the Nature Park from that location. County Commissioners The adopted the original proposal for the trail from Rexburg to Sugar City with the appropriation of funding for the engineering costs. The Sugar City Council added their support to the original proposal. Council Member Erickson moved to approve the engineering funding for the original route along the railroad tracks; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Oakey None Council Member Young Council Member Pugmire Council Member Benfield Council Member Fullmer Council Member Erickson The motion carried. Mayor Larsen reviewed the issues of the adjoining Impact Area with Sugar City. There are ongoing discussions concerning the development of the area around the north exit interchange adjacent to the City of Rexburg. 2 The group discussed the merits of having the City with the ability to service the area to have the north interchange area within their Area of Impact. Council Member Harris from Sugar City reviewed Sugar City’s plans for a review of the Area of Impact for Sugar City. They are planning neighborhood meetings in that area to discuss the development of the north interchange area. The group recommended that the three Planning Groups from Rexburg, the County, and th Sugar City meet to discuss the issue. They recommended the 17 of June as a meeting time for the proposed discussion of the north interchange area. The County Commissioners planned the next combined Council and Commissioners meeting for July 07, 2004 at the Court House. Adjourned to the City Council Chambers in City Hall at 7:30 p.m. Pledge to the Flag Mayor Larsen welcomed the scouts to the meeting. He welcomed Idaho Senator Brent Hill to the meeting. Roll Call of Council Members: (7:30 p.m.) Location: City Council Chambers Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal City Council action, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Council members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the City Council’s agenda packet regarding these items. A. Minutes from the May 19, 2004 meeting B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills Council Member Young moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Council Member The motion carried. Oakey seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. Public Comment: on issues not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes) Mayor Larsen did not open the meeting for unscheduled issues. 3 New Business: A. Pride Day Mayor Larsen Poster Contest Winners - turned the presentation of the awards over to the Committee members from the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Board. th The awards were given to the winners from kindergarten to the 7 grade. reviewed the poster winners for the Pride Days Poster contest. Tabitha Webster, Tracy Stephenson and Shelly Lucas, made the presentation of the awards to the winners. The Mayor expressed how impressed he was with the talents of the students. Note: The parents were seen wearing large smiles when their children received their awards. The Council Chamber was standing room only for the presentations. B. Golf Board Report - Russ Benedict presented a few facts on the proposal to build a 9 hole golf course in the middle of the Teton Lakes Golf Course on 52 acres of ground that was purchased from private holdings. It would increase the amount of play for the entire golf course to an effective golf course of two 18 hole golf courses. The additional golf course revenue is expected to pay for the expansion. There would be economies of scale with the addition of 9 more holes making it possible to run an additional 18 holes of golf in addition to the current 18 hole golf course. Council Member Pugmire and Commissioner Sommer from the County have assisted in this proposal. Carl Thueson from Montana and Phelps from Colorado were picked for having the best golf course aesthetics. The Golf Board negotiated a contract with Phelps out of Colorado. They mentioned that the Golf Course operates from the revenues collected at the golf course. The working drawings would cost $150,000 cash and the construction costs would be amortized over an extended period of time. The initial master planning for the 9 hole addition would cost about $50,000. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the City would own the documents or plans for the addition to the golf course. It would be a standard contract. Council Member Pugmire noted that it has been a long process at the Golf Board level. Chairman Benedict and his associates have done a good job to move this agenda forward. He noted that this is an enterprise fund that pays it ways. Most golf courses are subsidized. 4 Council Member Pugmire moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the Architectural services contract for the 9 hole golf course addition for preliminary services; Council Member Young seconded the motion; all voted aye, The motion carried. none opposed. It was noted that the County would have to validate the contract because it is a joint County/City golf course. C. Community Development Center Façade – Val Christensen reviewed the costs for redoing the Façade of the Community Development Building at 19 East Main Street. The proposal would include changing out the windows, and the parapet on the top of the façade. They would stucco the face of the building above the awning. The bottom line is that it will take about $20,000 to do this façade. Richard mentioned that it would come out of contingency monies. The City and Eames family share ownership of the building. The City has about 3/5 of the Council Member building for a shared cost of $12,000 for the improvements. Erickson commented that the City is asking the main street businesses to clean up their buildings and alleys. He mentioned that the City should set an example and fix up this building. Val indicated that the look of the building is a 1970’s look. This proposal is for the awing up to the parapet. The lower part of the building façade would be very costly to remodel due to the cost of the brick, etc. The ADA would require the same services provided downstairs as upstairs. The building has Council Member Fullmer a shared entry up to the upstairs. asked about using cultured stone on the parapet. Val mentioned that wood and stucco would keep Council Member Pugmire the cost down on the parapet repair. recommended following Council Member Erickson’s discussion of setting the example. Council Member Pugmire moved to authorize up to $12,000 from the contingency budget for repairs and aesthetic upgrades to the Community Center building; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion. Discussion: There is $100,000 in the carryover fund that would require a public hearing to spend. All The motion carried. voted aye, none opposed. D. City Employee Insurance (HIPPA) Richard Horner – reviewed the federally mandated policy to handle medical records properly. Council Member Erickson moved to adopt the HIPPA plan for Employee Insurance as explained by Richard; Council Member Oakey seconded the motion; The motion carried. all voted aye, none opposed. E. Articles of Organization – Trails of Madison County Committee 5 ? Great Spud Race was explained in the County/City meeting at the Court House at 6:30 p.m. earlier in the evening. The Trails for Madison County Committee is planning a fund raising event with a floating “spud” race in the Teton River. F. ICDBG (Idaho Community Development Block Grant) Resolutions: Kurt Hibbert reviewed the need to pass these resolutions to seek a Community Development Block Grant for ½ million dollars. He reviewed the items in the authorizing documents. He mentioned a City well, a booster pumping station, a water storage tank and other infrastructure costs to be financed by the grant. This action would allow the Mayor to sign all of the funding documents. There is Citizen Participation Plan Resolution 2004-05; Excessive Force Policy a Resolution 2004-06; Fair Housing Resolution 2004-07; Residential Anti- Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Resolution 2004-08; Assurances Resolution 2004-09 to follow requirements of federal programs; Assist in the Construction of an Economic Development Program Resolution 2004-10; Certification Regarding Lobbing Resolution 2004-11. Council Member Erickson asked for more information about the grant program. Kurt mentioned that this is a grant request for economic development money if there can be a positive increase in jobs of well over 100 positions. The federal requirement is to have jobs that meet the low income requirement. Rexburg is eligible for this money based on the past census which shows the residents income levels. Council Member Erickson moved to approve Resolutions 2004–05 to 2004–11; Council Member Oakey seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Public Hearings: A. 7:35 p.m. Proposed Sale of two lots at the Rexburg Business Park: to the Development Workshop, Inc. under a Real Estate Purchase and Sales Agreement between the City of Rexburg and the Development Workshop, Inc. Dwight Whittaker representing the Development Workshop reviewed the proposal to purchase 2 lots at the Rexburg Business Park for $111,600. The Upper Valley Industries Company has been involved in the Community since 1988. He mentioned activities like Easter egg hunts, Christmas Tree Lighting, and other Community activities that they have been involved with in the Community. They service 80 to 100 individuals each year, empowering them to achieve their highest level of independence. Many of these individuals are trained and then employed in our businesses in the Upper Snake River Valley. Dwight thanked the City for 6 consideration of this request to purchase these two lots for $111,600. Mayor Larsen opened the hearing for public comments. Garth Miller, President of Artco discussed his involvement in the Community for the past few years. He is in support of this proposal. His son is 9 years old and he was born with Down’s syndrome. He is in support of the sale of the lots to the Development Workshop. They average a 1,000 client hours per month with the Development Workshop. He reviewed the purchase of a new company that will work well with the Development Workshop. Doug Ladle is in favor of the proposal. He is on the advisory board with Garth Miller for the Development Workshop. Many BYU-I students learn from the facility by doing volunteer hours. He asked for approval of the proposal. nd State Senator Brent Hill – 1010 South 2 East, explained the financial situation of the Development Workshop. They have assets 2.2 Million and they have over $300,000 in cash or equivalents. The expenses will be about $400,000 for the next year. They keep 30 to 90 days in cash reserves on hand. They do not have a lot of Council Member Erickson excess reserves. indicated that the point is well taken. He appreciated the information for the Senator. Those in opposition to the proposal – None The public hearing was closed to public input . Mayor Larsen passed out a letter from State Representative Max Shirley that indicated his approval of the proposal. Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the land sale as it has been described (2.79 acres) to the Development Workshop for a price of $111,600; Council Member Oakey seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carriedCity Attorney Zollinger . indicated that the closing would be set up as soon as possible. B. 8:00 p.m. Five Annexation request into the City of Rexburg as noted: 1) Futures of Idaho requesting annexation of 2 parcels south of Taylor Chevrolet. th 2) Brian D. Partridge requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 658 East 7 North. th 3) E. Joy Huskinson requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 668 East 7 North. th 4) Randi & Karen Fogle requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 705 East 7 North. th 5) Ted Whyte requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 863 South 5 West. The public hearing was opened for testimony: 7 st Kurt Rowland from Schiess and Associates located at 310 North 1 Street, reviewed the proposal on the overhead screen. Brian D. Partridge reviewed the proposal for his request on the overhead screen. He would like to present a Planned Unit Development They are asking for an LDR1 Zoning in this Development. Mrs. E. Joy Huskinson asked to be annexed to receive water and sewer services. Randi & Karen Fogle were not present for testimony. th Ted Whyte requested annexation of about an acre on South 5 West. He plans to Council Member Erickson develop the property for multiple family housing. asked Ted about sidewalk and curb and gutter for his proposed development. Ted explained that it would be done as the property is developed. There are trees that will be removed for the site. Those opposed to the Annexation requests : th Wes Lawrence – 795 South 5 West, spoke in opposition to the annexation of Ted Whyte’s property. He did not want further expansion of multi-family housing in his neighborhood. He mentioned 41 four plexes (164 units in a small area) that were built next to his property. He felt that it was reprehensible. Rebuttal: Ted Whyte commented that he appreciated Wes’s concerns with the growth. He thth mentioned the growth of the City and the area on South 5 West. His property on 5 South is currently surrounded by multi-family housing. The public hearing was closed . Council Member Fullmer mentioned that the address for Mrs. Huskinson’s application is incorrect. The property is on the south side of the road; however, the address would indicate a location on the north side of the road. It should be and even number instead of an odd number. The Council had some discussion on the neighbor’s feelings on the Ted Whyte proposal. Ted indicated that most of the neighbors are aware of the request and they have not expressed any opposition. Council Member Pugmire spoke to the Island that would be created with the Ted 8 Whyte proposal. He is generally opposed to that approach. He mentioned seeing the Lehi, Utah map that has similar conditions with dozens of holes in the City. Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the annexation of the five properties as requested in item 7B; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion. Discussion: Council Member Erickson was concerned with the island created with the Ted Whyte proposal. Legally it can not be turned down. He mentioned to Wes the possibility of joining this annexation proposal. Council Member Oakey asked for information of the Zoning around the Ted Whyte property. Kurt reviewed the zoning on the overhead screen. There was MDR, LDR1, Ag1, and RR Zoning in the area. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that they could not add property to this Public Hearing. Wes Lawrence Ralph Steiner indicated that he and are both adamantly opposed to the annexation proposal for properties adjacent to their properties. Wes was willing to accept a proposal from the City that would outline any cost savings to be annexed as was done with previous annexations of developed properties. Council Member Erickson asked if it were possible to delay Ted Whyte’s request for annexation for 30 days. Ted reviewed the long process of getting his proposal to this point. Council Member Young asked the Council to proceed with this group of requested annexations and visit the adjoining properties in a future discussion. Mayor Larsen called for a vote on Council Member Pugmire’s motion to approve the The motion carried. five annexations; all voted aye, none opposed. Council Member Pugmire asked the City Clerk to explain the reasoning behind the request to collect a re-zone fee from the applicants. The Clerk mentioned that in the past the annexation requests did not collect a re-zone fee. The City has a re-zone fee that has been approved by Resolution. Due to the high cost of advertising an annexation hearing, the Clerk was asking for monies to pay for that expense. Council Member Young and Council Member Pugmire indicated that they were not comfortable with charging these fees at this point in the application process. The fees should have been explained to the applicants before they were sent to public hearings. Mayor Larsen asked Kurt Hibbert to explain the re-zone fees. Kurt indicated that the re-zone fees were passed by the Council about a year and a half ago to pay for the public hearing process. Kurt explained that petitioning parties for annexation have been allowed to split the fees if they can be grouped together as adjoining requests in an area of the City. He mentioned that the City has not collected the re-zone fees in an annexation request. The new re-zone fees provided in the Resolution allow the City to collect those fees. This would allow the people that are developing the property be responsible for paying those fees instead of having City residents subsidize those costs. Council Member Fullmer was not comfortable for adding fees mid stream to the process. He recommended that the Council approve these requests without the re- zone fees being added on to the requests. The Staff needs to make the public aware of 9 the fees as they start into this process. The fees have been voted on and they are already on the books. Council Member Fullmer concluded his remarks with the recommendation that these re-zone fees be collected at the time of application for annexation. Kurt Hibbert clarified that the process in the past of avoiding the collection of re-zones fees in an annexation application is before the Council as a recommendation to collect those fees in the future. Mayor Larsen asked for a discussion on these zoning fees in the future. Council Member Pugmire moved to re-zone the properties that have been approved for annexation as follows: 1) Futures of Idaho requesting annexation of 2 parcels south of Taylor Chevrolet. Highway Business District (HBD) th 2) Brian D. Partridge requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 658 East 7 North. Low Density Residential (LDR1) Re-Zone to th 3) E. Joy Huskinson requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 668 East 7 North. Low Density Residential (LDR) Re-Zone to th 4) Randi & Karen Fogle requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 705 East 7 North. Low Density Residential (LDR) Re-Zone to th 5) Ted Whyte requesting annexation of 1 parcel on 863 South 5 West. Medium Density Residential (MDR) Council Member Benfield seconded Council Member Pugmire’s motion to re-zone the properties as indicated above. Discussion: all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Old Business: A. BILL No. 915 (Second Reading) ADDING A NEW SECTION TO THE ZONING ORDIANCE 725 FOR CELLULAR TOWERS ENTITLED "WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS". Ryan Thueson – 52 West Sunset Circle, mentioned that there are three towers in place and a fourth is on its way. He recommended the following: a) A maximum height of 110 feet for the towers to allow more than one company to use the facility. This would reduce the number of towers in the City. nd Council Member Erickson moved to approve the 2 reading of the Cell tower bill; Council 10 The motion carried. Member Oakey seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. B.8:30 p.m. (Approximately) Swimming Pool Discussion/Plan of Action Mayor Larsen handed out a statement to the Council from the Mayor’s Office. The Mayor indicated that it was in the best interest of the Community to move forward with an outdoor pool facility. He recommended moving forward with a decision as editorialized in a recent editorial in the Standard Journal. He recommended three possible options for discussion: A) 2.3 million dollar outdoor pool facility with a water area of 7,300 square feet. B) 3 million dollar outdoor pool facility with the addition of a lazy river. The additional $700,000 would pay for the lazy river. The water area would be increased to 8,650 square feet. C) 4 million dollar outdoor pool facility to include the lazy river and other amenities. The water area would be increased to 12,000 square feet. The Mayor recommended that the City conduct a general obligation bond election on rd August 03, 2004. The City would have to move forward very quickly with either option one, two, or three. There would also be the possibility of a combination of the three options. Council Member Oakey asked what is meant by moving forward. Mayor Larsen explained that the Council could recommend an option for the voters to vote for or against in a bonding election. The voters could choose to vote yes or no on the option of their choice. The Mayor went over the different cost options for the tax payers on the proposed bond. A smaller home would cost under $5.00 per month for any of the options. The Council discussed the different (multiple) options that could be put on the ballot. The main cost difference in the three options is the water surface area. Mayor Larsen recommended an outdoor pool for the bonding election. The Council continued to discuss the three proposals presented by the Mayor. Option C would have multiple water slides. Options B and C would have a lazy river. The Council discussed the bonding requirements for a bonding election. Council Member Pugmire recommended one item on the ballot. He was opposed to a menu for the ballot. Mayor Larsen agreed with Council Member Pugmire on selecting a single option for a 11 bond election. Council Member Pugmire commented that the Council could choose what to do for the ballot. The Mayor has made a recommendation. The Council can make additional recommendations. He mentioned that in menu voting, everything fails. Council Member Oakey was concerned with the location of the pool. The Mayor commented that the bond could not be increased above the amount presented on the ballot. Council Member Pugmire and Council Member Oakey wanted the location and other items defined on the bond to be specifically defined in all aspects. Council Member Erickson asked: “Do we want to proceed with an outdoor pool?” If so, then which option? Council Member Erickson recommended an outdoor pool that the residents can afford in Porter Park. The north area in the park is available for a pool. He is not opposed to another area if it is better for the same money. Council Member Young expressed his gratitude for those who spent much effort on a Recreational Area study for the City. He would support an outdoor pool proposal. He mentioned that other activities are available in the winter. The dehumidification equipment is very expensive. Council Member Pugmire thanked the many who worked on the Recreation Center project; however, he did not think it was possible. He was opposed with the City competing with private enterprise. He was opposed to the Porter Park location. The Community still has a need for a Community Center. He recommended option C at Louisiana Pacific to include a Community Center in the future that does not compete with an indoor pool by private industry. Council Member Young mentioned that a 4 million dollar bond would require City participation with trees roads etc. at the Louisiana Pacific property. If the Council goes with the Louisiana Pacific property the City would have to help fund the development of that location; however, he was still in favor of the Porter Park location. Council Member Pugmire indicated that a federal appropriation is possible sooner rather than later on getting a development started at the Louisiana Pacific property. Council Member Oakey favored option C with Porter Park. He was concerned with the flood plain for the Louisiana Pacific Property due to the possibility of cement damage from the facility being in the flood plain. He also favored the Junior High property for an outdoor pool. He mentioned a third location at the high school. They were locations that were more accessible to children on bicycles. Louisiana Pacific would be Council Member Oakey’s fourth choice. Mayor Larsen indicated that the bond could be done to set the amount and also include 12 an advisory vote on the location. Council Member Pugmire indicated that it would work. Council Member Oakey and Council Member Erickson indicated that option B or C would provide more financial sense to draw customers from outside the area. Council Member Erickson indicated that if it is not done right the first time it will be some time before another opportunity comes again. He mentioned that option C would be a great way to go. He thinks in can be sold to the citizenry. Council Member Fullmer mentioned that the comments from the citizens at the meeting and others that worked on the Recreation al Committee and did work with the general public wanted a Recreation facility. It is a matter of what type of facility the public wants to vote for in the Community. He asked to give the public the opportunity to vote for an 8 million dollar Recreational Center. He wants an advisory vote on different options. Mayor Larsen indicated that an outdoor pool is what the City can afford. He mentioned the possibility of a $241,000 annual subsidy for ongoing maintenance for an 8 to 10 million dollar indoor facility. Council Member Fullmer wanted to come up with an indoor facility that the City can afford. Council Member Oakey did not want tax money to compete with private enterprise. Council Member Benfield thanked everyone for the years of effort to get the information that has been gathered to date for a Recreational facility. She mentioned discussing the pool issue with constituents that wanted an affordable option. She would love to have a Recreation Center; however, the city can not afford it. It is not possible due to the tax burden. She was opposed to an advisory vote. Location should be noted in the bond. She likes all of the locations for different reasons. Mayor Larsen asked Council Member Benfield if she would vote for a specific amount on the bond and then have an advisory vote on the location. A successful bond election in August or November would have the same construction time line for a 2006 completion date. Council Member Young moved to pursue the option of an outdoor pool; Council Member Oakey seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire mentioned that it would be a split vote. He mentioned that he will support the motion only because anything else would fail. He wished the Council could do something different. Council Member Benfield mentioned that it is not that we don’t want a Recreation Center. It is the issue of what is affordable as a Community. Council member Oakey was concerned with the funding and the competition with private enterprise. Mayor Larsen reiterated that 13 the bond amount could not be exceeded. Donations could be used to enhance the facility if those features were noted or outlined in the bond. The Mayor called for a vote on Council Member Young’s motion: Those voting ayeThose voting nay Paul Pugmire Nyle Fullmer Donna Benfield Rex Erickson Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey The motion carried. Council Member Pugmire moved to pursue option C: Council Member Young seconded the motion to pursue option C: (It is a $4,000,000 outdoor pool facility, approximately 12,000 square feet of water surface area with the following features: lazy river, diving area, drop slide, lap lane, multiple water slides, family slides, shallow area, play structures, spray feature, shade, filter building, bath house, concessions and a parking area. Discussion: Council Member Fullmer indicated that if it is the will of the Council to pursue option C, he recommended looking at it in the light that Council Member Pugmire suggested. He recommended looking at this option in a way that it could be considered as phase 1. He recommended growing phase one into a long term plan that is more than a water feature in the Community of Rexburg with the location could be determined later. Council Member Oakey mentioned that the Fitness Center is under negotiations to be sold. He was concerned with the language of adding the words “building on later” which may impact the current negotiations for the sale of the Fitness Center. Council Member Fullmer mentioned this Council can not bind future Councils. He reiterated his position of wanting to look out for the long term needs of the Community. He wants long term planning. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that this Board of Directors from the Fitness Club sent a letter to the Council and he understood the letter differently that what Council Member Oakey has expressed. The letter expressed the hope that the Council would not support tax funded competition for the Fitness Club. Item 4 in the letter stated that the purchaser would not pursue acquisition of the Fitness Club unless the City lay to rest any plans for a Recreational facility. Council Member Pugmire agreed that the Board of Directors noted in the letter that fact; however, they refer to their facility as a fitness club. Council Member Pugmire understood the letter to mean competition with a health club. They are not talking about meeting spaces and other kinds Community facilities. Council Member Pugmire indicated that the City should provide a facility that speaks to the needs of the Community that are not provided in the private sector. He does not want to compete with private enterprise. The term health club in the letter refers to a facility which includes the elements of a health club. Council Member Erickson was opposed to giving false hope to the public for a Community Center in the future. He mentioned that people he visits with do not want a Community Center. Let’s not tie things in there that are not legitimate. Council Member Fullmer was concerned with location the pool facility in a location where there is no additional room for expansion. The location could limit 14 expansion in the future. He wanted the opportunity to grow the facility in the future in the appropriate location. Council Member young asked why future facilities like a Recreation Center or a Fine Arts Center at the Junior High property or the High School property. Why does the expansion of those facilities have to be with the outdoor pool? could not be located in another area. Council Member Fullmer was concerned with the availability of those locations at a future date. He indicated that a development in a larger location could share parking facilities. Council Member Erickson discounted the loss of school gyms in the discussion. He mentioned that the school issue is a non issue. Council Member Erickson mentioned that a Community Center could be located at the Louisiana Pacific property. Mayor Larsen indicated that the scope of work must be defined before going to a bond election in August or November. The Mayor reviewed the costs to the tax payer for a $70,000 taxable amount for a home. It would cost $3.64 per month. A Commercial property valued at $100,000 would cost $5.20 per month for a 30 year bond. Richard Horner mentioned that there are prepayment penalties for early payoffs. The Council had a discussion on future Council’s ability to pay off the bond early if the revenues support the effort. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that a new Council will be in place when the doors open to a facility. Richard mentioned the amounts are level. They can be waited up front or in the back. If an increase in property value goes up in the City, the over all levy will go down proportionately. A level pay bond would adjust down as property values increase. Council Member Benfield asked about option C if it were placed in Porter Park. She asked if the swimming pool area were doubled, would the parking lot size be doubled. The tennis courts would be relocated to another area in the City if that area was used for the pool. Council Member Fullmer mentioned the motion only addresses the amount of the bond for $4,000,000. It did not address the scope, the layout, and the location of the facility. It is yet to be determined. As to the size of the parking lot and the question about the where the parking lot or the tennis courts will be located is undecided. Council Member Pugmire’s motion did not address a bond issue amount. Council Member Pugmire refined his motion with permission of the seconded. He amended his motion to say that it is the policy of the City of Rexburg to pursue construction of the facility described in option C on the briefing paper that the Mayor prepared for the Council or something like unto it. Council Member Young concurred with the amendment to the motion. Council Member Pugmire indicated that the Council will have to approve a resolution stating the specifics of the bonding request. His motion does not address the other issues of location and bonding amount that will be required in the resolution for the bonding process. Council Member Young indicated that Option C would only include those features that are listed in Option C and then decide where the Council will recommend putting Option C. Council Member Pugmire asked permission of the second to amend the motion to say that it will be the policy of the City of Rexburg in developing an outdoor pool that the City develops one with the features described in and generally along the design depicted in Option C. Council Member Young concurred with the amendment to the motion. Council Member Fullmer mentioned that it will give the opportunity for the public to make a decision at the polls to support an outdoor facility or an indoor facility. 15 Mayor Larsen called for a vote on the motion to have a bonding vote on option C. Those voting ayeThose voting nay Paul Pugmire None Donna Benfield Rex Erickson Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Nyle Fullmer The motion carried to pursue Option C. Mayor Larsen mentioned that there was no dollar amount associated with Option C. The $4,000,000 mentioned does include monies to remove and relocate the tennis courts. Richard Horner mentioned that a bond sets the maximum amount for the bond. There is flexibility in the features that can be purchased for the facility. The design can be adjusted to fit the amount of the bond. Council Member Pugmire concurred with Richard and mentioned that it has to be clearly enunciated on the bond for the total amount. Mayor Larsen asked the Council if they wanted to move forward on the issue. What lies before the Council is to decide the dollar amount with a defined location or get an advisory amount on the ballot. Mayor Larsen asked the Council to define the location for the pool or send it to an advisory vote. The Council discussed the process and the date to have the vote on the bond. There may be more citizens that will vote for an outdoor rd facility on the August 03date. The Council discussed the merits of having the vote in August verses November. They discussed the issues of voter turn out for elections. Jill Anderson asked if the Council was prepared to define the many components of a pool. She was concerned and hopeful for more discussion on the pool options. Mayor Larsen asked Jill for help on designing those features. Council Member Pugmire reiterated his motion was to allow flexibility and Community input on the design of the pool features. His motion was intended to allow flexibility in the design of the pool. It is a decision that needs Committee input. Council Member Oakey moved to include this in the November 02, 2004 General Election. Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; Discussion Council Member Erickson indicated that if we put the vote off until November it may delay the opening date for the pool in 2006. The construction could start no later than the Spring of 2005 for a 2006 completion date. Mayor Larsen indicated that a November bond election would push the opening to spring of 2006. 16 Council Member Pugmire indicated that a November election would give you five months to educate the public. The Mayor asked for the Council to define the bond amount. Council Member Pugmire asked for more time to provide more facts on the proposal. The Mayor wanted a vote on the bond before hiring a design consultant to finalize the design of the facility. Council Member Oakey asked the Mayor if determining the amount is the next step. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Council need to decide how much the City is going to spend and where the pool is going to be located. John Millar indicated that a February request for bids and a bid opening in March of 2005 would be a tight schedule for a one season opening. Richard Horner asked if the inside work could be done in the winter. The Council discussed when the bonding payment would come due. Mayor Larsen was sticking to his August recommendation. Council Member Oakey amended his motion with the second’s permission to change the date of the general ndrd obligation bond from November 02, 2004 to August 03, 2004 for the bonding election date. Council Member Pugmire concurred with the amendment to the original motion. Council Member Young mentioned that it would be hard, hard, hard work to get the message to the public on this proposed bond in such a short time. The Mayor mentioned that the City can not take a stand on the ballot vote. The City can only provide factual information on the issue. It would be unethical for the City to take a stand on the bond election. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that it applies to the City of Rexburg, the City’s funds, the body of the City Council; however, individual members of the Council may campaign as they choose with their own time and money and can express their opinion as they may choose to do. The Mayor called for a vote on the August 03, 2004 election date: Those voting ayeThose voting nay Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Rex Erickson Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Nyle Fullmer The motion carried to have a bond election on August 03, 2004. Council Member Oakey moved to go for a general obligation bond in the amount of $4,000,000 for the purpose of constructing an outdoor pool as described in item C; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Pugmire asked for more information for the general obligation bond. He asked what would happen if it was determined that the pool would cost over $4,000,000. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the motion must indicate why the general obligation bond is necessary. The Council discussed when the terms of the bond would be identified. 17 Those voting ayeThose voting nay Paul Pugmire None Donna Benfield Rex Erickson Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Nyle Fullmer The motion carried. Council Member Pugmire read the items approved tonight. Council Member Young asked why the Council could not choose the location for the pool in this meeting. City Attorney Zollinger mentioned that cost for location improvements could be paid for with City funds or donations and the $4,000,000 could be specified for the facility. Council Member Erickson moved to have the outdoor swimming pool constructed in Porter Park; Council Member Young seconded the motion; Discussion concerning the loss of Park area in Porter Park. Council Member Pugmire indicated his opposition to this location for the pool. Council Member Oakey mentioned that the Porter Park location would allow more money to be spent on the pool. He was in support of the location. Council Member Fullmer indicated that there are other options besides Louisiana Pacific and Porter Park. He wanted the Council to consider other locations. Council Member Young mentioned other locations that the Council has reviewed. Council Member Pugmire indicated that there would be fewer votes for the bond if the location is Porter Park. Council Member Young did not indicate that the location of the pool in Porter Park would take away from Porter Park. It would make Porter Park a better place. Council Member Erickson mentioned that a nice parking area could be located in Porter Park that is direly needed. It could be a well done parking facility. Council Member Benfield mentioned that she has changed her opinion from a Louisiana Pacific location to a Porter Park location. She indicated that it would enhance Porter Park. Council Member Oakey called for the question: Those voting ayeThose voting nay Donna Benfield Paul Pugmire Rex Erickson Nyle Fullmer Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey The motion carried. The Council discussed the need to have the details of the design for the pool decided by the Recreation Committee and the City Council. 18 Council Member Pugmire moved to defer the design specifics to a work group to include the Council, the Recreation Committee and the City Staff. Mayor mentioned a June 09, 2004 work meeting at 7:00 a.m. for the discussion of these design specifics for the pool. The motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Young asked the Recreation Committee to help with the design of the pool. Chairman Brad Smith indicated the reluctance of the Committee to meet that schedule. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Council will move forward with a resolution at the next meeting for the requirements of the bond election. The Council was asked by Mr. Sayer if they could change the location of the pool in the resolution. The citizens would then decide if they would support the location of the pool at Porter Park. Council Member Pugmire submitted that the legal requirement for the resolution is to state the amount of the bond and its purpose for use. He submitted that in order to get 67% of the vote, there would need to be greater specificity taken to the public. He indicated that the Council could change the location if there were four votes to change the location. Council Member Oakey asked for a legitimate survey to get information from the public on the desired location of the pool. Mayor Larsen reiterated the motions that were passed tonight. Council Member Pugmire and Council Member Fullmer indicated that the Council could change the location of the proposed pool at a later time. Council Member Young indicated that a survey would polarize the Community. He did not indicate that the Council could please a majority of the people. The Council will have to make a wise decision and assume that the electorate elected us because they trusted us to make a wise decision and go forward with it. Council Member Oakey agreed with that analogy. Council Member Fullmer confirmed with them that it could be done. Council Member Erickson agreed with Council Member Young that the Council made the decision. “Now let’s let the public decide whether that was the right decision or whether it wasn’t”. Don’t second guess the decision. Council Member Pugmire indicated that they were trying to answer a question with accuracy. Council Member Fullmer concurred that he to was trying to answer a constituent’s question. Mayor Larsen mentioned that the Resolution for the bond would define the specifics of the motions that have been provided in this meeting. C.Bike Lane Striping on City Streets – deferred to a future meeting. City Council Report: 19 A. Council Member Young – B.Council Member Pugmire – C. Council Member Benfield – D. Council Member Fullmer – E. Council Member Erickson – F. Council Member Oakey – Mayor’s Report: None Report on Projects & Quick Wins: John Millar indicated that he had received a bid on painting the water tower. Out of four requests for bids, only one bidder responded. It has been 25 years since the last time the tank was painted. The bid was for $94,944. The Council discussed the cost and determined that over-painting of the inside and outside of the tank was necessary. It is specialty work with few options for contractors. Council Member Young moved to approve the bid amount of $94,944 for the painting project; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; all voted aye, The motion carried. none opposed. Tabled requests: a.Commercial Design Standards (tabled) (Commercial Design Standards (draft) Ordinance 907 second reading) b.Proposed Ordinance 911 for booting cars (tabled) Executive Session to discuss pending litigation per Idaho Code 67-2345 (F) Council Member Pugmire moved to go into executive session to discuss a real estate transaction and pending litigation; Council Member Fullmer seconded the motion; Those voting ayeThose voting nay Paul Pugmire None Donna Benfield Rex Erickson Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Nyle Fullmer The motion carried to go into executive session. Executive Session: Executive Session ended. 20 Adjournment 21