Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCITY COUNTY SUGAR CITY JOINT MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2005 MADISON COUNTY JOINT MEETING CITY OF REXBURG CITY OF SUGAR CITY MAGISTRATE COURTROOM December 21, 2005 5:30 P.M. Present: Madison County City of Rexburg Sugar City Roger Muir, Chairman Mayor Shawn Larsen Mayor Glenn Dalling Ralph Robison Councilman: Councilman: Donna Benfield Harold Harris Rex Erickson Irma Anderson Roger Muir stated that the theme of the meeting was threefold: supporting the laws and ordinances of our Country, State and community. Under direction from both mayors, the county was asked to act as a mediator between the cities and in order to avoid litigation. There will be minimal comment taken from the audience with the likelihood of going into executive session and because of the nature of the meeting no inappropriate behavior will be tolerated. It has been stated I have a conflict of interest because I rent this ground in question. I will be involved only in the administration issues but when it comes to discussing a specific property, I will step down. In 1992, the state asked Madison County, Rexburg, and Sugar City to identify areas of City Impact as directed by the State Statuette of 1978. The direction at that time was to find an area of impact that was agreeable, so a Committee of Nine was formed, with Richard Smith acting as chairman. This committee agreed upon a decision in 1995. Because of his role in the Committee of Nine, I have asked Richard Smith to come and give the historical background with the impact areas involved. Richard Smith: In the late 1970’s, the state passed a law that said every county in the state had to develop a comprehensive plan and every city had to have a comprehensive plan. In addition to that, every city had to have an area of city impact - the intended area that that city would grow into annexation. In fact, they were directed to make rules by which orderly growth could flow into that area. Most of the entire state complied except a few counties, one being Madison County. We found ourselves ten years down the road without a comprehensive plan or without the required impact zone. At that time, the Attorney General’s Office threatened to stop all annexations or growth until a plan and an area of impact was developed. Based on that pressure, the City of Rexburg took the stand and developed a plan. The ordinance said to take three city councilmen, three county commissioners and they select three others to form a Committee of Nine. The Committee of Nine would develop the area of city impact to be approved by the city and the county. Richard Smith, Jerry Jeppesen, and Scott Mortensen were selected. The committee was made up of Commissioner Marlin Page 2 December 21, 2005 Minutes Hill, Commissioner Reed Sommer, and Commissioner David Rasmussen and Councilman Glen Pond are all that I can recall. We started in late 1991 to develop the impact area. The reason Madison County did not have a plan was because of sentiment against the land use plan held by this community. Five public hearings were held and there were at least six to eight informational meeting. We personally talked to every land owner that sits within the defined areas in the Rexburg impact area. We took testimony from every one of them. The Sakotas were to almost every meeting and were concerned. Rules and zoning regulations were developed that would still allow farming and growth, recognizing that as the City of Rexburg grew into the impact zone areas there would be a need for rules and regulations that would provide for orderly growth and not competing uses. These hearings were held over a four year period of time in order to have community input. Finally the Committee arrived at a proposed boundary. In this same intervening period, the City of Sugar City was given the same information from Boise. The City of Sugar City developed an impact area that would surround Sugar City. We developed one that extended north to the Moody Highway. Mayor Burton and the City Council felt the boundaries proposed by the Committee of Nine were not right. So they all agreed to meet and take the statuteses and do exactly what the statutee told them to do. There were three factors that had to be considered: the trade area, geographic area and areas that can reasonably expected to be annexed into the city in the future. The City Councils and the Committee of Nine worked to consider the areas the cities thought would grow and recognized the roads that would be the corridors into each of the cities. The entities came to an agreement. In a matter of four months, an ordinance was passed by the City of Rexburg, an ordinance was passed by the City of Sugar City and dual ordinances were passed by the Madison County Commissioners. This agreement was ultimately what all governing bodies agreed to for the areas of impact. Landowners did not want to be subject to zoning, but all of them agreed that this is what needed to be done. Ultimately, all agreed to the boundaries and the zoning. It was never brought to the county to act as an arbitrator as provided by the statutete because the two councils agreed to the plan. If anyone had a problem with these boundaries they could seek a Declaratory Judgment in the District Court for a change in the plan. No one challenged this plan during the provided time period. As the committee developed the plan there was concern expressed from some of the members that the impact zones should extend further. It was discussed how important it was that the entire interchange be included in the impact area, but as a practical matter, they just couldn’t sell it as it was too far out in 1995. In order to get a consensus, they let the matter drop in order to get the agreement passed. The one thing we learned though this whole process is this whole idea of land use is repugnant to an individual’s property rights as to what he or she would be able to do with their property. I have to hand it to both city councils at Page 3 December 21, 2005 Minutes the time as they helped the landowners in this area understand that the individual desires of one particular landowner just can’t throw a wrench into orderly growth of a community. That concept was ultimately accepted by everybody who owned property in the impact areas. There was recognition of the corridors into Rexburg and of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the zoning. This is a short history of how the impact zones were established. Richard Smith then asked if there were questions. Question: When you said you agreed upon the zoning, what type zoning did you agree upon? Answer- Richard Smithr: In the Rexburg impact area, we agreed that all of the Rexburg zoning ordinances would apply. Additionally there would be Rural Residential 1, Rural Residential 2, Agricultural, and I think there were some different types of industrial uses; which basically provided that if somebody wanted to continue to farm their land or have a cattle operation, they would be allowed to do so. If someone wanted to develop one acre lots or five acre lots and build ranch type estates; they could do so, but if they chose to develop commercial, multi family dwellings, high density apartment complexes or industrial, they had to comply with the ordinances that had been established and adopted by the City of Rexburg. The purpose for that was twofold. Number one, the statute said you could do one of three things; you could adopt the mirror image of the ordinances of the city, you could adopt the mirror image of the ordinances of the county or you could adopt a combination of the two plus some things that were responsive to the community. It was important in our determination that if the city was going to continue to grow and annex in that direction, the city would not want to find itself down the road ten years, having that area developed and not be in compliance with the City of Rexburg’s Zoning Ordinances. That is consistent with the idea that this is a corridor into Rexburg. If it is the corridor into Rexburg, then those rules must apply all the way in and throughout the community. That’s why it was adopted. Interestingly enough, it was challenged by the state a few years after we did what we did and many impact zone ordinances were set aside. It was just by sheer luck that we had followed the statute and done what we had been mandated to do. Question - Ralph Robison: Previously to the adoption of these ordinances in about 1995, do I understand that the cities had no impact zones around the annexed parts of their cities? Answer: Richard Smith: We had no impact zones around our cities. Under state te, forced annexation could still occur. But under these pressures that we were receiving from Boise, it became very clear that future annexations would not be allowed unless they were within the area of city impact. The statue we have now gives you three types of annexation and two of those types do not allow annexation without the area being in the impact area. That was the direction we Page 4 December 21, 2005 Minutes were taking. The signals we were given was that neither city would grow unless we developed an area of city impact for annexation. Question: Donna Benfield: Would you address the corridors that were agreed upon for both Sugar City and Rexburg? Answer: Richard Smith: I reviewed the information today in the minutes. This is from a hearing held November 18, 1992. There were six roads that were designated as arterials to Rexburg: 2000 West, Moody Highway, Salem Road, Barney Dairy Road, Mill Hollow Road and Poleline Road. Those were designated as arterials to bring commerce in and out of Rexburg, for protection of access and to determine what kind of businesses and development would go on those roads. Sugar City’s arterial was Highway 33. This was a discussion with Mayor Burton, at the time. We discussed how far and what was appropriate for Sugar City on Highway 33 and what was appropriate for Rexburg. Ultimately we came up with this odd sort of proposal. I am not saying the proposal was perfect as there was a great deal of discussion. We discussed the type of activities that were going on, the type of cattle operations that were involved, the railroad and the fact the railroad land locked the land on the west side, and that perhaps the area would be better served from the Rexburg side because there just wasn’t any access because it was blocked by the railroad. Those were the reasons that we arrived at the boundaries we did. Question: The Moody Road was identified as a corridor to Rexburg? Answer - Richard Smith: It was, although it was also recognized as a dual road that was necessary to both communities. Because of the discussions held with Sugar City, Rexburg pulled back their proposed boundaries. Question - Harold Harris: Where was your original proposed impact area that included the Moody Road? Where was that defined? Answer – Richard Smith: I don’t remember how far we had extended originally. We went in 500 foot and 1000 foot increments and some times we included folks who wanted to be in the Rexburg impact zone. I could try to research that question if need be. Commissioner Muir opened the meeting up for one or two questions from the audience. Question -Ken Harris, representing his mother, Wanda Harris: We have had the opportunity to visit with all of the landowners, north of our property and to the south and east of our property. After looking at our ground and the potential for development, we feel it is our best interest to be annexed into the City of Sugar City, regardless of the impact areas. I live in Ammon, Idaho and I have seen this experience happen on Hitt Road between Idaho Falls and Ammon. I have seen the tremendous impact the city has received by having some commercial Page 5 December 21, 2005 Minutes development in that community. When I first moved in to Ammon thirty years ago, we had a little grocery store on Ammon Lincoln Road and Sunnyside and another little grocery store right there on Hitt Road called East Gate Drug. As a result of Ammon developing that ground and making it into commercial development, our parks have improved, our city highways have been better developed, we have better snow removal so on and so forth. It has been a real blessing to our little community to have that commercial development. Like I say, we have polled the other property owners, and we are requesting annexation into the City of Sugar City. Question – Mr. Harris: Are you indicating to the members of the city council that they should follow the impact of the recommendations of your study done ten years ago? Answer - Richard Smith: I’m not here to be an advocate one way or another. I am here to tell you historically the agreement with the City of Sugar City and the City of Rexburg was that these boundaries were areas that were to be annexed into. That was clear under the statutes and clear to everyone involved in the discussions at the time. There was discussion regarding the economic development of that area. It was agreed that this was a corridor into Rexburg and that it should ultimately be controlled by Rexburg. It would be inappropriate for one side of the street to be commercial and the other side of the street, if it be the desire of the other community, to be put into heavy industrial. Those were our discussions back then. That was our mandate under the statutes. These areas were developed because that is what was to be annexed. This area was already discussed and agreed upon by both cities. Question - Jan Gallup: Mr. Smith, have you researched Sugar City’s minutes? Answer – Richard Smith: I have looked at your minutes. I read your statutes and ordinances. Question - Jan Gallup: Historically, what you have brought forth is from the Rexburg point of view. I might point out I was part of that committee in 1995 in Sugar City. Answer - Mr. Smith: Can I clarify one thing? The hearings we conducted and the informational meetings were pursuant to the County and did not just represent the City of Rexburg. Mayor Burton and members of the Sugar City council were strong participants in those discussions. The minutes were kept by the Rexburg Planning and Zoning because the County Commissioners were directed to conduct the hearings. Under the statutes, the hearings were to be conducted by the County Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Planning and Zoning Commission if it had representation by the County. These were not City hearings. These were County hearings conducted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission which were given the direction and authority by the County Commission. Question - Jan Gallup: I think the historical account should have representation from Sugar City and not just from a member of Rexburg’s Page 6 December 21, 2005 Minutes community planning for a fair consideration for the people here and the two city councils to take into account that there might be other positions and other situations that existed at that time that is not represented. I am not prepared tonight to present something, but I think that needs to be brought forth. One of the property owners considering annexation in Sugar City was a representative on Sugar City’s Committee of Nine, which would be Garry Jeppesen. Answer - Richard Smith: Yes, Garry was a big participant in the discussions and in the minutes that we have. Garry agreed, he is quoted in the minutes as saying, I agree with the boundaries created. He and Roger Muir helped us pound out the county densities for the proposed feed lots in the area. The only thing I’m addressing tonight is historically what happened with respect to what you see in the agreement. I was not privy to how Sugar City developed their northern boundaries. I can only tell you how the adjoining boundaries were arrived at. Question - Jan Gallup: One last point that I would like to make in regards to the comments that have been made. We are dealing with different property owners now and that is something that needs to be taken into account. The property owners who consented to be part of the Rexburg impact area no longer own the property and some of them have passed away. So we are dealing with different property owners now. I think that is something that both of these groups need to take into account. They own the property and impact area is only stewardship, it’s not ownership. Answer - Richard Smith: When those people purchased the land, at least the land of Frank Jacobs, he came to me and said he wanted to be in the Rexburg impact area. When those people purchased the land, they knew it was in an area that was intended to be annexed by Rexburg. They knew that. It was a matter of record. That was the plan when they bought the property and they knew it. This goes back to what we were trying to accomplish at the time. I think everybody finally recognized that you’ve got to have some land use planning. Just because property changes hands or an individual’s legal interest’s change, you’ve got to stay the course with the rules and expectations that are established. All the development of this ground and all the development of this colored ground have been driven by rules and regulations adopted by Sugar City and Rexburg and agreed upon. That is what we tried to do as a committee. Comment - Jan Gallup: That’s true. The state statutes provide a way for those people to control their property. Thank you. Roger Muir: We have time for one more comment. Question: If you look at the historical aspect of the whole area during these discussions, were there any of the statues enacted at that time prohibiting exercise of the property owner, any particular section or area of privately owned land requested and granting access to corporate limits of a particular city one way or another even though there may have been an impact zone generated. Page 7 December 21, 2005 Minutes Answer - Richard Smith: I’ll find that out because out of the annexation statutes as I recall at the time, you were not going to be able to be annexed unless you were in an impact area. Those annexation statutes have now changed. Now there is a very confusing annexation statue which allows three different types of annexation. Question: Now, that’s the forced versus consensual annexation? Answer - Richard Smith: Right, forced versus consensual. Question: In that time frame, consensual was not there, but prohibition was against forcing the incorporated entity? Is that correct? Answer - Richard Smith: I don’t know. I’ll dig this out because you would have to call Boise to find out what those laws were at that time. Question: If we go back and look at that time frame following the flood, the cooperation in this whole area, in fact this whole county as well, it seems like there was a consensus and willingness on all parts to really work towards adjusting and to have abutting areas consistent with the zoning as was coming forth. We’ve seen overtures made from one entity as brought out in your September 14, 2005 meeting, where comments were made that we wanted to work together and make sure that these boundary areas were consistent with one another. My concern is what we’ve seen since those early time frames of the flood and subsequent years since, to more recently a more adversarial type thing, big entity versus small entity. I don’t think that says that in the statutes, that is why I think it will be interesting to see what is actually prohibited versus guidelines. Answer - Richard Smith: I think the guidelines we’ve shown shows what was going on then. In a way, I disagree with you because I have only seen the good happening from Sugar City and Rexburg in this whole process. Early on, we never had problems dealing with Sugar City. We worked painlessly for hours to work with the individual landowners. Sugar City and Rexburg always seemed to get along. They always caught the vision of where the natural boundaries should be. Question: Has there always been open communications? Answer - Richard Smith: Yes, it’s always been really good. Question: All of us as residents of Madison County expect from our public servants that there will be communication and we will get away from having an adversarial situation. That is why I encourage, we would have a mediation type situation which will help and keep cool things, still respecting the individual property rights, ideas, thoughts and desires. Thank you for this opportunity. Answer - Richard Smith: One thing I would say about that is that is all I have ever seen between Sugar City and Rexburg. I have only seen good between the two communities. Roger Muir: We can have a couple more questions. Let me remind you, Richard’s direction wasn’t to show bias anywhere. His direction was for historical information. Question: Would you please go over those corridors into Rexburg again? Page 8 December 21, 2005 Minutes Answer - Richard Smith: Moody Highway, but you need to make sure that is not confused because it was a mutual corridor into both cities; 2000 West, Salem Highway, Barney Dairy Road, Mill Hollow Road and Poleline Road. Question: How far did the Salem Road extend? Answer - Richard Smith: To the interchange, I remember those discussions clearly at the time, everybody wanted to take the quadrant all the way around the interchange and put that into the Rexburg’s impact area. We just couldn’t get it done. The landowners were extremely adamant at the time. John Millar wasn’t City Engineer at that time. He was on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Question - Ken Sakota: I want to make a historical note. All of the landowners didn’t agree to be in the Rexburg impact area, we just let it go. I just want to make that clear - not everybody was for being in the Rexburg impact area. I know for a fact, my brother opposed being in it because we weren’t quite sure how this impact area was going to work - a lot of people didn’t. I know we were against it. I know we talked with several of the City Council. Not everyone was in favor of it. Answer - Richard Smith: I want you to know, that is really a true statement. Because there were so many people who this whole idea that the state was coming in and telling them this had to happen, it was repugnant. Yet at the time, the statue was clear, if we didn’t do it a court was going to step in and do it. So we stepped up to the plate, everybody swallowed hard and we developed something that was intended for the good of both communities. As I look back at it now, I feel it has served us well with the way we’ve grown. Question: So after that was all agreed upon, each city then passed its own ordinances? Answer - Richard Smith: Each City adopted ordinances and City areas of impact and the County adopted dual ordinances approving the areas of city impact. This is the first thing that must happen. An area of city impact, although it might be controlled by city zones, is still in the County. The County has to approve comprehensive plans in the area. They have to approve the impact zone and the impact zone ordinances in the area. That law is alive and well. So we had to have dual ordinances accepting the boundaries and dual ordinances at the County accepting the ordinances. Roger Muir: I’ll just make a couple of comments. I’ll be the first to say as a landowner in Rexburg’s impact area, I didn’t want anything to do with Rexburg as a City or Sugar City as a City. I’ll tell you that right out. They’re cities; I live in the county; I want to stay there. But the mind trend has to go along with some education. I still live in Madison County and don’t live in the city boundaries of either city. With this development of land use and planning, it has been a guide to our communities. Just think what could have happened in the last four years if we didn’t have zoning and land use planning in the county and within the cities. With the growth that has happened, anything could happen anywhere. I am very Page 9 December 21, 2005 Minutes thankful that some people fifteen years ago took the initiative to guide the County with land use planning. Let me repeat number one on my list here as involvement with Madison County and County Commissioners and with all of us as elected officials. We have taken an oath of office to uphold the laws of the land and to recognize the statutes and ordinances that are here. The County’s part in this is why I asked Richard Smith to give historical background of some ordinances that were passed by Rexburg, Sugar City and Madison County. If we go back to mid September the conclusion of that meeting was that both cities would go and talk in their communities and see if there was a compromise available. Hopefully, we can continue on with that plan. We have a compilation of all the ordinances referring to the impact areas. Sugar City has two ordinances 196 and 196A. Rexburg has two ordinances 769 and 880. Madison County has two ordinances162 and 163 dealing with the City of Rexburg. One ordinance gives reference to the map and description of the area. The second ordinance gives a direction to procedures within that area. Coinciding with those are Ordinances 164 and 165 dealing with the City of Sugar City, also identifying a map, boundary lines and procedures in that area. A copy of this material is available for the public to review. Question - Harold Harris: How much emphasis was put on school district boundaries? Was that ever brought up and discussed? Answer - Richard Smith: School District boundaries are specifically not part of the statue that we were to consider. The statue is clear. There was three criteria: geographic, trade area, and areas that were going to be annexed into the city. I think that comes from a pattern that exists throughout the state as school district boundaries do not follow city boundaries. A good example of that is what goes on over in the Centennial School District in the Boise/Meridian area. I’m not saying that is not important but that was not part of the criteria we were to consider. Roger Muir: School Districts are concerned that an area’s parcels are taxed appropriately for their revenue source. Let’s take Madison County, we have four school districts. School Districts overlap governmental boundaries. It is the direction of the parcel numbers and lines that determine where the tax levies are and where students go to school. Roger Muir: I believe we are ready for the City Councils and Mayors to go into executive session. Commissioner Robison: I want to thank Richard Smith for researching this and it has been very informational. I would like to make a motion to go into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 67-2345-1 Subsection F, Commissioner Muir seconded (Since this is all elected officials, he asked for a voice of acceptance) Mayor Dalling: Can I ask one more question or is it too late? Richard Smith: are you aware that there was a request to overlap impact areas by both cities? Page 10 December 21, 2005 Minutes Answer - Richard Smith: When we were doing it? Mayor Dalling: No, just in the history as it has surfaced now, in the last few months. Answer - Richard Smith: No, the only thing I know is just what I’ve read in the newspapers about a desire of the cities to annex in the same area. Mayor Dalling: The problem started with both cities wanting to overlap each others impact area. Answer - Richard Smith: To renegotiate the boundaries, you mean? Mayor Dalling: I guess that’s what you’d call it. The County made a recommendation which was acceptable to Rexburg but not to us. That’s where I thought we were sitting, just in case you want to know that. We were asked not to do anything until the Burns Brothers issue was settled. Of course, the steps after that are probably not appropriate to discuss in here but I just wanted Mr. Smith to know it hasn’t been smooth sailing. Roger Muir: I haven’t discussed those details with Richard. Richard Smith: I didn’t know that but there are conditions under the statue to renegotiate. Roger Muir: We have a motion and a second, all in favor, say I. Any opposed? Voting was unanimous in favor of going into executive session. No decisions were made. Approved: ____________________________ Roger Muir, Chairman ____________________________ Mayor Shawn Larsen, Rexburg _____________________________ Mayor Glenn Dalling, Sugar City