Minutes - 2006 - City Council - 06/27/2006 - Workshop
THE CITY OF EAGLE
CITY COUNCIL
Budget Workshop
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 27, 2006
I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor calls the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. Bastian and Bandy are absent. A
quorum is not present.
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Leonard Wilson, Computer Arts, demonstration on PC Tablets. Leonard provides an overview of the
operation of a PC Tablet and does a demonstration of two types of PC Tablets for the Mayor and Council.
General discussion.
B. Eagle Police Department - Lt. Dana Borgquist - FY 06/07 Budget Request. Dana presents a power
point presentation of City of Eagle: Law Enforcement Assessment.
Council Member Bandy joins the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Increase cost per resident for services is $82.00. I am recommending one more detective and a crime lab
technician/report writer. General discussion.
C. Mike Mongelli, Building Official - Building Department Report. Mike distributes Building
Department reports to the Council and discusses revenues and projections for building permits.
Discussion on Flood Plain issues. Discussion on City electrical and plumbing inspectors.
D. Bill Vaughan, P&Z Administrator - P&Z Department Report. Discussion on the three top priorities.
The first item is personnel/hiring, the second item is planning and development studies and the final is
professional development. Under personnel I am requesting an Admin Clerk to assist with the public at
the front counter and filing. Heather is primarily engaged in assisting the public but she needs to focus
her attention on tracking and processing of engineering and legal fees and she has also become quite
competent in handling calls with general planning nature with nature to reviewing the zoning map and
some of the general questions, public records requests and etc. Discussion on hiring an additional
planner. We are now looking at the north and the regional foothills. We are also working on a downtown
plan with the Chamber of Commerce. Planners sit on several boards and committees. Ifwe add someone
then that would enable Nichole to have more time to work on the development of the foothills and doing
the vision process. The focus then will be shifted to the development of the village center. In addition
there is expansion of our overall territory which generates more applications.
The development studies we are looking at doing the foothills sub area plan that we have all discussed.
We are estimating approximately $65,000 for that work. This would also possibly be a Strategic Annual
Goal. General discussion.
The downtown development study that we are working with the Chamber on, we are just in the beginning
stages so this is a rough estimation of$3,000 that may involve supplies, mapping and etc.
Discussion on professional development.
Mayor: Lets move General Fund and Water Fund to the next meeting and lets move to Steve with Parks.
The Public Works Director can be included under the Water Fund.
PARKS:
Council Member Guerber:
Page I of7
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaICC+06-27-06spmin,doc
THE CITY OF EAGLE
CITY COUNCIL
Budget Workshop
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 27, 2006
I. Eagle Youth Soccer League Proposal. The feeling of the Parks and Pathway Committee was that
what they are proposing is not doable at this point in time. There was more information that needed to be
gathered. They felt this was not the fiscal year that we should begin this program so their
recommendation was that we not approve that proposed implementation of a youth soccer league.
General discussion.
2. Public Works Director.
3. Recreation Department Director - Employees
There was a lot of talk about having a Parks and Recreation Director. They thought the concept made
sense to have the development of a Public Works Developer who also oversaw the maintenance and
operation of the parks. Therefore they thought that our consideration of a Recreation Department
Director was appropriate. They didn't know if we were ready for a year round director.
As far as projects they concurred with out list of projects. There is an estimated $1,032,000 for the
development of parks and things. They also concurred that should go towards the development of the
Eagle Sports Complex, particularly when it comes to the feasibility of the development of the Velodrome
concept. I have a meeting next with the people from the Veledrome to discuss what they need to be
providing. They have substantial information that they have already gathered from the stand point of
potential funding sources, identification of support, and commitments on development. They are working
on some specific numbers that can be brought before the Council.
They are also wondering what is going to be happening with Beagle Park and if the City could start doing
something there. General discussion.
They also want to know what is going on with the connection to the pathway to State Street under the
Bypass that runs along Dry Creek. General discussion. If this project is ready to go we need to make
sure we have money in the budget so it can take place. We also need to put a pathway along Dry Creek
that could connect all the way to State Street.
Further discussion on parks and pathway projects.
Discussion on the completion of Guerber Park.
GENERAL FUND: Continued to the next Budget Workshop
1. New City Hall:
a. Monument Sign - what type of sign? Stand alone sign by Library sign or incorporate with
Library sign?
b. Flag Poles - $6,000 for 3 poles and installation. Location?
c. Maxi-Com for new City Hall?
2. Emergency Fund
3. Professional Dues and Fees
4. SAG
5. FY05/06 Western Area of Impact
6. Neighborhood Enhancements
7. Property Taxes
Page 2 of7
K\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-06-27-06spmin.doc
THE CITY OF EAGLE
CITY COUNCIL
Budget Workshop
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 27, 2006
8. AmeriCorp Program
9. Contract Employees
WATER FUND: Continued to the next Budget Workshop
I. Water Fund - Budget personnel costs for a City managed water department
THE BUDGET WORKSHOP WAS NOT ADJOURNED
Mayor: We did not adjourn out last meeting but lets do a Roll Call again.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor calls the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. Absent: All
present. A quorum is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
. Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion.
There will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor, a
Councilmember, member of City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda
will be placed on the Regular Agenda in a sequence determined by the Rules of
Order.
. Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval
from the City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design Review
Board shall be adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda approval motion
unless specifically stated otherwise.
A. Claims Against the City.
Guerber moves to amend the consent agenda and add as Item# B. ACHD approval for Aikens
Statute. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES....................
Guerber Moves to approve the Amended Consent Agenda. Seconded by Bandy. Discussion.
Guerber amends the motion to approve Item #5B. on the Consent Agenda. ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES................... ..
Guerber moves to pull the Claims Against the City for approval at the end of the meeting.
Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
6. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS:
A. Resolution No. 06-32: Meeting room reservation policy and fees. (SKB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Nordstrom moves to approve Resolution No. 06-32, A Resolution adopting a fee schedule pursuant
to Section 1-7-4 of the Eagle City Code, to provide for the establishment by resolution offees for
Page 3 of7
K:\CQUNCll\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-06-27-06spmin,doc
THE CITY OF EAGLE
CITY COUNCIL
Budget Workshop
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 27, 2006
meeting room use and adoption of the meeting room use policy; and providing for effective date.
Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES......................
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. DR-36-06 - Albertson's Buildinl! Addition and Exterior Remodel- Albertsons. Inc.: Albertsons,
Inc., represented by Jeffrey King with CTA Architects Engineers, is requesting design review approval to
construct an 866-square foot building addition with an exterior remodel. The site is located on the
southeast corner of South Eagle Road and Plaza Drive at 250 South Eagle Road. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the item. This item need to be continued to the next meeting.
Guerber moves to continue DR-36-06 - Albertson's Building Addition and Exterior Remodel to the
July 11, 2006 City Council meeting. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES.............. ...
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
9. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Discussion rel!ardinl! the Co-Location of Telecommunications Facilities on Electrical
Transmission Lines - City of Eal!le: The Eagle City Council has serious concerns about the
unregulated placement of telecommunications facilities on electrical transmission lines within the City of
Eagle and the dangers that such unregulated placement creates for the general public. The Council will
hold a meeting to determine an immediate course of action to regulate these uses.
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Attorney Buxton:
Layne Dobson, Idaho Power Public Relations, in regard to this attachment issue, the joint use has been a
progression. At one time you had power poles and telephone poles. The transition is to put everything on
one pole. In the franchise Agreement with the City of Eagle it does give us the right to put other service
providers on our poles. We are bound to provide non-discriminatory access to service providers.
General discussion between the Council, City Attorney and Idaho Power representatives.
B. Request from P.O. Ventures. Inc. for a reduction in the letter of credit and a time extension for
the completion deadline ofsite improvements. (WEV & SEB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Discusses the reduction in the letter of credit and time extension. Staff
and Ms. Patterson have met and discussed this issue and staff recommends the approval of the Letter of
Credit amount and I would defer to Council on the time extension matter.
General discussion.
Guerber moves to accept the proposal submitted by the Zoning Administrator tonight with regard
to an adjustment in the amount of the Letter of Credit for PO Ventures, Inc. and follow the
recommendations of Mr. Vaughan which would be the time extension of 45 days. Seconded by
Bandy. Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.........
C. Discussion ofvisioninl! and planninl! process for Eal!le Foothills: (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Planner Baird-Spencer discusses visioning and planning for the Eagle foothills.
Page 4 of7
K:\COUNCll\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaICC-06-27-06spmin.doc
THE CITY OF EAGLE
CITY COUNCIL
Budget Workshop
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 27, 2006
Staff is requesting a GIS mapping and analysis, visual inventory and analysis and 3D model development
and visioning graphics/animations.
General discussion.
Nordstrom moves to direct staff to start the foothills visioning process per the plan that has been
submitted with the two track process and additionally we direct the City Attorney to develop a
contract with Visual Genesis for resource mapping, visual analysis and visioning graphics to
support the project. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
Mayor calls a recess at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 8:55 p.m.
Mayor: I would like you to amend the agenda to hear the Linder Road Task Force next.
City Attorney: I need an Executive Session for pending litigation.
Guerber moves to amend the agenda to make Item# 9E. Linder Road Task Force findings and
Item# 10. Executive Session for pending and threatening litigation. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
Zoning Administrator Vaughan: Discusses the Linder Road Task Force findings. A letter needs to be
sent to the County tomorrow in regard to the appeal. I have prepared a draft letter. General discussion.
Council Member Nordstrom: Discusses the Linder Road Task Force findings.
D. Review of request for nroposals for prosecution services. (SKB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
City Attorney Buxton: Provides Council an overview of the proposal submitted from Richard T. Roats.
Discusses the budget request letter sent by the Ada County Prosecutor's Office. You need to look not
only at the cost but you need to review the services that you are going to receive. I am concerned as your
civil attorney that Mr. Roats would be available 24/7. I would like to see more communication from the
Ada County Prosecutor's Office. General discussion.
Council would like to have Ax Yewer attend a budget workshop for discussion on the budget proposal
and discussion on quarterly meetings.
E. A City platform for strenl!theninl! families and improvinl! outcomes for children and
vouth/Resolution No. 06-33. (NM)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Guerber moves to adopt Resolution No. 06-33. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES.............. .
F. Ordinance No. 539 (ZOA-I-06): An Ordinance Of The City Of Eagle, Idaho, A Municipal
Corporation Of The State Of Idaho, Amending Title 8, Chapter 2, Section I Of The Eagle City Code By
Decreasing The Maximum Number Of Residential Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre In Mixed Use Districts
From Twenty (20) Units To Ten (10) Units; Providing For Severability; Repealing Conflicting
Ordinances And Providing An Effective Date. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring Ordinances to be
read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed with, and that Ordinance
Page 5 of7
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-06-27...Q6spmin.doc
THE CITY OF EAGLE
CITY COUNCIL
Budget Workshop
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 27, 2006
#539 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber reads Ordinance #539 by title only.
Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES.................
Nordstrom moves that Ordinance #539 be adopted. Seconded by Bandy. Discussion. Guerber:
NAY; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: TWO AYES: ONE NAY: MOTION CARRIES...........
G. Ordinance No. 544 (Lil!hthouse Subdivision): An ordinance annexing certain real property situated
in the unincorporated area of Ada County, Idaho, and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of
Eagle, to the City of Eagle, Idaho; establishing the zoning classification of said real property described
herein; amending the zoning map of the City of Eagle to reflect said changes; directing that copies of this
ordinance be filed as provided by law; and providing an effective date. (WEV)
Mayor introduces the issue.
Guerber moves, pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-902, that the rule requiring Ordinances to be
read on three different days with one reading to be in full be dispensed with, and that Ordinance
#544 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber reads Ordinance #544 by title only.
Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES.................
Guerber moves that Ordinance #544 be adopted. Seconded by Nordstrom. Guerber: AYE;
Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES...................................
5A. Claims Ag:ainst the Citv:
Mayor introduces the issue.
Guerber moves to approve the Claims Against the City. Seconded by Bandy. Guerber:
AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
General discussion on the Ada County meeting considering the Committee of Nine Decision.
Mayor calls a recess at 9:45 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes at 9:55 p.m.
10. Executive Session:
Mayor introduces the issue.
Guerber moves to go into Executive Session for the discussion of pending or threatened
litigation and acquisition of. Seconded by Bandy. Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE;
Bandy: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES..............
Council goes into Executive Session at 10:00 p.m.
Council discusses pending or threatened litigation.
Council leaves Executive Session at 10: 15 p.m.
City Clerk Bergmann: The initial plans for the City Hall building called for medallions to be on
the top of the building. Through the building process we had discussion on these medallions.
Barb needs a decision from the Council if these are going to go away or if this is still something
that the Council wants. General discussion. Council concurs that they do not need to have these
medallions.
Discussion on the landscaping. The landscaping has been turned over to the City.
Page 6 of7
K:\COUNCll \MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-06-27 -06spmin.doc
THE CITY OF EAGLE
CITY COUNCIL
Budget Workshop
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 27, 2006
Discussion on Maxi-Com being installed at the new City Hall building. Council concurs not to
install Maxi-Com.
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Nordstrom moves to adjourn. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
cJ 0, (v<-<.< It &~~
SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
......
t'. ,
.." ~)' (
/ C\ ......~..I. I, .
i. ~OIlPO~ ". ", "
sf'"' ",:;. tt\ ';
: . _. tel :
: 1- s'" :
\~\\ EJC\{, .j
,,-."11.. ~'\
'l. '1'... ...OllATEO ~ i
....../~ ....... ~o ~
...... OF ID'" *""
'..........,.,.
Page 7 of7
K:\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-06-27-06spmin.doc
City of Eagle Police Department
Law Enforcement Needs
Assessment
Fiscal Year 2007
Presented by
Chief Dana Borgquist
June, 2006
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
SERVICE
* The success is our ongoing ability to respond to the needs of the
citizen "in a timely manner". SN
* We need to find a way to give the officers more time for visiting
businesses on a one-to-one basis and I would like to see the officers
out on the bicycles and walking around town in the summertime. LS
* I am uncertain on what is being done to address homeowner
associations and other groups on how to improve community safety in
Eagle. SB
* I listened to some of the other Mayors discuss the personality issues
and struggles that they have and I know I am truly blessed with the
very finest men and women serving Eagle. NM
.I
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
25,000
20,000 -
15,000 -
10,000 -
5,000
0
City of Eagle Projected Population
2000
11,4-64-
2010 1,4I -6=I-
2010
2006 - 20,675
17,164-
20,540*
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Based on IS Census numbers.
Conservative projected population growth between 2006 and 2010: 20.5%
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
300
200
100 -
n
0
Traffic Accidents
Five Year Trend
2001 2002 2003 2004 200.5 2006*
❑ Personal Injury 42 65 60 62 58 41
IN Property Damage 137 129 130 141 184 56
* 2006 numbers complete through May, 2006.
-1
-I
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
ACSO CaIIs For Service
Areas of High CaIIs For Service
Volume
W 6Q ACpN LIDMT RD
DAs
��j�1�
=$ATE V
2005 Calls for Service
Density
Low
— High
Y0 CN IN 6EN
ILLA
W 1.137 1
W
r Rfl
— Interstate Crossing
ftl
q net A/YfrY`Cl
• p
N;—
2 .74,_
g
4 2y__
N1 W
i'
J
jII
U.
JD U W KUNA RD
•
1116 KD
2f1KUNA MORA RD
W ISC
®t
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
20,000
15,000
10,000
City of Eagle Police Incidents
Year
El Priority 1 D Priority 2
*System change over. Incidents are estimated only.
Priority 3
.1
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
2005 Top Ten Calls for Service
1. Burglary Alarm
2. Reckless Driver
3. Drunk Driver
4. Traffic Accident
5. Traffic Hazard
6. Welfare Check
7. Suspici0us Vehicle
8. Theft
9. Vandalism
10. Suspicious Subject
7.0
5.5
5.2
3.9
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.3
All Others 57
.I
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Current Staffing
1 Gold Team
Sergeant
4 Patrol
Deputies
1 Lieutenant
\ J
/ \
1 Clerk
\ J
7
1 Red Team
Sergeant
4 Patrol
Deputies
2
1 Detective
SRO
\ 7
1 STEP
/ \ /
1 Neighborhood
Traffic
Deputy
Ell
.I
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Deputies per 1,000
Eagle Deputies per 1,000
3
City of Eagle Nine Year Average: .65:1,000
2.5 -
�-
1.5 -
1 - 0.72
0.56
0.5 -U-1
0
U.'/ V
2.4 mom
0.7 0.66 0.59 0.67 ' 0.7
VI I Ini
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
El Deputy/ 1000 — Western States Average — Idaho Average
* Based on proposed staffing numbers.
-1
-1
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
$200
$180
$160
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Cost of Law Enforcement per Resident
2005/2006 Budgeted Expenditures
$146.00
q.
�{
o4
G°
$73.33
cfr
w 1
$69.77
*8 Cities in Idaho with their own Police Departments; 17,292 Average Population
Based on US Census Population data and 2005/2006 Budgeted Expenditures of Police Agencies
Cid of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Estimates based on City Population Numbers:
Current Population: 20,540
Population at 2010:
21,867* Soaring 2025
Cost of Law Enforcement Per 1,000:
Current: S57.84
Proposed: $65.71
Deputies Per 1,000:
Current: 0.67 per 1,000
Proposed: 0.68 per 1,000
OI
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Recommended Staffing
1 Gold Team
Sergeant
4 Patrol
Deputies
J
1 Clerk
1 Lieutenant
1 CALI Tech./
Report Writer
i
1 Red Team
Sergeant
4 Patrol
Deputies
1
1 Detective
1 Detective
1
New Positions
1 STEP
1 Neigh orho(xi
Traffic
Deputy
i
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Detective Justification
Cit of Ea• le Felonies
% Change
Month 2005 from Previous 2004
Month
% Change
Year to Date
2005 2004
Clearance Clearance
Rates Rates
Jan 11
Feb 18
Mar 14
Apr 25
May 26
Jun 20
Jul 21
Aug 30
Sep 26
Oct 20
Nov 18
Dec 32
Total 261
- 35.3%
63.6%
- 22.2%
78.6%
4.0%
- 23.1%
5.0%
42.9%
-13.3%
- 23.1%
-10.0%
77.8%
* Clearance rates for the 4th Quarter
13
25
21
15
18
24
31
15
18
20
14
17
231
are subject to change
- 15.4%
- 23.7%
- 27.1%
-8.1%
2.2%
-1.7%
-8.2%
1.9%
6.1%
5.5%
7.0%
13.0%
Q1 67.6% 34.6%
Q2 31.8% 36.4%
Q3 31.4% 40.7%
Q4 13.8%* 40.0%
32.4% 37.9%
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Dedicated Traffic Enforcement Deputy
*Grant funded through the Idaho
position g
Transportation Department: Office of
Highway Safety.
Cost: 25%1st year 04/05- $ 18,785.25 (Current Year)
50% 2nd year 05/06- $ 37,570.50 + COLA
75% 3rc1 year 07/08- $ 56,355.75 + COLA
100% 4th year 09/10- $ 75 ,141.00 + COLA
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
City of Eagle 2006-2007 Budget Summary
Personnel S 1,312,071.37
Personal Equipment S 23,221.66
Operations S 53,177.00
Vehicles S 95,98 5.00
Budget Subtotal $ 1,484,45 5.03
Credits QTY.
Deputy 1.5 $ 119,328.89
Building 1 $ 6,408.00
Vehicle 1 $ 8,997.00
Credit Subtotal $ 134,733.89
Budget Subtotal $ 1,484,455.03
Credit Subtotal S 134,733.89
Grand Total $ 1,349,721.14
CIty of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Recommended Staffing 2008
1 Lieutenant
•
1 Clerk
1 CAU Tech./
Report Writer
1 Gold Team
Sergeant
4 Patrol
Deputies
1 Patrol
Deputy
1 Redream
Sergeant
4 Patrol
Deputies
1 Patrol
Deputy
New Positions
1 Admin. Sergeant
2 Detective
2 STEP
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
City of Eagle:
Law Enforcement Assessment
Personnel
Position
Lieutenant
Sergeant
Detective
STEP
Deputy
Clerk
Personnel Subtotal
Number
1 $ 104, 3 84.76
2 $
Cost Annual Total
104, 3 84.76
89,491.83 $ 178,983.65
79,552.59 $ 159,105.18
79,552.59 $ 139,217.04
79,552.59 $ 636,420.74
46,980.00 $ 93,960.00
$ 1,312,071.37
1.75
8
2
16.75
$
$
CITY OF EAGLE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
2007 BUDGET
JUNE 20, 2006
Building Department Activities
Randy Upson and Steven Nash and I are on the road every day performing a variety
of inspections. Total permit activity is down by approximately 20% from last year
yet the inspection load has remained steady due to the above average complexity
and size of the residential structures under construction. The built community
consensus attributes this shortfall to a lack of inventory of lots to option. New
commercial building starts have slowed but Tenant -Improvements are running
ahead of last years numbers. Commercial buildings require time intensive
inspections. The Eagle Health Plaza has been inspected 26 times for just core and
shell issues and the project still underway. The Building Departments anticipated
revenue projections are based upon building permit activity over an eight (8) year
period spanning from 1999 to the current year to date. Although cyclical in nature,
building permit activity should increase by ten (10%) in the 2007 budget year. The
permit revenue numbers utilized to compile 2007 budget estimates are as follows:
FY REVENUE
1999 $276,516
2000 $602,951
2001 $571,043
2002 $480,334
2003 $1,079,446
2004 $1,252,544
2005 $1,918,858
CURRENT
YEAR TO
2006 DATE
$994,694
The 2005 budget was underestimated when compared to actual revenues received at
the close of the fiscal year. Excluding the 2005 numbers, the building permit
revenue stream has maintained a steady increase over the last few years. The orange
bar reflects the current year to date.
The following chart tracks permits over this time frame:
$2,000,000.00 -
$1,800,000.00-
$1,600,000.00-
$1,400,000.00 -
$1,200,000.00 -
$1,000,000.00 -
$800,000.00-
$600,000.00-
$400,000.00-
$200,000.00-
$0.00 -1
800,000.00-
$600,000.00-
$400,000.00-$200,000.00-$0.00-'
ANNUAL REVENUE BUILDING FEES
477
1
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
In regard to revenue anticipation as compared to actual revenue received the past
budget workshop estimates have been under the actual receipts on a consistent
basis.
10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004 10/1/2004 - 9/20/2005
FY -2004 FY -2005
03-04 FY 04 -05 FY
TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED INCREASE/DECREASE INCREASE/DECREASE
1007 8% 1271 21%
NEW HOMES
461 13% 569 19%
NEW COMMERCIAL
19 40 49%
TENANT IMPROVEMENT
54 50% 61
TOTAL VALUATION
$160,221,685 8% $240,752,855
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
$939,069 $1,063,036
PLAN FEES
$313,474 $399,966
FY 2005 BP
PROJECTION
$680,565
FY 2005 PR PROJECTION
$160,000
FY 2004 BP BUDGET FY 2005 COMBINED BUDGET
$664,540 $840,565
FY -2004 REVENUE FY- 2005 REVENUE
ACTUAL ACTUAL
10/1/2003-9/30/2004 10/1/2004-9/30/2005
$1,252,544 14% $1,918,858
11%
33%
34%
As the 2006 year has proven to be average rather than exceptional, the revenue
realized this year is running about as anticipated. This year should match the
amount of revenue anticipated. Due to small fee increases in our referenced
publications and additional supplemental permits, revenue has been stable
considering a reduced construction valuation. The reduced valuations are reflected
in this chart:
$250,000,000.00 -
$225,000,000.00-
$200,000,000.00
225,000,000.00-$200,000,000.00 -
$175,000,000.00-
$150,000,000.00 -
$125,000,000.00 --
$100,000,000.00-
$75,000,000.00-
$50,000,000.00-
$25,000,000.00-
50.00 -
CONSTRUCTION VALUATION
111
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
The remainder of the 2006 is likely to meet the amount placed in the City budget
with a limited reserve. The current revenues to date are displayed below:
CURRENT YEAR
TO DATE
TOTAL PERMITS 763
NEW HOMES 250
NEW COMMERCIAL 21
TENANT IMPROVEMENT 57
TOTAL VALUATION $117,659,378.00
BUILDING PERMIT FEES $702,612
PLAN FEES $292,082
FY -2006 BP PROJECTED 966,402
FY -2006 PR PROJECTED S233,598
FY -2006 COMBINED BUDGET 51,200,000
FY- 2007 RECOMMENDED S1,320 000 ak « t fk-k-e-d2-'k,
It appears that a ten (10%) increase in building permit revenue would be
appropriate considering the past activity the City has experienced. The increase to
$1,320,000 should be attainable considering the inventory of lots at this time.
Building Inspector Promotions
Steven Nash has completed his Veterans Administration training period and is
certified as a Residential Building Inspector. He is anticipating testing for the
Commercial Building Inspector examination within the next year. Upon
Certification, Steven will progress to a Grade 11 on the City employee compensation
matrix. Shirley Kline is now preparing for testing to be certified as an International
Codes Council Permit Technician and should advance this year.
ADDITIONAL REVENUE
The City of Eagle should begin the issuance of Grading and Drainage Permits and
the collection of review fees with the applications. Open to discussion at meeting.
K:1Building Dept12007 Budget revised.doc
F) The following schedule shall be used in Grading Plan Review and Grading Permit fees:
Total Cubic Yards
Permit Fees
50 or less $38.00
51 to 100 $51.00
101 to 1,000 $38.00 for the first 100 cubic yards
plus $18.00 for each additional 100
cubic yards of fraction thereof.
1,001 to 10,000 $200.00 for the first 1,000 cubic
yards plus $15.00 for each
additional 1,000 cubic yards or
fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 $336.00 for the first10,000 cubic
yards plus $68.00 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards or
fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 $948.00 for the first 100,000 cubic
yards plus $38.00 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards or
fraction thereof.
200,001 or more $1,328.00 for the first 100,000 cubic
yards plus $38.00 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards or
fraction thereof.
RESOLUTION NO. 1330 - PAGE 5 of 6
s:lsharedengrltemplrevised resolution no xxxx - exhibit a.doc
Plan Review Fees
no fee
$25.00
$38.00
$51.00 for the first 1,000
cubic yards plus $25.00 for
each additional 1,000 cubic
yards or fraction thereof.
$51.00 for the first 10,000
cubic yards plus $25.00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic
yards or fraction thereof.
$276.00 for the first 100,00
cubic yards plus $13.25 for
each additional 10,000 cubic
yards or fraction thereof.
$402.25 for the first 200,000
cubic yards plus $7.25 for
each additional 10,000 cubic
yards or fraction thereof.
Eagle City
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
I Type
(COMMERCIAL ADDITION
• (COMMERCIAL REMODEL
(DEMOLITION
(GARAGE/SHOP
(MISCELLANEOUS
(MOBILE HOME
Building Permit Totals By Type
i
i
10/1/2005 TO 6/20/2006
Year I Total Permits I Total Value I Total Permit Fee I Total Plan Review I
2005 1 $1,204,000.00 $6,061.00 $3,940.00
1 $1,204,000.00 I $6,061.00 I $3,940.00
2005 1 $186,808.00 $1,246.00 $810.00
2006 2 $6,174.00 $111.00 $72.00
I31 $192,982.00 $1,357.00 $882.00 I
2005
2006
1 $0.00 $15.00 $0.00
5 $0.00 $90.00 $0.00
61 $0.00 M $105.00 I $0.00 I
2005 9 $396,128.00 $4,159.00 $1,451.00
2006 23 $1,022,598.00 $9,586.00 $3,478.00
I321 $1,418,726.00 M $13,745.00 I $4,929.00 I
2005
2006
2006
44 $9,621.00 $350.00 $1,111.00
63 $151,772.00 $2,121.00 $1,793.00
107 $161,393.00 $2,471.00 $2,904.00 I
2 $0.00 $100.00 $0.00
21 $0.00 I $100.00 $0.00 I
Page 1 of 4
1 Type
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(NEW COMMERCIAL
NEW HOME
POOL
(POOL HOUSE
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
(RESIDENTIAL REMODEL
SIGN
i
i
Year I Total Permits I Total Value I Total Permit Fee I Total Plan Review I
2006 6 $3,352,426.00 $17,174.00 $5,152.00 L
61 $3,352,426.00 $17,174.00 $5,152.00
2006 21 $12,201,913.00 I $62,588.00 I $39,950.00 I
21 $12,201,913.00 I $62,588.00 I $39,950.00 I
2005 89 $30,862,347.00 $178,719.00 $63,593.00
2006 161 $58,090,222.00 $333,537.00 $122,420.00
I2501 $88,952,569.00 1 $512,256.00 1 $186,013.00
2005 13 $463,416.00 $5,548.00
2006 30 $975,366.00 $11,890.00
43I $1,438,782.00 I $17,438.00 I
2006 1 $22,720.00
11
$22,720.00
$311.00
$311.00
$1,932.00
$4,333.00
$6,265.00
$202.00 I
$202.00 1
2005 6 $276,824.00 $2,539.00 $886.00
2006 5 $546,544.00 $4,488.00 $1,570.00
1 11 $823,368.00 $7,027.00 I $2,456.00
2005 1 $50,000.00 $548.00 $191.00
2006 1 $9,240.00 $159.00 $56.00
N2 $59,240.00 I $707.00 I $247.00 I
2005 10 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00
2006 26 $0.00 $1,250.00 $50.00
36 $0.00 1 $1,750.00 I $50.00 I
Page 2 of 4
1 Type
(SUPPLEMENTAL GARAGE/SHOP
i
Year I Total Permits I Total Value I Total Permit Fee I Total Plan Review
L
2005 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2006 2 $24,072.00
M31 $24,072.00 I
(SUPPLEMENTAL MISCELLANEOUS I 2006
11
$0.00
11 $0.00 I
SUPPLEMENTAL MULTI -FAMILY RES 2005 1 $0.00
I 2006 2 $0.00
M31 $0.00
SUPPLEMENTAL NEW COMMERCIAL 2005 6 $0.00
I 2006 12 $300,000.00
I 181
$300,000.00
(SUPPLEMENTAL NEW HOME 2005 51 ($13,840.00)
2006 87 ($75,529.00)
138 ($89,369.00)
(SUPPLEMENTAL RESID'L ADDITION 2005 3 ($35,481.00)
2006 2 $32,499.00
I51 ($2,982.00)
(SUPPLEMENTAL TENANT IMPROVEMT 2005 4 $0.00
2006 13 $0.00
1 17 $0.00
$141.00
$141.00
$0.00
$0.00
$242.00
$242.00 I
$0.00 I
$0.00 I
$50.00 $0.00
$100.00 $0.00
$150.00 I $0.00 1
$250.00 $50.00
$2,236.00 $1,160.00
$2,486.00 I $1,210.00
$896.00 $920.00
$1,691.50 $1,510.00
$2,587.50 $2,430.00
($428.00) $0.00
$202.00 $69.00
($226.00) I $69.00 I
$200.00 $0.00
$600.00 $-3-3-3-.-66-
$800.00 $333.00 I
Page 3 of 4
I Type
ITENANTIMPROVEMENT
i
Year I Total Permits I
2005 19
2006 38
Grand Total: I
571
Total Value I Total Permit Fee I Total Plan Review 1
I
$1,309,307.00 $11,476.00 $7,452.00
$6,290,231.00 $42,107.00 $27,356.00
$7,599,538.00 $53,583.00 $34,808.00
7631 $117,659,378.00 1 $702,611.50 I $292,082.00 I
1
Page 4 of 4
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT
(RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS)
This Amendment to the certain License Agreement made and entered into the 11th
day of July, 2005, by and between the Ada County Highway District, a body politic and
corporate of the State of Idaho, and CITY OF EAGLE and issued ACHD Property
Management Number 0941-1579-0705;
WITNESSETH:
For good and sufficient consideration, it is agreed: Section 2. License; License
Not Exclusive: is hereby modified in its entirety to read:
Licensee to construct, install and maintain an Aikens Bronze Sculpture 3 % feet
by S feet approx 6 feet height on the sidewalk a long with a plaque that will be secured
to a rock to be placed south of the statue at the southeast corner of f` Street and State
Street per exact location on Exhibit "A" The rock will be a 2 feet by 2 feet and secured
to the concrete area on which the statue stands. Licensee will not obstruct pedestrian
pathway or ramps with the statue or plaque. Licensee to maintain a Sfoot pedestrian
pathway at all times.
Except to the Amendment, all terms and conditions of the above referenced
License Agreement, as amended, shall be and remain in full force and effect.
Dated this o21 day of
2006.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Kathy Smith, Right of Way Supervisor
CITY OF EAGLE
• By: ayor 1' ncy Merrill
Its: ayor
Mayor: Nancy C. Merrill
June 26, 2006
Ada County Development Services
Attn: Scott Cook, Planner II
200 West Front Street
Boise, ID 83702-7300
FAX: 287-7909
CITY OF EAGLE
P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, Idaho 83616
939-6813
Council: Stanley J. Bastian
Phil Bandy
Steve Guerber
Scott Nordstrom
SUBJECT: 05-34-CU/05-28-MSP/05-33-MSP — Conditional Use Permit and Master Site Plan for an
electrical substation and Master Site Plan for an associated 138 kV sub -transmission line.
Dear Mr. Cook:
On June 16, 2006, the Idaho Power/City of Eagle task force (consisting of Idaho Power representatives,
Eagle city staff, City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission representatives, and members of the
public) met to review new information prepared by Idaho Power. The information consisted of cost
breakdowns for each of the following alternatives.
Alternative #1 — [Substation to remain at the southeast corner of Linder Road and Beacon Light Road]
Bury the distribution lines along Linder Road and construct the 138 kV sub -transmission
line (single circuit) along Linder Road using wood poles (approx. 58'feet high).
Alternative #2 - [Substation to remain at the southeast corner of Linder Road and Beacon Light Road]
Do not construct any sub -transmission lines along Linder Road. Rather, complete the sub-
station `loop' by routing the sub -transmission lines down Beacon Light Road, south on
State Highway 16 to State Highway 44. Above -ground distribution lines on Linder Road
are increased in number and size.
Alternative #3 — [Substation to be located on west Beacon Light Road away from the Linder Road
intersection, closer to, or within the area planned as the "Village Center"]
Sub -transmission lines are to be routed along Beacon Light Road and State Highway 16.
Above -ground distribution lines on Linder Road are increased in number and size.
The task force discussed at length each of the alternatives and the costs associated with each alternative.
While the discussion was informative and insightful with regard to power planning in the area, it became
clear that a larger forum to review all options would be necessary before any final decisions could be made.
The task force recognized that all power corridor scenarios and substation locations were multi -
jurisdictional and would best be discussed in a joint -planning process. To this end, the group agreed that,
at a minimum, State Highway 16 should be identified as the main north/south transmission/sub-
Page 1 of 2
K \Planning Dept\Ada County ApphcanonstCUL'005105-34-CU 1e3.doc
transmission corridor for the area (omitting the need for sub -transmission lines along Linder Road north of
State Highway 44). The group also recommended that the City of Eagle facilitate a joint planning process
with Ada County to process a conditional use permit to determine: 1) the final routing of the sub -
transmission lines, 2) to final location of the substation, 3) funding options to offset the costs associated
with the alternate route/locations. The group recognized that prior to scheduling a formal joint -hearing
process, benefit may be derived from holding a series of open house -style meetings whereby citizens in the
overall affected area would be invited to participate in facilitated round -table planning discussions. This
process was recognized as a positive step toward integrating the public's thoughts and concerns into the
planning process.
In recognition of the pending appeal with Ada County regarding Idaho Power's current conditional use
permit application, a report was provided to the Eagle City Council at their June 20, 2006, meeting
regarding the task force's recommendation. The Council's direction to staff was to inform Ada County
about the City's willingness to facilitate a joint planning process as identified above. The Council agreed
that State Highway 16 was the preferable north/south corridor for transmission/sub-transmission lines
(omitting the need for sub -transmission lines along Linder Road north of State Highway 44). Finally, the
Council concurred that as part of the overall power planning project in this area the distribution lines
currently located along Linder Road north of State Highway 44 (including any future upgrades) should be
located underground.
If you have any questions please call me at 939-0227.
Sincerely,
William E. Vaughan, AICP
Zoning Administrator
cc: Mayor Merrill
Eagle City Council
File
Task Force Members via email
Page 2 of 2
K:1Planning DeptlAda County Applications1CU12005105-34-CU le3.doc
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Attachment(s):
Copy To:
Mayor Merrill and City Council Members
William E. Vaughan, AICP, Zoning Administrator; v
Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision No. 2 — Letter of Credit reduction
June 27, 2006
Letter from James Rees, P. E., date stamped by the City on June 27, 2006
Letter from CTC Telecom, date stamped by the City on June 27, 2006
Draft Amendment to Ringo Ridge Subdivision Agreement
Draft Bill of Sale for 328 trees and 471 shrubs
Original Ringo Ridge Subdivision Agreement, dated December 13, 2005
N/A
On June 27, 2006, City staff and the City attorney met with Stacia Patterson and Fred Shoemaker
regarding the remaining work to be completed within Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision No. 2 (including
the entry area on Sadie Drive within Phase 1). The following table shows: the 1) original amount included
within the surety and 2) estimates for remaining work to be completed as proposed by the applicant
(excluding the cost to purchase 328 trees)
Improvement Original Amount Remaining Amount
Tree planting, shrub planting, $289,356.00 $55,360.00
irrigation, final grading, seeding, and
boulders
Street lights $15,155.00
Fence $31,114.00
2 Benches and 1 Picnic Table $1,236.75
Funscape Play Equipment $5,204.00
Underground telephone facilities $30,000.00
Common Area Fill (park area) $7,966.66
Subtotal $380,032.41
Bond amount a 150% $570,048.61
328 remaining trees x $50.00 (for planting) = $16,400.00
471 remaining shrubs and perennials (for planting) x $20.00 = $9,420.00
$12,500.00 -irrigation (provided by Stacia)
$2,500.00 -final grading (staff's estimate)
$11,040.00 -seeding (provided by Stacia)
$3,500.00 -boulders (original bid amount)
Page 1 of 1
K:1Planning DeptlEaglc ApplicadonssSLBS120041Ringo Ridge Estates Sub No. 2 surety mc2.doc
$15,155.00
$7,864.00
$1,236.75
$5,204.00
$0.00
$1,992.66
$86,812.41
$130,218.61
Jun 26 2006 4:27PM
Prime Earth
208-939-3730 p.2
Jun 26 06 04:04p Jim Rees 2083438967 p.1
MTCPINC\
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, AND PLANNERS
707 N. 27TH ST. BOISE IDAHO 83702-3113 (208) 345-0780 FAX (208) 343-8967
June 26, 2006
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
JUN 2 7 2006
Mr. Floyd Patterson
PO Ventures File'
P.O. Box 1417 Route to:
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Dear Floyd,
As you requested Ron Scott, Mike Jones and James Rees checked three different sections
of the berm on the East side of Ringo Ridge Subdivision Number 2 and found the average
slope to be less than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The steepest slope was at the South property line of said Ringo Ridge Subdivision
Number 2 common area which is 3/1 from the fence to the back of the sidewalk grade.
The other portion of the slope was flatter than the required. 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
If you need further information, please contact me at your convenience.
cc: Fredric Shoemaker
Jun 26 2006 3:44PM Prime Earth
Telecom
Jun 5, 2006
Floyd Patterson
P.O. Ventures, Inc.
P O Box 1417
Eagle, Id 83616
RE: Telephon Service at Arbor Ridge Subdivision
Dear Mr. Patterson:
208-939-3730 p.2
RECEIVED' & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
JUN 2 7 2006
File:
Route to:
At your request CTC Telecom has completed the installation of the underground
facilities necessary to supply a fiber to the home telephone and data solution within the
Arbor Ridge Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho. As customers call for request of services, and
service orders are completed, our technicians will supply a connection into the homes
which will supply telephone phone, and data services.
Service orders can be placed by contacting our office at 229-1000 and speaking
with one of our customer service representatives.
Thank you,
rrry Piper
Assistant Manager
Cambridge Telephone Company, Inc
P.O. Box 88
Cambridge, Id 83610
jdp
cc: Rick Wiggins
Dan Morris
P.O. Box 69 * Cambridge, ID 83610 • .(208) 257-3300 • FAX: (208) 257-3992
AMENDMENT TO RINGO RIDGE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
The CITY OF EAGLE, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and P.O. VENTURES,
INC., an Idaho corporation, ("Developer") hereby amend the Ringo Ridge Subdivision
Agreement dated December 13, 2005 ("Agreement"), as follows:
1. The letter of credit amount is reduced from $570,048.62 to $130,218.61, and
Developer's lender is authorized to issue a letter of credit in the reduced amount.
2. Developer agrees to grant City additional assurance and security for the
performance of the Agreement in the form of a Bill of Sale (Exhibit A hereto)
which Developer shall execute and conditionally deliver in trust to City and which
shall not be considered effective until, and if, the Developer defaults under the
Agreement or this Amendment. Developer shall water and otherwise maintain the
trees and shrubs described in the Bill of Sale, and shall provide City access to the
trees and shrubs, if necessary, for removal and planting if a default occurs in
accordance with the approved landscape plan.
3. The time for completion of the improvements described in the Agreement is
extended from June 1, 2006 to August 15, 2006.
4. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment to Ringo
Ridge Subdivision Agreement as of the day of June, 2006.
P.O. VENTURES, INC., THE CITY OF EAGLE,
an Idaho corporation a municipal corporation
By
Stacia Patterson
Its: Vice President
ATTEST:
Sharon K. Bergmann
Its: City Clerk
By
Nancy C. Merrill
Its: Mayor
AMENDMENT TO RINGO RIDGE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - 1 6/27/2006 167731
STATE OF IDAHO
)ss.
County of Ada
Before me, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared Stacia Patterson,
known or identified to me to be the Vice President of P.O. Ventures, Inc., an Idaho corporation,
and the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
she executed the same on behalf of said corporation.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 2006.
Notary Public of Idaho
Residing at
Commission Expires
STATE OF IDAHO
)ss.
County of Ada )
Before me, a Notary Public in and for said state, personally appeared Nancy C. Merrill,
known or identified to me to be the Mayor of the City of Eagle, a municipal corporation, and the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that she
executed the same on behalf of said municipal corporation.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 2006.
Notary Public
Residing at
Commission Expires
AMENDMENT TO RINGO RIDGE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - 2 6/27/2006 167731
ExmBrr A
BILL OF SALE
1. DATE, NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PARTIES
1.1. Date. This Bill of Sale is executed and delivered on June 27, 2006.
1.2. Name and Address of Grantor. P.O. Ventures, Inc., an Idaho corporation,
whose address is P.O. Box 1417, Eagle, Idaho 83616, is the "Grantor."
13. Names and Address of Grantee. City of Eagle, an Idaho municipal
corporation, whose address is 660 E. Civic Lane, Eagle, Idaho 83616, is the "Grantee."
2. CONVEYANCE
2.1. Grant. For One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration
delivered by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
Grantor grants, bargains, sells and conveys to Grantee all of its right, title and interest in and to
the following -described property ("Property"):
■ 471 2 -gallon shrubs; and
■ 328 3 -inch caliper trees.
2.2. Covenants. Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall have and hold the
above-described Property. The Grantor covenants to and with the Grantee that it is the owner in
fee simple of the Property, that it is free from encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever.
2.3. Location. The Property is located on or adjacent to Arbor Ridge Estates
Subdivision, a/k/a Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision.
3. GRANTOR'S SIGNATURE
P.O. VENTURES, INC.,
an Idaho corporation
By
Stacia Patterson
Its: Vice President
BILL OF SALE -1 6/27/2006 168183
ADA COUNTY RECORDP 1. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 3
BOISE IDAHO 12/22/05 " J5 PM
DEPUTY Pal�Thompaon III II 111111111 11111111 11111111111 1 111
RECORDED—REQUEST OF
City of Eagle 105195257
RINGO RIDGE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 43 .qday of December, 2005 by and
between the City of Eagle, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and P.O. Ventures, Inc., an Idaho
corporation, ("Developer").
In mutual consideration of the covenants contained herein, the City and Developer agree
as follows:
1. (a) The City requires construction of North Echohawk Way in conjunction
with, and as part of, the approved improvements for Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 2, extending
from the Hill Road right-of-way north to the existing eastern terminus of East Sadie Drive
currently constructed as part of Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 2. The purpose of North Echohawk
Way is to serve as the primary ingress and egress to Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 1 and Ringo
Ridge Subdivision No. 2, and to provide the primary access for construction traffic to said
subdivisions.
(b) The City will authorize the Building Official to process up to eight (8)
building permit applications for Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 2 to the Developer once the
Developer posts a letter of credit for Ringo Ridge Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 in the amount of
$570,048.62 and the $250.00 surety initiation fee for the following improvements: landscaping
and irrigation; street lights (6); fence or berm; 2 picnic benches and 1 table; Funscape
playground equipment; purchase, hauling and placement of fill needed to bring site to final grade
as indicated and approved; construction drawings and for final grading of berm along Highway
55 to 3:1 slope on the east and west sides; active telephone facilities in Ringo Ridge Subdivisions
1 and 2; and, for any other improvements required by the preliminary plat approvals that have
not been completed as required for final plat as of June 1, 2006. In the event the City collects the
letter of credit and the amount to complete the above-described items and projects described in
paragraph 1(c) below exceeds the letter of credit funds, Developer agrees to pay the difference to
the City upon the City's request. Upon completion or satisfaction of each item for which the
letter of credit has been posted, City shall promptly provide Developer with written notice of
such satisfaction and authorize the issuer of the letter of credit to reduce the amount of the letter
of credit by the amount applicable for the completed or satisfied item. •
(c) Prior to the City issuing any occupancy permits in Ringo Ridge
Subdivision No. 2, Developer agrees to install active telephone facilities in Ringo Ridge
Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2, and complete the construction of North Echohawk Way to ACHD's
standards. In the event that installation of active telephone facilities and the construction of
North Echohawk Way are not completed by June 1, 2006, the City may elect 'to collect on the
letter of credit for those projects.
2. City shall not issue, and Developer and any successor owners of Lots within
Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 2 shall not request, any Occupancy Permit until such time as the
North Echohawk Way improvements are completed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any
uncompleted improvements, including all design review and subdivision improvements shall be
completed no later than June 1, 2006. Developer agrees that this Agreement does not waive the
City's ability to enforce the Eagle City Code and the approved Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for the Arbor Ridge Subdivision and subsequent Design Review and Final
RINGO RIDGE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT -1 12/13/2005 147260_6
Plat approvals for the Ringo Ridge Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2. Developer agrees to indemnify
and hold the City harmless for any and all claims made by any lot owners affected thereby.
3. Site Specific Condition #30 of the City's preliminary plat approval addressed
gravel operations. In reference to the requirements of that provision, the City will allow
Developer and the gravel operator to sell gravel from the two (2) existing stockpiles provided,
however, that no new gravel may be added to the stock piles; only five (5) trucks may be stored
at the gravel site, the gravel site will be cleared of debris, weeds, refuse, trash and other
equipment not necessary to complete the sale of existing stockpiles, reclamation or grading of
the site. Developer agrees to have the gravel stockpiles removed no later than June 1, 2006.
4. Developer agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement to any purchaser of a lot in
Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 2. The City may include a copy of this Agreement with any
building permit issued for Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 2. Both P.O. Ventures, Inc. and Eagle
acknowledge that they each have been represented by legal counsel in negotiating this
Agreement and that neither party shall have been deemed to have been the draftor of this
Agreement.
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs,
successors, agents, employees and assigns of the parties.
6. Any and all remedies provided for enforcement of the provisions of this
Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to pursue
either the rights enumerated in this Agreement or remedies authorized by law, or both. The
prevailing party shall be liable for any costs or expenses, including attorney fees and court costs,
incurred by it in enforcing any terms of this Agreement, or in pursuing any legal action for the
enforcement of the its rights.
7. This Agreement shall be recorded and run with the land against the property
identified as Ringo Ridge Subdivision No. 2. This Agreement applies to only the property
identified as Ringo Ridge Subdivision Nos. 1 and 2.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date
first above written.
P.O. VENTURES, INC.
an Idaho corpor
By
ruce Patterson
Its: President
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF EAGLE,
a municipal corporation
By � t���.�-.
Nanc(y C. Merill
Its: Mayor
Its: City Clerk
RINGO RIDGE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT - 2 12/1312005 147260_6
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE,
TO: SEB
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
RE:
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
950 WEST BANNOCK, SUITE 520
BOISE, ID 83702
TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 FAX: (208) 331-1202
MEMORANDUM
TAZ
SJB
June 27, 2006
Management of Rights of Way
c
CHARTERED
Question Presented: Can the City of Eagle regulate public rights-of-way utilized by
telecommunication and utility providers?
Short Answer:
Telecommunications Act
Yes, so long as the City does so "on a competitively neutral and
nondiscriminatory basis" and in a manner that does not "prohibit or
have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide
any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 USC
253(a) and (c).
Removal of Barriers to Entry, 47 USC 253
Under the Telecommunications Act, "no state or local statute or regulation, or other state
or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity
to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 USC 253(a). See
attached. If the City were to prohibit all further use of public rights of way by moratorium or
otherwise, it likely would have the effect prohibited by 47 USC 253. However, the City may
"manage the public rights of way ... on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis....."
47 USC 253(c).
Cases interpreting the "safe harbor" of 47 USC 253(c) have concerned the imposition of
fees by local government entities, not the implementation of other management tools like control
over construction and installation activities within a public right of way. However, the FCC has
looked to the legislative history of 47 USC 253(c) and offered its opinion, in the form of dicta, on
the scope of section 253(c):
June 27, 2006
Page 2
The types of restrictions that Congress intended to permit under section 253(c),
including state and local legal requirements that: (1) regulate the time or location
of excavation to preserve effective traffic flow, prevent hazardous road
conditions, or minimize notice impacts; (2) require a company to place its
facilities underground, rather than overhead, consistent with requirements
imposed on other utility companies; (3) require a company to pay fees to recover
an appropriate share of the increased street repair and paving costs that result from
repeated excavation; (4) enforce local zoning regulations; and (5) require a
company to indemnify the City against any claims of injury arising from the
company's excavation. In the Matter of Classic Telephone, Inc., 1996 WL 55431
(FCC 1996).
The City has a colorable argument that it must develop and implement reasonable policies
and management practices for the use of public rights of way for the reasons upon findings that
the City (1) has an obligation to manage the public rights of ways as a trustee for the public; (2)
must protect the health and safety of the public as well as existing property of the public and
other users of the public rights of way; (3) must ensure fair and efficient use of public rights of
way; (4) must respond to increasing demand for use of public rights of way; (5) must provide
appropriate regulations to ensure appropriate construction, occupancy and maintenance of rights
of way to be applied uniformly to ensure the integrity of services that may impact the health,
safety and security of the public.
Regarding economic or franchise regulations, such regulations may be preempted by state
law. (Idaho Code § 62-618 provides that the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1988
"preempt, eliminate, and prohibit any economic, franchise or licensing regulation of telephone
corporations subject to this chapter by cities, counties....")
Tracy Osborn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
qA
Susan E. Buxton [SEB@msbtlaw.com]
Thursday, June 22, 2006 3:43 PM
Tracy Osborn; Nichoel Baird; Bill Vaughan; sguerber@ishs.state.id.us; Nancy
Merrill; Phillip Bandy; S Nordstrom; Sharon Bergmann; S Bastian;
stanbastian@cableone. net
Memo RE Regulation of Pole Attachments
Memo RE
!gulation of Pole Att
Mayor and Council:
In looking at the pole attachment issue, I have concerns about conducting a public hearing on the
moratorium idea on June 27th. As the attached memo indicates, we have some federal and state
preemption issues that question whether the City has any authority to place a moratorium on the
placement of the pole attachments and to what extent we can regulate their placement.
It is my advice with the attached research that the City consider drafting a ordinance regarding
the placement of the pole attachments and maybe we can require a conditional use permit for the
same so we have some control. I do not recommend that we place a moratorium on them as I
believe we may be risking a violation of federal law for such prohibition even if it is of a short
time frame.
Susan
Susan E. Buxton
Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke, Chartered
950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 520
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone: 208/331-1800
Fax: 208/331-1202
seb@msbtlaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual
(s) named as recipients. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure under applicable law including, but not limited to, the attorney client
privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this
transmission, disclose its contents, or take any action in reliance on the information it contains.
This e-mail is not intended for release to opposing parties, opposing counsel or any other third
person or entity. Copies of this e-mail should not be kept in your regular files. If you print a copy
of this e-mail, place it in a separate file labeled "Attorney -Client Privilege". Do not produce a
copy of this e-mail in discovery.
1
Original Message
From: Angela Schumacher
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 2:25 PM
To: Susan E. Buxton
Subject: Memo from Taz RE Regulation of Pole Attachments
c<Memo RE Regulation of Pole Attachments.pdf»
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTut(ED
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
950 WEST BANNOCK, SvrrE 520
Bois$, rD 83702
TELEPHONE (2.08) 331-1800 Fax: (208) 331-1202
MEMORANDUM
TO: SEB
FROM: TAZ 4k�2
CC: SJB
DATE: June 22, 2006
RE: Regulation of Pole Attachments
Question Presented: Can the City of Eagle regulate "pole attachments"?
Short Answer: Arguably, under federal law. If the City desires to proceed, any
regulation or requirement of the City must not "prohibit or have the
effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any
interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 USC 253.
Any such regulations must also comply with 47 USC 224(c).
Second, there is a question whether the Idaho Public Utility
Commission has preempted the regulation of pole attachments by
Idaho § 61-538 or § 62-618.
Telecommunications Act
Removal of Barriers to Entry. 47 USC 253
Under the Telecommunications Act, "no state or local statute or regulation, or other state
or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity
to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 USC 253(a). See
attached. If the City were to outright prohibit the attachment of telecommunication lines by
moratorium or otherwise, it likely would have the effect prohibited by 47 USC 253. (Note —
disputes brought under 47 USC 253 can also include § 1983 and 11 Amendment challenges as
well.)
My research did not locate any "pole attachment" case law related to the regulation of the
placement of lines. The cases I located concerned the imposition of franchise fees by localities or
contract disputes between service providers and pole owners. The cases involving franchise fees
63-12448 Recommended Decision
March 15, 2004
Page 2
discussed and imposed the requirements of 47 USC 253.
Pole Attachments. 47 USC 224
Under the Telecommunications Act, a state or political subdivision thereof may regulate
"rates, terms and conditions" so long as the such regulations comply with 47 USC 224(c) (and 47
USC 253). A state, which definition includes the political subdivisions thereof, must certify to
the FCC that it regulates such rates, terms and conditions; and, has the authority to consider and
does consider the interests of the subscribers of attachments and the consumers of the utility
services. 47 USC 224(c)(2). The state must also issue effective rules and regulations and act
within certain timeframes if a complaint is filed. 47 USC 224(c)(3).
Again, my research located cases relating to pole attachments in the context of franchise
fees and agreements between service providers and pole owners, not the placement of
attachments.
Idaho Law
The FCC has recognized that Idaho has certified that it regulates pole attachments. See
public notice, attached. Idaho Code § 61-538 appears to be Idaho's pole attachment regulation.
(I have not yet located any PUC rules in the IDAPA; although, I would assume the PUC would
have adopted such rules.) I located some PUC decisions from the late 1990s and early 2000s
relating to need for the PUC to adopt a method for determining reasonable rates a utility can
charge a service provider. Based on the information on the PUC website it appears the PUC has
not completed a rulemaking to do so. (The parties to the contested case resulting in the
aforementioned decisions ended up resolving the compensation question between them by
stipulation.)
Even so, that may not necessarily mean the City is precluded from adopting their own
rules for pole attachments. The City of Richland, Washington, for example has adopted its own
pole attachment rules even though WA's PUC has its own rules. I have not had time to review
the sample rules and ordinances I printed from WA and OR but I did give them to SJB to use to
help develop regulations for the City. Additionally, Idaho Code § 50-328 empowers cities to
"permit, authorize, provide for and regulate the erection maintenance and removal of utility
transmission systems...."
That said, Idaho Code § 62-618 provides that the provisions of the Telecommunications
Act of 1988 "preempt, eliminate, and prohibit any economic, franchise or licensing regulation of
telephone corporations subject to this chapter by cities, counties...." The Act applies to
63-12448 Recommended Decision
March 15, 2004
Page 3
telephone corporations that were not certificated as of January 1, 1988, and therefore are exempt
from the PUC provisions of Title 61. Telephone corporations subject to Idaho Code § 61-538
(the pole attachment provision) before July 1, 1988, remain subject to § 61-538.
A telephone corporation is defined as every corporation, etc. providing
telecommunication services for compensation within the state. Idaho Code § 62-603(14).
(Municipal, cooperative and nonprofit telephone companies are not included in the definition for
the purposes of the preemption provision at Idaho Code § 62-618.) However, the definition
further provides that, "unless otherwise provided by statute, telephone corporations providing
radio paging, mobile radio telecommunication services, answering services ... or one-way
transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii) other programming service ... are
exempt from the Act and Title 61." See also Idaho Code § 62-603(13). It is not clear to me
whether the telecommunications services at issue in the City are included or excluded under this
definition.
Attached:: 47 USC 253
47 USC 224
Public Notice RE State Certification
Idaho Code § 61-538
Idaho Code § 50-328
Idaho Code § 62-618
Idaho Code § 62-604
Idaho Code § 62-603
Idaho Code § 62-602
US CODE: Title 47,253. Removal of barriers to entry
Viataila
LII / Legal Information Institute
U.S. Code collection
httpJ/www.law.corneli.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/uscsec 47 000...
TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part II > § 253
§ 253. Removal of barriers to entry
How Current Is This?
(a) In general
No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal
requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of
any entity to provide any interstate or Intrastate telecommunications
service.
(b) State regulatory authority
Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a
competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title,
requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service,
protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of
telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.
(c) State and local government authority
Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local
government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and
reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public
rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation
required is publicly disclosed by such government.
(d) Preemption
If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission
determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed
any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a)
or (b) of this section, the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of
such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to
correct such violation or inconsistency.
(e) Commercial mobile service providers
Nothing in this section shall affect the application of section 332 (c)(3)
of this title to commercial mobile service providers.
(f) Rural markets
Prev 1 Next
Search
this title:
Notes
Updates
Parallel
authorities
(CFR)
Your
comments
1 of 3 6/21/2006 5:30 PM
LII / Legal Information Institute
• home
• search
• sitemap
• donate
U.S. Code collection
• main page
•
• index
• search
vsc JLc
Pc7
TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 224
§ 224. Pole attachments
How Current is This?
(a) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) The term "utility" means any person who is a local exchange carrier or an
electric, gas, water, steam, or other public utility, and who owns or controls poles,
ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way used, in whole or in part, for any wire
communications. Such term does not include any railroad, any person who is
cooperatively organized, or any person owned by the Federal Government or any
State.
(2) The term "Federal Government" means the Government of the United States or
any agency or instrumentality thereof.
(3) The term "State" means any State, territory, or possession of the United States,
the District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof.
(4) The term "pole attachment" means any attachment by a cable television system
or provider of telecommunications service to a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way
owned or controlled by a utility.
(5) For purposes of this section, the term "telecommunications carrier" (as defined
in section 153 of this title) does not include any incumbent local exchange carrier as
Prev
Next
defined in section 2M Q of this title.
(b) Authority of Commission to regulate rates, terms, and conditions;
enforcement powers; promulgation of regulations
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, the Commission shall
regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such
rates, terms, and conditions are just and reasonable, and shall adopt procedures
necessary and appropriate to hear and resolve complaints concerning such rates,
terms, and conditions. For purposes of enforcing any determinations resulting from
complaint procedures established pursuant to this subsection, the Commission shall
take such action as it deems appropriate and necessary, including issuing cease and
desist orders, as authorized by section 312bf of this title.
(2) The Commission shall prescribe by rule regulations to carry out the provisions
of this section.
(c) State regulatory authority over rates, terms, and conditions; preemption;
certification; circumstances constituting State regulation
(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to, or to give the Commission
jurisdiction with respect to rates, terms, and conditions, or access to poles, ducts,
conduits, and rights-of-way as provided in subsection (f) of this section, for pole
attachments in any case where such matters are regulated by a State.
* (2) Each State which regulates the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments
shall certify to the Commission that—
(A)
hat(A) it regulates such rates, terms, and conditions; and
(B) in so regulating such rates, terms, and conditions, the State has the authority to
consider and does consider the interests of the subscribers of the services offered via
such attachments, as well as the interests of the consumers of the utility services.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, a State shall not be considered to regulate the
rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments—
' >(A) unless the State has issued and made effective rules and regulations
implementing the State's regulatory authority over pole attachments; and
(B) with respect to any individual matter, unless the State takes final action on a
complaint regarding such matter—
(i) within 180 days after the complaint is filed with the State, or
(ii) within the applicable period prescribed for such final action in such rules and
regulations of the State, if the prescribed period does not extend beyond 360 days
after the filing of such complaint.
(d) Determination of just and reasonable rates; "usable space" defined
(1) For purposes of subsection (b) of this section, a rate is just and reasonable if it
assures a utility the recovery of not less than the additional costs of providing pole
attachments, nor more than an amount determined by multiplying the percentage of
the total usable space, or the percentage of the total duct or conduit capacity, which
is occupied by the pole attachment by the sum of the operating expenses and actual
capital costs of the utility attributable to the entire pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-
way.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term "usable space" means the space above the
minimum grade level which can be used for the attachment of wires, cables, and
associated equipment.
(3) This subsection shall apply to the rate for any pole attachment used by a cable
television system solely to provide cable service. Until the effective date of the
regulations required under subsection (e) of this section, this subsection shall also
apply to the rate for any pole attachment used by a cable system or any
telecommunications carrier (to the extent such carrier is not a party to a pole
attachment agreement) to provide any telecommunications service.
(e) Regulations governing charges; apportionment of costs of providing space
(1) The Commission shall, no later than 2 years after February 8, 1996, prescribe
regulations in accordance with this subsection to govem the charges for pole
attachments used by telecommunications carriers to provide telecommunications
services, when the parties fail to resolve a dispute over such charges. Such
regulations shall ensure that a utility charges just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory rates for pole attachments.
(2) A utility shall apportion the cost of providing space on a pole, duct, conduit, or
right-of-way other than the usable space among entities so that such apportionment
equals two-thirds of the costs of providing space other than the usable space that
would be allocated to such entity under an equal apportionment of such costs among
all attaching entities.
(3) A utility shall apportion the cost of providing usable space among all entities
according to the percentage of usable space required for each entity.
(4) The regulations required under paragraph (1) shall become effective 5 years
after February 8, 1996. Any increase in the rates for pole attachments that result
from the adoption of the regulations required by this subsection shall be phased in
equal annual increments over a period of 5 years beginning on the effective date of
such regulations.
(f) Nondiscriminatory access
(1) A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications
carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way
owned or controlled by it.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a utility providing electric service may deny a
cable television system or any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts,
conduits, or rights-of-way, on a non-discriminatory W basis where there is
insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable
engineering purposes.
(g) Imputation to costs of pole attachment rate
A utility that engages in the provision of telecommunications services or cable
services shall impute to its costs of providing such services (and charge any
affiliate, subsidiary, or associate company engaged in the provision of such
services) an equal amount to the pole attachment rate for which such company
would be liable under this section.
(h) Modification or alteration of pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way
Whenever the owner of a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way intends to modify or
alter such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way, the owner shall provide written
notification of such action to any entity that has obtained an attachment to such
conduit or right-of-way so that such entity may have a reasonable opportunity to
add to or modify its existing attachment. Any entity that adds to or modifies its
existing attachment after receiving such notification shall bear a proportionate share
of the costs incurred by the owner in making such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-
way accessible.
(i) Costs of rearranging or replacing attachment
An entity that obtains an attachment to a pole, conduit, or right-of-way shall not be
required to bear any of the costs of rearranging or replacing its attachment, if such
rearrangement or replacement is required as a result of an additional attachment or
the modification of an existing attachment sought by any other entity (including the
owner of such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way).
STATES THAT HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THEY REGULATE ... http://www.fcc.gov/eb/mdrd/pacerthtml
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
PUBLIC NOTICE
DA 92-201 •
Released: February 21, 1992
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order
constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
STATES THAT HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THEY REGULATE POLE ATTACHMENTS
Pursuant to Section 1.1414(b) of the Commission's Rules on cable pole attachments, the following states* have
certified that they regulate rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments, and, in so regulating, have the
authority to consider and do consider the interests of subscribers of cable television services, as well as the
interests of the consumers of utility services. Moreover, these states have certified that they have issued and made
effective rules and regulations implementing their regulatory authority over pole attachments, including a specific
methodology for such regulation which has been made publicly available in the state.
Certification by a state preempts the FCC from accepting pole attachment complaints under Subpart J of Part 1 of
the Rules.
Alaska Massachusetts
California . Michigan
Connecticut New Jersey
Delaware New York
District of Columbia Ohio
Idaho Oregon
Illinois Utah
Kentucky Vermont
Louisiana Washington
Maine
* "state' by Section 1.1402(g) of the Rules, means any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the
District of Columbia, or any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
This Public Notice supersedes the Public Notice of December 30, 1987, DA No. 87-1862.
1 of 2 6n1Inn6 l•rl PM
Idaho Statutes
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bininewidst?sctid=610050038.K
Idaho Statutes
4A'kef
TITLE 61
PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION
CHAPTER 5
POWERS AND DUTIES OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
POLE ATTACHMENTS -- REGULATION. As used in this section, the term
"pubtility" includes any person, firm or corporation except a publicly
owned utility which owns or controls poles, ducts, conduits or rights-of-way
used or useful, in whole or in part, for wire communication, and which are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the commission under section 61-129, Idaho
Code.
The term "cable television company" means any individual, firm,
partnership, corporation, company, association, or joint-stock association,
and includes any trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative
thereof, which transmits television signals for distribution to subscribers of
its services for a fee by means of wires or cables connecting its distribution
facilities with the customer's television receiver or the customer's equipment
connecting to the customer's receiver rather than by transmission of the
television signal through the air.
The term "pole attachment" when used in this section means any wire or
cable for the transmission of cable television, and an related device,
apparatus, or auxi71ary equipment, installed upo any pole or in any telegraph
`corporation, tesepnone corporation, electrical corporation or communications
right-of-way, duct, conduit or other similar facilities owned or controlled,
in whole or in part, by one or more public utilities.
The legislature hereby finds that many public utilities have, through a
course of conduct covering many years, made available space on and in their
poles, ducts, conduits, and other support structures for use by the cable
television industry for pole attachment service, and that the provision of
such pole attachment service by such public utilities is and has been a public
utility service.
Whenever a public utility and a cable television company are unable to
agree upon the rates, terms or conditions for pole attachments or the terms,
conditions or cost of production of space needed for pole attachments, then
the commission shall establish and regulate the rates, terms and conditions,
and cost of providing space needed for pole attachments so as to assure a
public utility the recovery of not less than all the additional costs of
providing and maintaining pole attachments nor more than the associated
capital cost and operating expenses of the public utility attributable to that
portion of the pole, duct, or conduit used for the pole attachment including a
share of the required support and clearance space. In determining and fixing
the rates, terms and conditions, the commission shall consider the interest of
the customers of the attaching cable television company, the public utility
upon which the attachment is made as well as the customers of the public
utility. To the extent applicable, the procedures set forth in title 61, Idaho
Code, shall apply under the provisions of this section.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purpose-, noz may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written pera:isaion.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
1 of2
6/21 /2006; .11 PM
Idaho Statutes
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=500030028.K.
Idaho Statutes
TITLE 50
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
CHAPTER 3
POWERS
50-328. UTILITY TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS -- REGULATIONS. All cities shall
have power to permit, authorize, provide for and regulate the erection,
maintenance and removal of utility transmission systems, and the laying and
use of underground conduits or subways for the same in, under, upon or over
the streets, alleys, public parks and public places of said city; and in,
under, over and upon any lands owned or under the control of such city,
whether they may be within or without the city limits.
The Idaho Coda is made mailable on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not bo used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho Iaw, I.C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of
Idaho's copyright.
f
1 of 1 6/21/2006 3:40 PM
Idaho Statutes
Idaho Statutes
http://www3.state. id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=620060018.K
TITLE 62
RAILROADS AND OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITIES
CHAPTER 6
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1988
62-618. PREEMPTION. The provisions of this chapter preempt, eliminate,
and prohibit any economic, franchise or licensing regulation of telephone
corporations subject to this chapter by cities, counties, incorporated or
unincorporated areas, special use districts, or any other local governmental
entity, of any kind.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I. C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of
Idaho's copyright.
Idaho Statutes
Idaho Statutes
http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=620060004.K
TITLE 62
RAILROADS AND OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITIES
CHAPTER 6
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1988
62-604. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER.
(1) (a) Any telephone corporation, except any mutual nonprofit or
cooperative telephone corporation, which did not, on January 1, 1988, hold
a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the commission
and, which does not provide basic local exchange service, shall, on and
after the effective date of this act, be subject to the provisions of this
chapter and shall be exempt from the provisions of title 61, Idaho Code.
(b) All telephone corporations, as set forth in subsection (1)(a) of this
section, shall file a notice with the commission, which notice shall set
forth the following information:
(i) the name of the telephone corporation and the address of its
principal place of business within the state;
(ii) a description of the telecommunication services offered by such
telephone corporation and the area served by it or in which it offers
telecommunication services.
(c) Such notice shall be filed on or before the 1st day of January of
each year following the effective date of this act.
(2) Any telephone corporation holding a certificate of public convenience
and necessity on January 1, 1988, issued by the commission pursuant to title
61, Idaho Code, may, pursuant to section 62-605, Idaho Code:
(a) elect to exclude all, or part of its telecommunication services from
regulation pursuant to title 61, Idaho Code, and such excluded
telecommunication services shall thereafter be subject to the provisions
of this chapter, except for the provisions of section 62-622(1) through
(3), Idaho Code;
(b) notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a telephone
corporation which, pursuant to section 61-538, Idaho Code, was, prior to
the effective date of this chapter, subject to the provisions of such
section, shall continue to be subject to the provisions of section 61-538,
Idaho Code, notwithstanding such telephone corporation is subject to the
provisions of this chapter.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, 1. C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of
Idaho's copyright.
Idaho Statutes http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=620060003.K
Idaho Statutes
TITLE 62
RAILROADS AND OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITIES
CHAPTER 6
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1988
62-603. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter:
(1) "Basic local exchange service" means the provision of access lines to
residential and small business customers with the associated transmission of
two-way interactive switched voice communication within a local exchange
calling area.
(2) "Basic local exchange rate" shall mean the monthly charge imposed by
a telephone corporation for basic local exchange service, but shall not
include any charges resulting from action by a federal agency or taxes or
surcharges imposed by a governmental body which are separately itemized and
billed by a telephone corporation to its customers.
(3) "Chapter" as used herein shall mean chapter 6, title 62, Idaho Code.
(4) "Commission" means the Idaho public utilities commission.
(5) "Facilities based competitor" means a local exchange carrier that
offers basic local exchange service either: (a) exclusively over its own
telecommunications service facilities; or (b) predominantly over its own
facilities in combination with the resale of telecommunications services of
another carrier.
(6) "Incumbent telephone corporation" means a telephone corporation or
its successor which was providing basic local exchange service on or before
February 8, 1996.
(7) "Local exchange calling area" means a geographic area encompassing
one (1) or more local communities as described in maps, tariffs, rate
schedules, price lists, or other descriptive material filed with the
commission by a telephone corporation, within which area basic local exchange
rates rather than message telecommunication service rates apply.
(8) "Message telecommunication service (MTS)" means the transmission of
two-way interactive switched voice communication between local exchange
calling areas for which charges are made on a per-unit basis, not including
wide area telecommunications service (WATS), or its equivalent, or
individually negotiated contracts for telecommunication services.
(9) "Residential customers" shall mean persons to whom telecommunication
services are furnished at a dwelling and which are used for personal or
domestic purposes and not for business, professional or institutional
purposes.
(10) "Rural telephone company" means a local exchange carrier operating
entity to the extent that the entity:
(a) Provides common carrier service to any local exchange carrier study
area that does not include either:
(i) any incorporated place of ten thousand (10,000) inhabitants or
more, or any part thereof, based on the most recently available
population statistics of the bureau of the census; or
(ii) any territory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in an
urbanized area, as defined by the bureau of the census as of August
10, 1993;
(b) Provides telephone exchange service, including exchange access, to
fewer than fifty thousand (50,000) access lines;
(c) Provides telephone exchange service to any local exchange carrier
study area with fewer than one hundred thousand (100,000) access lines; or
(d) Has less than fifteen percent (15%) of its access lines in
communities of more than fifty thousand (50,000) on the date of enactment
of the federal telecommunications act of 1996.
(11) "Small business customers" shall mean a business entity, whether an
individual, partnership, corporation or any other business form, to whom
Idaho Statutes http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=620060003.K
n r n
telecommunication services are furnished for occupational, professional or
institutional purposes, and which business entity does not subscribe to more
than five (5) access lines which are billed to a single billing location.
(12) "Telecommunications act of 1996" means the federal telecommunications
act of 1996, public law no. 104-104 as enacted effective February 8, 1996.
(13) "Telecommunication service" means the transmission of two-way
interactive switched signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, messages, data,
or other information of any nature by wire, radio, lightwaves, or other
electromagnetic means (which includes message telecommunication service and
access service), which originate and terminate in this state, and are offered
to or for the public, or some portion thereof, for compensation. Except as
otherwise provided by statute, "telecommunication service" does not include
the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii)
other programming service, and subscriber interaction, if any, which is
required for the selection of such video programming or other programming
service, surveying, or the provision of radio paging, mobile radio
telecommunication services, answering services (including computerized or
otherwise automated answering or voice message services), and such services
shall not be subject to the provisions of title 61, Idaho Code, or title 62,
Idaho Code.
(14) "Telephone corporation" means every corporation or person, their
lessees, trustees, receivers or trustees appointed by any court whatsoever,
providing telecommunication services for compensation within this state,
provided that municipal, cooperative, or mutual nonprofit telephone companies
shall be included in this definition only for the purposes of sections 62-610
and 62-617 through 62-620, Idaho Code. Except as otherwise provided by
statute, telephone corporations providing radio paging, mobile radio
telecommunications services, answering services (including computerized or
otherwise automated answering or voice message services), or one-way
transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii) other
programming service, and subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for
the selection of such video programming or other programming service or
surveying are exempt from any requirement of this chapter or title 61, Idaho
Code, in the provision of such services; provided, that the providers of these
exempted services shall have the benefits given them under section 62-608,
Idaho Code.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I.C. § 9-350.
According to Idaho law, any person who reproduces or distributes the Idaho Code for commercial
purposes in violation of the provisions of this statute shall be deemed to be an infringer of the state of
Idaho's copyright.
/IAA/Ann/♦ •n 14.1f
Idaho Statutes http://www3.state_id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=620060002.K
Idaho Statutes
TITLE 62
RAILROADS AND OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITIES
CHAPTER 6
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1988
62-602. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. (1) The legislature of the state of Idaho
hereby finds that universally available telecommunications services are
essential to the health, welfare and economic well-being of the citizens of
the state of Idaho and there is a need for establishing legislation to protect
and maintain high-quality universal telecommunications at just and reasonable
rates for all classes of customers and to encourage innovation within the
industry by a balanced program of regulation and competition.
(2) It is the intent of this legislature that effective competition
throughout a local exchange calling area will involve a significant number of
customers having both service provider and service option choices and that
actual competition means more than the mere presence of a competitor. Instead,
for there to be actual and effective competition there needs to be
substantive and meaningful competition throughout the incumbent telephone
corporation's local exchange calling area.
(3) It is the further intent of the legislature that the commission, in
its deliberation of deregulation of the incumbent telephone corporations, will
examine the impact such deregulation will have on the public interest in
accordance with the general grant of authority given to the commission by the
legislature and that all parties be allowed to comment thereon in such
proceeding.
(4) The legislature further finds that the telecommunications industry is
in a state of transition from a regulated public utility industry to a
competitive industry. The legislature encourages the development of open
competition in the telecommunications industry in accordance with provisions
of Idaho law and consistent with the federal telecommunications act of 1996.
(5) The commission shall administer these statutes with respect to
telecommunication rates and services in accordance with these policies and
applicable federal law.
(6) The legislature further finds that it is consistent with the public
interest, convenience and necessity that the obligation of certain rural
telephone companies to comply with the requirements of section 251(c) of the
telecommunications act of 1996 should be suspended upon petition of the
affected telephone company, based upon the following legislative findings that
the suspension is necessary:
(a) To avoid a significant economic impact on users of telecommunications
services generally in areas served by the rural telephone companies;
(b) To avoid imposing requirements that are unduly economically
burdensome; or
(c) To avoid imposing requirements which are technically infeasible.
The Idaho Code is made available on the Internet by the Idaho Legislature as a public service.
This Internet version of the Idaho Code may not be used for commercial purposes, nor may this
database be published or repackaged for commercial sale without express written permission.
Search the Idaho Statutes
Available Reference: Search Instructions.
The Idaho Code is the property of the state of Idaho, and is copyrighted by Idaho law, I. C. 5S 9-350.