The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - 2006 - City Council - 09/12/2006 - Regular EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Minutes September 12, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Merrill calls the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Mayor: I will call the regular City Council meeting to order at this time as I need to amend the agenda and add an Executive Session for the discussion on pending or threatened litigation. 2. ROLL CALL: BASTIAN, GUERBER, NORDSTROM, BANDY. All present. A quorum is present. Guerber moves to go into Executive Session for discussion on pending and threatened litigation and personnel. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................. .. Council goes into Executive Session at 6:38 p.m. Council discusses pending and threatened litigation and personnel. Council leaves Executive Session at 7:30 p.m. Pre-Council Reports: A. Eagle Police Department: Presentation for Outstanding Volunteer Service Award to Bob Egan. Bob Egan is out of town this has been continued to an October meeting. B. Arts Commission Report: Continued to another City Council meeting. C. Mayor and Council's Report: Moved to end of Agenda D. City Engineer Report: Moved to end of Agenda E. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: Moved to end of Agenda F. Zoning Administrator's Report: Moved to end of Agenda G. City Attorney Report: Moved to end of Agenda Guerber moves to move Pre-Council Reports to the end of the Agenda. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................... 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Terri Bath and Jason Pierce, Eagle Chamber of Commerce, reports on the Feasibility Committee on the committees' scope of work. General discussion. Discussion on Proposition 2. 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 City Council. . 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. Page 1 K\COUNCIUt\HNUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-09-12-06mindoc B. Findines of Fact and Conclusions of Law for RZ-08-05 MOD - Modification to the Development Aereement associated with the Rezone from RUT to PS- DA - Ea~le Sewer District: The Eagle Sewer District, represented by Lynn Moser, is requesting a modification to the development agreement associated with the rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to PS-DA Public/Semipublic. The modification is a request for a one year extension of time for the completion of a portion of the required landscaping as noted in condition 2.7. The 53.2-acre site is located on the south side of the State Highway 44 approximately 200 feet west of Ballantyne Road at 1993 West State Street. (WEV) C. Findines of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-04-05 MOD - Conditional Use Permit Modification - Eaele Sewer District: The Eagle Sewer District, represented by Lynn Moser, is requesting a modification to the conditional use permit previously approved for a wastewater treatment facility for the 53.2-acre site located on the south side of the State Highway 44 approximately 200 feet west of Ballantyne Road at 1993 West State Street. (WEV) D. Findines of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-IO-06/RZ-12-06/CU-04- 06/PPUD-02-06/PP-12-06 - Eaelefield Estates II Planned Unit Development - EaeIefieId. LLC.: Eaglefield, LLC, represented by Clint Boyle, AICP with Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc., is requesting an annexation and rezone from RR (Residential Rural-Ada County designation) to R-4-DA-P (Residential up to four units per acre with a development agreement and PUD), and MU-DA-P (Mixed Use with a Development Agreement and PUD), conditional use, preliminary development plan and preliminary plat approvals for Eaglefield Estates II Subdivision planned unit development. The 11.5-acre, 34- lot (19-single family, 5-four-plex, and 10-common) residential subdivision is located on the west side of North Linder Road approximately 400-feet north of State Highway 44 at 34 I and 499 North Linder Road. (WEV) E. Minutes of June 20, 2006 budget workshop. F. Minutes of June 20, 2006 regular meeting. G. Minutes of June 27, 2006 budget workshop & regular meeting. H. Minutes of July 11, 2006 budget workshop. I. Minutes of July II, 2006 regular meeting. J. Minutes of July 18, 2006 budget workshop & regular meeting. K. Minutes of July 25, 2006 budget workshop & regular meeting. L. Minutes of August 8, 2006 budget workshop meeting. M. Minutes of August 8, 2006 regular agenda N. Minutes of August 22, 2006 budget public hearing. O. Minutes of August 22,2006 regular meeting. P. Minutes of August 23,2006 special joint meeting. Q. DR-72-06 - Master Sien Plan for Bosanka ViIIaee - Mark Guho: Mark Guho, represented by Roger Huber with Young Electric Signs, LLC, is requesting design review approval of a master sign plan for Bosanka Village. The site is located on the south side of West State Street approximately 230-feet west of Harlan Lane at 391 West State Street. (WEV) R. DR-75-06 - MuIti- Tenant Medical Office and Professional Office Buildin~ - Cobblestone Properties. LLC: Cobblestone Properties, LLC, represented by Russ Philips with Insight Architects, is requesting design review approval of a 32,744-square foot multi-tenant medical office and professional office building. Page 2 K\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-09-12-06min.doc The 2.2-acre site is located on the northwest corner of North Story Book Way and West State Street at 450 West State Street. (WEV) S. DR-77-06 - Common Area Landscapinl!: within Kathleen Estates - Capital Development & Tom Ricks: Capital Development and Tom Ricks, represented by David Koga with The Land Group, Inc, are requesting design review approval of the common area landscaping within Kathleen Estates. The site is located on the west side of North Park Lane approximately 1,320-feet north of West State Street at 325 North Park Lane. (WEV) T. DR-78-06 - Monument Sien for Kathleen Estates - Capital Development & Tom Ricks: Capital Development and Tom Ricks, represented by David Koga with The Land Group, Inc, are requesting design review approval to construct one monument sign for Kathleen Estates. The site is located on the west side of North Park Lane approximately 1,320-feet north of West State Street at 325 North Park Lane. (WEV) U. Resolution NO. 06-43: A Resolution Providing For The Adoption Of The Ada County All Hazards Mitigation Plan, Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan, Ada County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Hazmat Response Plan, Ada County Terrorism Response Plan, And Ada County Wildfire Response Plan. (NM) V. Resolution No. 06-44: Authorizing the Archiving of Public Records: (SKB) W. Resolution No. 06-45: Authorizing the Destruction of Semi-Permanent Public Records. (SKB) Bastian moves to add Items #6A, Band C to the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES....................... Bandy moves to remove Item #6F from the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES........................... 6F. Minutes of June 20. 2006 reeuIar meetinl!:. Bandy: We have two copies of the Minutes of June 20, 2006 regular meeting in our packet and we do not have a copy of the June 20, 2006 budget workshop minutes. Bandy moves to add the minutes of June 20, 2006 budget workshop to the September 19, 2006 City Council meeting. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............. ... Bastian moves to approve the Consent Agenda with the addition of Items #6A, B, C and the removal ofItem #F. Seconded by Guerber. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................. 6. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS: A. Resolution NO. 06-43: A Resolution Providing For The Adoption Of The Ada County All Hazards Mitigation Plan, Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan, Ada County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Hazmat Response Plan, Ada County Terrorism Response Plan, And Ada County Wildfire Response Plan. (NM) Added to the Consent Agenda by Motion. B. Resolution No. 06-44: Authorizing the Archiving of Public Records: (SKB) Added to the Consent Agenda by Motion. C. Resolution No. 06-45: Authorizing the Destruction of Semi-Permanent Public Records. (SKB) Page 3 K:\COUNCIL\/vllr-iUTES\Temporar)' Minute, \\lork Area\CC-09-12-06min doc Added to the Consent Agenda by Motion. 7. FINAL PLATS: None 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. PPUD-OI-06/CU-02-06/PP-08-06 - Eudora Estates (a.k.a. Alderwood No.2) Planned Unit Development - RTB Investments. LLC: RTB Investments, LLC, represented by Wendy Kirkpatrick with Landmark Engineering and Planning, is requesting conditional use, preliminary development plan and preliminary plat approvals for Eudora Estates (a.k.a. Alderwood No.2) Planned Unit Development, a 2l-lot (16-buildable, 5-common) residential planned unit development. The 4.7-acre site is located approximately 430-feet west of South Grandean Way at 947 West State Street. (WEV) This item was continued/rom the August 22,2006 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. Applicant as requested that this be continued. Bastian moves to continue PPUD-OI-06/CU-02-06/PP-08-06 - Eudora Estates (a.k.a. Alderwood No.2) Planned Unit Development to the September 19, 2006 City Council meeting. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES........................ 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PP/FP-OI-06 - Combined Preliminarv & Final Plat for Golf Pond Subdivision - Troy Cooper: Troy Cooper is requesting combined preliminary plat and final plat approval for Golf Pond Subdivision, a 2 lot residential subdivision. The 0.50-acre site is located at 600 North Edgewood Lane at the intersection of North Eagle Hills Way and North Edgewood Lane. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Mayor swears in Troy Cooper. Troy Cooper, applicant, provides Council an overview of the project. General discussion. Planner Williams, displays overheads and provides Council an overview of the project. General discussion. Mayor opens the Public Hearing. Mayor swears in Alma Marvin. Alma Marvin, 772 N. Edgewood, we are neighbors and we are concerned about maintaining the neighborhood. The property to the north has sold and they will want to use this 20' easement also. This isn't a street it is a very narrow drive way. Mayor swears in Chuck Liehe. Chuck Liehe, 602 N. Edgewood Lane, I do oppose this two house request. We would like to see a nice one home built there. If you do approve this request by Troy, I would request that this be paved and the fencing be provided by the developer. General discussion. Mayor swears in Kent Nyguard. Kent Nyguard, 820 N. Edgewood Lane, I am wondering about emergency vehicles having access. I agree with the other people. Troy Cooper, applicant, I measured the existing easement and it is 14'. It is my intention to expand that easement out to 20' and I would use the by-laws to address this as a no parking zone. There is no subdivision for this existing property so I am not changing a subdivision. Page 4 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary t-.finules Work Area\CC -09-12-06min.doc Mayor closes the Public Hearing. General Council discussion. Nordstrom moves to deny PP/FP-OI-06 - Combined Preliminary & Final Plat for Golf Pond Subdivision per staff and Planning and Zoning recommendations. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................... B. A-6-06/RZ-6-06 & PP-6-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-3-DA and Preliminarv Plat for Grav EaeIe Subdivision - John Wood and Tom Ricks: John Wood and Tom Ricks are requesting annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition) to R-3-DA (Residential three units per acre maximum with a development agreement), and preliminary plat approval for Gray Eagle Subdivision, a 47-lot (4 I-residential, 4-common) residential subdivision. The 13.88-acre site is located approximately \I.,-mile east of Park Lane, on the south side ofW. Floating Feather Road at 3377 and 3395 W. Floating Feather Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Bastian moves to remand A-6-06/RZ-6-06 & PP-6-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-3-DA and Preliminary Plat for Gray Eagle Subdivision back to staff for them to take action based upon the applicant's request. Seconded by Guerber. ALL A YES: MOTION CARRIES........... . C. RZ-15-06 - Rezone from R-4 to CBD-DA - Ideal Group. LLC.: Ideal Group, LLC, represented by Jim Meyer, is requesting approval of a rezone from R-4 (Residential four) to CBD-DA (Central Business District with development agreement). The 0.45-acre site is located on the west side of North Eagle Road approximately 500-feet north of State Highway 44 at 265 North Eagle Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Zoning Administrator: This application needs to be continued to the October 10, 2006 City Council meeting. The signs were removed from the property and the applicant needs to post the required signs. Bastian moves to continue RZ-15-06 - Rezone from R-4 to CBD-DA to the October 10,2006 City Council meeting. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................. D. A-13-06/RZ-16-06 & PP-14-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-I-DA and Preliminarv Plat for Svlvan Wood Subdivision - SvIvan Wood I. LLC.: Sylvan Wood I, LLC, represented by Phil Hull with The Land Group, Inc., is requesting an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transitional) to R-l-DA (Residential one unit per acre with a development agreement) and preliminary plat approval for Sylvan Wood Subdivision, a 31-lot (24-residential, 7-common) residential subdivision. The 25.4l-acre site is located on the southwest corner of Ballantyne Lane and Floating Feather Road at 843N. Ballantyne Lane. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Zoning Administrator: 1 would request that this item be continued to the September 26, 2006 so I can have time to contact the applicant. Page 5 K:\(OU:-JClVMINUTES\Temporary Minutes "!ark Area\CC -09-12-06min doc Bandy moves to continue A-13-06/RZ-16-06 & PP-14-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R-I-DA and Preliminary Plat for Sylvan Wood Subdivision to the September 26, 2006 City Council meeting. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.............. . 10. NEW BUSINESS: A. Ordinance No. 551: 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 #551 be considered after being read once by title only. Guerber reads Ordinance #551 by title only. Seconded by Nordstrom. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.............. ... Guerber moves that Ordinance # 551 be adopted. Seconded by Nordstrom. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES................................ ... B. Ordinance No. 554: 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. Bastian 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 #554 be considered after being read once by title only. Bastian reads Ordinance #554 by title only. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................. Bastian moves that Ordinance # 554 be adopted. Seconded by Bandy. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES................................ ... C. Ordinance No. 555: 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. Page 6 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary 1\1inules Work Area\CC-09-12-06min doc Bandy 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 #555 be considered after being read once by title only. Bandy reads Ordinance #555 by title only. Seconded by Bastian. ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES................. Bandy moves that Ordinance # 555 be adopted. Seconded by Bastian. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES................................ ... D. Ordinance No. 557: An Ordinance Of The City Of Eagle, Idaho, A Municipal Corporation Of The State Of Idaho, Amending Title 1, Chapter 6, Section I Of The Eagle City Code Granting The Code Enforcement Officer Criminal Citation Issuing Authority After Being Duly Sworn By The Mayor; 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 #557 be considered after being read once by title only as amended that being the City of Eagle, Idaho being substituted instead of Middleton, Idaho. Guerber reads Ordinance #557 by title only. Seconded by Nordstrom. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................. General discussion. Guerber moves that Ordinance # 557 be adopted. Seconded by Nordstrom. Bastian: AYE; Guerber: AYE; Nordstrom: AYE; Bandy: AYE: ALL AYE: MOTION CARRIES.......... .. E. Discussion of Memorandum of Annexation from Robert Freilich: (SJB) Mayor introduces the issue. Next Thursday is the meeting for the Good Growth and they want a decision from the Cities. We need to make a decision as how we want to deal with the Blueprint for Good Growth at the Thursday meeting. The cities of Meridian, Kuna and Star are refusing to pay the payment for the next phase. Discussion on the letter from David Turnbull, President of the Brighton Corporation. General discussion. City Attorney Buxton: Discusses the Statutory Analysis provided by her firm. Discussion on annexation outside the area of impact. Discussion on the memo received yesterday from Mr. Freililch. General discussion. General Council discussion. Mayor calls a recess at 8:55 p.m. Mayor reconvenes the meeting at 9:00 p.m. F. Discussion of AATronics (NM) Mayor introduces the issue. Mayor discusses the City Council Chambers being built to use as a community hall. Discussion on moving the equipment and the staff table and dais. General discussion. G. Review of Contract for Arts Commission Saturdav Market - Last Thursdav: (NM) Mayor introduces the issue. I would like to continue this to next week. Page 7 K:\COU~CIl\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes \\lork Area\(,C-09-] 2-06min doc Bastian moves to continue Item lOG to the September 19,2006 City Council meeting. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................... H. Chaumont Owners Association Hill Road Property: Mayor introduces the issue. General discussion. City Attorney: Just to remind you that when the City leases private property the City will pay the taxes on the property. General discussion. Further discussion. Nordstrom moves to direct Legal Council to meet with representative from the Chaumont Owner's Association to sort out the details and create the proper document to lease the property in accordance with the letter from the Chaumont Owner's Association. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...................... I. Cooperative Aereement for Landscapine and Street Improvements Hill Road Extension. Horseshoe Bend Road/State Street. Ada County Hiehwav District Proiect No. 505030: Mayor introduces the issue. City Attorney Buxton: Discusses the Cooperative Agreement. The design will happen first which will cost $77,000. General discussion. Council discussion on the City being able to pay the $577,000 obligation for the construction that would start in 2009. The Design would cost $77,000 which is set aside in the next fiscal year's budget. Bastian moves to continue Item 101 to the September 19,2006 City Council meeting. Seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................. Pre-Council Reports: City Engineer Report: We have started on the project with the water system that is being funded by the DEQ Loan. We are under a time frame; we want to have this project online in 12 months. We are working on establishing the controls. The geo tech company will be doing the drilling in a couple of weeks. We are pursuing this as rapidly as we can. I will be reporting on this each month, probably in a written form. We had a meeting with Legacy and Eaglefield to review all of the aspects of where we were on our analysis and our costs. We have sent that out today. General discussion. Brookwood well is all approved and we are waiting for the well driller to get on the site. We will have some testing. General discussion. Discussion on constructing the water line on the Chase Property. General discussion. We have a scheduled date on the water rights hearings. General discussion. Discussion on the review process for Legacy. City Attorney Report: Distributes a copy of a draft letter to the Ada County Board of Commissioners in regards to the Area of Impact between the City of Eagle and the City of Meridian. Discussion on changes the Mayor and Council wants. General discussion. City Attorney will make the changes to the letter as discussed tonight. Page 8 K\rOLTNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\C[ -09-12-06min doc Zoning Administrator's Report: Distributes copies of a letter received September 12, 2006 from Fred Shoemaker in regards to Ringo Ridge Subdivision Agreement. Discussion 011 the Letter of Credit. I am working on cashing the Letter of Credit and we are going out to a Request for Proposal to get a contractor to finish the work. General discussion. Discussion on the new Planner that will start working on September 18, 2006. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: No Report Mayor and Council's Report: Nordstrom: Reports on a discussion with Eagle Sewer District on their planning and coordination on the Foothills. General discussion. Guerber: Friday I have a meeting with the Association of Counties in regards to the Fire Department and annexation. General discussion. Discussion on the new sculpture received for the Library that is on display in the lobby. There are other sculptures in this series that would be nice to have around the City. General discussion. Mayor plays a DVD prepared to be presented to the Governor on State Committees' recommendations for the improvements to Eagle Island State Park. General discussion. Discussion on the Cultural Arts Center and the location next to Eagle Island State Park. I have been working with a Dr. Charles Howarth on a site for a YMCA. We have identified a location and I think he will donate the site for us but we will need an appraisal of the property. would like to pay for the appraisal. General discussion. This will be put on the City Council Agenda for September 19, 2006. Discussion on Urban Renewal. Discussion on the repair to the Skateboard Park. General discussion. Discussion on Flood Water Task Force. General discussion. We meet with Garden City tomorrow on the cooperative agreement on building inspections. General discussion. Bastian: Dana has an opportunity provide by the Sheriff to be a Lieutenant over the traffic control of the County. We would lose him as our Captain. We are recommending that he be appointed a Captain for the City of Eagle and we would not lose him. General discussion. The City would need to amend their contract to provide for the additional salary. Reports on the Library. The Friends are working with the Children's Librarian and are updating the children's area of the Library. The Library is doing their migration. Discussion on the Senior Center Book Collection that is provided by the Library. The Library is also going to put together a collection for Eagle Manor and possibly the Sister's Villa in the future. Bandy: Discussion on the Economic Development Committee. Discussion annexation legislation. Nordstrom: The Senior Center remodeling is finished. General discussion. Bastian: I met with the representation of the Idaho School Board Association and discussed possible legislation in regards to the growing pains of the school district. General discussion. Page 9 K\COUNClLl!\lINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CT-09-12-06mindoc I ]. ADJOURNMENT: Nordstrom moves to adjourn. Seconded by Bandy. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: G-A1~~~ER~A~~ CITY CLERK/TREASURER ",......... .... ......, \TY 0 .... .l ...C .......!' ~ .... .... '0-' / .... .. CORPo '.'0 ". .. I 'I' ..... :. ~ ~\. '; .. : ... .....trl. : fI) i a ., en: : .. -' I). y'l'> .. . ~ ~~ c:. .. \"72. ~ ~.( ,..... i .. ~~ it,. \.~ .. ~~ O/<'IDA'/.O 10",.." ...........' Page 10 K:\COUNCIL\JI..fINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-Q9-12-06mindoc September 12, 2006 TO: Eagle City Council Cc 9- i2 -o( RECEIVED & FILED Ernie & Reva Clarke CITY OF EAGLE 624 N. Cove Colony Way Eagle, ID 8366 SE ) 2 2006 (208) 938-3634 File: Rout° to. We are Eagle residents of The Colony, an existing subdivision adjacent to the proposed Gray Eagle Subdivision. We would like to formally protest the Gray Ealgle Subdivision as currently proposed by developers. We took great care before selecting our home site in 2000. We perused developments in the entire Treasure Valley and were drawn to Eagle because of its somewhat rural feel that we understood the zoning—one acre lots not only in our own subdivision but planned for the area surrounding our development --would preserve. The fact that Eagle had a Comprehensive Plan and seemed committed to controlled quality growth greatly appealed to us. We were, subsequently in 2000, one of the first homes built and occupied in the first of the two phases of The Colony. Redwood Creek, the subdivision immediately to the east of The Colony, had been very proactive in determining the size and configuration of Phase I of the Colony's lots and, later, became very proactive in "insulating" their development yet again when Countryside was proposed to the east of them. The result: Though the lots in Countryside next to Ballantyne are not an acre, the lots abutting Redwood Creek are. This seemed like a reasonable compromise to us. Redwood Creek homeowners continue to enjoy the openness they sought as well as the protection of their home values because the City, obviously, listened to both developer and existing residents. The Comprehensive Plan revised in 2004 now reflects the Countryside model for both the east side of Redwood Creek and the west side of The Colony. We would appreciate similar consideration (as Redwood Creek re: Countryside) for our desire to maintain the "quality" of life and "need" to protect our home value (my husband is disabled, two of our neighbors immediately adjacent to vacant land west of The Colony are retired—our homes represent our primary investment). We do ask that the Council not only honor our intentions when we chose/"bought into" the Eagle setting/plan but also the implicit commitment made as recently as 2004 to us in the Comprehensive Plan to preserve the acre Ernie & Reva Clarke 624 N. Cove Colony Way Eagle, ID 8366 (208) 938-3634 size lot "insulation" barrier between the two subdivisions, The Colony & Grav Eaale. We also request that, despite greater profits possibly for the developer if allowed to build on smaller lots, the City maintain the stand on a maximum of 3 homes per acre throughout the rest of the development.. We also understand there is no provision in the Gray Eagle developer's plan to channel traffic out of that proposed development—there is no proposed "collector road" for that development. This poses, potentially, another threat to our quality of life and our investment if a corridor is created immediately to the west of The Colony. Why would the approval of any subdivision not include provision for ingress/egress from it? We, again, ask that the Council consider the implicit contract with existing homeowners in the Comprehensive Plan as a basis for evaluating all aspects of new development proposals. Please require that the Grav Eagle developers identify a subdivision "collector road" and insure that it is not on the west side of the Colony. We would like, as well, to weigh in on the developer's desire for "mixed use" designation for the subdivision. Again, we carefully reviewed our options before buying "rural" in Eagle. Traffic generated through our own development to accommodate "mixed use" activities adjacent to us takes away from the serenity of our lifestyle and, potentially, compromises our investment. Eagle definitely benefits from having selected services/facilities available but we also already have available space in designated areas within short distances (e.g. in town, Tess than 2 to 3 miles!) in which most services/facilities could reasonably be constructed for the benefit of all. The most important piece of keeping such services/facilities easily accessible to everyone is to plan for good walking/biking corridors approaching, on the perimeters of and within developments, and creating access points to public transportation on primary corridors rather than by violating our neighborhoods. Please also say NO to a carte blanche "mixed use" designation for this development and review carefully other locations for actual proposed mixed use projects. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Ernie & Reva Clarke Cc °a(* CITY OFGLE BUILDING- DEPARTMENT UILDIN� DEPARTMENT Memo To: Mayor, City Council From: Michael Mongelli CC: File Date: 9/11/2006 Re: ElectricaU Plumbing Inspectors The City has interviewed the top candidates for the positions of Electrical and Plumbing Inspector. The top candidates are the electrical and plumbing inspectors working currently for the Idaho Department of Building Safety. Both persons have expressed strong interest in joining the City of Eagle's team. Both are well qualified with over 12 years of experience performing inspections of their respective trades. Both have also taught classes at Boise State University in the apprenticeship programs in the plumbing and electrical trades. The City is in the final stages of reviewing these applicants. Dan Wiebold Ford was awarded the State contract for trucks and has been contacted to present the City with proposals for two pick-up trucks. On Wednesday Sept. 13, the City attorneys, Mayors and I will meet with Garden City to discuss the scope of work regarding building inspections. • Page 1 K:1Building Dept\Base Docs\Memo 9 12 2006.doc Cc 9-1-2--&° INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Mayor Merrill & City Council Members Bill Verschuren, Planner II 1 Urban Renewal Agency Update September 12, 2006 Idaho Statutes Tile 50, Chapter 20 (50-2005 and 50-2006) City Attorney and Zoning Administrator On August 8, 2006, Ryan Armbruster presented the planning process and associated activities to set up an Urban Renewal Agency for the City of Eagle. After the presentation and further discussion by the Council, the Council directed Susan Buxton, City Attorney, to proceed with a professional services contract with Mr. Armbruster to create an Urban Renewal Agency. On August 22, 2006, Susan Buxton presented the details of the professional services contracts with Harlan Mann and Ryan Armbruster to fund the creation of an Urban Renewal Agency for the City of Eagle. The Council voted 4-0 to authorize Mayor Merrill to sign the two agreements with additional language saying "such services shall not exceed $15,000". According to Idaho Statutes 50-2005 (see attachment), the next step in the process is to adopt a resolution finding the following: • that one or more deteriorated or deteriorating areas exist within the city boundaries • the rehabilitation, conservation, redevelopment or combination thereof, of such an area or areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents with Eagle • there is a need for an Urban Renewal Agency As of today, Harlan Mann is in the process of defining two separate deteriorated areas in Eagle and putting together a report addressing how the redevelopment of these areas benefits the public interest. Therefore, showing the need for an Urban Renewal Agency. Harlan has indicated that the two defined areas and report should be completed within the next two or three weeks. At that time, Staff will present a resolution to the Council for review and possible adoption. After the resolution has been adopted by the Council, the Mayor with the advice of the Council can appoint a board of commissioners of the Urban Renewal Agency according to Idaho Statutes 50-2005 (see attachment). The board shall consist of not less that three (3) and not more than nine (9) commissioners. The appointments shall be made in the same manner as the Council appoints Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Design Review Board Members, and any other City appointed boards. Page 1 of 1 C:%Documents and Settingslbverschuren\DesktoplUrban Renewal Agency meml doc Idaho Statutes Idaho Statutes TITLE 50 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS CHAPTER 20 URBAN RENEWAL LAW 50-2005. FINDING OF NECESSITY BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY. No urban renewal agency and no municipality shall exercise the authority hereafter conferred by this act until after the local governing body shall have adopted a resolution finding that: (1)' one or more deteriorated or deteriorating areas as defined in this act exist in such municipality; (2) the rehabilitation, conservation, redevelopment, or a combination thereof, of such area or areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or welfare of the residents of such municipality; and (3) there is need for an urban renewal agency to function in the municipality. 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. httn•//urw rl state id inc/rni-hin/newidst?cctid=500200005_K 10/25/2005 Idaho Statutes Idaho Statutes TITLE 50 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS CHAPTER 20 URBAN RENEWAL LAW 50-2006. URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. (a) There is hereby created in each municipality an independent public body corporate and politic to be known as the "urban renewal agency" for the municipality; provided, that such agency shall not transact any business or exercise its powers hereunder until or unless the local governing body has made the findings prescribed in section 50-2005, Idaho Code. (b) Upon the local governing body making such findings, the urban renewal agency is authorized to transact the business and exercise the powers hereunder by a board of commissioners to be appointed or designated as follows: (1) The mayor, by and with the advice and consent of the local governing body, shall appoint a board of commissioners of the urban renewal agency which shall consist of not less than three (3) commissioners nor more than nine (9) commissioners. In the order of appointment, the mayor shall designate the number of commissioners to be appointed, and the term of each, provided that the original term of office of no more than two (2) commissioners shall expire in the same year. The commissioners shall serve for terms not to exceed five (5) years, from the date of appointment, except that all vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term. For inefficiency or neglect of duty or misconduct in office, a commissioner may be removed only after a hearing and after he shall have been given a copy of the charges at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings and have had an opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel. (2) By enactment of an ordinance, the local governing body may appoint and designate itself to be the board of commissioners of the urban renewal agency, in which case all the rights, powers, duties, privileges and immunities vested by the urban renewal law of 1965, and as amended, in an appointed board of commissioners, shall be vested in the local governing body, who shall, in all respects when acting as an urban renewal agency, be acting as an arm of state government, entirely separate and distinct from the municipality, to achieve, perform and accomplish the public purposes prescribed and provided by said urban renewal law of 1965, and as amended. (3) By enactment of an ordinance, the local governing body may terminate the appointed board of commissioners and thereby appoint and designate itself as the board of commissioners of the urban renewal agency. (c) A commissioner shall receive no compensation for his services but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including traveling expenses, incurred in the discharge of his duties. Each commissioner shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and has qualified. A certificate of the appointment or reappointment of any commissioner shall be filed with the clerk of the municipality and such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the due and proper appointment of such commissioner. The powers of an urban renewal agency shall be exercised by the commissioners thereof. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting business and exercising the powers of the agency and for all other purposes. Action may be taken by the agency upon a vote of a majority of the commissioners present, unless in any case the bylaws shall require a larger number. The mayor may appoint a chairman, a cochairman, or a vice chairman for a term of office of one (1) year from among the commissioners, thereafter the httn•//wwwi ctatP id ncirni-hin/newicict9sr•.tir1=5(1070(1006 TC 1(1/75/7005 Ir111/12/2O06 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 4::4 111.01. M IS ®■a�■ MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK cc act 001 CITY G Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke, CharterecISEP I 950 W. Bannock, Suite 520 Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 331-1800 Fax: (208) 331-1202 Route M' FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE: 9/12/06 Recipient's Fax: (208) 939-6827 TO: Susan E. Buxton Client: 1019 RE: Mitchell Letter ROM: Angela T. Schumacher NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: 18 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Original will not be sent Original will be sent by first class mail Original will be sent by federal express ********************IMPORTANTMESSAGE ************* * * * * * THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE TS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF TECE INDIVIDUAL NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO TRE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY VS BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. 09/12/2006 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 0002 RECENED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHAT E� "'" ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Route t^, 950 W. BANNOC'K STRIEEr, SurrE 520 BOISE, ID 83702 TELEPHONE: (208) 331-1800 FAX: (208) 331-1202 STEPIIANHW J. Bow ey jouro. MCFADDEN': SUSAN E. BUXTON' ' Of Cowl el PAUL J. Ftrtzzt MICHAEL C Mooser . Also admitted in California BRUCE M. SMrru ' Also admitted in New Mexico PAUL A. TunCxs' • Also adhiftted in Oregon CARL]. W&TRADE•` o Also admitted in South Dakota TAmme A. ZouAN• 1Also admitted in Washington September 12, 2006 Via Facsimile (208) 286-7569 Nate Mitchell Mayor City of Star P.O. Box 130 Star, ID 83669 Re: Blueprint for Good Growth — Memos from Mr. Freilich Alleging Cities cannot Annex Outside the City Limits Dear Nate: • • • I am forwarding to you a memo that the City of Eagle asked us to write in response to the Paul Hastings firm (Robert Freilich) July 27, 2006 memo alleging that cities cannot annex outside its area of impact 1 have attached the two memos from the Paul Hastings firm, our August 17, 2006 memo disputing his interpretation of Idaho law and some emails from Mayor Merrill expressing her disagreement with Mr. Freilich. A September 7, 2006 l'etter from Brighton Corporation to Mayor Merrill is also included for your information regarding that entity's frustration with the process. I plan to attend the Blue Print for Good Growth meeting on Thursday to discuss our firm's interpretation of the law (other Idaho city Attorneys and AIC agree with us). I wanted you to have all of these documents as I believe Mr. Freilich's assertions to be against the City of Star's interests as well as the interests of all cities and landowners in the State_ Please do not hesitate to call me if you would like to discuss this matter. 09/12/2006 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 Nate Mitchell September 12, 2006 Page 2 SEB/clb Enclosures cc: Mayor Nancy Merrill MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 0003 Sincerely, MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED Susan E. Buxton 09/12/2006 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK Maul Hastings MEMORANDUM date: to: rom: subject: file no.: Paul, Hastings, Jenoisky & Walker up 515 South Flower Street • 25tf1 Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 telephone 213 683 6000 • facsimile 213 627 0705 • www.paulhastings.com September 8, 2006 Blueprint for Good Growth Consortiunn Robert R Freilich Telephone Number. (213) 683-6314 Issues for 9.14-06 Consortium Discussion 58355.00002 0 004 The success of the Blueprint for Good Growth will rely on the commitment of member jurisdictions to the Plan's goals, objectives and policies and their willingness to implement the plan in good ifaith. 'Without this mutual commitment and the abilityto trust each other to carry out the plan, there can be no county- wide growth coordination. At our meeting on September, 14, I'd like to ensure that each ofithe members clearly understands the important elements of BGG implementation discussed in this memo and agrees with the direction recommended by your Steering Committee. Overview. BGG is an effort to coordinate growth decisions county -wide to promote morecost-effective growth patterns that will enable the participants to maintain the quality of life without the exorbitant increases in taxes and utility rates that frequently accompany rapid growth. The limitation on city annexation beyond areas of impact creates the market for the infill of transportation coniddrs, activity centers and downtown development for the benefit of all cities and the county. If the areas sof impact have no meaning', it will create a race between unlimited sprawl by cities and unlimited development approvals bythe county in unincorporated areas. Similarly, the current county policy of encouraging development in unincorporated areas in order to generate limited short-term "building permit fee" revenue is short-sighted and worsens costs for county sheriff, fire and emergency services through unlimited sprawl development! The effect on ACID budgets for road improvements will be to shift an increasing proportion of available funding for new capital projects to soaring operation and maintenance costs created by rural sprawL Area of Impact Expansion. The BGG policies advocate the timely adjustment of areas of 'impact to accommodate 20 years worth of &�vwdl. While the cities will be asked to demonstrate the need for expanded boundaries and the existence of long-range plans to provide needed facilities, theyialso will be asked to forego annexation beyond a rational 20 -year growth boundary. To make this palatable to the cities, the County must avoid approving urban development at the fringe of each city's area of impact. Areas of impact can be rendered meaningless by cities' annexation beyond their boundaries or by the county's failure to emend the boundaries to accommodate a reasonable amount of future growth that enables cities to plan effectively, oibythe county's approval of extensive urban development outside established areas of impact I the coming slowdown in residential constriction will magnify these deficits because new building permit actijvity will slacken as it always does but the operation and maintenance costs for roads and public safetywill only increase. LEGAL 1.35 ,11 54289541..1 09/12/2006 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 TO: BGG Consortium September S, 2006 Page 2 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK ems Expanded areas of impact will achieve the results desired by all of the parties — a better and Imore economical pattern of growth and an increase in the amount of growth as greater densities are achieved closer in versus low density sprawl More significantly ft will be the only solution to greateriggrowth in the industrial, commercial and office non-residential sectors. Finally, sprawl will eat up the county's limited supplies of land which will push development into Canyon County with even greater traffic and air quality problems in addition to infrastructure and fiscal deficiencies. More Stringent Limitations on PIanned Communities Outside Areas of Impact. Regardless of the design of the planned communities, too much growth in outlying areas will erode the viability of existing urban areas, increase cumulative facility and service costs, limit mobility options and more rapidly consume the open lands that are a critical element of the quality of life in Ada County. The BGG does not set an absolute limit on 610 W ill outside areas of impact, but points out that development in excess [of 7% of county -wide growth reflects a failure in local growth policythat should be remedied. The plan also recommends more stringent limitations on planned communities in rural areas so they do not shift cost burdens to existing of existing areas. These fiscal burdens must account for all capital, operations and maintenance costs. All planned communities should be required to meet the adequate public facilities requirements established by ACO for roads, as well as for public safety (police, fire and emergency service), water availability and quality, air quality, schools, off-site drainage for sto�.L.L.iww.er, open space and parks. Adequate Public Facilities. This third leg of the growth coordination platform established within the BGG is essential to ensure that development decisions by local governments do not overwhelm the capacities of other service providers to meet the demands for transportation, water, sewer, stormwater, schools and police, fire and emergency services. All of the studies and findings for the BGG, point to the fragmentation of service provision and land use decision-making responsibilities, which has enabled local governments to ignore the impacts of newlyapproved development on other service providers creating an imminent threat to the quality of life in Ada County. The establislunent and enforcement of adequate public facility standards will ensure that new development occurs at a pace in locations that enable essential service providers to keep up with the demands generated by growth. On September 14th, the Consortium should take as much time as necessary to ensure that we have consensus on these keypolicy directives. This is essential to provide clear direction to your bounty, city and ACHD staff members of your intent to implement BGG policies. If we are unable to support these critical plan elements, I do not believe that the Blueprint can be successful. I urge all members to discuss this fully with their staffs, planning commissions and legislative members. Each member should be prepared to advocate any alternative position taking, however, full account of the needs of all other members and of the region itself. Thank you. LEGAL U5 W N 54288541.1 09/12/2006 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK Susan E. Buxton i006 ••111••11111.•••••I W. I 111 1. r 1. .. 1.11111 mg, . lin 11 From: Susan E. Buxton Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:18 AM To: BLB - Brian Ballard x-4868 Subject: FW: Response from Mayor Merrill RE: Annexation Outside Area of Impact 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 applicablei 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.11lf 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. —Original Message ----- From: Theresa Verschuren [mailto:tvershuren@cityofeagle.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:29 PM To: Susan E. Buxton Subject: FW: Response from Mayor Merrill RE: Annexation Outside Area of Impact ----Original Message— From: Freilich, Robert H. [mailto:robertfreilich@paulhastings.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:57 AM To: Theresa Verschuren; ashealy@cityofboise.org; bocci @adaweb.net; Cmckee@achd.adaJd.us; cward@staridaho.org; cbell@starldaho.org; Charles.Rountree@itd.idaho_gov; ctrainor@compassidaho.org; cmelander@dohertyeng.com; colleen@cityofkuna.com; cquintana@achd.adaid.us; dbieter@cityofboise.org; dwbivens@worldnet.att.net; WWEberle c©msn.com; david.ekern@itd.idaho.gov; mayor@cityofkuna.com; dmahaffey@adaweb.net; diana@cityotkuna.com; dustinc@staridahaorg; elaine@idahosmartgrowth.org; elfreda04@msn.com; eric.shannonr itd.idaho.gov: jschweit@achd.adaJd.us; jrIley@cityofboise.org; jtlang2@msn.com; boisebroker@velocitus.net; jniel5@cableone.net; jtibbs@cityofboise.org; jevans@gardencityidaho.org; johnfranden@cableone.net: jwborton@foleyfreeman.com; kdoherty@dohertyeng.com Subject: Re: Response from Mayor Merrill RE: Annexation Outside Area of Impact There is no Mr. Hastings. The Memo was prepared by me and sent on the letterhead of my firm, Paul Hastings. The firm name is a composite of Mssrs Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker. As far as the Memo from Moore, Smith et al is concerned it is clear that it was written by an attorney. 1 have not changed my opinion and again suggest that it be determined by the AG. This is a critical issue that needs to, be resolved for the future of the region. —Original Message -- From: essage----- From: Theresa Verschuren To: Freilich, Robert H.; ashealy@cityofboise.org; bocci @adaweb.net; Cmckee@achd.ada.id.us; cward@staridaho.org; cbell@staridaho.org: Charles_Rountree@itd,idaho.gov; ctrainor@compassidaho.org; cmelander@dohertyeng.com; colleen@cityofkuna.com; cquintana@achd.ada.id.us; dbieter@cityofboise.org; dwbivens@worldnet.att.net, W_Eberle@msn.com; david.ekem@itd.idaho.gov; mayor@cityofkuna.com; dm ahaffey@adaweb.net; diana@cityofkuna.com; dustinc@staridaho.org; elaine@idahosmartgrowth.org; elfreda04@msn.com; eric.shannon@itd.idaho.gov; jschweit@achd.ada.id.us; jrIley@cityofboise.org; jtlang2@msn.com; boisebroker@velocitus.net; jniel5@cableone.net; jtibbs@cityofboise.org; jevans@gardencityidaho.org; 09/12/2006 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK E 00? johnfranden@cableone.net; jwborton@foleyfreeman.com; kdoherty@dohertyeng.com; birdronaldkeith@msn.com Sent: Tue Aug 22 09:19:55 2006 Subject: Response from Mayor Merrill RE: Annexation Outside Area of Impact Below is a response from Mayor Merrill: Consortium Members, Obviously, Mr. Frielich did not look at who wrote the opinion for the Cities. The opinion is from the attorneys at Moore Smith Buxton and Turke. I e-mailed this opinion to Karen first. She and 1 agreed that it needed to comelfrom me riot through her and BGG. Ms. Verschuren is my assistant. I asked her to forward the information to all the Members. I believe that since the County had asked Mr. Hastings for his opinion that the Cities should at least respohd. I was involved at the Legislative level with AIC when the annexation law was changed. I sat on the task.force that wrote the Legislation. I testified at the Legislative hearings in behalf of the Cities. l believe that Idaho's Law is very clear. In fact the very same law firm thatiwrote this opinion for the Cities also won a lawsuit in behalf of the City of Kuna with Ada County regarding this very issue upholding annexations outside the area of impact. I have given Mr. Hastings letter to the Attorney for AiC. He too is addressing Mr. Hastings in behalf of all of the Cities in the State of Idaho. I hope that all of the Cities will have their attorneys also weigh in on this very important issue. Thank You. Nancy Merrill ---Original Message ----- From: Freillch, Robert H.[mailto:robertfreilich@paulhastings.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: Annexation Outside Area of impact I'm not sure that 1 should reply since I'm not Paul Hastings! Apparently Ms, Verschuren is not familiar with the BGG Plan process or the consultants. The author of the Memo is not identified. Rather than get into a public debate about the issue it would beimore appropriate for the Attorney General to issue an opinion. IMy analysis is fully described in my Memo. The new opinion in Ms. Verschuren's memo is not persuasive to me. Nor does it make common planning or govrnmental sense.1As Justice Holmes wrote " Upon these points. a page of history is worth a volume of logic". If the consortium wishes me to respond to this issue as part of my official responsibilities and scope of services, i will be more than willing to do so. I have no reason to alienate Mayor Merrill or the cityof Eagle and my response to the issue was not directed to any city in particular. Original Message From: Theresa Verschuren To: Alan Shealy; bocci @adaweb.net; Carol McKee; Cathy Ward; Chad Bell; Charles Rountree; Charles Trainor; Chris Melender; Colleen Nixon; Craig Quintana; David Bieter; David Bivens; David Eberle; David Ekern; Dean Obray; Dee Mahaffey, Diana Sanders; Dustin Christopherson; Elaine Clegg; Eifredia Higgins; Eric Shannon; jschweit@achd.ada.id.us; Jade Riley; Jeff Lang; Jeff Souza; Jerry Nielson; Jim Tibbs; John Evans; John Franden; jwborton@foleyfieeman_com; Karen Doherty; Keith Bird; Kelii Fairless; Linda Ihli; pat.marler@itd.idaho.gov; Mary Ann Jordan; Matt Stoll; Meghan Slupe; Michael J. Lauer; nbrecks@compassidaho.org; Nancy Merrill; Nathan Mitchell; Pam Bowmont; Pam Thomason; Paster, Elise; Peggy Gardner; Phillip Bandy; Rebecca Arnold; Freilich, Robert H.; Scott Dowdy; S Nordstrom; Shun Wardle; Stan Bastian; Stev.e Guerber; Steve Price; Susan Slaughter; tammie.jauregui@itd_idaho.gov; Tammy de Weerd; Tammy McDaniel; Theresa Verschuren; Tom Erlebach; Tracy Hall; Vern Bisterfeldt; Zach Piepmeyer: Zella Johnson.. Sent Mon Aug 21 10:32:01 2006 Subject: Annexation Outside Area of Impact Mayor Merrill) asked that I forward this information to you. This is in response to Paul Hastings analysis that was requested by Ada County. Theresa Verschuren Assistant to the Mayor 2 09/12/2006 15:46 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK el008 City of Eagle 489-8790 IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations goveming tax practice, you are hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein was not written or intended to be used (and! cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. :: *-1,,1-r-A1 ., ....... ,... ..v•...+},t \:, This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. For additional information, please visit our website at www.paulhastings.com. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As required by U,S. Treasury Regulations goveming tax practice, you are hereby advised that any written tax advice contained herein was not written or Intended to be used (and cannot be used) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmissionln error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. For additional information, please visit our website at www_paulhastings.com. 3 09/12/2006 15:47 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK e1009 MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED STEPHANIE], BONNBY SUSAN E. Buxrore Wawa_ C Moons: PAUL J. Prr2Et BRUCE M. Sams PAUL A. TUnace, TAMtI Y A. ZOKAte TO: FROM: DATE: RE: ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 950 W. Barmock Street, Suite 520; BOISE, TD 83702 TELEPHONE: (208) 3314800 Fax (208) 3314202 www.mabtlaw.com MEMORANDUM City of Eagle Stephanie J. Bonney, Susan E. Buxton 8/17/06 Legal Analysis of Annexation Outside the Area of Impact JOHN J:;MCP*DD '1 • of Cotmee! • Also admitted in Oregon :Also admittedksn Washington ' Also admitted in South Dakota ' Also admitted in New Mexico The City has asked our office to conduct a legal review of the opinion issued by California attorney, Paul Hastings, on behalf of Ada County, which declares that cities cannot annex outside their area of impact. Issue: Does Idaho Code §67-6526 (the Area of Impact Statute), when read in conjunction with §50-222, (the Annexation Statute) preclude cities from annexing property outside their areas of impact? Mr. Paul Hastings has issued an opinion on behalf of Ada County that declares property owners cannot voluntarily annex property into a city if the property lies outside of a city's area of impact. Mr. Hastings' analysis is flawed and his opinion incorrect. Mr. Hastings' opinion relies on several incorrect interpretations and assumptions abott Idaho law. First, he claims when Titles 55 and 67 are read in conjunction, the legislature intended to limit cities' ability to annex only within impact areas. His assertion ignores the fact that neither statute contains any language to that effect. The only limitation that Title 67 imposes on a city's ability to annex is a requirement that the city have established an area of city impact. Such a requirement is clearly an incentive to each city to establish an area of impact. Title 67 does not require that a city establish an area of impact covering all land that the city may annex. In fact, §67-6526 specifically identifies §50-222 as providing the procedires and limitations for annexation. Yet Mr. Hastings erroneously argues that the plain language of the statute cannot actually mean what it says and limits the justification for his conclusion on §67- 6526 to the exclusion of §50-222. His only justification for his position is that reading Titles 67 and 50 together would be "inharmonious" is that it somehow thwarts rational and orderly development. Mr. Hasting never explains why city planning of property next to its own. boundaries contributes to disorderly development. A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that where a statute is plain, clear and unambiguous, courts are constrained to follow that plain meaning, and neither add to the statute nor take away 09/12/2006 15:47 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK Z010 Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 2 by judicial construction.' In fact, where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to the statute as written, without engaging in statutory construction.2 Thus, Mr. Hastings' arguments concerning statutory construction are not relevant as the language in §67-6526 clearly and plainly states that annexations are governed by the controlling annexation statute, §50-222. Additionally, Section 50-222 was amended in 2002, several years after the adoption of Title 67. Thus §50-222 is the most recent legislative statement on annexation, another significant fact ignored in Mr. Hastings. Section 50-222 divides annexations into 3 categories. The first category, category A, is comprised of voluntary annexations or "island" annexations. A category A annexation is either voluntary by unanimous consent; or enclaved property surrounded by city land,fby city land and fair/recreation land, or by city land and a city impact area. A voluntary annexation is "wherein all private landowners raise no objection to annexation." Since "voluntary," the legislature imposed minor procedures for voluntary annexations. Indeed, a city's decition approving such annexations is not subject to judicial review. Thus, §50-222 applies no additional limitations on voluntary annexations and does not require that the property lie within a city's area of impact. Section 50-222 makes a clear distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexations. Unlike the simplified procedure and review for voluntary annexations covered in category A, the statute explicitly provides that category B and category C annexations be treated differently. While the legislature could have explicitly applied additional requirements, including an area of impact requirement, to category A annexations, it did not. Statutory construction requires that such au obvious omission not be considered a mere oversight, but the statute be read to render the omission meaningful! Mr. Hastings argues that Category B also addresses voluntary annexations. Again, Mir. Hastings ignores the plain language of the statute, which states that Category B annexations are those annexations where the city does not have the consent of all the landowners.4 Such a distinction between voluntary and involuntary annexations is further supported by the 2002 amendment to the annexation statute. The annexation statute was amended becai se property owners complained to the legislature about a perceived abuse of power by cities in regards to involuntary annexations. Accordingly, the legislature added additional restrictions and procedures for involuntary annexations. The legislature was not concerned with voluntary annexations, which was the basis for their statement in the 1995 rendition of §50- 222 which reiterated that voluntary annexations did not have to lie within the area ofinnpact. Canal Norcrest/Columbus Action Committee v. City OfBoise, 136 Idaho 666, 670, 39 P.3d 606, 610 (20b1). 2 State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459, 462, 988 P.2d 685, 688 (1999); State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 659, 918 P.2d 214, 219 (1999); State v. Escobar, 134 Idaho 387, 389, 3 P.3d 65, 67 (Ct.App.2000) 3 Fletcher v. Gifford, 20 Idaho 18, 26, 115 P. 824, 826 (1911). Category B also addresses annexations on land subject to moratoriums, which is not at issue in this analytis. 09/12/2006 15:47 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 11011 • • • • Annexation Memo August 18, 2006 Page 3 Furthermore, the legislature has always been concerned with the property rights of individuals. The passage of §50-222 was intended to give additional property rights to individuals lin the annexation process. Mr. Hastings' reading of §50-222, which would prevent a landowner from voluntarily annexing property into a city, further limits a property owners rights' in annexation, in contravention of the legislature's intent in amending the statute Mr. Hastings recognizes that the declared purpose of the annexation statute is to assure orderly development of cities, which is summarized as ensuring "that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing that property." Yet, he then attempts to distort this declared purpose to argue that the statute must be read in such a way that counties have the unilateral power to prevent cities from annexing and planning for property located directly on their boundaries when the landowner asks for such a service from the city He further argues that having counties control growth on city boundaries is the only way Ito ensure orderly and rational development. Of course, such an argument is not supported by any of the basic principles in land use planning and directly contradicts the legislature's stated purpose in passing §50-222. In summary, Mr. Hastings' analysis ignores the plain language of the relevant statutes, and instead opines on his interpretations of legislative intent. Mr. Hastings fails to recognize that if a statute is clear in its language, legislative intent is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if legislative intent were relevant, Mr. Hastings has not provided legislative history or legislative arguments related to the passage of either statute. Instead, he argues that the area of impact statute controls annexation, despite its direct reference to §50-222 as providing the provisions for annexation, and despite the passage of the current version of §50-222 several years after the passage of Title 67. Notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, Mr. Hastings' declarations regarding planning principles and his interpretations of legislative intent cannot change the language of the statutes. Neither Title 67 nor 50 requires that voluntary annexations be allowed only within a city's area of impact. Having cities plan for and provide services to the property contiguous to their boundaries with the permission of the landowner does not thwart basic principles of planning and development, but instead embraces both. private property rights and the legislative goal that fringe properties be provided with municipal services. 09/12/2006 15:47 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK I3j012 7-27-00; 2:16PM;Ada Comm es,oner Paul Hastings ATTORNEYS MEMORANDUM 120s2e770oe u 1/ a Paul, Hastings, Jenofsky & Walker u. 515 South Flower Skeet • 251h Floor • Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone 212 683 6000 • facsimile 213 627 0705 - vow.eauthasitnos.com Post-it6 Fax Note 7671 __ — to n Co.IDepL Phoae•tr pa 9"59��9n Dale fi_ol`�? 0In-1r4o ).5 Frain Fcv..Cj 1 1 ItmQ V-% Co. Phone u r� Bli _ l b o 0 Fax a �f U Issue: Does S. 67-65261 (the "Area of Impact Statute"), when read in conjunction with. S 5,0-222 (the "A.1an,exation Statute"), precluded cities from annexing property outside of their Areas of Impact. Shot•_, rawer: The Area of Impact Statute precludes cities from annexing property outside of their Areas of Impact because: 1) when the Annexation and Area of Iznpact Statutes are read izn pari material, the legislative intent to limit cities' ability to annex only within Areas of Impact is clear; 2) the Annexation and Area of Impact Statutes must be read in harmony and allowing annexation. outside Areas of Impact would be contrary to the purpose of orderly and rational pta uiiu g and annexation. ; and 3) the two statutes relate to the sarne subject matter, so the more speck statute, the Area of Impact controls over the more general statute, the Annexation Statute. Acaalveis The question presented is whether Idaho cities may annex property outside of their Areas of Impact. Pursuant to the Annexation. Statute, there are three categories of annexation: (a) Category A: Annexations wherein all private landowners raise no objection to annexation, or annexations of any residential enclaved lands of less that [than] one hundred (100) privately -owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, which are surrounded on all sides by land within a city or Which arc bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by lands for which owner approval must be given pursuant to subsection (5)(b)(v) of this section, or which axe bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the city's area of city impact. (b) Category B; Annexations wherein: (i) The subject lands contain less than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where not all such landowners have consented to annexation; or (ii) The subject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate puvate ownerships and platted lots of record and where landowners owning more than fifty percent (50%) of the area of the subject private lands have evidenced their consent to. annexation at the outset oldie aanexadon process; or (iii) The lands are the subject of a development moratorium or a water or sewer connection restriction imposed by state or local health or environmental agencies; provided such lands shall not be counted for purposes of determining the number of separate `private ownerships and platted lots of record aggregated to determine the appropriate category. (c) Category C; Annexations wherein the bvbject lands contain more than one hundred (100) separate private ownerships and platted lots of record 1 Ail statutory references are to the Tdaho Coda. LEGAI,_US # 53450716.1 09/12/2006 15:47 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 7--27-08; 2:1611M;Ade CommICisloner TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error) Style not defined. Page 2 @j013 ;208287700e VL 2/ 6 and where landowners owning more than fifty percent (50%) of the area of the subject private lands have not evidenced their consent to annexation at the outset of the annexation process. § 50 -222(3)(a) -(c). The Annexation Statute clearly states that property to be annexed must be within the .Area of Iiopact. Annexations for categories B and C requite that "the land are contiguous or adjacent to the city and lie within the city's area of city impact." §§ 50-222(5)()), (c)(i). Moreover, some voluntary annexations (category A) roust be "bounded on all sides by lands within a city and by the boundary of the city's atea of city impact." § 50-222(3)(a). However, cities are making an argument that some properties within category A. need not be within a city's Area of Impact because the first sentence of § 50-222.(3)(a) states "Annexation where all. private Landowners raise no objection to annexation, or..." Thus, they argue, the last line of that secdon, which refers to .Areas of Impact, does not apply to those properties. They argue that, per § 50-792(5)(a), properties where all private landowners agree to be annexed need only be "lying contiguous or adjacent to - any city in the State of Idaho." Such an inteipxetation allows cities to annex property which is contiguous to city limits but not in an Area of Impact, and even allows annexation of property that is locatad in another•city's Area of Impact. This interpretation of the statutory language is absurd given the rules of statutory construction, the intent of the Idaho Legislature, and sound planning and zoning painciples. "Statutes are in pari rnalesial if they relate to the same subject. Such statues are construed together to effect legislative intent. Where two statutes appear to apply to the same case or subject matter, the speac statute win control over the more general statute:." Goodish Count' v. U%ybenga, 46 P.3d 18 (Id. 2002) (intdrnal citations omitted). The Annexation Statute and the Area of Impact Statutes are obviously related since they both =late to the rational dcvclopment and annexation of property io.to cities, and as discussed below, the Area of Impact Statute is more specific. They must be read together and construed as one system. See City of Sandpoint v. Sandpoint Independent Highway Disi icl, 879 P.2d 1078, 1083 (Id. 1994). The Areas of Impact Statute clearly states that "Subject to the provisions of section 50-222, Idaho Code, an area of city impact must be established before a city may annaLadiacent tem." § 67-6526(a). In other words, so long as the procedures of §50-222 are followed, a city can annex contiguous property within its Area of Impact. This phrase docs not mean that the Area of Impact Statute is subordinate to the Annexation Statute, because to do so would cause an unharmonious readings of the statutes. If the cities' interpretation were to stand, then the Area of Impact Statute would be meaningless for all properties where the landowner wanted to be annexed into a city. However, landowner choice of jurisdiction is not the purpose of these statutes: the purpose is to provide rational and orderly development which ensure adequacy of public facilities and stops leapfrog growth. If the Legislature was not concerned abbot disorderly growth and leapfrog development then it would not have gone to the trouble of adopting the Area of Impact and Annexation Statutes. LEGAL _LIS _W 53450716.1 09/12/2006 15:47 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 7-27-06; 2:18PM;Ada Commissioner TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page 3 el 014 Zoa2877O09 ,I 3/ 5 It should be noted that in Coeur D Alen Industria! Pa?* Pivpsgy Owiurr Asr'n v. City of Carer D Albite, 702 P.2d 881 (Id. 1985), the court held that a city's power to annex was not conditioned upon compliance with the Local Planning Act, including the Area of Impact Statute. The annotation law under consideration in that case did not once refer to Areas of Impact or state as its purpose orderly development andkefficiency of provision of public services. In 1995, the Legislature changed 550-222 to specifically mention areas of impact and require cities to comply with the procedures in the Area of Impact Statute: On and after January 1, 1995, any land lying contiguous or adjacent to any city in the state of Idaho, or to any addition or extension thereof may be annexed by the city only if the land is lying in the area of city impact as determined by procedures contained in section 67-6526... If a city has not adopted an area of city impact prior to January 1, 1995, the city shall not be prohibited from annexing adjacent territory if an area of city impact has been adopted in accordance with the provisions of section 67-6526 prior to annexation and all other requirements for annexation have been met. You have to assume that the Idaho Legislature knew about the Coeur D .'dens case and prior construction when it changed the Annexation Statute. "The court has declared that the mere fact that the le islauire enacts an amendment indicates that it thereby intended to change the original act by creating a new right or withdrawing an existing one...It has been held that it can be presumed that [the Legislature) was aware of the prior construction of the tem in questions in the original act and deliberately limited the scope of the new act?' 1A SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 22:30 (6th ed.). Therefore, the Idaho Legislature specifically changed the .A.nnexation Statute to incorporate the terns of the Areas ofiimpzct Statute. .A word of caution, however, because the 1995 statute also stated (immediately after the above quoted section) that "An owner of land of any sire may request that the tract of land be annexed into the city whether the land is or is not contained in the city's area of impact by submitting such request in (writing to the city council." One might interpret this as following from the previous sentence such that although any landowner may request annexation into the city, the city cannot take cannot take action until thti city, first, adopts the area of impact that includes the subject property. However, an alternative interpreta ion might be that voluntary and involuntary annexation axe to be treated differently for purposes of Areas (of Impact. However, this rationale does not comport with the policies underlying rationale growth and orderly provision of infrastructure, as discussed further below. Vie discuss the 1995 revision because it is the first amendment that makes mentions of the Areajof Impact Statute. The Annexation Statute was amended to its current form (with some minor amendments not relevant to this discussion). Though the cities might argue that voluntary annexation did not have to be in the Area of Impact in the previous rendition of the statute, nor do they here. However, this axgpment is erroneous, because, unlike the 1995 statute, in its current form, annexations are separated into 3!categories (cited above), but the categories are not simple breakdowns of voluntary, and involuntary annex;% ions. . Category A includes 100% voluntary and island annexations, Category B includes involuntary ari aexations, LEGAL USW It 53150716.1 09/12/2006 15:48 FAX 208 331 1202 7-27-0e: 2: 18GM;A.dts Commuestoner TO; Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page 4 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK 015 (2082877O00 tt 4/ 6 voluntary annexations, and land which are subject to development moratoria, and Category C includes an involuntary annexation. Category B, which includes a type of voluntary annexation is required to be in the Area of Impact §50-222(5)(b)(1). Thus, there is not differentiation based on whether it is volunjta.ry or involuntary. This makes sense since the issues, as discussed further below, is one of orderly de'elopment and service provision, not of landowner choice. The declared purpose of the Annexation Statute is to assure orderly development of cities "to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tax -supported and fee -supported municipal services, to enable the orderly development of private lands which benefit from cost-effective availability ofimunicipal services in urbanizing areas and to equitably allocate the costs of public services in managementlof development on the urban Singe." §50-222(1). in other words, the Legislative intent of the statue was to ensure that lands on the fringe can be provided with municipal services by the city annexing that property. This purpose is consistent with the Area of Impact Statute which requires that cities and counties negotiate area of impact and determine whether the city's or county's ordinance wil apply or if a mutually!agreed upon plan. and ordinances will apply. The Area of Impact Statute recognizes chat planning muse be regional. Municipalities are not isolated enclaves, fax removed from the concerns of the region in which they are situated. As subdivisions of the state, they do not exist solely to serve their own residents, and their land use decisions are acquired to promote the general welfare, both within and outside their boundaries. KOPPELMAN & MERRIAM, REGIONAL GENERAL. WELFARE: THE ENDI OF A TREND?, § 2.01 (Zoning and Eminent Domain, Matthew Bender, 1985). It is through proper sjtatutory delegation of this power chat the state's subdivisions are empowered to cnact land use xcgulations. Id. Indeed, regional planning is so important that S50-1306 requires counties to transmit subdivision plats to cities if the property to be subdivided is within 1 utile of the city limits, even if no Area of Impact Inas been adopted. The city review may include utility systems and drainage provisions. This makes sense because Ada County is the only county that has adopted Axcas of Impact, yet the state wants to require regional cooperadon and provision of infrastructure. This concept is further set forth in sections of the Planning and Zoning Statute (Chapter 65, Title 67). §67-6502 states: The puxpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho as follows: ...(b) To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to the people at reasonable cost. (c) To ensure that the economy of the state and localities is protected. (d) To ensure that the iinportant environmental features of the state and localities are protected. LCGAi..US_W It 53450716.1 09/12/2006 15:48 FAX 208 331 1202 7 -27 -Oe; 2:16PM;Ado CommIsaioner TO: Steve Price Ada County Highway Department Error! Style not defined. Page 5 44* MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK z o i 6 ;2082877009 a 5/ B (f) To encourage urban and urban -type development within incorporated cities. §50-222(5)(a) states that upon finding that a property proposed for annexation meets the requixernents for Category A, a city may initiate planning procedures fox such property in accordance with Chapter 65, tide 67 (the Planning and Zoning Statute). If a city were allowed to annex properties under Category A'that were not in an Area of Impact, then any such planning for those properties would be contrary to the purposes of the Pls ming and Zoning Law because these would be no assurance of adequate pubic - facilities, protection of environmentally sensitive lands or compact and contiguous development, and the city's economy may be endangered by the need to spend excessive suras on new infrastructure. !This would be a disharmonious reading of the statutes. Reading these statutes together, it becomes clear that cities in Ma County cannot annex property outside its area of irnpact, lest the purpose and intent of the entire planning and annexation process in the County be thwarted_ Moreover, the Area of Impact Statute is the most specific statute that must apply fbr all annexations in those counties that have Areas of Impact. The Annexation Statute sets forth the general guidelines for annexation for all counties, regardless of whether they have adopted Areas of Impact. However, for Ada County, which has adopted Areas of Impact, the Area of Impact statute must overly the Annexation Statute, so as not to frustrate the purpose of the statute. • • • L1 GA _US_w # 53450716.1 09/12/2006 15:48 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK September 7, 2006 Mayor Nancy Men ill CITY OF EAGLE 310 B. State Sheet Eagle, ID 83616 Dear Nancy: BRIGHTON CORPORATION CITY OF EAGLE SSP 1 1 2406 Route to: ._ •.• Mayor/ City CotincIL... ''• tr City Cleric_,".___r.____ P&ZDept Engineer,. I read with interest the article filth's week's newspaper regarding the state of the Blueprint process. As a member of the steering committee I can only repeat some concerns that I have been expressing all along and that seem to be understood by at least a few of the elected officials First, I think that your assessment regarding mission creep is exactly right The Blueprint process was initiated by ACLU as a way to bring land use planning and transportation plarming into sync While there are associated issues that are interesting and maybe even worthwhile, I `; believe that the failure to narrowly define the objectives jeopardized the whole process. My assessment, which is shared by many others that I know, is that Dr. Freilich's approach L simply out of touch with reality. Furthermore, his attitude has been condescending and not at all helpful, His proposal for an interim development ordinance was characteristic of his approach. Only after being spurned by each of the cities did he engage in some revisionist explanations of; what he meant it to be. On the other hand, I will say that N ichael Lauer did a good job of rolliig with the punches while adjusting to some social and local political realities along the way I could go on further but I think 1 will summarize my thoughts as follows: From the beginning, I've said that the Blueprint process could hope to accomplish a limited number of objectives: 1. Educate citizens and political leaders about the relationship between density and public transportation. 2. Identify transportation corridors and explore strategies for securing those corridors now for the future, 3 Identify funding sources for our transportation needs and building a political consensus for implementation. Brighton Corporation 12601 W. Explorer IAN, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 8371.3 wunctiwinitioncorp.cona Tel. (208) 378-4000 FAX (208) 377-8962 Cj 017 09/12/2006 15:48 FAX 208 331 1202 MOORE SMITH BUXTON TURCK Q018 September 7, 2006 Page 2 of 2 I've also reiterated several times that the Blueprint process should not and could not be used as a mechanism for adding another layer of government bureaucracy or red tape.. Each individual city is going to craft its land use plan in response to the desires of its own constituency After that, our transportation agencies have a right to expect consistency with those plans. With that knowledge and assurance tbey can properly plan for our transportation future. I understand that this has been a long and arduous process.. I believe it was conceived with the best of intentions but unfortunately I think the process got caught up in some "irrational exuberance" and was hijacked beyond its intended and practical scope the question then becomes what to do with what we have. My answer would be to take the best from it and mover • on. With Phase 1 of'the contract apparently wrapped up, I would suggest that the scope of Phase 2 be reexamined and modified to fit within the narrow scope of objectives that should have prevailed from the beginning_ It would also be my recommendation to hire local consultants to finish that process We have plenty of qualified people who understand the local landscape. Lf they need assistance from outside the area they are certainly capable of'procuring that as well. I for one, am weary of being lectured by Dr Fveilich and I think it's time to tezrninate his services. Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this further. David 'xumbull President EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET Subject PP/FP-01-06 Combined Preliminary & Final Plat for Golf Pond Subdivision Troy Cooper September 12, 2006 7:30 n.m. 1 ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE 7 /Y- fewU0d moa lPU a A • Ed U Cis � i3 , Cdij,c 06c1 Page 1 of 111COUNCILIAG[NDA\CCStGNIJP \VI'D TESTIFY YES/NO? /e 5 IUU7 PRO/CON �'.�ix.d EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET Subject A-6-06/RZ-6-06 & PP -6-06 — Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R -3 -DA and Preliminary Plat for Gray Eagle Subdivision - John Wood and Tom Ricks September 12, 2006 7:30 p.m. NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page 1 of . H:1000NCILIAGENDAICCSIGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET Subject A-13-06/RZ-16-06 & PP -14-06 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT to R -1 -DA and Preliminary Plat for Sylvan Wood Subdivision — Sylvan Wood I, LLC September 12, 2006 7:30 p.m. NAME ADDRESS/ TELEPHONE Page l of . H:ICOUNCIL\AGENDA\CCSIGNUP. WPD TESTIFY YES/NO? PRO/CON EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET Subject RZ-15-06 - Rezone from R-4 to CBD -DA — Ideal Group, LLC September 12, 2006 7:30 a.m. NAME Ay �� G( I ADDRESS/ TESTIFY TELEPHONE YES/NO? PRO/CON i2 S 3za Page 1 of II 1COUNCILAGEN17A\CCSIGNIIP WI'I) Cc September 12, 2006 Ada County Board of Commissioners 200 W. Front Street Boise, ID 83702 Re: Area of Impact between the City of Eagle and the City of Meridian Dear Commissioners: On August 23, 2006, the Mayors and City Councils of Eagle and Meridian met to discuss the area of impact boundaries near the Phyllis canal. At the meeting, the Cities agreed to the following: f - ,AA 1) Thea south of the Phyllis anal h be removed from the Eagle Area of Impact and placed in the Meridian Area of Impact; ate, Pro (et1a4k-Hte- 2)Meri w., ,,;11 Y� d add an north of the Phyllis canal �if a -- of i " . We have attached a map depicting this agreement for your consideration. Very truly yours, Mayor NCM/tv Enclosure ireot- ifirad;a1 y adz,* yilmdio,,- %L's r w;%ate "AiYillttAr -PIAA fitolt6 CiA4,164v Nancy C. Merrill(lir- Nom, greenerlbanduccilshoemakerlp.a. �B+S Fredric V. Shoemaker lshoemaker@ greeneriaw.com September 12, 2006 Via email Susan E. Buxton, Esq. Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke Chtd. 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 520 Boise, ID 83702 Re: Ringo Ridge Subdivision Agreement GBS File No.: 15279-005 Dear Susan: ALFA® AMERICAN LAW FIRM ASSOCIATION RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE SEP 1 2 2006 FiIP. Route to: I have reviewed the photographs you provided me last Thursday, taken by or at the City's instance and dated August 31, 2006, with P.O. Ventures, Inc. I have previously provided you with letters from Jim Heikes of Lawn Co., Jim Rees, P.E., of MTC Inc., Santiago Hernandez, and Mike Lincoln, Boise River Fence Co. attesting to completion of bonded items within their scope of responsibilities. P.O. Ventures, Inc. continues to work to cure and to work on the complained -of deficiencies, and will continue to do so. By example, although seeding has been completed, rocks continue to migrate to the top of the soil, and P.O. Ventures, Inc. will continue to clear them and pick them, now by hand, as conditions permit. The caps on the concrete fence adjoining Highway 55 will be installed this week. The trees that have been planted adjacent to Highway 55, in fact, were planted just barely outside of the State's right-of-way which extends approximately 24 feet east from the edge of pavement. C am informed that the State neither wants nor will require any grass growing any closer than it is planted, which, as P.O. Ventures, Inc. acknowledges, is no further than 9 feet away. I am mindful that the City's arborist is unhappy with the planting depth of some of the trees. The landscaper performing the work and the nursery providing guidance to P.O. Ventures, Inc., both insist that the trees were planted at the depth they should have been, especially with the modest pulling -away of top soil around the trunks that has occurred at the City's direction. For whatever additional remaining adjustments that need to occur, before the City incurs the expense of soliciting any requests for proposal from a third party or calling the letter of credit, I would encourage, and would think it reasonable, to require that the City reduce its view of the remaining requirements to writing. It is also premature and unheralded for the City to 815 w. washington I boise idaho 83702 If. 208 319 2601 1o. 208 319 2600 greenerlbanduccilshoemakerlp.a. Page 2 September 12, 2006 claim non-compliance with the landscaping conditions as the trees have only recently been planted, and while some have suffered mightily under an unusually hot sun during the month of August, the contractor and P.O. Ventures, Inc. both intend to honor the industry standard of a one-year warranty and replacement of any trees that do not survive. Finally, the curb and gutter will be installed this week in the Echohawk right-of-way which, in turn, will enable the completion of the planting of the 87 trees and other landscaping improvements within or near that right-of-way. 1 remain willing to meet with you and the City's representative and encourage that we also include Ms. Patterson in that process. Thank you. Very truly yours, GR BANDUCCI SHOEMAKER P.A. FVS/klc C: Stacia Patterson, P.O. Ventures, Inc. William Vaughn, City of Eagle c V. Shoemaker 815 w. woshington l boise Idaho 837021f. 208 319 26011o. 208 319 2600 815 w. washington 1 boise Idaho 83702 1f. 208 319 2601 1o. 208 319 2600