Minutes - 2009 - City Council - 09/08/2009 - Special
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Special Meetin~~ Minutes
September 8, 2009
**Early Start Time**
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Bandy calls the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: HUFFAKER, SHOUSHTARIAN, SEMANKO, JACKSON-HElM. All
present. A quorum is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Bandy leads the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: A lady in the audience is inquiring as to when the parking lot at the
Senior Center was going to start.
Public Works Director Echeita: Start date is approximately 9/21/09. This will take 3-4 weeks to
complete.
5. BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Eagle, Idaho, will hold a public
hearing for consideration of the proposed budget including general revenue sharing for the fiscal
period October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010 pursuant to the provisions of Section 50-1002,
Idaho Code. Said hearing to be held at Eagle City Hall, 660 E. Civic Lane, Eagle, Idaho, at 5:30
p.m. on August 25, 2009. At said hearing, all interested persons may appear and show cause, if
any they have why said proposed budget should not be adopted. Council has left the public
hearing open for written testimony only.
Mayor Bandy introduces the item.
Huffaker provides an overview of the budget issues addressed to date.
General Council discussion on the Budget.
Huffaker moves to approve the Budget: We tak,e the budget that we started with tonight,
we take all of the cuts that were suggested and al~reed upon in Norm's proposal Part I, the
number that I came up with was $41,547.00, if my math is wrong then the budget will
reflect the correct number; include the $1,000.00 for the Historical Commission; reduce the
reserve from $700,000.00 to $550,000.00. Sleconded by Jackson-Heim. Discussion.
Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: NAY; Semanko: NAY: Jackson-Heim: AYE: MAYOR:
AYE: MOTION CARRIES..............
Mayor calls a recess at 9:30 p.m.
Mayor reconvenes the meeting at 9:45 p.m.
6: Ordinance No. 632: An Ordinance Entitled Th'e Annual Appropriation Ordinance For The
City Of Eagle, Idaho, For The Fiscal Year 2010 Commencing October 1, 2009, And Ending
September 30,2009. [This item will only be acted on if the public hearingfor item 5A is closed,
and approving action is taken via a motion of the Council)
Mayor Bandy introduces the item.
Huffaker 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 #632 be considered after being read once by title only. Huffaker
reads Ordinance #632 by title only: "An Ordinanc:e entitled the Annual Appropriation
Ordinance for the City of Eagle, Idaho, for the fisl:al year 2010 commencing October 1,
2009 and ending September 30, 2010, appropriating sums of money in the aggregate
Page 1
K:\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporal)' Minules Work Area\CC-09-08-09min doc
amount of the amended amount that was previously moved tonight to defray all necessary
expenses and liabilities of the City of Eagle for saiid fiscal year; specifying the object and
purposes for which such appropriations are mad(~ and the amount appropriated for each
object and purpose; authorizing the certification to the County Commissioners of Ada
County, Idaho, to levy and assess a sufficient tax upon the taxable property in the City;
providing for the filing of a copy of this Ordinance with the office of the Idaho Secretary of
State as provided by law; providing for publication; and providing an effective date."
Seconded by Jackson-Heim. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
Huffaker moves that Ordinance #632 be adopted. Seconded by Jackson-Heim.
Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: NAY; Semanko: NAY; Jackson-Heim: AYE; Mayor: AYE:
MOTION CARRIES...................................
7. 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 discussioll1. 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 A2ainst the Citv.
B. Second Addendum to Joint Powlers A2reement between the Ada Countv
Sheriff's Office, the Ada Countv P'rosecutin2 Attornev's Office and the Citv
of Ea2le. relatin2 to Law Enforc(~ment Services and Prosecution Services.
(SKB)
C. Findin2s of Fact and Conclusions of Law A-06-09/RZ-07-09 Annexation and
Rezone from RUT (Rural- Urballl Transition - Ada Countv desi2nation) to
R-E-DA (Residential-Estates with a Development A2reement) Clarence and
Carolvn Stockstill: Clarence and Carolyn Stockstill represented by Karla
Williams with MarKar Custom HOlnes, LLC, are requesting approval of an
annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-Ada County
Designation) to R-E-DA (Residential-Estates up to one unit per two (2) acres
with a development agreement). The 5.00-acre site is generally located on the
north side of W. Floating Feather Road approximately 220 feet east of N.
Ballantyne Lane at 1980 and 1984 W. Floating Feather Road. (MJW)
Semanko removes Item #7B from the Consent Agenda
Shoushtarian moves to approve the Amended Consent Agenda, Items #A and #c.
Seconded by Huffaker. Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Semanko: AYE: Jackson-
Heim: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
7B. Second Addendum to Joint Powers A2reement between the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. the Ada Countv Prosecutin2 Attorney's. Office and the City of Ea2le. relatin2 to
Law Enforcement Services and Prosecution Servkes. (SKB)
Mayor introduces the issue.
General discussion on the Addendum and the next fiscal year contract with the Sheriffs Office.
Page 2
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC -09.08-09min,doc
Mayor: I would entertain a motion to approve.
So moved by Semanko. Seconded by Jackson-Hf~im. Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE;
Semanko: AYE: Jackson-Heim: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
8. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS: NONE
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-5-09 & RZ-6-09 Annexation and Rezone From RUT (Rural- Urban Transition - Ada
Countv desi2nation) to A-R-DA (A2ricultural- Residential with a Development
A2reement) - Ron Sali: Ron Sali, represented by Doug Russell with The Land Group, Inc., is
requesting approval of an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-Ada County
Designation) and A-R (Agricultural-Residential- up to one unit per five acres) to A-R-DA
(Agricultural-Residential- up to one unit per five acres with a development agreement). The
65 .14-acre site is generally located on the south side of W. Mace Road approximately 1.47 miles
west of S. Eagle Road. (MJW)
Mayor Bandy introduces the item.
Doug Russell, The Land Group, Inc., representing thte applicant, displays overheads and provides
the Council an overview of the application. General discussion.
Planner Williams, provides Council an overview of the application.
City Attorney Buxton: This evening we received a \(~tter from Steve Bradbury, representing one
of the neighbors, and he does correctly identify an issue that we need to figure out a resolution
to. So 1 will be requesting the Council to continue this matter before you make a final decision to
your next regular meeting. Discusses the isslle. General discussion.
Mayor opens the Public Hearing
Steve Bradbury, I'm representing an adjacent property owner, 1 have two issues I want to address
to you, one of which Susan has already discussed and the other issue is the sufficiency of the
notice that went out with this hearing. In the notice that went out to the people within 500 feet,
you look at that notice and it describes the application as being for annexation and rezone of
some property. Nothing in the notice you will find nothing in the notice that describes that the
application you have before you is really for a gravel pit and rock crushing operation. Discussion
on the notice. To the other issue, the question is, is the Development Agreement the proper tool
by which the City can approve a use which is otherwi~se prohibited in the zone and I am going to
suggest to you that it is not the proper tool for a number of reasons which are summarized in the
letter 1 delivered to you night. Discussion on the Development Agreement. General discussion.
Jon Wroten, 1481 Mace Road, think this is going to affect my property values. This is also going
to create noise and dust from the gravel operation. My vote is against the project. General
discllssion.
Nancy Soares, ] 016 S. Arbor Island Way, I am definitely going to be downwind from all of this
that will be going on. The noise is a concern, the dust is a concern. The valid point is what are
we going to be using this land for? This is a temporary permit for a mining operation on Eagle
Island. We are concerned about the longevity of digging this big hole. We are concerned about
our ground water. Discussion on ground water and wells. A period of 10 years is a long time to
deal with all ofthese concerns.
Page 3
K:ICOUNC'lLIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work ArealC'C'-09-08-09min.doc
Jody Zanecki, 909 W. Two Rivers Lane, we were not notified of this and just found out about it
recently. I am here as the Vice President of the Homeowner's Association representing all of the
homeowner's in Two Rivers. We are definitely against this for all of the reasons stated tonight.
This affects our irrigation system and there is the dust and pollution would definitely affect and
then there is the noise. General discussion.
Eric Pollock, 837 W. Two Rivers Lane, asks those who are opposed to this to standup. We need
to call this what it is, it is a gravel pit. The City needs to enforce the Planning and Zoning laws.
I am asking you to protect our land values and our quality of life.
William Rode, 1755 Artesian Road, 1 have lived on Eagle Island for many years and 1 have
worked around gravel pits for many years. Do we really need another gravel pit? Who is
responsible to measure the affects on the ground watl~r up and downstream? Discussion on the
ground water level. Discussion on the operations. I lthink most of this area is in the flood plain.
I don't think there should be any berm because this will affect the flow of water. I believe this is
wetlands. Discussion on the noise. General discussion.
Dan Harper, 8220 Mace Road, I'm concerned about property values and the water. The biggest
thing is the dust and what it is going to do to young children and the elderly; I'm concerned about
their health. I am strongly against this. General discussion.
Ron Rippey, 1401 Trout Road, Bill Roady told you a true story. We have had many violations
on that gravel pit over the years. I'm concerned about the ground water and how they are going
to dispose of the water.
Dan Torffin, 659 River Quarry Drive, representing TR Company, and myself as a property owner
in Two Rivers, I agree with some of the testimony, this is really a gravel pit. The main issue for
us is the rock crushing's noise. Mace Road would not support the truck traffic. There is a lot of
gravel left on Eagle Island so you may be setting a precedent. Discussion on the water levels.
General discussion.
Don Newman, 1 own the property directly across the street. There is sewer a half a mile down
the road from this project. Discussion on the noise level.
Mike Lawrence, Meridian, I worked in this pit for oVI~r ten years. Discussion on the noise level.
Downwind you are definitely going to hear this.
Doug Russell, representing the applicant, provides rebuttal to the public testimony. General
discussion.
Earl Mullens, Mullens Acustical, discusses the decimal level of the gravel pit.
Ron Sali, discusses the gravel operations. General discussion.
Semanko, I received a voice mail from Gary Peters on Mace Road and he doesn't want the rock
crushing and he suggested a proposal of 3 years instead of 10 years. General discussion.
City Attorney Buxton: I again request that this matter be continued.
General Council discussion.
Huffaker moves to continue A-5-09 & RZ-6-09 Annexation and Rezone From RUT to the
September 22, 2009 Council meeting, and leave th(~ public comment open to hear about any
meetings or discussions that may occur between the parties. Seconded by Semanko.
Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................
Huffaker amends his motion to continue this applkation to the Council meeting on October
13,2009. Seconded by Semanko. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............
Page 4
K:ICOUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work ArealC'C-09-08-09mindoc
11. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PD-02-09 - Parcel Division - Clarence and Carolvn Stockstill: Clarence and Carolyn
Stockstill, represented by Karla Williams with MarKar Custom Homes, are requesting approval
of a parcel division for the creation of two parcels. The 5.09-acre site is generally located on the
north side of W. Floating Feather Road approximately 220 feet east ofN. Ballantyne Lane at
1980 and 1984 W. Floating Feather Road. (MJW)
Mayor Bandy introduces the item.
Karla Williams, representing the applicants, we are in agreement with all of the findings and we
are ready to do the parcel division. General discussion.
Huffaker moves to approve PD-02-09 - Parcel Division - Clarence and Carolyn Stockstill
Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
B. EXT-09-09 - Preliminarv Plat Extension of Time for Arbor Rid2e Subdivision (final
platted as Rin20 Rid2e Estates Subdivision) - P.O. Ventures, Inc.: P.O. Ventures, Inc.,
represented by Stacia Patterson, is requesting a one (1) year extension of time for the preliminary
plat approval for Arbor Ridge Subdivision, a 149-10t (143-buildable) residential subdivision. The
52.3-acre site is located west of State Highway 55 generally north of Hill Road. (WEV)
Mayor Bandy introduces the item,
General discussion.
Zoning Administrator, I would request that this be continued to the October 27, 2009
Council meeting.
So moved by Huffaker. Seconded by Jackson-Heim. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES........... .
11 C. Resolution 09-20: A resolution for the City of Eagle to recover the actual labor costs
associated with locating and copying documents for public record requests that exceeds two (2)
person hours. (SEB)
Mayor Bandy introduces the item.
General discussion.
City Attorney Buxton: So we are continuing this to the next meeting.
Semanko so moved. Seconded by Jackson-Heim. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.........
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A. Pendin2 and Threatened Iiti2ation: I.C. 967-2345 (f)
City Attorney Buxton: The Executive Session tonighlt for pending and threatened litigation is in
regards to Pooley v. City of Eagle.
Jackson-Heim moves to go into Executive Session in accordance with I.C. 67-2345(1)
pending and threatened litigation in regards to Pooley v. City of Eagle. Seconded by
Semanko. Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Semanko: AYE: Jackson-Heim: AYE:
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
Council goes into Executive Session at 12:50 a.m.
Council discusses pending and threatened litigation in regards to Pooley v. City of Eagle.
Council leaves Executive Session at 1 :05 a.m.
Page 5
K:\CQUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-09-08-09min.doc
13. ADJOURNMENT:
Jackson-Heim moves to adjourn. Seconded by Huffaker. ALL A YES: MOTION
CARRIES....................... ...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 1 :05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
-~~~
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
PHILLIP 1. BANDY
MAYOR
""........,
"~I ,"
......... C\'t Y 0 P ""
...," .........I5'"d"
~ ..- ..-.f^ \
~ *.. (,ORPOh ..\;,;. ':.
... "T. '\ .
:: ~.->.~tt\:.
: : _ '. tf\ : :
: ~ ~~ Sb' : :
~ ~ ..~ .c~, .. '* :
-:. '"'"0 .;.,p,o "'- '\'.. ..
.. ' :). .. o~ \'1 . ..
" ..f',^ -.."'TEP..- ....
',~- ..... 0 ...'
"" Op TO f>,. \\ ............
'I, ,~,
"''''ll''''
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT EAGLE
CITY HALL
Page 6
K:ICOUNC'lLIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work ArealC'C'-09-08-09mindoc
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
Subject: A-5-09 & RZ-6-09 Annexation and Rezone From RUT (Rural — Urban Transition
— Ada County designation) to A -R -DA (Atricultural — Residential with a Development
Aereement) — Ron Sali:
September 8, 2009
TESTIFY PRO/ CON or
NAME ADDRESS YES/NO NEUTRAL
lrC u4iv‘n VS -110K RJ -K c, cnrr
/0(6 t) gj 16z
yLv Cep 76 i w
xio
=co 00 WRot-eit-) P C Bak te o Ve5- 1
+I/ I ` ,^I JI
/ L J A 5 1 C I C J. �( 1J G C y-3 - J I U C� J 1 V `J `1 c1 rL C o \r•
1ov i cx ?°2 l//% Ari ,%f/pi / 6.47/4/.7-
i i/L /A/1/�'r,>/ / / f'S 4c; xi//s
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
Subject: A-5-09 & RZ-6-09 Annexation and Rezone From RUT (Rural — Urban Transition
— Ada County designation) to A-R-DA (Agricultural — Residential with a Development
Agreement) — Ron Sali:
September 8, 2009
small acreages. I don't think this is the place for another
Gravel Pit.
I have heard that this pit, if approved, wants to haul through
the Eagle Island State Park; I don't think it would be
appropriate for a commercial operation to use a State Park in
this manner. I think they should have to use Mace road to
Eagle road as Mace is the original road on the Island.
Thank You.
William Rode
1755 Artesian rd
Eagle, Id. 83616
WILLIAMS • BRADBURY
'1 .1. O R N ,:. 1•
S \xi
September 8, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mayor and City Council
City of Eagle
660 East Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
Re: A-05-09; RZ-06-09; Annexation and Rezone — Ron Sali
Dear Mayor and Council:
This firm has been retained to represent N2, LLC and its principal, Don Newman, in
connection with the above -referenced matter. N2, LLC owns the property located across
Mace Road to the north of the property which is the subject of this application. Mr. Newman
opposes the introduction of an industrial use as proposed by the applicant to what is now an
agricultural and residential neighborhood.
As you know, the applicant seeks approval to develop a gravel mine and rock crushing
operation on the subject property. To do so, the applicant proposes the City enter into a
development agreement permitting the use. We submit that this is an improper and
inappropriate use of a development agreement.
According to the City's Staff Report, the subject property is currently zoned in part
RUT (Rural -Urban Transition) and in part A (Agricultural). The Applicant seeks to have the
property rezoned to A -R -DA (Agricultural - Residential with a development agreement). The
AR zone is a transitional zone for areas transitioning from agricultural to residential uses. It
contemplates residential development at a maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres. The
AR zone does not, however, allow gravel mining and rock crushing operations. Those uses
are prohibited in the AR zone. Only the City's industrial zones, M-2 (as a conditional use)
and M-3, permit gravel mining and rock crushing. The applicant does not ask for a rezone to
M-2 or M-3, most likely because such zoning does not conform to the City's comprehensive
plan, which designates the area for residential uses.
In order to overcome the limitation of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance,
the Applicant proposes that the City enter into a development agreement permitting the gravel
extraction and crushing operation for a period up to ten years. The City's zoning ordinance
does, of course, allow for the use of development agreements in connection with the rezoning
of land, but not in the manner proposed by the Applicant.
1015 W. flays Street - Boise, 11) 83702
Phone: 208-344-6633 - Fax: 208-344-0077 - www.williamsbradbury.com
Mayor and City Council
Page 2
September 8, 2009
Section 8-10-1:A of the City's zoning ordinance describes the purpose of a
development agreement being to "allow a specific project with a specific use to be developed
on property in an area that is not appropriate for all uses allowed or conditional in the
requested zone. That language clearly contemplates two criteria for a development
agreement: First, that the agreement allow a specific project with a specific use (which is the
case here); and second, that the use be an allowed or conditional use in the proposed zone
(which is not the case here).
Under the City's zoning ordinance, development agreements are intended as tools to
narrow or limit the uses otherwise allowed in a particular zone, not to add uses otherwise
prohibited in the zone. Using a development as proposed is tantamount to granting a
temporary reclassification of the property to an industrial zone which is not in conformance
with the City's comprehensive plan.
Use of a development agreement in this fashion is improper for several reasons:
1. Allowing a use prohibited by the applicable zone designation (AR) violates
Idaho Code §67-6511 (requiring zoning changes to be in accordance with the City's
comprehensive plan) because such action has the effect of reclassifying the land for an
industrial use in an area designated for residential uses by the comprehensive plan.
2. Such action is beyond the authority granted to the City by §8-10-1:A of the
City's Zoning Ordinance because the proposed development agreement expands the uses
permitted in the applicable zone designation (AR) rather than limiting the uses permitted in
the zone.
3. The proposed action constitutes illegal contract zoning because it allows, by
contract, a use which is prohibited in the applicable zone. The City is not permitted to allow,
by contract, what the zoning ordinance prohibits.
4. The agreement results in improper spot zoning because the effect of the action
is to single this parcel out for a use that is inconsistent with surrounding uses and not
otherwise permitted in the surrounding zone. It is essentially a spot of industrial zoned land in
an agricultural and residential area.
Just as important as the legal issues is the policy one. It is simply poor policy to use a
development agreement to allow a use otherwise prohibited in a zone. Using this approach
means that a property owner who wishes to use his land for a purpose not allowed by the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance may seek a rezone of his land to any zone, even the
most restrictive, then, by agreement, seek to use his land for any use, even those specifically
prohibited in the zone. This approach makes the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance
meaningless and places the City in a position where it can be accused of acting arbitrarily.
Mayor and City Council
Page 3
September 8, 2009
For all of the above reasons, I urge you not to validate this improper use of a
development agreement.
Very truly yours,
tephen A. Bradbury
SAB/jr
Cc: Susan Buxton
Mike Williams
Ron Sali
cc 9 -,el -or
City of Eagle
Council Members
Re: Budget Hearings and Landscape Concerns
Dear Council Members:
RECEIVEDt°:Ti..7, _._. 1
CITY OF .
File:
Route tn.
I understand this is a very difficult budget year with the down turn of the economy drastically affecting
the revenue of the city. You are to be commended for your determination to stay within the limits of
projected revenue and finding ways to down size government and the costs providing critical city
services.
One area of concern that I would like to address is the care and maintenance of city lands and parks. As
a former council member, I and other council members felt it was prudent to contract these services
with local private firms. This was both good for the city and community, we had excellent care of our
parks property, and payment to a local business provided jobs and economic benefits to the community.
At several points, we considered the idea of, sometime in the future, establishing a city public works
department that would maintain city buildings and property, including parks. But prior to
implementation, I believe that due diligence calls for a thorough examination of the costs and benefits
of the city doing this compared to contracting for services. My concern is, has the city done due
diligence in establishing the short term and long term costs and benefits.
In doing a cost to benefits analysis, have you considered the following items in detail?
• How many employees will be needed and what will salary and benefits cost?
• Will a manager be need to supervise the crews who maintain city property and take proper care
of buildings, grounds, equipment and parks?
• Will city employees need to be certified in fertilizer application and have specific knowledge in
the application pesticides?
• Does the city have employees that are knowledgeable in insect and disease detection and
control needed to keep grass and trees healthy?
• Does the city have the equipment to do the job? What new equipment will be needed and at
what cost?
• Will there be a need for a mechanic(s) to maintain and fix equipment? In this regard, will the
city need a maintenance facility or will we hire someone to do the maintenance and repairs?
What will this cost?
• Will a building be needed to house the fertilizer, lawn mowers, and other equipment?
• Will there be liability issues that need to be dealt with requiring more insurance?
• What will be the costs in future years? How does our current contract costs compare per acre
to cities that do their own maintenance?
These are a few of the questions you should be asking and, if you do not know the answers, it may be
better to attempt to negotiate a reduced contract than to launch a full maintenance department.
In a similar manner, at one point in the past, the City of Eagle looked into the question of providing our
own police department. When the study was complete, it was apparent that we were much better off
by contracting with the Ada County Sherriff. Eagle police services are a fraction of what other cities are
paying for city policing. Similarly, the council needs to make sure that immediate and future costs and
benefits are thoroughly investigated before jumping into something we may regret.
Contracts with private business or other government agencies can be beneficial. We have had excellent
care of our parks by the current providers. Can we get equivalent care by doing it ourselves and will
there be a real savings? Launching a new department during an economic downturn may be a risky
venture. What I am asking is that you, as a council, know what you are getting the City into and why?
Are there other alternatives such as a competitive bid on a reduced schedule of maintenance or
renegotiating with the current provider?
I wish you well,
Sincerely,
Stan Bastian
1369 E. Nest View Ct.
Eagle, Idaho 83616
r
Market
Value
Homeowners Assessed
Exemption Value
463 Moraine Place - Jeanne's house
2007 $274,400 -89,325
2008 $248,900 -100,938
2009 $253.900 -104,471
Other Residential Samples
2007 $613,100 -89,325
2008 $588,500 -100,938
2009 $518,100 -104,471
$185,075
$147,962
$149,429
$523,775
$487,562
$413,629
2007 $333,000 -89,325 $243,675
2008 $331,700 -100,938 $230,762
2009 $299,900 -104,471 $195,429
2007 $519,400 -89,325 $430,075
2008 $452,300 -100,928 $351,372
2009 $350,100 -104,471 $245,629
2007 $304,300 -89,325 $214,975
2008 $282,900 -100,928 $181,972
2007 $313,100 -104,471 $208,629
2007 $393,800 -89,325 $304,475
2008 $396,800 -100,928 $295,872
2009 $345,800 -104,471 $241,329
Commercial downtown Eagle
2007 $817,600 n/a $817,600
2008 $886,700 n/a $886,700
2009 $872,700 n/a $872,700
Eagle Eagle
Mill Levy Prop. Taxes
.000712468 $131.86
000750780 $111.09
000907597 $135.62 (proposed)
.000712468 $373.17
.000750780 $366.05
.000907597 $375.41 (proposed)
.000712468 $173.61
.000750780 $173.25
.000907597 $177.37 (proposed)
.000712468 $306.41
.000750780 $263.80
.000907597 $222.93 (proposed)
.000712468 $153.16
.000750780 $136.62
.000907597 $189.35 (proposed)
.000712468 $216.93
.000750780 $222.13
.000907597 $219.03 (proposed)
.000712468 $582.51
.000750780 $665.72
.000907597 $792.06 (proposed)
Does not include separate levy for Eagle library bond repayment - only funds that
go into Eagle's general fund for operating expenses
Sedlacek
1200 Hereford Drive
Eagle, ID 83616
(208) 939-6219
September 4, 2009
City of Eagle
Attn: The Honorable Phil Bandy, Mayor
Council members: Huffaker, Jackson -Heim, Shoustarian and Semanko
Re: City of Eagle Fiscal Year 2010 Budget
Dear Council:
First, I want to voice my appreciation for the tremendous effort and the large amount of time
you have all put into this year's budget process. You are to be commended for making the tough
decisions necessary to balance the city expenditures against the dire revenue projections. 1 have
reviewed the draft budget posted on the city website and offer these comments:
I would ask that you reconsider bringing the landscape maintenance and snow removal in-
house. This action does not make sense to me because I believe you could get better results at a
lower price by simply renegotiating with Trautman. Is the city planning on purchasing (and
depreciating) all the equipment that will be needed? Who will maintain this equipment? Where
will it be stored?
Will licensed individuals be managing chemical applications? Who will maintain the water
features and winterize the irrigation systems? Who will be clearing the snow and ice that
inevitably will pile up in front of the museum, the senior center, the library and city hall? One
citizen's slip on the ice could result in a lawsuit that would cost much more than the city's
contract with Trautman.
I don't see all these maintenance tasks being done with seasonal employees; and if you have to
hire more full-time employees with benefits, then where would the savings be? I don't think
your Public Works department has totally "proved up" on the management of the city water
system. Now is not the time to add facilities maintenance to the mix.
I oppose further cuts to the city planning department. I have Lived in Eagle for over 50 years, I
have been employed as a staff person for Eagle Sewer District for 21 years, and I served on the
Eagle City Council from June 1997 through December 2005. I have worked closely with the
Eagle planners for many, many years and I know your planning staff—and their work-- better
than any member on the existing city council. I have watched the Eagle City planners in action
around the various "regional" negotiating tables and I want them there for Eagle. They are well
educated, experienced and respected by all the other planners in the Treasure Valley.
Mayor and Eagle City Council
September 4, 2009
Page 2
If the council decides to cut planning staff, then please de -annex all city property north of Beacon
Light Road and west of Linder Road. Forget the foothills property altogether. Ilan this ground
is annexed into Eagle, then the council has the responsibility to plan and guide the development
of these large tracts of ground while maintaining the high standards the Eagle citizenry has come
to expect. And let's face it; none of you have the expertise or the historical background to make
that happen. These developers would love to see Eagle trim back on their planning staff and it
isn't because they are worried about the city's budget woes.
1 am quite passionate about this matter because I watched my hometown get turned upside
down by too much growth that came too fast and lasted too long. It has been the Eagle planning
staff that has made Eagle such a desirable place to live—not the elected officials. My support
and eventual vote for any council member will be heavily influenced by how well I feel the
candidate supports the Eagle planning staff.
And finally, I do appreciate the council's desire to keep the tax levy down; but by refusing to take
the available 3% increase you are losing much needed revenue. And because of the way the
property tax formula works, you are compounding the loss for every subsequent budget year.
The proposed Eagle FY 2010 budget slashes our police coverage, hurts our library operation and
offers next to nothing to our Senior Citizens and their community van. The proposed budget
puts our Iandscape investments at risk and the city hall employees' morale into the toilet. So go
ahead and waive the 3% increase—but I think the move is more political than practical ---and it
sure isn't something I would crow about.
S' cerely,
. Lynne Sedlacek
WRITTEN COMMENT
1 September 2009
City of Eagle,
Attn: Mayor Phil Bandy
P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, ID 83616
Subject: Opposition to Property Tax Levy Increase
Dear Mayor Bandy,
- GER,.
CITY C
to:.
We are submitting this letter to ask that you work with the City Council to develop a 2009-
2010 Budget for the City of Eagle that does not result in an increase in the property tax
levy.
We have read your letter to the citizens of the City of Eagle posted on the City of Eagle
website. We appreciate and understand the message you conveyed. However, we do not see
in your letter any discussion or rationale for why an increase is needed other than to
maintain the same revenue from property tax as in previous years. Without that
information we cannot support your request to increase the levy.
Yes, these are interesting times. Times where we need to challenge the various services
and functions of the City of Eagle's government and choose wisely those that are in the best
interest of the City. Also, every avenue for other sources of funds must be addressed and
leveraged before we just raise the levy.
We are cc`ing the City Council members with the same request to each of them as we've
made to you.
Thank you for considering our input.
Best Regards,
Steve Pog II
1640 N atson Place
Eagle, ID 83616
cc:
Fogdall Electronic File
Michael Huffaker
Norm Semanko
Al Shoustarian
Jeanne Jackson -Heim
Bonnie Fogdall
4
5
A- - TRAUTMAN
�> LAWN & LANDSCAPE
(208) 466-0690 5061 Ustick Road, Nampa, ID 83687
City of Eagle
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
August 31, 2009
Re: Landscape Maintenance Budget for 2010
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
RECEIVED & FILED
CITY OF EAGLE
AUG 3 1 2009
Fu••
Route to: QY W
r
Trautman Lawn & Landscape Company is very proud to have provided the landscape
maintenance services for the City of Eagle since the spring of 1989. Over the past twenty years
our company has experienced substantial growth and development just as the City has. As
stated during the public hearing on August 25, 2009 our company has not only maintained the
landscape maintenance contract over the past twenty years, the City has repeatedly placed those
services out to bid and we have consistently provided the City with the lowest costs and been
able to establish top quality results as well. The City is our oldest and most showcased
commercial account. Having said that, we are very concerned about the proposed development
of the landscape maintenance division of the Parks Department within the City.
When reviewing the proposed landscape maintenance budget for 2010 we found it difficult to
compare to previous years. The line item is zeroed out and now the "public option" of the
landscape maintenance costs are scattered throughout the Public Works Dept. It is obvious that
the Public Works Dept. budget is less than last year but it is our belief that the proposed
"landscape maintenance" portion of the budget submitted by the Public Works Department isn't
complete and transparent enough for the council to make a well-informed decision regarding this
matter. Upon questioning at the recent public hearing the Public Works Director wasn't able to
tell the council how many times he was projecting to fertilize the turf within his 2010 budget. If
he doesn't know how many times he is going to fertilize the turf then how does he know how
much it is going to cost? When he asked us to submit our pricing he wanted it for all the
services we had in our last years contract which if you review will clearly define the quantity, the
services, and the costs.
He did ask us to "sharpen our pencils" and let him know if this was the best we could do. He
suggested that certain council members were expecting us to take annual cost reductions from Y2
- 3 during these tough economic times. After this conversation, Mr. Trautman made several
attempts to contact him via phone to arrange a meeting with the council to discuss potential
options. After many messages were left and Mr. Echeita failed to return his call in a timely
manner Mr. Trautman called City Hall directly and asked the Deputy City Clerk Tracy Osborn to
call Mr. Echeita and let him know he had been trying to get a hold of him. She called back and
said Mr. Echeita was busy and he knew that Mr. Trautman had been leaving him messages.
Shortly after Mr. Echeita did call Mr. Trautman by phone and at this time he stated he would let
us know what the council decided at their meeting that was scheduled for the next night.
Beginning to feel uneasy and that something wasn't right Mr. Trautman decided to research the
budget online the next day and realized that the landscape maintenance budget costs for 2010
were zero. This is how we first became aware of the City's plans of developing the landscape
maintenance division of the Parks & Recreation Dept., three hours before the City Council was
potentially going to vote on budget numbers for 2010.
Prior to the hiring of the Public Works Director our company has been involved directly with the
City Clerk in developing the budget for the landscape maintenance services. The City relied on
our professional experience and in May every year we would submit our projected pricing and
our landscape maintenance recommendations for the up coming year. In the summer of 2008 our
company's involvement in this process started to diminish. Last fall and winter with the
economy in decline, we made repeated failed attempts to discuss the projected work for the 2009
maintenance season and how we could reduce current services and costs with the Public Works
Director. In February we were contacted by the Public Works Director and were informed that
the City was going to make some major cuts and that he needed to have a meeting with us. In
the beginning of the meeting he presented us with a 30 day written termination notice to all
services our company provided to the City with exception of the mowing services. We urged
discussion of reviewing the current contract and evaluating the most critical services that we
provide for the city. He said that wasn't an option and that City was taking huge personnel cuts
as well and he would inform us if the City needed any of those services in the future months.
Over the next 30 days our contract was reduced to mowing services only. As the Public Works
Director rehired some of City's employees that had been affected by the previous lay off.
These people were to perform the services that our company had previously been contracted to
do. Was this a fiduciary decision made in the best interest of the City or was it in the best
interest of those people who were affected by the lay off? Could our company have provided
some of these services cheaper? Who knows? We weren't given the opportunity to negotiate or
even have a conversation in this area. After attending the public hearing on August 25t and
hearing that Councilman Al Shoushtarian has concerns about various departments reduced work
loads and justifying the expenses of the involved personnel and considering our past experience
with the Public Works Director and his lack of willingness to communicate with our company,
we are now wondering if the idea to develop the landscape maintenance division was an effort to
create more work within the department therefore providing job security for those involved in
these uncertain times.
Regardless if that was the true intent or not, please consider these remarks before changing
something that has served the City well for two decades. How many years of commercial
landscape maintenance experience does the Public Works Director have? When the economy
picks up and he has other City obligations, how much is it going to cost to hire a qualified
manager of the landscape maintenance division? We realize that the City has a licensed arborist
on staff but how much practical landscape maintenance experience does she have? Eventually
the City will need some kind of facility to house the equipment and vehicles in, how much is that
going to cost? Commercial landscape equipment needs a lot of routine maintenance and repairs.
What happens when a piece of equipment breaks down? Does the City have backup equipment
or a mechanic on staff that can fix same day? Is it really cheaper to hire more city employees and
put on the additional overhead and the major capital expenditures required? What are the
projected costs beyond 2010? Has there been sufficient planning and documentation of those
projected costs? If the proposed "landscape maintenance division" was a small business seeking
startup capital and funding from a private bank, is there a "business plan" to support those
budget projections?
Is this the time to expand City government? Is it the right path to follow just because it's what
other cities do? Research the costs and quality of landscape maintenance services provided in
your surrounding Cities. It's far better to know you are making this major change for the right
reasons.
We all realize these are some of the toughest economic times this country has seen but we still
need to be proactive and protect the landscape assets that the city has invested in. Had our
company been allowed to be actively involved we could have used our experience and
knowledge to help the City through this difficult time. We believe it's not sufficient to say "I
didn't have funds to pay the water bills". The lack of water to many of the trees throughout the
city this year has caused death and irreversible damage that will cost the city more in the future
than some people may realize. Trautman Lawn & Landscape Company could of in the past and
can in the future offer options to reduce costs while providing those critical services that will
maintain the integrity of the City's landscape assets (trees, shrubs, irrigation systems, and turf)
through this financial crisis.
It's common sense and knowledge that any business that lacks competition breeds inefficient
methods and complacency. Please consider this thought before completely shutting out the
competitive aspect of the private option.
Tal and I appreciate not only the work the City has awarded our company over the years, we
value the honest business relationship that we've have established as well. We respect many of
the people that we have worked with over the years and hope that we can continue to work with
the City in the future. We would greatly appreciate an opportunity to meet with the Mayor and
Council to discuss the future of the City's landscape maintenance services.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Trautman — Owner
Trautman Lawn & Landscape Company
1101 W. Floating Feather Road
Eagle, Idaho 83616
August 26, 2009
Mayor Bundy and Members of the City Council, City of Eagle
P.O.Box 1520
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Dear Council members,
RECEIVED & FILED- _
CITY OF EAGLE
SEP 01 2009
FN••
Routs to.
It has come to our attention that Mayor Bundy claims that the citizens of Eagle are not against
raising the levy rate and thus raising taxes. This is ludicrous! Some of us are very long term
residents of Eagle and now find ourselves on fixed incomes. We have lived in our modest home
in Downing Downs Subdivision since 1971. We have just learned that there will be no cost of
living increase in social security for the next year or two. Our property taxes have sky rocketed
since 2000. We currently have to use all of our income for a month just to pay property taxes.
That month we have no income for food, gas or utilities.
Raising property taxes and incurring a quarter of a million new debt is foolish and greedy on the
part of the Mayor. In an economy that requires that all of us tighten our belt and spend Tess,
why does the Mayor feel that the city not do likewise.
We are opposed to such an increase. We appreciate the sensible thinking of Council members
Semanko and Shoustarian in wanting to revise the budget so that no new debt or taxes are
necessary.
L r l
Ken and Ar e Kawakami '�
1101 W. Floating Feather Road
Eagle, Idaho 83616
August 26, 2009
Mayor Bundy and Members of the City Council, City of Eagle
P.O.Box 1520
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Dear Council members,
RECEIVED &
CITY OF EAGLE
SEP 01 2009
EN•.
Routs tr.
It has come to our attention that Mayor Bundy claims that the citizens of Eagle are not against
raising the levy rate and thus raising taxes. This is ludicrous! Some of us are very long term
residents of Eagle and now find ourselves on fixed incomes. We have lived in our modest home
in Downing Downs Subdivision since 1971. We have just learned that there will be no cost of
living increase in social security for the next year or two. Our property taxes have sky rocketed
since 2000. We currently have to use all of our income for a month just to pay property taxes.
That month we have no income for food, gas or utilities.
Raising property taxes and incurring a quarter of a million new debt is foolish and greedy on the
part of the Mayor. In an economy that requires that all of us tighten our belt and spend Tess,
why does the Mayor feel that the city not do likewise.
We are opposed to such an increase. We appreciate the sensible thinking of Council members
Semanko and Shoustarian in wanting to revise the budget so that no new debt or taxes are
necessary.
Sin reyly,
Ken and Ar a awakami
Sharon Bergmann
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
roghanif@aol.com
Friday, September 04, 2009 1:24 PM
eaglecity
Phil Bandy; Norm Semanko
2009-2010 budget
EagleBudget09.docx
Attached, is a letter regarding 2009-2010 proposed budget. I would appreciate it if you would forward this
email to mayor and city council members. In case of any problem, please email or call me at 386-9196.
Thank you,
Foad Roghani
1
Mayor P. Bandy
Eagle City Council
P.O. Box 1520
Eagle, ID, 83616
RE: Eagle 2009-1010 Budget
Dear Mayor/City Council:
September 1, 2009
I, as a tax payer, appreciate the fact that you are spending time to make necessary changes in the city
budget during these challenging economic times. My wife and I own multiple properties and operate
multiple businesses in Eagle, therefore, we will be directly affected by all your decisions. Unfortunately,
by the time I arrived for August 25th council meeting, the hearing for public testimonies was closed. I
appreciate councilmen Semanko and Shoushtarian's insistence to postpone voting on the budget until
September 8 and allowing written comments on the subject.
During my professional life of more than 35 years working for consulting firms or running my own
business in multiple countries, I have always worked on two (2) principles; 1) Every group regardless of
its size is a cost and profit center, meaning if it is not profitable (or does not add the absolute needed
value to the bottom line) it should be closed, and 2) need, meaning if a business is profitable but you
have people you don't need you do not keep them. You preserve your profits for the rainy days.
During the meeting of August 25th Mayor Bandy said four (4) residents testified tonight, and none
mentioned taxes. He concluded that because they did not mention the taxes they are fine with a small
tax increase. That is only one implied interpretation. The other and more realistic conclusion is that they
did not say anything because they did not expect a levy change during these tough economic times. Had
I arrived earlier, I would have testified. I was not going to say anything about the taxes because I was
sure the city would not increase our levy. Along the same line, I disagree with council woman Jackson -
Heim that the taxes are low here and people don't mind a tax increase. Last year I lost money in all of
my businesses and I still paid more than $100,000 in property taxes to the city, county and associated
entities. I do mind every penny of increase, when we are doing our best to survive and keep people
employed and the city has the alternative to cut costs rather than increasing levy rate.
I also read mayor Bandy's comments on the city's web site about property taxes. Like everything else,
there are multiple ways to look at one thing. One way was mayor's calculation. The other, or a more
realistic way is; the property owner in his example just lost $51,000 of his/her home value, most
probably $51,000 in equity. The state gave that person $3,533 additional property tax relief to reduce
the property tax. If that home owner is an employee of HP (or almost any other company) he was forced
to take over 11% reduction in salary and benefits so the company could survive. The mayor is trying to
say you really are not affected because you actually pay around $3 Tess in property taxes than last year.
Why should a person that just lost $51,000 on his/her home value/equity, and over 11% of his/her
income and benefits (plus you in reality took additional home exemption of $3533 away) should pay the
same tax as last year for everything that has less value so the city does not have to use other sensible
options to reduce its costs. Isn't that in reality a substantial tax increase? Look at the reality. This person
did not have a raise for multiple years, he lost his home equity because of reduced home values, his
income is reduced by more than 11%, he has 2 kids in college, his wife lost her job and city says we want
to keep the little tax savings you are entitled to (As we all know at least in ADA and Canyon counties
assessed value of over 95% of the properties is higher than its market value. Our county commissioners
will testify to this fact because of the number of appeals ending in justified reductions but still not to the
actual market values, meaning we all are paying more taxes than market value of our properties).
Needless to say he cannot refinance his house because the market value of his house (in Eagle, ID. This is
one of a few real people that talked to me, it is not imaginary) is below his current loan amount so not
only he lost his equity, he is in negative. That is why I have problem with Mayor Bandy and council
woman Jackson -Heim regarding small levy increase as OK and that it is peanuts. Evaluating it from the
point of view of an outsider, a tax payer, a business owner, and considering the needs of the city and
workload, I must say many of us agree with councilman Shoushtarian that the city is still overstaffed and
there is room for some reductions.
In my view, councilman Semanko's goal of about 7.8% additional reductions and building a reserve could
easily be reached by proper planning. Here are but a few suggestions:
City staff have a Golden (comparing with the rest of us but not as good as the house and senate
officials of the United States) benefit package. Even though you changed some of the medical
benefits last year, I believe there is room for more improvements. When I look at the staffing
budget and associate insurance and benefit costs, the first thing I ask myself is how much
benefit the city provides for such a high cost and why? In my opinion city should not pay more
than 80% of the employee and 50% of their dependents health insurance with a minimum of
$1000 deductible but $2,000 is more realistic. This is still a better benefit package than almost
any public or private company offers to their employees. The city should also modify its
retirement benefit and match employee contributions with an annual cap of $4,000 on its
contribution to each employee retirement (10.39% contribution to PERSI is unbelievably high).
In addition, benefits should be offered only to full time employees working full 40 hours a week
with no benefit for the part time or temporary employees. City also has a very generous
vacation package and eleven (11) official holidays a year. This contributes too much to the
overhead if you consider the actual working hours of each employee as we do in private
industries. As a suggestion, if you cut the vacation benefits of each employee by one week per
year it will be equivalent of almost one extra employee for the city which you could possibly let
one person go. After one week reduction they still will get more vacation than private sector.
The city can do a much better job of scheduling its staff. When we go to public hearings we
always see multiple employees are attending the meeting waiting for hours for their time to
make their presentation or handle their portion of the meeting. It is my understanding that the
staff receives either overtime or comp time if they go above 40hrs/week, either way a cost to
the city therefore the tax payers. There are multiple ways to schedule staff so they don't have to
go through this unproductive and expensive time.
- You should renegotiate your contracts/agreements/leases with the outside service providers
starting with your lease of City Hall. I am against bringing parks and other maintenance and
services in house because among other things the city overhead and benefit package is too
expensive. In additions you have the equipment capital costs, maintenance, etc. and who is
going to do the work when employees do not show up for work (for any reason) and what you
are going to do with them during the time/season that you don't need them? Are you hiring
them as seasonal/temporary staff without any benefits?
On your loan from Zion Bank, is it possible to ask for a line of credit (LOC) instead of a loan/note
from the bank? Based on the data you have provided, the bank loans you the money at a certain
percentage rate and because you don't immediately need that money they borrow it back from
you by paying you one half or less as much interest (which in turn they loan that money to
someone else). Could you ask for a line of credit so you pay interest only when you draw the
loan and pay interest only on the money that you are using? If you have that option, have you
done an analysis to see which one is less expensive, the loan or LOC?
I believe my points and feelings are expressed. There are many other ways to reduce costs and save.
We, the tax payers appreciate the fact that you have gone through this to balance the budget. Many
of the budget enhancements and cuts should have gone into effect one (1) or two (2) years ago. I
wrote you a letter more than a year ago regarding this matter and the fact that most of your
forecasts/predications/expectations of the economy were rosy and unrealistic. I hope we all learned
a lesson. Please remember you were elected by the people, the local tax payers, and are trusted to
do what is best for the residents and business owners of the Eagle in short and long term. l hope you
continue to earn our trust.
Respectfully,
Foad Roghani
Sharon Bergmann
From: JOHN AND NINA BAKER [johntandninat@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:06 AM
To: eaglecity
Subject: Proposed Tax Levy
We opposed the proposed 2009/2010 property tax levy. We believe that the City of Eagle should not
increase property tax regardless of the reduction in in real estate / property values.
John and Nina Baker
2492 E Mariposa Drive
Eagle, ID
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: jane@teapartyboise.com
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 9:16 PM
To: eaglecity
Subject: Letter to Jeanne Jackson -Heim
September 4, 2009
City of Eagle
660 E. Civic Lane
Eagle, ID 83616
Dear Elected Officials,
This letter is being written to elected officials in the Treasure Valley area... Mayors and members of City
Councils, County Commissioners, State of Idaho's Senators and Representatives, Idaho's Governor and others.
This is a personal invitation for you to attend TEA PARTY BOISE on Saturday, September 12th at noon at
Capitol Park next to the Idaho State Capitol.
This is not an invitation for you to speak or make a presentation. This is an invitation for you to come and listen
to the people of the Treasure Valley and Idaho. A chance to hear the concerns, fears and thoughts of your
people. This is a time for you to listen to the people.
Hundreds and thousands of people will be marching up Capitol Blvd. to arrive at Capitol Park at noon. We
would like our elected officials to be there to welcome your people as they speak their mind.
We will be recognizing the elected officials present and indicated that every Mayor and City Council person,
County Commissioners and member of the Idaho Senate and House, and even the Governor has been invited to
come join us - and listen to the people speak.
September 12th is truly a time to be reminded that at the city, county, state and federal level - that we are a
government of, by and for the people.
We look forward to seeing you at TEA PARTY BOISE on Saturday, September 12th at noon in Capitol Park.
Sincerely,
c _gee e, e (9,aie&
Steve Owen
Event Division Director
Tea Party Boise, LLC
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: michael segerdal [mjnseg@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 4:28 PM
To: eaglecity
Subject: Budget
Dear Councilman Huffaker
Re: Proposed Budget
We would urge you to do everything possible not to raise the levy rate. It seems to be a widespread
belief that all Eagle property tax assessments have gone down. Ours has gone UP by $21,400 (7.6%).
We suspect older properties like ours have probably gone up too, and these are generally owned by
older and low-income citizens, those least able to nafford an increase in property tax.
Key points to us are: -
1) To reduce staff in P and Z department.
2) To cut attorney fees.
3) To push ahead with a scheme to purchase City Hall.
4) To do greenscape maintenance in-house.
Thank you.
Michael and Hazel Segerdal
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: Phil Bandy
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:35 PM
To: City Council Grp
Cc: Sharon Bergmann
Subject: FW: Eagle budget
FYI
Phil
Original Message
From: Philip and Danielle Wehr [mailto:pdwehrl@bmi.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:14 PM
To: Phil Bandy
Subject: Eagle budget
Dear Mayor Phil Bandy,
I received a notice the the proposed 09-10 budget included a 22% increase in property tax levy and $450,000 in
new debt. This ideas seems at odds with currently economic times. Could you please confirm this claim and
help me understand why the City of Eagle is not making a better effort at balancing the budget?
Thanks and best regards,
Philip Wehr
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: Phil Bandy
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:37 PM
To: City Council Grp
Cc: Sharon Bergmann
Subject: FW: Oppose Proprty Tax Levy Increase
FYI
Phil
Original Message
From: Mike Griffiths [mailto:griffitm@SLRMC.ORG]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 11:17 AM
To: Phil Bandy
Subject: Oppose Proprty Tax Levy Increase
Mayor Bandy,
My wife and I strongly oppose your proposed 22% levey increase in property taxes.
Respectfully,
Mike and Arlene Griffiths
1000 Los Luceros Dr
"TWEF <slrmc.org>" made the following annotations.
"This message is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is confidential or privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify us
immediately and destroy the related message."
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: MICHAEL KILFOYLE [mnkilfoyle@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:10 PM
To: eaglecity
Subject: taxes
Dear Mayor Bandy and the Eagle City Council,
Eagle was once the "standard" to which other cities/towns in the Valley could measure themselves. Now,
it has become the bottom of the list. Minimal services, deteriorating retail opportunities, shrinking library
hours and acquisition of new materials, and a falling sense of pride in the community in general are the
realities around us. I would be in favor of additional taxes to bring the city back to its former self or to at
least stop its deteriorating state. NO MORE FINANCIAL CUTS, PLEASE. We need to go forward now that
budget is balanced or almost so for the next fiscal year and increase taxes if necessary.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kilfoyle, an Eagle resident of 9+ years.
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: EAGLETON [idahoeagletons@q.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 9:39 PM
To: eaglecity
Subject: budget proposal
Hello,
Please forward this opinion on to the city council members.
We have lived in Eagle for the past 16 years and have loved the community and the direction it has
taken. We realize the past year or so has been extremely difficult to keep services at an acceptable level
due to the economic downturn, and we realize the cuts already made to the budget were probably very
necessary. However, we urge you to not cut any more from the budget. The services Eagle offers (a
great library, police force, arts commission, etc...) are wonderful and we don't want to have them suffer
more decreased funding. We are more than willing to pay a modest tax increase in order to maintain the
quality of life we have come to expect and love in Eagle. Please do not cut services or salaries any more.
Do the right thing for the citizens of Eagle, knowing full well nothing comes for free. Sometimes a tax
increase is a necessary and justifiable evil.
Please consider our opinion and thanks for listening.
Marilyn and David Eagleton
2017 E. Holgate Ct.
Eagle, Id 83616
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: Phil Bandy
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:36 PM
To: City Council Grp
Cc: Sharon Bergmann
Subject: FW: taxes
FYI
Phil
Original Message
From: Frank Stoppello[mailto:fstoppello@stoppelloandkiser.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Phil Bandy
Subject: taxes
My wife and I have been residents of Eagle for Over 36 years and we are totally opposed to any tax increase.
The city needs to cut its budget even more to sustain itself in light of the recession. The last thing the public
needs is more taxes when there has been a terrific loss of jobs. Frank and Vickie Stoppello
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: Phil Bandy
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:36 PM
To: City Council Grp
Cc: Sharon Bergmann
Subject: FW: Tax and debt increase
FYI
Phil
Original Message
From: John S.Viehweg [mailto:jsvisme@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 10:46 AM
To: Phil Bandy
Subject: Tax and debt increase
Mayor Bandy,
I'm a long-time Eagle resident and wish to express my opinion regarding your proposal to increase our property
tax levy and the city debt level at this time of economic hardship for so many. Although I sympathize with the
budget challenges the city is facing, I remind you that those same challenges are facing all of us as Eagle
residents. As citizens, however, we do not enjoy the luxury of simply raising taxes or increasing our debt load
to meet projected expenses. Everyone I know is, of necessity, finding ways to cut back on extras, do with less,
and make existing resources go farther in an effort to stay afloat financially during these trying times. The City
of Eagle should do no less. This is most certainly NOT the time to raise taxes resulting in even more hardship
for our residents. I saw one of your council members quoted the other day to the effect that Eagle residents
should quit whining because compared to other neighboring cities our tax levy is proportionally much lower
than theirs. This is no argument at all. It's like saying that we shouldn't bother defending our freedoms
because most of the world really isn't free—so what do we have to gripe about? Ridiculous logic. The point is
not what other city governments have managed to get away with or foist upon their residents. It's about doing
what's right by the citizens of Eagle. I, and everyone else I talk to, are of the opinion that our esteemed city
government needs to learn an important lesson about fiscal responsibility. You must not raise taxes to deal with
shortages due to economic hardships. You, like us, must look to trim, cut, and economize all the functions of
city government in an effort to stay afloat.
I cannot help but feel that much of the city's financial trouble can be traced to the unfortunate decision to go
ahead with the building of the grandiose city office building in which your administration now resides. I
remind you that the citizens of this city voted against a bond to finance this project—OVERWHELMINGLY—
on two separate occasions during Mrs. Merrill's administration. But, not to be put off by a majority of silly
voters, the city found a way to do an end run around the electoral process by using accounting gimmicks to
contract for a "nothing down" long term lease for the project, which would not require voter approval. Now
you reap the whirlwind of that dishonest and unfortunate tactic. Had the city council and major simply listened
to the voice of the voters back then, you and your administration would not be saddled with crippling lease
payments now. Another lesson to be learned at city hall.
1
I urge you in the strongest terms to withdraw your plans to increase taxes and debt load, and instead get serious
about cutting programs, trimming budgets and learning to do with less income like so many of the rest of us
have. With all the empty office space sitting vacant in Eagle right now, I would suggest as a starting point a
serious effort at finding new and less expensive offices for the city and/or renegotiating the lease agreement for
the palatial quarters you now occupy. I would think in the current economic climate your grounds for
renegotiation would be strong.
I do wish you well in your efforts to control city costs and preside over the current budget concerns. Please do
your best to run the city government according to the same principles under which we, as city residents, must
abide. Thank you for your time and service to our community.
John S. Viehweg
2102 N. Canter Place
Eagle, ID 83616
939-2974
2
Sharon Bergmann
From: JOHN AND NINA BAKER [johntandninat@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:39 AM
To: eaglecity
Subject: Proposed Tax Anticipation Note
We oppose the proposed Tax Anticipation Note.
We believe that the city should not go further into debt. Further cuts should be made to the city budget
including services and wages for city employees.
If a balanced budget cannot be reached any other way an election should be held.
John and Nina Baker
2492 E Mariposa Drive
Eagle, ID
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: alex chamberlain [humorme@cableone.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:00 PM
To: eaglecity
Subject: city services
To Mayor Bandy and the Council,
My family and I have been residents of Eagle for fifteen years. My background includes a Republican father,
Democrat in-laws, and my own leanings have been variable depending upon the issue.
am concerned about the recently publicized possibility of further reducing services in Eagle as a response to
the financial stresses we face. This wouldimpact its citizens beyond what would be optimal for keeping Eagle
the town to which we were originally drawn. The Library, Police patrols and response, and other amenities need
to be maintained above a minimal levelso that businesses are drawn to the community and reasonable
population growth can continue.
To this end, I would be willing to bear a modest tax increase. It is my understanding that most citizens in Eagle
have stable incomes and would likewise be able to trade off a small tax hike to have services provided at a level
that will meet the needs of our residents. I believe that having a reduction of services as the only option on the table
does not acknowledge the equally valid response of increasing revenue.
Feel free to respond to this in private or publically as you desire.
R. Alex Chamberlain
490 Mango Drive
1
Sharon Bergmann
From: Bob's inbox [worth2dad@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 11:24 PM
To: Phil Bandy; Jean Jackson -Heim; Mike Huffaker
Cc: eaglecity
Subject: Eagle Budget
Mayor and council members,
Realizing that the city council has the final say on the budget, I want to voice my opinion in hopes that it will
be one of many expressing concern over the proposed property tax increase. During this recession, many of
us have to make difficult decisions to 'live on less'. This is not comfortable and causes our family members to
sacrifice and do without. I believe that same philosophy needs to be a guiding principal of our community
leaders during these challenging times. It is the reality of the financial storm we are all trying to weather.
I have lived in Eagle many years and have seen my property taxes steadily climb as the assessed value of my
home has more than quadrupled since 1990. Given the severe economic downturn over the past year, I
estimate that my house value has dropped by over 30% since its high in 2006. The realistic value of my home
today is about what it was back in 2005, yet the assessed value and related taxes continue to climb as if the
property was continuing to increasing in value. This is not right and it puts an unfair burden on those of us
trying to make ends meet with reduced salaries, higher costs of living, etc. Today 25% of my mortgage
payment each month goes to property taxes.
I feel very strongly that property taxes should NOT be increased. However, if property taxes are to be
increased, then those increases should also be accompanied with fair assessments of the value of our homes —
taking into account the recent 20-30% decline caused by this recession. It is doubly unfair to raise taxes AND
continue to over state the assessed value of our homes.
I support Semanko and Shoustarian in their opposition to increasing the property tax burden and hope that
the other council members will join them in an opposing vote to more debt and more taxes. Desperate times
call for desperate measures and we need to be more prudent than ever on over -spending and over taxing. We
need to pare the city budget back to the bare essentials and let the citizens know that Eagle will not be adding
to their financial burden by tax increases.
Desperately,
Bob Southworth
(208) 939-4028
1