Minutes - 2010 - City Council - 03/09/2010 - Regular
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
March 9,2010
PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
1. Charlie Baun Regional Recreation Plan Foundation for Ada and Canyon County Trails
(FACT) Charlie Baun distributes materials to the Council and discusses the Regional Recreation
Plan Foundation for Ada and Canyon County Trails and potential funding from the City of
Eagle. Discussion on in-kind donations. Total project funding is approximately $20,000.00.
Also a request for staff to devote in-kind time in the planning process and mapping which would
be approximately 5 hours per month and generation of maps and printing costs. General
discussion.
Council President Huffaker: we will add this to a future agenda with Staff giving a presentation.
2. Mayor and Council Reports and Concerns:
Huffaker: Discussion on the Area of Impact Negotiation Letter. The letter was sent to the
County and hopefully we will have another meeting with them the middle of April.
Discussion on the Air Quality Board Meeting tomorrow.
Discussion on the meeting with Sheriff Raney and Chief Hippie. Discussion on the low crime
rate and Community Policing. Discussion on the type of calls to the Department. Discussion on
a program to have business/people register with the City with an annual fee to cover the costs of
false alarms.
Shoushtarian: Thanks Chief Hippie for the tour of the Ada County Sheriffs facility.
Reports on the Senior Citizen meeting this morning.
Reports on the Urban Renewal Agency which met this afternoon.
Semanko: No report
Grasser: No report
3. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: Provides an overview of the Quarter Report, the TAN Fund and
the February Financial Report. The Clerk will have a yearly projection for the Council at their
March 23rd meeting and a report from the Zoning Administrator and the Public Works Director
on revenue from their departments.
4. Zoning Administrator's Report: No report
5. Public Works Director Report: Discussion on Parks Reservations that began the 1 st of March.
6. City Attorney Report: I met with the City Hall Task Force and answered all of their questions
and they have some new questions that I am working on for them. General discussion.
REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Council President Huffaker calls the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: HUFFAKER, SHOUSHT ARIAN, SEMANKO, GRASSER. All present. A
quorum is present.
Page I
K:ICOUNCILIMlNUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-OJ-09-lOmindoc
Mayor Bandy is out of town tonight and he is appearing by telephone tonight.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Justin with Troop #352 leads the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Terri Saver, provides an overview of the work that the Eagle
Committee is doing on the 2010 Census. General discussion.
Jeanne Jackson-Heim, the Legislature is in session and there are links to the committees and also
a video stream. You can listen to the committee debate live. I would encourage you to do this
for the Council and the Planning & Zoning meetings. General discussion.
Patricia Minkiewicz, next week is our first town meeting. I'm wondering if there is any
procedure to follow or do we just bring our own to the Council. I'm wondering if the City Staff
could have some visual charts on the Area ofImpact and the Comp Plan Area. General
discussion.
Discussion on the Agenda and Staff to put out signs in regards to the Town Hall meeting.
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 Ae:ainst the City.
B. Re-appointment to Plan nine: and Zooine: Commission: The Mayor is
requesting Council confirmation ofthe re-appointment of Victor Villegas to the
Commission. Mr. Villegas will serve a 3 year term. This item was continued
from the February 23, 2010.(PB)
C. Appointments to the Parks and Pathways Development Commission: The
Mayor is requesting Council confirmation of the appointment of Mike Barton
(term to expire March 2011), Mary McColl (term to expire March 2012) and
Randy Zollinger (term to expire March 2011). This item was continuedfrom the
February 23,2010. (PB)
D. Appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission: The Mayor is
requesting Council confirmation of the appointment of Pam Kelch to the
Commission to fill a vacated position. Ms. Kelch's term will expire in June
2012. This item was continuedfrom the February 23, 2010. (PB)
E. Re-appointment to Parks and Pathways Commission: Mayor Bandy is
requesting Council confirmation of the re-appointment of Michael Hummel to the
Commission. Mr. Hummel's term will expire in 2013. This item was continued
from the February 23,2010. (PB)
F. Open Container Permit: Coldwell Banker/Tomlinson Group is requesting an
open container permit to be used on June 9, 2010 from 5:00 -9:00 p.m. at Merrill
Park. (SKB)
G. Minutes of Februarv 23. 2010. (SKB)
H. Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for RZ-12-09 - Rezone from PS
(Public/Semipublic) to R-l (Residential- Up to One (1) Unit per Acre)-
Page 2
K:ICOUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work Area\CC-OJ-09-lOmin.doc
Christy Radcliffe: Christy Radcliffe, represented by Shawn Nickel, with YP,
LLC, is requesting approval of a rezone from PS (Public/Semipublic) to R-I
(Residential up to one (1) unit per acre). The 0.87-acre (37,897 square foot) site is
generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of East Hill Road and
Dicky Drive. (WEV)
I. Findine:s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-OI-09 - Bank Facilitv with
Drive Up Service - Capital Educators Credit Union: Capital Educators Credit
Union, represented by Chad Slichter, with Slichter Architects, is requesting
condition use approval for a bank with drive up service. The 0.92-acre site is
generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Eagle Road
and East Riverside Drive, Lot 2, Block 1, Mixed Use Subdivision No.2, at 80
East Riverside Drive. (WEV)
Council Member Grasser removes Item #5A The Claims Against the City from the Consent
Agenda.
Council Member Shoushtarian removes Items #5G Minutes of February 23,2010 from the
Consent Agenda.
Semanko moves to approve the Amended Consent Agenda, Items #B, C, D, E, F, H & I.
Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES................
Council President Huffaker: I want to congratulate and thank all of those that have been
appointed to the various commissions tonight, Victor Villegas reappointment to the Planning &
Zoning Commission, Mike Barton, Mary McColl, and Randy Zollinger to the Parks & Pathways
Development Commission, Pam Kelch to the Historic Preservation Commission, and the re-
appointment of Michael Hummel to the Parks & Pathways Development Commission. All of
these people will be volunteering their time.
Further congratulations from Council Members.
SA. Claims Ae:ainst the City.
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Council Member Grasser: I don't have enough time review the check register and I don't feel
comfortable putting my name on the dotted line approving these items unless I have at least some
hours for review. I noticed most of the reports were produced yesterday about 11 :00 or 12:00
o'clock and I think those should be made available to use 24 hours or so before the meeting so
that we all have the chance to review them. General discussion.
Council President Huffaker: Our discussion at our last meeting it was agreed that we didn't want
to receive the ledger as we were meeting. It was agreed that the Clerk's/Treasurer's Office
would get us the ledger 24 hours in advance. I received mine yesterday afternoon. I'm not sure
why you didn't get it John. The Treasurer's office has setup a new system just so that we can get
it 24 hours in advance and the procedure was also outlined in the e-mail.
General discussion.
Clerk's Office with check Council Member Grasser's city e-mail.
Semanko moves to approve the Claims Against the City. Seconded by Shoushtarian.
Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Semanko: AYE: Grasser: NAY: THREE AYES:
ONE NAY (GRASSER) MOTION CARRIES..............
Page 3
K: \COUNCIL \MINUTES\ Temporary Minutes Wark Area\CC-03 -09-] Omin. doc
5G. Minutes of Februarv 23. 2010. (SKB)
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Council Member Shoushtarian: On Page 6, Item #9A, 2nd sentence "Councilman Shoushtarian
feels we need to push the County commissioners on this subject as we never seem to get anything
accomplished with them. I don't know where that statement came from. Discusses previous
discussions with Ada County. General discussion.
Semanko: Can't we just remove that sentence?
Semanko moves to delete the sentence Council Member Shoushtarian has mentioned above
and approve the minutes of February 23, 2010. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES:
MOTION CARRIES..................
6. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS:
A. Disabilitv Awareness Week Proclamation: A proclamation declaring April 19-24, 2010 as
Disability Awareness Week in the City of Eagle. (PB)
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Semanko moves to approve the Disability Awareness Week Proclamation and instruction
the Mayor to sign the Proclamation before the close of business on March 11,2010.
Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES...............
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Contract with Allied Waste to offer "No-Sort" or "Comine:line:" Recvcline: to Eae:le
residents. A public hearing was held on January 12,2010 seeking residents desire to add this
service and willingness to pay for said service. The cost associated with the service will be
determined by the length of time the recycling assets are depreciated. This item was continued
from the February 23, 2010 meeting.
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Rachel Kline, Allied Waste, we are here tonight to answer any questions that you have.
General discussion on the No-Sort Recycling.
City Attorney Buxton: Discusses the questions that were presented by the Council at the last
meeting on February 23, 20 I O.
General discussion.
Further general Council discussion with Rachel Kline.
General Council discussion on the No-Sort Recycling
Grasser moves to approve Item #7 A Contract with Allied Waste to offer "No-Sort" or
"Comingling" Recycling to Eagle residents and that we approve the 10 year extension with
a no cost to the current price to the residents and authorize the Mayor or Interim Mayor to
sign the contract. Seconded by Huffaker. Discussion. Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian:
AYE; Semanko: NAY: Grasser: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES..............
B. A-04-09/RZ-04-09 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition - Ada
County desie:nation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development ae:reement) - Capital
Development. Inc.: Capital Development, Inc., represented by Dave Y orgason, is requesting
approval of an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-Ada County
designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement). The 11 0.56-acre site is
Page 4
K:\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minules Work Area\CC-OJ-09-IOmin.doc
generally located on the west side of S. Meridian Road and the north side of W. Chinden
Boulevard (Highway 20/26) approximately 835 feet west of S. Meridian Road. (WEV) This
item was continuedfrom the February 23, 2010, meeting.
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
City Attorney Buxton: Discusses the Mediation Summary dated March 7, 2010. General
discussion.
General Council discussion.
Bob Banks, representing the Wilson Property, we have been at this process for over 3 years, we
have had neighborhood meetings and we did the mediation. We are ready for a decision. We
don't think another mediation would be fruitful.
Phil Broadbent, the issue is if mediation is required we come with the need to compromise. We
need to get down to the primary issues of reducing residential and commercial. I think continued
mediation is necessary. More than one mediation is often fruitful.
General discussion.
Planner Williams: You were provided with a Memo at the last hearing in regards to amending the
open space requirement for RI Zone to not calculate anything that is greater than 37,000 square
feet into the open space requirement. I would recommend Discussion on the Master Concept
Plan. General discussion.
Semanko moves to approve A-04-09/RZ-04-09 - Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural-
Urban Transition - Ada County designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development
agreement) - Capital Development, Inc. with the suggested change by staff and the
Development Agreement, Section 3.8.2.3 regarding minimum required open space that 4 be
included instead of 8. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES................. ...
Council discussion on further mediation.
Semanko moves to deny the request from Mr. Broadbent for additional mediation.
Seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.................
C. CPA-07-08/A-05-08/RZ-ll-08 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment from
Public/Semi-Public and Transitional Residential to Mixed Use. Professional Office. and
Transitional Residential and an Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban
Transition-Ada County Desie:nation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development
ae:reement) for Wilson Properties. L.P. and Wilson Holdine:. LLC: Wilson Properties L.P.
and Wilson Holdings, LLC, represented by Gene Shaffer with CSHQA, is requesting a
Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment to change the land use designation on the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Public/Semi-Public and Transitional
Residential to Mixed Use, Professional Office, and Transitional Residential, and to amend the
language in the Rim View Planning Area; an annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural-Urban
Transition - Ada County designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a development agreement).
The +/- 83.79-acre site is generally located at the northwest corner ofN. Fox Run Avenue and
Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20/26) at 6479 N. Fox Run Avenue and 990 W. Chinden
Boulevard. (WEV) This item was continuedfrom the February 23, 2010 meeting.
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Page 5
K:\COUNClLIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-OJ-09-IOmin.doc
City Attorney Buxton: Discusses the suggested changes to the Development Agreement
language. General discussion.
Council President Huffaker discusses the changes that he would make to the language in the
Development Agreement.
Huffaker moves to approve CPA-07-08/A-05-08/RZ-ll-08 - Comprehensive Plan Map and
Text Amendment from Public/Semi-Public and Transitional Residential to Mixed Use,
Professional Office, and Transitional Residential and an Annexation and Rezone from
RUT (Rural-Urban Transition-Ada County Designation) to MU-DA (Mixed Use with a
development agreement) for Wilson Properties, L.P. and Wilson Holding, LLC with the
following amendments: On Page 2, Section 2.1, strike Conditions Precedent to Annexation
and take that whole paragraph and have it state: "Applicant hereby consents to the
annexation of the entire property by the City of Eagle; eliminate "upon the satisfaction or
waiver of the following conditions precedent"; eliminate paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 in
their entirety; Paragraph 2.1.4: eliminate the first sentence in its entirely starting with
"Applicant" and ending with "waived."; eliminate the first phrase of the next sentence
"Upon receipt of such notice" and leave the remainder there and adjust the numbers
accordingly; Section 2.2: replace this paragraph with paragraph suggested by our attorney
at tonight's hearing; and finally I would amend the Development Agreement to accept the
applicant's compromise offer of removing the 55,000 square feet of commercial from the
residential area with the opportunity that they have to come back later in a public hearing
process if the market would so indicate that it might be appropriate. Seconded by
Shoushtarian. Discussion. THREE AYES: GRASSER: NAY: MOTION
CARRIES................. ...
Council President calls a recess at 8:50 p.m.
Council President reconvenes at 9:00 p.m.
D. EXT-28-09 - Preliminarv Plat Extension of Time for MilIpark VilIae:e Subdivision-
State/Park. LLC:. State/Park, LLC, represented by Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning is
requesting a one (1) year extension oftime for the preliminary plat approval for Millpark Village
Subdivision, a five (5) lot (17-residential units and 12-commercial buildings contained on 5-lots)
mixed use subdivision. The Il.25-acre site is located on the northeast corner of Park Lane and
State Highway 44, on Lots 1,4, and 9, Block 2, of the Amended Plat of Flint Estates, at 3950 W.
State Street. (WEV) This item was continuedfrom the February 23, 2010 meeting.
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Shawn Nickel, representing the Millpark Extension of Time request, provides an overview of the
request. General discussion.
Planner Williams, I presented everything at the last meeting and I don't have anything else to
add. Provides an overview of the project and the request for extension of time.
General discussion.
Semanko moves to approve EXT-2,8-09 - Preliminary Plat Extension of Time for MilIpark
Village Subdivision - State/Park, LLC without the previous condition. Seconded by
Huffaker. Discussion. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.....................
E. Status report from City Hall Task Force Committee: (Eric Jacky and Jeff Lutz)
· Discussion on current City Hall Lease options: This item was continuedfrom the
February 9, 2009 meeting.
Page 6
K:\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaICC-OJ-09-lOmin.doc
· Discussion of RFP:
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Eric Jacky, Co-Chair of the Eagle City Hall Task Force, distributes a list of Viable Options, and
discusses the same. General discussion.
Jeff Kunz, Co-Chair of the Eagle City Hall Task Force, joins the discussion.
General discussion continuation.
General discussion on the Draft RFP.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A The purpose of the hearine: is to consider establishine: a fee for returned checks.
providine: an effective date. and explain the reasons for such fees. Proposed fee: Returned
check fee: $25.00. (SKB)
AI: Resolution 10- 13: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Eagle, Ada
County, Idaho, Adopting Resolution No.1 0-13 Which Establishes A Fee For Returned
Checks And Providing For An Effective Date
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Council President Huffaker opens the Public Hearing
Jeanne Jackson-Heim, it is in State Statue the fee that the City can charge. General discussion.
Council President Huffaker closes the Public Hearing
Semanko moves to approve Resolution 10-13 with the $25.00 fee or whatever the maximum
allowed under the UCC, not to exceed $25.00. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AES: MOTION
CARRIES.................... .
B. The purpose of the hearine: is to consider increasine: Saturday Market Vendor Booth
fees. providine: an effective date. and explain the reasons for such fees. The booth fee
increase may exceed 105% of prior fees (orie:inal fee plus 5% or more). The proposed fees
are set forth as follows: Saturday Market booth fees: Orie:inal Fee: n5.00/per weeli.
Proposed Fee: $30.00/per week
B.1. Resolution 10-14: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Eagle, Ada
County, Idaho, Adopting Resolution No. 10-14 Which Increases The Fee For Saturday
Market Booths And Providing For An Effective Date
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Council President Huffaker opens the Public Hearing
Council President Huffaker closes the Public Hearing
Shoushtarian moves to approve Item #8Bl, Resolution 10-14. Seconded by Grasser.
ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES............
9. NEW BUSINESS:
A Discussion of Mavoral appointment process and to consider returnine: the Mayor's
position to part-time status and also consideration of Iimitine: benefits accordine:ly: (CC)
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Page 7
K:\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-OJ-09-1 Omin.doc
General discussion
Grasser moves to accept the Mayor's resignation and that his last day in Office will be
close of business on March 11,2010. Seconded by Huffaker. General discussion. ALL
AYES: MOTION CARRIES..................
General discussion.
Nancy Merrill, provides the Council an overview of her tenure as Mayor and the compensation
she received as a part time Mayor and as a full time Mayor. General discussion.
Further general discussion.
B. Draft Ordinance No. 640 - Amendine: the curfew ordinance: An Ordinance Amending
Eagle City Code Title 5, Chapter I, Section I "Curfew"; Prohibiting Persons Under The Age Of
Eighteen Years To Be Or Remain In Any Public Place Or Place Open To The Public Within The
City Between Certain Hours; Providing Exceptions; Providing For The Responsibility Of Parents
And Legal Guardians; Requiring Persons Suspected Of Curfew Violations To Provide Name
And Age To Lawful Requests From Police Officers Investigating Violations; Providing
Penalties; And Providing An Effective Date For Adoption. (CC)
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
City Attorney Buxton: Provides Council an overview of the proposed Ordinance. General
discussion.
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 #640 be considered after being read once by title only. Huffaker
reads Ordinance #640 by title only. General discussion. Motion fails for lack of a second.
Further discussion.
Council concurs to post the ordinance on the website and put it on the agenda for public
comment.
Council President Huffaker: we will need a motion to continue this item.
Semanko: So moved to March 23,2010. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES................................ ..
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A. Personnel Matters I.C. 6723 (a)
Council President Huffaker introduces the issue.
Semanko moves to go into Executive Session for the discussion of Personnel Matters I.C.
67-2345 (a). Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES.....................
Council goes into Executive Session at 11: 10 p.m.
Council discusses personnel matters.
Council leaves Executive Session at 11 :20 p.m.
Semanko moves to approve Devri's request to take leave consistent with the Employee
Handbook and Family Medical Leave Act. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES................. ...
Page 8
K:\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-OJ-09-lOmin.doc
II. ADJOURNMENT:
Huffaker moves to adjourn. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION
CARRIES...
Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 11 :20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
J(l~ ~~'
SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
""" II ......",
......"<<' "i 0 F E-1 ""
" \."\. ....... 0"".
.:' (; .... .... '( ill'1II'..
~ · o\tPOR... · ~ ..
: : 0 Ir e. ':
=*: ~~ -=
: : ~..... :.:
- · SE ..
-: ..~, AL "....: :
~ r.P -.00 ,,0,.-,.,.
":,......,>, -.:PORA1fS'... 0 ........
''', ~ 1" ........ ~ ,.....
't,. I? 0 F I\) l'- ~",
""'~'IIIII""\
MICHAEL HUFF
COUNCIL PRESI
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT EAGLE
CITY HALL
Page 9
K\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work AreaICC-OJ-09-lOmin.doc
Eagle City Hall Location Options Task Force
List of Viable Options — (as of 2/18/10)
1. Continue leasing current City Hall
a. Current lease rate
b. Attempt to negotiate lower lease rate
c. Save money over next several years to purchase building without a bond
election
2. Purchase existing City Hall building
a. Pay price established in lease document (just under $2.5 million)
b. Pay a lesser price (fair market value or another negotiated price)
3. Lease alternate space
4. Purchase alternate space
5. Other viable options
a. Find co -tenants to share costs in present building or another location
i. Eagle Police Dept.
ii. Drivers license office
iii. Other
b. Co -location with another group or entity in city -owned space
i. Add on to library and use new space for city hall
c. Identify a different piece of city -owned property and build a new city hall
or install temporary facilities
i. Park property
ii. Historical museum
iii. Senior center
iv. Property in front of library
d. Sell other city -owned property and apply the proceeds toward a future city
hall facility
i. Parking lot next to bank (city hall overflow property)
ii. Park area in front of McDonald's
iii. Ground where City Hall sits
iv. Property in front of library
v. Water system
vi. Other
INTER
OFFICE
City of Eagle
Zoning Administration
To: Mayor Bandy and City Council
From: Michael Williams, PCED, Planner II
Subject: CPA-07-08/A-05-08/RZ-11-08 — Comprehensive Plan Map and Text
Amendment from Public/Semi-Public and Transitional Residential to Mixed
Use and an Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition -Ada
County Designation) to MU -DA (Mixed Use with a development
agreement) for Wilson Properties, L.P., and Wilson Holding, LLC,
represented by Gene Shaffer with CSHQA
A-04-09/RZ-04-09 — Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban
Transition -Ada County Designation) to MU -DA (Mixed Use with a
development agreement) for Capital Development, Inc., represented by Dave
Yorgason
Attachment(s): "Applicant's Memorandum of Support and Rebuttal to Opposition" , date
stamped by the City on February 2, 2010
Applicant proposed development agreement (showing changes from the
applicant's version submitted August 26, 2006), date stamped by the City on
February 3, 2010
Applicant proposed development agreement (clean version), date stamped
by the City on February 3, 2010
Copy to: CSHQA, Attn: Gene Shaffer, 250 S. Fifth Street, Boise, ID 83702
Capital Development, Inc., Attn: Dave Yorgason, 6200 North Meeker Place,
Boise, ID 83713
The applicant's have submitted a memorandum of support and rebuttal to opposition document
for your review.
The Wilson team has also submitted a revised development agreement associated with the
Wilson properties. Staff has not had the opportunity to review the revisions and will be prepared
to address any concerns during the meeting.
Capital Development, Inc, is requesting that the calculation for required open space exclude the
residential area containing lots required to be one (1) acre in size. Pursuant to Eagle City Code
Page 1 of 2
K:IPlanning Dept\Eagle Applications\RZ&A120091A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 me5 Yorgason.doc
there is no open space requirement for a subdivision with an R-1 (residential — up to one (1) unit
per acre) zoning designation. With this request adequate open space would be provided for the
remainder of the residential areas and would allow for the applicant to increase the number of
medium/larger lots while reducing the number of patio home lots to provide a more gradual
transition of lots sizes to the adjacent existing subdivisions. Staff recommends that the proposed
Condition of Development to be placed in the Capital Development, Inc., development
agreement be changed to read as follows:
3.8.2.3
The minimum required open space shall be comprised of no less than 20% of
the total gross land area of the residential areas; those residential areas
containing lots greater than 37,000 square feet in size shall be excluded from
the calculations for the required amount of open space for the overall site.
Sidewalks and pathways shall be constructed in appropriate locations to
provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the site, subject to review upon the
submittal of a preliminary plat application.
Page 2 of 2
K:1Planning DeptlEagle Applications\RZ&A120091A-04-09 & RZ-04-09 me5 Yorgason.doc
MOORE SMITH BUXTON & TURCKE, CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
950 W Bannock Street, Suite 520
Boise, ID 83702
TELEPHoNE: (208) 331-1800 FAx: (208) 331-1202
MEMORANDUM
MIGI\AL
TO: City of Eagle — Mayor and City Council Members
Wilson Properties/Capital Development Applications Mediation Participants
FROM: Susan E. Buxton
DATE: March 7, 2010
RE: Wilson/Capital Development Mediation Summary
The following is a summary of the discussions between the participants of the Wilson
Properties/Capital Development Mediation held on March 2, 2010, in the Freedom Room at the
Eagle City Hall. The mediation session commenced at approximately 6:35 p.m. and concluded at
approximately 10:58 p.m. The purpose of this summary is to capture the substantive issues
explored by the participants without unnecessarily disclosing the internal dynamics of the debate.
This summary is also intended to preserve a sufficient record of the discussion to disclose ex
parte communications with the Eagle City Council members present at the mediation. The
summary notes the identity of the mediation participant and a description of what was discussed
in front of the Eagle City Council members present.
This summary is a public record. A copy of the written Informal Mediation Ground
Rules was circulated to all Participants which each Participant signed. A copy of the Informal
Mediation Ground Rules and the signature pages will also be included as a part of this Mediation
Summary as Exhibit A.
The Mediation Participants are as follows:
City of Eagle
Norm Semanko, Eagle City Councilman
Al Shoushtarian, Eagle City Councilman
Bill Vaughan, City of Eagle Staff
Mike Williams, City of Eagle Staff
Susan Buxton, Eagle City Attorney
Mr. Smith did not speak during the mediation.
Idaho Department of Transportation
Pam Golden
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 2
Bruce Smith, Eagle City Attorney'
Capital Development, Inc,
Ramon Yorgason
David R. Yorgason
Craig Hilbog2
Neighbors to Development:
Clearview Estates Subdivision
Larry Sandusky
Winward River Heights Subdivision
Phil Broadbent
EIMP
Craig Eisenberg
JoAnn Butler
1
Wilson Properties, LP & Wilson Holdings,
LLC3
Charles H. Wilson
Roger Cantlon
Bob Mitchell
Bob Banks
Gene Schaeffer
Don Knickrehm
Bodily & Bunderson Springs Subdivision (aka
Sandy Springs)
Scott Trosper
Larry Swider (left mediation at 9:10 pm)
Foxtail Homeowners Association
Ryan Moore emailed Susan Buxton the afternoon
of 3/2/10 they would not attend. Ms. Buxton noted
their issues at the beginning of the mediation.
R
Fred Meyer
Don Forrest
s.
The observers to the mediation, who did not participate, are as follows:
Gary Smith (left mediation at 9:30 pm), John Luque (left mediation at 9:30 pm),
JoAnne Wilson, Vicki Cantlon, Gerry Robbins (left mediation at 9 pm) , Mary
May, Teri Bath, Jeanne Jackson -Heim (left mediation at 9 pm), Kay Perkins, and
Foad Roghani. These people did not speak except to confirm they were observers
and not participants in the mediation. The City of Eagle concludes, therefore, the
observers are not asserting any affected party status in this process.
I. CITY OF EAGLE:
Al Shoushtarian: Council Member Shoushtarian welcomed everyone to the
mediation and explained his goal for the mediation was that it be informal, but
limited each participant to ten minutes for their opening remarks so that everyone
had a chance to speak to the group and to reserve enough time that evening to
conduct the mediation both with the group as a whole and separately as needed.4
2 Mr. Hilbog did not speak during the mediation.
' Dan Thompson also addressed the mediation as part of the Wilson team. Roger Cantlon did not speak at the
mediation session.
'Neither Mr. Shoushtarian nor Mr. Semanko attended separate break-out meetings held by participants or observers
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 3
He asked Wilson and the neighbors if they would address a possible compromise
on the commercial density issue. Mr. Shoushtarian noted that the neighbors did
not appear to be concerned with the residential density, especially after Dave
Yorgason clarified their residential 4 units/acre intent. He did point out that the
issue between Wilson and the neighbors was they desired less commercial density
and the Foxtail HOA did not want any commercial traffic traveling through their
subdivision from Chinden. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Mr. Shoushtarian
attempted to keep the mediation moving forward by suggesting as a possible
commercial square footage change, that Wilson reduce their main commercial
square footage to 144,375 and their neighborhood commercial square footage to
36,250. When making that suggestion, Mr. Shoushtarian was very clear that his
suggestion was not based on numbers that he would require for his decision as
that was not his role in the mediation. After that suggestion, a break was taken to
give the participants a chance to see if they could agree on commercial square
footage reductions on the Wilson property.5
Norm Semanko: Council Member Semanko stated he wanted the attendees to
openly discuss their views and opinions. He identified the concern that Fred
Meyer wants the same written conditions in both the EIMP and Wilson
Development Agreements regarding sewer, ACHD and ITD access requirements
and that annexation occurs first, not after those items are worked out with the
other entities. In an attempt to break down the issues to be worked on, Mr.
Semanko suggested the participants address the following: (1) road access and
public safety for residential and commercial; (2) density of residential and
commercial; (3) terms within Development Agreement for Wilson on the
annexation that concern EIMP; (4) sewer capacity; and (5) the developers'
willingness to compromise with the neighbors in this forum. Mr. Semanko noted
that the discussions from the participants in the mediation mirrored their positions
previously stated in public hearings before the City Council. He also asked
Wilson to consider what sort of compromise they could suggest regarding the
commercial square footage.6 Mr. Semanko asked about whether the commercial
square footage was comparable to other shopping centers in the area. He
reminded the participants that this is a mediation so neither he nor Mr.
Shoushtarian could or would force an agreement in this forum.
Bill Vaughan: Mr. Vaughan described the applications' voluntary annexation
requests. Each application also has two separate development agreements. When
asked by a participant why the two applications were handled concurrently, Mr.
Vaughan explained that he believed it would be easier to see the entire plan for
During breaks in the meeting of the whole (all participants and observes in the same room), Mr. Shoushtarian and
Mr. Semanko talked to City Staff or had short conversations with others unrelated to the Appli;ations or the
mediation.
5 See Mr. Knickrehm's comment summary to see the compromise offered by Wilson.
6 Same as footnote #2.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 4
the two properties that were going to be developed in concert with each other.
That is a common method for Eagle even though each application will require
separate decision by the City Council. He described the Eagle Planning and
Zoning Commissions' 4-0 recommendation that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment requested by the applications be approved. Mr. Vaughan also
discussed the Planning and Zoning Commission's deliberation on the signal/ITD
access and that the Commission reached no majority recommendation to forward
to the City Council on the zones due to commercial density/square footage
concerns.
Mike Williams: Mr. Williams provided information regarding the Staff
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission of 78,500 main
commercial and 17,750 neighborhood commercial. He elaborated on how the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, if approved, would change what commercial
square footage that would be expected if so zoned on the Wilson property. Mr.
Williams also discussed the process and recommendations before the Eagle
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Susan Buxton: Ms. Buxton answered questions about the mediation process
asked of her by Mr. Shoushtarian, Mr. Semanko or others present. Ms. Buxton
recounted the substance of the Foxtail HOA emails received that afternoon from
Ryan Moore as noted below. Ms. Buxton discussed the condition precedent terms
in the Development Agreement presented in late February by Wilson and how
they were different than similar requirements for ITD/ACHD access approval and
sewer capacity approval for EIMP. Ms. Buxton did state she would not
recommend that the City enter into an amendment of the proposed Development
Agreement with Wilson that reduced one of its time -frames to get those approvals
to 90 days, citing that is too short.
II. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Pam Golden: Ms. Golden provided an explanation of ITD's agreement with
EIMP for full access for two (2) years after the store opens. Following those two
years, a left in a right in/right out shall equal a three-quarters (3) access. If the
road is improved to six (6) lanes and crash history develops or the ITD Board so
orders, then a right in/right out would be the only access to Chinden.
ITD is neutral as to whether properties are annexed to obtain access or not. ITD
does not want the Development Agreement to become a political tool and wants
to proceed with normal planning. She also noted that with other unfunded
projects, Linder would have 40,000 cars a day which is equal to Eagle Road's
flow now — this occurs even without these projects (EIMP, Wilson and Capital
Development).
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 5
No one from Fox Run subdivision has contacted ITD to Ms. Golden's knowledge.
The signal at Fox Run is underutilized to the North. There are questions
regarding relocating the existing Fox Run light. ITD has talked to developer
across Chinden regarding its interest in relocating the light. This could help
Meridian as well. Ms. Golden described the access permit process for ITD and
the timing regarding land use applications which are going through the city
process. Ms. Golden noted that the Wilson application is difficult because ITD
has not seen more than a conceptual traffic study yet because Wilson is not asking
for a change of use on Fox Tail Golf Course property at this time. She is not sure
about the status of ITD requiring the extension to five (5) lanes. Ms. Golden
believes that the Fox Run light/road issues will need ACHD's input as well.
Ms. Golden left the mediation session at 10:30 pm).
III. CAPITAL CITY DEVELOPMENT, INC.
David R. Yorgason: Mr. Yorgason clarified their intent that the residential
shown as eight units per acre will be approximately four units per acre. They have
met with many neighbors and have a spreadsheet which tracks most of their
neighborhood discussions which has been previously submitted into the public
record on these applications. He stated that they would like their Development
Agreement modified so that there is no open space requirement for the "R-1 ".
The Staff had recommended that change as well at the public hearing. The R-1
lots are a 43,560 square feet minimum. This will make fewer patio home lots and
less open space that would make the transition to the properties which are located
to the North smoother. The streets come out of the lots which are less than one
acre. Mr. Yorgason further discussed their transitioning from neighboring large
lots to their residential project. Does not have any compromises on density. He
felt that as far as a compromise he is able to make is to anticipate 128 + 257 = 385
(more or less) units which rejected Mr. Broadbent's suggestion of 340 residential
lots. However, Mr. Yorgason said he will review the lot layouts and not look at
the number of units. He stated that he will put fewer lots across the lot lines
adjacent to the existing lots to reduce the amount of light, cars and noise. He
stated that they are seeing an increased demand for smaller but not cheap homes.
He believes that these homes will be nicer that those in the Settler's Bridge
Subdivision.
Ramon Yorgason: Mr. Yorgason stated his belief that the residential issues have
already been compromised and would like a vote for their annexation application
next Tuesday whether Wilson goes forward or not. He also noted that in his
experience, when planning for commercial development 10,000 square feet of
commercial per acre is standard. He felt that with the 21 acres, Wilson's proposed
main commercial of 210,000 square feet was a precise number.
IV. WILSON PROPERTIES, LP & WILSON HOLDINGS, LLC
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 6
Charles H. Wilson: Mr. Wilson noted that the deceleration lanes to the Fox Tail
Golf Course are already in place including a center turn land. He believes that if
they were able to get assistance with the Fox Run light from the City, ITD and the
neighbors, they would be comfortable with a right in/right out. He stated that it is
his first choice to annex in to Eagle. Mr. Wilson is concerned that the neighbors
in opposition do not understand the economics that need to be met to develop his
property and that no matter how much more he compromises; only no
development would make them happy. He was still willing to remove the
neighborhood commercial of 55,000 square feet as described by Mr. Knickrehm.
He was not willing to reduce the other 210,000 square feet of commercial. He
believes that this compromise keeps the project as reasonably viable.
Daniel A. Thompson: Mr. Thompson is Wilson's traffic engineer. He stated that
underpass option mentioned by Mr. Broadbent would create traffic on the south
side and restrict additional movements. He believes that traffic will come to this
quadrant with or without the Wilson project or EIMP so he believes this is a better
way to solve the existing traffic dilemma for ITD and ACHD. He stated that their
mandate does not require them (Wilson) to mitigate anything other than their own
impact. He believes that they could complete a traffic study in two weeks.
Bob Mitchell: Mr. Mitchell works with the Wilson group. He believes that retail
centers begin to draw traffic around 10-11 a.m. so it does not impact the morning
commute. They also draw traffic in the evenings so it helps reduce the evening
commuter traffic at those high count times. He noted that this is regional gateway
area so 210,000 square feet of commercial is not excessive.
Bob Banks: Mr. Banks was the spokesman for the Wilson group. He laid out the
concept plan that was worked out with the neighbors and is part of the public
hearing record. He also discussed the four residential units per acre issue.
With regard to relocating the Fox Run light, Mr. Banks stated that he has talked to
Mr. McKinney (landowner to South) but has not asked him for a commitment.
In summarizing the compromises Wilson has made in the application process, Mr.
Banks showed the October 2008 original plan. He illustrated the movement of the
signal and proposed that work off the existing signal or moving signal are the
options. He stated that their study says that their project would not properly
function off the existing signal and that they need the other access as well. ITD
conditions are controlled with EIMP. He believes they could try to work with
EIMP but they do not have them completed today.
Mr. Banks discussed the actions at the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission.
There, the Fox Run Subdivision residents said they did not want commercial on
the five (5) acre parcel, to which one Commission member agreed. He discussed
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 7
how their cul-de-sac option cuts traffic commercial traffic to zero. He believes
the parties could agree to cul-de-sac Fox Tail subdivision and route to Meridian
Road. He believes Fox Tail HOA and ACHD could agree to that.
With regard to the two conditions precedent to annexation in their most recent
development agreement draft to the City, Mr. Banks believes the City is more
inclined to help the project before annexed than after. He wants to know exactly
what they can do with their project prior to committing to the City. He states that
they are okay with the movement of the light if they can get compromise. He
believes that the underpass is acceptable if the government pays for its
construction but does not believe that these projects can economically support it
nor would the traffic study require such mitigation.
In earlier compromises, they reduced the neighborhood commercial from 70.000
to 55,000 square feet. He believes that the issues with the commercial issue are
sound, visual, and traffic. By having residential, transitional uses and buffering
plus the traffic compromise, the traffic would improve and with cross access to
EIMP, the residents would not have to leave the internal roads to shop. He
believes that that would pull traffic off the road during high traffic times and
lessen cars at those critical time periods. He believes that their proposal deals
with those concerns. He showed examples of visual impacts. He said he is
unable to hear Albertsons from City Hall.
He stated that they build to suit, not build to spec. He stated that they cannot do
the project with the Staffs numbers. The proposed twenty-one acres of main
commercial is substantiated by their studies and experts. He noted their previous
removal of 5 acres of commercial at Fox Tail HOA's request and that they agreed
to the large berm.
There are three other quadrants of the intersection, not just theirs. The
commercial square footage proposed in the other three quadrants equals 1.6M
square feet in Meridian. He believes that if it does not get built here, they will go
to the other quadrants and build. He stated that working to get connection with
signal out REA with EIMP. He said he will address sewer issues with EIMP. He
believes that natural phasing could work out. He does not agree to EIMP
language versus the condition precedent language.
Gene Schaeffer: Mr. Schaeffer works with the Wilson group. He described the
concept plan is the same plan with highlighted road systems. The Master Concept
Plan was presented for City Council approval last Tuesday. He stated that they
asked for clarity on the approval so that all parties knew the: (1) access for both
residential and commercial; (2) densities; (3) sewer capacity in this quadrant is
limited so that is why they would want all parties to work together to make it
work for everyone; and (4) since there is no specific tenant this will allow
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 8
flexibility for their plan. He showed some photographs of the golf course and
how it could look with the homes. He stated that the view was looking due south
from the existing subdivisions. He stated that everyone in the north property
would see trees and they could put in more evergreens to densify the existing
trees. He showed the views from the Bunderson property looking south to the
Powell property and the possible new residences and commercial property would
be buffered with landscaping in front. He believes they would need at least a right
in/right out.
Don Knickrehm: Mr. Knickrehm is legal counsel for the Wilson group. He
discussed the effect of the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that
Mr.Tanner moved with full support for 210,000 square feet commercial. Mr.
Roehling had said "no" because the commercial included a 5 -acre lot contained
within Foxtail Subdivision. Mr. Smith said "no" because of too much density.
The CCRs were amended to exclude the 5 -acre parcel from CCRs. He addressed
the commercial square footage. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan talks about a
regional commercial area (Chinden/Black Cat). This area has since been annexed
by Meridian. That regional plan said not to exceed 40 acres. The office and retail
form a buffer. This corner makes sense as a regional commercial center since it is
on the northeast corner. That is why Fred Meyer selected it. 600,000 — 1M
square feet = regional. Even if we built one-half of this, people have to go by here
to shop whether they stop at this corner or not. Look at how Eagle has built out so
there is a need for a regional center and it does not make sense to cut it in half. If
it is cut in half, from 265,000 to 130,000, it would not make sense.
As another compromise to working out the road/light relocation, around 10:30
pm, Mr. Knickrehm told the mediation group that Wilson is willing to forego the
55,000of neighborhood commercial if they keep main commercial at 210,000. As
part of that, if the developer believes the market and the area changes such that it
is consistent, they can ask the City Council to amend the development agreement
(with public hearing) to replace that square footage in the future. It was noted that
Eagle City Code and Idaho Code allow amendment to development agreements on
notice and hearing to the City Council. As to the two conditions precedent on
ITD approval and sewer capacity, Mr. Knickrehm offered to limit their ability to
do so to 90 days instead of 36 months. If they cannot get the contingencies
removed in 90 days, they will either waive them or the development agreement
and approvals are void.
V. NEIGHBORS TO DEVELOPMENT
' Mr. Knickrehm was describing his understanding of the P&Z meeting, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Williams had
described the meetings too. This summary is not meant to interpret the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendations or votes.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 9
Clearview Estates Subdivision:
Larry Sandusky: Mr. Sandusky stated that his only access out of his property is
Meridian Road to Chinden. He has a number of crash concerns because he hauls
horses. He believes that the light on Fox Run has not helped with the two lights
so close. He has seen people use the turn lane to turn into Fox Run so it is an
added hazard. He believes that the signs funded by EIMP were improvements but
does not like the added density with these applications. His main issue is safety.
He believes that another direct access would be chaos and that road needs to be
restructured. He stated that the Fred Meyer traffic studies did not add in Wilson.
He stated that he believes that the Fox Run people do not believe that Wilson is
negotiating in good faith. He believes it would have been easier if the
applications were separate. He would agree to a signal relocation.
Winward River Heights Subdivision
Phil Broadbent: Mr. Broadbent stated he personally preferred to see the
development done through Eagle instead of Ada County. He wanted to know if
the developers would further compromise on commercial and residential density.
Mr. Broadbent presented his understanding that the parcels to north were 5-6
acres; parcels to the east were 2 acres. He felt traffic will be significant and
suggested at one point whether an underpass was considered. He wants less
density so there would be less impact on traffic and less density everywhere. He
does not like patio homes and wants less density as noise/traffic light. He stated
that Dave Turnbull at Paramount will not agree to move the light currently located
at Fox Run. He believes that they would have to put in 5 lanes. He believes that
it would be inconceivable that City is not requiring 2 more lanes with this project.
He wants to reduce number of residential lots to 340. He does not think that Mr.
Knickrehm's offer to reduce the commercial by 55,000 was very significant and
that it was a hollow offer if they could come back to Council to ask for it back in
the future. Regardless, he did believe the Wilson offer was made in good faith.
Foxtail HOA:
As presented to Susan Buxton by Ryan Moore in emails on the afternoon of
March 2, 2010, the Fox Tail HOA wanted the mediation group to be aware of
their following issues:
(i) They agree with the arrangement made with Dave Yorgason
regarding the residential portion of the concept plan and they want
the 4 unit/acre incorporated as presented by Mr. Yorgason to them.
(ii) They like the City Staff report on commercial to the Planning and
Zoning Commission as they feel the commercial density is too
high.
(iii) They support moving the Fox Run light so long as they can close
their entrance to Chinden and access Meridian road through
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 10
Capital Development's residential development. They do not want
any commercial traffic to go through their subdivision.
(iv) They do not want any part of these two applications annexed to
Meridian.
VI. BODILY AND BUNDERSON SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (aka SANDY
SPRINGS)
Scott Trosper: Mr. Trosper stated his concerns come down to the density of the
commercial property and traffic impacts on the corner. He believes the level of
commercial property is too large and would contribute to problems by impacting
the quality of life of the neighbors. He does not like the unprotected turn onto the
highway. He believes that the only way Fred Meyer can go forward is with an
annexation. He believes that Fred Meyer is being held hostage by Wilson. He
believes that traffic is already a problem and it is difficult to get out of the
subdivision. He stated that they are already unable to get out on Linder. He
would accept the relocation of the Fox Run light. He believes this is a concept
plan and that they have to come back to the City with a Preliminary Plat which
shows 4.2 or 3.8 units per acre to be located where the Concept Plan shows eight
units per acre. He believes that Eagle has a very high open space requirement.
The Concept Plan is currently at 4.1 units per acre. He believes that they are
creating a traffic reservoir that would make getting in and out of the subdivision
more difficult. He stated that he would rather have it compact up against
Chinden. He stated that any reduction in commercial would help them at the end
of the day.
Larry Swider: Mr. Swider appeared as a participant but did not make many
comments except his agreement with Mr. Trosper's positions and concerns. Mr.
Swider left at approximately 9:40 pm.
VII. EIMP
Craig Eisenberg: Mr. Eisenberg is the developer of EIMP. He described
meeting with the Wilson group. He has concerns about the two new development
agreement terms added by Wilson that make annexation contingent on approvals
to their satisfaction in 90 days by Eagle Sewer District and ITD. As to the
density, he believes the market will drive that. He stated that their development
is difficult even with Fred Meyer. He does not believe the interior roads on the
EIMP site plan already approved through Eagle Design Review should be required
to be redone. He stated that they believed that they would be able to accomplish it
within Eagle and not as a condition of annexation as he is willing to work with
Wilson on the cross -access and traffic study results.
WILSON/CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT MEDIATION
March 8, 2010
Page 11
JoAnn Butler: She stated that the EIMP Development Agreement approving
their annexation is approved. She believes that they have to get separate
approvals in regard to ACHD/ITD and Sewer District and a separate path to
annexation. She stated that they are committed to the City first and wants the
same terms in the Wilson DA as is in the EIMP DA that they annex first and work
agrees to abide by the approvals of the other entities like Eagle Sewer and ITD.
VIII. FRED MEYER
Don Forrest: Mr. Forrest noted their support for the Capital City Development
annexation. Their problem with Wilson Properties is the addition of the pre-
annexation agreement terms making achieving ITD access (irrevocable) and sewer
capacity reserved by sewer district a condition precedent. He believes that those
are non-starters, different from what he and EIMP had to do in their development
agreement and those clauses are not a good way to influence the other agencies.
He believes that Wilson is looking for adjustments on the EIMP site plan that has
already been approved by Eagle's Design Review Boards.
Mr. Forrest noted that their traffic approvals make it safe for the community as
they are their customers. He stated that they had traffic models and mitigation
that provides more traffic capacity than they create so that helps the area. He
stated that they have a good safety buffer and that he already believes is good
safety movement. He stated that they do have a signed agreement with ITD. If
the Development Agreement passed as is now, he does not believe the Wilson
property will annex. He is anticipating that the development of three (3) corners
and the 8% growth rate that they build in has not been seen yet. He stated that
they have safety factors built in. Their agreement with the City is contingent on
contiguity and that is with the current properties. They had an application with
the county and they stayed it so to give Eagle a chance to get this annexation path
approved so they wanted to avoid going through another process to save that
money. They will go to the county if this does not get annexed. He stated that
three items in the Wilson Development Agreement that need to be addressed are:
(1) cross access; (2) need to be in Eagle; and (3) traffic study. He does think the
ITD and sewer capacity questions can be solved in the ninety (90) days suggested
by Mr. Knickrehm. He stated that are able to do an easements traffic study.
XHIBIT -A-
CITY OF EAGLE
Informal Mediation Ground Rules
To Idaho Code 67-6510
The following land use applications have been requested to participate in mediation by
the Eagle City Council on March 2, 2010:
1. CPA-07-08/A-05-08/RZ-11-08 — Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment from
Public/Semi-Public and Transitional Residential to Mixed Use, and Annexation and
Rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition -Ada County Designation) to MU -DA (Mixed
Use with a Development Agreement). The 83.7 -acre site is generally located at the
northwest corner of N. Fox Run Avenue and Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20/26) at 6479
N. Fox Run Avenue and 990 W. Chinden Boulevard. Represented by Wilson Properties,
L.P. and Wilson Holdings, LLC.
2. A-04-09/RZ-04-09 — Annexation and Rezone from RUT (Rural -Urban Transition — Ada
County designation) to MU -DA (Mixed Use with a Development Agreement in lieu of a
PUD). The 110.5 -acre site is generally located on the west side of S. Meridian Road and
the north side of W. Chinden Boulevard (Highway 20/26) approximately 835 feet west of
S. Meridian Road. Represented by Capitol Development, Inc.
Al Shoushtarian
Norm Semanko
Capital City Development, Inc
Wilson Properties, LP and
Wilson Holdings, LLC
Eisenberg Company
Foxtail HOA
Bodily and Bunderson Springs
(aka Sandy Springs)
Sugarberry Woods HOA
Winward River Heights HOA
Expected Participants
Eagle City Council
Eagle City Council
. Applicant
Subdivision
Applicant
Affected Party
Affected Party
Affected Party
Affected Party
Affected Party
Other affected parties not listed may also attend the mediation. An affected party is
defined as "one having an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the
issuance or denial of a permit authorizing the development." Idaho Code §67-6521(1)(a).
Informal Mediation Ground Rules
1. The Applicants, City Representatives and Affected Parties will meet in the Freedom
Room at Eagle City Hall. All those present at the Mediation shall be required to sign in.
2. The mediation sessions will not be recorded because the mediation process is not part of
the official record regarding the Applications. Idaho Code §67-6510(5).
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 -1
3. The City Attorney or its designee shall preserve a sufficient record of the discussion to
disclose ex parte communications with the Eagle City Council members present at the
mediation. The identity of the ex parte contact and a description of what each participant
discussed is required.
4. The mediation will not result in an "agreement" as no participant would be required to
pledge their support or opposition to the Applications. The City Council participants are
specifically not required nor allowed to support or oppose any compromise during the
course of mediation. As such, the City Council participants must disclose their ex parte
communications in the subsequent public meeting(s) held on the Application.
5. The City Council member participants must disclose any conflicts of interest as set forth
in Idaho Code §67-6506 if they have an "economic interest" in the procedure or action.
If such conflict of interest exists, that City Council member may not participate in the
decision on the Applications.
6. The questions regarding whether the lands being requested to be annexed into the
territorial limits of the City of Eagle are legislative.
The questions regarding the amendment of the Comprehensive plan is legislative as
there is not ripe for judicial review.
The zoning designations upon annexation is legislative.
7. Communication with the media should be discouraged while the mediation process is
ongoing as such contacts may cause Participants to hesitate to engage openly in the
mediation. As such, a brief statement to the press may only be made by the City Attorney
and only regarding the status of mediation.
8. All participants may have reasonable and convenient access to the public record before
the City Council. Arrangements with the City Clerk's office will be facilitated through
Mike Williams at the City of Eagle for such access.
9. A written summary of the mediation shall be compiled by the City Attorney that fairly
captures the substantive issues explored by the participants without unnecessarily
disclosing the internal dynamics of the debate. The written summary shall be a public
record and will also include the names of the Participants in the mediation.
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 2
10. All Participants shall treat each other with civility, courtesy and without interruption.
11. If participants who want separate breakout sessions or to meet privately with their group,
meetings places will be arranged by Mike Williams or the City Attorney to accommodate
such discussions.
12. Mediation is voluntary so Participants may leave any time. Please tell the City Attorney
that you are leaving so the summary will be accurate.
Date: ' l
1
m Semanko, a City Co
N uncilman
Printed Name
Date: .3 2 -- `0
Date: 3 -,-/z)
Date:
Al S-houshtarian, Eagle City Councilman
Printed Name
Signature
f /
Pri ed Name
Representing: (71///14
Signature
Printed Kame
Representing:
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 3
Date: d ' - 1 v
Date: 3 -;
Date:
Date:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Signature'
-
Printed Name
Representing: ; ..
•
nature
l.l,x L(. , v\D e ti's
printed Name
Representing: l A -SL` � v ,
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 4
Date: ►' ki v -t .. 0-0 1 D
Sig2ure
l�lJ V'I 4fD'�V
,f6 A h ln-50 r�
Printed Name
Representing: (A)(1;54/011/10-
Date: I 1 aAt%_ L 9-7() OW;
Signature
CiCt
Printed Name
Representing:
Date:
Date: ✓/ / ;(-0'�
!� c> /7)
il+L
(A), 151
•
Printed Name
Representing:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:/,�'
�1 ,y�"��"'=
l//v1i��2-t-c
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 5
Date: -5 /Z / z o U
Date:
a/a/aolo
I
Signature
.V2hLVt
Printed Name G }(:)(„r-� ILA) / 1-» �- A
Representing: IA) ,c rte.
I, 1�''J
: l
A
Signat re
Re66ferl\ . &A4S
Printed Name
Representing: /Ji /SOY)
h
Date: «) /2 /z•
Date: 3 e / O
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Signature a
k/4
Printed Name'
Representing:
City of Eagle— Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 4
erkInS
Date: .3 2-- 10
Date:
Date:
Date:
5 A --
Printed Name
Representing: ,L: ✓ 4" -19A154ite- k
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing,:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 5
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date: 3 I z 1iv! 0
Signature
Printed Name
Representin<g:( i -syla)G-
'maturer
Leff -rte
Printed Nam¢
Representinn6
n r 1) kr 5
-11//
Siiature
Printed Name
Representing: 5
TCS L"rukf, h % `ILL i\
Signature
�(ti'YIY,1 ( eit ICki
Printed Name
Representing: 1 TD
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 4
Date:
Date: 3- 2 - 2 ° /,c
Date:
Date:
I,
Signature
Printed Name
1
Vle
Representing: t <t-1-)
Signatur-
Printed Name
5.
E. Broa4ea7
Representing: gel 10 (�
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
Signature
Printed Name
Representing:
City of Eagle — Mediation Process Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6510 - 5
EXHIBIT "B"
sa 0q yC'aj i Sf. v,r�J--/ ,.J..2A Ia c 1 b IAa 9 pvoJ9 !_, I
.r; 1,/=-q JYJ
G
5 ,.,vc,33M
?D5 4:5as?`^ Ct 0111,)---3c„��s.))'-r..)S
C.._l Fn Ici a.4\,' 1) a-c.>II C\-1 ,,i*?p1oL) t( oc+
--'2(,.23Ctro c z S a >» gtAr r,; Q___S. --t._43 .SPD 0-0
4-'199-71°,4 iP V
4--)-,5 4'. 517,I ' '%
`mss j ,cy? V 9E-1 / YY Eo `AI y ;.' ?cl
s 7 r S , / / i %9 P / �� -� s�-cfl / N `l h I —"'~- /
09 I<LP 6 - 7 c ,„1 ,---,-, L.479-2/ _ D---- P2,---vtt._0 0 / .2 4 t --v
W ,-, f (z9) '?)27g ' oo '49 Ad ,47,c,.iama - a (i -4c1 viO 3 kL.%.D;7.
d'N/0 -3 zc� L c,3 -).“5,1 c -,05 1s -uv,i3 \ ,> \\I" V&)
,iiii.:_i• :(7,7/le_Ct r - - 7- z'?zv(,) �7 i(;( e --2s&3 Z z /x2
-'>%., f1, Cr.3,-1 (2 L/ Z'O '/,,.,'l'/ j.' ` 1a„'17 I” Cf coy -L5 pWG
,/
--)/(9037 ---- /2/3, , *':7,,C -''/'-:. 7 ?'
4.
\42___13)1cY) 3-31a_5•yd-rogo • 3 wq
v_40")aP r)1/7
41af1 -`t7f�I-s.4s3/
� S /17 -bin 74v7 N" I Ssi5 '
•JJ W 7y ono()
JJ fi'-'«. [t'p3 (77 X66
42cy xd?,/, z7zee2
-°1-4*'R ,j/S Opms.
Woi
o/zlo
yraft 3
KLI J
kA/D
f 1
volvioA w1/06
2A7 z7 y
'-717C19-r-/
car --P CY)
s's‘.
)-P„a7"1-19‘ 1/-7
'171'71W (6_52
11-0-70-19
V9��
z
l� 1 r' A rE ty _ :.
1 ;_t__ •II_� ' __ _=1 _+ ! tel_ II •tF-------.Ik:=
I r ... � i...r- 4t.,r. ii - y ' 1Il.w it - _ ,--L : _41•... J s •' II _ ,°' •{{ '.4.14
J -
v� - yNr.� IL 4 1 1 �� is..,.- .' -1.•.„L-ie'Y c e = — - edl� i 1�!, j
t ....r .:; ..K �•. e--=-4. Ir~ -a ' _ 1 - r T;� 1;,/""� - + ill _ k 7 —1�' i iir 3 i •
Ili III -'p U �Ifa._.
+ � Lr i ■ .^Y 11 11 • -i �„ II ' �11\ t ' �l 4j � II i1
__+.._1"
11t 11 +1-� •II b�
NI - " • t '
�.. II - "�� - —r /" -e- I - xw„— .II r ■ II 6f w11 1 I®�qr :.:
¢..... .�` ^ J. Ti.�[ , s ': y III, 1+
• b
11 ;� --::� -I I �, 111 II F ,;Il=.Y- ,4-
�fl
n .y1 m Y - ..- ,30.ii. +r- „1 ,. -= n �r -4 1 - 11 II
' .I „ - � t. II JI I :,,�.,� ' II:a1s. . - +.� II II -
r �.m I re _� ' - - �1� 1 I �4 ;, + .1--
t,- _ $ r 11
fe
II rf �^IJ Y. isII �QII ' r It '..'�I II -{,V� ■ L y I -
V is b• �'_ ,% `- `l ,— i [ - f�i '” IY^_� �r r
(-1-,..1.7, .... -t , �� - 1 �[
IL 1 -""!" 1 1 II' 1t u 3 i-� • 7 II 1� i ��
Y fl imN r. r ..0, . _. ill I P .- ' _1 •4I 1 'lL"SII
I �b �!M'F -7
-1 X111 ' '"- IM�y`' ` 11 [f■{�
��-` �.�j',•, � � �. II >� �j, � `� � � SLI �, � U �1
if it I. Y_.h ;:.r •4:
�1 t�wl�� � ylll;•I �( I.y � .-�" f iI1� ��. 1.,[ �'�I II e +c`, ,� 1 .� ¢) •' II
II l I �• ` _ IIim— 'ta f ;.. IRf-
1,
1- + - .a 7 Ili II - ` ar t,. II II
'1 II +1 ° I� 11 I— + Jif f 1 ! " r +'
I + r 7�� -"L• lr'aw
I �' ! ,� — �� 1.1•} ,<� Ir�s� �� I - 1[ � 11�? � 1 . ��.,;,,�— _y]I n � f_NN �Yy� �.1 II ry ` _ -5
'r: *'3 I� IIl.�q� 1 -
� II _ 9u�
~.r f 0 IIS} 1� II =. s ' 11
Z
fti T3I' yl .� r �'~JI�I III 11
kr-
n i5 K
? 11r 13j or ?
11-11:11__.:61.74:111
' i.��111 - II•11 t`=MI
�fi"."�f-'�yr.
1,L If -
yi• j
iG11¶
11
..:�I � r
CITY OF EAGLE ` FY 09110
REVENUE/EXPENDITURE QUARTERLY REPORT
QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2009 UNAUDITED
1ST QTR.
FY 09/10
Funds
General Fund:
Personnel
Operating Expenses
Capital Outlay
Grants
Reserve Fund
Subtotal General Fund:
Library/Bond Fund:
Principal Bond Payment
Interest Payment/Bond
Reserve Fund
US Bank Paying Agent
Subtotal Library Bond Fund:
Library Fund:
Personnel
Operating Expenses
Library Reserve Fund
Capital Outlay
Subtotal Library Fund:
Historical Commission Fund:
Personnel
Operating Expenses
Programs/Grants/Exhibits
Capital Outlay
Subtotal Historical Comm Fund:
Arts Commission Fund:
Operating Expenses
Programs/Grants
Subtotal Arts Comm Fund:
Water Fund:
Personnel
Operating Expenses
Capital Outlay
DEQ Loan
State Revolving Loan
Subtotal Water Fund:
Capital Projects Park Fund:
Guerber Park Capital Improvements
Park Playground Improvements
Subtotal Park Fund:
1ST QTR YTD YTD
FY 09/10 FY 09/10 FY 09/10
ExpendituresRevenues _Expenditures_Revenues_
337,942
220,333
903
90,200
0
$649,378
Appropriation
FY 2009/2010_
337,942
220,333
903
90,200
0
$776,706 $649,378
0
0
0
0
$0 $1,911
175,684
22,902
0
2,263
$200,849
13,225
1,518
217
37
$14,997
6,549
6,822
$13,371
50,489
17,112
0
80,510
0
$148,111
1,339,788
2,216,004
241,181
175
745,435
$776,706 $4,542,583
0 155,000
0 69,544
0 18,712
0 840
$0 $1,911 $244,096
175,684
22,902
0
2,263
$42,058 $200,849
13,225
1,518
217
37
$10,790 $14,997
6,549
6,822
$13,104 $13,371
50,489
17,112
0
80,510
0
$231,359 $148,111
0
0
$0 $18,114
681,689
156,738
160,000
4,400
$42,058 $1,002,827
*Percentage
Comparison
25%
10%
0%
51543%
0%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
26%
15%
0%
51%
20%
52,586 25%
8,282 18%
2,500 9%
0 0%
$10,790 $63,368 24%
5,608 117%
25,200 27%
$13,104 $30,808 43%
203,181 25%
163,694 10%
54,971 0%
56,000 144%
180,000 0%
$231,359 $657,846 22.51 %
0 25,000
0 32,857
$0 $18,114 $57,857
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2009 UNAUDITED Page 2
1ST QTR. 1ST QTR YTD YTD
FY 09/10 FY 09/10 FY 09/10 FY 09/10 Appropriation *Percentage
Funds Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Revenues FY 2009/2010 Comparison
Tree Fund
Tree Replacement Expenditures 0 0 9,444 0.00%
Subtotal Tree Fund: $0 $0 $01 $01 $9,444 0.00%
TAN (Tax Anticipation Note)
Transfer to General Fund 181,500 181,500
Payment TAp1 jV 0? 0
Subtotal Tree Fund: 1 $181,500 der 01 $0 $181,500 $481,637
Streamside Fund
Pathway Development
Subtotal Park Fund:
0 0
$0 $0 $0
$1,026,706
TOTALS ALL FUNDS $1,026,706 $1,075,928
*Year to date divided by appropriation
Citizens are invited to inspect the detailed supporting records of the above financial statements.
For additional information contact Eagle City Hall, 939-6813
l \
(City Clerk/Treasurer
$0
$1,075,928
0
375,000 0.00%
$375,000 48.40%
5,000 0.00%
$5,000 0.00%
$6,546,528 15.68%
rC
CITY OF EAGLE
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR TI IE 5 MONTHS ENDING FEI3RUARY 28, 2010
GENERAL FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
REVENUE
01-0311-00-00 PROPERTY TAX 11.659 90 926,006 68 1.702.788.00 776.781 32 (54.4
01-03 I 1-01-00 PENALTY/INTEREST ON TAXES 100.65 2.444 64 2.500.00 55 36
01-0316-10-00 FRANCI-IISE FEE/EAGLE WATER CO 1,426.64 6,074.71 7,000 00 925.29
01-0316-10-02 FRANCHISE FEE/UNITED WATER .00 3,508 09 5,700 00 2,191.91
01-0316-11-00 FRANCHISE FEE/1NTERMTN GAS_ -mel hG� N G% - oq .00 245,000.00 245,00000
0I-0316-12-00 FRANCFIISEFEE/CABLE TV 11 w 58.6615. .-.152 110.00000 51.33848 �53�.3
01-0316-13-00 FRANCHISE FEE/TRASH)% a-' A41 -1.4"1D''* -100 (9/4(, 55 1.052.78 125,000 00 q'%93.947.22 Z4 8
,30,&,0 4'
01-0316-14-00 00 71.478 20 115.000.00 43,521.80 4)1
01-0316-14-01 FRAN FEE ID POWER -TRANS LINES 00 142.977 86 180,000.00 37.022 14 79 4
01-0321-I0-00 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSES .00 72.85 15.00000 14.927.15
01-0321-30-00 BUSINESS LICENSE FEE 600.00 10,525.00 12,000 00 1,475.00
01-0322-10-00 BUILDING & INSPECTION PERMIT" ,!6.00 83.066 59
01-0322-11-00 ANNEX/ZONING/DR PERMIT FEES 200 00 8,656 00 60,000 00 51,344.00 14 4
01-0322-11-01 PZ INSPECTION FEES 100 00 1.120 00 1,600.00 480 00 70 0
01-0322-1 1-02 PZ PLAN REVIEW FEES 630.00 2,280 00 850 00 ( 1.430 00) 268 2
01-032. , , _ , ... 3 - . - 50.000 01 : ' '50 73 47
01-0322-12-01 GARDEN CITY PLAN REVIEW 00 00 50 08 50 00 0
01-0322-13-00 ENERGY STANDARDS ((RES) 650 00 2,300 00 3,000 00 700.00
01-0322-14-00 ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FEES .00 .00 1,500 00 1.500 00 0
01-0322-15-00 PLUMBING INSPECTION FEES 2,682.83 9.577.68 20,000 00 10.422-32`yc 79i
01-0322-16-00 MSCI IANICAL INSPECTION FEES 2,966.95 10,968.55 20,000 00 9,031.45
01-0322-17-00 STREET LIGI H' INSPECTION FEES 00 00 700 00 700 00 0
01-0322-18-00 SURETY/LETTER OF CREDIT FEES 00 200.00 600 00 400 00 33 3
01-0322-19-00 ACFID IMPACT PROCESSING FEES 60 00 280 00 500 00 220 00 56.0
01-0322-20-00 BLDG INSPECTOR -GARDEN CITY 00 3,750 00 00 ( 3,750 00) 0
01-0331-60-00 TREE CITY USA GRANT 00 00 175 00 175 00 0
01-0331-63-00 GRANTS/MATCHING FUNDS 10,556 00 92,596 00 00 ( 92,596.00) 0
01-0335-10-00 STATE LIQUO 834.008
01-0335-20-00 URBAN RENE�vV LOAN PAYMENT 15.000 00 15,000 00 30,000 00 15,000.00 50 0
01-0335-50-00 STAT(: SALES TAX 1,763 00 65,005.05
01-0335-60-00 STATE REVENI .068,687.00 565,130.40
01-0338-40-00 COURT I' 4,668 I' - 1.594 32
01-0338-41-00 CITATION FEES/CODE ENFORCEMENT 60 30 00 100 00 70 00
01-0341-01-00 CONVENIENCE FEE 10 50 56 00 50 00 ( 6.00) 112.0
01-0341-10-04 ELECTRICAL INSP ADMIN REIMB 00 1,206 74 00 ( 1,206 74) 0
01-0341-11-00 MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS/LICENSES 60 00 560 00 1.000.00 440.00 56 0
01-0341-12-00 ANIMAL CONTROL FEES 741 00 4,224.63 5.000 00 775 37 84 5
0I-0341-13-00 ENGINEERING FEES -DEVELOPERS 105 00 11.616 25 45,000,00 33.383.75 25.8
01-0341-13-01 DRAINAGE FEES 400 00 991 25 400.00 ( 591 25) 247.8
01-0341-13-03 FLOOD PLAIN - ENG FEE DEPOSIT 00 783 75 .00 ( 783.75 ) 0
01-0341-14-00 A'I-1'ORNEY FEE COLLECT -DEVELOPER 163 00 40,883.38 35,000.00 ( 5,883.38 ) 116.8
01-0341-16-00 STAFF TIME REIMBURSE -EXEC DEPT .00 6,439.00 00 ( 6,43900) 0
01-0350-01-00 MAYOR'S CUP GOLF TOURNAMENT 00 1,000 00 3,500.00 2,500 00 28 6
0I-0350-03-00 FRAN FEE TRASH -ADD SRVCS-EDUCA .00 6,969 14 29,500 00 22.530 86 23.6
01-0350-04-00 MAYOR'S YOUTH ACTION COUNCIL .00 316.50 00 ( 316 50) 0
0I-0350-05-00 HEALING FIELDS CONTRIBUTIONS 65 00 65 00 3.500 00 3,435 00 19
0I-0350-20-00 RESERVATION FEES/PKS-PLAYFIELD`,.� 00 ( 216 38) 6.000 00 6,216.38 ( 3 6
01-0370-01-00 TAN PROCEEDS'. - a1J.00 181,50000 00 ( 181,50000) 0
01-0371-05-00 ZIONS - TAN INTEREST .00 .00 1.50000 1,500.00 0
01-0371-10-00 STATE TREASURER INVESTMENT 26.90 53 43 00 ( 53 43) 0
0I-0371-25-00 ZIONS INVESTMENT INTEREST .00 42.38 2,500.00 2,457.62 17
0I-0379-00-00 MISC 00 812 98 500 00 ( 312 98) 162.6
97 8
5
87 7
30.0
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY
41 %OF'IlIE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/09/2010 10 50AM PAGE
CITY OF EAGLE
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 2010
01-0379-01-00 DUPLICATION/PUBLISHING/PRINTNG
01-0383-01-00 ID POWER SUBSTATION/WATER USE
01-0383-04-00 LEASE PAYMENTS
01-0383-05-00 MISCELLANEOUS-REIMBURSEABLES
01-0383-06-00 LEASE PAYMENT -CITY HALL LAND
01-0383-09-00 ROOM RESERVATIONS
TOTAL FUND REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
PERIOD ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL BUDGET
21.70
.00
.00
2,731.66
.00
275.00
285.44
.00
.00
5,516.82
.00
485.00
500.00
120.00
150.00
1,000.00 (
1,000.00
500.00
UNEARNED PCNT
214.56 57.1
120.00 .0
150.00 .0
4,516.82) 551.7
1,000.00 .0
15.00 97.0
167,488.42 2,506,760.78 4,542,583.00 2,035,822.22 55.2
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 41 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED
03/09/2010 10:50AM PAGE: 4
MARCH 9, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TREASURER REPORT
5 Months into the Fiscal Year
REVENUES:
City used the TAN 2 times, ($181,500.00) October and December, and has paid
these funds back to the TAN Fund so the City is looking good financially so far
this year.
As of the end of February the City had $834,276 in the Zions Money Market
account.
April the City will be collecting the 3rd quarter Franchise Fees and State Revenue
Sharing, Liquor Distribution and Sales Tax.
EXPENDITURES:
The Department Heads are keeping expenditures within their budgets
Executive Department — to date — spent 41% of budget
Clerk's Office — to date — spent 41% of budget
Bldg Department — to date — spent 39% of budget
PZ Department — to date — spent 42% of budget
PW — to date — spent 35% of budget