Loading...
Minutes - 1980 - City Council - 09/23/1980 - Regular (2)P.O. BOX 477 EAGLE, IDAHO 83616 208.939.6813 Mayor:. Jerry Deckard Council: Floyd Decker Carol Haley Orval Krasen LeRoy Pearman September 23, 1980 After having given careful consideration to all of the testimony received concerning the impact area agreement, after study of the Planning Act of 1975, and other portions of the Idaho Code, I find that the area defined in the impact area map is proper. One salient factor which I considered is the numerous subdivisions which were zoned and/or platted and/or built on within this unincorporated area by permission of the Board of County Commissioners. These areas will become eventual problems for the City of Eagle, and it is my desire that any future development in the unincorporated areas be controlled by both the Board of Ada County Commissioners and the Eagle City Council. The agreement fulfills this requirement. It is therefore my request, should I not be present to vote on final approval of the Impact Area Agreement, that my report on the testimony be entered into the record, and also that I would vote to approve the Resolution, the Ordinance establishing the boundary of the Eagle Area of Impact, and Ordinance #62. Sincerely, Orval T. Krasen Council President REPORT ON TESTIMONY OF IMPACT AREA AGREEMTN ORVAL T. KRASEN Charlotte Chaney -- I consider the testimony of Charlotte Chaney as being irrelevant because it speaks to the Middlebrook Development and not to the impact area which was the subject of the public hearing. Sandra P. Fisher -- Mrs. Fisher's testimony that the southern~;po~lon of the impact area falls under the purview of Idaho Code 67-6502 (e) is in error. Idaho Code 67-6502 (e) pertains to "prime agricultural" land. A check with the Soil Conservation Service will show that this flood plain area is not prime agricultural land. Further, she ignores the lands located to the east, west and north of the current city limits which have some of the best available soils in Ada County. Her argument concerning paragraph 1.6 is answered in the rebuttal of the testimony given by the Eagle Citizens Association, Inc. It is my opinion that this testimony is nothing more than an attempt to preclude any consideration of the pending Fidelity Holding Company request for annexation by the City of Eagle. Eagle Citizens Association Inc. -- Since a membership list was not submitted and there is disagreement between Mr. Stopello and Mr. Watts on the number of members, I am crediting the testimony given by Mr. Stopello as coming from 21 people. The first argument is that the impact area is improper in that it should be confined to natural geographic boundaries and then lists three boundaries. This is in error. The testimony lists "the flood plain between the north and south channel of the Boise River" as a geographic boundary. If the flood plain is to be considered as a boundary, it must be considered in its entirety which is north of State Street in the downtown area of Eagle to the bench south of the south fork of the Boise River. In addition, there are other natural geographic boundaries which are not considered: 1. The bench south of the south fork of the Boise River. 2. The bench north of State Street. 3. The Boise Front Foothills in the north 4. Dry Creek and its flood plain area. This makes at least seven geographic areas. The testimony that "The City of Eagle has no business in proposing such an impact area" is also totally wrong. First, a citizen's connnittee of Eagle residents, excluding any of Eagle's elected officials, recommended the boundaries of the impact area to the Eagle City Council. Secondly, in accordance with Idaho Code 67-6526(b), Impact Area Report Page 2 a committee of nine persons was appointed in July 1978 and met over a period of several years and made the recommendation to the city and county governing boards on the area and text of the agreement. The testimony's ambivalence on the southern boundary (either the north channel ~ the south channel of the Boise River) is a thinly desguised attempt to exclude the Fidelity Holding property from the impact area. The testimony recommends as an impact area the Eagle Water and Sewer District planning area. Since this area is still not defined, using it as a point of reference at this time is illogical and I therefore reject this argument. Paragraph 2 of the testimony states that the Eagle Comprehensive Plan projects a population of 11,000 for the year 2000. Page 36 of the Plan projects a population of 12,77B~, Also, the presumption made in the testimony is that all vacant land will be developed by the year 2000, which is a ridiculous presumption as is any belief that there will be total in-fill before the city boundary is extended. Paragraph 3 of the testimony states that Section 1.6 of the agreement is unlawful. This statement is patently untrue and without foundation in law. No where in the planning act of 1975 does it grant the county any authority over annexation. Idaho Code 67-6525 deals with a city's action upon annexation. Idaho Code 67-6526 deals with the content of the impact area agreement which is the "application of plans and ordinances for the area of city impact." Idaho Code 50-222 grants annexation authority and it speaks so~y to cities. However, if one turns to Idaho Code 50-1306, the intent of the legislature becomes evident and that is that the cities be given some authority over county decisions in the lands surrounding the cities. 50-1306 grants authority, through agreement between the county and the city, for the city to approve all plats within the impact area. It is my conclusion that this part of the testimony is a statement to the effect that we, the testifiers, do not trust our elected city officials and want the Board of County Commissioners to exercise some control over them. Such an argument is not only offensive but demeanin~ to the citizens of Eagle. Reference the proposed impact area agreement terms on page 4 of this testimony, paragraph 1 thereof selects the sewer planning area as the all confining area in which Eagle can grow. This area is still not defined; however, if the area that this Association proposes to use were to be used, it would mean that there could be almost no expansion beyond the current city limits since the two areas are almost synonymous. Since there are nine (9) traditional urban services used in planning, why not use the "school" planning area, or the "fire protection" area to arrive at the boundaries of the impact area? Impact Area Report Page 3 It is obvious to me that this testimony attempts by innuendo and partial truths to sway the readers to the cause of the testimony. It should be applauded as excellent propaganda and the author(s) is (are) to be congratulated. However, after having carefully analyzed and weighed this testimony I find it fraught with error and irresolute in argument. I therefore reject any change to the impact area boundaries or changes to the proposed agreements.