01172013CouncilMinutes
CITY OF AMMON
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2013
AGENDA:
CITY OF AMMON
2135 SOUTH AMMON ROAD
CITY COUNCIL - AGENDA
THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2013 – 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
Councilmember Dana Kirkham at 7:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Slack
Prayer – Councilmember Coletti
MINUTES:
December 20, 2012, January 3, 2013
ITEMS FROM MAYOR:
CONSENT AGENDA:
Business License
Accounts Payable – Exhibit A
AMMON LIGHTING DISTRICT #1 (City Council acting as Lighting District Board):
CONSENT AGENDA:
Accounts Payable – Exhibit A
ITEMS FOR/FROM TREASURER:
PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: (5 Minute Limitation)
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2013-001 – Oakridge Subdivision #2 – Rezone R-1 to R2-A
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Decision on Public Hearing 2013-001 – Oakridge Subdivision #2 – Rezone R-1 to R2-A
2.Approval of Service Agreement – Response to School District RFP – Authorize Mayor to Sign
3.Cafeteria Plan Implementation
4.Insurance Plan – Employee Portion
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.Proposed City Code Changes
2.Misc.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
1.Personnel Evaluations - Idaho Code 67-2345 (1-b)
2.Real Property Acquisitions - Idaho Code 67-2345 (1-c)
3.Pending Litigation - Idaho Code 67-2345 (1-f)
MINUTES
City Officials Present:
Councilmember Dana Kirkham
Councilmember Rex Thompson
Councilmember Sean Coletti
Councilmember Russell Slack
Councilmember Brad Christensen
City Attorney Scott Hall
City Administrator/Clerk/Planning Director Ron Folsom
Deputy City Clerk Rachael Brown
City Treasurer Jennifer Belfield
City Engineer Lance Bates
Public Works Director Ray Ellis
City Officials Absent:
Mayor Steven Fuhriman
Councilmember Brian Powell
19
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
CALL TO ORDER:
Councilmember Dana Kirkham opened the meeting in the Mayors absence at 7:03 p.m. at the City Hall
building located at 2135 South Ammon Road. Councilmember Slack led the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Coletti offered a
prayer.
MINUTES: December 20, 2012:
Councilmember Thompson moved to approve the minutes, as presented.
Councilmember Christensen seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes,
Councilmember Slack – Yes, Councilmember Coletti – Yes, and Councilmember Kirkham – Yes. The motion passed.
January 3, 2013:
Councilmember Christensen moved to approve the minutes, as presented. Councilmember
Thompson seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Christensen – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Slack –
Yes, Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion passed.
ITEMS FROM MAYOR:
None
CONSENT AGENDA:
CITY OF AMMON
BUSINESS LICENSE CONSENT AGENDA
Thursday, January 17, 2013
License applications, carrying the required documents, pending approval of the City Council:
LIQUOR/BEER/WINE WITH GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE:
1.RENEWAL LIQUOR/BEER/WINE WITH GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE:
A. Sol Rio – Restaurant – 2635 S 25th E
B. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC – Restaurant - 2535 S 25th E
Business License:
Councilmember Coletti moved to approve the Business License Consent Agenda, as presented.
Councilmember Thompson seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Coletti – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes,
Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember Slack – Yes, and Councilmember Christensen – Yes. The motion passed.
Accounts Payable – Exhibit A:
Councilmember Slack moved to approve the Accounts Payable – Exhibit A, as
presented. Councilmember Christensen seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Slack – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes,
Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion passed.
AMMON LIGHTING DISTRICT #1 (City Council acting as Lighting District Board):
Councilmember Kirkham moved to
enter into session of the Lighting District #1 with the Council acting as the Lighting District Board. Councilmember Thompson
seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes,
Councilmember Slack – Yes, and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion passed.
CONSENT AGENDA:Accounts Payable – Exhibit A:
Councilmember Kirkham moved to approve the Accounts
Payable – Exhibit A, as presented. Councilmember Slack seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember
Slack – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion
passed.
ADJOURN LIGHTING DISTRICT BOARD AND RE-CONVENE AS CITY COUNCIL:
Councilmember Kirkham
moved the Council to enter back into regular session. Councilmember Thompson seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Kirkham
– Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Slack – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes, and Councilmember
Coletti – Yes. The motion passed.
ITEMS FOR/FROM TREASURER:
None
PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: (5 Minute Limitation):
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:2013-001 – Oakridge Subdivision #2 – Rezone R-1 to R2-A:
Councilmember Kirkham opened the
Public Hearing and explained the procedure to the audience, for the Public Hearing. Councilmember Kirkham explained at the
Planning and Zoning Commission there was a public hearing held on December 5, 2012 where no public testimony or written
testimony was received. On December 20, 2012 this item was on the City Council agenda for action with a recommendation for
29
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. At that meeting there were requests for input from the public received; as a
result of those requests, the City Council ordered an additional public hearing be held to take public comment.
Councilmember Coletti explained that he will be recusing himself, because his law firm represents a client that has an interest
in some of these properties. Councilmember Christensen also will be recusing himself from the discussion, because of his personal
employment. Ron Folsom tried to reach Councilmember Powell by phone, and said that he was not available at this time. Scott Hall
explained that when Councilmembers recuse themselves, there has to be a remaining quorum which requires three and to either pass
or defeat a motion it will require a majority of the remaining members.
Ron Folsom explained that at the Planning and Zoning meeting on Dec 5, 2012 there was no citizen input, and no written
comment. They closed the hearing and discussed the proposal; the proposal was voted on by six members there with four in favor of
approving the request and two voted against.
Tom Hunsaker, 2135 S Ammon Road, Planning and Zoning said he and Cindy knew the history of the area, but the other
members of the Planning and Zoning committee did not quite have the background. Tom explained that he and Cindy were looking at
some sort of middle ground, and the rest of the Committee thought what was presented made the most sense because of the proximity
to Wal-Mart, and the lack of interest in building R-1 type homes in here. Tom said the decision was for the ten interior lots that have
already been developed, and the lots that are waiting to be developed. A lot of the testimony was that there was not going to be enough
parking for them to develop anything except twin homes on those that are still dirt lots unless they re-plat. Councilmember Kirkham
said they could re-plat. Tom explained the four that voted for it said this is all that can be done; we have these building here already
and should be able to do something with them. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Council approve it.
Councilmember Kirkham asked for the reasons why the two Commissioners had opposed the request. Tom said this is the most
densely populated square mile in the entire City, and they opposed raising it again. We are thinking something can be worked in the
middle to help accommodate what has been done to date, but not as harsh as R2-A.
Ron explained where the lots are located, explained the request and what was allowed in the current and proposed zoning.
Discussion ensued regarding proposed zoning.
Shawn French, 5209 S Tappan Falls, said he wanted to clarify some misconceptions. The first one is we are not trying to do
anything south of Chasewood. There is a rumor going around we are trying to develop the land around The Piano Gallery, and that is
not us. We have the buildings right there, and the Bank of Idaho owns the lots that form the “L”. Councilmember Kirkham asked if he
represented the Bank of Idaho. Shawn said no. The second misconception was that they are trying to slide something through. Shawn
said they have gone through all the zoning notifications, sent out a public notice to the neighborhood to meet them, and only had one
individual show up. We tried to get our phone number out to the association president for people to call us, ask questions and give
their concerns. We are trying to be an open book on this. Councilmember Kirkham said the Council would concur that they have gone
through the process and went through planning and zoning. Shawn said all the individuals that are proposing this right now, had
nothing to do with the original project. We were all investors that were asked to invest in short term construction loans four years ago;
the loans were supposed to be paid off within six months, but this never happened and all had to be foreclosed. Shawn explained that
they have been trying to sell them for the last eighteen months. We have had several people come look at them; they love the layout,
and then go home to crunch the numbers and find out you cannot make an eight bed unit work. Their goal is we would like to build a
hallway in-between two of the buildings at a time making them fifteen bed units. Councilmember Thompson asked side by side or
back door to back door. Shawn said four pairs would be side by side and the remaining pair back to back with the goal being to make
each a fifteen bed unit. There is another fifteen bed unit in Idaho Falls that operates and functions well. Shawn said by doing this it
does two things, it changes each pair from an in effect sixteen bed unit to a fifteen bed unit, and each current building is able to cut
down by one staff member. Councilmember Kirkham said there will be more beds (per building) and less staff. Shawn said yes these
building require staffing 24/7, and their goal is to cut the staff in half to make the building more profitable. Councilmember Thompson
asked what type of clientele would occupy the units. Shawn said it could be elderly individuals that would not require a nurse.
Councilmember Kirkham said the Council cannot dictate who the clientele will be. Shawn said it is a little bias and our whole goal is
to have the units function as an assisting living center to even cut our losses; we don’t want it to run as a short term care facility and
have cliental that come and go. We would like it to be a long term place where the clients stay. Shawn said in the State of Idaho you
cannot go over sixteen beds, or the building structure has to be completely different.
Cam Payne, with the Bank of Idaho explained that they were the lender for the construction. Three partially completed units
ended up being built before things turned south, and they ended up with the property through a foreclosure. Cam said they have not
had any interest in the properties whatsoever, and the ones that have looked at it said the three buildings would need to be torn down
to do anything with it. Cam said with assisted living, you have to combine and so forth which means it needs to be zoned differently
than it is now. As it sits, the property is more of a liability than an asset to have the partially completed buildings. Cam said he was
approached by Shawn French and his group to join together, and thought it made sense to square out and rezone the properties. Cam
said given the fact there is such a commercial influence with Wal-Mart, there are three single family homes backing up to Wal-Mart
and some of those have been on the market for quite some time. Cam feels the idea of trying to get other single family homes into this
area when others aren’t doing well makes no sense; we thought it made sense to do something other than single family. Cam said the
idea that they could turn the properties into a huge apartment building like people are envisioning, would require the properties to be
zoned R-3A. If you take into consideration the R2-A minimum thirty foot setbacks, rear twenty-five foot setback, and side eight foot
39
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
setbacks, we only have 2.75 acres, and R2-A is limited to only twelve units per acre, so the idea you are going to end up with 100
units cannot happen. Also for every unit you have, if it contains one or two bedrooms, we have to provide for two off street parking
spots, and if it contains more than two bedrooms, we have to provide two and a half off street parking spots. If you combine all those
things together, you are not going to end up with a big massive high density complex.
Councilmember Thompson asked what is the maximum number of apartments that could be put on that acreage. Cam said a
maximum of thirty six, and they can’t go above two stories. Cam said he doesn’t see the density concern. Councilmember Kirkham
asked Cam if the rezone request is denied, what would be done with the lots. Cam said they will try to rezone to something else,
because there is not a market for single family homes sitting right behind Wal-Mart; there are single family lots around town that are
much more appealing than the lots in question.
Mitch Manzanares, 89 W 450 N said he is clarifying that the rezoning would increase the beds to fifteen beds. The buildings
that exist now are licensed as eight bed facilities, and by combining them each would be fifteen beds. They would be dropping one
resident per pair. The requirements by the state are an eight to fifteen bed facility is to be staffed by three. So instead of three staffing
each eight-bed building, when they are combined you will have three staff per fifteen-bed building. So you would be decreasing the
amount of traffic. Councilmember Kirkham said what concerns her with re-zone, it is always nice to talk about what is there right now
and what is happening right now, but the zone moves with the land. If you choose not to be the investors for some reason and sellout;
someone else can come in and knock down what is there and start over. We have to be cautious and not get caught up with what you
are doing right now: we have to say what can happen once we approve this rezone. Mitch said they have to be realistic too; if someone
comes in and wants to make a business profitable they are not going to wipe out a million dollar building. Councilmember Kirkham
said often when we talk about rezoning, usually the property is vacant and we have no idea what is going to come there. So we have to
look at what all the possibilities are, and if we give it this zone are we comfortable with all those possibilities. Councilmember
Kirkham said she feels terrible for the situation they are in, but they have to understand that the Council has to look at what might
happen with the land if they change the zone. Mitch said they are not an asset to the City, they are a problem and this is the only
solution they can find for these buildings.
Shawn said their concern is what to do with these properties. They would like what is best for the neighborhood, and to have
nice buildings. They would like to cut down on the traffic, and for the people that live there hopefully get someone in there long term.
We have been open to ideas of what they can do with them, and have not heard any. We do not know what the future holds, and hope
we can make the best decision for what is there right now.
Jill Fulmer, 455 Advantage Lane, said she wanted to express her concerns with changing the rezoning, and wants the Council
to look at it in broader terms. If we could rezone only those units that would be great, but we are rezoning empty land also. My
concern is that there are already a lot of multifamily, twin homes, and apartments in this square mile. Jill said it’s not that she is
opposed to apartments, but being able to open that up to more apartments is a concern to her. Her husband has done some investing
and they have taken loses. She feels bad that it went south, but doesn’t think that they should have to pay for that mistake.
Mike Boot, 1270 Diamond Drive said he lives at the end of the cul-de-sac, and said he has to look at these eye sores every
day. His concern is he has had to call the sheriff several times for vandalism. Everyone is saying they need to do something with them,
but when the road is completed the way these were zoned, who says you cannot put in single family homes. Mike is strongly against
it. Councilmember Kirkham asked if what they are doing makes it more likely they would be filled. That doesn’t give you any solace.
Mike said no, the partially constructed buildings are basically glorified pigeon coops. They have been sitting there for three years now.
Mike said if they want to build the hallway, he is fine with that, but to rezone it; no.
Brandy Boot, 1270 Diamond Drive said she feels like they are paying for somebody’s bad investment. Three years ago this
was supposed to be retirement homes, which were to be beautifully landscaped, but those of us in the neighborhood know what they
have become. They keep bringing up they are trying to accommodate us, make them nice and cut down on traffic, but as it is the
properties are zoned right; if we rezone this and turn this to apartments the traffic would triple. As it is most of our property is
surrounded by apartments and she is opposed to the request. Councilmember Slack asked you mentioned there is one car right now
and not a lot of traffic as it is, when you build multifamily units like these the higher density does not necessarily mean more traffic, it
is actually the opposite because most of the time they are gone all day versus single family homes where there is more traffic because
you usually have people travelling to stores, etc. Brandy said the traffic is the least of her concern. It is the rezoning and turning the
field into apartments.
Bart Adamson, 2901 Brettonwood Drive, said he can see the back of the unfinished homes from his backyard. Bart said this
is the most densely populated square mile in the City. Bart said it is too bad the investment has gone bad, but is it the City’s
responsibility to help investors? They can sell the property to other investors and the zoning stays there and the people that come in
can do whatever they want with it. It doesn’t matter what these folks say. He is opposed.
Bryant Slater, 3100 Backhand said he has lived in this neighborhood for ten years and was able to be picky about where he
lived. He is opposed to rezone. He has looked into zoning of the other neighborhoods and how things are going to expand in his
neighborhood, and has noticed over the last ten years it is getting denser. He expected to have a residential single family
neighborhood. Bryant said he recently invested to expand on his home rather than move, but is now seeing high density could expand
and feels it will spill over. They have been promised parks nearby and more residential areas, now it is threatening to become the
49
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
opposite of what was permitted at the time they made their investment. Bryant does not have a problem with them taking those ten
homes and connecting them, but there is no guarantee there is going to be a successful business. It is still just a gamble. We could
approve this and the buildings could still sit and be an eyesore for the next twenty years. He doesn’t feel the community should invest
in the failed business. That needs to be handled by the land owners.
Lacy Lounsbury, 2781 Sapphire said she lives three houses down from the homes. She is opposed to the changing of the
rezoning. She understands about the concern and the frustration of the ten units in question, and she is not opposed to adjoining of the
buildings, but she is strongly opposed to the rest of the rezoning. She has lived there for eight years and it is a very nice neighborhood.
There are three houses across the street that has been for sale, but none of them are selling because of Wal-Mart. It is nice to have that
residential by Wal-Mart to keep us a neighborhood. She said there are too many apartments. She feels if it stays residential it will help
the community. The reason she purchased her home was because of the residential area. She strongly opposes the request.
Malcolm Guess, 1265 Diamond Circle said he lives five doors down from the rezone area. He is opposed to the change in
zoning. He and his wife purchased a lot in 2003, and built a home there for their family. It is his hope that they are going to retire in
this home and this change in zoning will totally impact their lives. When we moved into the home we knew what was around us, but
this is a change that they didn’t expect. Two of his boys have mental disabilities so he understands the importance of a place for
people that need help. Malcolm said he is on board if there is some type of variance to help connect the homes that are already there,
but he worries about a total zone change and the potential of the future.
Varcel Huntsman, 864 Katie Court said the City of Ammon is a great place to live. He lived here thirty years ago, and moved
back from Arizona two years ago. Varcel said the City of Ammon does a great job of planning for the future. There is a plan and it has
been out there before there were problems going on. He feels it is wrong to change the plan after the building has already started in
that area. Once building has started, you are impacting the lives of too many people to rezone. He feels sorry for the investors, but he
too has lost money due to this financial crisis we are in. No one changed property rules for him and he was not able to recover his
losses. The City has a plan, let’s not change it.
Paul Fairbourn, 770 Match Point he has lived in the Tiebreaker Village area for twenty five years. He does not want to rebuff
what has been said, but as we started twenty years ago there was no plan, and we came en masse as a subdivision to ask for a
comprehensive plan because it seemed like we were planning one decision at a time. We asked about the impact on our schools, police
and our water and sewer; we did not get good answers at the time. His concern is that he doesn’t think there are any other
neighborhoods in the entire state that have three elementary schools in one subdivision boundary. That increases the traffic flow
tremendously since there is no busing for the White Pines Charter School and there are individual cars going in and out. Any traffic
increase is going to be noticed, because there are so many comings and goings from the elementary schools. The neighborhood
residents have to always make concessions. There are a couple of single dwelling homes that have been sold off and rented to Club
Inc. These are half way houses which have increased the traffic. He is ok with the houses that are there, but his concern is if
apartments are built. He was told from the beginning twenty five years ago, that John Adams would run all the way through, and they
are still one hundred feet short. Traffic is an issue, and even one more car is not going to help. Paul said he did attend Planning and
Zoning meetings, and there was a comment that the residents would rather see building than weeds. Paul said he would rather see the
weeds.
Steve Robison, 722 Katie Court said because of the high density housing, the property values will continue to drop. He is
opposed to the rezone. He believes that traffic is an issue. He doesn’t have a problem with the ten units that are already there.
David Garretson, 1163 Diamond Drive said he lives three houses from where the proposed changes are. He looks at the
unfinished buildings when he leaves, and when he comes home and would like something done to it, but he doesn’t want apartments.
He feels like he lives in a great neighborhood and feels changing the zoning will change the neighborhood. He doesn’t want his kids to
go anywhere near the area. Councilmember Slack asked what was in the area that he didn’t want his kids near there. David said
strange cars, people stopping and hanging out. He wants a safe neighborhood and feels if the change is made that it won’t be the same.
Councilmember Kirkham said if the change isn’t made the ten units will stay. David said he has no problems if they do something
with the ten units.
Patrick Malone, 1137 Diamond Drive said he lives two doors down from the vacant lots. They purchased their lot, and chose
it because of the surrounding zoning. They built their home in 2004, which was prior to all of this development. He feels like the value
of his property has already been impacted by the decision to allow these buildings to go in. He is opposed to something that is going to
decrease the values even more. The people applying for the zoning don’t live in the neighborhood; we live in the neighborhood, and
anything that happens there is going to impact us. He has been listening to these proposals about the ten lots that would be single
family homes, and now there is the potential for thirty two more homes and so he feels this changes the nature of the neighborhood.
He has been selling real estate in Ammon and Idaho Falls for fifteen years, and the comment was made there was no demand for these
single family homes, and he has to respectfully disagree. There is no demand for single family anywhere in Idaho, and doesn’t feel
that is an accurate statement to make. They would love single family homes to go in there, and feels there is still a demand. His
concern is for not the buildings that are there, but for what can happen and he doesn’t want to see his interest in his property devalued
to benefit someone else. Councilmember Slack said you talk about property value with regards to the real estate world, and asked
Patrick if he felt that the property value he has now has been impacted by the units being vacant and appear to be pigeon houses and
59
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
people who use the facilities. Patrick said the ten that are built are complete; siding, windows, fences and landscaping and that is very
different than the other three. Calling them a house is generous; they are a shell with a roof and no outside shell. There are no
windows, no doors, and no plumbing. Councilmember Slack asked if the aesthetics that surround the area the way it is now, that has
impacted the property value you are talking about; would that decrease or increase if these people are allowed to finish those things
out so they become useful. Patrick said the ten that are completed are already there and that impact has already occurred; the question
is what happens to the vacant lots and if it’s a higher density that will impact the value of all the single family homes and will drive
the value down.
Phil Simpson, 3070 Wimbledon Circle said his first observation was that nobody wants to move into the neighborhood, and
his view is that this is because it is very highly populated, and expanding the high density will make the problem worse which really
isn’t what we want to move towards. We want to address this and would like to help resolve this. Phil said we live in a community
where we are very fortunate, because we serve each other; we see compassion, assistance, and neighbors and families pull together.
When each of us is born, we are all born equally and as we go through our lives, there are times when we begin to have things. We
may have money, we may have health, emotional stability, but we have things. There are also times in most of our lives, that we
become a have not, may not have money at times, we may have depression, we may struggle, and we may have death, and so he
categorizes these as the haves and have not’s; neither one being more important than the other. When he looks at his neighborhood,
and he looks at the balance here, what happens when you have the haves and have not’s, both need each other. The haves benefit from
it, because they get to serve and are benefited when they do so. The have not’s receive, they are built up, and they are encouraged to
become and be blessed in their lives to hopefully become haves. When we get out of balance, both suffer. Mr. Simpson continued to
explain his beliefs about the haves and have not’s.
Tom Hunsaker, 2925 Carolyn Lane said he doesn’t live near the property in question. Tom said when Kevin Murray was on
the Planning and Zoning Commission he would often remind us that vacant land is probably the worst thing to have around you,
because you don’t know what will end up going there. Once something is zoned and development started, there is a certain reliability
that people depend on it staying that way. Tom then said the State Statute states that no residential zone anywhere can prohibit group
homes, as long as the group home contains no more than eight residents, and two staff members have to be available for them at all
times, so they can live in a residential, normal type of neighborhood. It was not the intent of the legislature to have a bunch of these
put together; they were supposed to be scattered throughout to maintain the residential atmosphere for the residents who live there.
Tom said when this property was developed the way that it was, those of us that were paying attention said that is not what the
legislature intended, and asked ourselves is this going to fly. The reason it was developed this way is, because the original developer
was looking at having a second Gables.
Councilmember Kirkham said that when this originally came, obviously it was zoned what it was and there was no way to
say no to what was coming; so when the site plans came in, there was a lot of concern about whether this would work or not, and from
the Council there was a lot of question about the market and we were assured that we didn’t understand the market. Tom said one of
the things that came up from the previous meeting was if there was anything they could do to modify the current buildings to make
them viable, and when they looked at it there were small bedrooms and each has its own bathroom. There is a lot of plumbing that
would need to be removed to make bigger rooms to make it work as a normal single family residence. Planning and Zoning also said
in order to build attached dwellings, they would have to re-plat. Tom said the ten have the same problem; they cannot connect to each
other without re-platting, so that instead of having ten lots there would be five and until then we don’t allow it.
Cam Payne said it seems there is a lot of concern with the empty lots, and he understands that. There are concerns with three
empty buildings and an eye sore; they are trying to fix that. Their plan is to do something that makes this a valuable property. It seems
that not too many people have an issue with the empty buildings; it is more with the empty ground. He has no problem if the Council
would consider something less than an R2-A for the bank’s land if that would make it more feasible.
Councilmember Kirkham closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Kirkham said she would agree that we have ten units with three being unfinished and people would like to
see something done with them. She feels there are two issues here; there is the existing development, and then there is the surrounding
land. She feels the Council has heard loud and clear that no one wants to see that land re-zoned to R-2A. Councilmember Kirkham
said she wants the Council to keep that in mind. Maybe they should be trying to find a compromise.
Councilmember Thompson said ten years ago a group came to City Council with a petition with over five hundred signatures,
asking the City to consider future development in a balanced fashion. As a result of that he got on the City Council. Councilmember
Thompson said at that time overall residential development in the City consisted of eighty percent single family detached housing
units, ten percent twin homes, and ten percent apartments. Councilmember Thompson explained that the square mile in question has
970 housing units, 425 are apartments for forty three percent, 280 are single family detached homes for twenty-nine percent, and 265
are twin homes for twenty-eight percent. Councilmember Thompson explained the reason he split out twin homes from detached
single family homes is, because some of the twin homes are eight per acre which puts them in a high density classification. There has
been discussion about rezoning and it is very difficult to rezone an area where people have already built their homes there.
69
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
Councilmember Thompson said there is a situation on Avocet where a variance was granted so that two buildings could be
connected by a breezeway and asked Ron if the Council grant a variance without rezoning. Ron said the variance was for one of the
Avocet properties to have nine residents. The breezeway was an allowed use, because it is not connected to both buildings.
Councilmember Slack asked if the re-zoning needs to be an all or nothing approach, or is there a possibility of mixing the zones. Ron
said the Council can split the zone. Councilmember Kirkham said she wouldn’t support mixing the zones, because the Council can’t
take into consideration what is already there; we have to determine what’s the best plan for the City of Ammon. Councilmember
Kirkham would like to see the Council come up with a conditional use or a variance that would be conditional to those buildings and
then if it still doesn’t work then the next person is going to have to knock them down. Councilmember Slack asked Scott Hall if it fits
a variance. Scott explained there are two problems with a variance right now; number one is that there is not a request for a variance,
and it hasn’t gone through a public hearing. Scott explained that the variance has to meet what the ordinance requires, and what the
ordinance requires is something unique to the land. Scott explained the requirements of a variance, and he is doubtful that it would fit
within the variance. Ron explained the requirements for a variance and said this property would not meet the requirements for a
variance.
Councilmember Kirkham said she would like the Council to be creative and come up with something that is a solution.
Councilmember Slack said you will see those buildings sit vacant until the remaining property is built out and the value of the
property under those houses become so valuable that ripping down the homes will become economically feasible. Discussion ensued
regarding the neighborhood and its zoning. Councilmember Thompson said it is not the purpose of government to bail out private
enterprise when the decisions they make don’t turn out the way they hope, and the Council should not be giving ideas on what to do.
Councilmember Kirkham said Councilmember Thompson is correct, and it is not the government’s job to tell them what to do.
Councilmember Kirkham said she is opposed to the rezone, but she is open to a compromise. Ron said he will check the
allowances for conditional uses. Councilmember Slack said he is opposed to the zone change as it stands, but he is 50/50 for rezoning
the ten lots as it is presented tonight.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Decision on Public Hearing 2013-001 – Oakridge Subdivision #2 – Rezone R-1 to R2-A:
Councilmember Thompson
moved to deny the rezone of Oakridge Subdivision #2 from R-1 to R2-A, as has been presented. Councilmember Kirkham seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Thompson – Yes (because if the City rezones to R-2A we cannot tell what will go in there, and the
property already has an abundance of apartments in the area), Councilmember Kirkham – Yes (because she feels a rezone only
happens when it is absolutely necessary, it moves with the land, and they have spent a lot of time and energy through the
comprehensive plan process determining what the zoning should be and feels they should respect that), Councilmember Slack – Yes
(because it is difficult for the change of purpose, and is not fair to the homeowners that have invested in their properties),
Councilmember Coletti – Abstain (because of a conflict of interest), and Councilmember Christensen – Abstain (because of a conflict
of interest). The motion passed.
2. Approval of Service Agreement – Response to School District RFP – Authorize Mayor to Sign:
Councilmember
Kirkham moved to table this item until the February 7, 2013 Council Meeting. Councilmember Thompson seconded. Roll Call Vote:
Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Slack – Yes, Councilmember Christensen - Yes,
and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion passed.
3. Cafeteria Plan Implementation:
Councilmember Kirkham said the City has had this cafeteria plan, but it has never
been formalized and there just needs to be a motion to implement the plan. Councilmember Thompson said there have been some
recent developments and new laws. It used to be as an employer, you used to be able to allow as much as you wanted on a cafeteria
plan. Under the current rule there is a $2,500 limit. You cannot use that money as premiums for other insurance and staff needs to be
aware of that. Councilmember Kirkham moved to approve the implementation of the Cafeteria Plan. Councilmember Thompson
seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes,
Councilmember Slack – Yes, and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion passed.
Councilmember Kirkham moved the Council into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 67-2345 (1-b&f).
Councilmember Christensen seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes,
Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Slack – Yes, and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion passed.
Council moved back into regular session at 8:56 p.m.
4. Insurance Plan – Employee Portion:
Jennifer explained that on October 1, 2012 the City’s medical rate increased by
nineteen percent and as we were going through the budgeting process we did anticipate this increase and budgeted accordingly. There
ended up being an additional increase January 1, 2013 that we did not anticipate, and did not budget for. Jennifer said neither the City
nor the individuals have budgeted for the second increase. Jennifer then stated over the last several years there have been no changes
79
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
in what the employee participation level amounts are in relation to what the rates are. Jennifer presented the amounts of the increase
and how it would affect what each employee would pay. Jennifer recommended the employees pay twenty percent of the family
coverage premium. Discussion ensued regarding the current employee contribution versus the City contribution.
Ray Ellis, City Public Works Director said he talked quite a bit to his staff today and this is really going to impact them. Even
though on paper this is a raise, the bottom line is they take home less. The group of people that this impacts the most, have not been
involved in the discussion. Ray feels we owe it to our staff to have them as part of the discussion. Councilmember Thompson asked
Ray if he wanted the Council to not make a decision tonight and ask staff what benefits them or see if they would rather have the
money. Scott asked what the policy year was on the policy. Jennifer said the open enrollment on the medical policy is January 1st.
Ron said in Jennifer’s defense, several weeks ago she sent out a survey. Out of the thirty employees she only received nine
back, so our employees need to answer back. Ray said it is one thing to talk about the benefits, but it’s another to talk about the dollar
amount. Discussion ensued regarding different options. Councilmember Slack asked how many of the staff are taking advantage of
preventative health care. Jennifer said Meritain came to the City to perform a blood analysis and most of the employees participated,
and she feels the employees are being proactive about their health care.
Councilmember Kirkham said she agrees with Ray, and can see by moving ahead tonight that it could seem they are ignoring
the staff, but they need to act now because it is time sensitive. Jennifer explained the deductable and out of pocket costs for the staff.
Councilmember Slack asked the staff present if they prefer something that covers more things like they have now, or something like a
catastrophic plan with a very high deductible.
Brandon Russell, Public Works said at this point most doctor visits are more than the co-pay, but he would prefer to keep the
coverage for himself and have what he would pay for his family put into a HSA. Scott Hall said there is a policy issue the City has to
think about; do you feel as a City responsible to encourage buying insurance for your employees so that your employees aren’t at the
County seeking medical indigence. Discussion ensued regarding the increase to the City and staff.
Ray suggested having the staff involved and showing them the increases and giving them a voice.
Jennifer said the claims have stabilized and reduced compared to what they were at the original onset of the III-A.
Councilmember Kirkham asked Nathan Riblett and Brandon Russell what they would suggest the Council do. Nathan said some of the
guys have already started looking for second jobs to make ends meet, and feels that may cause a higher rate increase in the future
because of staff being tired and getting injured. Councilmember Kirkham said yes it could. Brandon said the increase in going to be
twenty percent of his gross wages, and he can’t absorb that. Councilmember Kirkham asked Brandon how a ten percent increase
would affect him. Brandon said that may be a little more feasible for him, but he would have to look into his finances. Discussion
ensued regarding reducing the proposed twenty percent increase to ten percent, and keeping a minimum due from the employee.
Councilmember Thompson moved to go with the twenty percent as staff has calculated, eliminating the employee portion,
eliminating what the City pays for the employee, and then twenty percent of the remainder paid by the employee with a minimum of
$100.00, effective April 1, 2013. Councilmember Slack seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember
Slack – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes, Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, and Councilmember Coletti – Yes. The motion
passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Proposed City Code Changes:
Moved to a later date.
2. Misc.:
Ron said he included information in the Council’s packet regarding City Officials Day at the Capital. Ron
explained the cost and what was included.
Ron explained that there is another business requesting to operate on Lennis Tirrell’s lot. Ron said currently there are already
a snow cone shack and a flower shop operating on this lot. Ron told the proposed new business no about operating on the corner.
Lennis came into the office the next day and wanted to know why he couldn’t have another business on the lot. Ron explained to him
that his lot was not developed. The new proposed business asked Ron if they could operate during those seasons when one of the
other current businesses was not. Ron asked the Council if they are ok with that compromise. Council concurred that would be fine.
Councilmember Colettisaid he noticed that Madison, Teton, and Freemont Counties are having meetings about putting
together a municipal (sic) broadband system. Ron said he thinks that Bruce is aware of it.Councilmember Coletti also reminded the
Council that it was time again to donate to the Ammon Scholarship
Councilmember Kirkham moved to adjourn. Councilmember Thompson seconded. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Kirkham
– Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Coletti – Yes, Councilmember Christensen – Yes, and Councilmember
Slack – Yes. The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
89
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of
__________________________________________________
Steven Fuhriman, Mayor
________________________________________________
Ron Folsom, City Clerk
99
City Council Minutes 01.17.2013Page of