City Council Meeting Aug. 20th, 2008

Issue 1: Whether to pass the preliminary budget.

Analysis 1: Throughout our budget process, I supported lowering the budget in large part to limit the increase in property taxes. In order to lower property taxes, I voted to cut many areas. I supported budget cuts of as little as $200 in an approximate $12 million budget because every little bit helps. At the meeting on Wednesday night, the Council considered the budget one last time.

The City budgeted $26,861,971 for the fiscal year 2008-2009. This was a budget cut of approximately $4.5 million from the 07-08 budget. $3.5 million was cut from the capital improvement fund while approximately $1 million was cut from the City's operating budget. 

Conclusion 1: I voted to pass the preliminary budget which includes a little less than the 3% allowed increase in the property tax portion of the budget. The preliminary budget passed but through a technicality we will have to meet at least two more times to approve the budget.

Issue 2: Whether to reconsider a zone change in/near downtown Sandpoint.

Facts 2: Dr. Pierce requested consideration of a zone change on his property at July's Council meeting. Dr. Pierce wasn't able to testify at the meeting because of several emergencies. At July's meeting, some members voted against the zone change in part because Dr. Pierce was not present to answer questions. I voted to approve the zone change. It was denied by a majority of the Council.

Rule 2: Dr. Pierce could reapply for a zone change and go again before Planning and Zoning and then the City Council. This would cost approximately $1,000 in fees. Otherwise, a Council member who was in the majority decision could ask to reconsider the zone change.

Analysis 2: Councilman Hawkins moved to reconsider the zone change. Based upon our City attorney's advice that this was legal, I voted to reconsider the zone change decision in part because I believe that Dr. Pierce should have a decision based upon the merits of his request.

Conclusion 2: I voted to reconsider the zone change as Dr. Pierce wasn't able to testify before the Council as to why he had requested the zone change.

Issue 3: Whether to raise user fees.

Conclusion 3: I voted to raise many user fees so that they actually reflect current market conditions or the cost of the services that we provide.

Issue 4: Whether to approve a subdivision development east of the airport.

Conclusion 4: I voted to approve the development even though I don't believe it is in the best interest of Sandpoint. In my opinion, the layout doesn't encourage walking. Secondly, the development is low density in an area near town. Regardless, the owner has the right to use his property in the best way that he sees fit. For that reason, I voted to approve the subdivision.

Whitewater Creek Zone Change

Issue: Whether to change the zoning on a 30 acre parcel behind the fairgrounds from Residential "A" to Residential "C" and a small portion from Residential "A" to "ER" (light industrial).

Rule: Zone changes are governed by the comprehensive plan. Under the current comprehensive plan the area is to be Residential "A". Under the proposed comprehensive plan, the area is to be Context Area 3. CA-3 most closely resembles Residential "C".

*Note: The City Council is currently revising the Comprehensive Plan. The changes have not yet been adopted. Residential "A", "C", and "ER" are current zoning designations. Residential "A" is low density housing. Residential "C" is higher density housing. "ER" is light industrial. Under the revisions to the comprehensive plan, CA-3 and CA-4 are proposed zoning but the ordinances for CA-3 and CA-4 have not yet been drafted or adopted. The Council just has a general idea of what these are to look like. CA-3 is to be medium density residential. CA-4 is to be mixed use with first floor commercial activity over residential units.

Analysis: On August 7th, the City Council met in special meeting to consider the proposed zone change of an area to be developed by Whitewater Creek. The developer is proposing to use the property for work-force housing and the ER for a live/work development.

This project is located within the City limits with relatively small impact to the surroundings, except the Bonner County Fairgrounds. Affordability of the units is guaranteed over the next 40 years through deed restrictions. There was broad support among the community for the development based upon the letters of support furnished to the Council.

Conclusion: While the development may impact the fairgrounds, this effect is limited in comparison to locating the development elsewhere in the City limits. Affordable housing is a need for our community and employers. Based upon the development, the area, the proposed comprehensive plan and the need for workforce housing, I voted in favor of the zone change. The zone change from Res "A" to Res "C" passed.

The developer's request and agreement to restrict uses within the "ER" area is similar to what is envisioned for that area but not yet enacted under the proposed comprehensive plan . I voted to accept the zone change to "ER" as the proposed comprehensive plan envisions this type of use along Woodland Drive. The zone change from Res "A" to "ER" failed. The area was then zoned Residential "C".

Our current comp plan and zoning are out of date. By failing to give the developer the tools (the new zoning ordinances and areas under the proposed comp plan), the City failed to meet the needs of our community. It is my hope that we will be able to implement the changes to the comprehensive plan as soon as possible in order to allow private enterprise to meet the needs of our community.

2008-2009 Preliminary Budget Cuts

Issue: Whether to cut the City's 2008-2009 budget.

Facts: Cities in Idaho are limited to a budget increase of 3% each year (excluding grants, user fees and permit revenue). This is State law. The effect of this law is that each year, Idaho cities have to make difficult budget decisions because prices and costs may increase by more than 3%.

I ran on a campaign of fiscal responsibility. The 3% cap in Sandpoint means an increase of approximately $80,000 this year over last year's budget. The City budget is over $10 million. With health care costs increasing and fuel costs going up, it is hard to pass up $80,000.

By Idaho law we are required to submit a preliminary budget prior to adoption of the regular budget. By law, the budget cannot increase after the preliminary budget is submitted. Dollars can be moved around but the total number cannot increase.

This year, our preliminary budget will increase less than $80,000 over last year. The City of Sandpoint's budget is increasing at less than the inflation rate and less than the maximum 3% allowed. Many areas have been cut.

Conclusion: I voted to cut many areas because of my pledge; fiscal responsibility. I made a case-by-case determination out of the proposed cuts. In areas where it was reasonable, I tried to make reductions. The bottom line: for homeowners who own a home in Sandpoint worth less than $280,000, property taxes will go down (this figure is because of the homeowners exemption which affects the amount of property taxes paid). Of course, property assessments may increase but the City cannot control assessed values.

In the future, I would prefer that the Council vote on a budget amount (will we take the full 3% increase or less?) and then allow Sandpoint Department heads to make cuts or increases in their own budgets.

Followup to Sidewalk Post: Letter from Idaho AG

I was informed of the following letter from the Attorney General's office several hours after my sidewalk post. The letter states that reimbursement is illegal pursuant to Idaho Code and Sandpoint ordinance. A copy of the letter is attached here.

For The Sidewalk LID; Against Reimbursement

Issue 1: Whether the City should create a sidewalk LID.

Facts: In October 2007, the previous Council voted to move ahead with the creation of a zone where homeowners would be required to install or repair sidewalks. Within this zone, homeowners could finance the costs of a sidewalk through the City for a number of years. This allowed homeowners to offset the financial burden. This zone is called an LID. Per the Council's recommendation, the City sent out a letter notifying homeowners of the City's intention to create an LID. The letter stated that homeowners could install sidewalks prior to the LID at a savings if done privately. Approximately 40 people installed or repaired their sidewalks in anticipation of the LID.

In January 2008, a new Council was seated. The new Council voted on whether or not to create the LID. The LID was amended three times and finally voted down. During these votes, I advocated for the 40 homeowners who had relied on an October 2007 letter from the City. My comments and support reflected these homeowners' reliance on the City's letter.

Conclusion: I supported the 2008 sidewalk LID.

Issue 2: Whether to reimburse homeowners who relied on creation of the LID.

Facts: After voting down the LID, it was proposed to reimburse the 40 homeowners who had installed sidewalks in reliance on the City's creation of an LID. I voted against this for three reasons:

1. It's legally questionable (can public monies be given to private homeowners by Idaho law?);
2. It is counter to our own ordinance of requiring homeowners to install and repair sidewalks (Sandpoint ordinance states that it is the homeowners responsibility to install and repair sidewalks); and;
3. It is practically very difficult to administer (how much do we reimburse?).

Conclusion: A harm has been done to the 40 homeowners who acted in reliance on the City but reimbursement is potentially a worse harm to the entire citizenry of Sandpoint. It forces the entire population of Sandpoint to pay for 40 sidewalks which by ordinance are the property owners' responibility. For these reasons, I voted against reimbursement.