August 2009 Council Mtg.

Issue 1: Whether Litehouse Foods should be permitted a deferment to put in sidewalks.

Rule 1: The streetscape ordinance was recently re-done. Under the old code, deferments were granted liberally. Under the new code, a deferment is not available.

Analysis 1: Litehouse Foods submitted its application before the new streetscape ordinance was put into place. Therefore, the request should be considered under the old regulations.

Litehouse is a major employer in the City of Sandpoint. The company has stated multiple times that Sandpoint is not ideally geographically located for their operations. Despite this, Litehouse has a strong loyalty to Sandpoint and employs many people. Litehouse has stated that they wish to defer putting in sidewalks as part of their snow management program. The sidewalks are an issue due to the improvements that Litehouse intends to make to its parking lot facility.

Defering the requirement to put in sidewalks has been liberally granted for a variety of reasons in the past. In this instance, I support allowing Litehouse to defer the requirement. They are making improvements to their parking lot. If the section was paved, the snow would have to be plowed over the sidewalk curb. I believe this is a reasonable request and the City should be taking steps in this economy to aid a local employer.

Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the streetscape deferral for Litehouse Foods. The measure passed.

Issue 2: Whether to approve an ADA compliance plan for submittal to the Idaho Attorney General.

Rule 2: Mr. Lohman, a local resident, filed a formal complaint against the City for failing to comply with the ADA. The complaint had approximately 14 separate issues.

Analysis 2: After investigation, it was found that the City violated 2 to 3 of the issues. For example, in several instances, the City exceeded the thickness of asphalt that can be applied to a road without redoing some of the facilities. In another instance, the slope on some of the curb cuts installed exceeded regulation.

The City is proposing an amicable resolution to this matter. I support the resolution to this matter.

Conclusion 2: I approve the outlines for this settlement proposal.

Issue 3: Whether to impose fire fees for fire responses.

Rule 3: Fire response fees must be set by ordinance.

Analysis 3: I don't support the creation of fire response fees. Further, I believe that this approach is inadequate. Fire fees here are only being proposed for fire responses. However, the huge majority of fire calls are for emergency medical responses. Therefore these fees would be applicable to only a small portion of the City's fire responses. If having users pay fees is really the primary objective, then fees should be applied for medical calls. This is especially true as people are much more likely to expect response fees for medical emergencies rather than fire emergencies.

Conclusion 3: I don't support creating fire response fees. I believe that the payment of property taxes should support vital services like fire and police. This year, the fire department was funded for forty volunteers which were not funded last year. The City works hard to ensure that these operations are adequately funded. I don't believe there's the necessity now to impose these fees.