Issue 1: Whether to approve payment for the tree booklet.
Rule 1: The Council must approve payments for all bills monthly.
Analysis 1: Each budget year, the Council approves a budget for each department. As part of the urban forestry budget, the Council approved last year more than $4,000 for urban forestry education.
Near the end of the fiscal year, the Tree Committee decided to create and order a tree booklet from the urban forestry educational line item. These tree booklets cost more than $4,000. Further, it appears that some members or family members of the Tree Committee were paid nominal amounts for their work on the booklet.
This is a terrible situation and I was initially angry. In a year when the Council worked extremely hard to pare down the budget, it is incomprehensible to me that the City would spend $4,000 on a tree booklet to be given away. Further the process was riddled with errors. Payments were made to members of the committee - something which should not have occurred. Secondly, delivery of the booklets was made on the last day of the fiscal year meaning that it must be paid for with the past fiscal year's funds.
My anger at this situation was squelched by the department head's response. It was handled quickly and appropriately in my opinion. Mistakes happen. On this matter, I am satisfied that sufficient controls are in place to prevent this situation from occurring again. For that reason, I voted to approve the bills without further discussion.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
September 2009 Council Mtg.
Issue 1: Whether to purchase property for the future expansion of the City's sewer services.
Rule 1: The City is entitled to purchase property through Idaho Code for its needs.
Analysis 1: This property is offered at an incredible price. It is larger than 20 acres for a total of approximately $800,000. It is located right outside the City. I voted for this because it is a great deal for the City. EPA standards for point of discharge permits (the type of permit that the City has for sewer discharge into lake Pend d'Oreille) will continue to grow more stringent. It is likely that the City will need to move to some land application
Issue 2: Whether to remove fluoride from the drinking water.
Rule 2: The City is permitted by federal regulations to add fluoride to the water in certain amounts.
Analysis 2: I support taking fluoride out of the water but it’s a difficult issue. My grandfather was a dentist in town and the person who asked the Council originally to put fluoride in the water. Dentists, including my Dad, overwhelmingly support fluoride in the water. In addition, fluoride – if it were effective by being ingested and not by topical application as we now know – is aimed at helping kids and specifically kids who don’t regularly seek dental treatment. So, if fluoride in the water works, it helps poor kids. These are compelling reasons.
The reason that I voted against fluoride is two-fold. I don’t think that the studies show such significant health benefits for children - through ingestion of the water- that it is worth medicating the entire population with possible harmful consequences. Secondly, it’s a freedom of choice issue. I should have the option to choose what medications go into my body. So those are the reasons that I am against fluoride.
Fundamentally, this is a public health issue. For that reason, I initially voted to place the measure on the ballot for a public vote. When that failed, I voted to remove fluoride from the water. This also failed and fluoride will remain in the water.
Issue 3: Whether to allow skateboard, horse-drawn carriages and other non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown.
Rule 3: In the 1980's the City passed an ordinance banning non-motorized multimodal transportation from 1st Avenue, 5th Avenue, Cedar and Pine.
Analysis 3: I voted to approve all forms of non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown. Practically, people are already doing this. I doubt that people will intuitively understand that they must carry or walk their non-motorized vehicle on these streets. Further, the City police have never issued a single citation for a violation of this ordinance. Finally, the streets listed above are public highways. Public highways have their own safety requirements under state law. Therefore, any nonmotorized user of the state highways would be required to abide by those state laws.
Issue 4: Whether to approve fire department user fees.
Rule 4: Under state law, the fire department is permitted to charge user fees.
Analysis 4: I don't approve of any type of fire fees. In my opinion fire fees are to be supported by property tax. We have always supported our fire department equitably. This last budget year, the Council approved payment of $40,000 for the fire department's volunteer program.
I also think that fire user fees have the largest impact on the people least prepared to pay them. By that I mean that it is difficult for me to understand how we will send a bill for payment of services to someone who just lost their home to fire.
Finally, I find that the user fee proposal was incomplete. A large part of the fire department's duties are in responding to medical emergencies. However, the user fees focus only on fire fees which don't make up the bulk of the fire department's use. There was no effort to address the emergency medical aspect of user fees.
I voted against the fire user fees because they don't attempt in good faith to implement user fees for the bulk of the fire department's responses. Most importantly however, the user fees are unnecessary. The fire department is well supplied each year by the City of Sandpoit.
Rule 1: The City is entitled to purchase property through Idaho Code for its needs.
Analysis 1: This property is offered at an incredible price. It is larger than 20 acres for a total of approximately $800,000. It is located right outside the City. I voted for this because it is a great deal for the City. EPA standards for point of discharge permits (the type of permit that the City has for sewer discharge into lake Pend d'Oreille) will continue to grow more stringent. It is likely that the City will need to move to some land application
Issue 2: Whether to remove fluoride from the drinking water.
Rule 2: The City is permitted by federal regulations to add fluoride to the water in certain amounts.
Analysis 2: I support taking fluoride out of the water but it’s a difficult issue. My grandfather was a dentist in town and the person who asked the Council originally to put fluoride in the water. Dentists, including my Dad, overwhelmingly support fluoride in the water. In addition, fluoride – if it were effective by being ingested and not by topical application as we now know – is aimed at helping kids and specifically kids who don’t regularly seek dental treatment. So, if fluoride in the water works, it helps poor kids. These are compelling reasons.
The reason that I voted against fluoride is two-fold. I don’t think that the studies show such significant health benefits for children - through ingestion of the water- that it is worth medicating the entire population with possible harmful consequences. Secondly, it’s a freedom of choice issue. I should have the option to choose what medications go into my body. So those are the reasons that I am against fluoride.
Fundamentally, this is a public health issue. For that reason, I initially voted to place the measure on the ballot for a public vote. When that failed, I voted to remove fluoride from the water. This also failed and fluoride will remain in the water.
Issue 3: Whether to allow skateboard, horse-drawn carriages and other non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown.
Rule 3: In the 1980's the City passed an ordinance banning non-motorized multimodal transportation from 1st Avenue, 5th Avenue, Cedar and Pine.
Analysis 3: I voted to approve all forms of non-motorized multimodal transportation in the downtown. Practically, people are already doing this. I doubt that people will intuitively understand that they must carry or walk their non-motorized vehicle on these streets. Further, the City police have never issued a single citation for a violation of this ordinance. Finally, the streets listed above are public highways. Public highways have their own safety requirements under state law. Therefore, any nonmotorized user of the state highways would be required to abide by those state laws.
Issue 4: Whether to approve fire department user fees.
Rule 4: Under state law, the fire department is permitted to charge user fees.
Analysis 4: I don't approve of any type of fire fees. In my opinion fire fees are to be supported by property tax. We have always supported our fire department equitably. This last budget year, the Council approved payment of $40,000 for the fire department's volunteer program.
I also think that fire user fees have the largest impact on the people least prepared to pay them. By that I mean that it is difficult for me to understand how we will send a bill for payment of services to someone who just lost their home to fire.
Finally, I find that the user fee proposal was incomplete. A large part of the fire department's duties are in responding to medical emergencies. However, the user fees focus only on fire fees which don't make up the bulk of the fire department's use. There was no effort to address the emergency medical aspect of user fees.
I voted against the fire user fees because they don't attempt in good faith to implement user fees for the bulk of the fire department's responses. Most importantly however, the user fees are unnecessary. The fire department is well supplied each year by the City of Sandpoit.
Friday, September 11, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
July 2009 Council Mtg.
Issue 1: Approval of the preliminary budget.
Rule 1: Each year by October 1st the City Council must pass a budget for the City. From the preliminary budget to adoption of the final budget, the amount cannot increase.
Analysis 1: I voted in favor of the preliminary budget because I think it's a step in the right direction. It decreases the budget over last year and puts more money towards roads. This is a good time to be constructing infrastructure because the costs are cheaper than we've experienced in recent history.
Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the preliminary budget.
Issue 2: Whether to vote to preserve the historic train depot.
Rule 2: The train depot was recently shut down by Amtrak. The City would like to make sure that the historic train depot is not demolished.
Conclusion 2: I voted to support the preservation of the historic train depot.
Rule 1: Each year by October 1st the City Council must pass a budget for the City. From the preliminary budget to adoption of the final budget, the amount cannot increase.
Analysis 1: I voted in favor of the preliminary budget because I think it's a step in the right direction. It decreases the budget over last year and puts more money towards roads. This is a good time to be constructing infrastructure because the costs are cheaper than we've experienced in recent history.
Conclusion 1: I voted to approve the preliminary budget.
Issue 2: Whether to vote to preserve the historic train depot.
Rule 2: The train depot was recently shut down by Amtrak. The City would like to make sure that the historic train depot is not demolished.
Conclusion 2: I voted to support the preservation of the historic train depot.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Cedar Street Bridge Land Exchange
Issue: Whether to exchange the Cedar Street Bridge for vacant land and 40 parking spaces.
Rule : A municipality may exchange land when it finds that two property values are equal and its in the best interests of the City.
Analysis: In the 80's, the City was going to have to pay for demolition of a bridge over Sand Creek. It was estimated that the demolition was going to cost approximately $100,000. Instead, a local developer offered to remove the scrap and build a structure on the previous right of way. The City agreed, vacated the right of way and leased the property to the developer for 99 years.
Under the lease, the first forty (40) years were leased for 1 dollar per year. The remaining 59 years were then according to a very vague equation for percentage of sales. In addition, the City guaranteed 40 parking spaces for the term of the lease in the City parking lot.
Clear Vision, LLC purchased the lease interest in the Bridge several years ago. Subsequently, they approached the City to condominiumize the Bridge for the remainder of the lease term, approximately 77 years. These negotiations were long and unsuccessful.
Clear Vision, LLC owns a small piece of property adjacent to City Hall. This property is zoned commercial. Clear Vision, LLC has requested to swap the City's interest in the Cedar Street Bridge in exchange for the 40 parking spaces and the parcel adjacent to City Hall.
The parcel of property adjacent to City Hall is assessed at $135,000. The City currently values parking spaces within the City at $10,000 each (for the purpose of in lieu fees). Therefore the consideration offered is approximately $535,000. In addition, the City has over-dedicated the parking spots in the City lot. If the City were ever to build a parking garage on the City lot or if Clear Vision, LLC were ever to request exclusive use of its spaces, the City would be in a very difficult situation.
It is extremely difficult to value the Cedar Street Bridge. The lease doesn't expire until 2086. There is no good way to determine the value of the City's current interest in the Bridge or the value of the Bridge in 2087, 77 years from now.
Conclusion: I voted for the property exchange and consider it a fair deal. It was important to me that the public retain the right to cross Sand Creek. This was done by an easement across the Cedar Street Bridge which will remain open to the public. The City doesn't have any right to the bridge until 2086. At that time, it is uncertain what condition the Bridge will be in. The City could have huge costs in repairing it. There is also additional value in eliminating the claim to parking spaces which will allow the City to build a parking structure in the future.
Rule : A municipality may exchange land when it finds that two property values are equal and its in the best interests of the City.
Analysis: In the 80's, the City was going to have to pay for demolition of a bridge over Sand Creek. It was estimated that the demolition was going to cost approximately $100,000. Instead, a local developer offered to remove the scrap and build a structure on the previous right of way. The City agreed, vacated the right of way and leased the property to the developer for 99 years.
Under the lease, the first forty (40) years were leased for 1 dollar per year. The remaining 59 years were then according to a very vague equation for percentage of sales. In addition, the City guaranteed 40 parking spaces for the term of the lease in the City parking lot.
Clear Vision, LLC purchased the lease interest in the Bridge several years ago. Subsequently, they approached the City to condominiumize the Bridge for the remainder of the lease term, approximately 77 years. These negotiations were long and unsuccessful.
Clear Vision, LLC owns a small piece of property adjacent to City Hall. This property is zoned commercial. Clear Vision, LLC has requested to swap the City's interest in the Cedar Street Bridge in exchange for the 40 parking spaces and the parcel adjacent to City Hall.
The parcel of property adjacent to City Hall is assessed at $135,000. The City currently values parking spaces within the City at $10,000 each (for the purpose of in lieu fees). Therefore the consideration offered is approximately $535,000. In addition, the City has over-dedicated the parking spots in the City lot. If the City were ever to build a parking garage on the City lot or if Clear Vision, LLC were ever to request exclusive use of its spaces, the City would be in a very difficult situation.
It is extremely difficult to value the Cedar Street Bridge. The lease doesn't expire until 2086. There is no good way to determine the value of the City's current interest in the Bridge or the value of the Bridge in 2087, 77 years from now.
Conclusion: I voted for the property exchange and consider it a fair deal. It was important to me that the public retain the right to cross Sand Creek. This was done by an easement across the Cedar Street Bridge which will remain open to the public. The City doesn't have any right to the bridge until 2086. At that time, it is uncertain what condition the Bridge will be in. The City could have huge costs in repairing it. There is also additional value in eliminating the claim to parking spaces which will allow the City to build a parking structure in the future.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
June 2009 Council Meeting.
Issue 1: Approval of John O'Hara to City Council.
Rule 1: New Council members are to be appointed by the Mayor and approved by a majorit vote of the Council.
Analysis 1: Doug Hawkins, Jr. resigned from the Council due to conflicts with work. John O'Hara served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for a number of years and for a time served as the Chair of the P&Z Commission. He has lived in the area for 10 years and Sandpoint for 7 years.
Conclusion 1: I voted for John O'Hara because I think his P&Z experience will serve him well on the Council. He is level-headed and logical and I think that he'll make decisions that are in the best interest of Sandpoint.
Issue 2: Whether to approve the zone change for the Pederson sports complex.
Rule: Zone changes are to be approved if they are in line with the Comprehensive Plan and meet criteria established in the Sandpoint City Code. However, a zone change cannot be tied to a specific proposal.
Analysis 2: Bruce Pedersen is a local developer. He has requested two zoning changes for a large-scale project. First, he has requested a change from Residence B to Residence C for approximately 1.2 acres near downtown Sandpoint. Second he has requested a zone change from Residence “B” to Professional Office “PO” for approximately 0.9 acres in the same area. Mr. Pedersen is proposing a large-scale ice rink and condominium project. The project has been named the Jamie Packer Center.
Conclusion 2: In this case, I approved the zone change. I believe that the changes are reasonable and in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The measure passed.
Issue 3: Whether to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision to deny the application permit for the Jamie Packer Center.
Rule 3: The P&Z decision to approve the Jamie Packer Center was challenged by two individuals impacted by the development. The Lysters opposed the decision based on specific points for approval of the application permit.
Analysis 3: In my opinion, the Jamie Packer Center is well-designed. It has multiple elements which are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for parking, a community recreation center, mixed use housing, retail and preservation of the historic sites in the area. In addition, the development includes modern elements such as a vegetative roof, and scaled design.
This is a major development for Sandpoint. I feel that it's been done in a way that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It preserves historic elements on the site and builds facilities that people in the City of Sandpoint have requested - such as a recreation center. However, there is the definite possibility that the proposals and design could change dramatically. For that reason, I supported every condition that tied to the developer to the proposal. As part of the application, I supported measures that required the specific design elements of the project. These were to insure that approval wasn't granted and then the plan dramatically re-designed.
Conclusion 3: I voted in favor of upholding the decision however, only if the developer followed the plan exactly as proposed.
Issue 4: Whether to place a roundabout at Larch and Boyer.
Rule 4: The Super 1 Foods building is to be constructed at the corner of Larch and Boyer. As a result of this construction, Super 1 must make some traffic improvements through use of its impact dollars.
Analysis 4: Boyer will be increasingly trafficked as a result of development along Boyer. As a result of the increase, it will be necessary to put some sort of traffic control device on Boyer and Larch. The decision is between a roundabout and a traffic signal.
I am in favor of the traffic signal as I think the roundabout is overly expensive. However, installing a traffic signal requires nearly as much space as a roundabout. The construction cost for a traffic signal is slightly less. The annual maintenance for a traffic signal is much greater, approximately $40k - $60k per year. Unfortunately, the standards for traffic signals do not allow small, unobtrusive signals on the sides of the street but instead major signals supported by large infrastructure.
Conclusion 4: I voted to install the roundabout. Traffic modeling shows that the roundabout will be more effective. In addition, it will cost less over the long run.
Issue 5: Whether to place the water bond on the November ballot for approval by the voters of Sandpoint.
Rule 5: The Idaho Constitution does not permit a municipality to indebt itself for more than one year. Indebtedness for more than one year requires approval by the voters.
Analysis 5: The City of Sandpoint will soon exceed its water supply capacity. This will primarily occur during the months from July to October when people are watering their lawns. Conservation measures and rates will only do so much.
The voters of Sandpoint didn't approve the bond at a special election held earlier this year. The Mayor and staff feel that this should be returned to the November ballot in order to avoid a possible crisis of water within the next few years. It will take approximately 3 years to construct the plant and therefore to address problems, the City should begin construction soon.
I voted to place the bond on the November ballot because even as a Councilman, I underestimated the seriousness of the situation. In order for people to enjoy the supply of water withotu interruption, then it will be necessary to construct some improvements. I believe that this highlights the need to regionalize water and sewer services but this will be a long process.
Rule 1: New Council members are to be appointed by the Mayor and approved by a majorit vote of the Council.
Analysis 1: Doug Hawkins, Jr. resigned from the Council due to conflicts with work. John O'Hara served on the Planning and Zoning Commission for a number of years and for a time served as the Chair of the P&Z Commission. He has lived in the area for 10 years and Sandpoint for 7 years.
Conclusion 1: I voted for John O'Hara because I think his P&Z experience will serve him well on the Council. He is level-headed and logical and I think that he'll make decisions that are in the best interest of Sandpoint.
Issue 2: Whether to approve the zone change for the Pederson sports complex.
Rule: Zone changes are to be approved if they are in line with the Comprehensive Plan and meet criteria established in the Sandpoint City Code. However, a zone change cannot be tied to a specific proposal.
Analysis 2: Bruce Pedersen is a local developer. He has requested two zoning changes for a large-scale project. First, he has requested a change from Residence B to Residence C for approximately 1.2 acres near downtown Sandpoint. Second he has requested a zone change from Residence “B” to Professional Office “PO” for approximately 0.9 acres in the same area. Mr. Pedersen is proposing a large-scale ice rink and condominium project. The project has been named the Jamie Packer Center.
Conclusion 2: In this case, I approved the zone change. I believe that the changes are reasonable and in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The measure passed.
Issue 3: Whether to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision to deny the application permit for the Jamie Packer Center.
Rule 3: The P&Z decision to approve the Jamie Packer Center was challenged by two individuals impacted by the development. The Lysters opposed the decision based on specific points for approval of the application permit.
Analysis 3: In my opinion, the Jamie Packer Center is well-designed. It has multiple elements which are in line with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for parking, a community recreation center, mixed use housing, retail and preservation of the historic sites in the area. In addition, the development includes modern elements such as a vegetative roof, and scaled design.
This is a major development for Sandpoint. I feel that it's been done in a way that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It preserves historic elements on the site and builds facilities that people in the City of Sandpoint have requested - such as a recreation center. However, there is the definite possibility that the proposals and design could change dramatically. For that reason, I supported every condition that tied to the developer to the proposal. As part of the application, I supported measures that required the specific design elements of the project. These were to insure that approval wasn't granted and then the plan dramatically re-designed.
Conclusion 3: I voted in favor of upholding the decision however, only if the developer followed the plan exactly as proposed.
Issue 4: Whether to place a roundabout at Larch and Boyer.
Rule 4: The Super 1 Foods building is to be constructed at the corner of Larch and Boyer. As a result of this construction, Super 1 must make some traffic improvements through use of its impact dollars.
Analysis 4: Boyer will be increasingly trafficked as a result of development along Boyer. As a result of the increase, it will be necessary to put some sort of traffic control device on Boyer and Larch. The decision is between a roundabout and a traffic signal.
I am in favor of the traffic signal as I think the roundabout is overly expensive. However, installing a traffic signal requires nearly as much space as a roundabout. The construction cost for a traffic signal is slightly less. The annual maintenance for a traffic signal is much greater, approximately $40k - $60k per year. Unfortunately, the standards for traffic signals do not allow small, unobtrusive signals on the sides of the street but instead major signals supported by large infrastructure.
Conclusion 4: I voted to install the roundabout. Traffic modeling shows that the roundabout will be more effective. In addition, it will cost less over the long run.
Issue 5: Whether to place the water bond on the November ballot for approval by the voters of Sandpoint.
Rule 5: The Idaho Constitution does not permit a municipality to indebt itself for more than one year. Indebtedness for more than one year requires approval by the voters.
Analysis 5: The City of Sandpoint will soon exceed its water supply capacity. This will primarily occur during the months from July to October when people are watering their lawns. Conservation measures and rates will only do so much.
The voters of Sandpoint didn't approve the bond at a special election held earlier this year. The Mayor and staff feel that this should be returned to the November ballot in order to avoid a possible crisis of water within the next few years. It will take approximately 3 years to construct the plant and therefore to address problems, the City should begin construction soon.
I voted to place the bond on the November ballot because even as a Councilman, I underestimated the seriousness of the situation. In order for people to enjoy the supply of water withotu interruption, then it will be necessary to construct some improvements. I believe that this highlights the need to regionalize water and sewer services but this will be a long process.
June 2009 Council Mtg Proposals - Hiring Freeze and Aff. Housing
June 2009 Council Meeting - Snedden Proposals
Issue 1: Whether to put in place a City-wide hiring freeze.
Rule 1: Levels of service are within the purview of the City Council. The Council regularly has considered expanding or minimizing the scope of services within the City. This includes staffing levels. These decisions are regularly made by the Council at the time of approving the budget. The Mayor handles administrative decisions and the day-to-day operations of the City.
Analysis 1: I proposed a hiring freeze because I believe it's the responsible measure. The future revenues of the City are uncertain. People are cutting back across the County. Others are losing their jobs. I have proposed that each time the City loses an employee, the position is not refilled unless with the express permission of the Council.
This measure has caused consternation with the Mayor and staff. The Police Chief is especially concerned as the Police Department has the highest turnover in the City and is possibly impacted the most by this measure. The Mayor specifically argues that the measure encroaches on her authority as manager of the City. I have argued in response that the City Council clearly has this authority in the budget and the measure is responsible.
Conclusion 1: I proposed an amendment that exceptions to the hiring freeze are overseen by the Mayor, instead of the Council. The measure passed unanimously.
Issue 2: Whether to implement four new affordable housing measures.
Analysis 2: The City should work to make it easier for affordable housing to be constructed in the City. For this reason, I have proposed four measures; (1) to create affordable housing plans for sale at a discounted rate by the City, (2) to waiver certain impact fees, (3) to allow payments for some sewer and water hookup fees and (4) leap-frog queue with affordable housing applications.
Conclusion 2: I don't believe that the City should manipulate supply and demand or directly participate in the housing markets. However, I do want to the City to have policies that make it easy to construct quality, affordable housing. For this reason, I proposed these four measures and voted in favor of them.
Issue 1: Whether to put in place a City-wide hiring freeze.
Rule 1: Levels of service are within the purview of the City Council. The Council regularly has considered expanding or minimizing the scope of services within the City. This includes staffing levels. These decisions are regularly made by the Council at the time of approving the budget. The Mayor handles administrative decisions and the day-to-day operations of the City.
Analysis 1: I proposed a hiring freeze because I believe it's the responsible measure. The future revenues of the City are uncertain. People are cutting back across the County. Others are losing their jobs. I have proposed that each time the City loses an employee, the position is not refilled unless with the express permission of the Council.
This measure has caused consternation with the Mayor and staff. The Police Chief is especially concerned as the Police Department has the highest turnover in the City and is possibly impacted the most by this measure. The Mayor specifically argues that the measure encroaches on her authority as manager of the City. I have argued in response that the City Council clearly has this authority in the budget and the measure is responsible.
Conclusion 1: I proposed an amendment that exceptions to the hiring freeze are overseen by the Mayor, instead of the Council. The measure passed unanimously.
Issue 2: Whether to implement four new affordable housing measures.
Analysis 2: The City should work to make it easier for affordable housing to be constructed in the City. For this reason, I have proposed four measures; (1) to create affordable housing plans for sale at a discounted rate by the City, (2) to waiver certain impact fees, (3) to allow payments for some sewer and water hookup fees and (4) leap-frog queue with affordable housing applications.
Conclusion 2: I don't believe that the City should manipulate supply and demand or directly participate in the housing markets. However, I do want to the City to have policies that make it easy to construct quality, affordable housing. For this reason, I proposed these four measures and voted in favor of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
