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.

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.

May 2009 Council Meeting.

Issue 1: Interim Commercial Zoning

Analysis 1: Last year, the City Council voted to adopt a new comprehensive plan. This plan calls for dramatic changes to the zoning ordinances. Until the new zoning ordinances are adopted, there is a conflict between what we allow through zoning and what our plan calls for. You may think how can zoning affect the look of a city? It can be dramatic. In my opinion, few people realize how much a built environment dictates their behavior. We like certain environments but often we fail to notice why.

For example, in shopping areas people like to browse windows. Small windows discourage street activity and walking. Therefore, you can state by ordinance that you want 50% of the area of a building facing the main street to be windows.

We already have a lot of these measures in a special zone along 5th Avenue. This zone is called the 5th Avenue Overlay District. In my opinion, it is very successful. The new buildings along 5th Avenue fit well. Due to this, I recommended several months ago that the 5th Avenue Overlay zoning district be used as a model for interim zoning measures until our new comprehensive plan can be put into place.

Conclusion: I voted to approve the interim zoning because I think they are an improvement until new zoning can be developed and put into place pursuant to the comprehensive plan.

Higher Education Task Force.

Issue 1: How to bring higher education to Sandpoint.

Analysis 1: During the years of 2004 to 2006, the Wild Rose Foundation began to aggressively pursue the idea of higher education in Sandpoint. The work of the Wild Rose Foundation accomplished the following:

1. A partnership with the University of Idaho;
2. The use of University of Idaho property for a local campus in Sandpoint;
3. The development of a construction plan and curriculum for the Sandpoint campus; and
4. Community support and enthusiasm.

Due to the economic conditions, the Wild Rose Foundation placed the project on hold. However, the City of Sandpoint is picking the project back up to review how to bring higher education to Sandpoint. This is the goal of Sandpoint's Higher Education Task Force.

It will be extremely exciting to see what this group concludes. There is already a lot of ideas and interest to support this group. I will be very interested in establishing a plan for higher education in Sandpoint. See the article below in the Bonner County Daily Bee.

"College Task Force Planned"

April 2009 Council Meeting.

Issue 1: Whether to approve a resolution to Panhandle State Bank's Parking Memorandum of Understanding.

Analysis 1: In 2006, Mayor Miller inexplicably deferred parking requirements for Panhandle State Bank in the construction of their new bank building. The City and PSB signed an agreement of the parties' intentions to eventually create parking. PSB agreed to provide over two hundred parking spaces or pay $6,500 for each space not provided. To date PSB is approximately 118 parking spaces short or the requirements.

In February 2009, the City Council passed adoption of new parking regulations for downtown businesses. These regulations eliminate parking requirements for businesses in the downtown core. PSB is located in the downtown core but signed the MOU prior to the new parking regulations taking effect.

PSB owns several lots near its new building which are not improved. In addition, PSB has a parking lot attached to its old building which could be used to provide parking for its new building. By using these properties, PSB would be approximately 18 spaces short of fulfilling all the requirements. In addition, once the new properties were improved with paving and striping, PSB would have met the old parking requirements and would immediately be subject to the new parking requirements. What this means practically is that PSB could pave to lot on 4th and Oak (by Monarch Mountain Coffee) and then once the last of it was paved, PSB could immediately tear the paving out, build a building there, or sell the property.

Sandpoint does not suffer from a parking crisis in the western portion of our downtown. PSB and the City worked on resolving the problem by encouraging jobs and downtown activity. The parties agreed to five years of business incubator space in PSB's new building with all tenant improvements paid for by PSB. In addition, PSB agreed to payment of $50,000 for high-tech economic development.

Conclusion 1: I voted in favor of the resolution because I think that it is in the best interests of the City.

Issue 2: Whether to approve the proposals by the Sandpoint Growth Task Force.

Analysis 2: The Sandpoint Growth Task Force proposed 12 ideas to the City Council for how to improve our City. These 12 ideas were recommended to the Council. The majority of ideas were then sent to advisory committees for more work. I am especially excited about the Sandpoint Growth Task Force's idea to create a higher education task force.

Conclusion 2: I whole-heartedly supported the majority of the Sandpoint Growth Task Force's ideas.

March 2009 Council Meeting.

Issue 1: Whether to approve a zone change for the old Catholic church property from Residence "B" to commercial "D".

Mr. Pedersen purchased the Catholic church property. The church is located in a neighborhood close to downtown. The neighborhood is zoned Residence "B". However, churches are permitted to locate anywhere in the City, regardless of the zoning.

At a previous Council meeting, Mr. Pedersen asked for the zone change. At that meeting, there was great support for saving the historic church building. There was also interest in working with Mr. Pedersen to change the zoning uses for the proeprty, if the historic building could be preserved.

This is a transition time for Sandpoint zoning regulations. The new comprehensive plan was recently adopted. However, the zoning regulations dictated by the comprehensive plan haven't been adopted. So while the area will eventually have a higher intensity use than Residence "B", the exact types of use for the area and the exact zoning haven't been written yet.

Analysis 1: During the Comprehensive Plan, the Council spent a large portion of time on the church property. The plan also incorporated several concepts, including transition zoning between commercial areas and neighborhoods.

Mr. Pedersen asked for the highest intensity use possible without explanation of what his use of the property would be. In addition, Mr. Pedersen asked for the entire area to be zoned commercial. This would place commercial buildings across the street from homes and neighborhoods. This has been a contentious arrangement for another neighborhood, 6th Avenue, behind the Jack in the Box.

Conclusion 1: Without a development agreement as to the use of the site, I didn't support this measure. I have great interest in preserving the historic church building but the zoning request was not in line with the vision outlined in the current comprehensive plan. During the meeting, I supported Councilman Reuter's motion to refer the matter to the P & Z Commission for the creation of a development agreement since I believe that we could meet some of Mr. Pedersen's interest. As the proposal didn't pass, I was forced to vote against the zone change.

Issue 2: I voted in favor of the agreement with US Metronets to bring high speed broad band to Sandpoint and the surrounding area.

Issue 3: Whether to approve the committee's recommendation for the MOU with Panhandle State Bank.

In 2006, the City signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Panhandle State Bank. Panhandle State Bank was allowed to defer its parking requirements in the construction of its new bank building. In 2008 or 2009, the City assembled an advisory committee to review the MOU. The advisory committee recommended waiver of all the requirements for PSB under the MOU except for payment of $25,000.

Analysis 3: The original MOU called for the creation of approximately two hundred parking spots or payment of $6,500 per space in "in lieu" parking fees. PSB was required to provide approximately 118 more spaces.

The PSB proposal to pay only $25,000 was not in the best interest of the City. While there are numerous questions about the best way to address this issue, it is evident that $25,000 is insufficient.

Conclusion 3: I voted against the recommendation for resolution with PSB.

February 2009 Council Meeting.

At the February 2009 Council meeting, I voted to approve new parking requirements for the downtown, maximum parking requirements for the entire City (to minimize the number of parking lots) and to approve the Comprehensive plan.