Elected officials working
together to positively
manage community
growth.

Meeting Minutes
May 28, 2008

Attendees

  • Phil Bandy
  • John Bechtel
  • Dave Bieter
  • Tom Dale
  • Tammy de Weerd
  • Scott Dowdy
  • John Evans
  • Brad Holton
  • Paul Woods

Staff and Guests

  • Bill Larsen – Staff

Phil Bandy opened the meeting and welcomed the Partnership to Eagle. He passed out a magazine that tells about the history of Eagle. Established in 1971, Eagle continues to grow. However, residential building permits have subsided a little this spring but commercial permits are still pretty steady. The only issue they have right now is the private water system that serves this area.

In the last five years they have had a growth rate of about 12 percent. In the 1970 census, Eagle had about 250 people. Now the population is near 23,000.

Covered Loads

Paul Woods began the discussion on the Covered Loads issue. He indicated that during the April meeting they had left the ball in the hands of the AGC to come back to the Partnership with suggested changes to the Covered Loads Ordinance. There has not been any contact about changes since that time. Tammy indicated that they had sent out some ideas to the area attorney’s and had heard back from Boise but had not heard from any others. She stated that here council is ready to pass the ordinance but wanted to pass the same language as everyone else.

Tammy also indicated that they have been working with Leonard Herr to move forward with the Stage 1 vapor recovery draft. At the earliest they will have it in July 09.

Paul asked if we would like hold a public hearing on the Covered Loads issue. Tom indicated that in the past after we had had each of our councils/commissions discuss the issue, we then issue a press release that indicates each of the cities/counties are discussing the ordinance and agree collectively to pursue an ordinance in each of the jurisdictions. Then subsequent to the cities/counties passing the ordinance, we hold a ceremonial signing. Paul asked Bill to work with each of the jurisdictions and coordinate a press conference once each of the cities/counties councils/commissions have agreed to pursue the Covered Loads ordinance.

Paul’s suggestion was to look at a press conference after the week of June 23rd to give each of the jurisdictions an opportunity to look at and discuss the ordinance. A discussion ensued that Bill would coordinate with the Partnership members and schedule a press conference.

John asked what the group thought about an effective date for the Covered Load Ordinance. Brad mentioned that there would have to be enough lead time to give the industry time to react, maybe 60-90 days. Tammy suggested October 1st. There was consensus that this would be the effective date for the ordinance.

Phil wondered what kinds of questions the AGC might throw at us in our individual public hearings. Paul felt that they are split on the issue. There are some members who are for and some against. Tammy added that from the conversation with Mark Dunham, they are anticipating that it will happen sooner or later.

Brad asked which version of this ordinance we should pursue. Bill indicated that the version before us was the same he had emailed to the members within the last two days. It was the latest version out of the group effort.

Paul also indicated that this was the version we shared with Mark Dunham’s at the last TVP meeting. Mark’s only change was to substitute “secured” for “covered” in the language of the ordinance. Brad reiterated that the two words mean different things to different people and, the more consistent language in-line with our intent is “covered”.

Paul felt that we have taken the comments of the AGC and we should move forward.

Brad offered a suggestion that may deflect all of the concerns. Their council had discussed the possibility of changing the title of the ordinance itself to include all the dropping, sifting, leaking….etc. language of the ordinance. Tammy indicated she would have no problem with changing the title. There was a consensus to have Bill make this change and send to the Partnership.

Scott mentioned that our jurisdictions don’t necessarily have to have a public hearing on the subject. He believed they would put it on the City Council agenda and may just adopt it then. Tom added that they will probably have public hearings on the ordinance. Tammy stated their public hearing would be on June 17th. Tom said he wanted to do his earlier as he is going to be out of town. Paul indicated theirs would be June 14th.

TVP Meeting Dates

Bill explained the analysis of regular meetings. Based on the data Bill suggested that we hold a rotating schedule of meetings. For example on odd months we hold our meeting on the 4th Monday and on even months we hold our meeting on the 4th Wednesday. Otherwise we will be consistently missing certain members because of conflicts with regular meeting schedules.

It was pointed out that there was an AIC meeting during the regularly scheduled meeting in June. Margie moved that maybe we cancel the meeting in June because of the conflict. Tom seconded. Motion Carried.

Tammy suggested that we go with the fourth Monday and the fourth Wednesday. We could also coordinate with Compass to be sure that those Monday meetings will not conflict with the few Compass meetings that are held on Monday’s. A discussion ensued. Bill indicated he would get with Mayor Bieter on the July meeting dates and then adjust the schedule for the ensuing months.

Goal Setting Discussion

Tom understood that one of the purposes of the Partnership was to bring Commissioners and Mayors together to discuss issues that concerned both Cities and Counties. It was not, in the inception, meant to be an organization that focused on projects only. As we discuss issues that are common to each jurisdiction, we will run across activities that are natural for us to pursue. One of the good values to the organization is the opportunity to work on creating relationships with one another.

Phil was hoping that we continue to have speakers come in and speak to all of us instead of individually. Paul indicated one of the things he likes about the Partnership is the ability to bring issues to the table. We have forums for transportation, infrastructure, etc. One of the issues on the forefront that is important is the issue of group homes. Another is mobile home parks.

Margie asked what the other jurisdictions are doing with the Idaho Meth Project. Tammy indicated that there was a bunch of information being given at the AIC Conference. Margie indicated she was interested in the Montana Meth project and was interested in the Mural activities and was trying to pursue having this kind of activity in Parma.

Paul mentioned that one of the issues they are facing in Ada County is the drug courts require offenders to pay for their urinalysis. Well the kids cannot afford to pay; therefore the County has to foot the bill for keeping them in this drug court program.

Retreat

Tammy suggested some of the topics for the retreat could be; transitional homes, substance abuse and transportation. Phil added a topic could be affordable housing. Tom felt that local option tax issues related to the Frazier decision could be a good topic. Additionally he mentioned Local Improvement Districts as a topic for future discussion.

SAUSA Project

Tom mentioned that he had talked with Marc Haws and they are opening up a new position at the U.S. Attorney’s office and that Christian might be the candidate for this new position. Additionally, the SAUSA Project had originally been a two year commitment from the partnership then the Cities of Boise, Nampa, Caldwell would look at taking over the reigns. But there is the option of the State picking up the project. In the conversation with Marc Haws, Mark felt that the Treasure Valley would not really loose much coverage if the State picked this project up.

Paul asked if there was an opportunity for us to reach out to the other Cities and Counties that have been effected by the project to see if there may be an opportunity to get some reimbursement back from the SAUSA prosecutions in these other jurisdictions.

Tom mentioned that he had had some conversations with local legislators about sponsoring legislation around the SAUSA Project. He asked for some guidance from the group if he should continue to pursue that with these legislators. Margie indicated she would like him to pursue talks with legislators. She indicated she would talk with Brad Little and others as she feels strongly that we need to make this a permanent position for the employee.

Margie moved and Tom seconded to approve the minutes and financial report.

Meeting adjourned.