Loading...
09112008CouncilMinutes - Regular and Work Sess CITY OF AMMON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 AGENDA: CITY OF AMMON 2135 SOUTH AMMON ROAD CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - REGULAR SESSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 - 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ard ACTION ITEM: 1.Well 11 – Discussion and Award of bid. 2.Well 11 Well House – Discussion and Award of bid. MOTION TO ADJOURN: CITY COUNCIL THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 4:30 P.M. AGENDA – WORK SESSION Discussion Items: 1.Fire Station Remodel Concerns (Doug) 2.Sunnyside Improvements – Round-a-bout (Ron/Hawks Landing) 3.Sewer Improvements – Hawks Landing 4.Parking Requirement in R2-A, R-3 and R3-A (Ron) 5.Meters Installed upon Construction or Raise Meter Fee 6.Sanitation Rates (Lee) 7.Misc. REGULAR SESSION MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bruce Ard at 4:00 p.m. in the City Building, 2135 South Ammon Road, Ammon, Idaho, with the following City Officials present: City Officials Present: Mayor Bruce Ard Councilmember Dana Kirkham (arrived 4:08 pm) Councilmember Lee Bean (arrived 4:20 pm) Councilmember D. Ray Ellis Councilmember Rex Thompson Councilmember Randy Waite Councilmember Brian Powell City Engineer Lance Bates City Planning Director Ron Folsom City Attorney Scott Hall (arrived 5:15 pm) City Officials Absent: None ACTION ITEMS: 1. Well 11 – Discussion and Award of bid and 2. Well 11 Well House – Discussion and Award of bid: City Engineer, Lance Bates, explained the differences in the bids submitted on Well #11. Lance along with Terry Brag from Harper Levitt Engineering reviewed the costs and time frame with each of the submitting contractors. As a result of these discussions, it became clear that Independent Well Drilling had the low bid, as well as, the most aggressive time frame for project completion. Initially, Andrew Well Drilling was the low bidder, but the time frame was not acceptable. In order to achieve the time frame requirements for completion, Andrew Well Drilling raised their bid a total of $25,000. Treasure Valley’s bid compares favorably with Independent, but the time frame is again longer than acceptable. In view of these negotiations, Lance recommended accepting the bid from Independent Drilling in the amount of $182,563.89. Rex Thompson asked about the depth of the well and about a screen. Councilmember Powell asked about any previous experience with Independent Well Drilling and if they were local. Lance indicated that they th have an office in Blackfoot. Tom Wood from 1800 East 49 South provided further background information concerning 9-11-08 Council Minutes – Regular and Work Session Page 1 of 6 Independent Well Drilling. They are located out of Blackfoot. He has worked with them in the past. They do not have the equipment to drill a large hole, so they will subcontract with McKay Drilling out of Butte, MT for this portion. Tom worked with them on the City of Inkom’s Well and was favorably impressed. Tom Wood recommended Independent and McKay. There seems to be reason for confidence that they will be able to meet a 30 day timeline. Councilmembers Powell and Kirkham expressed concerns based on the council’s past experiences with well drilling companies. Lance and Tom addressed those concerns and assured the council that, at this point in time, there was no reason to believe that the project would not move forward as presented. Next, attention was directed to the bids for the building that will surround Well #11. Harper Levitt performed the bid opening and reviewed all of the material presented at the bid opening. As a result of this review, Harper Levitt is recommending that the contract be awarded to Three H Construction for their bid of $482,480.00. Councilmember Thompson expressed concern that this exceeded the costs for Well #10. Lance stated that this appeared to be consistent with rising costs. He clarified that the council was looking at 2 separate contracts and emphasized that both contracts were still subject to DEQ review. There was no bid from the drilling contractor for Well #10. Lance clarified and reviewed the contractors associated with the construction of Well #10 that did present bids. Councilmember Powell asked about the overall budget for both Well #10 and #11. Lance clarified that Well #10 is funded differently than Well #11. Well #11 is part of the overall water improvement project. Councilmember Thompson asked what the projected costs for Well #11 were. Lance stated that the budget amounts established at the time of the projects creation were likely very broad. In addition, the time that has passed since the project started renders those cost estimates outdated and low. Councilmember Thompson motioned that the contract for Phase 1 of the construction of Well #11 be awarded to Independent Drilling in the amount of $182,563.89, subject to review by DEQ. The contract term is for 30 days and the contractor is to proceed in the first or second week of October, as soon as, he can guarantee the 30 day completion date. Councilmember Ellis seconded. Roll call vote: Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Ellis – Yes, Councilmember Kirkham – Abstained (was absent during discussion), Councilmember Powell – Yes, and Councilmember Waite – Yes. Councilmember Bean was absent for this vote. The motion passed. Councilmember Ellis motioned that the bid results for Phase 2 of Well #11 be accepted and award the contract for construction to 3H Construction in the amount of $482,480.00, subject to approval by DEQ and final approval by city engineering staff. Councilmember Powell seconded. Roll call vote: Councilmember Ellis – Yes, Councilmember Powell – Yes, Councilmember Waite – Yes, Councilmember – Thompson – Yes, and Councilmember Kirkham – Yes. . Councilmember Bean was absent for this vote. The motion passed. th A discussion with Tom Wood concerning the progress on Well #10 followed. Tom Wood, 1800 East 49 South, outlined a few thoughts, starting with good news. The test pump was installed on Monday and it was running from 4:45 pm to 8:45 pm that night. The water was cloudy, as expected, at this point, however, by Wednesday it was reasonably clear. He then described the testing that was performed. There were steps from 1200 to 2600 GPM to assist in projecting the draw down rate and limits for the Well. These results are plotted on the graph and these results showed one of the nicest draw down curves Tom has seen in years. There is a good predicable curve associated with Well #10 lowering the pump 60 feet, the theoretical yield is 3600 GPM. Tom expressed confidence in achieving 3000 or 3200 GPM in practice at Well #10. Tom recommended that the Well be certified with DEQ at the higher rate which will require that the pump be lowered and a 24 hour pumping test be run at the higher rate. This provides the additional benefit of helping to clear the debris from the Well. The pump is currently only set at 150 feet, as stated, within the terms of the contract, however, the screen is deeper. At time of design, the best guess was that 150 feet would be adequate. The costs associated with lowering the pump is approximately $6250.00. There are 2 contractors involved with lowering the pump and running the step tests. Councilmember Thompson asked why the Well was drilled 90 feet from the test hole. Tom explained that negotiations with the land owner were going on at the time of drilling the test hole. The property location affected the final location. In addition, 90 feet is usually close enough. Mayor stated that he did not see there was any choice but to move forward and certify at the increased rate. Lance figured that we will still have some undeveloped water rights even after Well #10 and #11. The Council directed that a change order, for the additional costs for this development, be drafted and presented. Councilmember Kirkham motioned to adjourn from regular session at 4:21 pm. Councilmember Powell seconded. Roll call vote: Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember Powell – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Waite – Yes, Councilmember Bean – Yes, and Councilmember Ellis – Yes. The motion passed. WORK SESSION MINUTES DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Fire Station Remodel Concerns (Doug): Doug James with JJ Enterprises is contracting the Fire Station remodel. Mr. James expressed concern whether future change orders for the remodel will be paid. JJ Enterprises bid according to the prints, unfortunately, the provided prints do not agree with the actual design. Stacey hired JJ enterprises and has negotiated with them throughout the construction. Councilmember Bean asked who created the prints. Doug replied 9-11-08 Council Minutes – Regular and Work Session Page 2 of 6 Prestwich Architectural made the architectural design with Keller Engineering performing the structural design. Mr. James explained that there were some design and material adjustments made throughout the construction, due to the fact, the material supplier did not always have in stock what was specified and unexpected equipment rentals had to be made. Mr. James brought a list of items encountered, thus far. Before starting Phase 2 on the bay area, JJ Enterprises had to take 2 days to redesign the construction. Councilmember Bean asked why it did not go back to the architect and engineer. Fire Chief, Stacy Hyde outlined logistical challenges that cost large amounts of time. Specific items and measurements were missed in the design. Councilmember Bean clarified that change orders are a result of poor design, not from changes on the part of the City or Fire Department. Mr. James agreed. Mayor Ard emphasizes that there is a limited budget to complete this project. Doug emphasized that the construction cannot be completed, as designed. Stacy explained the change orders are for mechanical, electrical, HVAC and plumbing. Councilmember Bean stated the City should suspend construction, until we speak with Prestwich and get a good structural design. Councilmember Bean stated that he wants the designing architect and engineer to make a report. Councilmember Kirkham stated that we cannot have an ‘open checkbook’ for this project. Councilmember Bean recommended that construction be suspended until a report from the designing architect and engineer can be made and the design corrected. Councilmember Kirkham clarified that there needs to be a cost accounting and a budget process so that the project can move forward with confidence that there are adequate funds to complete the project. Councilmember Ellis asked how close they are to completing the Phase 2 framing. Mr. James stated that he objects to halting the project. He advised the Council that construction is taking place on the second level, at this point in time. Mr. James explained there are problems that have surfaced with the building dimensions in the design and halting the project will create a problem for JJ Enterprises. Councilmember Ellis asked can you close it in and make it safe and leave out the finishing. He asked how far can we get with the budget we have? Councilmember Bean asked how can we do what we want to do if there is not enough room? Fire Chief Hyde clarified that the area under discussion is not intended to be ‘finished’, but is instead to be used for storage. He further argued that these ongoing adjustments can and have actually saved money. Councilmember Bean expressed concern that no one has any idea what the amount on the finished project will be. Councilmember Powell asked if the plans have been stamped and the proper process has been followed for all change orders. Fire Chief Hyde stated he has all changes covered in letters from the engineer in letters. Mr. James explained he has not seen nor does he have the letters. Councilmember Kirkham asked what JJ Enterprises is asking for. Mr. James stated that he is there to be sure, that if there are change orders, they will be paid. Councilmember Kirkham clarified that all change orders are to be submitted before the work is performed, to which, those change orders will be reviewed for approval. If they are not approved, then JJ enterprises will not get paid for the change order. Mr. James stated that the contract reads that change orders are to be approved by ‘the City’. He has been dealing with Stacy and feels that ‘the City’ for the purposes of this project is the Fire Chief Stacy Hyde, not the City Council. Mayor Ard and Councilmember Bean both clarified that checks issued as payment are signed by the City Council and Mayor. Councilmember Kirkham outlined and emphasized the importance and nature of due process for any government expenditures and decisions, as to approvals and payments, must be made by the Council. Mr. James stated he understands the presented points, however, he does not believe that the project should be held up for these decisions. Councilmember Kirkham explained that the Council is accountable to the public for the spending of public funds. Mr. James asked who has been over to the fire department. Councilmember Bean asked how the question is relevant. Mr. James argued that it is relevant to approvals for payment, for example, Councilmembers Powell and Ellis might perform an onsite review of what has been done. Councilmember Bean stated that the Council is not willing to change its policies and procedures either JJ Enterprises is willing to continue under the current contract and provisions or not. Councilmember Ellis clarified, that in practice, this may mean that the project is taken only as far as the current funding will allow. Mr. James agreed, however, he argued the point of completion be agreed upon. Councilmember Bean asked Mr. James to provide the Council with a projection, as to how far the current funding will take the construction. Councilmember Kirkham added that Mr. James seems to know what costs to expect. Mr. James stated that he has not asked for any additional funds yet. Councilmember Bean emphasized that the ‘yet’ is the key. Councilmember Bean stated he wants assurances from JJ Enterprises to the Council as to how much more funding is needed, as well as, the state of completion. Mr. James stated that he can get those estimates and figures to the Council today. Councilmember Kirkham stated she understands the importance of continuing without delays to JJ Enterprises. Mr. James provided a figure of $787.50 to complete the project. Councilmember Bean asked if that is the amount to complete the project, as per plan. Mr. James stated yes. Councilmember Ellis stated with the current funding they still have work to complete. Councilmember Kirkham stated that the Council does not want JJ Enterprises to perform work for which they will not get paid. Councilmember Powell advised the Council he would like to see the Fire Department personnel perform some of the work. Mr. James stated he is willing to work with the fire department staff to some extent but expresses concern as to the job quality. Councilmember Powell clarified with Mr. James that his projection is that the project will finish at only $787.00 over budget. Councilmember Ellis recommended some adjustments to the second floor ceiling. Councilmember Kirkham asked if Fire Chief Hyde has $800 in his budget that he can use to make up this deficit, while the Council works to hold the designing architect and engineer accountable. 9-11-08 Council Minutes – Regular and Work Session Page 3 of 6 Councilmember Powell explained that the Council has to see that budgets are followed for projects. Councilmember Bean further explained that the Council needs to see and approve change orders before they are completed. A discussion ensued as to what change orders have been submitted and to whom. Councilmember Kirkham summarized by stating that change orders will be submitted and approved, as long as, they stay within the budget. Mr. James clarified by asking, at what point he stops construction to wait for approvals. Councilmember Kirkham answered when the budget amount plus the additional $800 is met then construction needs to stop. Councilmember Powell asked if the Council needs to expect any additional change orders from other subcontractors. Mr. James stated he does think so. Councilmember Ellis stated he clearly directed JJ Enterprises to continue to work, at least, until the current remodel budget is depleted. 2. Sunnyside Improvements – Round-a-bout (Ron/Hawks Landing): Postponed to a later date. It was decided to move to Item #4 and wait for all parties to Item #3 to be present. 4. Parking Requirement in R2-A, R3, and R3-A (Ron): Planning Director, Ron Folsom, opened the discussion by reviewing the previous City Council and Planning and Zoning meetings. Planning and Zoning is going to recommend to Council that in zones R2-A, R3 and R3-A detached garages and or car ports are acceptable. Councilmember Bean stated he does not remember the previous discussions. Councilmembers Bean and Thompson expressed concern about making these changes. Ron clarified this adjustment is being done to reflect what is taking place nationwide to make housing affordable. Councilmember Bean stated that the extra $15,000 makes a difference between an investment property and a home. Ron clarifies that the zones that will be affected already allow multi-family development and that changes to the market are forcing homeowners to purchase and live in 1000 square foot homes. Councilmember Ellis provided a case-in-point where ten 4 unit buildings with carports in front were built as rental apartments - this project has since been purchased, reconfigured and sold off as townhouses. Ron projects that if Ammon is not in line with the remainder of the country in allowing mixed use development, Ammon will continue to experience an economic downturn once the markets begin recovery. Councilmember Bean reflected on the limited amount of these R2-A, R3 and R3-A zones approved and whether we have enough property, at this time, for these zones. Ron presented some photos of actual projects and evidence to show that detached garages or carports are not necessarily undesirable. Ron stated he will work to make a case to encourage the City to move forward with architectural standards in its ordinances. 5. Meters Installed upon Construction or Raise Meter Fee: Councilmember Ellis opened this item with projections that meters will cost upwards of $500 and the City is currently collecting $350 as a water meter fee with new permits, therefore, the Council needs to make some decisions as to how to move forward with water meters. He stated the management has not been enforcing a water meter installation at time of construction. Councilmember Thompson expressed concern that water meters installed today will be worn out or partially worn out when the City does start to read meters. Councilmember Bean asked if a meter supplier has been selected. Lance stated that Sensus has been selected. Councilmember Bean recommended that, on a go forward basis, water meters be installed at the time of construction. Councilmember Powell asked if there could be some delay to research the feasibility of wirelessly read meters that will use a network, which will help with manpower. The City Engineer, Lance Bates, stated he has concerns about meter selection, if limited to network meters. He had no knowledge of any working radio read ‘networked’ meters. Sensus Meters’ recommendation was to use truck mounted radio read meters. Councilmember Kirkham asked for some delay in order to determine feasibility. Councilmember Powell provided other reasons to delay this decision. The Council granted time to the Technology Department to determine feasibility. Lance advised he would feel more comfortable with a major market share meter provider. Councilmember Kirkham asked if this is really important. Lance responded that companies new to the industry do not even have the history to provide the City with data to support their service after the sale. The Council wants to still look at all aspects. 6. Sanitation Rates (Lee): Councilmember Bean lead off the discussion by opening with reviewing previously considered information. The residential rate was adjusted slightly to compensate for the delayed time frame in receiving the increased rate. December will be the first month the City will see the increased sanitation revenue. Councilmember Ellis asked if this provides for some funds to be put into the sanitation reserve this year. Councilmember Bean stated he is not certain, but would say no. He recommended that we hold with this increase, until the automated sanitation upgrades are implemented, so that actual operating costs can be determined to validate any necessary rate increases. Councilmember Ellis stated he would still like to see this increase put some funds into reserve. City Engineer, Lance Bates, recommended some adjustments to the rate increases, such as rounding up to round dollar amounts. Councilmember Ellis feels that $10 per month to haul away trash is very reasonable. Lance showed that the current rate increase does raise revenues $160,000 per year, which was the calculated amount to cover about one half of the cost of another automated sanitation truck and containers. Lance believes, next year, we will be able to add to the reserves with this increase. Lance stated Leslie tried to set this up so 9-11-08 Council Minutes – Regular and Work Session Page 4 of 6 that the City was able to fairly raise the revenues by $160,000, which helps to acquire the truck and build reserves. Councilmember Ellis stated he is fine with this, as long as, the reserves are being built. Lance stated he has not made any decision to buy or lease the new truck. Councilmember Ellis addressed depreciation expenses. Leslie has the trucks completely depreciated in about 7 years. Councilmember Kirkham proposed that the rates be increased to $10 to build the reserve, with the idea that the funds be used to build a public works building. Councilmember Powell asked why we couldn’t just lease the truck and use the funds to buy the building; this would enable us to buy a building that appreciates rather than a truck that depreciates. Councilmember Waite asked when Bonneville County will raise the rates for using the Bonneville County Waste facilities. Ron stated Roger said it is going to happen. The Council then considered raising the residential rate to $10 but there are concerns that there are numerous cost raises affecting the community. The Council decided to round the rate increases to round dollar amounts and raise the residential rate to $10. 3. Sewer Improvements – Hawks Landing: Jeff Hawkes opened by outlining the participating developers still feel there is viability to forming a CID. The developers would like to move forward with plans on two fronts: formulating a plan with the City to help offset some development costs and reassure developers that sewer will be available for developments. This will assist development to move forward, and then if the CID does materialize that will help the City to recover its investments into this infrastructure. In addition, a CID will pay an administrative fee to the city, which may generate some revenue for the city. Councilmember Bean stated there appears to be no need to discuss sewer, at this point in time, as there is no agreement. Mr. Hawkes stated he does need a resolution regarding sewer. It is the last piece he needs to put in place, in order, to proceed with the development. He wants a decision on how sewer infrastructure will be provided to the development with or without the CID. Hawkes Landing will come forward with $300,000 and if development will proceed, then Dove’s Landing will come forward with $300,000. The developers are asking for $400,000 from the City. The question of the feasibility of downsizing the sewer lines still needs to be discussed. Planning Director, Ron Folsom, reviewed one reason why the lines were designed at 30” is because Bill Manwill proposed this. The Blacktail subdivision asked to be accommodated in the system. Councilmember Bean agreed and emphasized the 30” line needs to be part of the design. Lance Bates, City Engineer, stated the master plan shows appropriate changes in sizing as you move further from the main lines. Councilmember Ellis asks Jeff Hawkes, the developer; if the City funds the upsizing with $400,000 the developers will fund everything else. Mr. Hawkes says yes, that is the agreement. He also emphasized that this includes all of the involved developers, and the City would recoup the upsize expense through construction. The included developers are Hawks Landing, Founders Point, Dove’s Landing and Quail Ridge II. There is some confusion as to who receives the funds, paid by the other developers, as they come online and begin to participate. Mr. Hawkes expects that he would be reimbursed $120,000, as these other developers pay into the infrastructure; however, the City Council feels this is not the agreement. If this is the case, Mr. Hawkes feels that economically, he cannot pay the $300,000 out of pocket without any pay back. Mr. Hawkes expressed hope that the CID will move forward and fund this infrastructure. Councilmember Kirkham asked about a CID on land that is in probate. Mr. Hawkes clarified that the owners of the land, even though in probate, can bind it into a CID. Jeremy Pisca, out of Evans and Kings from Boise is scheduled to present some information to the Council. He stated there has not, as of yet, been a successful CID in Idaho, since the law is so new. Councilmember Bean asked how much he wants to be reimbursed. Jeff stated he would like to adhere to the terms of the agreement with $120,000 to both Hawkes and Dove’s Landing for a total of $240,000. This reimbursement would come from Founder’s Point, and Quail Ridge II. There are an expected 230 lots in Hawks Landing and 235 in Dove’s Landing, for a total of 465 lots. The current sewer connection fee rates for the City are $1300 for new residential connections and based on those numbers the City would have to add approximately $500 to the connection fee for houses built on those lots. Councilmember Ellis stated he does not believe the connection fees can legally be used for capital improvements. A debate about whether or not connection fees are for capital improvements or maintenance and operation ensues. Mr. Hawkes summarized the problem by stating the there is basically a $1,000,000 sewer line that needs to be put in the ground; the developers who will benefit from the line are paying 60% of the costs and only 2 developers are currently in a position to perform. Councilmember Bean outlined the only difference is that the City will have an upfront cost. The concern, then, is how the City will be reimbursed for the $400,000. It was discussed the City will eventually will be reimbursed, but over a longer period of time. Councilmember Kirkham showed that no one developer is bearing 60% of the cost and the original agreement had the developers paying 100% of the upfront costs and then being reimbursed 40% through connect fees paid at time of construction. The reimbursement amount was based only on the cost of upsizing the line for future connections. Planning Director, Ron Folsom, explained that the only thing to be reimbursed is the upsize costs, therefore, if the additional cost for upsizing is $400,000, and the City puts in $400,000 then there is no reimbursement. Jeff stated one half of the developer’s partnership is not able to perform on the agreement, as currently set forth. A review of the construction costs supports the idea that 60% of the costs are the baseline costs and 40% of the costs are related to the upsize the City is requiring, therefore, Mr. Hawkes feels the 2 participating developers are asking for reimbursement for 9-11-08 Council Minutes – Regular and Work Session Page 5 of 6 the $120,000 that Founders Point and Quail Ridge II cannot provide, at this point in time. He would like the issue to be resolved as to how to get the reimbursement from Founders Pointe and Quail Ridge back to Hawks landing and Dove’s Landing. Councilmember Ellis asked what the cost would be for Hawkes Landing to run a sewer line from their development and connect to the sewer system. If the current costs reflect what that would cost, then the developers should simply pay the costs for the lines that are needed to provide services for their developers. Scott Tallman asked if there can be an agreement that provides for $150,000 in reimbursement, from the developers who cannot currently perform, to the developers who can perform on the $300,000 upfront. Councilmember Kirkham asked Scott Hall, Legal Council, if this is feasible. Scott Hall, City Attorney, made the point that any change to the existing agreement is a completely new agreement. All parties to the original agreement must agree to any changes, but the existing agreement cannot be cancelled, it must be amended. He stated there are usually court authorized representatives who can sign for and bind Foothill Properties to ongoing legal contracts and agreements. Mayor Ard asked if Foothill Properties is represented by George and Wendy Mc Daniels. There is a consensus that based on the information available Wendy Mc Daniels can bind Foothill Properties to an agreement. Councilmember Bean reaffirmed the goal of the City is that the City only pay for the upsize. Melissa Holms stated that Foothill Properties will pay their share, but they cannot meet the current time line. The City would like to see the numbers to support the costs associated with upsizing. Councilmember Bean expressed concern about the availability of City funds to be used for this purpose and the decision to use the funds in this manner has not been made. This is a new position for the City to find itself in. Councilmember Kirkham asked if this is something the City should use monies from reserves, to fund. Councilmember Ellis asked if the City is not interested in investing in infrastructure, then why require the line up size. A great deal of ongoing debate ensues about why the up size is a good idea and who is benefitting from the sewer improvement under discussion. Arrangements were made for a meeting before the Council concerning a CID meeting. Councilmember Powell stated that the City needs to move forward with a decision in fairness to the developers. Mr. Hawkes stated, with conviction, that the developer’s goal is to work with the City in seeing the necessary sewer infrastructure is funded and put in place for everyone’s benefit. While the CID appears to be somewhat of a long shot, if it does appear to be feasible and comes online, then all expenses could be reimbursed within 6 to 12 months. Scott Hall asked if it made sense to postpone the CID meeting at this point in time, until further information is available on the discussion at hand, which does not include a CID as a means of resolution. Mr. Hawkes feels like the momentum and arrangements for the CID meeting are already in place. He asked that it proceed. Discussion regarding the timing and appropriateness of a CID meeting ensued. Councilmember Ellis asked who makes the final decision on the CID. It was discussed the City sponsors the district. Mr. Hawkes would really like to move the CID forward, if it is feasible. Councilmember Kirkham made the arrangements and changed the CID meeting to a special work session. She requested that councilmembers come prepared to present a decision. Ron Folsom, Planning Director, will see that the change from a work th session to a special session is posted and prepared for. The Special Session was set up for Wednesday, September 17 at 2:15 PM. Mr. Hawkes expressed a strong desire to get a solution in place so that he can move ahead and he needs to be able to do that now. 7. Miscellaneous: Mayor Ard related that he received a letter from Mrs. Monson, a resident on Eagle, who appreciates the new bridge on Eagle. Scott Hall provided some parting advice for the City Council in weighing the negotiations with the developers on the hill. The Council expressed concern about funding development. Councilmember Kirkham motioned to move into executive session pursuant to provision of Idaho Code 67-2345, subsection 1 (f) and (j). Councilmember Powell seconded. Roll call vote: Councilmember Kirkham – Yes, Councilmember Powell – Yes, Councilmember Bean – Yes, Councilmember Thompson – Yes, Councilmember Ellis – Yes and Councilmember Waite – Yes. The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 6:02 pm. ____________________________________ C. Bruce Ard, Mayor ___________________________________ Leslie Folsom, City Clerk 9-11-08 Council Minutes – Regular and Work Session Page 6 of 6