Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper
minutes meeting date 2025-09-02 · fetched 2026-09-17 · 19540 characters · official file · plain text
September 2, 2025 This regular meeting of the Jerome City Council was called to order by Mayor Davis at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was also held by video conference. The video conference was conducted via Zoom and was made available to all members of the public in a format that allowed all participants to hear the meeting, including all deliberations by members of the Council and other speakers addressing the council, whether in person or via virtual connection, and to comment if so desired, all of which was noted in the agenda, email, and notices at council chambers and on the city’s website. Present: Mayor David M. Davis, Councilman Chris Barber, Councilman Jason Peterson, Councilman Bryan Craig, and Councilman Dale Ross. Also present were staff members: City Clerk Bernadette Coderniz, Legal Counsel Ted Larsen, City Administrator Mike Williams, City Engineer Tyson Carpenter, Public Works Director Jon Caton, Library Director Linda Mecham, Finance Director Ross Hyatt, Building Official Kortnie Kent, Planning and Zoning Manager Ida Clark, Human Resources Director Esmeralda Chavez, IS Director Carlos Hernandez, Fire Chief Mike Harrison, and Police Chief Duane Rubink. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Davis led the audience in recitation of the pledge of allegiance. INVOCATION: An invocation was given by Reverend Kevin Anderson with Renew Church PUBLIC HEARING – TITLE 17 REVISIONS: This being the time and place published to consider an Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Jerome, Idaho, amending Jerome Municipal Code Section 17.14.010 to include accessory dwelling unit in the schedule of district regulations; updating Section 17.03 rules and definitions for accessory use or structure and including the definition in 17.03.180 to include accessory dwelling unit; amending Section 17.18.020 supplemental general provisions to include standards for accessory dwelling unit; and providing for an effective date, the Chair called the public hearing open at 5:33 p.m. and briefly reviewed the procedures that will be followed. Staff Presentation: Ms. Clark spoke of the existing zoning code which allows for accessory structures, although the specific types of accessories are not identified (i.e. shops, garages, living units, etc.). The code was written in 2010 and the intent of that portion of the code is unknown. In reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Clark stated the plan directs staff to evaluate accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) as alternative housing options while preserving the characteristics of single-family neighborhoods. Discussions were held with staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), and the recommendation is to approve the ordinance presented this evening to allow ADU’s with a Special Use Permit (SUP). The process of obtaining a SUP would allow for neighbors to comment on an application for an ADU. Ms. Clark stated that the following would apply to ADU’s: only one ADU would be allowed per lot with a principal dwelling; the ADU would not be permitted in the front or street yard areas; the ADU would allow for reduced yard setbacks and would not exceed 850 square feet; and, the ADU would accompany the principal dwelling in a sale. If, upon approval, a large number of applications for ADU’s are presented and approved by the P&Z, staff can revisit the ordinance and make changes as needed. Ms. Clark noted that a hearing was held before the P&Z, there was no testimony given in favor, neutral, nor in opposition to the request, and approval of the ordinance was recommended. She further clarified “accessory use or structure” with the definition of a “dwelling unit” added to the code, and she stated the use chart would reflect the zones and permit requirements. No changes were made to accessory buildings including shops, sheds, etc. in the code. There was extensive discussion regarding the proposed ordinance and changes to the code. Topics of the discussion included: the true definition of “accessory dwelling unit”; limiting the ability for residents to charge rent for living in one (staff cannot control what people charge); the requirement for engineered plans in order to meet building and fire code for ADU’s including building permits; the proposed code allowing staff to address non-compliance issues; the ability to rent out one’s garage if building and fire codes are met; the process of approving an ADU and the opportunity for neighbors to share concerns or express support; the SUP issued upon approval and timeframe for its use and potential revocation; occupancy permit revocation should violations occur; renewal of the SUP based on the conditions at the time of issuance (issued for one year, then permanent in some cases); revocation of an occupancy permit if violations are known; existing ADU’s versus new builds; the unknown number of ADU’s occupied by residents; poor accommodations and enforcing building and fire codes if a situation is known and addressed; the example of building a shop with living quarters but at a maximum of 850 square feet; the purpose of designating zones as Residential-1 versus Residential 2; setting a precedence for future approvals; discriminatory charges that could present themselves with falsely accusing someone of questioning motives for the build; Residential-1 zone specific to single family homes; the lack of affordable housing crisis; ADU’s requiring a kitchen unit, restroom, etc. which meet building and fire safety standards; 10’ setback minimums and side yard setback requirements; the difference between ADU’s and accessory buildings as defined in the code; other cities with similar codes; space for ADU’s on some lots but not others; the limit of one ADU per lot; the height of an ADU to not exceed the height of the primary structure and still be within 850 square feet; several inquiries regarding ADU’s and the need for clarification in the code for what is allowed; a garage/shop versus living quarters; the proposed code changes to include “Accessory dwelling unit, where allowed, must be reasonably incidental and subordinate to the principal permitted use, and the determination shall be based upon the relationship of the building, structure, or use to the principal permitted use. No dwelling unit shall be constructed on any lot before the start of construction of the principal building to which it is an accessory”; the requirement of having a primary residence in place; the benefit of having guidelines to identify requirements in the code for applicants; the proposed use table which adds the term “Accessory Dwelling Unit” for clarification purposes; disallowing ADU’s in the Residential-1 zone at Council’s discretion; converting a garage into an ADU if detached from the primary residence; examples of attached living spaces and entrances; and, pre-existing situations where new code would not apply. Upon inquiry by Mayor Davis, Ms. Clark stated if someone were to inquire about building an ADU, she could explain that they were not allowed per code as it stands today. Mr. Larsen stated it would make sense to limit them to Residential-2 and Residential-3 zones. Additionally, there are no restrictions on Airbnb’s listed in the code. There was no testimony in favor, neutral, nor in opposition to the request. There being no further testimony to be heard, the Chair declared the public hearing closed at 6:01 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR: Those items contained in the consent calendar are as follows: 1. Approve the minutes of the August 19, 2025 special meeting Councilman Barber made the motion to approve the consent calendar as presented. Second to the motion was made by Councilman Peterson. After consideration, the motion passed unanimously by the following vote: AYES: Councilman Peterson, Councilman Barber, Councilman Ross, and Councilman Craig. NAYS: None. ORDINANCE 1244, BILL 729, INTRODUCTION: Councilman Barber sponsored Bill No. 729. Councilman Craig made the motion to suspend the rules pertaining to the reading of an ordinance on three separate occasions and direct the clerk to read Bill No. 729 once by title to constitute three readings. Second to the motion was made by Councilman Barber. After consideration, the motion passed unanimously by the following vote: AYES: Councilman Peterson, Councilman Barber, Councilman Ross, and Councilman Craig. NAYS: None. The clerk read the bill once by title only: ORDINANCE NO. 1244 BILL NO. 729 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF JEROME, IDAHO, AMENDING JEROME MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.14.010 TO INCLUDE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS; UPDATING SECTION 17.03 RULES AND DEFINITIONS FOR ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE AND INCLUDING THE DEFINITION IN 17.03.180 TO INCLUDE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT; AMENDING SECTION 17.18.020 SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL PROVISIONS TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Barber made the motion to adopt Bill No. 729 as Ordinance No. 1244 but limited to R-2, R-3 and R-M zones, an Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Jerome, Idaho, amending Jerome Municipal Code Title 17 and providing for an effective date. Second to the motion was made by Councilman Craig. Councilman Peterson expressed concern and the need for additional information on how other cities have ADU’s in their codes. Councilman Barber moved to amend the original motion to table the subject to a later date with more information coming from the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Second to the motion was made by Councilman Ross. After consideration, the motion passed unanimously by the following vote: AYES: Councilman Peterson, Councilman Barber, Councilman Ross, and Councilman Craig. NAYS: None. Mr. Williams confirmed the information Council was seeking (how other Idaho like-sized cities handle ADU’s, their processes and codes) and asked if other information was requested. Councilman Peterson stated he would like to know about the benefits of passing the ordinance, and Mayor Davis wants to know if other communities have had issues with ADU’s. ORDINANCE 1245, BILL 730, INTRODUCTION: Mr. Williams spoke of the franchise agreement with Intermountain Gas Company. The current agreement was signed in 1986 and is due to expire in February 2026. Upon introduction, Ms. Coderniz will publish the ordinance at least thirty days prior to adoption. The proposed renewal will extend the agreement for twenty years, and Mr. Williams explained the agreement gives Intermountain Gas Co. the rights to operate their utility within the City’s right of way i.e. maintenance, construction, etc. The City will collect 3% of their gross revenues that go into the general fund for distribution. Upon inquiry by Councilman Craig, Mr. Hyatt stated several hundred thousand dollars are collected annually. Mr. Williams stated the City collects 1% of Idaho Power total revenues; total budgeted for both Intermountain Gas and Idaho Power is approximately $358,000. Brief discussion ensued regarding the liability insurance coverage limits with David Doman speaking on behalf of Intermountain Gas. Mr. Doman stated that limits are set statewide for all franchise agreements. Councilman Peterson confirmed that the company would be responsible for damages regardless of cost, and Mr. Williams stated more information regarding gross revenues will be provided. Councilman Peterson sponsored Bill No. 730. The clerk read the bill once by title only to constitute the first reading: ORDINANCE NO. 1245 BILL NO. 730 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEROME, IDAHO, GRANTING TO INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY A TWENTY (20) YEAR EXTENSION TO ITS FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE A GAS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF STREETS AND ALLEYS, AND RULES GOVERNING THE SAME, SUBJECTING THE GRANTEE TO ALL POWERS OF THE CITY; SETTING FORTH THE RULES OF THE FRANCHISE AND GRANT; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHT OF INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF GRANTEE'S PLANS, ACCOUNTS, AND BOOKS; REQUIRING GRANTEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN MAPS; SETTING FORTH THE ANNUAL PAYMENT TO THE CITY, AND THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS WITH THE CITY; REQUIRING GRANTEE TO INDEMNIFY CITY, AND FILE EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE; REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH SAFETY REGULATIONS; SETTING FORTH AN AGREEMENT NOT TO COMPETE, RESERVING POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN; PROVIDING FOR SURRENDER OF FRANCHISE; GRANTING RIGHT TO SALVAGE; REQUIRING WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE; PROVIDING FOR CONSENT TO SALE, ASSIGNMENT OR LEASE; PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLICATION COST; SETTING FORTH PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES, SEPARABILITY AND REPEAL. RESOLUTION NO. 16-25: Ms. Kent spoke of the discussion held during the last Council meeting whereby she was directed to prepare and present a resolution to repeal Resolution No. 15-08 with the 80% multiplier used with project valuations. The proposed resolution will repeal Resolution No. 15- 08 in its entirety. The clerk read Resolution No. 16-25 in full as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 16-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEROME, IDAHO, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 15-08 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DECLARING THAT THE CITY SHALL NO LONGER APPLY AN EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) MULTIPLIER TO THE BUILDING VALUATION DATA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Jerome desires to continue its responsiveness to the citizens by continuing to offer high quality services; and WHEREAS, the City of Jerome adopted Resolution No. 15-08 on October 1, 2008 to establish a fee schedule that considers regional and statewide trends by implementing and 80% multiplier when assessing building permit fees, and; WHEREAS, the City of Jerome no longer finds the 80% multiplier or reliance on the 2008 valuation schedule to be appropriate for determining building permit fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to repeal Resolution No. 15-08 in its entirety to allow for updated and more accurate valuation and fee assessment practices; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEROME, IDAHO: 1. Repeal of Resolution No. 15-08. Resolution No. 15-08 is hereby repealed in its entirety and shall have no further force or effect. 2. Future Building Valuations. The City Council directs staff to implement updated valuation and fee methodologies as separately adopted by the City Council by using the most current International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data Table available at the time of permit issuance. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon its passage and approval. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL this 2nd day of September, 2025. SIGNED BY THE MAYOR this 2nd day of September, 2025. By: /s/ David M. Davis David M. Davis, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Bernadette Coderniz Bernadette Coderniz, City Clerk Councilman Barber made the motion to adopt Resolution No. 16-25 repealing Resolution No. 15-08 in its entirety. Second to the motion was made by Councilman Craig. After consideration, the motion passed unanimously by the following vote: AYES: Councilman Peterson, Councilman Barber, Councilman Ross, and Councilman Craig. NAYS: None. DISCUSSION – JEROME MUNICIPAL CODE 5.08: Ms. Coderniz led the discussion regarding Jerome Municipal Code (JMC) 5.08 as it pertains to mobile vendors. Ms. Coderniz along with Ms. Clark, Ms. Kent, Chief Harrison and Deputy Chief Sickles reviewed the code and determined that there was no clear definition for mobile vendors in terms of mobility (i.e. on wheels, trailers, etc.). The code specifies that mobile food vendors must show proof of mobility upon request. Ms. Coderniz sought information from other cities and found that their policies vary when it comes to mobile vendors; some do not allow vendors in temporary structures (i.e. sheds, mini barns, etc.) and some allow them for a limited amount of time only. Staff decided to bring the issue before the Council for direction on whether to continue allowing mobile vendors or if time limitations should be in place, and if they should follow building codes even though they are not housed in a permanent structure. Extensive discussion ensued and topics included: limits on how long a temporary business can be open; the current code requiring a renewal of the license every six months; few vendors who come to Jerome for no longer than a weekend; mobile food vendors versus merchandise vendors; the irrelevance of the product sold in terms of code; temporary structures that have become somewhat permanent; if these structures should be on pavement and have restroom facilities; little guidance on merchandise vendors; setback requirements and the number of structures allowed on a single lot; the fact that there have not been any complaints about vendors; requiring property owners to provide an adequate lot (paved, pot holes filled, etc.); the code requirement of a $500 surety bond or liability insurance; beautification of the City; fireworks sales and their temporary structures; the appearance of some food trucks; design review for permanent structures but not mobile vendors per the existing code; addressing the issue in the future should more merchandise vendors come to Jerome; nonconforming use status and restrictions; food vendors in one location if one were provided; property lease agreements between property owners and mobile vendors; design review requirements in the overlay district; the fact that Jerome is a growing community; and, considering a design review to control appearance of all mobile and temporary vendors. Staff will review the code further and bring forth considerations to the Council at a future meeting. COUNCIL REPORTS: Councilman Craig inquired about the trees on Avenue A and Alder, and Mr. Caton stated they are being watered. He further inquired about weeds, irrigation water and cracks in the sidewalk and street (irrigation water not utilized but spilled over onto the sidewalk and street, and weeds grow). Mr. Caton stated that, while he understood the problem, he did not have an immediate solution and that it would be taken into consideration. Mayor Davis spoke of spraying weeds and questioned the feasibility of this process. Mr. Caton stated it could be part of the solution. Councilman Ross stated that volunteers are needed at the Crossroads “healing field” where flags are displayed to assist with inquiries and flag sales. He stated first responders are involved, and he invited City employees to participate as well. He also encouraged everyone to visit the exhibit. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Mr. Williams spoke of the annual Carl Nellis Day of Service that will be held on Saturday, September 6th. Volunteers are asked to meet at ICCU Park at 9:00 a.m. with tools i.e. gloves, trimming tools, shovels, etc. He noted a few properties have been identified that are in need of assistance as the property occupants are unable to do the work themselves. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further to discuss, Mayor Davis adjourned this September 2, 2025 regular meeting of the Jerome City Council at 6:50 p.m. By: Mayor David M. Davis Attest: Bernadette Coderniz, City Clerk
Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.