Hayden council directs staff to take proposed updates to City Code Titles 8 and 9 to public hearing

Hayden City Council voted June 23 to direct staff to proceed to public hearings on proposed amendments to Hayden City Code, including Title 8 (utilities) and Title 9 (building regulations). Staff said the package reorganizes utility chapters, clarifies sewer service areas and design standards, removes reimbursement for sewer manholes, and expands stormwater review to all projects that require grading, site development, construction or building permits.

Donna, the staff presenter, said the updates aim to make definitions and references consistent across city documents: “We wanted to provide clarity about the sewer utility system, which properties were eligible to connect to the city's sewer system, what our service area is, and what expansion of services means.” She told council the manhole reimbursement was removed because manhole placement and sizing are usually the same regardless of pipe upsizing, while pipe upsize reimbursement remains tied to the delta between developer-built pipe size and the city’s required size.

Council members spent considerable time on stormwater language. Council member Tom pressed staff for how the code will define “open channel,” “wetland” and “sensitive area” and which regulatory bodies have authority. Staff named Idaho Fish and Game, USGS mapping products and federal authorities such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as possible sources and said jurisdiction depends on the feature type. Staff said applicants must provide documentation delineating features so that staff and partnering agencies can determine whether additional mitigation or a revised application is required.

Council asked for a short educational briefing to clarify which state and federal agencies are relevant for particular features and how that information will be documented in permit review. Staff agreed to provide training for council to reduce ambiguity about process and agency roles.

A council member asked whether the packet separated substantive policy changes from scrivener edits; staff said separating them would require additional public-hearing notices and costs, so they combined them to reduce posting expenses. The council member who had submitted written questions said his email exchange with staff would be included in the record.

The council voted to direct staff to move the proposed changes to the public hearing process. Roll-call votes on the motion were recorded as: Council President DePriest — yes; Council member Shafer — yes; Council member Erickson — yes. The motion passed.

Next steps: staff will schedule the public hearing(s) required for Titles 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 and return the proposals to council following the public-notice and hearing process.