Minutes - 2008 - City Council - 10/14/2008 - Regular
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
Minutes
October 14, 2008
PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
1. Discussion of Joint Meeting on northwest foothills transportation plan. (NBS) Nichoel Baird-
Spencer, Planner, addressed the council. She reminded the council about the joint meeting with
ACHD tomorrow morning. She handed out the Alternatives Evaluation Matrix, explained the
contents and where those findings came from. Two public meetings as well as many hours of
team work took place prior to the presented findings. General Discussion followed.
2. Mayor and Council's Report: Huffaker reported on activities and projects at the Museum. He
also reported that the Urban Renewal Board had been meeting regarding several issues.
Shoushtarian reported on the Senior Center paving project. They expressed their thanks to the
City for helping them with the project. The Special Olympics will be meeting tomorrow night at
7:00 PM at City hall. Guerber reported on the open house at the fire department on Saturday. He
also asked about putting together a long range plan for parks and pathways in Eagle. Michael
Echeita, Public Works Director, stated that staff is working to come up with a plan based on the
rough draft done by a private contractor. Following discussion it was agreed that after the basic
work is completed, public meetings would be held and then a complete plan would be presented
to Council for consideration. Discussion was held regarding the Parks and Pathways
Development Committee, the code as it relates to them and their responsibilities. Further
discussion regarded changing the code or changing the group. Upcoming projects and needs
from future developments were discussed. Semanko reported on the library and thanked the City
for hosting the workshops here at City Hall. Mayor Bandy reported that Ugobi Company is
relocating their headquarters from California to Eagle. They will be bringing in approximately
60 jobs to join their Research and Development team that is already working from here. The
Idaho Velodrome sponsored an event to heighten interest in the cycling park. ITD met with the
city to discuss transportation needs. Coming up on Friday will be an AIC Mayors' meeting to
discuss transportation funding needs.
3. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: None
4. Zoning Administrator's Report: None
5. Public Works Director Report: Michael Echeita reported about the leaf recycling program as well
as the other recycling efforts in all the City buildings. The City Parks are also in the process of
being winterized and closed for the season.
6. City Attorney & City Engineer Report: None
7. Presentation by Eagle Kiwanis - Bruce Altig: Bruce Altig, Past President of the Kiwanis, joined
by several members of the organization presented a check for $3000 from the Mayor's Cup Golf
Tournament to the City. The funds from the fundraiser go into the Eagle Community Fund at the
Idaho Community Foundation and are used as grant funds for different community projects.
I. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Bandy called the meeting to order at 6:06 PM.
2. ROLL CALL: GUERBER, SHOUSHTARIAN, HUFFAKER, SEMANKO. All members present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mary May.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Patricia, Deerfield Court, Eagle. Went to the candidate forum it was very
beneficial, thank -you.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
. Consent Agenda items are considered to be routine and are acted on with one motion. There
will be no separate discussion on these items unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, member of
City Staff, or a citizen requests an item to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be placed on the Regular Agenda in
a sequence determined by the City Council.
Page 1 of 8
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC.IO.14.08min.doc
. Any item on the Consent Agenda which contains written Conditions of Approval from the
City of Eagle City Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, or Design Review Board shall be
adopted as part of the City Council's Consent Agenda approval motion unless specifically
stated otherwise.
A. Claims Against the City.
B. Findin2s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A-02-08/RZ-06-08 - Annexation and
Rezone from RUT to A-R - John V 02t: John V ogt is requesting approval of an annexation
and rezone from RUT (Rural- Urban Transition - Ada County designation) to A-R
(Agricultural-Residential). The 39-acre site is located on the northeast corner of West
Beacon Light Road and North Park Lane at 3632 West Beacon Light Road. (TLV)
C. Contract with Trautman's Lawn and Landscape for snow removal services for Fiscal
year 2008-2009. (ME)
D. Minutes of September 2,2008.
E. Minutes of September 23, 2008.
F. Minutes of September 29, 2008.
G. EXT-14-08 - Final Plat Extension of Time for Shaunessv Subdivision (formerlv Park
Place Gardens) - Shaunessv LLC: Shaunessy LLC, represented by Phil Hull with The Land
Group, Inc., is requesting a one-year extension of time for the final plat approval for
Shaunessy Subdivision (formerly Park Place Gardens), a 122-10t (l08-buildable, 14-common)
residential subdivision. The 95.32-acre subdivision is located between North Meridian Road
and North Park Lane approximately 1,300-feet north of Floating Feather Road at 1680 North
Park Lane. (MJW)
H. EXT-15-08 - Preliminary Plat Extension of Time for Millpark Villa2e Subdivision-
State/Park, LLC: State/Park, LLC, is requesting a two (2) year extension of time for the
preliminary plat approval for Millpark Village Subdivision, a five (5) lot (l7-residential units
and 12-commercial buildings contained on 5-10ts) mixed use subdivision. The 11.25-acre site
is located on the northeast corner of Park Lane and State Highway 44, on Lots 1,4, and 9,
Block 2, of the Amended Plat of Flint Estates, at 3950 W. State Street. (MJW)
I. Household hazardous materials collection contract: A contract between the City of Boise
and City of Eagle for the purpose of providing the Boise City EnviroGuard Household
Hazardous Materials Collection Vehicles to Eagle for one day per quarter use of the
Collection Vehicles for a collection event in the City of Eagle. (ME)
J. DR-51-08 - Wastewater Treatment Facility - Ea21e Sewer District: The Eagle Sewer
District, represented by Lynn Moser, is requesting design review approval to construct a
7,200-square foot wastewater treatment facility. The 17.2-acre site is located on the south
side of West State Street approximately one mile west of Eagle Road at 1993 West State
Street. (WEV)
K. Findin2s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CP A-03-08 & RZ-07-08 - Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from Residential Four to Central Business District and Rezone from
R-4 to CBD - Larry Coelho: Larry Coelho is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, consisting of
eleven parcels, from Residential Four (up to four units per acre) to Central Business District,
and a rezone from R-4 (Residential- up to four units per acre) to CBD (Central Business
District) for four of the eleven parcels that are located on both sides of North 1 st Street. The
4.0 I-acre site is generally located on North 1 st Street and North Eagle Road, north ofIdaho
Street, south of Mission Street, and east of North Eagle Road. (JTL)
Guerber moved to remove Items 5C, 5E, 5G and 5K from the consent agenda. The motion
was seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Guerber moved to approve Items 5A, 5B, 5D, 5F, 5H, 51 and 5J of the consent agenda. The
motion was seconded by Semanko. Guerber - Aye; Huffaker - Aye; Shoushtarian - Aye;
Semanko - Aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Bandy requested the removed items be discussed prior to moving into the public hearing.
Page 2 of8
K\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-IO-14-08min.doc
5C. Contract with Trautman's Lawn and Landscape for snow removal services for Fiscal
year 2008-2009. (ME) Councilman Huffaker asked for clarification on the contract. Michael
Echeita, Public Works Director, explained that the renewal contract with Trautman's is a
three-year contract but the variable rates (fuel) are negotiated. The snow depth was amended
from 1 inch to 3 inches before plowing services are provided.
Huffaker moved to approve 5C for 2008-2009. The motion was seconded by Semanko.
Guerber - Aye; Huffaker - Aye; Shoushtarian - Aye; Semanko - Aye. ALL AYES.
MOTION CARRIED.
5E. Minutes of September 23, 2008. Councilman Shoushtarian felt that the minutes were not
reflective of the meeting.
Guerber moved to table the minutes of the September 23, 2008, meeting. The motion was
seconded by Huffaker. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
5G. EXT-14-08 - Final Plat Extension of Time for Shaunessv Subdivision (formerlv Park
Place Gardens) - Shaunessv LLC: Councilman Guerber stated that there are complaints on
the maintenance of the site. Echeita explained that they have changed management and seem
to be very cooperative. Discussion on the weeds and process for keeping the area to code
followed.
Guerber moved to extend the final plat extension for 60 days with the realization that if
there is a problem on that site and should that problem be handled appropriately in the
opinion of the staff they can come back in 60 days and ask for an additional year. The
motion was seconded by Huffaker. ALL A YES. MOTION CARRIED.
5K. Findin2s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CPA-03-08 & RZ-07-08 - Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from Residential Four to Central Business District and Rezone from
R-4 to CBD - Larry Coelho: The applicant has requested the item be continued to October
21 Sl.
Guerber moved to continue the item to October 21st. The motion was seconded by
Semanko. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. A-16-07/RZ-23-07 - SB/CH Land Company (Flack/Carlock), LLC: SB/CH Land Company
(Flack/Carlock), LLC, represented by Ashley Ford with WRG Design, Inc., is requesting an
annexation and rezone from RUT (Rural Urban Transition-Ada County Designation) to MU-DA
(Mixed Use with a development agreement) with a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement
for a Mixed Use Development including +/- 235.57 acres of residential use (single-family and
multi-family units) and +/- 52.1 acres of commercial uses. The 287.67-acre site is located at the
Northeast corner of Beacon Light Road and State Highway 16. This item was continuedfrom the
September 23, 2008 meeting and re-noticedfor a workshop on October 14, 2008 and a public
hearing on October 28, 2008. (MJW)
Ashley Ford, planning project manager with WRG Design, 1173 E Winding Creek Drive, Eagle,
representing SB/CH Land Company, addressed the City Council. Ms. Ford gave an overview of
the site, the location, and the overall project. She reviewed the history of the plan from the
original presentation to Council and the progression of the plan. She presented the revised
concept plan. The revised plan is offered to work with the existing conditions set before them.
Mike Williams, City Planner, will present the staff report and comments on the 28th at the regular
public hearing.
B. CP A-04-08 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment from Residential One to
Mixed Use - Linder Land Partners, LLC: Linder Land Partners, LLC, represented by Shawn
Nickel of Rose Law Group, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment to
change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the southern +/-
1O.03-acres ofa +/-13.63 acre site from Residential One (up to 1 unit per acre) to Mixed Use
(resulting in the entire +/- 13.63 acre site being designated as Mixed Use), and a Text
Page 3 of8
KICOUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-14-08min.doc
Amendment to the Park Lane Planning Area. The +/- 10 acre site is located on the corner of
Old Valley Road and Linder Road, specifically described in the application on file with the City
of Eagle. This item was continued from the September 9, 2008 meeting. (NBS)
The applicant requested the item be remanded to staff.
Guerber moved that CP A-04-08 - Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment from
Residential One to Mixed Use - Linder Land Partners be remanded back to staff and
appropriately rescheduled. The motion was seconded by Shoushtarian. Semanko recused
himself from the issue given his relationship with the Rose Law Group. ALL AYES.
MOTION CARRIED.
C. CU-03-08 - Conditional Use Permit for an Ambulance Service Dispatch Station - St. Luke's
Health System: St. Luke's Health System, represented by ZGA Architects and The Land Group,
Inc., is requesting conditional use permit approval to provide accommodations for an on site
ambulance service dispatch station located at the St. Luke's Regional Medical Center. The
14.49-acre site is located at the southwest corner of State Highway 44 and Horseshoe Bend Road
at 3 101 East State Street. (MJW)
Tom Scoffield, Facility Architect, ZGA Architects, 190 E Bannock, Boise, 83712, addressed the
City Council. He eXplained the plan is to provide a new centrally located ambulance station for
the area which will improve the response times. It is needed as the Glenwood fire station
currently needs to expand and relocate the paramedics. The site plan was displayed and the
project was explained to the Council. The applicant also spoke to the general issues during the
P&Z process: no use of lights or sirens unless required by an emergent situation to clear traffic,
no back up beepers when entering or exiting the garage, limiting services to one emergency
vehicle and one service vehicle, leaving the garage doors down except when moving vehicles in
or out. There was also an agreement that they will continue to maintain the landscape across an
Intermountain Gas easement. They have also agreed to provide for landscaping along the berm to
screen the facility. They proposed that the $25000 be held in escrow by the City for the exclusive
use of the HOA. The proposed landscaping will occur on the common property owned by the
HOA, not on the canal.
Mike Williams, City Planner, addressed the Council. He reviewed the site and applicant request
as it pertains to City Code and the need for the CUP. The main concern has been buffering the
site from the residential area to the south. Mike reviewed the comments and requests from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Bob Ward, 3007 E Lakeland Lane, Eagle, representing the HOA Board. The board has asked, it
the project is approved, the following conditions be agreed on: no more than one emergency
ambulance and one non emergency ambulance; no sirens until the ambulance has reached State
Street; no lights until it reaches Lakeland access; the garage doors kept down unless moving
ambulances in and out; additional ventilation added to provide adequate ventilation in the facility;
no backup alarms; EMT staff will not work on personal vehicles at the facility, the landscaping
allowance of $25000 be put into an escrow account to be supervised by Lakeland HOA to be used
as they see fit. These terms are acceptable to Lakeland Estates. As a home owner, his comments
followed. His property is the closest to the ambulance doors. In 2006 the neighborhood met with
St. Luke's prior to the initial project and it was agreed they would not object to a height variance
tat St. Luke's wanted approved and in return no ambulance service would be located on the site
unless the City of Eagle requested it. They had a verbal agreement with St. Luke's. This project
would detract from the value of the house. The doors in the back are put in the worst place
possible for Lakeland Estates. As time goes on, the facility will get busier and it will get worse
and lights and sirens will be an issue. He does not want the facility there. His point is there was a
verbal agreement with St. Luke's that this would not happen.
Dwight Bowker, 1597 S Whitby, Eagle. Mr. Bowker is the VP of the Lakeland Estates HOA. He
agreed with Mr. Ward's representation of the Board's feelings regarding the project. His
comments were made as a homeowner. He reiterated that they had met with St. Luke's in the
Page 4 of8
K:\COUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-14-08min.doc
beginning when they were looking for a height variance and talked about an ambulance service.
The neighbors agreed they would not contest the presence of a height variance in exchange for no
ambulance service. He believes an agreement was made with St. Luke's that this would not
happen and asked the Council to consider that. He also asked for consideration of the rights of a
citizen who would not like to see his property value decreased.
Earl Mullins, Acoustical Engineer, Mullins Acoustics, 10400 Overland, #211, Boise. Mr.
Mullins was retained by St. Luke's to address the potential noise levels and effects. He
summarized for the record. For Eagle there is an average of five ambulance operations during a
day - four during the day time hours, I at night. Based on measurements made on an Ada
County Ambulance he predicted levels in the various homes. Worst case if they go along the
access road to access Lakeland, the noise level at that point would be at 61 decibels at the nearest
homes, going down from there. 68 decibels = approximately voice level. He did not include any
terrain or barrier effects with his measurements. To a degree the existing berm does function as a
sound wall. If sirens are used, they will be used to exit the property and would only last a few
seconds. Sound buffers were discussed.
Pat Burton, 3101 East State Street, Eagle, director of operations at St. Luke's, Eagle. She is the
on-site person for operations and trouble shooting issues and stated that St. Luke's will continue
to be good neighbors in the community. As a citizen of Eagle she is aware of the value of having
emergency services available. St. Luke's was asked by ACP to consider putting quarters there.
They are currently housed at Eagle Fire Station for 12 hours every day. At other times the
emergency services for Eagle come from the Glenwood station. This project would allow an
ambulance in town all the time. They would be providing a service to the taxpayer and time is
important when critical situations occur. She does not expect the ambulance will need to use the
siren until it hits State Street. She added that the building does provide a buffer now to the noise
from State Street to the Lakewood Estates. She stated again they will be good neighbors and
ACP will be good neighbors and they will look into every complaint.
Murray Sturkey, 1996 E Handel Court, medical director for Ada County Paramedics. He is in
support of this measure. ACP have relationships with the medical facilities and the cities and
they try to work with cities to help keep taxes down and not have to build when they can share
housing with other facilities.
Shawn Rayne, 5870 Glenwood, Boise, Ada County Paramedics field supervisor. He assured the
Council that they will be good neighbors as they are in all of their stations. They operate on a 24
hour basis with Eagle averaging 3-4 calls a day. This opportunity is a great public/private
partnership where a facility can be shared rather than spending taxpayer money on a new
building. This is a good location based on the new location in Star, offers better coverage. He
discussed the use of sirens and lights, they already try to mitigate those issues. They are very
aware that a siren can be a nuisance. They will deal with any issues regarding the policy set forth
regarding the St. Luke's location.
Tom South, South Landscape Architecture, 2002 South Vista, Boise. He eXplained that he had
reviewed the existing landscaping and offered an opinion for additional landscaping. He reviewed
the site for the Council. They did speak to three landscapers to come to the $25k amount for
landscaping.
Dwight Bowker offered an additional comment. The trees shown in the landscaping pictures on
the canal side may not be there next year. Many have already been removed by the ditch
company.
Tom Scoffield, applicant, a few points of clarification. He thought they were closer than they
appear to be. They were asked to look at the visual screen of the garage doors themselves. They
had a third party do that. They were not asked to look at a sound wall because other remedies
made that unnecessary and being in the flood plane made that difficult. The inference that they
bartered the ambulance service away for height on the parapet is not correct. A letter was sent to
each member of the neighborhood regarding the original request regarding the height variance.
Page 5 of8
K:ICOUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-14-08min.doc
He read excerpts from the letter. He stated several meetings were held with the neighborhood.
They have made every effort to meet or exceed the expectations of the neighborhood and request
they be allowed to move forward with the project. Following the neighborhood meeting a letter
was issued expressing their position. The existing berm is there as a result of the Lakeland
improvements and plat, nothing to do with St. Luke's.
The public hearing closed at 8:53 PM.
Legal Counsel, Susan Buxton, addressed concerns of the Council. She is not aware of any trade
off on the side of the City regarding the height variance nor is she aware of any written contract.
She does not recommend that the City be a holder of monies in an escrow situation. They should
go to an escrow company to set that up. The process for revoking the permit was reviewed.
Concerns regarding the backup beeper were addressed. Shawn Rayne addressed that by stating
that it is policy that any time an ambulance is put in reverse they have a visual spotter to make
sure the situation is safe.
Semanko stated he is open to additional conditions if someone can see them. This is a critical
need for the community, but how do we mitigate the concerns, the service is needed. Huffaker
stated the biggest issue is the noise. He appreciated the attempt to find a compromise between the
groups. He would like to include a clause that if they do become a returning facility, the same
rules apply to lights and sirens. Shoushtarian stated his appreciation for the efforts made. He
agrees with the P&Z findings and conditions, the compromise is very good. He thinks St. Luke's
will make a good neighbor and he is in favor of the application. Guerber stated the noise issues
are a legitimate concern. He agrees the P&Z stipulations are good and the key stipulation is that
it can be revoked. He thinks it should be considered again in six months.
Semanko moved for approval of Conditional Use 03-08 with the following changes to the
site specific conditions of approval in both #2 and #3 that it would also apply to vehicles
returning to the facility; in #7 language added that no landscaping or other encroachments
will be placed in the canal easement without written permission of the canal company; and
then add #12 for a six month review with presentations and if necessary require St. Luke's
to do some additional noise mitigation. The motion was seconded by Huffaker. The
applicant stated they will be happy to come back in six months and provide information.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
A short recess was taken at 9: 14 PM. The meeting reconvened at 9:28 PM.
D. RZ-20-07 MOD- Jeoffrev and Colette Nvbor2: Jeoffrey and Colette Nyborg, represented by
Shawn Nickel with SLN Planning Inc., are requesting a modification to the rezone development
agreement of Conditions of Development # 3.4 to remove the requirement to re-subdivide the
existing lot and allow an administrative parcel division. The 4.73-acre site is generally located on
the northeast corner ofN. Ballantyne Lane and Hereford Drive within Bakers Acres Subdivision
at 660 N. Ballantyne Lane. (MJW)
Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street, Eagle, represented the Nyborg family. They are requesting a
modification to the development agreement previously signed. The history of the property from
1977 was given as well as the history of the development agreement and the findings that the
property was not legally split. Further information on development requirements and the
financial constraints was given. They are asking for a modification to the development
agreement and that the city recognize the two parcels as they are. If the applicant is denied, the
project will not be able to move forward due to costs. Mike Williams, City Planner, addressed
the Council. His written comments followed the history of the property as the deeds show and as
Eagle City Code relates to the issue. He addressed the configuration of the original two parcels
sold to Mr. Nyborg and their history from 1975; he also addressed the responses from the
associated agencies in response to the proposed development. General discussion followed.
Jeff Nyborg, 5291 West Silver Lake Lane, Boise, co-owner of the lot in question. They had been
deeded the property and have been paying taxes on the property for several years. They had all
the plans drawn up and when they went to get the permit they found out they can't obtain the
Page 6 of8
K\COUNCILIMINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-IO-14-08min.doc
permit due to the parcel division. They have spent considerable funds trying to make it work and
can't sell it this way either. It has placed them in a bind.
Phil Nyborg, 660 Ballantyne, Eagle, relocated after the Teton flood. He bought lots 15 and 16
and has been paying taxes from the beginning. It's impossible to do all the improvements.
Rich Tomlinson, 1778 Sneed Place, Eagle, civil engineer working on some for the requirements
with the Nyborgs. Central services are required because it's a subdivision. If it's just a split, they
just need a soil test. To bring sewer to the eastern lot, the depth would require the removal of the
entire road. He reviewed other findings.
Shawn Nickel revisited the history of the code definitions regarding lots. He stated the two
parcels should be recognized as legal non-conforming lots because the lot definition was created
in City Code after these parcels were defined.
The public hearing closed at 10: 18 PM.
The Council has an option to do this as a parcel split as opposed to a subdivision. Several options
were discussed to address the issue. Planner Williams suggested changes could be built into the
development agreement to allow the parcels based on when the parcels occurred and with no
development requirements on it. The development agreement waives the requirements and it
should not have a termination date on it. These situations have happened in other cities and you
can only do them based on what is occurring in the area. A draft development agreement can be
brought back to the Council.
Semanko moved to continue this matter to the November 12th meeting with direction to staff
to prepare the proposed changes to the development agreement working with the applicant.
The motion was seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Ordinance No. 612: An Ordinance Changing The Zoning Classification Of The Real Property
Described Herein From R-4 (Residential) Classification To Cbd (Central Business District);
Amending The Zoning Map Of The City Of Eagle To Reflect Said Change; And Providing An
Effective Date. (JTL)
Guerber moved to continue item 7 A, Ordinance 612, to October 21 st. The motion was
seconded by Semanko. ALL A YES. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Notice of Award of Request for Wildlife/Habitat Review Biolo2ist (NBS)
Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, addressed this issue. They received four responses for the RFQ.
This is an add-on from the foothills comprehensive plan. The request is to give notice of the award
and the contract will come back for consideration by the Council. The majority of the fees would be
pass thru.
Semanko moved to direct staff to prepare the notice of award to ECS and begin contract
negotiations. The motion was seconded by Huffaker. ALL A YES. MOTION CARRIED.
C. 10-04-Z0A (Ada County Transmittal) - City of Meridian Area ofImpact: (NBS)
Nichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, addressed this item. The City received an application for an
area of impact expansion for the City of Meridian. The area of impact and rules for such was
reviewed as were the boundaries and prior agreements and understandings between the two entities.
General discussion followed on the best method to address this issue and any future property
impactions. Discussion also included the current residents of the property in question and their desire
to be in the City of Meridian. Much discussion. The question was raised about having ajoint
meeting with the City of Meridian. Ada County is holding a public hearing next week and the
recommendation from the City of Eagle will need to be provided for that meeting. Discussion on
future policies regarding the City border properties and being more progressive and flexible was held.
Consensus was that each council member would offer suggestions to the proposed letter.
Page 7 of8
KICOUNCILIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-14-08min.doc
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion was made by Huffaker to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Guerber. ALL AYES.
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11 :09 PM.
Respectfully submitted:
_~~~~~A1A--J
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
APPROVED:
PHILLIP J. BANDY
MAYOR
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT EAGLE CITY
HALL.
Page 8 of8
KICOUNCrLIMINUTESITemporary Minutes Work AreaICC-IO-14-08min.doc
EAGLE CITY COUNCI L
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -t P
October 14, 2008
SUBJECT: CU -03-08 - Conditional Use Permit for an Ambulance Service Dispatch Station
- St. Lukes Health System:
NAME ADDRESS
TESTIFY PRO/ CON or
YES/NO NEUTRAL
ycjI Co/v
cc;,
A-9-2 ) 1,1„ C -G /c .( / of
{rc" f 7, c5
/0 110.3 �eV-l 7S, —112-I(, /6!.. 11cC
-le(L, <<
311 ����k s�- �dx�L •1c_� iZ
�r"� /)1-0
-.\(.ktkA
ii/3 yr- CA-41LN41- 0
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
October 14, 2008
SUBJECT: CU-03-08 - Conditional Use Permit for an Ambulance Service Dispatch Station
- St. Lukes Health System:
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
October 14, 2008
SUBJECT: RZ-20-07 MOD- Jeoffrev and Colette Nybore:
NAME
.14 N,
'Ph; ),�
ADDRESS
CLQ. ,
(,,(PO _.11�()
/J-)
TESTIFY PRO/ CON or
rYES/NO NEUTRAL
EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP
October 14, 2008
SUBJECT: RZ-20-07 MOD- Jeoffrev and Colette Nvbore:
C`s1YC
(r, f 9 ‘s.—.!c 7
... J
t7, rrF„ •,)
Community Programs Follow Up
eveloped to expand and enhance
nt, and accessible p
- AV.: 1110;.%:.;11.a.e.
..Mruir.w
Community Programs Categories -
Pedestrian
• Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Application Projects
• Curb Ramps
• Asphalt Pathways
• Pedestrian water/canal crossings
Bicycle
• Bicycle signage, striping, pavement markers, and other facilities
• More information following the adoption of the Bicycle Master
Plan
Traffic Mitigation
• Medians, speed bumps, bulb outs, and pedestrian refuges
• Pedestrian signage, signals, school flashers, striping, and
cc 011516
9/2/2008
1
Follow Up
• Funding Distribution
• Prioritization
• Currently Programmed
Projects Updates
• Next Steps
,! J
Funding Distribution
• A target of 5% of the Capital Projects budget
allotted to Community Programs; roughly $2
million a year
9/2/2008
2
Prioritization
Further.analysis must be
done for "Programming
Criteria"
"Technical Criteria" will
be used for the time
being to determine
project priority
More coordination with
schools and school
districts will be required
Proposed Criteria
Weight
Exposure Rate (ADT)
20
Distance to School/Age of Ped
20
Existing Ped Facilities
5
ADA Attributes
10
Distance to Civic Facilities/Transit
5
Demographic Data
5
Ober Funding
15
Other Agency Support
5
Geographic Equity
5
Cost/Benefit
10
Total
100
Currently Programmed Projects
2009
• 32"d St, Grace/Dewey
• Hill Rd, 13th/15th
• NE Downtown Curb Ramps
• 4th St, School/Linder
• *Five Mile, Victory/Amity
• Linder, Kenter/2" t'
2010
• *01St St, Main/Knox
• 08th St, Cherry/Camellia
• Catalpa, Collister/36th
• Malad, Kerr/Shoshone
• Warm Springs/Granite Way/Penitentiary
9/2/2008
3
Next Steps
• Better coordination with schools and school
districts to make better -connected, safer routes
to school
• Prioritize bikeways after the Bike Master Plan
adoption
• Explore additional funding opportunities and
strategies
• Present Community Programs changes to cities,
and include Community Programs in this year's
Transportation Task Force Request process.
Eagle Co.....unity Projects
• ACHD, COMPASS, VRT, and ITD met with Eagle
Transportation Committee August 26
• Committee Requested the following projects:
— Eagle Rd, Floating Feather/Beacon Light
— Floating Feather, Ballantyne/Eagle Middle
— State St, 2n'/Academy
— Hill Rd, SH55/Horseshoe Bend Rd
9/2/2008
4
PARTIF,
This Agreement is made and entered into this /may of
, 19 9,S7 , by and between the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT, hereafter called the STATE, and ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY
DISTRICT, acting through its Board of Commissioners, hereafter
called the DISTRICT.
RECEIVED FLED
CITY OF EAGLE
Sr? 0 2 2008
ROAD CLOSURE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
STP -F-3271(33) Rout
Rmtp u
EAGLE ALTERNATE ROUTE
ADA COUNTY
KEY NO. 2027 ROADWAY DESIGN
REGISTER NO. %0 q
PURPOSE
The STATE has programmed the construction of Eagle Alternate
Route. This project consists of a new alignment of State
Highway 44 from Milepost 16.3 near Ballantyne Lone, to Milepost
19.8 near the east end of McGrath Lane, and new intersections at
Eagle Road and-Edgewood Lane.
This construction will require the removal of portions of
the existing alignment of State Highway 44 and State Highway 55
from•the State Highway system, as shown on the attached print
marked "EXHIBIT A" and made a part of this Agreement.
The parties agree as follows:
SECTION I. That the STATE will:
1. Construct on new alignment a segment of State
Highway 44 between milepost 16.3 and milepost 19.8, as
shown on "EXHIBIT A".
2. Construct new connections from the remaining State
Street to the new State Highway 44 alignment at
stations 856+23, 975+45 and 999+88, as shown on
"EXHIBIT A".
3. Realign and reconnect Ballantyne Lane, Riverside Drive,
McGrath Lane, Edgewood Lane and North Great Sky Avenue,
as shown on "EXHIBIT A".
4. Place a plant mix overlay on the remaining State Street
from station 859+00 to station 1005+20, as shown on
"EXHIBIT A".
5. Relinquish and abandon to the DISTRICT by a duly passed
resolution of the Idaho Transportation Board the new
connections outlined above, those portions of existing
State Highway 44 as shown on "EXHIBIT A", and the
portion of State Highway 55 from the intersection of
State Street and State Highway 55 to the new alignment
of State Highway 44 at Station 921+64.80 as shown on
"EXHIBIT A".
SECTION II. That the DISTRICT will:
1. Upon written notification by the STATE of completion of
Federal -aid Project STP -F-3271(33), Eagle Alternate
Route, accept the control, jurisdiction of and
responsibility for, in full and everyrespect, the
improvements described in Section I, Paragraphs 2
through 4, and as shown on "EXHIBIT A".
-2-
EXECUTION
This Agreement is executed for the STATE by its Chief
Engineer, and executed for the DISTRICT by the Board of
Commissioners, attested to by the Director, with the corporate
seal of the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
APPROVED BY:
Ceief - • ' • - er
APPROVED: RECOMMENDED BY:
Legal Counsel
ti
PeU4A-0424e1"
koadway Design Engineer
ATTEST: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
D'4ectA
(seal)
By regular/ peegal meeting
on %Zc de444. /1y...5
hm:C:\LIB\AGRMENT\2027RDCL.AGR
16Y-11:"."."-41,
kvoite��
-3
BEGIN PROJECT S. 3271(331
S.H.44 STAo42•50
MP.163
In
STA856.23
eALAMTYNE I
LME
Existing Store
Higtrvov to Remain
SECTION 7
WAWA I) SE'/4S£'/4
►a L n . rn
SECTION 18
Existing State Highway to be Obliterated
()To be Constructed and Added to State Highvay System
@To be Constructed and Relinquished 10 ACHD
Existing State Highway to be Relinquished to ACRD
LEGEND
IC/1 EXISTING SH -44
T.4 N.,R.I E., B.M.
SECTION 8
-
LI)
171, 1
ST
N O/EI LA,A A_Li le
BE
yY
9
ALIGNMENT
(511-44)
s#/4S'/4
INT & 5H44
< 1 a 1 I. s £ACLe ROA
SO/.S£,4
s
N
I
C/L [OGLE ROAD
SE'/.SEv4
SECTION 9
S
--Do—
%9.9/.50
SH -44
NIM/ami%
T.4 E..B.M.
SECT rN 16
mM/.mM/4
N£'/4Nw'l.
To
Sto.859.00
5H-44
•a
t.AMf
AVER
NE"/4ff# 4
MY%NE%
Ore
Gal
C/LI £X1STC 5/44
SECTION 16
hie/011/4
STA 921-6480
T.4 N.,R.1
SECT 10A /5
\ END PROJECT SIP -F-32711331
5.11. 44 STA 1014.25.67
NORT h MP.198
\GHEA7 Slhr
AVL. -
1
14
NO DA1E Wig
A
A
REVISIONS
ifs , PTIQN
aEs�atn HICKMAN. L SCALLS SHOWN
ARE FOR 22' x 34'
trstw aaRm ELVIN, R PRINTS QNLY
CAW FILE NO.
CU.'" BONGIORNO. J 20270SMP.OGN
°"""'° HICKMAN, L DRANWL DAT93E:
9/
IDAHO
TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT 3
Sw/days/.
sivAtelf
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO.
STP -F -327H033)
REGION 10 I IDAHO
STA 999.88
STA 1005•
sE'/mV/4 END CNERLAI \.
L •l,:!lI:v 5i(tt-691M0 1,enkni
EAGLE ALTERNATE ROUTE
EXHIBIT 'A'
ROAD CLOSURES &
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
FORLI CATALOG NO.
26-0184007
COUNTY
ADA
KEY NUMBER
2027
SHEAT 1 OF I
Ci
Interagency Cost Share Policy
• New document to land use agencies
• Draft document
• Consistent with ACHD statutory authority
• Strives for equity among cities
• Consistent with recent projects
• Built vs. greenfield environment
• Still subject to review/discussion and Commission approval
- -.,.. k*- „4.
Interagency Cost Share Policy
ACHD
— Roadway
— Basic Bike Lanes - 5' bike lane
— Basic Pedestrian Zone
— Safety medians
• City/County - Amenities
— Landscaping installation and maintenance
— Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities
— Aesthetic medians
— Other aesthetic treatments
8/6/2008
1
Basic Pedestrian Facilities
• 2.5' hardscape pedestrian buffer with 5'
sidewalk
OR
• ROW for 6' buffer and 5' sidewalk if partner
landscapes and maintains buffer area
Cost Share Policy Process
• Desired features and agreement should be
discussed during the concept phase, or the
early design phase if a concept phase is not
necessary
• Agreement should be finalized at the end of
the concept phase
8/6/2008
2
Cost Share Policy Next Steps
• Alliance meeting - August 6, 2008
— Gather ideas and comments
• Staff ideas and communication in workshops
— Last staff workshop September 11?
• Ongoing joint meetings
• Alliance meeting in September??
— Staff resolution where possible
— Policy issue discussion
• Work with ACHD Commission to revise and
finalize
Landscaping/Hardscaping
• Summary of possible hardscape treatments,
expected costs to install and maintain
• Landscaping estimates from three recent
projects ("' $650,000 / mile)
® Roadside Mamagcmeiit Applications
.M+wi IY�
Q^le Mg& aYwelYN
br.+ •-
8/6/2008
3
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
Draft Interagency Cost Share Policy
Section 1: Purpose in establishing an Interagency Cost Share Policy
RECEIVED & `+LED
CITY OF EAGLE
`'EP 0 2 2008
IFife:
Route to:
The cost share policy shall define the role of ACHD, cities, the county, urban renewal agencies and other
potential partners in scope and funding both transportation and "non -transportation" elements, and the
subsequent funding responsibility of these amenities. The intent of the cost share policy is to maintain
flexibility for ACHD staff to moderate around the unique features of projects and recognize the desires
of the partnering agencies for roadway features within their boundaries. The purpose of the policy is to
facilitate effective working relationships with other partnering agency staff regarding scope and funding
partnership strategies. Each partnering agency has its own unique vision for the amenities it desires,
from landscaped medians, to street trees, to on street parking, to types and dimensions of sidewalks.
This policy is designed to allow flexibility within the roadway design process, establish a consistent set of
transportation elements that ACHD will fund for all partners and provide the opportunity for financial
participation from each agency to make its own vision a reality.
The Interagency Cost Share Policy may apply to the following partnering agencies:
✓ Cities
1 Counties
✓ Urban Renewal Agencies -
o Capital City Development Corporation
o Meridian Development Corporation
o Eagle Urban Renewal Agency
o Garden City Urban Renewal
✓ Idaho Transportation Department
✓ Neighboring counties and highway districts
1 Federal Projects
✓ Developers
✓ Park and ride lots
✓ School districts
1 Downtown areas
✓ Economic development projects
✓ Mitigation on projects with neighborhood impacts
✓ Utilities
✓ Regional Public Transportation Authority (VRT)
✓ Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
Section 2: ACHD Statutory Responsibilities
ACHD is a special purpose governmental entity, meaning it has limited powers as opposed to general
powers granted to a city or county. As a special purpose government, ACHD's authority to make
expenditures is limited to the specific authority granted under Idaho Code and the Idaho Constitution.
Similarly, ACHD may only participate in interagency cost sharing for roadway projects to the extent that
its participation complies with the specific powers granted to it by the Idaho legislature as provided for
in Idaho Code.
1
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
There are two separate chapters in Idaho Code related to powers granted to ACHD:
(1) Chapter 13 -Powers of ACHD outside cities; and
(2) Chapter 14 — Powers of ACHD within cities.
For purposes of this topic, ACHD's powers are best summarized under applicable sections of I.C. § 40-
1415. Any project improvements that result in costs outside ACHD's specific statutory mandated powers
are costs that must be paid for by the partnering agency requesting the improvements.
Section 3: Transportation Components
This section outlines the policies for cost sharing on transportation elements specifically outlined for
ACHD in Idaho Code.
These core "transportation" components are:
• Travel lanes: through or turn lanes for the purpose of vehicular movements;
• Bike lanes: facilities for bicycle use within the curb -to -curb section of urban roadways or along
shoulders of rural roadways;
• Curbs and gutter: infrastructure for stormwater conveyance on urban cross-sections; curbs are
also a traffic safety element of roadway design and construction and allow for sidewalk
installation;
• Sidewalks: facilities for the safe movement of pedestrians; includes up to a 6 -foot buffer per
ACHD's roadway cross-section policies for pedestrian and motorist safety;
• Paved medians: facilities installed in lieu of turn lanes for purposes of safety, access
management and traffic flow;
• Retaining walls: facilities for buttressing of slopes as a result of roadway design;
• Highway light: illumination for the primary benefit of motorist, or at conflict points between
motorists and pedestrians
• Traffic control devices: traffic signals, flashing beacons, stop signs, and other signs;
• Drainage: stormwater structures where necessary for motorist safety and maintenance.
Requests from partners related to transportation components of projects generally consist of those
listed below. Each category includes the method of how ACHD considers the request for partnership.
• Acceleration of Project Construction
o Agencies regularly desire construction of projects sooner than ACHD planning and
programming indicate.
o If an agency supplements ACHD funding for the transportation elements of the projects,
ACHD then awards the project points for non-ACHD funding as established within the
project ranking process.
o If the city or county makes a project a top request of the agency, ACHD then awards the
project appropriate points for city request within the project ranking. A high-ranking
request for acceleration is also considered during the annual Five -Year Work Plan and
Budget updates, with efforts made to accommodate the request within other funding
and schedule considerations.
2
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
• Acceleration through Developer Cooperative projects
o It is the ACHD Commission's discretion to enter into cooperative agreements with
developers to construct projects through public-private partnership that are outside the
realm of regular development review and approval.
o For Developer Cooperative projects, ACHD may enter into an agreement to construct
the project with specific funding arrangements negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
o Partner agencies seeking cooperative projects with developers for ACHD system
improvements outside of the normal development review process require a notice of
inquiry from the partner agency to begin the process of facilitating such projects.
• Alternative Transportation
o ACHD, per policy, accommodates standard levels of pedestrian and bicycle facilities
within roadway and intersection projects. These are defined by ACHD's cross-section
policies.
o ACHD shall not fund construction or placement of benches or shelters, transit
structures, including but not limited to placement of benches or shelters; however, on a
regular basis, ACHD shall advise Valley Regional Transit ("VRT") of any anticipated
widening, realignment, redesign, improvement and/or reconstruction of roadways as
would be likely to cause a relocation, modification or other adaptation of any of VRT's
Transit Structures, and the parties, to the extent reasonably possible, shall agree to a
priority schedule regarding same. In the event that a Transit Structure location requires
the acquisition of property that is significantly beyond ACHD's design of the roadway,
VRT shall be responsible for any such additional acquisition of property.
• Utilities
o City sewer and water projects may be planned on roadways within ACHD's Five -Year
Work Plan or Capital Improvements Plan. ACHD shall coordinate these projects as the
opportunity for full-scale or interim improvements may be of a value to the traveling
public. ACHD will assess each sewer and water project to determine ACHD's interests in
upgrading the roadway or establishing a centerline profile for the ultimate cross-section.
These shall be negotiated with the agency on an as -needed basis.
• Intelligent Transportation Systems
o Funding for projects identified off of the ACHD system may be managed by ACHD, but
will require full funding or local match from the agency on whose system the project
exists.
• Stormwater Quality- ACHD is responsible for design, construction, reconstruction of rights-of-
way including storm water drainage where necessary for motorist safety or right-of-way
maintenance. If it is determined by ACHD that an agency's request for a project may have an
adverse affect on storm water quality, the requesting agency, at its sole cost and expense shall
be responsible for mitigating any such adverse effects.
Section 4: Non -Transportation Components:
This includes design standards for land uses, aesthetic designs, setback requirements, design variances,
and off -network alternative transportation facilities and features—all over which ACHD has no statutory
3
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
authority, and must therefore be coordinated with the appropriate land use and/or public
transportation agency.
• Medians can be provided for both access control and aesthetics
• National standards apply for traffic volumes justifying medians for access
management;
• The installation of medians, for either purpose, will require substantial
involvement of the property owners along the corridor and significant support
from policy makers from the city, county, or other public agency;
• Costs shall be separated for traffic needs within a median, which can be met
with hardscaping, and the city's desire to build upon the traffic component to
achieve aesthetic value;
• If a participating agency desires the installation of medians that are outside the
scope of objective and justifiable traffic safety and function based upon
established engineering industry standards, and are otherwise beyond ACHD's
statutory authority, the requesting agency shall be required to pay 100% of the
incremental costs of those additional improvements, including, design, land
acquisition, construction and maintenance of the Median.
• Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Communities may desire pedestrian or bicycle
components that are beyond ACHD adopted design standards for the approved roadway cross
section.
o In the pedestrian area, ACHD shall construct 2 %2' of buffer space to meet ADA
requirements. ACHD will also pay for Right of Way up to a total of 6' of total buffer
space, if a city or partnering agency agrees to fund and maintain landscaping in the
applicable space. If the space is not maintained, ACHD shall make the determination to
deconstruct the buffer space and the respective city or jurisdiction will be required to
repay ACHD for the removal and hardscape costs to replace the original added buffer
space.
o If a city or county requests components of the bicycle and pedestrian system that are
beyond ACHD's design standards and policies, the agency is then required to pay 100%
of those additional improvements, including design, land acquisition and construction.
• On -Street Parking: ACHD shall fund the right of way, construction, and maintenance of on -street
parking on arterials for ACHD projects. On -street parking on new arterials, collectors and local
roads will come from dedications, as consistent with existing ACHD policy.
• Amenities
o Elements such as these are typically generated from city or other agency requests for
already identified projects in the ACHD Five -Year Work Plan. These types of components
can include, but are not limited to the following, landscaping, specialized pavement
treatments, decorative lighting, public art, and other aesthetic features. ACHD is a
special purpose government and is therefore limited in making expenditures beyond the
specific authority granted under Idaho Code and the Idaho Constitution. ACHD is
prohibited from making any expenditure to road improvements that are not specifically
related to motorist and pedestrian traffic safety. ACHD is prohibited from exercising its
4
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
powers of eminent domain to acquire private property unless the improvement to the
right of way is consistent with ACHD's statutory authority and a public necessity as
defined by established engineering industry standards. Therefore, if a city, county,
urban renewal agency or other potential participating agency requests non -
transportation components to an ACHD project that are beyond ACHD's authority, the
requesting agency will be required to pay 100% of the incremental costs of those
additional improvements, including, design, land acquisition, construction and perpetual
maintenance.
o The participating agency shall be solely responsible for the ongoing and perpetual
maintenance, repair and operation of any non -transportation amenities installed in the
right-of-way. Failure of the participating agency to comply with its perpetual
maintenance obligations to these non -transportation amenities will jeopardize the
participating agency's ability to secure cost sharing agreements on future ACHD
projects. If the participating agency fails to maintain these amenities, ACHD may elect
to enter upon the premises to remove and replace the amenities with hardscape or
other materials consistent with the standard ACHD street section. All costs associated
with ACHD removing the amenities and replacing it will be borne by the participating
agency.
• Federally -Funded Projects
o All STP -TMA projects managed by ACHD are granted funding through actions of the
COMPASS Board.
o The proportion of match paid by partnering agencies on a project that combines both
transportation and non -transportation elements shall be roughly proportionate to the
share of the elements of the project. These may be negotiated by the partners,
particularly in a situation where non -transportation components require significantly
greater expense due to additional design or environmental considerations. (STP -
Enhancement projects, due to their nature, may require additional discussion and
negotiation as a non -transportation features are generally components of such
projects.)
• Projects for Economic Development and Land Use Goals
o When a partnering agency proposes a project to meet economic development and land
use goals the funding expectation of the projects must be clearly spelled out prior to
presenting the studies to the Commission for adoption.
o Projects of this nature typically evolve out of city area -specific planning efforts and
include projects and initiatives beyond the transportation system.
5
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
Project Cost Responsibilities
ITEM
Design
Right -of -Way
Medians
Buffer Zone
Bike Lanes
Sidewalks
On Street Parking
Illumination (lighting)
ACHD COST
Standard Design
Planned corridor width —
ACHD Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP)
If needed for traffic safety &
operations, pay for curbing
and standard hardscape
2 1/2' if participating agency
chooses not to participate; 6'
ROW if participating agency
chooses to landscape
Standard width as determined
by typology and constraints
Standard width -5'
ROW, design, construction
and maintenance on arterials
for ACHD projects
Of benefit to motorists, or at
conflict points of motorists
and pedestrians
PARTICIPATING AGENCY
Design of amenities
Extra Right of Way (ROW) for
amenities as outlined in
policy, including damages,
buyouts and associated legal
costs
Upgraded hardscape and
landscaping and irrigation- if
median is needed for safety;
all ROW, construction, and
maintenance if median is for
aesthetics only
Landscape costs, construction
and ROW in excess of 6';
perpetual maintenance of the
landscaping (if choose to
participate)
Any upgraded amenity
Any upgraded amenity
ROW on new arterials, collectors
and local roads must be secured
via dedication by the
participating agency or
developer
Pedestrian lighting
Section 5: Intergovernmental Agreement and Payment Provisions and Options:
Per Idaho Code 67-2332 ACHD may enter into intergovernmental agreements with any one or more
other public agencies for the purpose of performing any governmental service, activity, or undertaking
which each public agency is authorized by law to perform. Payment provisions shall be negotiated in
terms mutually agreeable to both parties and encapsulated in a written agreement. The agreement shall
be adopted by both the ACHD Commission and agency's board.
When a project phase with an agency funding commitment proceeds into the ACHD budget, ACHD will
begin the process by notifying the agency of the project's inclusion in the budget. ACHD shall provide
6
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
the agency with a proposed project timeframe, including a bid schedule, timeline for anticipated
reimbursements from the agency, and anticipated project completion date.
Section 6: Procedures for Participation:
Any agency requesting ACHD consideration shall follow the following procedure:
Notice of Intent: As projects are defined in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and Five -Year
Work Plan (FYWP) or other planning efforts, an agency may review these to identify projects
they wish to partner with ACHD for implementation.
• Projects identified in the FYWP, but not yet designed or under concept design or design,
require a letter of intent to ACHD stating the agency's intentions for partnering on the
project. This letter shall indicate the agency's interests in a possible partnering on the
project, including identification of potential funding source.
• Upon receipt of the letter of intent, ACHD will provide the agency with a proposed
project timeframe for concept design, design, right-of-way acquisition and construction.
These timelines are subject to change through the annual update of the FYWP, project
development and the budget.
• After receipt of the letter of intent ACHD shall solicit the partnering agency's desired
roadway features and incorporate them into the concept design or design phase,
whichever is applicable. Some projects proceed to design without a separate concept
design phase. In these cases, ACHD and the partnering agency shall determine the
desired roadway features early in the design process.
Interagency Agreement:
• At the conclusion of concept design, and prior to initiating design, ACHD and the
partnering agency shall enter into an interagency agreement to outline cost share and
other responsibilities for the project. The failure to enter into an interagency
agreement shall result in the project design proceeding without incorporating
partnering agencies desired roadway features.
• For projects that do not include a separate concept design phase, ACHD and the
partnering agency shall enter into an interagency agreement to outline cost share and
other responsibilities as early as feasible in the design phase.
Design Implementation:
• If a partnering agency requires changes to a project already under design and outside
the current scope of design work, the partnering agency will be required to pay for any
additional design costs. A detailed scope of work and cost for project design is
established by ACHD prior to initiating design work.
• If a partnering agency requests changes after project design is complete, ACHD will
require full compensation from the requesting agency for design or other changes in the
project. ACHD will work with the partnering agency to incorporate design features that
are feasible, however not all requests, not even those fully funded by the requesting
agency, may be able to be accommodated due to already established project
parameters such as site specific design constraints, status of land acquisition, and other
feasibility issues.
7
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
8
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
Supporting Additional Information for Implementation of ACHD's
Interagency Cost Share Policy
(Provided for information, not part of the policy)
ACHD's Statutory Authorities
For purposes of cost share on transportation corridor improvements, ACHD's powers are best
summarized under applicable sections of I.C. § 40-1415. Any project improvements that result in costs
outside ACHD's specific statutory mandated powers are costs that must be paid for by the partnering
agency requesting the improvements.
I.C. § 40-1415. Responsibilities of single county -wide highway districts within cities — Final
decision of urban renewal projects — Settlement of questions
(1) County -wide highway districts organized under the provisions of this chapter, within the limits of
any city shall be responsible for the design, construction, reconstruction and maintenance of city
rights-of-way and accompanying curbs, gutters, culverts, sidewalks, paved medians, bulkheads and
retaining walls. Within city rights-of-way, design, construction, reconstruction and maintenance
shall include:
(a) Traffic and safety engineering for both motorist and pedestrian traffic;
(b) Procurement and installation of highway lighting where it is primarily of benefit to the
motorist. Energy costs and maintenance of lighting shall subsequently be a function of the
city;
(c) Procurement, installation, operation and maintenance of traffic control devices where
they are needed for traffic control; and
(d) Drainage where it is necessary for motorist safety or necessary right-of-way
maintenance.
(2) Acquisition and acceptance of rights-of-way "shall be the responsibility" of ACRD.
(4) [ACHD] "shall be responsible for" planning and location of rights-of-way. ACHD "shall submit"
the proposed location of the rights-of-way to the appropriate planning agency and "shall take into
consideration" the comprehensive general plan of the appropriate county or city planning agency.
In planning for the location of rights-of-way, [ACHD] "shall comply" with all appropriate provisions of
Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code.
(7) Within the limits of any city, the city "may expend city funds for the placement, care and removal
of trees, shrubs, grass, and other plants, which are located within the rights of way" of any highway
of [ACHD].
(8) A city, after advising ACHD Commissioners of its intent, "shall be responsible for the placement,
care and removal of any parking meters within the limits of any city, and for the enforcement of
ordinances regulating the use of parking meters, which are located within the rights-of-way of any
highway of the county -wide highway district." The city shall be entitled to all revenues received
from parking meters.
9
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
Planning and Project Development Process
Public and agency expectations for ACHD projects are established through three main planning and
programming documents. These are the Capital Improvements Plan, the Five -Year Work Plan and the
Budget.
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP): The CIP is required by the Idaho Impact Fee Act for the
imposition of impact fees on new development. ACHD is mandated to define its arterial roadway
and intersection capacity projects for a 20 -year timeframe, updated every three years.
Improvements identified in the CIP are assigned cost estimates for purposes of calculating
impact fees. ACHD utilizes the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS)
regional travel demand model, which is adopted by the COMPASS Board and is a reflection of
the planned land uses of the cities within the region based on regional growth control totals
established by COMPASS. Project descriptions generally consist of number of lanes needed on
facilities to conform with regional Level of Service (LOS) standards. The CIP is used as a basis for
project selection for the Five -Year Work plan.
Five -Year Work Plan (FYWP): The FYWP is ACHD's short-term capital improvements program,
which includes planned improvements on roadways, intersections, bridges, stormwater
facilities, bikeways, sidewalks, intelligent transportation systems, park-and-ride facilities,
overlays and other capital maintenance. The FYWP is updated annually for a five-year
timeframe, with projects divided into sub -programs based on project type (roadways,
intersections, sidewalks, etc.). Projects for roadways, intersections and community programs are
selected based on an established system for ranking improvements. Projects anticipated beyond
five years, but requiring design or right-of-way acquisition in prior years are included and
labeled as "Preliminary Development".
Budget: ACHD establishes a budget per Idaho Code, which provides the Commissioners,
agencies and the public with a program for all ACHD services within the current fiscal year. It
also provides ACHD management with a financial and operating plan. Project expenditures
programmed in the Five -Year Work Plan serve as the basis for the capital projects portion of the
Budget.
10
For Agency Review 7/23/2008
ACHD's project development process generally consists of the following phases
Project Phase Description
Planning Projects may be identified through various types of transportation planning
efforts that identify need, planning -level design features such as general
characteristics, corridor preservation or assessment of surrounding land uses.
These may be accomplished through sub -area plans, corridor plans,
pedestrian/bicycle plans and the Capital Improvements Plan.
Project Scoping For most projects, this phase begins when the project is first shown in the FYWP
with construction in Preliminary Development (PD). The purpose of this phase
is to use available information to characterize the improvement needed and
develop a more detailed cost estimate for further planning.
Concept Design
During the concept design phase new data is collected that identifies the
project's issues and challenges and strategies for resolution, and results in
about 30% design. This is the first phase that defines a detailed scope for the
project from an engineering perspective. Most major design decisions are made
during the concept phase.
Design During this phase plans and specifications are prepared for the project using
information from the concept phase when available.
Right of Way Right of way acquisition generally begins after 99% design plans are complete
and is concluded before final design. Early acquisition may be considered when
it is in ACHD's interest.
Construction The project is built based on the final design.
ACHD's FYWP and Budget are selected through an established process of ranking projects within their
sub -program. Currently, ACHD utilizes this ranking process on roadways, intersections and community
programs. Additional processes for ranking bridge projects are being developed. The ranking process
consists of 10 to 14 criteria, tailored to each program through both technical and community factors.
The scores are aggregated to determine project rank. Rank does not always determine construction year
as many other factors are involved in this determination such as but not limited to; project readiness,
utility coordination, bid schedule/bid award, construction routing/conflicts, and available funds. Each
city and the county provide ACHD with an annual request list that is used for determining the score of at
least one criterion within each ranking process. The presence of non-ACHD funding sources is also given
weight within the ranking.
11
NEW BIKE LANES
Sidewalks and bike lanes are needed.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
Q: When is the election?
A: November 4, 2008 at your regular polling place
where you will vote in the presidential election.
The polls will be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p m. and
more information is available by calling the Ada
County Elections Office at 287-686(1 or using the
web site www.adaweb.net.
Q: What is on the ballot?
A: A measure to renew the Ada County Vehicle
Registration Fee (currently $20 for a new car, less
for an older one) and to expand the annual fee to
provide more:
Congestion reduction - enhanced signal
timing, new signals at stop -controlled
intersections, widened intersections,
• Sidewalks and bike lanes in Ada County -
improving safe routes to school, alternative
transportation and overall connectivity.
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Enhanced signal timing saves Ore, fuel.
The existing fee raises about $4 million a year.
The average vehicle in Ada County is eight
years old and its owner pays a local, annual fee
of $13.
Q: Why is this election needed?
A: The fee passed by voters in 1990 will sunset at
the end of 2010. In the 18 years since the fee was
adopted, Ada County's population has doubled
to 405,000 and inflation and construction costs
have reduced the fee's buying power by half
(the $20 from 1990 buys a little more than $10
in 2008). Ada County's local roads have huge,
unmet needs for reducing traffic congestion and
for more sidewalks, bike lanes and safe routes
to school.
Q: What has the fee been used for?
A: Originally, voters passed the fee to fund
bridge repairs in Ada County At the time, 25
bridges were weight -restricted - meaning the
structures could not carry the traffic they were
designed to handle - and three others were
closed. The Boise Fire Department could not get
trucks across the Americana Bridge.
REDUCE CONGESTION
Cor gi'stron harms business, quality of life.
Within three years, the problem bridges were
repaired or replaced, and many other roadway
improvements were made. Today, Ada County's
bridges get high marks from the federal
National Bridge Inventory.
Q: What would the ballot measure
accomplish?
A: Voter approval would allow the ACHD to
maintain the current level of road -building,
maintenance and operations of the 2,130 miles
BUILD AND REPAIR SIDEWALK
Before ,_ After
Prolec is improve neighborhoods
of local road in Ada County and allow the
District to reduce traffic congestion, while
providing more safe routes to school, sidewalk
construction and repair, and new hike lanes and
routes.
Each $1 of registration fee money is matched
with $2 of impact fees paid by development
Q: Which roads would be improved?
A: Improvements would target Ada County's
local roads, those apart from the freeway
Q: What would a renewed fee do?
A: A reauthorized fee would raise an additional $4 million a year to:
• Fight traffic congestion by rebuilding intersections, signalizing stop -controlled intersections, enhancing
signal coordination hardware and timing programs and other improvements ($2 million).
• Increase safe routes to school by adding more miles of sidewalks and bike lanes on key routes, as well as
providing more signalized pedestrian crossings ($2 million).
Additional funds would allow ACHD to devote more resources to those highlighted programs over and above
the 55 to 56 million spent today.
Congevrorn can be reduced
(Interstate 84) and the state highway (SH55/Eagle
Road, Chinden Boulevard, etc.) systems.
Q: How will any new funding be used?
A: Renewing and enhancing the registration fee
could allow ACHD to complete up to $12 million
in additional projects - ones specifically targeted
toward reducing traffic congestion (enhanced
signal timing, signalizing stop -controlled
intersections, widening projects to increase
capacity), creating more safe routes to school
(new sidewalks and bike lanes near schools,
Q: What happens if the measure
fails?
A: Proposals to further reduce traffic
congestion and increase the amount of
construction of sidewalks and bike facilities
would have to be curtailed - and many other
roadway improvements would be delayed or
scaled back. Losing registration fees would
directly cost ACHD $4 million a year in 2011.
The use of another $8 million in development
impact fees would be jeopardized without the
local matching funds required by state law.
',freers bud! 10 SerV, rr!! users
school crossings, etc.), and increasing the
amount of sidewalk built and repaired.
Q: Why now?
A: Ada County has hundreds of millions of
dollars in unmet transportation infrastructure
needs. Under state law, the fee can only be taken
to voters in an even -year election (2008, 2010,
etc) Waiting until 201(1 means the backlog in
needs tivill only grow.
Q: How often would I pay the fee?
A:Each year when you register your vehicle.
Q: With gas above $4 a gallon, do we need
more transportation improvements?
A: Yes. The transportation system must be more
efficient to save gas and travel time. Statistics
show that commute times and trip lengths have
gone up in Ada County for a number of years.
What would the new fee cost?
Vehicles more than seven (7) years old
Vehicles three (3) to seven (7) years old
Vehicles one (1) and two (2) years old
Motorcycles and all -terrain vehicles
$24
$36
$40
$8
More problems will bt lured
Reducing congestion and providing more travel
options is critical.
Recently, the Boise Valley Economic Partnership
surveyed business owners and managers about
obstacles to their success. The condition of the
local road network was the No. 1 negative cited
by respondents.
Q: Who supports this?
A: The effort has drawn support from Ada
Count, Boise City, Eagle, Garden City,
Meridian, Kuna and Star, as well as from the
Boise and Meridian school districts, chambers
of commerce, Ada County Citizens for Better
Transportation and many other business and
civic organizations.
MORE INFORMATION
For more information, contact ACHD
Communications at 387-6107 or fellusc4iclid arra
id.trs, or see the web site, lL'wzaachd.ada 1(1.05.
7/25/08
THE FACTS
v .,.. 0 2 2008
�f`n•
fi{a ;�•-. tn•
THE ADA COUNTY VEHICLE _�
REGISTRATION FEE VOTE
A proposal to renew and expand the fees to fight traffic
congestion and create more safe routes to school.
NOVEMBER 4, 2008
www.achd.ada.id.us