The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes - 2011 - City Council - 11/17/2011 - Special (2) EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Minutes November 17, 2011 PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA: 5:30 p.m. -6:30 p.m. Mayor: We are going to something a little bit different tonight, instead of going right into our regular meeting we are going to attend the Pep Rally for Eagle High School which will take about 15-20 minutes and we will be back here at 6:30 for our regular meeting. 1. Library Director's Report: Ron Baker, Library Director distributes his report to the Council. Discusses the Library Statistics Report. Discusses the Ideate Digital Library. Discussion on a tutoring issue that is going on at the Library. We will be putting together a tutoring policy. Discussion on the rotating collection and the homebound collection. Discussion on the shelving installation. On Monday night I did resign the Directorship affective March. The Library Board will be filling that position. I would like to thank Councilman Shoushtarian for his continued support. I have been fortunate to have two excellent liaisons, Councilman Bastian and Councilman Semanko. General discussion. Mayor and Council leave at 5:50 p.m. to attend the Eagle High School Pep Rally. 2. Mayor and Council Reports and Concerns: 3. City Clerk/Treasurer Report: No report 4. Zoning Administrator's Report: 5. Public Works Director Report: No report 6. City Attorney Report: INVOCATION: REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA: 6:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Reynolds calls the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: HUFFAKER, SHOUSHTARIAN, SEMANKO, GRASSER. Semanko is absent. Councilmember Semanko will join the meeting at a later time. A quorum is present. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Reynolds leads the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT: Naomi Preston and Cheryl Bloom provide Council an update on the downtown Eagle Beautification Project. Displays pictures and discusses the Project. This is a volunteer group that wants to beautify some empty lots in downtown Eagle. Our first project is the SE Corner of Eagle and State Street. We have received a$5,000.00 grant from the Urban Renewal Agency. We are here to obtain City approval for the City to take over maintenance of the lot in the event of the termination of this voluntary group. The maintenance would be minimal. We are also asking approval to use the water connection at the Eagle Museum to water the lot. We will be going to ACHD tomorrow for their approval and volunteers will plant a portion of this lot this fall. General discussion. Huffaker moves to Amend the Agenda to include Beautify Downtown Eagle's request to the City of Eagle as part of the Public Comment to the Agenda. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Page I K_\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-11-17-11 spmin doc Huffaker moves to authorize the Mayor to go ahead and allow Beautify Downtown Eagle to use the water from the Eagle Historic Museum as well as authorize the Mayor to work with Ada County to use the City of Eagle as the backup maintenance provider for this project at Eagle Road and State. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES 5. ACCEPTANCE OF NOVEMBER 8,2011 ELECTION RESULTS AS CANVASSED BY THE ADA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: [I.C. § 50-412] Mayor introduces the issue. Shoushtarian moves for the Acceptance of the November 8,2011 Election Results as Canvassed by the Ada County Commissioners. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Huffaker moves to amend the agenda by move Item#9B to Item #9A. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Huffaker moves to continue Item #10A to the December 13,2011 City Council Meeting and make sure the item is put on the agenda for Public Comment. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES 6. 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. ♦ 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. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for RZ-01-11/CU-01-11/PPUD-01- 11/PP-01-11 — Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Development Plan & Preliminary Plat for The Preserve Planned Unit Development—The Preserves LLC: The Preserve LLC, represented by Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions LLP, is requesting a rezone from R-3-DA-P (Residential up to three units per acre with a development agreement— PUD) and R-2-DA-P (Residential up to two unit per acre with a development agreement—PUD)to R- 4-DA-P (Residential up to four units per acre with a development agreement — PUD) and R-3-DA-P (Residential up to three units per acre with a development agreement— PUD), conditional use, preliminary development plan, preliminary plat approvals for The Preserve Planned Unit Development, a 419-lot (372 buildable, 46 common, and 1 well lot)residential subdivision (a portion of which is platted as Eaglefield Estates Subdivision No. 1). The preliminary plat is comprised of 99.5-acres and consists of 280-lots (254 buildable, 25 common, and 1 well lot). The 142.4-acre planned unit development is generally located 650- feet west of Linder Road and north of State Highway 44. (WEV) C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CU-04-11 - Public Service Facility for a Remotely Operated Block Valve - Chevron Pipe Line Company: Chevron Pipe Line Company, represented by Torn Denison, is Page 2 K.\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-1 1-17-I Ispmin,doe requesting conditional use permit approval to construct a public service facility for a remotely operated block valve. This block valve will replace the existing underground manual block valve currently located on the east side of Ballantyne Lane approximately 850-feet to the northwest of this site. The new 0.03-acre site is located just north of the City of Eagle western entry sign within the right- of-way of West State Street approximately 150-feet north of the intersection of West State Street and State Highway 44. (WEV) D. DR-10-05- MOD2- Modification to the Master Sign Plan for a Multi-tenant Office Building, Including Signage for Jacob Jarvis Orthodontics — Jacob Jarvis: Jacob Jarvis, represented by Tony Meade with Idaho Electric Signs, is requesting design review approval to modify the master sign plan for a multi- tenant office building. The applicant is also requesting approval of signage for Jacob Jarvis Orthodontics. The site is located on the north side of East State Street approximately 280-feet west of Hill Road at 1005 East Winding Creek Drive within Winding Creek Subdivision. (WEV) E. DR-33-11- Fuel Island Signage for Stinker (formerly Albertson Express) — Shawn Davis: Shawn Davis, represented by Nathan Fuller with Lytle Signs, Inc., is requesting design review approval for fuel island signage for Stinker (formerly Albertson Express). The site is located on the east side of South Eagle Road approximately 160-feet north of State Highway 44 at 434 South Eagle Road. (WEV) F. Re-appointment to the Industrial Development Commission: The Mayor is requesting Council confirm the reappointment of Ron Marshall to the Commission. Mr. Marshall will be serving a three year term. (WEV) G. DR-35-11 -Building wall sign for The Athlete's Foot- On Your Marks dba The Athlete's Foot: On Your Marks dba The Athlete's Foot,represented by Craig Lundsford with YESCO, is requesting design review approval to construct a halo illuminated building wall sign for The Athlete's Foot. The site is located on the north side of East Plaza Drive between Eagle Road and 2nd Street within Eagle Plaza at 228 East Plaza Drive. (WEV) H. DR-34-11 -Two building wall signs and a tenant panel for Anytime Fitness- Anytime Fitness: Anytime Fitness, represented by Greg Llewellyn with Golden West Signs, is requesting design review approval to construct two halo illuminated building wall signs and a tenant panel on the monument sign for Anytime Fitness. The site is located near the northeast corner of Eagle Road and State Highway 44 within the Eagle Pavilion Shopping Center at 350 South Eagle Road. (WEV) Shoushtarian moves to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Grasser. Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Grasser: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES 7. PROCLAMATIONS & RESOLUTIONS: A. Resolution 11-29: A resolution for the adoption of the Ada County All Hazards Mitigation Plan. (MJE) Mayor introduces the issue. Zoning Administrator Vaughan provides Council an overview of the mitigation plan. General discussion. City Attorney has no objects to this plan. Page 3 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-I 1-17-11spmin.doc Huffaker moves to approve Resolution 11-29 a resolution for the adoption of the Ada County All Hazards Mitigation Plan. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES B. Eagle Mustang Dav Proclamation: Declaring November 18, 2011 as Eagle Mustang Day in honor of the Eagle High School Varsity Football Team playing in the 5A Idaho State Championship game. (JDR) Mayor introduces the issue. Shoushtarian moves to approve the Eagle Mustang Day Proclamation. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Mayor Reynolds reads the Eagle Mustang Day Proclamation. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CU-05-11 -Pet Grooming/Boarding Facility(Kennel)-Melinda Carlson: Melinda Carlson is requesting conditional use permit approval to operate a pet grooming/boarding facility (kennel) for The Spoiled Dog Pet Salon. The 3.69-acre site is located on the north side of East State Street approximately 530-feet east of Edgewood Lane at 1750 East State Street. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. Linda Carlson, applicant, provides Council an overview of her grooming/boarding facility business and her request for a conditional use permit. Linda reads her statement that is in the Council packet into the record. Discusses some issues that came up at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. General discussion. Planner Williams provides Council an overview of the application. Discussion on the limit of the number of dogs. General discussion. Mayor Opens the Public Hearing Ron Lamkey, 511 Conover St., I have no objections to the facility other than a noise issue. I have worked near dog kennels and know how noisy they can be. Discussion on the spray of liquor from the other business in the facility which is built right next to my property. Linda Goldman, 1634 N. Watson Place, you can't compare Linda with other business owners she is super responsible. She is building a business for our community. She is like a little dog whisper. Kathy Venz, 1580 E. State Street, I am one of the owners of Storytellers, and I have my pet groomed at this facility. When you enter the facility there is no odor; she keeps the facility clean. This would actually bring people to the East side of town. There are lots of merchants to benefit from this business when they open in the area. Patty Cutler, 688 Colchester, I am one of Linda's first customer and support this project and request that you approve Linda's application. Linda Carlson: discusses the neighbors and their proximity. Most of everything is going to be indoors. This is a large facility. The outdoor area is not a kennel it is just to take the dogs out to do their business and then they are back inside. This is the best location I can find. I am doing the best I can to be a good neighbor. The odor issue is most important. I will be a step ahead of the odor inside and outside. General discussion. Displays a video which is recording the noise levels around the facility. General discussion. Page 4 K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-11-17-11 spmin.doc Mayor Closes the Public Hearing General Council discussion. Huffaker moves to approve CU-05-11 -Pet Grooming/Boarding Facility(Kennel)- Melinda Carlson to include amendments to Site Specific Conditions of Approval#6 and that it be changed to read "to allow a maximum of 24 dogs on site for boarding initially with the opportunity for the applicant to come back within 6 months to increase that to 32; and also for#6 I would remove entirely the clause"regarding the maximum of 8 dogs for grooming on site at any given time"; and for Site Condition of Approval I would amend that to read that the applicant shall be only allowed to have a maximum of 6 dogs for outside in the play area except for the hours of 7-8 in the morning which is unlimited and leave everything else as is. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Huffaker moves to move Item #10B to become Item #9B and moving the Spring Valley item to Item #9C. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARIES B. RINGO RIDGE ESTATES COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: Robert Norton, a resident within Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision and owner of Lot 1 Block 6 (common lot)within Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision No. 2, is requesting City Council approval of an agreement to release a portion of the subdivision surety to be used for the purchase and installation of a pressurized irrigation system and acquisition of necessary water rights to be used for the irrigation of the Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision No. 2 common area. The site is located near the northwest corner of State Highway 55 and Hill Road. (WEV) Mayor introduces the issue. City Attorney Buxton: to bring you up to speed, the Arbor Ridge Subdivision we had to cash in their Letter of Credit for a number of items that had not been completed, so the City holds approximately$97,000 for the purpose of finishing the landscaping, some fencing and some irrigation facilities and some other things related to the common area. We have been working with the some of the homeowners and the homeowners association. Mr.Norton has actually purchase the parcel that has the playground. One of the major issues is to get water to it. Mr. Norton has been able to secure water rights. This will also require three phase power and some pipe to go under the road and some other facilities. The estimate will come in under$83,000. The remainder of the money will be held by City for use by the homeowners association or by others only for the public purpose for landscaping and repair on that park. We will pay the actual invoices. General discussion. Robert Norton: I have a contract with Idaho Power for the power and they have the permits to that. From there we are going to build a pumping station to bring water to the park. Previously the park was on city water which was cost prohibitive. There will be another$4,000 - $5,000 in addition to the pump. We have 96 dead trees west of the berm. There are another 30 over there. We will have 17" of water which is adequate. We will have $8,000 - $10,000 for the replacement of the trees in the park. General discussion. Huffaker moves to authorize the Mayor to enter into the RINGO RIDGE ESTATES COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT and I would propose an amendment to Paragraph#1 entitled Consideration that we instruct Council to change the language that the payment under consideration will be actual costs not to exceed $83,000.00 and the remainder be reserved for its original purpose and intent for the HOA for other landscaping purposes. Seconded by Shoushtarian. Huffaker: AYE; Shoushtarian: AYE; Grasser: AYE: ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Page 5 K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-I 1-17-1l sprain doc City Attorney Buxton: Keep in mind that this is not City money and it is not the City's property. Because of the surety that we required for landscaping we hold it in trust for the purpose and it is not for operation and maintenance it is for the actual construction of this open space. C. Spring Valley Idaho (formerly known as M3 Eagle), represented by Gerry Robbins, filed a petition with the City of Eagle requesting the formation of a Community Infrastructure District(CID): Spring Valley Idaho (formerly known as M3 Eagle), represented by Gerry Robbins, has submitted preliminary formation documents requesting the formation of a Community Infrastructure District pursuant to Idaho Code Chapter 50, Section 31. The 5,610 acre site is located within the incorporated City limits of the City of Eagle generally north of Homer Road between State Highway 16 and Willow Creek Road. . The City Council will consider the formation of the district, the suitability of the district plan and the membership of the District Board. The request is more specifically described in the preliminary formation documents on file at the City of Eagle,the Eagle Public Library, and on the City's website at www.cityofeagle.org. (NBS) This item was continued from the October 25, 2011 meeting. Mayor introduces the issue. City Attorney Buxton: The Petitioner, Spring Valley, has petition for a Community Infrastructure District and the Code Section for that is set forth in Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 31, and doing that they have a number of options. Their petition includes all the requisite information as required by the Statute. It states the name of the district, the purpose for which it is formed, the levy of property taxes to be imposed,the fees to be charged, it has a map, a legal description, it has a general plan, has a proposed tax levy, proposed financing, and a proposed district development agreement. We have had public hearings on all items that they have put in their petition. Their petition and development agreement are very similar to the one that was enacted by the City of Boise. Discusses the formation of the district in Boise. I have asked the applicant to consider asking this Council instead of formation and including the development agreement that the development agreement be fashioned after what we are doing in Spring Valley. We have an amended development agreement so that is far more specific. I have provided you a resolution that amends the resolution that was in the packet which gets rid of Section 11, which is the section that had the approval of the development agreement. Spring Valley is requesting for formation, approval of the general plan, and approval of the tax levy on that property. They own the property free and clear of liens for that entire 6,000 acres. The development agreement is not before you tonight. Discussion on the General Plan. City Councilman Semanko joins the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Opens the Public Hearing John Luque, 47 E. Riverside Driver, reads his written letter into the record. John also reads a letter from Chuck Winder into the record. Gary Smith, 258 S. Langer Lake Way, Star, reads a letter into the record from Central Valley Expressway Coalition. Gary reads a letter from Lloyd Mahaffey into the record. General discussion. Bob VanArnem, 3049 S. Whitepost Way, one of the questions I had was how many members are on the board of directors and I found out tonight that 3 Council Members make up the Board. How does the City not have some exposure? I understood the City couldn't tax property owners in the CID. What does the City real gain? It sounds almost too good to be true. I'm also wondering what the impact will be on city staff. Paul Dix, 2239 West Forest Grove, I'm pretty agitated. Why in the world would you tie the Page 6 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-1 1-17-lisp-run doc hands of a new Council that is coming in? M3 changed the name to Spring Valley, Idaho. Discusses the 16 corridor; this a choke point. We need to wait until there is a new Council, give them a chance and don't tie their hands. Lynn Moser, Eagle Sewer District General Manager, the last time we met there was some misunderstanding on the level of discussion that we have had on this issue. We have not reached an agreement with M3 to date. Lynn Moser reads a letter from Evan Robertson, Eagle Sewer District's Attorney, into the record. Miguel Legaretta, 9505 W. Bothel Court, Boise, I have a letter to read into the record, I am here representing the Ada County Association of Realtors. General discussion. Steve Purvis, 3939 Brookside Lane, This is a viable issue. I am neutral on this issue. I'm here tonight to provide you some additional information. Reads his written comments into the record. Scott Fenwick, 485 Eagle River, I am here to represent the College of Western Idaho, we moved here about a month ago. We moved here because Eagle was an area that needed a trained work force. I have a letter to read into the record. Lynn Sedlacek, 1200 Hereford Drive, I went through the documents and state code. I don't want you to do this. What a pain in the butt it is when a developer runs out of money. My concerns is that CID is going to take too much of your time away from everything else. This has already taken up a lot of time the Council and city staff. There are many things that I am worried about. Discussion on the General Plan. Discussion selling the bonds. Please do not form the CID without the Development Agreement and leave the comment period open or have public comment on this. Discussion on the cost of houses in the first two phases. I think a lot of these have failed throughout the nation. General discussion. John Franden, 2300 E. Buckskin Crt, I am an ADA County Highway District Commissioner; I am not either for or against this particular CID. We as a Commission supported the CID legislation. We viewed the CID as another financing tool. We viewed this as a way that development could pay for itself. Any infrastructure that was built would have to be built to our standards and that was our conform level. When the infrastructure is built we will take over the maintenance. General discussion. Jason Haas, 1483 N. Foxpoint Pl., I was asked to read a letter of support from Gary and Martha Cunningham, 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards, into the record. There is a lot of information out there and a lot of decisions to be made. I've heard a lot of what ifs. What if this does work? We need to continue to welcome M3. I think we are fortunate to have them here. The legislature gave us this tool as something that could work. We are fortunate to have someone of their caliber in our backyard. I am in favor of the CID. Larry Sacknoff, 1477 E. Doylesfold, I came out here 7 years ago from South Florida. Discusses the economy in South Florida. I hate to see the same thing in Eagle. Discusses Avimor. I hope that a lot of thought goes into because the scars of this going wrong would be felt by this area for a long period of time. Ron Marshall, 740 Palmento, I have been against this project from day one. Some day we are going to run out of water in this valley. I don't sound like the Council and City Clerk are going to get paid for their work. We can see what happened with Avimor happen again. Discusses Hwy 16 extension. I think this is premature for these folks to be doing what they are doing. Don't do this. Let private capital do their job. We don't need this. Dan Ricter, Avimor Community, I would like to set the record straight. There has been one short sale in Avimor and there have been 3 re-sales that sold in a few months. One of the partners sold Page 7 K\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-11-17-11 spmin doc their interest. There are 30 homeowners now. There has never been any debt to the community. We have been making lots of sales and there are 12 new homes going up. I want to discuss the CFD's in Arizona. At least to my knowledge there was never any problems in the CFD's I have been involved in. Jeremy Piska, representing M3 companies, I was one of the chief drafters of the Legislation. Discusses the drafting of the Legislation and the safe guards that have been put in place. There has been a lot of misinformation this evening. I have not doubt that one of the intents tonight is to delay the decision in an effort to kill it. Distributes copies of the actual Bill that was passed and discusses the Bill. General discussion. Bill Brownley, M3, addresses some technical question and how the developer looks at the project. We are asking for the formation of the district to go forward and spend the dollars so we can forward. We have 5 years into this project. We have 600,000 acres of land that we own free and clear. How many companies have the financial commitment that we have in the City of Eagle? We are annexed in the City and we pay taxes. A lot of these people that come to this podium are not residents in the City. We are the largest landholders in the City. We are going to pay more money so we have this tool in place. We have already paid to the City for staff time and etc. We have deed a water right to the City. We are asking for a financing tool that will allow growth to pay for itself. Discusses the impact fees. Our company does not have one project that has been in foreclosure or has not been completed. Why would we not want to compensate the board to hire the consultants that they need? We need to have this done responsibly and correctly. Discusses the bond issuance. Discussion on the cost of the homes. Part of the process that we have to go through is doing a new market study. General discussion. Mayor Closes the Public Hearing General Council discussion. A.1 Resolution 11-28: Resolution Of The Mayor And Council Of The City Of Eagle, Idaho To Form A Community Infrastructure District, Authorize The Levy Of Taxes, Appoint The District Board And Provide An Effective Date. This item was continued from the October 25, 2011 meeting. (SEB) Huffaker moves to continue the Spring Valley Idaho(formerly known as M3 Eagle), represented by Gerry Robbins, filed a petition with the City of Eagle requesting the formation of a Community Infrastructure District(CID) to the December 13,2011 City Council meeting. Seconded by Grasser. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES 10. NEW BUSINESS: A. CU-02-11 —Commercial Entertainment Facility(outdoor) and Live Entertainment Events (concerts,weddings, receptions,and corporate events)—Land of Rock,LLC.: Annual review(pursuant to Site Specific Condition of Approval#5) of the conditional use permit approval associated with the Eagle River Pavilion. The conditional use permit approval for the Commercial Entertainment Facility(outdoor)and Live Entertainment Events (concerts, weddings,receptions, and corporate events)associated with the Eagle River Pavilion were requested by Land of Rock, LLC, represented by Shawn Nickel. The 24.6-acre site is located on East Riverside Drive approximately 1500 feet west of Edgewood Lane at 827 East Riverside Street. (WEV) Motion above: Huffaker moves to continue Item #10A to the December 13,2011 City Council Meeting and make sure the item is put on the agenda for Public Comment. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES Page 8 K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-11-17-11 spmin.doc B. RINGO RIDGE ESTATES COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: Robert Norton, a resident within Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision and owner of Lot 1 Block 6 (common lot)within Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision No. 2, is requesting City Council approval of an agreement to release a portion of the subdivision surety to be used for the purchase and installation of a pressurized irrigation system and acquisition of necessary water rights to be used for the irrigation of the Ringo Ridge Estates Subdivision No. 2 common area. The site is located near the northwest corner of State Highway 55 and Hill Road. (WEV) Moved by motion to Item#9B. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: No Executive Session is needed tonight. A. Pending& Threatened Litigation: I.C. §67-2345(f) B. Personnel Matters: I.C. §67-2345 (a)(b) Mayor: We have had discussions with Stillwater. There is another entity that wants to replace the URA which is the Caldwell Economic Development Council through the application of foreign trade zones. They are creating one in Caldwell and that will allow them to deal with properties in Canyon County and Ada County. They will be meeting with each of you. Huffaker requests that the $10,000.00 donation request from FACTS be put on the December 13, 2011 City Council Agenda. 12. ADJOURNMENT: Huffaker moves to adjourn. Seconded by Shoushtarian. ALL AYES: MOTION CARRIES... Hearing no further business, the Council meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: ACA --(..9-- I \\ `eeeew.ee. , SHARON K. BERGMA ` •+�V, 1, iee� - CITY CLERK/TREASURE' e e - c i • `PROVED: it% . , AMES D. REYNOL S MAYOR AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL UPON REQUEST. Page 9 K_\COUNCILUNINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\CC-11-17-11 spmin.doc EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP Sprine Valley Idaho (formerly known as M3 Eagle), represented by Gerry Robbins. tiled a petition with the City of Eaele reauestine the formation of a Community Infrastructure District (CID) November 17, 2011 NAME 20 BAR V SfY) -1 eivii /)/) iN A s e /[;03' v/1.1 4-A-14/ z /6i/a D ://\( (T4/ 7r.s. ! Oix vi cr.-4-/eq- ADDRESS TESTIFY PRO/ CON or YES/NO NEUTRAL • 4` h LA414. VI l vl i 6 1 L --/r v � / f Z(S / l/ 7/ ,i/ 1505 u 13A1,xi CL, „ Art.6oie 4/7:s; ;04-cy),-, tloie (at) t- f) ` .C -ti G,vE .1y l 'rr G 7c i')1 y jS ---;k`)/0 7 -L -✓,r c •- C cA € 5 Pro L/C- ; ry EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP Spring Valley Idaho (formerly known as M3 Eaglel, represented by Gerry Robbins, filed a petition with the City of Eagle requesting the formation of a Community Infrastructure District (CID) November 17, 2011 .eH,L) 71.x' id_y /ao E2 ,ems Le L " C /,-,3/e/ lei Cc� f;e e— r17u,,.. — C ).'"7 l A A,. dvz:PY l '�I �I yrELStds 2/4adii( C. 40_ l e /-J' I sc' iR/-44'c(/ C � 6j v r�rwj /c EAGLE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP CU -05-11 - Pet Groomine/Boardine Facility (Kennel) - Melinda Carlson November 17, 2011 NAME c,v-\e(v vi 6 t (' (/(/.(,) kid ti.c.Le,S ADDRESS k76‘ C_ IJ C 112skri er -10 v crkcC »10,1.01 .1305e, ,1r,) TESTIFY PRO/ CON or YES/NO NEUTRAL A.; Q.54.1 -1d Vv -2: L4 N L,c: EAGLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2011 ADA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CANVASSED VOTES EAGLE CITY MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 8, 2011 For Mayor - Four -Year Term 1 FOR MAYOR VOTES lJim Reynolds 2,636 Norm Semanko 746 PERCENT 1 77.941 22.061 For Council Member Four -Year Term ( 2 Positions) FOR CITY COUNCIL VOTES PERCENT Mark L. Butler 1,615 25.82 Jerry Darnall 142 2.27 Mary Defayette 1,187 1 18.98 Jeff Kunz 433 1 6.92 Jeff Laughlin 466 1 7.45 Eric Pedersen 442 7.07 Al Shoushtarian 965 15.43 Gary W. Tanner 1,005 16.07 Registered Voters: Ballots Cast: Voter Turnout °A): 11,762 3,407 28.97 < digital libra Cc //J /1 / Page 1 of 1 a joint service of eight southwest and south central Idaho libraries https://mail.cityofeagle.org/exchange/jcampbell/Inbox/ID8%2Ologo.EML/1 multipart_xF.., 11/17/2011 EAGLE PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM STATISTICS REPORT - OCTOBER 2011 CIRCULATION/Books Adult Young Adult Juvenile This Month Sub Total CIRCULATION/Audio Visual Adult Young Adult Juvenile Sub Total EPL TOTAL CIRCULATION CIRCULATION SUMMARY Check-outs Check -ins Renewals-Opac Renewals-Telecirc Renewals -!n House Requests Placed Requests Resolved(Filled) Holds Picked Up Holds Expired ILLs RECEIVED Non -Consortium Consortium ILLs SENT Non -Consortium Consortium NEW EPL CARDS ISSUED Resident Non -Resident REFERENCE SUMMARY Adult Reference Desk Children's Reference Desk Circulation Desk TOTAL PATRON COUNT MEETING ROOM USE SUMMARY Programs Community Usage Youth Programs Adult Programs TOTAL PROGRAMS Attendance Community Attendance Youth Prog Attendance Adult Prog Attendance TOTAL ATTENDANCE 7,803 1,322 7,591 16,7161 4,430 97 1,973 6,5001 23,2161 23,216 23,837 2,896 504 393 3,912 8,032 3,319 408 9I7 321 22 Last Year This Month 83I0 8,121 1,257 7,103 16,4811 5,426 120 1,990 7,5361 24,01/1 24,017 23,082 2,590 483 427 4,097 7,852 3,438 424 14I4 14I16 1361 1 376 366 167 214 637 526 1,1801 1,1061 13,2171 14,2381 Percent This Year Change to Date -4% 5% 7% 1%I -18% -19% -1% -14%1 -3%I -3% 3% 12% 4% -8% -5% 2% -3% -4% -36% 75% 129% 38% -39% -100% 3% -22% 21 "/o 7"/oI -7% I 4 2 100% 20 27 -26% 2 4 -50% 261 331 -21%1 67 728 27 8221 55 22% 716 2% 49 -45% 8201 U%1 7,803 1,322 7,591 16,7161 4,430 97 1,973 6,5001 23,2161 23,216 23,837 2,896 504 393 3,912 8,032 3,319 408 9I7 32 22 83 0 376 167 637 1,1801 13,2171 4 20 2 261 67 728 27 8221 Last Year to Date 8,121 1,257 7,103 16,4811 5,426 120 1,990 7,5361 24,0171 24,017 23,082 2,590 483 427 4,097 7,852 3,438 424 14I4 14I16 1361 1 366 214 526 1,1061 14,2381 2 27 4 331 55 716 49 8201 Percent Change -4% 5% 7% 1% -3%' 3% 12% 4% -8% -5% 2% -3% -4% -36% 75% 129% 38% -39% -100% 3% -22% 21% 7"/o -7% 100% -26% -50% -21% 22% 2% -45% U%I EAGLE PUBLIC LIBRARY RECIPROCAL BORROWING STATISTICS -- OCTOBER 2011 Items checked out at EPL by Consortium members' patrons. Percent of Percent of This This Month Last Year Percent This Year To Date Last Year Percent Month Circulation This Month Change to Date Circulation to Date Change CHECKOUTS Ada Community 3,086 2,805 10% 3,086 2,805 Boise 3,377 3,869 -13% 3,377 3,869 Caldwell 61 75 -19% 61 75 Emmett 79 77 3% 79 77 Garden City 243 215 13% 243 215 Halley 0 1 -100% 0 1 Mountain Home 0 1 -100% 0 1 Meridian 758 974 -22% 758 974 Nampa 99 137 -28% 99 137 Twin Falls 0 0 0% 0 0 Total 7,703 33% 8,154 -5.53% 7,703 33% 8,154 -5.53% Total EPL Circulation 23,216 24,017 23,216 24,017 Items checked out at consortium member locations by EPL patrons. This Last Year This Year Last Year Month This Month to Date to Date CHECKOUTS Ada Community 405 652 405 652 Boise 1,672 1,890 1,672 1,890 Caldwell 8 21 8 21 Emmett 123 41 123 41 Garden City 542 347 542 347 Hailey 0 0 0 0 Mountain Home 0 0 0 0 Meridian 440 496 440 496 Nampa 56 34 56 34 Twin Falls 0 6 0 6 Total 3,246 3,487, 3,246 3,487 Number of EPL items checked out at other consortium locations. This Last Year Percent This Year Last Year Percent Month This Month Change to Date to Date Change 1 4,5361 I 4,4761 1% 4,5361 I 4,4761 1%1 EAGLE PUBLIC LIBRARY STATISTICS OCTOBER 2011 CIRCULATION Total Items Checked Out at EPL Total Items Renewed at EPL Total Items Checked In at EPL Oct -10 Nov -10 Dec -10 Jan -11 Feb -11 Mar -11 Apr -11 May -11 Jun -11 Jul -11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oil -11 11-12 Total 10-11 Total 09-10 Total 24,017 25,955 23.190 25,844 24.200 28,616 24,634 22,074 26.835 27,500 25,869 22,835 23.216 23.216 301,589 290,021 3,500 4,204 3,840 3 758 3,816 4,515 4,339 3.445 3 238 4.139 4,043 3.851 3.793 3,793 46,688 42,764 23,082 26.422 23.874 24.335 24,529 28,180 26,560 23,450 24.673 27,889 27,142 22,941 23,837 23,837 303,077 295,809 CIRCULATION OF EPL ITEMS Books 14,304 15 230 13,431 15,616 14,935 17.566 14,742 13,338 16,961 16,492 15,909 14,363 14,410 14,410 182,887 171,548 New Books 1,367 1,476 1,386 1 521 1,287 1,532 1,384 1,418 1,399 1,540 1,583 1.481 1,379 1,379 17,374 15,128 Video/DVD 4,907 5.697 5,147 5.293 4,895 5.896 4,975 4,262 5,212 5,642 5,023 3.970 4.327 4,327 60.919 64,923 Audio Books 1,074 1,371 1 035 1,026 889 1,212 1.080 1,034 1,200 1,127 1,181 1022 986 986 13,251 12,653 Musk (CDs) 1,297 1 167 1,178 1.213 1,075 1,278 1,269 1.021 962 915 1,003 875 985 985 13,253 12,879 Penoducals 602 623 490 728 588 685 683 588 636 647 696 626 631 631 7.592 6,191 TOTAL 8 OF CHECKOUTS OF EPL ITEMS 23,551 25.564 22.667 25,397 23.669 28,169 24,133 21,661 26,370 26,363 25,395 22,337 22.718 22,718 295,276 285.157 EAGLE PATRON CIRCULATION Patron over 18 13,320 14.182 12,130 14,117 12,906 15.255 12,752 12,252 13,637 14,095 13,810 12.651 12 732 12.732 161.107 152.376 Patron under 18 2,479 2 694 2,561 2 521 2,297 3,274 2,949 2,634 4,027 4,013 3,402 2,515 2,771 2,771 35,366 32,897 Courtesy Patron TOTAL 8 OF TRANSACTIONS BY EPL PATRONS 15.799 16 876 14.691 16,638 15.203 18.529 15,701 14 886 17,664 18,108 17,212 15,166 15,503 15,503 196.473 185,273 0 NEW CARDS ISSUED AT EAGLE 0 Eagle City Patrons 137 101 73 91 92 139 83 97 122 120 121 124 83 83 1,300 1,483 Ada Patrons 23 11 16 17 21 17 21 5 34 17 15_ 13 11 11 210 215 Boise Patrons 15 17 14 20 10 9 14 11 10 11 19 _ 5 5 5 155 161 Garden City Patrons 1 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 10 22 Meridian Patrons 6 3 3 4 7 8 8 3 8 7 5 3 8 8 65 46 TOTAL t<OF CARDS ISSUED AT EAGLE 182 133 106 134 132 173 126 116 177 156 160 145 107 107 1.740 1,927 0 TOTAL EAGLE CARD HOLDERS 9,991 10,100 10.190 10,260 10,361 10,505 10.583 10,698 10,825 10,941 11,060 11.175 9,691 9,691 EPL COLLECTION CHANGE Holdings Added 894 650 865 618 560 720 841 893 704 653 1,112 815 488 488 9,325 8,427 Holdings Deleted (523) (428) (383) (683) (412) (409) (316) (516) (366) (249) (256) (741) (542) (542) (5,282) (3,290) TOTAL COLLECTION CHANGE 371 222 482 (65) 148 311 525 377 338 404 856 74 (54) (54) 4,043 5.137 TOTAL COLLECTION HOLDINGS 94,639 94.877 95.362 95.279 95,628 95,891 96,445 96;809 97,293 97.669 98,355 98383 98,522 98,522 OTHER Gate Traffic 14.238 13.610 12,237 14,097 14,442 15,926 13,349 12,795 17 407 17 125 14,398 12.676 13,217 13,217 172,300 156,287 Monies Collected 62.428 57 62,927 43 $2.509 22 53.432 90 62,784 00 63,490 57 62 924 70 $2 991 35 53 159.10 52,758 82 $3,382 99 $3.301.45 63.455 61 $3,455.61 $36,091.10 633.802 88 Holds/ Requests Filled 7 852 7.959 7.425 8.964 8,496 9,411 8.506 7,914 8 720 8 252 8,922 8 048 8.032 8.032 100,469 97,066 Interlibrary Loans Received 18 13 22 27 21 33 23 10 11 19 21 28 16 16 246 261 Interlibrary Loans Sent 30 61 50 70 49 87 74 49 52 43 59 59 54 54 683 903 Interlibrary Loans Filled 48 74 72 97 70 120 97 59 63 62 80 87 70 70 929 1.164 Meeting Room Attendance 55 25 60 148 670 205 110 223 70 25 97 30 67 67 1.718 604 Storylme Attendance 716 560 645 226 734 861 960 184 753 719 0 386 728 728 6,744 6.162 Computer Lab Usage 1.233 1 261 1.256 1.278 1.122 1,284 1,328 1,258 1,321 1.292 1,405 _ 1 279 1,381 1,381 15.317 12.440 Volunteer Hours 141 159 156 138 147 125 135 103' 273 343 103 135 153 153 1,854 2.168 Eagle 15,862 16.876 14,719 16.657 15,254 18,529 15.701 14,886 17 664 18 108 17,212 15.166 15,503 15,503 196.634 186,951 RECIPROCAL BORROWING Ada Community 2205 3,328 3,243 3.379 3,070 3.612 3.170 2,668 3 612 3 664 3.301 3,021 3.086 3,086 38.873 36.849 Boise 3869 4,387 3.784 4,165 4.136 4,330 4,074 3.207 3.972 4,407 4002 3338 3,377 3,377 47,671 48,948 Caldwell 75 58 51 35 62 94 26 36 48 37 32 38 61 61 592 580 Emmett 77 72 109 156 79 135 14 107 100 96 187 96 79 79 1,288 1,289 Garden City 215 274 294 281 278 345 238 192 300 228 235 189 243 243 3,069 3,384 Meridian 974 835 862 994 1,092 1,413 1,189 845 944 864 797 913 758 758 11.722 10,422 Nampa 137 119 124 172 226 201 152 122 182 98 120 73 99 99 1,726 1,524 TOTAL RECIPROCAL BORROWING 8.152 9,073 8,467 9,182 8,943 10,130 8,923 7,177 9,158 9,394 8,674 7668 7,703 7,703 104,941 102,996 ' Teen volunteer hours not available. 31,000 30,000 29,000 28,000 27,000 26,000 25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Eagle Patron Circulation -Eagle Patron Totals 0 z 0 0 O CD O o K a) 2 C.- D cn 0 C C C CD 0 C -0-TOTAL # OF CHECKOUTS OF EPL ITEMS -f- Gate Traffic Video/DVD 19% New Boners 6% Music (CDs) 4% Audio Books 4% CIRCULATION OF EPL ITEMS Periodicals 3% New Cards Issued at Eagle 0 O N i r I 0 CO 1 0 CO 0 V r 0 N 1 0 w 1 O CO i 0 O N 0 Sep -11 Aug -11 Jul -11 Jun -11 May -11 Apr -11 Mar -11 Feb -11 Jan -11 Dec -10 Nov -10 Oct -10 11,500 11,000 10,500 9,500 9,000 8,500 TOTAL EAGLE CARDHOLDERS SYSTEMWIDE Oct -10 Nov -10 Dec -10 Jan -11 Feb -11 Mar -11 Apr -11 May -11 Jun -11 Jul -11 Aug -11 Sep -11 0,;1-11 5 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 (200) Net Collection Change - Materials Added to Collection 0 Z 0 0 0 CD < 9 O O c) m 0 D a c 102,500 100,000 97,500 95,000 92,500 90,000 87,500 85,000 82,500 80,000 77,500 75,000 72,500 70,000 67,500 65,000 62,500 60,000 57,500 55,000 52,500 50,000 47,500 45,000 42,500 40,000 37,500 35,000 32,500 30,000 Oct -10 Nov -10 Dec -10 Total Holdings Jan -11 Feb -11 M r -l1 Apr -11 May -11 Jun -1 .h.11, I1 Aug -11 Sep -11 circ -I1 7 Computer Lab Usage 0 0 0 0 CO V ✓ c- 0 0 N l- 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 CO 0 0 V 0 0 N Oct -11 Sep -11 Aug -11 0 Jul -11 Jun -11 May -11 Apr -11 Mar -11 Feb -11 Jan -11 Dec -10 Nov -10 Oct -10 13.000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8.000 7,000 -- 6,000 - 5,000 - 4,000 3,000 -- 2,000 1,000 - 0 - 0 n z o O (D n O O Reciprocal Borrowing -n _ N N 7 0 October Reciprocal Borrowing by Library Caldwell 0% Garden City 1% Emmett 0% Meridian 3% Nampa 1% Boise 15% Ada Community 13% 10 Eagle 67% ©Nov17 2011 11:42RM Lee & Associates ©© ®a ma DUO Mayor Jim Reynolds & City Council Members 660E. Civic Lane Eagle, Idaho 83616 208-389-2088 RE: Spring Valley's Request to form a Community Infrastructure District Dear Mayor and City Council] Cc I write in support of the current request by Spring Valley/M3 for the City of Eagle to allow the formation of a Community Infrastructure District, hereinafter CID, far their Spring Valley project. p.1 The Idaho Legislature passed a bill authorizing the formation of CID's during the 2008 Session. The purpose of the legislation was to provide a form of financing using the bonding authority of a CID to help finance the infrastructure for major projects in Idaho. CID's could be used to finance the design and construction of roadways, sewer, water, lighting, landscaping, parks trails and public safety facilities. The intent of the legislation was to allow for financing of major infrastructure projects. CID's in my opinion provide a means for the public to benefit from major improvements but at the same time the public is not obligated to repay the bonded indebtedness of the property owners_ Major improvements can be completed that protect the safety and health of the public without the expenditure of taxpayer money. This is a win/win situation. The public benefits as well as the propert owner. CID's require an affirmative vo�e of at least 66 & 2/3rds of the landowners within the district in order to form a District. In thi case there is one owner and they represent 100% of the property to be included in the proposed CID. In closing, I urge your support bf this request to form a CID for the Spring Valley project. The CID and the Spring Valley project will create hundreds of high paying construction jobs and allow for development of longterm commercial and residential projects that will provide places to live, work and shop. CID's wre put in place to help finance infrastructure and put people back to work. Thank you for your attention to request and for entering my letter of support in the public record. Also, I thank each of yo l� for your public service to our community. I Respectfully submitted, Chuck Winder 5528 N. Ebbetts Ave. Boise, Idaho 83713 John Luque 47 E. Riverside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 16 November 2011 Mayor Reynolds & Eagle City Council, I am writing this letter to let you know of my support for the M3/Spring Valley proposal to create a Community Infrastructure District or CID for their project in the Eagle foothills. As you are already well aware, the key to the economic recovery of our local community, as well as the country at large, is the creation of jobs. Through the use of economic tools like the CID, Spring Valley will be able to make sure that the infrastructure necessary for the fruition of their planned community is ready to go. The implementation of the infrastructure itself will create jobs, but after the necessary improvements are made, Spring Valley will still be in a position to quickly and positively affect the local job market. By approving their proposal, you can ensure Eagle will lead the way in recovery of our local economy. Utilizing tools like the CID just makes good business sense and I ask that you please lend your support to the Spring Valley proposal. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, ADA COUNTY ASSOCIATION REALTORS`' November 17, 2011 Mayor Reynolds and Eagle City Council Members Eagle City Hall 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 RE: M3/Spring Valley Community Infrastructure District Petition Dear Mayor Reynolds and Councilmen Semanko, Huffaker, Shoushtarian and Grasser: I am writing on behalf of the Ada County Association of REALTORS® (ACAR) in support of the M3/Spring Valley petition to form a Community Infrastructure District (CID). REALTORS® advocated for the CID legislation and support this application. In creating a CID now, M3/Spring Valley, in partnership with the City of Eagle, will be intelligently planning for growth and ensuring Eagle maintains high quality of life standards for the community. Related to current economic conditions, there are a number of factors to illustrate the housing market is recovering. According to our most recent MLS data there is 5 months of housing inventory currently on hand in Eagle, historically this number defines a "seller's market". These are the lowest numbers years, which is positive news for the housing sector and illustrates there will be demand for new housing. Obviously a number of challenges exist, but as the economy continues to improve there will be increased demand for housing and the planning for Spring Valley infrastructure now is critical. Ultimately housing creates jobs, which our community needs for a genuine, complete recovery. In fact, according to the National Association of REALTORS®, for every two new houses sold, a job is created. While in part theoretical, there's no denying that just a few new houses being built can have a significant economic impact for Eagle. Again, as the applicant has met the requirements Idaho Code 50-3101, we would ask the City of Eagle to grant the application to form a CID. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Miguel Legarreta, of my staff, at 208-947-7226. Sincerely, Laurie Barrera, President The Ada County Association of REALTORS® 9550 W. Bethel Court Boise, Idaho 83709 Mayor Jim Reynolds City of Eagle 66o E Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 Dear Mayor Reynolds, 1/- /7-/( November 17th, zoii I am writing to you, on behalf of the Central Valley Expressway Coalition, to ask that the City of Eagle support the M3 request for the Spring Valley Community Infrastructure District. The focus of CVEC has been on supporting the completion of Hwy 16 from Hwy 44 all the way to I-84. The significance of this project is to provide a north -south route to move both products and people in support of our economy. The Spring Valley community will bring people to Eagle and the Valley that will, in turn, create more jobs and economic growth. The Central Valley Expressway is more than just a road, it is an economic corridor that can provide the needed space for companies to locate that will have high speed access to 1-84 which will connect them to both the interstate, local rail connectors and the Boise Airport. The one thing that we hear over and over from companies that are looking at the Valley is the need for good transportation and highly skilled employees. Spring Valley will attract these skilled employees to Idaho to fill the jobs that we are not able to at this time. While our local colleges are working hard to fill gaps, it is very clear that in the near term we need to bring skilled employees to Idaho and we need to offer them communities like Spring Valley. M3 has already made a very large investment in the community. We are looking forward to them moving ahead with their project and creating a powerful revenue stream for not only the City of Eagle but also the Boise Valley. Our region is poised to lead the way and provide a bridge to economic recovery for the entire state of Idaho. The CID simply represents the next step of development as Spring Valley moves forward. As Co -Chair of the Central Valley Expressway Coalition and an avid supporter of the local business community, I ask that you support the CID for Spring Valley. Co -Chairman, Central Valley Expressway Coalition P.O. Box 1865 Eagle, Idaho 83616 info@centralvalleyexpressway.com Cc //-/ z—// M3/Spring Valley Community Infrastructure District Public Comment Form The following Information must be provided for your testimony to be included in the record of the hearing (please print): P- 6 / 9 ,6 Name: P,70', -Ci ; 5 0, Signatur � Date: / Address: /taiO'/9L-/-5 .L A 5c33a3 /7 / // glz_ aiLdv�r2e , 7/79v/ pf 17/ 1 / /7, ...where world-class innovation means business... Mayor Reynolds and Eagle City Councilmen, Cc //47 --if ESTech Eagle -Emmett -Star Technology Corridor P.O. Box 2048 Eagle, Idaho 83616 17 November 2011 As Chairman of the Board of ESTech: The Eagle -Emmett -Star Technology Corridor, I would like to express our support for the Community Infrastructure District proposed by M3 Companies for Spring Valley. As part of the ESTech mission statement, we seek to make our area more attractive to future companies and residents by vitalizing our regional economy and, in turn, the State of Idaho. The Spring Valley community's proposed CID will serve that mission in two ways - first, the CID will allow the infrastructure necessary for the Spring Valley development to be put into place, which will foster jobs in our local economy. Secondly, the needed infrastructure, once in place, will help to make our local community more attractive to the powerful, technology based companies that the ESTech Corridor seeks to attract. These companies choose communities that are receptive to the needs of not only their residents, but also future residents. We urge you to approve the formation of the Spring Valley CID to help accomplish these goals. A strong Spring Valley is a strong Eagle, Idaho. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Pled/47k Lloyd Mahaffey Chairman, ESTech Board of Directors 3 HORSE RANCH VINEYARDS" November 15, 2011 Mayor Jim Reynolds Eagle City Councilmen Eagle City Hall 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 Mayor Reynolds, The future of the Eagle Foothills as an internationally accepted wine region is dependent upon the creation of infrastructure suited to that recognition. To this effect and as neighbors of the Spring Valley community in the Eagle Foothills, we respectfully request that you approve the M3 request to form a CID or Community Infrastructure District. We've learned from the recent past that job growth is the only engine capable of prolonged community success. For example, the benefits accrued by the State of Washington as a recognized wine region for the past two decades are evidenced by the enormous effect of jobs, taxes, tourism and stable economic development. We recognize the importance of sustainability, whether in the form of the farming practices utilized by our vineyard or in the use of economic tools that allow growth to pay for itself, as with the CID. We wholeheartedly support the M3 effort to ensure that the necessary infrastructure in their development is paid for by those who will be the beneficiaries. In forming this district. M3 is protecting and benefiting all Eagle residents, those within and outside city limits. Please extend your approval to the CID that they propose and allow future growth in our community to sustain itself. Regards, Gary and Martha Cunningham 3 Horse Ranch Vineyards 5900 Pearl Road Eagle, ID 83616 208-863-6561 CW1 College of Western Idaho Business Partnerships[ Norkforce Development 485 E Riverside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 Mail Stop 4500 P.O Box 3010 Nampa, Idaho 83653 phone 208 562 3000 fax 1.888.562.3216 www cwidaho cc www cwidaho cc/bp //-/7---/( Thursday, November 17, 2011 P.O. Box 1520 660 E Civic Lane Eagle, Idaho 83616 Mayor Jim Reynolds: Thank you for your request for a workforce development assessment. Based on the information given to us on the employment and training needs of the Spring Valley Development, we feel the opportunity for employment and training is fantastic. To answer your question about ability of the College of Western Idaho to be able to support the anticipated workforce needs is yes we can! The 5,700 hundred anticipated jobs is a huge challenge to deliver but we feel the workforce in the valley can fill the needed jobs. We currently have training classes in all phases of the construction industry. This would include the need for 1,165 commercial and infrastructure jobs, as well as the 2,072 residential construction jobs. We have Apprenticeship Programs that are training tomorrows' Journeyman. We have in place many educational programs to support the K16 initiative and would be able to expand as the project develops. The viticulture, horticulture, equestrian and hospitality educational needs can be met. They will need to be expanded as the project matures. We have a very vibrant health occupational training program in all the health fields. We would be able to service the onsite health clinics and medical requirements. Our paramedic training program would be a huge asset to this community. We would plan to work closely with the developers and home owners to anticipate both short-term and long-term educational training needs. In summary, the workforce requirements for the Spring Valley Development project are huge. We at the College of Western Idaho have in place the needed educational support to provide the initial workforce needs and the ongoing educational requirements. We are in full support of companies opening up new jobs and will provide all the necessary training to develop a highly skilled workforce. The estimated 3,200 initial jobs and then 2,500 permanent jobs is a massive boost to the economy and we would plan to be a partner in that success. If you need any further details from us, please advise. Scott Fenwick Director Business Partnerships1JWorkforce Development College of Western Idaho 485 East Riverside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 Office: 208.562.2710 Cell: 208.866.2077 Email: scottfenwick@cwidaho.cc CITY OF EAGLE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING M3/SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUTURE DISTICT NOVEMBER 17, 2012 Comments by: Steve Purvis I AM HERE TONIGHT TO FOLLOW UP ON THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL DURING THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ADDITONAL INFORMATION. SINCE THAT TIME I HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH M3/SPRING VALLEY REPRESENTATIVE JEREMY PISCA; BOISE CITY COUNCIL PERSON ELAINE CLEGG; AND HARRIS RANCH OWNER REPRESENTATIVE DOUG FOWLER. I HAVE ALSO TALKED WITH BOISE CITY CIVIL ATTORNEY AMANDA HORTON AND CITY OUTSIDE BOND COUNCIL RICK SKINNER, BOTH OF WHOM WERE INVOLVED WITH THE HARRIS RANCH CID. I DID THIS TO OBTAIN ANSWERS AND CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE EXPERTS AND CURRENT USERS OF THE STATUTE IN ORDER TO MAKE MY COMMENTS HERE MORE REVELANT AND CONSTRUCTIVE. I HAVE ELIMINATED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS/CONCERNS DUE TO THESE DISCUSSIONS. AT THE END OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, I CONCLUDED THAT: A. THE PROCESS WAS COMPLICATED AND TIME CONSUMING FOR BOTH THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE BOND OFFERING; B. IT IS A VERY EXPENSIVE PIECE OF DEBT AT 9% ( ALMOST 3 TIMES THE INTEREST RATE FOR A 30 -YEAR TREASURY BILL); C. IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT PIECE OF DEBT TO SELL; AND D. ALMOST EVERY PERSON QUESTIONED WHETHER THEY WOULD EVER DO ANOTHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OFFERING. I HAVE ALSO OBTAINED ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE HARRIS RANCH DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE LIMITED OFFERING MEMORANDUM FOR THE HARRIS RANCH SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEBT, THE LATTER OF WHICH ! HAVE BROUGHT IN HARD COPY FOR A BIT OF SHOW AND TELL. I DID THIS IS IN ORDER TO: A. GET A FEEL FOR THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF A DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ITS SUBSEQUENT OFFERING MEMORANDUM. B. REVIEW THAT THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE TO YOU AT THE LAST MEETING CONTINUE TO BE VALID. AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND REVIEWS, I HAVE COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: • FIRST, YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TO UNDERTAKE A HUGE AND COMPLICATED TASK THAT DEMANDS SIGNIFICANT SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE, SKILL SETS AND DUE DILIGENCE. • SECOND, MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE POINTS I MADE DURING EARLIER TESTAMONY WERE ALL VALIDATED, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO ITEMS THAT RESTRICT THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT BOARD. • THIRD, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO APPROVE THIS CID BECAUSE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE NOT YET BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN THE CURRENT AND NEAR-TERM MARKET ENVIRONMENT. 1. THE M3/SPRING VALLEY PROJECT IS COMPLETELY FORECAST - DEPENDENT AT THIS TIME AND REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT REVIEW AS TO ITS VIABILITY AS A PROJECT. 2. DURING AND AFTER BUILD -OUT, THE PROJECT MUST BE ABLE TO GENERATE THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE SERVICES THAT PUBLIC ENTITIES WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WITHOUT SUBSIDY BY THE PUBLIC ENTITIES OR THEIR CONSTITUENTS. 3. M3/SPRING VALLEY MUST BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND IRREVOCABLE COMMITMENTS THAT ARE SUFFICIENT TO FINANCE THE COMPLETE PROJECT 4. THE DISTRICT WILL BE ABLE TO SELL THE INTENDED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT. THEREFORE, M3/SRING VALLEY WILL NEED TO RELY ON FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES TO BUILD THE NECESSARY PUBLIC AND PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CID AND GO DEBT CAN BE SOLD. • FOURTH, I GOT ANOTHER LESSON IN "LEGALESE FOR BONDS" THAT ELIMINATED OR FOCUSED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, AND SUGGESTIONS. MOST OF MY SUGGESTIONS RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO RESOLUTION 11 -28D -THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -AND ARE TOO DETAILED FOR TESTAMONY. THEY ARE ATTACHED TO YOUR COPIES FOR YOUR USE. PRIOR TO ANY MOTION TO APPROVE THE CID I RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING: 1. REQUIRE M3/SPRING VALLEY TO UPDATE ITS "DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST/ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS" AND HAVE THE UPDATED INFORMATION REVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY. 2. OBTAIN DOCUMENTATION OF FINANCING FROM M3/SPRING VALLEY. 3. ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME TO PASS IN ORDER TO VALIDATE THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE FORECAST AND TO ENSURE THAT THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT THE SALE OF BONDS. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THIS SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. SUGGESTIONS FROM STEVE PURVIS 1. CONSIDER DESIGNATING YOUR FINANCIAL PERSON AS THE DISTRICT CLERK.THIS WILL PUT YOUR BEST FINANCIAL PERSON DIRECTLY INTO THE RESPONSIBILITY LOOP. 2. CONSIDER ADDING COST ALLOCATION REVIEWS AND TESTING OF COST ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES AND ACCUMULATION INTO THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT CLERK AND ENGINEER. 3. PROVIDE FOR THE DISTRICT'S ABILITY TO REVIEW AND TEST COST ALLOCATION AND COST ACCUMULATION AT ALL LEVELS (OWNER, CONTRACTOR, SUB -CONTRACTOR, ETC.) 4. SECTIONS 3.2(a)(vii)AND 4.2(b)(7) PROVIDE FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF DEDICATION,CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE. CONSIDER DETERMINING A REASONABLE START DATE FOR AN EXPENDITURE. SUCH AS: THE DATE OF THE LAST MAJOR PAYMENT ON THE COST SEGMENT. 5. SECTIONS 6.3(a) AND 6.4(a) LAST SENTENCE. I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANT UNTIL IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BY AN ATTORNEY. I STILL FIND IT CONFUSING. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU REVISE THE WORDING TO SAY— ONLY THE OWNER AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE AFFILIATES SHALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUEST THE ISSUANCE OF G.O.BONDS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE OWNER AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE AFFILITATES HOLDS FEE TITLE TO LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT. 6. SECTION 6.3(c) LIMIT ON INDEBTEDNESS — IT REFERENCES USING THE ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF DEBT THAT CAN BE ISSUED. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSED VALUE IS MAINTAINED IN REAL TIME AND THE REFERENCE SHOULD BE TO THE VALUE AS OF THE PREVIOUS DECEMBER. 7. SECTION 10.11 NOTICE - REPLACE CITY MANAGER WITH DISTRICT MANAGER. 8. IF APPLICABLE, CONSIDER ADDING A SECTION FOR CONSENT. IN THE HARRIS RANCH DOCUMENT THOSE PERSONS WHO HOLD A SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY GAVE THEIR CONSENT TO/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CO -EXISTENT LIEN ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS WOULD CREATE. 9. EXHIBIT 3 DISCLOSURE - CONSIDER ADDING AN ADDITIONAL FOOTNOTE TO THE ESTIMATED HOME PRICE COLUMN TO REFLECT THAT THE TAX IMPACT CALCULATION TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE HOME OWNERS EXEMPTION. 10.PRIOR TO AUTHORIZING FINANCING OF A COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE SEGMENT, OBTAIN PRELIMINARY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS FROM THE ENTITY(IES) THAT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OWNERSHIP AND ONGOING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE RELATED COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE SEGMENT. STATE OF IDAHO County of Ada STATE OF IDAHO County of Ada SS. We, the commissioners of the county and state aforesaid, acting as a Board of Canvassers of Election, do hereby state that the attached is a true and complete abstract of all votes cast within this county at the EAGLE CITY MUNICIPAL ELECTION, held November 8, 2011, as shown by the records now on file in the County Clerk's Office. ATTEST: Clerkv } SS. Rick' 'zagui o? A;r2.1.Aii..iice- ron Mlimaan Vernon L. BOferfeldt County Board of Canvassers I, Christopher D. Rich, County Clerk of said county and state; do hereby certify that the attached is a full, true and complete copy of the abstract of votes cast as shown by the record of the Board of Canvassers filed in my office this 15th day of November, 2011. ounty Clerk Phone: (2081287-6860 STATE OF IDAHO County of Ada ADA.COUNTY ELECTIONS 400 N Benjamin Lane Suite #100, Boise ID 83704 Fax: (208) 287-6939 E-mail: Elections na adaweb.net I, Christopher D. Rich, County Clerk of said county and state, do hereby certify that the attached is a full, true and complete copy of the abstract of votes for the candidates therein named and/or the questions as they appeared on the election ballot on November 8, 2011 for EAGLE CITY as shown by the record of the Board of Canvassers filed in my office this 15th day of November, 2011. -Coun rk tY� Democracy in Action! EAGLE RUN DATE:11/14/11 11:45 AM PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 11) . . REGISTERED VOTERS - EAGLE CITY . BALLOTS CAST - EAGLE CITY . . VOTER TURNOUT - EAGLE CITY. . ADA COUNTY ELECTIONS SPECIAL ELECTION NOV 2011 NOVEMBER 8, 2011 VOTES PERCENT 11 100.00 11,762 3,407 28.97 EAGLE MAYOR Jim Reynolds . 2,636 77.94 Norm Semanko . 746 22.06 EAGLE CITY COUNCIL Vote for 2 Mark L. Butler. . 1,615 25.82 Jerry Darnall . . . 142 2.27 Mary Defayette. . 1,187 18.98 Jeff Kunz . . . . 433 6.92 Jeff Laughlin . . 466 7.45 Eric Pedersen . . 442 7.07 Al Shoushtarian . . . 965 15.43 Gary W. Tanner. . 1,005 16.07 Beautify Downtown Eagle Committee Proposed Plant Material for 11 E. State Street Project: Common Name Daffodil Tulip Crocus Hyacinth Yarrow Artemisia (Silvermound) Kinnickinnick Penstemon Sulphur Buckwheat Geranium/Cranesbill Daylilly Coneflower Russian Sage Dianthus Sedum Ice Plant (succulent) Boltonia Dwarf Butterfly Bush Caryopteris Black-eyed Susan Ornamental Grasses Blue Oat Grass Blue Fescue Dwarf Fountain Grass Feather Reed Grass Little Bunny/Little Kitten Idaho Fescue Botanical Name Perennial/Annual Height # Narcissus sp. Bulb 40 Tulipa sp. Bulb 40 Crocus sp. Bulb 20 Hyacinthus sp. Bulb 20 Achillea millefolium Perennial 12-14" 10 Artemisia schmidliana Nana' Perennial 3-6" 5 Arctosiaphylos uva urs/ Perennial 2" 15-20 Massachusetts' Penstemon sp. Erigonum umbellatum Pelargonium sp. Hemerocallis sp. Echinacea sp. Perovskia alriplicifolia Dianthus sp. Sedum sp. Delosperma cooper/ Bolionia asteroides Buddleia davidii nanhoensis Caryopterisx clandonenis Rudbeckia lrilof a Elijah Blue (Hameln) Karl Foerster (to screen TB) Festuca idahohensis Perennials varies 20 Perennial 3-6" 5 Perennial 4-5" 5 Perennial 6-18" 15 Perennial 24-48" 3 Perennial 36" 5 Perennial 18" 5 Perennial 2" -12" 20 Perennial 2" 5 Perennial 48" 3 Perennial 4'-5' 3 Perennial 2'-3' 5 Perennial 2'-3' 3 2' 6 2' 6 3' 6 3'- 4' 5 1'-2' 10 2' 3 The above list of plant material is subject to availability and budget constraints. We reserve the right to substitute with appropriate plant. We will adhere to ACHD height and visibility guidelines set forth in the right of way regulations. We will make every effort to use drought tolerant plant material and natives in order to preserve our natural resources (water) and use local businesses for the procurement of plant material and supplies. The purpose of this project is to Beautify Downtown Eagle and support local businesses. 17Nov2011 City of Eagle Date Check No Payee 11/03/2011 5787 Staples 11/09/2011 5789 Idaho Power Co -Processing Ctr Total 5789 11/09/2011 5790 Integra Telecom 11/09/2011 5791 Verizon Wireless Total 5791 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 Total 5794 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 Total 5797 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 Total 5800 5792 Ada Community Library 5793 Alked Waste Services #884 5794 Amazon Credit Plan 5795 AT&T 5796 Audiogo 5797 Baldwin & Associates, Inc 5798 Boise Public Library 5799 Canon Financial Services Inc 5800 Center Point Large Pnnt 11/15/2011 5801 CenturyLink -29040 Total 5801 11/15/2011 5802 11/15/2011 5803 11/15/2011 5804 11/15/2011 5805 11/15/2011 5806 11/15/2011 5807 11/15/2011 5808 Dana Chamberlain Discount Paper Products Inc Eagle Mini Storage Eagle Sewer District Eagle Water Co Fishers Document Svc -PA Fishers Document Systems M = Manual Check, V = Void Check Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Date(s)- 11/02/2011-11/16/2011 Seq GL Acct No 1 01-0465-03-00 1 15-0449-06-00 1 15-0441-06-00 1 15-0455-06-00 1 15-0452-06-00 1 15-0441-06-00 1 15-0454-06-00 1 15-0441-06-00 1 01-0413-19-00 1 11-0413-19-00 2 13-0413-19-00 3 15-0413-19-00 4 60-0434-19-00 GL Acct Title CAPITAL EXPEND/CITY HALL EQUIP UTILITIES STREET LIGHTS -UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES STREET LIGHTS -UTILITIES UTILITIES STREET LIGHTS -UTILITIES TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 1 06-0461-41-00 LIBRARY/DONATIONS-GRANTS-GIFTS 1 06-0461-52-00 LIBRARY/UTILITIES 1 06-0461-41-00 LIBRARY/DONATIONS-GRANTS-GIFTS 2 06.0461-65-00 LIBRARY/BOOKS - ADULT & CHILD 1 06-0461-52-00 1 06-0461-30-00 1 06-0461-31-00 1 06-0461-31-00 1 06-0461-31-00 1 06-0461-31-00 1 06-0461-31-00 06-0461-31-00 LIBRARY/UTILITIES LIBRARY/PROGRAMS-AUDIOVISUAL LIBRARY/OFFICE SUPPLIES LIBRARY/OFFICE SUPPLIES LIBRARY/OFFICE SUPPLIES LIBRARY/OFFICE SUPPLIES LIBRARY/OFFICE SUPPLIES LIBRARY/OFFICE SUPPLIES 06-0461-69-01 LIBRARY/COURIER 06-0461-58-00 LIBRARY/MTNC-EQUIPMENT 06-0461-65-00 LIBRARY/BOOKS - ADULT & CHILD 06-0461-65-00 LIBRARY/BOOKS - ADULT & CHILD 1 06-0461-52-00 LIBRARY/UTILITIES 1 06-0461-52-00 LIBRARY/UTILITIES 2 06-0461-51-02 LIBRARY/INTERNET SERVICE 1 06-0461-47-00 1 06-0461-58-00 1 06-0461-60-00 1 06-0461-52-00 1 06-0461-52-00 1 06-0461-58-00 1 06-0461-58-00 LIBRARY/TRAVEL & MEETINGS LIBRARY/MTNC-EQUIPMENT STORAGE FEES LIBRARY/UTILITIES LIBRARY/UTILITIES LIBRARY/MTNC-EQUIPMENT LIBRARY/MTNC-EQUIPMENT //_/-7---// Page 1 Nov 16.2011 11 13am Seq Amount Cneck Amount 317.99 194 16 30 89 10.40 303 61 4 22 5 23 108 81 657 32 306 40 53 37 74 80 43 70 293 02 464 89 317 99 657 32 306 40 464.89 13.00 1300 140 67 140 67 504.88 1,91564 2.42052 2.420.52 155 68 B 00 126 22 1436 35 57 86 25 1383 63 65 339 88 155.68 8.00 339 88 803.81 803.81 17088 17088 4254 41 34 83 88 8388 1 31 184 80 197 95 384 06 384 06 39 02 39 02 75 06 7506 8300 8300 180.00 18000 50 39 50 39 61 00 61 00 12076 City of Eagle Date Check No Payee Total 5808 11/152011 5809 Gaylord Bros. Total 5809 11115/2011 11/15/2011 11115/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/152011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/152011 11/15/2011 Total 5819 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/15/2011 11/16/2011 11/162011 11/182011 11/162011 11/162011 5810 Highsmith Inc 5811 IBF Group 5812 Idaho Genealogical Society 5613 Idaho Power Co. -Processing Ctr 5814 Ingram Book Company 5815 intermountain Gas Company 5816 Jeanie Comerford 5817 Kent Adhesive Products 5818 Midwest Tape 5819 Petty Cash -Library 5820 Recorded Books Ltc 5821 Unique Management Services Inc 5822 Western Idaho Cabinets Inc 5871 A Busy Bee Lock 8 Key 5872 A Company, Inc. 5873 Ada County Highway Drstnct 5874 Ada County Sheriffs Dept 5875 Allied Waste Services #884 Seq 1 1 1 Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Date(s): 11/02/2011 -11/1612011 GL Acct No GL Acct Title 06-0461-58-00 LIBRARYIMTNC-EQUIPMENT 06-0461-32-00 LIBRARY/SPECIAL DEPTMNTL SUPP. 06-0481-32-00 LIBRARY/SPECIAL DEPTMNTL SUPP. 1 06-0461-32-00 1 06-0461-58-00 1 06-0461-48-01 1 06-0461-52-00 1 06-0461.65-00 1 06-0481-52-00 1 06-0461-47-00 1 08-0461-32.00 1 06-0481-30-00 1 06-0461-30-01 2 06-0461-31-00 3 06-0461-32-00 4 06-0461-33-00 5 06-0461-37-00 6 06.0461-50-02 1 06-0461-30-00 1 06-0461-58-03 1 06-0461-74.00 1 15-044401-00 1 15-0448-06-00 1 01-0203-00-00 1 01-0416-09-00 1 01-0413-16.00 1 15-0452-06-00 2 15-0449-06-00 1 15-041404-00 1 15-0454.06-00 LIBRARYISPECIAL DEPTMNTL SUPP LIBRARYIMTNC-EQUIPMENT LIBRARY/PERIODICALS LIBRARY/UTILITIES LIBRARY/BOOKS - ADULT 8 CHILD LIBRARY/UTILITIES LIBRARY/TRAVEL & MEETINGS LIBRARY/SPECIAL DEPTMNTL SUPP. LIBRARY/PROGRAMS-AUDIOVISUAL CHILDRENS PROGRAMING LIBRARY/OFFICE SUPPLIES LIBRARY/SPECIAL DEPTMNTL SUPP. LIBRARY- ADMIN EXPENSE LIBRARY/POSTAGE LIBRARY/SUPPLIES-BUILDING LIBRARY/PROGRAMS-AUDIOVISUAL LIBRARY/DEBT-COLLECT LIBRARY/CAPITAL - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE & REPAIR UTILITIES ACCTS PAYABLE-ACHD IMPACT FEES LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT UTILITIES/NEW CITY HALL UTILITIES UTILITIES AWIN MGMT (BFI) EDUCATION SRVS UTILITIES Total 5875 11/16/2011 5878 Alloway Commerical Lightning 1 15-0444-01-00 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 1 15-0444-01-00 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR Total 5876 11/1612011 5877 Alsco 1 15-0444-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 1 15-0442-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 1 15-0442-03-00 CUSTODIAL SERVICES Total 5877 11/162011 5878 Analytical Laboratories, tnc 1 1 M = Manual Check, V a Void Check 60-043556-00 TESTING -WKLY. MO, QTR. ANNUAL 60-0435-56-00 TESTING -WKLY, MO. QTR, ANNUAL Page 2 Nov 16. 2011 11 13am Seq Amount Check Amount 303 47 424 23 424 23 33.35 21568 249.03 249 03 190 46 190 46 53 00 5300 30 00 30 00 847 07 847 07 2.85460 2,854 60 239.71 239 71 65.28 65.28 755.48 755.48 24.99 24.99 124.54 14.97 3.58 38.56 14.24 56.02 251.91 251.91 6.95 6.95 107.40 107.40 1,899.75 1,899.75 65.00 65.00 60.66 60.66 18,850.00 18,850.00 112,586.43 112,586.43 149.80 206.18 206.18 60.84 100.73 743.73 743.73 26.40 52.80 79.20 79.20 26.92 51.86 51.86 130.64 130.64 150.00 15.00 165.00 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page 3 Nov 16, 2011 11 13am Check Issue Date(s): 1110212011-1111612011 Date Check No Payee Seq GL Act No GL Acct Title Seq Amount Check Amount Total 5878 165.00 11/16/2011 5879 Association Of Idaho Cities 1 12-0413-14-00 PROFESSIONAL DUES 135.00 2 60-0434-23-00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 45.00 180 00 Total 5879 180.00 11/16/2011 5880 Baldwin & Associates, Inc. 1 01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES 25.76 1 01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES 15.77 1 01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES 39.90 8143 Total 5880 81.43 11/16/2011 5881 Billing Document Speaafists 1 60-0434-47-00 BILLING SERVICES 830.66 83066 11/16/2011 5882 Boise Office Equipment 1 01-0413-23-00 MTNC-REPAIRIOFFICE EQUIP/FURN 65.33 85.33 11/16/2011 5883 Butte Fence. Inc. 1 01-0413-25-00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,138.46 3,138.46 11/16/2011 5884 Ciearwire 1 60-0434-19-00 TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS 45.29 45.29 11/16/2011 5885 De Lage Landen Financial Svc 1 01-0416-24-00 EQUIPMENT LEASING 1.103.97 1,103.97 11/16/2011 5886 DEO 1 60-0434-53-01 PUBLIC WATER DRINKING FEES 285.00 1 60-0434-53-01 PUBLIC WATER DRINKING FEES 5,376.00 5,661.00 Total 5886 5,661.00 11/16/2011 5887 DigLine 1 60-0434-44-00 CONTRACT SERVICES INSPECTIONS 58.40 58.40 11/16/2011 5888 DMH Enterprises 1 13-0416-09-00 PLUMBING INSPECTIONS 5.228.91 5,228.91 11/16/2011 5889 Don Asiett's Cleaning Center 1 15-0437-26-00 PAPER PRODUCTS 518.72 518.72 11/16/2011 5890 Drugfree Idaho 1 08-0217-07-00 LIBRARY HEALTH INSURANCE 31.68 31.68 11/1612011 5891 Eagle Sensor Citizens, Inc 1 01-0416-10-00 SR CENTER VAN AGREEMENT 1,216.67 1,216.67 11/16/2011 5892 Eagle Sewer District 1 01.0413-16-00 UTILITIES/NEW CITY HALL 120.00 1 15-0449-06-00 UTILITIES 30.00 1 07-0462-52-00 MUSEUM UTILITIES 30.00 1 15-0450-06-00 UTILITIES 15.00 2 15-0452-06-00 UTIUTIES 15.00 21000 Total 5892 210.00 11/16/2011 5893 Information Only Check 01-0202-00-00 11/16/2011 5894 Eagle Water Co. 1 01-0413-16-00 UTILITIES/NEW CITY HALL 18.40 1 15-0446-06-00 UTILITIES 51.32 1 15-0455-06-00 UTILITIES 22.82 1 15-0455-06-00 UTILITIES 169.37 1 15-0455-06-00 UTILITIES 152.23 1 15.0447-06-00 UTILITIES 62.66 1 15-0449-06-00 UTILITIES 53 80 1 15.0449-06-00 UTILITIES 5417 1 15-0450-08-00 UTILITIES 10 85 1 15-0452-06-00 UTILITIES 110.31 1 15-0452-06-00 UTILITIES 53.80 1 07-0462-52-00 MUSEUM UTILITIES 8.25 1 15-0453-06-00 UTILITIES 68.75 1 15-0455-06-00 UTILITIES 112.13 1 15-0455-08-00 UTILITIES 13.46 1 15-0454-06-00 UTILITIES 20.09 1 15-0448-06-00 UTILITIES 54.70 1 15-0455-06-00 UTILITIES 139.16 1.176 27 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check V City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Date(s): 11/02/2011 - 1111612011 Date Check No Payee Seq GL Acct No GL Acct Title Seq Amount Check Amount Page 4 Nov 16, 2011 11 13am Total 5894 1,176.27 11/162011 5895 Evan's Building Center 1 15-0445-01-00 MAINTENANCE 3 REPAIR 4.04 1 15-0454-05-00 MTNC & RPR-EOUIP & STRUCTURES 7.91 1 15-0444-01.00 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 32.69 1 15-0444-01-00 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 2.32 1 15-0449-01-00 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR GROUNDS 21.60 1 15-0437-23-00 MISCELLANEOUS 30.81 1 60-0434-26-00 MISCELLANEOUS 72.85 172 22 Total 5895 172.22 11/162011 5896 HD Supply Waterworks. Inc. 1 60-0438-08-00 CAPITAL METER SETS 6,500.00 6,500 00 11/16/2011 5897 Holladay Engineering Co 1 08-0439-01-00 MASTER PLAN 2,722.87 1 01-0413-31-00 ENGINEERING FEE/DEVELOPER CHGS 180.00 1 01-0413-31-00 ENGINEERING FEE/DEVELOPER CHGS 1,988.00 1 01-0413-31-00 ENGINEERING FEE/DEVELOPER CHGS 1,740.00 1 60-0434-42-00 WATER/ENGINEERING 12,952.80 1 01-0413-31-00 ENGINEERING FEE/DEVELOPER CHGS 610.00 20,193.67 Total 5897 20.193.67 11116/2011 5898 Home Depot Credit Services 1 15-0437-23-00 MISCELLANEOUS 56.44 1 15-0453-05-00 MTNC & RPR -EQUIP & STRUCTURES 104.37 1 15-0445-01-00 MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 43.91 1 60-0434-58-00 WATER REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 66.11 1 60-0434-26-00 MISCELLANEOUS 31.94 1 60-0434-26-00 MISCELLANEOUS 23.76 1 60-0434-26-00 MISCELLANEOUS 21.43 1 60-0434-26-00 MISCELLANEOUS 19.97 1 15-0437-23-00 MISCELLANEOUS 1.747.94 1 15-0465-08-00 VEHICLE PURCHASE 344.00 2,459.87 Total 5898 2,459.87 11/162011 5899 Horizon 1 60-0434-26-00 MISCELLANEOUS 30.69 30.69 11/162011 5900 IBF Group 1 01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES 154.76 154.76 11/162011 5901 Idaho Chapter PRIMA 1 12-0413-12-00 PERSONNEL TRAINING 35.00 1 12-0413-12-00 PERSONNEL TRAINING 35.00 70.00 Total 5901 70.00 111162011 5902 Idaho Correctional Industnes 1 01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES 142.50 142.50 11/1612011 5903 Idaho Humane Society, Inc. 1 01-0416-06-00 IDAHO HUMANE SOCIETY 3,522.00 3,522.00 11/162011 5904 Idaho Power Co. -Processing Ctr 1 15-0441-06-00 STREET LIGHTS -UTILITIES 9.03 1 60-0434-80-00 POWER 689.11 1 60-0434-60-00 POWER 501.92 1 15-0441-06-00 STREET LIGHTS -UTILITIES 1,537 82 2 15-0449-08-00 UTILITIES 4.23 3 15-0454-06-00 UTILITIES 61.67 4 15-0448-06-00 UTILITIES 18.55 5 15-0450-06-00 UTILITIES 50.24 6 07-0462-52-00 MUSEUM UTILITIES 72.10 7 01-0413-16-00 UTILITIES/NEW CITY HALL 542.00 1 15-0453-06-00 UTILITIES 27.89 1 15-0441-06-00 STREET LIGHTS -UTILITIES 10.03 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check City of Eagle Date Check No Total 5904 Payee 11/162011 5905 Idaho Sand & Gravel Co Total 5905 11/162011 5906 !EMC 11/162011 5907 James Reynolds 11116/2011 5908 Joan English 11/162011 5909 K&T Maintenance Total 5909 11/16/2011 5910 Kub Homes, LLC 11/16/2011 5911 Michael Echeita 11/16/2011 5912 Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke 11/16/2011 5913 Norco Inc 11/16/2011 5914 Pam Ketch 11/16/2011 5915 PSC Environmental Services 11/1612011 5916 Republic Storage 11/16/2011 5917 Rimi. Inc.- Tent' Medley Total 5917 11/162011 5918 Shred -it 11/16/2011 5919 Simplot Partners 11/16/2011 5920 Southwest Idaho Subsection 11/162011 5921 Staples Credit Plan 11/162011 5922 Summer Lawns Tree & Lawn 11/162011 5923 Summer Lawns. Inc. Total 5923 11/162011 11/162011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011 Total 5927 11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/162011 5924 Tates Rents 5925 Toepfert, Dan 5926 Treasure Valley Cottee 5927 Treasure Valley Partnership 5928 USABIueBook 5929 Valley Times 5930 West Properties, LLC M = Manual Check, V = Void Check Check Register - Transparency Version Check Issue Date(s): 11/02/2011 -11/16/2011 Seq GL Acct No 1 GL Acct Title 15-0441-06-00 STREET LIGHTS -UTILITIES 15-0454-06-00 UTILITIES 60-0434-60-00 POWER 1 08-0472-01-00 DEVELOPMENT -SPORTS COMPLEX 1 08-0472-01-00 DEVELOPMENT -SPORTS COMPLEX 1 12-0413-14-00 1 11-0413-24-00 1 60-0220-0040 1 15-0445.03.00 1 15-0444-03-00 1 15-0443-03-00 1 15-0442-03-00 1 13-0413-29-00 1 60-0434-19-00 1 01-0416-02-00 1 60-0434-26-00 1 10-0462-03-00 1 15-0414-04-00 1 01-0413-36-00 1 13-0416-11-00 1 13-0416-11-00 1 13-0416-11-00 1 01-0413-05-00 1 08-0472-01-00 1 60-0434-22-00 1 13-0413-05-00 1 15-0450-0140 1 15-0437-21-00 2 15-0437-20-00 PROFESSIONAL DUES Vehice Expense WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS CUSTODIAL SERVICES CUSTODIAL SERVICES CUSTORIAL SERVICES CUSTODIAL SERVICES BUILDING PERMIT REFUNDS TELEPHONE & COMMUNICATIONS CITY ATTORNEY MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS AWIN MGMT (BFI) EDUCATION SRVS STORAGE SHED RENTAL MECHANICAL INSPECTOR MECHANICAL INSPECTOR MECHANICAL INSPECTOR OFFICE EXPENSES DEVELOPMENT -SPORTS COMPLEX TRAINING & CERTIFICATION OFFICE EXPENSES MAINTENANCE & REPAIR GROUNDS FULL TIME GEN MTNC STAFF GENERAL MTNC PARKS -PATHWAYS 1 60-0434-58-00 WATER REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1 60-0220-00-00 WATER/SERVICE DEPOSITS 1 01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES 1 01.0413-14-00 PROFESSIONAL DUES 2 01-0413-14-00 PROFESSIONAL DUES 1 60-0434-58-00 WATER REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1 01-0413.08.00 LEGAL ADVERTISING/PUBLICATION 1 01-0413-05-00 OFFICE EXPENSES Page 5 Nov 16, 2011 11:13am Seq Amount Check Amount 4.23 42.48 832.30 4,403 60 4,403.60 5,632.68 2,978.92 8,61160 8,611.60 160.00 16000 74.60 7460 62.31 62 31 40.00 450.00 473.16 600.00 1,56316 1.563.16 150.00 150 00 52.90 52 90 21,065.39 21,065 39 51.27 5127 19.38 1938 1,334.75 1,334 75 94.00 94 00 350.17 4,989.76 376.56 5,716 49 5,716.49 57.00 57.00 816.00 816.00 200.00 200.00 42.15 42.15 119.17 119.17 5,000.00 9,527.09 14,527.09 14,527.09 41.91 41.91 47.98 47.98 126.59 126.59 2,389.00 1,041.00 3,430.00 3,430.00 783.79 783 79 236.88 23688 37.80 37 80 City of Eagle Check Register - Transparency Version Page 6 Nov 16,2011 11 13am Check Issue Date(s): 11/02/2011 -1111612011 Date Check No Payee Seq GL Acct No GL Acct Title Seq Amount Check Amount Totals: 264,074 28 264,074.28 Dated: Mayor: City Council: M = Manual Check, V = Vood Chock INTER OFFICE City of Eagle Zoning Administration 03 To: From: • File No: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Mayor Reynolds and City Council Members Michael Williams, PCED, CFM, Planner II CU -05-11 — Pet Grooming/Boarding Facility (Kennel), represented by Melinda Carlson November 17, 2011 Correspondence received from Melinda Carlson, date stamped by the City on November 16, 2011 File Page 1 of 1 K \Planning Dept\Eagle Applications1CU120111CU-05-1 I The Spoiled Dog mei .doc RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 1 6 2011 Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my loyal cu vers in attendance, and members of the community, Route to: am here before you tonight requesting approval of my Conditional use permit to operate a boarding and grooming facility located at 1752 E State street in The Eagle Industrial Center. I currently operate my grooming business out of a shop located behind my home here in Eagle. I also have been boarding dogs for my customers from my home. 1 opened my grooming business The Spoiled Dog Pet Salon in March of 2008. It began as just a simple plan to have a small business from home. 1 am a licensed hair dresser and a certified surgical technician and I needed to find a job that allowed me to work from home and be more available to my family. I planned to be the only employee with the hopes of having just enough dogs to groom to allow me to possibly quit my job at St. Lukes as a surgical technician. I could of never dreamed that my business would grow to the point it is at today. I currently employee myself and 2 other full time employees. Derek Cureton works as my full time assistant allowing me to meet the demand for my grooming services. I also employee another full time groomer, Charles Patterson. Charles began working for me last spring, and now has a full clientele as well. He began with grooming my overflow customers and by picking up the overwhelming amount of word-of-mouth business that was coming in. My grooming business is now pretty much at full capacity. As unlikely as it may seem in this economy we actually turn business away on a weekly basis. I need room to add a third groomer to meet the demand for our services. Along with my growing grooming business came the constant question of people asking me if I knew of any nice place they could board their dogs . There are not any boarding facilities located within a reasonable distance of Eagle. People need to take their dogs into Boise, Star, or even Emmett for boarding. Because 1 have a large yard, and do not live in a subdivision, I slowly started boarding dogs for my grooming customers only. As my grooming business grew, so did my boarding business. And after almost two years of trying to find the perfect location that would allow me to grow both my grooming and boarding business, yet still be in a central location for my grooming customers, I am finally here before you! The proposed location at 1752 E state street is ideal because the space is suitable for a nice, high quality grooming and boarding facility. The location is also suitable for my grooming customers who come from all directions, including Sun Valley. I also feel that my business will be a nice addition to the business district now known as "Eagle East". The proposed space is nearly 5000 square feet of indoor space with a large alley that runs along the east side of the building that will be designated as outdoor potty area. The majority of the indoor space will be dedicated as large play areas separating dogs by size and temperament. We are planning a grooming area of about 600 square feet . This will be located along the front of the building which faces East. There is more than adequate parking located in front and to the west side of the building. All of our customers pretty much just come and go after dropping off or picking up their dogs. would now like to address some of the issues that came up at planning and zoning commission meeting. Oral testimony was given by the property owner of 545 S Conover St. This property is a rental, and the residents were not in attendance. Testimony was alsogiven by the owner and resident of 485 S Conover St. One of the most difficult issues that I have had to take into consideration in choosing a location for my facility has been the proximity to residential areas. Especially given the fact that I needed to keep my grooming business located within the Eagle area. My greatest concern is for the owners/residents of 585 S Conover, they are in the closest proximity to the proposed location. would like to point out that Andon Plastics building which have leased was built in 1991. At that time I imagine this location was a somewhat rural location in Eagle. It was at that time a designated Industrial/commercial location. Using the Ada County assessors web site I was able to establish that the above mentioned properties were not yet present based on the manufacturing date of the mobile home located on each property. With the exception of 585 S Conover, the manufacturing date was listed as 1979. Ido not know the date the home was located to this address. Given that, 1 believe that these home owners were aware of the Industrial nature of the location next to them when these homes were put on the adjoining property. Even with that stated 1 absolutely appreciate their concerns, and want nothing more than to assure them that 1 want to do my best to abide by the conditions set by the council. I am a willing and open business owner with the best of intentions. will be very present at my business location, and able to address any issues should they even arise. I would now like to address each site specific condition of approval recommended by the commission. 1) Pet grooming and boarding are the only planned use for this permit. 2) 3) Call Mike Williams 4) I have a well defined plan for dealing with POOP and the odors that arise from POOP and urine. Poop will be immediately picked up and deposited into a lined garbage can with a tight fitting lid. At the end of each day, the bag will be tightly closed and sealed and deposited into a larger lined, and lidded garbage can. This larger garbage can will be removed from the location at least twice, possibly three times weekly during the warmer months, and one to two times during the colder months. We will take to POOP bags to the landfill, or have a POOP removal service dispose of the bags of POOP for us. I have found some biodegradable, earth friendly bags to use. I will eliminating odor using two different products. Both products are safe and environmentally friendly. Each product works by using a natural bacteria blend that consumes the protein in urine and poop, therefore eliminating odor and any food source for flies. Indoors when accidents happen we will be using a liquid product called Kennel Fresh. 1 have used this product for several years in my grooming shop and home, and it works well. We will also be installing industrial type air cleaners Outdoors we will be using a powdered formula with 10 times the strength of the liquid. It will be sprinkled into the pea gravel in the potty area so that it will begin working immediately as the urine hit's the ground. With diligence on all employees part, I do not foresee any issue with odor. 5) Dogs will not be left unattended in the outdoor potty area. Simple as that. 6) I am happy with the maximum of 24 boarding dogs on site being a starting point with getting approval for my business. would like to ask the Mayor and members of the council to be open to raising that amount to a maximum of 32 dogs in time if no problems arise. This number is important for my business to be profitable and meet demand. Say in one year? 1 would also like to ask The Mayor and members of the Council to consider removing the 8 dog limit of grooming dogs on premise at any given time. Grooming dogs are kept separately from boarding dogs. Dogs being groomed are usually on premise for two -three hours. Dog grooming is not something that I need to go through the conditional use permit process for , therefore I do not see the need for a limit set on grooming dogs. I would appreciate your careful consideration. 7) The commission recommended a limit of no more than 6 dogs in the outside potty areas at one time. I understand their reasoning, but 1 would like to ask for some amendments to that recommendation. Our outdoor areas will be fenced and well disguised from the pubic eye. This will also help in decreasing barking issues at all times. I would like to ask for lenience just first thing in the morning . I would like to be able to let most, if not all of the dogs out to relieve themselves. I know that by limiting dogs out in the morning will actually increase barking just because they want out to go potty. In my experience with boarding dogs at my home( up to twenty during peak times) morning is always the quietest time. They just want to get their business done. And then it is back in for breakfast. During the rest of the day, and evening I think 6 dogs outside at any given time is completely reasonable. 8) Have no issues with dogs not being allowed outside between 10pm and 7am. 9) Has already been addressed. 10) We are currently working with the Eagle Fire Department in regards to our use, and planned fenced area. We do currently have a email from the fire marshal stating that he sees no issues with our fenced area. He would like to further address this issue when approving our building plans. Call Kurt would like to Thank the Mayor and members of the council for their careful consideration in approving my request for conditional use permit. I see myself as a valuable business to our community by providing jobs and being able to provide these quality services to members of our community and keep the business of boarding and caring for their dogs in EAGLE! Date: November 17, 2011 To: Eagle Mayor Reynolds and City Council From: Joan Langdon 4690 Hartley Rd. Eagle, Idaho 83616 RE: CID for M3 Spring Valley ////7 /f qta- I will be a close neighbor to the Spring Valley Development and I support M3's desire to form a district to help build the infrastructure. Up-to-date, efficient infrastructure is needed in this part of the valley. In my opinion M3 has extensively studied the area and helped Eagle's economy for several years. They are still willing to invest and promote the growth of the economy here. It only stands to reason that safeguards will be put in place to assure the integrity of a CID contract. I am optimistic that the water treatment and other infrastructure will be a source of pride for this area. Thin ivhy I support the CID for the Spring Valley Development. Sincerely, Joan Langdon INTER OFFICE cc ,fri„, clA City of Eagle Zoning Administration To: From: Subject: Date: Attachment(s): Copy To: Mayor Reynolds and City Council Nichoel Baird Spencer, AICP, Planner II CID comments October 24 through November 17, 2011 November 17, 2011 Public Testimony City Attorney & Zoning Administrator Bs In an effort to provide the Council a single location for all written testimony received to date on the Spring Valley CID application staff has complied a complete list of letters as of close of business on November 17, 2011. The place the most recent testimony first and is divided by hearing date and no comment letters. Agency/Public Comment 10/24 to 11/17 Barb Jekel received 11/17/11 Scott Fenwick, College of Western Idaho received 11/16/11 Dave Jones, Idaho Department of Transportation received 11/16/11 received 10/ 27/11 received 10/25/11 received 10/25/11 received 10/25/11 received 10/ 24/11 Dan Richter, Avimor Steve Purvis CJ Petrovsky Janet Buschert Mark Bonnelycke Agency/Public Comment 9/1/11 to 10/11/11 CJ Petrovsky Eric Pedersen Eagle Sewer District Idaho Department of Lands Chevron Pipeline Drainage District #2 Statements of "No Comment": Middleton Mill Ditch Company Boise School District Boise River Flood Control District #10 received 10/7/11 received 10/6/11 received 9/30/11 received 9/27/11 received 9/22/11 received 9/7/11 received 9/1/11 received 9/1/11 received 9/1/11 Page 1 of 1 K:1Planning Dept\Base Documents\MEMO baird spencer doc 44' Agency/Public Comment: Received October 24 to Current 2862 N. Haven Eagle, Id November 17, 2011 RE :November 17, 2011 Special Meeting, Amended Agenda Item 9A REO IVEU & FILED C1TY OF EAGLE NOV 1.7'2011 Fue: hilnd ,1di vered ROM V" Dear Councilmen, This is written in regards to Spring Valley Idaho's request for CID formation. Please include a copy of this in the record. As I review available public information regarding the stability of our economy and housing market, it doesn't read to me that we are close to a point of stability or positive near future predications at present, especially considering what would be required to take on a CID of this magnitude and term. As I recall, and review notes, from early P&Z and Council testimony I don't cite a concerted effort to bring forth bonding as the proposed financial vehicle for this project. Additionally, there seems to have been intense City Hall time and operating costs spent on M3 issues in the past, perhaps at the price of pursuing other goals. If establishing and mandating this CID carries a similar commitment, will other issues fall behind or will additional staff need to be hired and who would pay for that. M3 Eagle, formerly, chose to formulate and present this project long before there was discussion of CID's being proposed in Idaho legislature so I would think that they had a financial management plan at that time. It seems to me that there is still the option of former M3 Eagle applying development costs themselves to the units and being fully responsible for that management. With them being espoused as quality builders then it would seem to follow that they would be fair, balanced, measured, and of total full disclosure with their prospective home buyers. With over 7,000 housing units planned, plus commercial, that pictures to me a scenario of potentially half of Eagle's future population , equating to Eagle's current population, involved in this one CID operation. Has there been research on such an equating formula being attempted by other cities of Eagle population and size of government and City staff? And a multiple decade commitment? As I believe was brought forth in testimony on October25, other subdivisions developed in Eagle have managed their own infrastructure without CID. I hope that this council does proceed and makes the decision rather than leaving it for the incoming council, as was proposed on Oct.25. When a major M3 decision was at hand during a previous change in council and waiting was proposed, the council chose not to, citing their experience with the process was a better judge. It seems that applies here also. I hope the suggestion of having the irrevocable letter of financial commitment in hand prior to rendering a decision is followed through on and that its insisted on as immediate action. Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. Barb Jekel College of Western Idaho 1 485 E Riverside Drive Eagle, ID 83616 Business Partnerships/ Workforce Development Mail Stop 4500 P.O. Box 3010 Nampa, Idaho 83653 phone 208.562.3000 fax 888.562.3216 cwd@cwidaho.cc www.cwidaho.cc r RECEIVED FILES CITY OF EAGLE NOV 1 6 2011 Flle Route t'• Wednesday, November 16, 2011 P.O. Box 1520 660 E Civic Lane Eagle, Idaho 83616 Mayor Jim Reynolds: Thank you for your request for a workforce development assessment. Based on the information given to us on the employment and training needs of the Spring Valley Development, we feel the opportunity for employment and training is fantastic. To answer your question about ability of the College of Western Idaho to be able to support the anticipated workforce needs is yes we can! The 5,700 hundred anticipated jobs is a huge challenge to deliver but we feel the workforce in the valley can fill the needed jobs. We currently have training classes in all phases of the construction industry. This would include the need for 1,165 commercial and infrastructure jobs, as well as the 2,072 residential construction jobs. We have Apprenticeship Programs that are training tomorrows' Journeyman. We have in place many educational programs to support the K16 initiative and would be able to expand as the project develops. The viticulture, horticulture, equestrian and hospitality educational needs can be met. They will need to be expanded as the project matures. We have a very vibrant health occupational training program in all the health fields. We would be able to service the onsite health clinics and medical requirements. Our paramedic training program would be a huge asset to this community. We would plan to work closely with the developers and home owners to anticipate both short-term and long-term educational training needs. In summary, the workforce requirements for the Spring Valley Development project are huge. We at the College of Western Idaho have in place the needed educational support to provide the initial workforce needs and the ongoing educational requirements. We are in full support of companies opening up new jobs and will provide all the necessary training to develop a highly skilled workforce. The estimated 3,200 initial jobs and then 2,500 permanent jobs is a massive boost to the economy and we would plan to be a partner in that success. If you need any further details from us, please advise. Scott Fenwick Director Business Partnerships) Workforce Development College of Western Idaho 485 East Riverside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 Office: 208.562.2710 Cell: 208.866.2077 Email: scottfenwick@cwidaho.cc IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 8028 Boise, ID 83707-2028 November 14, 2011 Mayor Jim Reynolds City Council Members City of Eagle 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE NOV 16 2011 Filer Route to• (208) 334-8300 itd.idaho.gov Spring Valley Community Infrastructure District Dear Mayor Reynolds and City Council Members, We are writing to inform you that the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) will support the M3 Companies' request to form a Community Infrastructure District (CID) for their Spring Valley project. We appreciate the State legislature's enactment of this financing tool to help eligible public infrastructure improvements, including highways and related appurtenances. We also welcome the fact that the CID process is detailed in the enabling statute so as to provide the city with a road map on how to apply it. This will assist ITD in addressing highway needs in a timely manner and supports the concept of "growth paying for growth." We look forward to the job creation and economic activity that the development of the Spring Valley project will spur. Sincerely, Dave Jones, P.E. District Engineer AVIMOR.� October 26, 2011 The Honorable Jim Reynolds Eagle City Council P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 Re: Formation of CID for Spring Valley project Dear Mayor Reynolds and City Council Members: RECEIVED &FILED CITY OF EAGLE OCT 2 7 2011 File: Route to - I attended the two public hearings regarding the proposed CID for the Spring Valley Development. I was impressed by the civility of the hearing process and the insightful comments from many of those who commented. I wanted to offer my comments on the CID and also to offer corrections to a comment by Councilman Grasser made during the hearing. I have had the opportunity to work and live in communities with similar taxing districts (CFD) in Arizona. I worked as a developer and homebuiider within a district and also owned and lived in two different homes within the district. The district board conducted business in a deliberative and thoughtful fashion and demanded proper disclosure of the district requirements to all prospective purchasers before they bought property within the district. Additionally, the bonding amounts were kept at levels that did not undermine competitive value in properties within the district. I believe the Arizona CFD actually increased property values within the district, and during my many years living and working within the district, I was not aware of any clients or neighbors who had problems with the CFD. During the October 25th Hearing, much of the testimony given urged conservative deliberation in the operations of the district. I believe most who commented understood the benefits of the district and were supportive of its formation. I personally support formation of the district. The comments and questions I heard from the Mayor and Council give me confidence that the district will be governed in a fashion consistent with concerns raised by citizens during the public hearings. would also like to offer a correction to the comments made by Councilman Grasser during the hearings. He commented that he wanted to avoid "failed projects" like Legacy and Avimor. I would like to clarify that Avimor is not, and never has been, a "failed project". Avimor did go through a change in ownership but has never been part of any financial failure. The original development partner made the decision to get out of the real estate industry less than twelve months after Avimor's launch, and it spent the next 1 and 1/2 years working out the sale of its interest to its land partner. Never has the project been under any 18454 No. McLeod Way, Boise ID 83714 A AVI MOR Tel: 208.939.0343 • Fax: 208.939.9972 debt nor has it suffered from any of the neglect that many of the projects in and around Eagle did over the last few years. Many of the projects in the area took on the look of giant weed experiments, but Avimor continued to keep a well groomed and viable appearance. The new ownership group finalized the purchase of Avimor in late August of 2010 and chose to wait until mid 2011 to actively market the property so as to give the market more time to recover and to avoid bringing new product on line during the winter months. New product was completed in late August of 2011 and five new homeowners have been added since that time. I have had the opportunity to tour and discuss Avimor with most of the Eagle Council Members and Mayor. I would like to extend an invitation to Councilman Grasser to visit Avimor and learn more about what we are doing. I considered offering my support to the CID and my corrections regarding Avimor during the hearing last night but did not want to detract from the process. I appreciate and admire the way the Mayor, Council and staff have conducted the consideration of the CID. Sincerely, Dan Richter General Manager Avimor Planned Community c i0-7 6-ff M3/SPRING VALLEY CID EAGLE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION Steve Purvis 3939 Brookside Lane Brief background I AM HERE TO ASK YOU TO NOT MAKE A DECISION ON THE CID UNTIL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS OBTAINED AND DUE DILIGENCE IS COMPLETED IN THE FOLLOWING FOUR AREAS: 1. REVIEW OF UPDATED FINANCIAL FORECAST 2. ASSURANCE IS OBTAINED THAT THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL COMMITMENT HAS BEEN OBTAINED TO COMPLETE THE PROJ ECT 3. SINCE CID INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE HELD BY A PUBLIC ENTITY, HAVE PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS BEEN REACHED BY THOSE ENTITIES WHO WILL RECEIVE THE PUBLIC ASSETS (SEWER, WATER, OPEN SPACE, PARKS)? 4. CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR TO EITHER LIMIT THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OR ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE STATUTE REVIEW OF UPDATED FINANCIAL FORECAST 1. WILL THE DEVELOPMENT BE SUCCESSFUL AND FULFILL THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE FUTURE BUSINESSES AND HOMEOWNERS? NOT BEING SUCCESSFUL COULD HAVE VERY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PURCHASERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT (VALUES, SALEABITY, POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY TAX INCREASES FROM GO DEBT) 2. WILL THE PROJECT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY REVENUE TO MEET THE VERY SIGNIFICANT COST OF SIX SCHOOLS PROJECTED TO BE NEEDED 0159,000,000 IN 2007 FORECAST)? THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED BY BOTH YOU AND THE P&Z COMMISSION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF CID DEBT ON OTHER ENTITIES' ABILITY TO ISSUE DEBT. THE IMPACT FROM CID DEBT WILL PROBABLY BE FROM THE IMPACT OF A 5 MIL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN A STATE AND REGION THAT IS VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT THE LEVEL AND POTENTIAL INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX BILLS. ONE EXAMPLE HAS BEEN THE ELIMINATION BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE OF THE 4 MIL SCHOOL M & 0 LEVY AND A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE SALES TAX RATE. ANOTHER IS THE RECENT FAILURE OF SCHOOL OVER -RIDE LEVIES. BASED UPON MY 2010 PROPERTY TAX BILL A 5 MIL CID LEVY WOULD BE MORE THAN TWICE WHAT I PRESENTLY PAY IN PROPERTY TAXES FOR SCHOOLS AND WOULD REPRESENT A 50% INCREASE IN THE TOTAL TAX. 3. WILL THE PROJECT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY REVENUE TO PAY FOR THE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED (POLICE, FIRE, LIBRARY, ETC.)? ASSURANCE IS OBTAINED THAT THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL COMMITMENT HAS BEEN OBTAINED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, SUCH ASSURANCE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT OR OTHER FORM, THAT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. THE CID WILL PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION FUNDS. THAT LEAVES A HUGE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO BE OBTAINED IN A VERY DIFFICULT CREDIT MARKET. SINCE CID INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE HELD BY A PUBLIC ENTITY, HAVE PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS BEEN REACHED WITH THOSE ENTITIES WHO WILL RECEIVE THE PUBLIC ASSETS (SEWER, WATER, OPEN SPACE, PARKS, ETC)? IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE TO KNOW THAT A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AS TO WHOM THE VARIOUS PUBLIC ASSETS WILL BE TRANSFERRED FOR OPERATION/MAINTENANCE AND THAT THE REVENUE GENERATED WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO PRECLUDE A SUBSIDY BY OTHER RATE PAYORS, CITIZENS OF EAGLE OR OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAS BEEN DEALT WITH. CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR TO EITHER LIMIT THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OR ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE STATUTE. WHILE THERE ARE OTHERS THAT I HAVE IDENTIFIED AND ARE WILLING TO SHARE WITH YOU, THE FOLLOWING THREE EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE MY CONCERNS: 1. STATE STATUTES 50-3103 (4) AND 50-3105 (1) (F) PROVIDE FOR CONSULTANTS TO BE SELECTED BY THE DISTRICT BOARD. RESOLUTION 1128-D SECTION 1.2 PROVIDES THAT THE OWNER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE CONSULTANTS AND THEY MUST BE CHOSEN FROM A LIST PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE FOX GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE. 2. STATE STATUTE 50-3105 (M) PROVIDES THE DISTRICT BOARD WITH THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY. TO ME THIS MEANS THAT THE DISTRICT BOARD WILL ALSO DETERMINE HOW MUCH DEBT WILL BE ISSUED. RESOLUTION 1128-D SECTION 6.3 (a) and (b) REQUIRES THAT NOT LESS THAN $300,000,000 OF GO AND REVENUE BONDS BE ISSUED. THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE DISTRICT BOARD. 3. STATE STATUTE 50-311 PROVIDES THAT THE TERM OF THE DEBT SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 YEARS. RESOLUTION 1128-D SECTION 6.3 (a) PROVIDES THAT THE DEBT WILL BE FOR NOT LESS THAN 30 YEARS. IT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE AND ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES FOR THE DEBT TO BE FOR A PERIOD LESS THAN 30 YEARS. IN MY OPINION THESE EXAMPLES SIGNIFICANTLY LIMIT THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT BOARD TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSILITIES. IN MY READING OF THE DOCUMENTS, I HAVE IDENTIFIED IN ADDITION TO THESE THINGS, OTHER CONFLICTS WITH STATE STATUTES AS WELL AS ITEMS MISSING FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD PROVIDE SAFEGUARDS FOR THE DISTRICT BY CLARIFING ISSUES OF AUTHORITY OR HOW TRANSACTIONS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED. I WILL BE GLAD TO PROVIDE THEM TO YOU IF YOU SO DESIRE. I HOPE YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT WORK LEFT TO BE DONE BEFORE A DECISION TO DISAPPROVE OR APPROVE THE M3/SPRING VALLEY CID IS MADE. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THIS SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. I WILL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. CG l0'25t (0 Petrovsky, 4831 Willow Creek Road, Eagle, 83616) Mayor Reynolds and Council, I'm representing NACFA tonight. I'll get through these remarks as quickly as I can and should be able to finish in the time I have— that yielded plus 5 minutes for a group speaker. If I can't, I'd ask your indulgence in granting me a few more seconds to conclude. My message on this proposed CID is 4 basic points: 1 --proceed cautiously; 2 --get current information—and have it independently vetted --before you approve the CID formation; 3 --make sure the CID board has clear authority; and 4—worry about your future Spring Valley citizens. Point 1: Proceed cautiously and know exactly what you're getting into. This venture involves hundreds of millions in bonds and a 20 -year build -out window in an unknown future housing market. The District Development Agreement—the DDA --you're considering tonight is far from definitive. You're asked to adopt something that's very general and presumes a fully -recovered housing market. What's clear, as a simple google search will tell you, is that soundness of CID bonds is entirely dependent on project viability. You need a Plan B on the viability issue and you should consider worst case. Think Avimor...nearly 700 units entitled, about 30 houses built, 25 occupied. Developer gone. The water infrastructure is an example of what could occur. When will the City take ownership of that system? What happens if only 500 units sell in the first phase of a thousand and you own a system that's double the size you need at double the cost per lot that you anticipated? You have to provide water...and I believe you have to charge all your water customers the same rate. Will the 500 families living there see their assessments double? Or will the Spring Valley costs be spread across all City water customers...or what? Shouldn't the developer carry that risk and be responsible for the system until there's an occupancy rate that assures the bonds can be paid off? Why not delay title transfer until you're sure you won't find yourself in the middle of such a potential mess? Situations like that need to be specifically covered in the DDA. Point 2: Get current fiscal impact data for the project and get an independent analysis of all the cost assumptions before you adopt anything:, With my October 7th written comments, I included a copy of an independent review of the developer's 2007 fiscal impact analysis for this project that contained some clear warnings for the City. The City's economist, when talking about revenue to the City from Spring Valley said: "...the rate of development and the value of the residential properties are, in our view, too rosy..." Pretty prophetic, isn't it? And he ultimately concluded from his review that: "...regardless of the specifics that eventually emerge—this analysis raises enough red flags to suggest that at the very least the City Council needs more information before it can come to a reasonable conclusion about the net benefits of the project..." That's excellent advice to keep in mind as you consider this CID. To assure yourselves this project is ultimately viable, the City must require a full and complete update to the applicant's comprehensive, detailed 2007 fiscal impact analysis. 2007 data doesn't cut it. You need to assess this CID in terms of a radically different housing market. The County requires such complete revisions as a routine condition of approval for extensions to planned community entitlements. Once you've got an updated impact analysis, the City must again, as in 2007, have that analysis independently reviewed. At the same time, why not have an independent review of the $670 million in construction cost estimates on which the predicted assessment costs per unit are based? A number that, by the way, jumped 5 million dollars between the P&Z session in early September and the Council presentation on the 11th. Point 3: Give the CID board the tools and authority it needs to make good decisions by modifying the language of District Development Agreement. You certainly have plenty of time now,before you approve the CID, to get an update to the 2007 impact analysis, have it independently reviewed, and have the construction estimates looked over as well. That's the prudent course. But if for some reason you decide not to do that, at the very minimum require specifically in the DDA that the impact analysis be updated and vetted and the construction cost estimates be reviewed at least before the first bonds are issued. Equally importantly, modify the DDA to explicitly grant the board the authority to choose its own consultants and to clarify that bond issuances are the sole province of the board, without liability or penalty. And finally, clarify in the DDA ' and particularly in the resolution that no existing single family residence outside the CID will be assessed any charge for the CID improvements. 6t.‘.Vtr-LIA.-t Point 4: Safeguard the interests of future Eagle citizens who buy in this kr if development. How you handle this CID now will have big impacts on Eagle citizens down the road. The disclosure form proposed, which says only that assessment costs are estimated and could change, presumes a pretty sophisticated buyer to fully understand the potential risk. I've read the documents and I sat through both the September P&Z and the October 11th Council presentations but I can't get my arms around how much CID cost would be assigned to buyers. I thought it was about $6700 for a $400,000 house and then last time Councilman Huffaker asked a question and I think I heard that the estimate is maybe $12,000 for that house. Or was that $12,000 the total tax bill?(J )/tCe pM, C n VA/. vvwI re) What's my point? That this is a complicated and rarified financing mechanism, something average buyers are unlikely to comprehend. Please beef up the disclosure form to give buyers a few more clues about their possible exposure. If the applicant is confident of estimated assessments, it shouldn't be a problem to list each element of the total, including the debt service that Councilman Grasser asked about last time. And it should be equally possible to state the assumptions on which the estimates are predicated—things like the rate of build- out, the rate units are expected to be sold and occupied, and the amount of inflation priced in—or the fact that it's not. This disclosure statement issue, incidentally, circles back to that independent review of the construction estimates on which the predicted assessments are based. Buyers in this development would be well -served by assessment estimates that have been independently corroborated. If the independent reviewer and the developer can't agree on those construction numbers, an estimated range could be stated on the disclosure form, so buyers have better knowledge of their exposure. In closing, consider that this CID, given its massive scale and long build -out, is virgin territory. Take your time and be conservative and skeptical. This DDA, like the 2007 land use entitlements DA, becomes a contract once it's approved. There's little chance of changing it if circumstances change. Before you move ahead, make sure all your questions are thoroughly answered—and, more importantly, reflected clearly and specifically in the language of the DDA. Don't accept "We'll worry about that later." The applicant's not ready to issue bonds; you don't have to pass this tonight. And it's high-risk, complicated stuff. If I understood the City Attorney correctly at the P&Z session, the CID issue is decided by your simple up or down vote, without reference to property rights or "takings." So this time, you have some leverage that the 2007 Council did not have, for example, when land use and entitlements were the issue. You have the opportunity to have the DDA amended to your satisfaction. Your vigilance, particularly on the details of the DDA and the "what if?"s, is certainly warranted because, with 3 Council members running the CID district and the project within City limits, the City is going to own this process in the public mind... and the public, including Spring Valley residents, will be looking to the City for answers and help if things don't go according to plan. Thank you. l ecke-v uk. ► M3/Spring Valley Community Infrastructure District Public Comment Form The following Information must be provided for your testimony to be included in the record of the hearing (please print): Name: :b.C' 1 �. •.� Signature: CP' Cm) , Dpc, \) F n 1 r} l\, l jrC:lr l e Address:, > > Date: 1(1 / , 4`7/ J- f / / . L/3.,'"\ 6(7)11,,--4 "1 r -,r, y_ ( 1(`,OJ!\15 r/' 1 ( itr,t c''e\1`) 1, J C OJSi..VJJ i..)( Zfi • 1 v).,11, ` )V \.`= o " `t -v\1 S i„ j, JR \cr,. S' A_ (2)✓ C� l C l��C �'',1 v Ci� ' +0 1-)A\ (, j+I (-A Ci'r\. '/N J `/ v ' October 21, 2011 Mark Bonnelycke 2674 W. Deerfield Court Eagle, ID 83616 Mayor Jim Reynolds PO Box 1520 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 Dear Mayor Reynolds: RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE OCT 2 4 2011 Fite: Route to* I am writing to you to express my concern about the M3 Spring Valley development. We live in Eagle, north of Beacon Light Road, and are concerned about the effect of the M3 Spring Valley development on the small-town feel of the Eagle community From what I have seen of M3's plans, the Spring Valley development is a monstrosity. The number of houses that are planned, the size of the area in the Foothills that will be affected, and the extended timeline of the project will have a negative impact on traffic and infrastructure in Eagle for years to come. In addition, there are still serious concerns about water rights that have not been sufficiently addressed. I certainly understand the notion that "if a town isn't growing, it's dying," but M3's Spring Valley development goes too far. I attended the Eagle City Council meeting on October 11, 2011, and listened to Mr. Froehlich's presentation about M3's plans for the Community Infrastructure District to help pay for the Spring Valley Development. The City Council asked Mr. Froehlich several questions about the CID and what would happen if something went wrong or there were defaults on payments. Mr. Froehlich's general answer seemed to be that this had not happened in his 26 years of doing this kind of work. I would argue that 26 years in the real estate business is not a very long time, especially given the incredible turmoil of the four years. Everything that I have read indicates that the real estate crisis is far from over and, as a matter of fact, could easily continue for another decade. Given this real estate climate, coupled with a severely struggling economy, I think it's unrealistic for M3 to propose hundreds of millions of dollars in development costs. I also think that it's unrealistic for M3 to suggest that new homeowners, given the current real estate climate and economy, would be willing to pay significantly higher property taxes to pay for these bonds. The sagebrush steppes of the Foothills add to the beauty and charm of Eagle. We should be doing all that we can to preserve this natural resource. Please consider a more moderate and sustainable approach to growth in Eagle than M3's Spring Valley development. Sincerely, P1/4 Mark E. Bonnelycke Agency/Public Comment: Received Septemberl to October11 LJ retrovsxy Page 1 of 3 Mike Williams RECEIVED & FILED OF EAGLE From: CJ Petrovsky [seajayp@bitsmart.net] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:36 PM OCT 0 7 2011 To: Mike Williams File: Cc: Bill Vaughan; eaglecity Route to• Subject: Comments on Spring Valley CID formation: As discussed, please forward to Council yet this afternoon Attachments: Forbes Sept 17 2009.docx; Bond Buyer Nov 4 2010.docx; don_reading_rpt.pdf Dear Mayor Reynolds and Council members, I attended the informational session on the proposed Spring Valley CID conducted for the Eagle Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 2011, by Carter Froelich of DPFG, a CPA retained by the M3 Companies who is experienced in CID bonds. I have also reviewed the "compiled formation documents" for the M3 CID at the City's website. Though I have limited knowledge of such specialized funding mechanisms, I submit that the full range of responsibilities and possible outcomes associated with the the CID should be fully explored— and comprehensible to the layperson—before Council approves formation of the CID. I understood City Attorney Buxton to say, at the 9/6/11 P&Z session, that governing CID statute allows a simple "yes" or "no vote on the issue, with no articulation of necessary conditions underlying either acceptance or rejection the proposed CID. As Mr. Froelich acknowledged, bonds of this type have high rates of default in other states, a fact attested to by the Forbes and Bond Buyer articles appended hereto. Mr. Froelich contends that the structure of CIDs in states such as Florida, where no jurisdictional authority controlled the district, was inherently weak and contributed directly to the failure of these districts. Perusal of the articles underscores an equally compelling contributing cause for these failures: the lack of a viable project. When lots remain unsold, no assessments or taxes are collected to repay the bonds issued. Though I recognize that the City has no financial liability whatsoever for any bond default that might occur in the case of the M3 project, I urge Council to consider carefully the District Development Agreement (DDA) proposed for approval. While only approval of the District formation is being requested, inherent within that approval is the City's commitment to abide by the provisions of the DDA for decades. Given the severity of the housing collapse, the number of failed smaller -scale developments within the Eagle community, the inventory of foreclosed and short sales in the Treasure Valley, the sheer magnitude and 20 -30 -year build -out of the proposed Spring Valley development, and the experience of essentially defunct similar planned communities such as Avimor, it would seem prudent to proceed with caution. Specific concerns on the issue fall into these categories: What is the specific role of the CID Board, composed of three Council members? The authority of the Board (v. its responsibilities) is not clear. Most of the Board's consultants are essentially selected by the developer, for example. Can the Board refuse a petition to issue bonds submitted 10/7/2011 UJ Yetrovsky Page 2 of 3 by the developer? If, as Mr. Froelich asserts, strong Board management will decrease chances for default, the Board must be an equal and active participant in all deliberations of infrastructure financing. When will the City take ownership of the infrastructure financed by the CID? The City is committed to owning the CID-financed/developer-constructed water system, per the Development Agreement between M3 and the City recorded at the close of 2007. It is not clear at what point that change of ownership would occur. Should the City require a specific occupancy rate before accepting assignment, to ensure that an extremely expensive system does not become City property with not enough taxpayers to repay the bonds? The Avimor situation, where 25 units are occupied and 30 houses built of the nearly 700 approved, begs this question. Since the City is required to provide services to all its residents on an equal basis, premature acceptance of the system would appear highly problematic. Clarification of the "Reimbursement Mechanism." Though it appears to be the case that this provision applies only to new development, the language in Section 10.1, particularly subparagraph (iii), should explicitly state that existing single-family residences are excluded from this provision to preclude questions about potential assessments on existing residents (e.g., for road improvements) solely necessitated by the development. Such clarification should be added to the proposed Resolution as well. Notification to buyers. Though the language as drafted warns potential purchasers in the development that the (average) CID assessment (currently $6700/lot) is estimated and subject to change, the City could help its future residents, many of whom are likely to be first-time buyers, by requiring further language perhaps a high-end estimate for— describing the potential buyer's possible exposure. Should unforeseen circumstances cause significant increases in the CID cost assessed per resident, the City would have done its best to prepare purchasers for the possibility by such a stronger disclosure requirement. Finally, given that the viability of the project is critical to the success of the CID, the City may want to take this opportunity to revisit the 2007 economic analysis supporting the project, which assumed a bullish market that has since collapsed. Since current Council members were not participants in the 2007 approval process, I've attached a City consultant's analysis of the M3 -submitted EA for further information. One extract in particular of that consultant analysis (found on page 4) stands out: "...The first thing that strikes us is that while the residential units proposed by M3 -Eagle vary in size and amenities, the projected price is uniformly at the top of the range of homes in Ada County. The M3 - Eagle development projects that 43 percent of the residential units to be constructed will have values above $600,000, with 658 units over $1 million. "The U.S. Census Bureau, through the American Community Survey (ACS), tracks the values of owner - occupied housing units annually by county. According to the ACS, the number of owner -occupied housing units in Ada County in 2006 with values of $500,000 or more is just 8253 out of a toal of 99,067 homes, or 8.3 percent..." The proposed DDA refers, in the General Obligations bonds section, to an estimated $1670 p.a. per unit on a house of $400,000, indicating that perhaps M3 has adjusted its economic analysis to better reflect more realistic current market conditions. Nevertheless, it behooves both the City, and its future Spring Valley citizens, to understand fully and agree with the estimates of per unit CID costs. Further explanation of the methodology underlying these estimates should be required before the CID formation is approved. 10/7/2011 • CJ Petrovsky Page 3 of 3 If doubts exist on the ultimate viability of such an ambitious development Council should require a full and updated economic analysis, which a City consultant should again vet, before approving the CID formation. Such a requirement is deemed prudent by the Board of County Commissioners, which has required new analyses as a condition of approval for extension to approved planned community entitlements within their jurisdiction. Since even preliminary construction of the project is not imminent, no harm can ensue from ensuring a full understanding of and agreement with the current economic assumptions underlying the possible issuance of hundreds of millions in bonds. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. CJ Petrovsky seaiavv@bitsmart.net 208.938.0418 10/7/2011 pECEiVED�aLE CITY OF Potemkin Villages OCT Q 7 2011 Matthew Schifrin, 09.17.09, 11:00 AM EDT File: Forbes Magazine dated October 05, 2009 Route to' http://www.forbes.com/forbes/200911005/outfront-housing-goldman-prager-potemkin-villages. html Some "municipal" bonds are debts of busted housing developments. Beware. With its bonds in trouble and its developer bankrupt, Six Mile Creek, 30 miles south of Jacksonville, is no field of dreams. Municipal bonds are enjoying a renaissance. Nervous investors craving tax-free income and the safcty normally associated with state and local governments are gobbling up bonds. Municipal bond funds enjoyed $47 billion in net inflows in the first eight months of 2009. But not all municipals are created equal. A quiet epidemic of municipal bond defaults is already under way, another victim of the housing bust fed by eager builders and Wall Street. The defaults are hitting what's known as community development districts. Developers, using so-called dirt bonds, join with investment bankers and consultants to create these districts as quasi -governmental entities. They assess homeowners for the costs of roads, sewers, electric lines, clubhouses and tennis courts. These "municipalities" enjoy tax-free funding the same way cities, states, schools and hospitals do. They're supposed to be self-sustaining, but when homes don't get built, the whole scheme collapses. The biggest concentration is in Florida. At least 109 issues of Florida community development bonds, worth $2.8 billion when issued from 2004 through 2008, have defaulted. So says Distressed Debt Securities, a newsletter published in Miami Lakes by FORBES contributor Richard Lehmann. Some have stopped paying interest, and others have been paying interest and principal from reserve accounts, which aren't supposed to be tapped when projects are completed and homeowner fees kick in. Many investors have yet to feel the brunt of the damage, but the day of reckoning is coming. Standing behind the IOUs: tracts of land with pipes ending in empty, weed -strewn lots. The Tern Bay Golf Community consists of 1,780 acres a few miles south of Punta Gorda, Fla. in Charlotte County. In September 2005 this self-proclaimed municipality issued $58 million in tax-exempt bonds yielding from 5% to 5.4%. Home builder Lennar Corp. ( LEN - news - people ) planned to build a luxurious golf, tennis and spa country club community with 1,800 houses, townhomes and condos to be priced as high as $450,000. Also planned were a 250 -room hotel, eight tennis courts and 140,000 square feet of commercial space. The proceeds of the bonds were to go toward roads, water and sewer pipes and other amenities, including wetland preservation and a golf course. Two years ago Lennar stopped building homes, and today all that is left are partially built roads, some two dozen homes and 18 of 27 holes of a golf course designed by Chip Powell. The developer's telephone number has been disconnected. The bond trustee began dipping into debt service reserves in 2008. The trustee was unable to scare up the cash for a May 2009 coupon payment. The Tern Bay bonds are trading at 35 cents on the dollar. Multiply this scenario by 100 and you get a picture of recently issued community development bonds in Florida. "I have visited these sites, and they are like infrastructure graveyards," says Andrew Sanford, analyst at Naples workout firm itg Holdings. He cites the hundreds of water and sewer pipes sticking up from another ill-fated project, a $47 million community called Six Mile Creek, 30 miles south of Jacksonville. The cast of characters feeding off the boom in community development bonds includes Pulte Homes ( PHM - news - people) and its recently acquired Centex ( CTX - news - people) operation (see story, "A Home for Every Buyer"), Beazer Homes and D.R. Horton ( DHI - news - people ). Banc of America Securities underwrote at least 28 troubled Florida community development issues. (By "troubled" we mean either not making interest payments or paying bondholders from reserve funds rather than from tax assessments.) Prager, Sealy & Co., a San Francisco firm specializing in municipal bonds, underwrote 70 issues totaling $2 billion in face value that are currently in default. Tampa real estate consulting firm Rizzetta & Co. is listed as district manager and financial advisor for over 100 troubled issues. "In my 24 years doing this I have never seen the market this bad," says William Rizzetta. The Tern Bay bond issue was mostly bought up by Oppenheimer mutual funds, but other buyers of community dev bonds included funds managed by Goldman Sachs ( GS - news - people ), Alliance Bernstein and Nuveen. Oppenheimer's Rochester National Municipals fund and its amt Free Municipals between them own $1.4 billion of troubled Florida subdivision bonds. In its July 31, 2008 annual report Oppenheimer's Rochester National fund assured its shareholders that all was well. "We are seeing little evidence of credit quality fundamentally changing," the fund declared. Six months later the report, which disclosed that 18.6% of Rochester's $5.9 billion of munis were dirt bonds, reiterated management's confidence: "Default rates on municipal bonds in general continue to be extremely low relative to default rates on corporate fixed income investments." Rochester National, which carries a 4.75% load and is sold mostly by brokers, has an enticing 9.5% yield. The open-end fund reports a total return (dividends plus gain in net asset value) of 40% since January, making it the number one fund in its Morningstar category. Instead of unloading its sick community development issues, Oppenheimer has been doubling down, buying up more in the open market. One issue that it has been adding to is South Fork East Community Development District. In March it bought bonds from Goldman Sachs (itself another buyer of busted CDDs) at 65 cents on the dollar. They now trade at 51 cents. Says Rochester portfolio manager Scott Cottier: "I can't speak to individual trades. If I let out my secrets, I wouldn't be the number one fund manager in my group." There is some method in this seeming madness. Owners of defaulted development bonds can effectively seize unfinished lots from the landowner if he doesn't make assessment payments. (Homeowners who have moved in are not at risk, provided they keep up with assessments representing their pro rata share of costs for building sewers, roads and utilities.) So, Oppenheimer could do well for its fund investors. But maybe it should change the fund's name to Rochester National Muni & Subdivision Spec Fund. Dirt Bond Disasters Below are some of the biggest defaults among Florida's community development districts. As the tracts of land and bonds languish, speculators are circling. CDD LOCATION AMOUNT ($MIL) ISSUE DATE UNDERWRITER SHINGLE CREEK Osceola $159 8/2006 Prager, Sealy ARBORWOOD Fort Myers 13 6/2005 Prager, Sealy LANDMARK AT DORAL Miami 72 10/2006 Banc of America SARASOTA NATIONAL Sarasota 61 3/2007 Prager, Sealy Source: www.floridaCDDreport.com. The original version of this story mistakenly included Durbin Crossing, a development in Jacksonville, Fla. in the list of Florida's biggest community development district defaults. In fact, the developer of Durbin Crossing has not defaulted on any of its obligations under the bond documents, and all payments on the debt service to the bondholders have been paid in full. To read Durbin Crossing's response to the story, click here. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1005/outfront-housing-goldman-prager- potemkin-villages.html The Bond Buyer Trend in the Region https://secure.bondbuyer.corn/issues/119_461/florida ccd_defaults-1019448-1.html Florida CDDs in Dirt -Bond Quagmire Thursday, November 4, 2010 By Shelly Sigo RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE File: Route to OCT 072011 BRADENTON, Fla. — Defaults by some Florida community development districts that sold "dirt bonds" to finance infrastructure improvements for residential and commercial real estate projects continued Monday as debt -service payments came due. Several CDDs warned the market last week that they anticipated having problems making their Nov. 1 payments. In just two days after they were due, 23 districts reported problems with their payments, including 13 defaulting and eight drawing on reserves, said Matt Fabian, managing -director and senior analyst for Municipal Market Advisors. In the wake of the economic downturn that has battered Florida's real estate market, Fabian has tracked CDDs that have drawn on reserves and had payment defaults for well over a year. According to Fabian's methodology, 75 CDD credits have had payment defaults on more than $1.3 billion of bonds while another 40 representing $884 million of debt have drawn on reserves. "To me it seems like it's getting worse," he said, referring to the rate of defaults. He noted that there has been a "handful" of CDDs that restructured debt, in some cases pushing maturities out from 2010 to 2017 in return for higher interest rates. While it is still too early to tell the full extent of debt -service problems related to the Nov. 1 payment date, default specialist Richard Lehmann said that since December 2007, some 154 CDDs have defaulted on $4.7 billion of bonds. Another 62 districts representing $1.3 billion of bonds are on his "watch list" of districts likely to default. His definition of default includes nonpayment of principal or interest, as well as draws on reserves to make payments. However, most CDDs are structured so that a draw on reserves is not considered a default. "We call it a default when they invade reserves," said Lehmann, author of the Income Securities Advisors and publisher of Distressed Debt Securities, which has tracked corporate and municipal bond defaults since 1983. He also launched the subscription -based website www.floridacddreport.com last year just to track all of Florida's CDDs. Lehmann said it is too late for bondholders to know about problems when no reserves are left to assist in making payments. "We say that doesn't serve the interests of bondholders and the bonds continue to trade as if they were current on their payments," he said. "The next bond buyer, if not apprised of the situation, might buy something that will blow up on them." Lehmann said Florida's combined CDD defaults in the current economic crisis represent the "biggest municipal default in terms of the number and dollar amount." From the Nov. 1 payments, he predicted that more than 60 defaults are likely to occur. Most of those will be continuing defaults, but as many as 15 may be new CDDs defaulting, he said. Of Florida's nearly 600 CDDs, few issued insured bonds with most of the debt unrated. Several hundred have been approved but never sold debt. In a Florida CDD sector study released in late September, National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. said it has exposure to $296 million of bonds in 24 districts. "By and large, our portfolio performed better than the overall [CDD] market," said managing director Nick Sourbis in an interview Wednesday. "We've avoided some of the major pitfalls. We were extremely selective in what we underwrote." Noting that the Florida CDD market is not a large segment of the overall muni market, Sourbis said National Public Finance Guarantee's underwriters reviewed the credits rigorously and generally focused on districts that achieved a certain amount of development and occupancy. Additionally, all of the credits that were insured had a reserve requirement that was initially met with cash or a surety policy, according to the study. The insurer's study also reviews the evolution of Florida's CDDs, their structure and assessments that typically secure bonds, and observes various problems such as unclear reporting requirements. Lehmann said the problem will be exacerbated because many districts sold bonds and used proceeds to install infrastructure, but further development has stalled due to the weak real estate market. 1n a recent study of the potential -build -out of rlorida .CDDs, Lehmann surveyed 218 projects where developers arestill actively planning to build new homes to determine the forecast of build -out time. "It involves about 250,000 housing units in terms of the magnitude of the problem here with CDDs," he said. "These are lots developed and ready to be sold and therefore represent another drag on the housing industry." The study found that developers are actively planning to build 34 million square feet in association with those yet -to -be built housing units, according to Lehmann. "The lots are platted and ready to build," he said. "But what differentiates them from any empty land is you've got infrastructure for each of these properties already in place and tax assessments already running on the properties." Assessments on property tax bills are typically used to secure CDD bonds. "One other thing highlighted in the study is that 84 of the districts have not reported a single sale and those projects present $2.4 billion of bonds there at very high risk of total failure," Lehmann said. Of those districts, he said 49% consist of single-family homes and 40% are multifamily projects. Lehmann said that represents yet "another drag on the housing industry" in Florida where the foreclosure rate on existing homes is one of the highest. In a recent report to the Legislature on the state's long-term economic prospects, forecasters said that the state's current "excess supply of homes is approaching 450,000." In normal economic times, an inventory of roughly 50,000 is considered good, they said. Ben Johnson Associates, Inc. 6070 Hill Road Phone: (208) 342-1700 Boise, ID 83703 Fax: (208) 384-1511 i_ _ . ___ ___ _____ RECEIVED &FILED CITY OF EAGLE OCT 0 7 2011 Fife: Route to: A REVIEW OF M3 -EAGLE DEVELOPMENT DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Revised September 2007 Idaho Economics A REVIEW OF M3 -EAGLE DEVELOPMENT DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Revised September 2007 Idaho Economics Introduction This report will focus on Idaho Economics' September 2007 report "M3 -Eagle Development: Demographic Forecast, Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis" (Impact Analysis). This study was included in the binder submitted to the Eagle City Council on September 25, 2007. The report will analyze that Impact Analysis on two levels. First, we will examine the assumptions that form the basis for the Impact Analysis's calculations of revenues and costs accruing to local governmental units from the proposed development. Second, we will examine the calculations of revenues and costs that lead to the net benefit estimates presented in the Impact Analysis. Given the time constraints, only three major subdivisions of local government will be explored in detail: the City of Eagle, the Meridian School District and the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). In general, a review of the calculations found some differences in values from various sources of revenues and costs for each governmental unit, but these differences were relatively small compared to the overall magnitude of the dollar amounts. Our examination of the assumptions that underlie the Impact Analysis' conclusions, however, tells a different story. Altering some of these assumptions to make them more reasonable leads to significantly different levels of net fiscal impact for the governmental units. • • Three of the assumptions that have a major effect on the net benefits are: The assumed pace of development; i.e., full build -out over a 20 -year period • Residential housing prices and demand • Commercial development The fact that the Impact Analysis looks only at O&M costs; no capital costs are included in the calculations of net fiscal impact The omission of costs that will be imposed on government entities lying outside the geographical boundaries of the development When a more reasonable build -out period is assumed, and when capital costs and costs to outlying units of government are included, the result are significantly different net fiscal impacts than those presented in the Impact Analysis. 2 impact Analysis The September 2007 Revised Impact Analysis by Idaho Economics describes the M3 - Eagle development and estimates the net benefits for various entities ot. local government. Net fiscal impacts are derived by projecting additional revenues, using 2006 property tax levy rates and revenue sources, and then subtracting the projected additional costs of providing public services to residences of the M3 -Eagle development. The Impact Analysis submitted on behalf of the potential developer found these net benefits to be universally positive. In the 20- year period from the start of construction to full build -out, the Impact Analysis projects net fiscal impacts to be: City of Eagle Ada County Ada County I-Iighway District Ada County Emergency Medical Services Meridian Joint School District #2 +$30.1 million +$98.3 million. +$72.8 million +$3.9 million +$163.5 million This analysis focuses on three of these five governmental entities: the City of Eagle, ACI -ID, and the Meridian School District. We will review the projected revenues for each of these entities based on the development's projected five phases of construction. We will then analyze the projected costs assumed in the Impact Analysis. Finally, we will examine the gaps in the underlying assumptions made in the Impact Analysis, and the effects those gaps will have on the resultant estimates of net benefit. M3's Eagle development, both residential and commercial, is scheduled to be built in five phases. The mix of residential versus commercial for each phase is presented in Figure 1 below. 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Figure 1 M3 Eagle Residential Units by Phase Phase 1 (Years Phase 2 (Years Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 1,2) 3-7) (Years 8-12) (Years 13-17) (Years 18-20) ®Single Family ■Single Family Attached ❑Multi -Family j Figure 2 depicts the number and value of residential units and the average price projected to be constructed over the 20 -year period of development. Figure 2 M3 Eagle Average Horne Value 444 $250,000 2,400 $375,000 N c 1,794 1,630 11 E 1,234 z 652 $450,000 1111111111 $1,125,000 6 $1,375,000 $o $500,000 $1 ,000,000 S1,500,000 ®Average Home Valued The first thing that strikes us is that while the residential units proposed by M3 -Eagle vary in size and amenities, the projected price is uniformly at the top of the range of homes in Ada County. The M3 -Eagle development projects that 43 percent of the residential units to be constructed will have values above $600,000, with 658 units over $ 1 million. The U.S. Census Bureau, through the American Community Survey (ACS), tracks the values of owner -occupied housing annually by county. According to ACS, the number of owner -occupied housing units in Ada County in 2006 with values of $500,000 or more is just 8,253 out of a total of 99,067 homes, or 8.3 percent. Figure 3 lays out this data. 4 Number of Housing Unit; 35,000 i 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 - 5,000 0 Figure 3 Ada County 2000 and 2006 Owner Occupied Housing Units O°O X% p°'0 �% �°'� �05b °,% o�¢, •aN fs Gs Gs pp Oa °�o ,9 o o *9 o°r° ° p ° ° ° °°5 °°o°o°o°o°°o • o ea ea' �N CO' Garb ¢y� Value of Housing Units P •2006 Census ■ 2000 Census The Impact Analysis states that there will not be a significant impact on the region's housing market from the projects' addition of 8,160 residential units over the 20 -year development period. It uses a projection of population and household growth in Ada County and indicates that the residential units planned represent just 7.5 percent of the household additions projected in the county over the 2005 to 2030 period. However, this comparison is focused on the total number of housing unit additions, not those at the price level of the homes M3 -Eagle is planning to build. For example M3 -Eagle plans in the first two phases (the first 7 years of development) to add 1,244 residential units with values over $600,000. This would add 15 percent to the existing stock of owner -occupied Ada County houses worth more than half a million dollars. For homes with values over $ lmillion, the first two phases of the M3 -Eagle development would add 233 units, compared to a owner -occupied 2006 base of 1,207 houses, or 19 percent of the existing stock. This suggests a significant impact on the housing market for upper -end residential units. If the market cannot absorb the impact, one of two things would happen: either M3 -Eagle would shift to lower -price units — with lower property tax values but similar costs — or it would slow its pace of development, which would in turn impact both revenues and needed services. 5 In terns of commercial development, the Impact Analysis assumes that 2.1 million square feet of commercial space will be constructed by the end of the 20 -year project. As an example of successful commercial development in the area, it points to the Silverstone and El Dorado business parks at the corners of Eagle and Overland Roads. There are, however, some striking differences between these two business parks and the commercial construction N43 - Eagle proposes to undertake. Most impoi licitly, both Silverstone ,cid I:1 Dorado have immedi ,tc access to Interstate 84 and front on heavily -traveled arterial roads. The majority of the proposed commercial properties in M3 -Eagle, however, are in the center of the development, away from Highways 55 and 16, and a significant distance from an Interstate exchange. Moreover, the commercial area between Highways 55 and 16 is along a road seldom used by travelers going to or from a destination point. Consumers of the planned commercial space, therefore, will have to be those wanting to patronize a specific business, or people who live in the area. The situation is similar to that existing at Hidden Springs and Harris Ranch, where even in a rapidly -growing valley, commercial development has been slower than expected. What we have learned from those two developments is that businesses are reluctant to invest in a particular area until they see a demand for their services already in place. Even with a majority of the commercial space developed during the latter half of the project (see Figure 4), it is problematic that business demand for the commercial space will keep pace with the projected residential development. The only other alternative is to attract consumers from other areas, which again seems unlikely given the location. Therefore, if residential construction is slower than planned, commercial development will of necessity also be slower due to a lack of demand. A slower pace of commercial development will impact not only the development's projected revenues, but also the 3,492 jobs estimated to be associated with the project. $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Figure 4 M3 Projected Assessed Value ($I1000) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Year from Project Start ®Residential Assessed Value ($x1000) ■ Com mercial Assessed Value ($x1000) I 6 Fiscal Impact Under the assumption that the M3 -Eagle development will be built on its projected time line, and at the property values as estimated, the Impact Analysis concludes that the net impacts on the various units of government are all positive. There are, however, two significant gaps in the Impact Analysis' underlying assumptions. The first is the failure to include capital expenditures that governmental agencies will be required to make because of M3 -Eagles' development and its accompanying population. Instead, the Impact Analysis bases its conclusions only on projected operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures. A more detailed examination of the impact on each of the governmental agencies — the City of Eagle, the Meridian School District and ACHD — demonstrates that these capital expenditures will be significant. The second gap is an arithmetical error that impacts primarily on the Meridian School District. City of Eagle The Impact Analysis estimates increased revenues to the City of Eagle from the M3 - Eagle development coming from property taxes, franchise fees (electric, gas, cable, solid waste), state sales tax revenue sharing, and building fees. According to the analysis, over the 20 -year build -out, the City of Eagle would see total increased revenues from these sources of $91.1 million. It must be remembered, however, that this projection is for the entire 20 -year period. During the first two phases — projected to take 7 years — the estimated annual net benefit (revenues over costs) ranges from $657 thousand the first year to $1.2 million in the seventh year. Because service demands from the development will need to be met every year, it is critical to examine not only the total projected revenues and costs, but also the revenues and costs from year to year, and the impact these figures will have on the City's budget each year. Given the assumptions of the pace and price of development, the calculation of revenues in the Impact Analysis appear within reason. An attempt to replicate the calculations yielded somewhat lower overall revenues from franchise fees and revenue sharing, but within 2 percent over the 20 -year period for property taxes. The differences may be explained by the fact that the Impact Analysis projected property construction spread throughout the year, while our replication looked only at yearly totals. Because revenues are a direct function of the number and value of the units constructed, they will vary with the pace and value of construction and its associated revenues. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties for the City of Eagle are the pace of development and the assumed values of the residential units. It is worth repeating here that commercial development necessarily follows residential development. Therefore, if residential development is slower than projected, commercial development will also be slower, and revenues from both will be slower to come in. This may well impact the City's annual budgets. 7 The Impact Analysis calculates the net benefits to the City of Eagle based on an estimate of O&M expenditures per person. Given the current population and the City's budget, it calculates O&M spending at $253 per person per year. To calculate net benefits, the Impact Analysis uses a higher figure of $275 per person. This figure, however, does not include capital expenditures. Including capital costs, the City of Eagle's General Fund Budget for fiscal year 2007 is $7.7 million. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Eagle in July of 2006 was 18,419. Based on these figures, the City of Eagle is actually spending a total of $419 per person per year — a substantially higher number than that used in the Impact Analysis when capital expenditures are included. Using the $419 figure — and making no other changes to the Impact Analysis — the net benefit of the project over a 20 -year period is essentially zero. Revenues and expenses are both just over $90 million. Because the projected development of the project would double the current population of the city it will result in additional capital investments, which should reasonably be considered impacts of the development. The $419 per person figure is, therefore, a more accurate value to use than the Impact Analysis' $275. Remember, too, that the value of M3 -Eagle's residential housing could less than projected, resulting in lower revenues. The costs of the population increase, however, would remain the same, resulting in a projection of negative net benefit. There is also a large body of evidence that indicates as a city grows from a small size and a rural nature to a larger size with a more urban setting, city expenditures per person tend to increase because people expect higher levels of service. As Eagle's population approaches 40,000, the cost per person of providing services may exceed the $419 currently spent. Although it is beyond the scope of this analysis, a better predictor might be to look at the per -person expenditures of other regional growing cities with populations around 40,000. ACHD M3 -Eagle's Impact Analysis predicts a 20 -year net benefit for ACHD of $72.8 million, including $46.1 million from property taxes and $39.3 million in impact fees. The analysis also estimates that additional ACHD expenditures for the 20 -year period will be $12.6 million, but again this includes only operating costs — no capital costs are included. In an attempt to address this point, the analysis says that "(c)osts associated with the longer term capacity needs of the transportation infrastructure are caused by many factors and circumstances which are better examined in detailed traffic and engineering studies." [p. 46] The results of one such study, discussed below, indicates a doubling of the population of Eagle will result in substantial increased capital costs for transportation infrastructure. 8 For FY 2006 the ACHD budget shows M&O expenditures of $12.0 million out of a total of $79.2 million. Capital Projects are budgeted to be $43.0 million, with other support services at $24.2 million. Maintenance & Operations expenditures therefore comprise only 15.2 percent of ACHD's budget. Capital costs account for 54.3 percent, and other support services 30.5 percent. ACHD currently maintains and operates 2,050 miles of roads and streets in Ada County. Total expenditures per mile, therefore, were $36,195 for FY 2006. By contrast, the Impact Analysis uses only the M&O expense per mile, $7,992, in its calculation of net benefit. If total expenditures per mile are used, expenses over the 20 -year development period would equal $57.0 million rather than the $12.6 million used in the Impact Analysis. This change reduces the net fiscal impact over the 20 -year period from $72.8 million to $28.4 million. Moreover, while it falls within the purview of the Idaho Department of Transportation rather than ACHD, a detailed analysis of the actual costs would of necessity include the capital and added M&O needs brought about by the additional traffic on Highways 16 and 55, in addition to urban roads in Ada County. These increased costs will be imposed on all Ada County residents, including those living in Eagle. A recently released Highway 55 Joint Transportation Study undertaken for the Highway 55 Association Executive Committee projects the following costs on a per unit basis for the Highway 55 corridor (Table 7). The study includes a disclaimer, which states that "(,)hese estimates are for information only and should not be considered final. Significant analysis and calculations need to be completed to determine the final costs. This would occur during subsequent studies and preliminary design."[p.29.J Table 7 Transportation Improvement Cost per Unit Land Use Cart Estimate par Writ Single -Family Dwelling $9,300 - $9,700 per unit Apartment $5,200 - $5,400 per unit Condominium $4,400 - $4,600 per unit Office $12,600 - $13.200 per 1,000 SF Retail $17,900 - $22,900 per 1,400 SF Hotel $.5,000 - $5,200 per roam 9 Disclaimers aside, these estimates are at least an indication of what the costs may be of M3 -Eagle's proportional share for highway improvement outside its geographical boundaries. Using the average values of the ranges given in the above table and the residential and commercial units projected to be developed over the 20 -year period, the cost of transportation improvements to Highway 55 alone would exceed $100 million. This is may well be significantly more than the net fiscal benefit projected to accrue to agencies responsible for fulfilling the transportation needs caused by the development. Meridian Joint School District #2 M3 -Eagle projects that it will add 4,620 students residing in 7,997 new residential housing units to the Meridian School District by the end of the 20 -year project. The Impact Analysis estimates that the net fiscal impact to the school district will be $163.5 million. This does not include the capital costs needed to build new schools driven by the increase in enrollment, but according to the study (Table 26(c)), there will be more than enough increased revenue to build the necessary schools. There are three problems we found with this analysis. First, there appears to be a arithmetic error in the 20 -year net fiscal impact as carried forward to Table 26(c), which shows a net fiscal impact of $340.1 million, rather than the $163.5 million net fiscal impact, without new schools, as seen in Table 26(b). The net fiscal impact including new school construction, with this correction, would by $176.6 lower. Second, the Impact Analysis states that for the 2004-2005 school year, assessed property value per average daily student attendance was nearly $276,348. It also says that "(1)argely because of the expected 2,300,000 square feet of commercial floor space slated for M3 -Eagle Idaho Economics expects that, at full build -out of the project, the average assessed value per M3 - Eagle student will be close to $765,620." [p.57]. However, a slide submitted to the City Council on September 25 reduces commercial development at full build -out to 1.6 million square feet. This 30 percent reduction in commercial development and associated property value could impact expected revenues significantly for the Meridian School District as well as for other governmental units impacted by the project. Third, the text of the Impact Analysis states that there will be a need for 5 new elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and lhigh school. Later in the analysis, however, in Table 26(c), there is only 1 middle school listed. If the cost of the second middle school is included in the analysis, it would increase the projected cost of school facilities by $20.2 million, for a total of $148.4 million. 10 When this is measured against the expected $128.2 million in school construction costs, it leaves a net benefit of $35.3 million over the 20 -year development period. With the addition of the second middle school the net benefit would fall to just $15.1 million over the 20 year development period, or less than $1 million per year. Once again, these values are based on the expected property values, the commercial space developed, and the pace and value of building that form the basis for the Impact Analysis. Any reduction in the value of the properties or lengthening of the pace of building would reduce any net benefits. Consistency with the Foothills Comprehensive Plan In this section we will undertake a brief review of M3 -Eagle's proposed project and the parameters currently set forth in the City's Foothill Comprehensive Plan. One problem with this assessment is that projections of the development of residential units, commercial space, and project amenities vary from source to source. For example, the Impact Analysis calculates property tax revenue and building fees accruing to the City of Eagle based on commercial development of 2.1 million square feet over the 20 -year period. However, a slide submitted to the City Council dated September 25 sates that `enhancements' to the plan have reduced its commercial size to 1.6 million square feet. Another slide shows the number of dwelling units reduced from 12,010 to 5,640, with a maximum of 8,160. This is a 45 percent difference in expected units. The Impact Analysis determination of net fiscal impacts assumes the maximum number of 8,160 units. Such a large difference in expected units has a significant impact not only on the projected revenues, population, and expenses of the project, but also on the estimates of the development's density. Also, the September submittal to the City Council also has a slide with a 500 -acre vineyard with accompanying residential areas and a village center that are not found in either the Impact Analysis or on M3 -Eagle's website. For these reasons, the following comments about the project as it relates to the City's Foothill plan can only be based on our best guess of the estimates, which, in turn, are based on the most recent information. As the definition of the project changes, its ability to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan may also change. The commercial square feet of the project (whether 1.6 or 2.1 million) appear reasonable for its location and size (with the continuing caveat that commercial must follow residential). There is, however, some question as to the placement of the commercial and neighborhood centers. Maps found on M3 -Eagle's website place the major commercial center in the middle of the project, while the city's Comprehensive Plan indicates that major commercial developments should occur at major intersections along Highways 16 and 55. 11 The Community Core area in the center of the project estimates a total of 1.3 million square feet of commercial space plus a 500 unit hotel. This area comprises about 80 percent of the planned commercial space and contains about 45 percent office space and 55 percent retail space. In its September presentation to the City Council, however, an M3 -Eagle slide states that the development will "(e)ncourage community scale commercial use to locate along SH 55 & 16 with the foothills to promote trip capture along the regional roadway system." This statement appears to fit the requirements of the Foothills Comprehensive Plan better than does the map on M3 -Eagle's website or the slide submitted, which has the major commercial development in the middle of the project, away from Highways 55 and 16. In addition, M3 -Eagle's sub -area map, found on their website, shows 88 acres of a highway mixed use business park with no commercial square feet listed. If the plan is to put the majority of the commercial space in the community core, as indicated on the website and in the slide, it would certainly be at odds with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Commercial space located along highways 55 and 16, on the other hand, fit better into the Comprehensive Plan's prescribed location for commercial space. Until the scope and location of the proposed commercial properties and neighborhood centers are specifically defined, it is difficult to determine how well they fit within the City's Foothills Comprehensive Plan. The project is designed so that most of the residential and commercial development is in clusters, with significant open space. This approach fits with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The 6,005 total acres that comprise the project are divided into several areas, each with a different mix of lot sizes and open space. Table 1 below outlines each sub -area. 12 Table 1 M3 -Eagle Area Plan Northern Residential Area 2,760 acres Commerical 120,000 sq ft Single Family Lots 4,919 Units Single Family Attached 351 Units 5,270 1.91 per acre 1,015 acres open space or 36.8% Southwestern Residential Area 407 acres Commerical 0 sq ft Single Family Lots 69 Units Single Family Attached 0 Units 69 0.17 per acre 44 acres open space or 10.8% Southern Residential Area 2,114 acres Commerical 0 sq ft Single Family Lots 128 Units Single Family Attached 0 Units 128 0.06 per acre 1,006 acres open space or 47.6% Commerical Core 636 acres Commerical 1,334,171 sq ft Single Family Lots 200 Units Single Family Attached 1893 Units Multi -Family 300 2,393 5.24 per acre 167 acres open space or 26.3% Mixed Use - Highway 16 Units 88 acres 500 Units 500 5.68 per acre Willow Creek 80 acres open space or 100% Totals from Above Acres 6,005 Units 8,360 Sq ft Commercial 1,454,171 Open space acres 2,312 Percent open space 38.5% 13 The city's Comprehensive Plan calls for an overall density in the foothills of about one unit for every 2 acres (0.49 per acre based on 49,000 thousand acres and 24,241 units). While the Southwestern and Southern area in the M3's project exceed this level, the overall project comes in at between 0.94 and 1.36 units per acre [5,640 to 8,160 residential units and 6005 acres]. The 0.49 units per acre contained in the Comprehensive Plan, however, includes 5,400 acres of BLM land. If all of the BLM land is included in M3 -Eagle's project, the units per acre would vary between 0.49 and .76 units per acre. Therefore, for the project to meet the 0.49 units per acre prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan, all of the total of 5,400 BLM acres would need to be credited to the project and the number of unit would have to be kept at 5,641, rather than the 8,160 units considered in the Impact Analysis. The city's Comprehensive Plan also indicates 40 percent of the gross area of a site should be in open space. M3 -Eagle's development proposal appears to meet this goal, with 39 percent of the area designated as open space. This level would be exceeded with the BLM land exchange of 880 acres that could be considered open space. Finally, the submittal to the City Council indicates that the project is now considering a specific vineyard and wine region within its development area. The would fit with the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for an `Eagle Wine Region' in the foothills. The above review should not be considered comprehensive. As additional information about the project becomes known a more through analysis could be undertaken. The two major aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that appear to be at odds with the M3 -Eagle's development are the placement of commercial space and the density requirement of 0.49 units per acre. Conclusions Based on our analysis, we believe the Impact Analysis submitted by M3 -Eagle is flawed in five ways. First, and perhaps most importantly, the Impact Analysis does not include capital expenditures in its projections of the costs to various governmental units. Adding these costs significantly changes the net benefits of the project. In the case of the City of Eagle, for example, this one change alone reduces the net benefit from $30.1 million to zero. There would be similar impacts for other governmental units impacted by the development. Second, the Impact Analysis' projections of the rate of development and the value of the residential properties are, in our view, too rosy. A slower pace of residential development — and, of necessity, commercial development — would mean that revenues would come in more slowly. There is no guarantee, however, that expenses would be cut proportionately, which might lead to shortfalls in any given year. This would impact all of the governmental units affected by the development. 14 Even more significant, however, is the prospect that the residential units would not sell for as much as the Impact Analysis assumes. This would reduce revenues to all entities while not necessarily reducing expenditures, since the number of new residents would remain about the same. Third, the Impact Analysis fails to consider costs that will likely be imposed on governmental entities outside the geographic bounds of the development. The most obvious example is the additional capital and M&O costs related to the maintenance and improvement of Highways 16 and 55, which could exceed $100 million, based on the one study cited above, over the 20 -year period. Fourth, the Impact Analysis' conclusions with regard to the Meridian School District cannot be relied upon because of a mathematical error and the total cost of building new schools. The results of these corrections leave the Impact Analysis's estimate of net benefits at less than $1 million per year. These inconsistencies may well have resulted from the project's evolving design. Finally, while the development's allocation of open space is to be commended, other aspects of the proposed project are less compatible with the city's Foothills Comprehensive Plan. The most obvious is the location of the major commercial center in the middle of the project, rather than at major intersections along Highways 16 and 55. Moreover, should the project go forward with the number of units considered in the Impact Analysis, it would exceed the density requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. Unfortunately, much of this analysis can aptly be described as shooting at a moving target, given the design changes the project is obviously going through. Significant differences between the Impact Analysis, M3 -Eagle's September presentation to the City Council, and its website — particularly with regard to the number of units proposed and the amount and location of the commercial space — make firm conclusions difficult. In our view, however — regardless of the specifics that eventually emerge -- this analysis raises enough red flags to suggest that at the very least, the City Council needs more information before it can come to a reasonable conclusion about the net benefits of the project. 15 Nichoel Baird From: Eric Pedersen [Iivefreeordie2011 @gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 2:54 PM To: Nichoel Baird Subject: M3 questions Nichoel- I'm running for city council and I've been reading the formation documents for Spring Valley. My question is concerning the bonds to be issued. I looked up some information on line and wanted to make sure it is correct. 1) I read that with G.O. Bonds, if property owners fail to pay the amount needed for the bonds, then the liability falls somewhat on the city, and the city can make "room" in it's budget to make the payments. I couldn't find for sure with S.A. Bonds and revenue bonds. Can the city use the budget to make up for shortfalls? If not, how are those shortfalls compensated for? I saw that one way is raising the tax, but raising taxes causes people to be even more less likely to pay, so what if that also falls short? 2) If the city does in fact have no liability, then what is the point of issuing these bonds through the city? And why do we as citizens vote on it? 3) As I read through this it seems like it's simply that the developers realized that if they have to tack on these costs to the home buyers that the development won't be so enticing. So they use government backed loans through these bonds to ease the payment of it out over a period of time. But isn't that messing with the free market? Why not just have the developers themselves take out loans, or add the price onto the existing mortgage, almost no one buys houses outright anymore anyhow? 4) Can the city foreclose on a home to pay the obligation of the bonds if the homeowner fails to pay for a certain period of time? Thanks, Eric Pedersen 1 jilijille° 4A_q S EVV E R 44 N. Palmetto Avenue • Eagle, Idaho 83616 ED 1 ST RI K.-7- Phone (208) 939-0132 • Fax (208) 939-8986 F1E4 E1VEij & i-11LE[?_.'. --- r----- WY OF EAGLE SL.l: ,, 0 2011 File Route to. September 30, 201 The Honorable Jim Reynolds City of Eagle PO Box 1 520 Eagle, Idaho 83616 Dear Mayor Reynolds, I am sure you are aware that Eagle Sewer District's management team including our consulting engineers and our legal counsel has, over the past several years, had several discussions with the Spring Valley (formerly M3 Eagle) management team concerning sewer service. However, in the spring of 2009 Spring Valley notified our general manager, Lynn Moser, that due to the decision rendered by the State of Idaho Water Resource Board concerning potable water issues for Spring Valley that all negotiations with Eagle Sewer District were on an indefinite hold. To date, except for a meeting on September 6, 2011 to give us a brief overview of the Community Infrastructure District that Spring Valley is proposing, there has been no additional discussion about our involvement in the Spring Valley Project. The discussions that the District has had with the Spring Valley folks have been about what kind of a treatment plant we would want to see and how the treated water would be disposed. Right before Spring Valley put a hold on further discussions with us we were looking forward to reviewing a contract on terms of ownership and management of the Spring Valley Wastewater Facilities. As the Eagle area's wastewater treatment service provider we feel a community obligation to respond in a positive manner to any reasonable request for our services and/or involvement. In short, our response is "yes', we arc willing to become involved — to include owning, operating and maintaining Spring Valley facilities — subject to our ability to consummate an annexation agreement with Spring Valley. The reason for my letter is to let you and the Eagle City Council know that we have not yet contractually agreed to anything with the Spring Valley Developers. Thank you for your time and we very much look forward to hopefully being the wastewater provider for the Spring Valley Development. Sincerely, /Jim Brooks Chairman Cc: ESD Board of Directors Lynn Moser ESD General Manager Evan Robertson ESD Attorney Gerry Robbins -Spring Valley Development ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 300 N 6th Street Suite 103 PD Box 83720 Boise ID 83720-0050 Phone (208) 334-0200 Fax (208) 334-2339 September 23, 2011 + IDAHO DEPARTMENT OFLANDS THOMAS M. SCHULTZ, JR., DIRECTOR ECUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Nichoel Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP Planner III City of Eagle PO Box 1520 Eagle ID 83616 RECEIVED 1 FILED CITY OF EAGLE SEP 2 7 2011 STATE BOARD OF$JD COMMISSIONERS C. lj.. g' hart" Otier. Gov_Qrnor ._ Ben rsursa, Secr`elary iof Mate Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General Donna M. Jones, State Controller Tom Luna, Sup't of Public Instruction via e-mail: nbaird@citvofeacle.orq RE: Gerry Robbins - Spring Valley Idaho Petition to create a community infrastructure district Located geographically north of Beacon Light Road between State Highway 16 and Willow Creek Road within the North Eagle Foothills Planning Area Dear Ms. Baird Spencer: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the community infrastructure district petition submitted by Gerry Robbins representing Spring Valley Idaho (formerly known as M3 Eagle), for property consisting of 5,610 acres located geographically north of Beacon Light Road between State Highway 16 and Willow Creek Road within the City of Eagle North Eagle Foothills Planning Area. As you may know, Idaho Department of Lands' (IDL) mission is to manage State Endowment Trust Lands (State Trust Lands) in a manner that will maximize Tong -term financial returns to the Beneficiary Institutions. The IDL mission is a constitutional mandate and is overseen by the State Board of Land Commissioners. State Trust Lands are not managed for the public at large and should not be referred to as "public lands" or "open space," either specifically or in a generic sense. These are working lands producing revenue for the Beneficiary Institutions. The IDL has been monitoring the progress of the Spring Valley Idaho development with interest, since State Trust Lands abut Phase 5 of the proposed Community Infrastructure District (CID). Any future development in areas adjacent to the greater Spring Valley development will certainly rely upon infrastructure systems proposed in the CID. Maintaining foresight to insure adequate system capacity for future development would be prudent. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this request and we look forward to working with you again in the future. Please contact our Southwest Area Manager Steve Douglas, at (208) 334-3488 if you have questions or would like more information. Sincerely, Julianne Shaw Assistant Planner cc: Kurt Houston, Operations Chief - South Steve Douglas, Southwest Area Manager Kate Langford, Strategic Business Analyst — Planning RECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE Chevron SES;, 2 2 2011 1%10 File: Route to. September 16, 2011 City of Eagle Attention: Nichoel Baird Spencer P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, ID 832616 RE: Spring Valley Infrastructure District. Dear Ms. Baird- Spencer: Asset Management- MidCon- NW Operations Chevron Pipe Line Company 2875 S Decker Lake Drive, Ste 150 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Tel 801-975-2334 Fax 801-975-2333 Tom Denison@Chevron com Thank you for advising us of future developmental plans of the Spring Valley Infrastructure District which may affect facilities owned by Chevron Pipe Line Company (CPL). Consent to cross the CPL pipeline cannot be granted until more detailed information is obtained about pipeline depths and the impact your project will have on our facilities. An evaluation of your project will proceed upon receipt of the necessary engineering design drawings or supporting information. As you are aware, CPL operates and maintains two high pressure pipelines that traverses the property proposed for development/improvement. The pipelines were built to transport refined petroleum products to terminals throughout the intermountain region. CPL's pipelines are maintained in accordance with the Department of Transportation Pipeline Safety Regulations (40 CFR 195) and must be protected from external damage at all times. Accordingly, we are providing you with the following information along with the enclosed pipeline crossing standards to assist you in planning your project: 1. CPL has a right-of-way which crosses the subject property proposed for development/improvement. The easement in particular provides that all rights granted therein shall not be impaired or interfered with. In addition, CPL's pipelines must be protected from external damage at all times. 2. Specific details of any foreign line crossings (water, sewer, power, telephone, natural gas lines, etc.) should be worked out in advance with CPL. It is recommended that all buried utility lines crossing CPUs pipeline maintain a minimum of 24 inches between the pipeline and the utility line. The utility shall maintain the same depth of cover across the entire right-of-way. At no time shall the clearance between CPUs pipeline and the utility be less than 12 inches except where approval is granted from the Field Team Leader or designee for allowable D. O. T. specifications. Utility poles will not be permitted within CPL's right-of-way. Any crossing will require a line crossing agreement to be signed by the owner/developer. 3. CPL requests that detailed engineering drawings showing proposed finished grades, building locations and layout of utilities be submitted for CPUs review and approval. The detail required shall include plan and profile view drawings showing the location of CPL's pipeline in relationship to any utility crossings and/or finished grade improvements. 4. Proper ground cover over our pipeline is required for maintaining a safe pipeline operation. Ground cover must meet current Department of Transportation regulations specified in CFR 49, Parts 195.200, 195.210, and 195.248. At the present time, cover over our pipeline through this development is not known. CPL personnel will assist the owner/developer in locating the pipeline and obtaining depth measurements. If it is determined by the CPL Engineering Department that adequate cover cannot be reached in the facility design especially as it relates to the crossing of the pipelines by heavy equipment, CPL would then require its lines to be lowered or additional fill placed over the lines. This work will be at the expense of the owner/developer to the satisfaction of CPL. 5. CPUs pipelines are cathodically protected. If the owner/developer is proposing any metal pipes or structures in the vicinity of the right-of-way, it is absolutely necessary that arrangements be made with CPL for the protection of those facilities in order to prevent electrical interference problems. 6. Under no circumstances will CPL allow any work on its easement prior to discussing line locations with the contractors and marking its line. CPL shall be notified a week in advance of any and all work on our pipeline right-of-way. Notification must be made to Mr. Dan Johnson, Boise Field Team Leader, for arrangements to have a Company representative on-the-job while work is being done on or near CPL's right-of-way. His office number is (208) 373-2141. You may also call me at 801-975-2334 for more information concerning the Chevron Right- of- Way. Also, attached is a copy of Chevron's crossing standards which further detail requirements for crossing the pipe line. Finally, the owner/developer should be advised that should modification of CPAs facilities be required as a result of this development, all cost and expense of such modification shall be the sole responsibility of the owner/developer. Sincerely, rferk"-V Tom Denison Senior Land Representative Chevron 1%0 PIPELINE CROSSING STANDARi)S General requirements for buried line crossings: A. All buried lines crossing Chevron Pipe Line Company's ("CPL") right-of-way must cross at an angle of 45 degrees or more. 13. All buried lines must cross under CPUs pipeline. If impractical because of underground structures, heavy rock or extreme depth of CPL pipeline(s), the Field Team Leader or designee must grant approval for lines to cross over CPL pipelines. C. It is recommended that all buried utility lines crossing CPL's pipeline maintain a minimum of 24 inches between the pipeline and the utility line. The utility shall maintain the same depth of cover across the entire right-of-way. At no time shall the clearance between CPL's pipeline and the utility be less than 12 inches except where approval is granted from the Field Team Leader or designee for allowable D. 0. T. specifications. D. All buried lines must be nonmetallic material or have one corrosion test lead installed on both the metallic utility pipe and CPUs pipe. This test lead will provide a means to monitor interference with CPUs cathodic protection system. E. CPL's personnel must install the lead on CPUs pipeline and, if requested, CPL will also install the lead on the crossing utility pipe. F. Metallic pipe crossings shall be protected by a coating for at least ten feet each side of the CPL right-of-way. II. Specific requirements for communication line crossings (buried telephone, cable TV and other data lines): A. All buried communication lines shall be installed in accordance with guidelines of the National Electrical Safety Code. B. All buried communication lines shall be encased in a rigid nonmetallic conduit across the entire width of the right-of-way. C. Proposed communication lines that cross the CPL right-of-way shall meet all the General Requirements. D. Specific reauirements for fiber optic lines must be adhered to. Such installations are allowed provided that measures are taken to prevent accidental severing of fiber optic lines during pipeline repair and maintenance work. Such measures may include but are not limited to, a burial depth of not less than 24 inches below CPL's pipelines, encasing the fiber optic line in a rigid conduit, or placing a 4 inch slab of concrete above and below the fiber optic lines. The fiber optic protection must extend across the entire width of the right-of-way. Discretion is given to CPL field personnel for any additional requirements or variances. III. Specific requirements for buried power line crossings: A. All proposed buried power lines shall meet the General Requirements. B. All buried power lines shall be installed in accordance with guidelines of the National Electrical Safety Code (public utility power and light companies) or the National Electric Code (private power and light companies). C. All buried power lines shall be encased in a rigid nonmetallic conduit. It is recommended, but not required, that a slab of concrete, red in color, and at least 2 inches thick by 1 foot wide shall be placed over the conduit. The conduit and concrete slab (if used) shall have a constant depth of cover and extend across the entire width of the right-of-way. The top of the red concrete slab (if used) shall be at least 24 inches below the CPL pipeline. D. All buried power lines shall have signs placed at each edge of the right-of-way to mark the underground cable angle and the path of the crossing. This provision shall not apply in urban areas or where the placement of signs is impractical. E. If the proposed underground power cable has a concentric neutral, a test point from the ground wire shall be installed by the power company, and in turn CPL personnel will install a test point from CPL's pipeline. These test points will be utilized for CPL cathodic protection interference tests. IV. Backfill requirements for road construction and miscellaneous foreign line crossings: A. Backfilling will be permitted only after all inspections of piping have been performed and test leads are connected if they are required. Backfilling must be with the appropriate specified material and compacted according to the following specifications. Inspections and connecting test leads will be promptly carried out to avoid unreasonable delays in construction. B. The pipe zone material shall extend 6 inches under the CPL pipe and 18 inches to the side and 18 inches over the top of the CPL pipe. The material placed in this pipe zone must be free of all rock larger than 1/4 inch, all frozen material, or any organic material. It is preferable that the pipe zone material be clean fine grain sand. If the native trench excavated material does not meet these specifications, imported bedding will be used. C. The material above the pipe zone may use native excavated material as long as it is free from brush, perishable material, trash, rocks, or boulders larger than 6 inches in the greatest dimension or frozen material. If the material has rock that exceeds the 6 inch size the material may be run through a grizzly or screen to remove the oversized rock or imported material that meets the specification. D. The material that is excavated and replaced in the right-of-way will be replaced and compacted. All compaction within the pipe zone shall be not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight, as determined by AASHTO T-99, Method D or ASTM D-698, Method D, or compacted to not less than 70 percent of the maximum relative density as determined by ASTM D-2049. If the material is of a sandy nature requiring the ASTM D-2049 test procedure, 10 days must be allowed for the establishment of the relative density. CPL will waive the l0 -day requirement if: (1) the contractor provides standard proctors for the materials used at least two days before construction, or (2) the compaction meets County Highway District standards and testing is done by a third party and CPL can observe the procedure. If the contractor proceeds under item (2) above and later it is discovered the compaction is not adequate, the developer at his expense will recompact to meet CPL requirements. During the progress of the work, the CPL Representative may make test of the compacted material to determine the in-place dry unit weight in accordance with one of the following procedures: ASTM D-1556, ASTM D-2167, ASTM D-2922, AASHTO T-191 or AASHTO T-205. E. Extreme care shall be exercised during the construction operation to not damage the pipeline coating. Any damage to this coating shall be brought to the attention of the CPL Representative. The damage shall be repaired to the satisfaction of CPL before the operation proceeds. V. Specific requirements with regard to pipeline cover: A. Cover over the pipeline(s) must meet current Department of Transportation regulations specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 195.200, 195.210, and 195.248. B. The finished roadway surfacing (asphalt surfacing 2 1/2 inches thick) shall be at least 48 inches above the top of the CPL pipeline. If new roadways are constructed, it will be the responsibility of the Developer/Contractor to design the aforementioned clearance into the roadway. This may be done by increasing the elevation of the roadway or having CPL lower the pipeline at Owners expense. Note: Paved parking areas are considered to be roadways. C. A CPL Representative must be on site while excavation is taking place. All excavation within 24 inches of the CPL pipeline must be accomplished by hand methods. No load will be permitted over the pipeline while this material is being or has been removed. D. Any proposed change in cover on the pipeline shall be, reported to the CPL Area Office. No construction grading or excavation in the CPL right-of-way may be done without a CPL Representative present. VI. Landscaping: A. Landscaping on the pipeline right-of-way shall be limited to grass, sod, and shrubbery having root lengths extending less than 12 inches beneath the surface at all times. No trees with root lengths that would interfere with the coating or integrity of the pipeline may be planted in the right-of- way. VII. Equipment Crossings: A. Normal loads acceptable to the resident State Department of Transportation for highway purposes may cross the pipeline at locations where pipeline cover has been determined adequate to handle such loads. VIII. Fencing: A. Fences may not be constructed in the right-of-way without identification and marking of CPL pipeline facilities. In general, fences may not run laterally within the right-of-way. Fences crossing the right-of-way may be allowed provided that provisions are made to resolve future access problems. Provisions must be agreed upon by a CPL Representative prior to the installation of the fence. RINGERT •LAW tiglitto September 6. 201 1 N ichoel R. 13aird Spencer City of Eagle P.O. Box 1 520 I ;able. Idaho 83616 MR.� IS 7 2011. Re: Spring Valley Community Infrastructure District. )ear ivis. Baird Spencer: ]aura E. Burn Adan S Christenson lellrcr It. Cluurcnson 1)„n1 S li�),s funs Inn C Gould i)asul liammcryunr Charles L Honsmgcr •• lanes 1'. Kaufman Jennifer Reid Mahoney lames (.:. Acid * 1)aurcl \'. Swenson i am writing to you on behalf of Drainage District #2. Drainage District No. 2 is a drainage district organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho which operates and maintains its' drainage facilities located south ofthe proposed above-named development. Drainage District No. 2 is providing you with this letter to make you aware of its concerns. the potential impacts the Spring Valley Community may have on the District and its facilities. and to request that the District's concerns are addressed as future permits. plats, and approvals are requested. It appears that the proposed development is north ofthe District's boundaries and there are n+) District drains or easements which course through the proposed development. However. because ofthe location and size of the proposed development, any changes or modifications to the drainage ;Or the relevant lands proposed to be developed may impact the District's facilities. including changes to the discharge, stormwater or modification to the quality or quantity of water which may llow south to the District's drainage facilities. Such changes or modifications will require the District's written consent prior to such modifications. Again, Drainage District No. 2 would request that as such future permits or plats are submitted, that the City ensure that the required consent of the District is first obtained before approvals are issued. When and it the developer submits site specific plans. or requests for future conditional use permits, preliminary plats or building permits, the developer may contact myself at the address and phone number listed on this letter. Please contact me if you have any questions. Yours very truly. S. Bryce Farris `,i31 :kw DDi'2 Board of Directors 455 South Third Street PO Box 2773 Boise, Idaho 83701 208.342.4591 FAX 208.342.4657 www ringer t1aw.com • also hccnscd in Olt •' also licensed in CO Agency/Public Comment: "No Comments" Nichoel Baird From: mm_mi@juno.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:00 PM To: Nichoel Baird Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch Community Infrastructure Distict Thank you for the notice. That project is out of our area but we appreciate the effort to be contacted. Gloria Stokes, Secretary Middleton Irrigation Association, Inc. Middleton Mill Ditch Co. e-mail: mm miejuno.com Address: P.O. Box 848, Middleton, ID 83644 Phone: 208-585-3207 Fax: 208-585-2317 Original Message From: "Nichoel Baird" <nbaird@,citvofeagle.org> To: "P&Z Agency Transmittal"<P&ZA2encvTransmittalacitvofeagle.or2> Cc: "Susan E. Buxton" <SEB@msbtlaw.com> 3 Subject: Spring Valley Ranch Community Infrastructure Distict Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:50:01 -0600 Please see the attached notice of Petition and Public Hearing for the Spring Valley Ranch (formally M3 Eagle) Community Infrastructure District (CID). Nichoel R. Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP Planner III City of Eagle (208)939-0227 57 -Year -Old Mom Looks 25 Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors! ConsumerLifestvles.ora 1 Nichoel Baird From: SARAH STOBAUGH [SARAH.STOBAUGH@BOISESCHOOLS.ORG] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:24 PM To: Nichoel Baird Cc: LANETTE DAW Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch Community Infrastructure Distict I am retiring from the Boise School District at the end of September. Please change the contact name for sending development plans to lanette.daw(aboiseschools.orq. The Spring Valley Ranch development is not in the Boise School District boundaries, so we do not need to receive further plans for this development. Sarah Stobaugh »> "Nichoel Baird" <nbaird(citvofeaale.orq> 9/1/2011 1:50 PM »> Please see the attached notice of Petition and Public Hearing for the Spring Valley Ranch (formally M3 Eagle) Community Infrastructure District (CID). Nichoel R. Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP Planner III City of Eagle (208)939-0227 1 Nichoel Baird From: Steve Sweet [steve@quadrant.cc] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:48 PM To: Nichoel Baird Cc: P&Z Agency Transmittal; Susan E. Buxton; Chuck Ferguson Subject: Re: Spring Valley Ranch Community Infrastructure District Attachments: SpringValleyRanch&FCD10.jpg Dear Nichoel- Spring Valley Ranch appears to be outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of FCD10. I shall recommend to the Board that no site-specific comments by FCD10 are appropriate. Thanks for asking for FCD1O's input. Steve Sweet, PE District Engineer, Boise River Flood Control District #10 c/o Quadrant Consulting, Inc. 1904 W. Overland Rd Boise, ID 83705 208 342 0091 (o) 208 342 0092 (f) 208 850 3452 (c) On 9/1/2011 1:50 PM, Nichoel Baird wrote: Please see the attached notice of Petition and Public Hearing for the Spring Valley Ranch (formally M3 Eagle) Community Infrastructure District (CID). Nichoel R. Baird Spencer, MCRP, AICP Planner III City of Eagle (208)939-0227 1 Nichoel Baird From: Barb Cerda Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:10 AM To: Nichoel Baird Subject: FW: Spring Valley Community Attachments: 20110906090247100.tif Think this one is yours! Barb Cerda Planner II City of Eagle 660 East Civic Lane Eagle, Idaho 83616 208-939-0227-o 208-938-3854-f bcerdaO citvofeagle. org The Eagle City Hall office is open Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Before printing this e-mail think if it is necessary. Think Green! From: Larry Strough fmailto:Larrv.Strouahaitd.idaho.aovl Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:04 AM To: Barb Cerda Cc: Blaine Schwendiman Subject: Spring Valley Community ITD has no comment on the enclosed notice. Thank You Larry Strough 334-8924 �G //-/7�ff LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Fifty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2008 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE BILL NO. 680 BY REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE 1 AN ACT 2 RELATING TO COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICTS; AMENDING TITLE 50, IDAHO CODE, 3 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 31, TITLE 50, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR 4 LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, TO PROVIDE FOR RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS AND A SHORT 5 TITLE, TO Drrimr. TERMS, TO PROVIDE FOR CREATION OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUC- 6 TUBE DISTRICTS, TO PROVIDE FOR DISTRICT ORGANIZATION, TO PROVIDE FOR DIS - 7 TRICT POWERS, TO PROVIDE FOR CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, TO PROVIDE FOR 8 AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, TO PROVIDE FOR FINANCES, TO PROVIDE FOR 9 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, TO PROVIDE FOR ELECTIONS, TO ESTABLISH LIMITS ON 10 INDEBTEDNESS AND TO PROVIDE FOR A LEVY, TO PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 11 AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, TO PROVIDE FOR REVENUE BONDS, TO PROVIDE FOR 12 ELECTIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR TERMS OF BONDS, TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE AND CON - 13 DUCT OF ELECTIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR COST OF ADMINISTRATION, TO PROVIDE FOR 14 ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ANNUAL BUDGET CERTIFICATION, TO PROVIDE 15 FOR DISCLOSURE, TO PROVIDE FOR DISTRICT DISSOLUTION, TO PROVIDE FOR EXEMP- 16 TIONS AND EXCLUSIONS, TO PROVIDE.FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, TO PROVIDE 17 FOR APPEAL, TO PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER STATE LAWS AND TO PRO - 18 VIDE FOR SEVERABILITY. 19 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho: 20 SECTION 1. That Title 50, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended 21 by the addition thereto of a NEW CHAPTER, to be known and designated as Chap - 22 ter 31, Title 50, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 23 24 CHAPTER 31 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT ACT 25 50-3101. PURPOSE, RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER LAWS AND SHORT TITLE. (1) The 26 purpose of this chapter is: 27 (a) To encourage the funding and construction of regional community in - 28 frastructure in advance of actual developmental growth that creates the 29 need for such additional infrastructure; 30 (b) To provide a means for the advance payment of development impact fees 31 established in chapter 82, title 67, Idaho Code, and the community infra - 32 structure that may be financed thereby; and 33 (c) To create additional financial tools and financing mechanisms that 34 allow new growth to more expediently pay for itself. 35 (2) Only community infrastructure to be publicly owned by this state or a 36 political subdivision thereof may be financed pursuant to this chapter. 37 (3) A community infrastructure district may only be formed pursuant to 38 this chapter by a city in the city's incorporated area, or by a county in an 39 area contained within a city's comprehensive plan with the city's consent. 40 (4) A community infrastructure district may be formed only after (i) 41 prior review and approval by the governing body of each county or city in 42 which the district is proposed to be located of a petition requesting the for- 2 1 oration of the district, and (ii) the necessary approvals for site development 2 under the local land use planning act, sections 67-6501 et seq., Idaho Code, 3 and the planning and zoning ordinances of each county and city in which the 4 district is proposed to be located have been obtained; provided however, that 5 where there will be phased development, approvals obtained for the first phase 6 of site development shall be sufficient for the initial creation and organiza- 7 tion of the district. The formation of a district pursuant to this chapter 8 shall not prevent the exercise by a county, city or other political subdivi- 9 sion of any of its powers on the same basis as on all other land within its 10 jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the formation of a district, the development of 11 real property located within the district shall remain subject to the provi- 12 sions of chapter 65, title 67, Idaho Code, and the applicable planning and 13 zoning ordinances of the counties and cities in which the district is located. 14 The formation of a district pursuant to this chapter shall not prevent the 15 subsequent establishment of other districts or the improvement or assessment 16 of land within the district by a county, city or other political subdivision. 17 (5) This chapter shall be known and cited as the "Community Infrastruc- 18 ture District Act." 19 50-3102. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall 20 have the meanings as stated: 21 (1) "Assessment area" means real property within the boundaries of a com- 22 munity infrastructure district that is the subject of a specific special 23 assessment as set forth in this chapter. 24 (2) "Community infrastructure" means improvements that directly or indi- 25 rectly benefit the district. Community infrastructure excludes public improve - 26 ments fronting individual single family residential lots. Community infra - 27 structure includes planning, design, engineering, construction, acquisition or 28 installation of such infrastructure, including the costs of applications, 29 impact fees and other fees, permits and approvals related to the construction, 30 acquisition or installation of such infrastructure, and incurring expenses 31 incident to and reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this chap - 32 ter. Community infrastructure includes all public facilities as defined in 33 section 67-8203(24), Idaho Code, and, to the extent not already included 34 within the definition in section 67-8203(24), Idaho Code, the following: 35 (a) Highways, parkways, expressways, interstates, or other such designa- 36 tion, interchanges, bridges, crossing structures, and related appurte- 37 nances; 38 (b) Public parking facilities, including all areas for vehicular use for 39 travel, ingress, egress and parking; 40 (c) Trails and areas for pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle or other 41 nonmotor vehicle use for travel, ingress, egress and parking; 42 (d) Public safety facilities; 43 (e) Acquiring interests in real property for community infrastructure; 44 (f) Financing costs related to the construction of items listed in this 45 subsection; and 46 (g) Impact fees. 47 (3) "Community infrastructure segment" means a separate or a discernible 48 portion of a construction contract attributable to community infrastructure. 49 (4) "Debt service" means the principal of, interest on and premium, if 50 any, on the bonds, when due, whether at maturity or prior redemption and fees 51 and costs of registrars, trustees, paying agents or other agents necessary to 52 handle the bonds and the costs of credit enhancement or liquidity support. 53 (5) "District" means a community infrastructure district formed pursuant 54 to this chapter. A district shall only include contiguous property at the time 3 1 of formation. Land that is connected by only a shoestring or strip of land 2 which comprises a railroad or highway right-of-way shall not be considered 3 contiguous for the purposes of this chapter. Subsequent to a district's forma - 4 tion, a district may include noncontiguous property but only as the same shall 5 be specifically determined and authorized by the district board in its discre- 6 tion and pursuant to section 50-3106. 7 (6) "District board" means the board of directors of the district. 8 (7) "District development agreement" means an agreement between a prop - 9 erty owner or developer, the county or city, any other political subdivision 10 of the state, and/or the district. A district development agreement shall be 11 used to establish obligations of the parties to the agreement relating to dis- 12 trict financing and development, including: intergovernmental agreements; the 13 ultimate public ownership of the community infrastructure financed by the dis- 14 trict; the understanding of the parties with regard to future annexations of 15 property into the district; the total amount of bonds to be issued by the dis- 16 trict and the property taxes and special assessments to be levied and imposed 17 to repay the bonds and the provisions regarding the disbursement of bond pro - 18 ceeds; the financial assurances, if any, to be provided with respect to the 19 bonds; impact and other fees imposed by governmental authorities, including 20 credit, prepayment and/or reimbursement with respect thereto; and other mat - 21 ters relating to the community infrastructure, such as construction, acquisi- 22 tion, planning, design, inspection, ownership and control. A district develop - 23 ment agreement shall be in addition to and shall not supplant any development 24 agreement entered into pursuant to section 67-6511A, Idaho Code, pursuant to 25 which a governing body may require or permit as a condition of rezoning that 26 an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or develop - 27 ment of the subject parcel. 28 (8) "General plan" means the general plan described in section 29 50-3103(1), Idaho Code, as the plan may be amended from time to time. 30 (9) "Governing body" means the county commissioners or city council that 31 by law is constituted as the governing body of the county or city in which the 32 district is located. Reference in this chapter to "governing body or bodies" 33 shall mean the governing body or bodies of each county and city in which the 34 district is located. 35 (10) "Owner" means the person listed as the owner of real property within 36 the district or a proposed district on the current property rolls in effect at 37 the time that the action, proceeding, hearing or election has begun; provided 38 however, that if a person listed on the property rolls is no longer the owner 39 of real property within the district or a proposed district and the name of 40 the successor owner becomes known and is verified by recorded deed or other 41 similar evidence of transfer of ownership, the successor owner shall be deemed 42 to be the owner for the purposes of this chapter. 43 (11) "Market value for assessment purposes" means the amount of the last 44 preceding equalized assessment of all taxable property and excludes all prop - 45 erty exempt from taxation pursuant to section 63-602G, Idaho Code, within the 46 community infrastructure district on the tax rolls completed and available as 47 of the date of approval in the district bond issuance. 48 (12) "Person" means any entity, individual, corporation, partnership, 49 firm, association, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, 50 trust or other such entities as recognized by the state of Idaho. A "person 51 in interest" is any person who is a qualified elector in the district, who is 52 an owner of real property in the district or who is a real property taxpayer 53 in the district. 54 (13) "Qualified elector" means a person who possesses all of the qualifi- 55 cations required of electors under the general laws of the state of Idaho and: 4 1 (a) Resides within the boundaries of a district or a proposed district 2 and who is a qualified elector. For purposes of this chapter, such elector 3 shall also be known as a "resident qualified elector"; or 4 (b) Is an owner of real property that is located within the district or a 5 proposed district, who is not a resident qualified elector as set forth 6 above. For purposes of this chapter, such elector shall also be known as 7 an "owner qualified elector." 8 (14) "Special assessment" means an assessment imposed upon real property 9 located within an assessment area for a specific purpose and of a special ben - 10 efit to the affected property, collected and enforced in the same manner as 11 property taxes, that may be apportioned according to the direct or indirect 12 special benefits conferred upon the affected property, as well as any or any 13 combination of the following: acreage, square footage, front footage, the cost 14 of providing community infrastructure for the affected property, or any other 15 reasonable method as determined by the district board. 16 50-3103. CREATION OF DISTRICT. (1) The process for the creation and orga- 17 nization of a community infrastructure district shall be initiated by a peti- 18 tion signed by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the district residents or by 19 all of the owners of all the lands located in the proposed district. The peti- 20 tion shall be filed with the clerk of the governing body in which the proposed 21 district will be located. If the proposed district will be located within two 22 (2) or more counties and/or cities, a petition conforming to the requirements 23 of this section shall be filed with the clerk of each jurisdiction's governing 24 body. The petition shall state the name of the proposed district and the pur- 25 pose for which it is formed, state that the formation of the district shall 26 entitle the district to impose special assessments, levy property taxes and 27 impose fees or charges to pay the cost of providing services, and shall be 28 accompanied by a map depicting the boundaries of the proposed district, a 29 legal description of the proposed district and a copy of the proposed general 30 plan. The general plan shall describe or identify the community infrastructure 31 to be financed by the district, the locations of the infrastructure and the 32 estimated cost thereof, the proposed financing methods and the anticipated 33 special assessments, tax levies or other charges, the approvals obtained pur- 34 suant to section 50-3101(3), Idaho Code, and may include possible alterna- 35 tives, modifications or substitutions concerning locations, improvements, 36 financing methods and other information provided in the general plan. The 37 petition shall also include copies of any proposed district development agree - 38 meet. The petition, together with all maps and other papers filed therewith, 39 shall be open to public inspection in the office of the clerk in each county 40 or city in which the petition is filed, during such business hours as the 41 clerk may direct. 42 (2) Upon the filing of a petition, the governing body shall give notice 43 of the filing of the petition and of the time and place set for a public hear - 44 ing on the petition, which hearing shall be at a regular or special meeting 45 held within not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ninety (90) days 46 after the date of the filing of the petition. A notice of the time of the pub - 47 lic hearing shall be published by the governing body twice, the first time not 48 less than twelve (12) days prior to the hearing and the second time not less 49 than five (5) days prior to the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation 50 in each county or city in which the proposed district will be located. A copy 51 of such notice shall also be mailed to each district resident and each owner 52 of real property in the district if known orsuch owner's agent if known, 53 addressed to such person at his or her post office address if known or, if 54 unknown, to a post office in the county or city where the district is located. 5 1 Ownership of real property shall be determined as of the date of the adoption 2 of the resolution ordering the hearing. The notice shall state that a commu- 3 nity infrastructure district is proposed to be formed, giving the proposed 4 boundaries thereof, and that any person who is a resident of or a real prop - 5 erty taxpayer within the proposed district may, on the date fixed for the pub - 6 lic hearing, appear and offer any testimony pertaining to the formation of the 7 district and the proposed boundaries thereof. If the district will be located 8 within two (2) or more counties and/or cities, the governing bodies of such 9 counties and/or cities shall coordinate their efforts and shall either hold a 10 public hearing in each county or city in which the proposed district will be 11 located, or hold a single public meeting in such county or city as the govern - 12 ing bodies shall unanimously agree. The notice shall also state that any 13 political subdivision of this state within whose jurisdiction the proposed 14 district will be located, including, without limitation, a highway district, a 15 school district, a fire district or an ambulance district, may, on the date 16 fixed for the public hearing, appear and offer testimony pertaining to the 17 formation of the district and the proposed boundaries thereof. After hearing 18 and considering any and all of the testimony given, the governing body shall 19 thereupon approve a resolution either denying the petition or granting the 20 same and, if granting the same, shall fix and describe in the resolution the 21 boundaries of the proposed district and order the formation of the same. A 22 resolution granting the petition may also include the approval of any district 23 development agreement that has been approved by the governing body in the 24 process of considering and approving the formation of the district. The 25 boards of county commissioners and/or the city councils, as such governing 26 bodies, are hereby specifically authorized to act in a joint manner for such 27 purposes. 28 (3) Whenever a petition shall be filed as provided for in this section, 29 the petitioner or petitioners shall deposit with each governing body a sum 30 sufficient to defray the costs of publication and mailing of notice of the 31 public hearing. In the event the district is formed, said petitioner or peti- 32 tioners shall be entitled to be reimbursed such sum from the district, as a 33 district formation cost related to the community infrastructure, from the dis- 34 trict when moneys are available to the district. The amount required to be 35 paid under this subsection shall be determined by each governing body and 36 deposited before publication of the notice. 37 (4) The governing body may charge the petitioner or petitioners a reason - 38 able fee for the governing body to retain outside advisors to assist the gov- 39 erning body in its consideration of the formation of the district. In the 40 event the district is formed, the petitioner or petitioners shall be entitled 41 to be reimbursed such fee from the district, as a district formation cost 42 related to the community infrastructure, when moneys are available to the dis- 43 trict. 44 50-3104. DISTRICT ORGANIZATION. (1) If the petition for formation of the 45 district is granted, the district shall comply with the filing and recording 46 requirements of section 63-215, Idaho Code, and shall also cause a copy of the 47 applicable resolution to be delivered to the county assessor of each county in 48 which the district is located, cause a copy of the applicable resolution to be 49 recorded with the county clerk in each county in which the district is 50 located, and cause a copy of the applicable resolution to be filed with the 51 state tax commission. 52 (2) Members of the governing body or bodies at the time of formation 53 shall serve as the district board. If the district is located entirely within 54 the boundaries of a city, three (3) members of the city council chosen by the 6 1 city council shall serve as the district board. If the district is located 2 entirely within the boundaries of a county and outside the boundaries of any 3 city, the county commissioners of the county in which the district is located 4 shall serve as the district board. If the district is located within the 5 jurisdiction of more than one (1) governing body, two (2) members of each goy - 6 erring body shall be appointed by that governing body to serve on the district 7 board and, in addition, the governing body within whose jurisdiction the larg- 8 est land area of the district is located shall appoint another member from its 9 governing body to serve as an additional member of the district board, so that 10 the district board will always be comprised of an odd number of members. For 11 purposes of determining which jurisdiction has such largest land area, the 12 land area in the district that is within the incorporated city limits shall be 13 considered as being the land area of the city, and shall not be considered as 14 part of the land area of the county in which the city is located. If an area 15 is added to the district pursuant to section 50-3106(2), Idaho Code, and such 16 area is located in a city or county not already represented on the district 17 board, or if the addition of such area changes the jurisdiction in which the 18 largest land area of the district is located, the membership of the district 19 board, at the time of addition of such area, shall be adjusted in conformity 20 with the foregoing. If an area is deleted from the district pursuant to sec - 21 tion 50-3106(1), Idaho Code, and, as a result, a county or city no longer has 22 area within the district, or such deletion changes the jurisdiction in which 23 the largest land area of the district is located, the membership of the dis- 24 trict board, at the time of deletion of such area, shall be adjusted in con - 25 formity with the foregoing. If an area is annexed or deannexed by a city and, 26 as a result, the jurisdiction of a county or city is changed, the membership 27 of the district board at the time of such annexation or deannexation shall be 28 adjusted in conformity with the foregoing. The boards of county commissioners 29 and the city councils, as such governing bodies, are hereby specifically 30 authorized to act in a joint manner for such purposes. 31 (3) Within thirty (30) days after the date of the resolution ordering 32 formation of the district, and annually thereafter, the district board shall 33 meet and elect a chairman and vice-chairman to act as the officers of the dis- 34 trict board. The district board shall, unless otherwise agreed to by a major - 35 ity of the board, meet in the county or city within which the largest land 36 area of the district is located. The district shall keep the following 37 records, which shall be open to public inspection: 38 (a) Minutes of all meetings of the district board; 39 (b) All resolutions; 40 (c) Accounts showing all moneys received and disbursed; 41 (d) The annual budget; and 42 (e) All other records required to be maintained by law. 43 (4) The district manager shall be the manager or equivalent of the city 44 or county, the district treasurer shall be the treasurer of the city or 45 county, the district clerk shall be the district clerk of the city or county, 46 respectively, unless the district board engages an outside firm to perform the 47 tasks of the district's manager, treasurer and clerk as well as other duties 48 as may be prescribed by the district board. 49 (5) The district manager shall have charge and supervision of the daily 50 operations of the district. The district manager may hire or otherwise employ 51 and terminate the employment of such persons, including professional, supervi- 52 sory and clerical employees, as may be necessary and authorized by the board. 53 (6) The treasurer of the district shall have such duties as the district 54 board may prescribe, together with the duty to keep account with the district; 55 to place to the credit of the district all moneys received by him or her from 7 1 the collection of special assessments, taxes or from any other sources, and 2 all other moneys belonging to the district, and to pay over all moneys belong - 3 ing to the district on legally drawn warrants or orders of the district board. 4 (7) The clerk of the district shall have such duties as the district 5 board may prescribe, together with the duty to conduct district elections and 6 to prepare and distribute legal notices. 7 (8) The district shall be separate and apart from any county or city. The 8 members of the district board, when serving in their official capacity as mem- 9 bers of the district board, shall act on behalf of the district and not as 10 members of a board of county commissioners or as members of a city council. 11 (9) The district board shall administer in a reasonable manner the imple- 12 mentation of the general plan. 13 (10) The district shall exist until dissolved pursuant to section 50-3116, 14 Idaho Code. 15 50-3105. DISTRICT POWERS. (1) A district formed pursuant to this chapter, 16 although a political subdivision of this state, is not a governmental entity 17 of general purposes and powers, but is a special limited purposes district, 18 with powers only as permitted under this chapter, which powers include the 19 power to finance community infrastructure consistent with the general plan 20 and, in implementing the general plan, to: 21 (a) Enter into contracts and expend moneys for any community infrastruc- 22 ture purposes and/or district operations; 23 (b) Enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided for in sections 24 67-2326 through 67-2333, Idaho Code; 25 (c) Enter into district development agreements; 26 (d) Acquire interests in real property and personal property for commu- 27 nity infrastructure, within or without the district, and sell, dedicate, 28 lease or otherwise dispose of district property if the sale, dedication, 29 lease or conveyance is not a violation of the terms of any contract or 30 bond covenant of the district; 31 (e) Plan, design, engineer, acquire, construct and install community in - 32 frastructure, including acquiring, converting, renovating or improving 33 existing facilities; 34 (f) Employ and establish and pay compensation for staff, counsel and con - 35 sultants; 36 (g) Reimburse a county, city or other political subdivision of this state 37 for staff and consultant services supplied by the county, city or other 38 political subdivision; 39 (h) Accept gifts or grants and incur and repay loans for any community 40 infrastructure; 41 (i) Enter into agreements with owners concerning the advance of money by 42 owners for community infrastructure or the granting of real property by 43 the owners for community infrastructure; 44 (j) Establish, impose and collect or cause to be collected special 45 assessments on real property located within an assessment area of the dis- 46 trict and, in conjunction with the imposition of such assessments, set and 47 collect or cause to be collected administrative fees for community infra - 48 structure; 49 (k) Levy property taxes on real property located within the district and, 50 in conjunction with the levy of such taxes, set and collect or cause to be 51 collected administrative fees for community infrastructure; 52 (1) Incur expenses of the district incident to and reasonably necessary 53 to implement the general plan, and pay the same, including the financial, 54 legal and administrative costs of the district; 8 1 (m) Borrow money and incur indebtedness and evidence the same by certifi- 2 cates, notes, bonds or debentures, and enter into contracts, agreements 3 and trust indentures to obtain credit enhancement or liquidity support for 4 its bonds and process the issuance, registration, transfer and payment of 5 its bonds and the disbursement and investment of proceeds of its bonds; 6 (n) Use public easements and rights-of-way in or across public property, 7 roadways, highways, streets or other thoroughfares and other public ease - 8 ments and rights-of-way, whether in or out of the geographical limits of 9 the district, county or city; and 10 (o) Sue and be sued and prosecute and defend, at law or in equity. 11 (2) Community infrastructure other than personalty, may be located only 12 in or on lands, easements or rights-of-way publicly owned by this state or a 13 political subdivision thereof. 14 (3) An agreement pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may include 15 agreements to repay all or part of such advances, fees and charges from the 16 proceeds of bonds if issued, or from advances, fees and charges collected 17 from other owners or users or those having a right to use any community infra - 18 structure. A person does not have authority to compel the issuance or sale of 19 the bonds of the district or the exercise of any taxing power of the district 20 to make repayment under any agreement. 21 (4) With respect to goods, services or construction to be paid for or 22 financed pursuant to this chapter, the district, as a political subdivision of 23 this state, shall comply with all applicable procurement statutes of this 24 state, including section 67-2320, Idaho Code, and chapter 28, title 67, Idaho 25 Code. 26 50-3106. CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES -- AMEND GENERAL PLAN. (1) After 27 district formation, an area may be deleted from the district only following 28 notice and hearing in the manner prescribed for the formation hearing, adop- 29 tion of a resolution of intention to do so by the district board, and by voter 30 approval by the qualified electors as provided in section 50-3112, Idaho Code. 31 Lands within the district that are subject to the lien of property taxes, spe- 32 cial assessments or other charges imposed pursuant to this chapter shall not 33 be deleted from the district while there are bonds outstanding that are pay - 34 able by such taxes, assessments or charges. 35 (2) After district formation, an area may be added to the district upon 36 adoption of a resolution of intention to do so by the district board and the 37 approvals of all the owners of the lands to be added and the governing body of 38 each county or city within which such lands are located, subject to notice, 39 hearing and adoption of a resolution in the manner as required for the forma - 40 tion of a district. 41 (3) If an area is deleted or added under subsection (1) or (2) of this 42 section, the district board shall attend to the recording and filing require - 43 meats set forth in section 63-215, Idaho Code, and shall also cause a copy of 44 the applicable resolution to be delivered to the county assessor of each 45 county in which the district is located, cause a copy of the applicable reso- 46 lution to be recorded with the county clerk in each county in which the dis- 47 trict Is located, and cause a copy of the applicable resolution to be filed 48 with the state tax commission. 49 (4) The district board, following notice and hearing in the manner pre - 50 scribed for the formation hearing, may amend the general plan in any manner 51 that it determines will not substantially reduce the benefits to be received 52 by any land within the district from the community infrastructure upon comple- 53 tion of the work to be performed under the general plan. No election shall be 54 required for the purposes of this subsection. 9 1 50-3107. FINANCES. (1) Only community infrastructure to be publicly owned 2 by this state or a political subdivision thereof may be financed pursuant to 3 this chapter. 4 (2) Community infrastructure to be financed or acquired, or publicly or 5 privately constructed pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the 6 required bidding procedures for any Idaho public agency. 7 (3) Community infrastructure shown in the general plan may be financed 8 from the following sources of revenue: 9 (a) Proceeds received from the sale of bonds of the district; 10 (b) Moneys of a county or city contributed to the district; 11 (c) Property taxes or special assessments; 12 (d) State or federal grants or contributions; 13 (e) Private contributions; 14 (f) User, landowner and other fees and charges; 15 (g) Proceeds of loans or advances; and 16 (h) Any other moneys available to the district by law. 17 (4) The amount of indebtedness evidenced by general obligation bonds 18 issued pursuant to section 50-3108, Idaho Code, special assessment bonds 19 issued pursuant to section 50-3109, Idaho Code, and revenue bonds issued pur- 20 suant to section 50-3110, Idaho Code, shall not exceed the estimated cost of 21 the community infrastructure to be financed with such bonds, plus all costs 22 connected with the issuance and sale of such bonds, including formation costs, 23 credit enhancement and liquidity support fees and costs. The total aggregate 24 outstanding principal amount of general obligation bonds and other indebted - 25 ness for which the full faith and credit of the district are pledged shall not 26 affect the general obligation bonding capacity of any county or city in which 27 the district is located. 28 (5) Bonds issued by a district shall not be a general obligation of this 29 state or any political subdivision thereof, including any county or city in 30 which the district is located and shall not pledge the full faith and credit 31 of this state or any political subdivision thereof, including any county or 32 city in which the district is located. 33 50-3108. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS -- ELECTION -- MAXIMUM INDEBTEDNESS 34 ALLOWED -- LEVY. (1) After district formation, whenever the district board 35 shall deem it advisable to issue general obligation bonds of the district, the 36 district board shall provide therefor by resolution, which resolution shall 37 specify and set forth the community infrastructure and other costs and 38 expenses approved by the district board consistent with the general plan to be 39 financed with the bonds, and make provision for the collection of an annual 40 tax sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds as it falls due, and also to 41 constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof as required 42 by the constitution and laws of the state of Idaho. 43 (2) The resolution shall also provide for holding an election, held in 44 compliance with section 50-3112, Idaho Code, to submit to the qualified elec- 45 tors of the district the question of authorizing the district to issue general 46 obligation bonds of the district to provide money for said community infra - 47 structure consistent with the general plan. The ballot used in such election 48 shall be in form substantially as follows: "In favor of issuing bonds to the 49 amount of dollars for the purpose stated in Resolution No. ...," 50 and "Against issuing bonds to the amount of dollars for the purpose 51 stated in Resolution No. ...". 52 (3) If two-thirds (2/3) of the qualified electors at such election assent 53 to the issuing of the bonds and the incurring of the indebtedness thereby cre- 54 ated for the purpose aforesaid, the district board shall thereupon be author- 10 1 ized to issue and create such indebtedness in the manner and for the purposes 2 specified in said resolution, and the bonds shall be issued and sold in the 3 manner provided by the laws of the state of Idaho, and the district board by 4 further resolution shall be entitled to issue and sell the bonds in series or 5 divisions up to the authorized amount without the further vote of the quali- 6 fied electors, and to issue and sell such bonds at such times and in such 7 amounts as the district board deems appropriate to carry out a community in - 8 frastructure project or projects in phases; provided however, that before any 9 issuance of the bonds, including issuance in series or divisions and, in addi- 10 tion to such other determinations made by the district board as it may deem 11 reasonable and prudent, the district board shall also determine whether rea- 12 sonable financial assurance for the payment of the debt service on the bonds 13 through additional collateral, payment guarantee or otherwise shall be 14 required from a developer. The developer shall be consulted and shall be 15 given a reasonable period of time within which to appear, either in person or 16 in writing, and respond to any proposed financial assurance. If, following 17 such developer's response, the district board determines that reasonable 18 financial assurance shall be required, the district board shall specify the 19 type and amount of the financial assurance required in its resolution. 20 (4) In no event shall the aggregate outstanding principal amount of gen- 21 eral obligation bonds and any other indebtedness for which the full faith and 22 credit of the district are pledged exceed twelve percent (12%) of the actual 23 or adjusted market value for assessment purposes on all taxable real property 24 within the district as such valuation existed on December 31 of the previous 25 year. 26 (5) After the bonds are issued, the district shall enter in its minutes a 27 record of the bonds sold and their number and dates and shall periodically 28 collect the pledged revenues to pay the debt service on the bonds when due. 29 (6) Bond proceeds received by the district shall be held in a segregated 30 account and shall be disbursed therefrom only for: 31 (a) The payment of community infrastructure and/or community infrastruc- 32 ture segments approved by the district board and actually completed; or 33 (b) For the purpose of reimbursing actually paid expenditures relating to 34 community infrastructure as approved by the district board; provided how - 35 ever, that lien releases with respect to the payment made must be obtained 36 from the underlying providers of labor, work, services or materials as a 37 condition to such payment; or 38 (c) For the payment or reimbursement of governmentally imposed impact 39 fees as approved by the district board. 40 (7) Completion of community infrastructure may be phased and payment made 41 pursuant to a draw schedule. Bond proceeds shall be expended on the community 42 infrastructure within three (3) years after issuance. Prior to issuance of the 43 bonds, the district board shall determine that such bond proceeds can reason - 44 ably be expended within that time. 45 (8) Each year, prior to the time for the certification required under 46 section 50-3114, Idaho Code, the district board shall levy a tax upon all tax - 47 able real property within the district, sufficient, together with any money 48 from the sources described in section 50-3107(3), Idaho Code, to pay debt ser - 49 vice on the bonds when due. The levy shall be made by resolution entered upon 50 the minutes of the district board, and it shall be the duty of the clerk of 51 the district, immediately after entry of the resolution in the minutes, to 52 transmit to the board of county commissioners in each county in which the dis- 53 trict is located the certification required under section 50-3114, Idaho Code. 54 Such tax levied shall then be collected and accounted for at the time and in 55 the form and manner as other taxes are collected and accounted for under the 11 1 laws of this state. Moneys derived from the levy of property taxes to pay the 2 debt service on the bonds shall be kept separately from other funds of the 3 district. A district's levy of property taxes shall constitute a lien on all 4 taxable real property within the district. 5 (9) The district may issue and sell refunding bonds to refund general 6 obligation bonds of the district authorized by this section. The principal 7 amount of the refunding bonds may be more or less than the principal amount of 8 the bonds being refunded, provided that the proceeds of the refunding bonds 9 are used only for refunding purposes and payment of the costs thereof, and the 10 total obligation of the district is not increased, that is, if the amount of 11 the refunding bonds is more than the principal amount of the bonds being 12 refunded, issuance of the refunding bonds will result in a net present value 13 savings to the district. No election shall be required in connection with the 14 issuance and sale of such refunding bonds. Refunding bonds issued pursuant to 15 this section shall have a final maturity date no later than the final maturity 16 date of the bonds being refunded. 17 50-3109. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS -- BONDS. (1) After district formation, upon 18 the submission of a petition signed by all the owners of all the lands located 19 in a proposed assessment area, or whenever the district board shall deem it 20 advisable, the district board shall adopt a resolution ordering that a hearing 21 be held to determine whether a special assessment should be imposed and spe- 22 cial assessment bonds be issued to provide money for community infrastructure 23 consistent with the general plan and the exercise by the district board of any 24 of its powers under section 50-3105, Idaho Code. 25 (2) Notice of the hearing shall be posted in three (3) public places 26 within the boundaries of the district not less than thirty (30) days before 27 the hearing. Notice of the hearing shall also be published twice, the first 28 time not less than twelve (12) days prior to the hearing and the second time 29 not less than five (5) days prior to the hearing, in a newspaper of general 30 circulation in each county or city in which the district is located. A copy of 31 such notice shall also be mailed to each district resident and each owner of 32 real property in the district if known or such owner's agent if known, 33 addressed to such person at his or her post office address if known or, if 34 unknown, to a post office in the county or city where the district is located. 35 Ownership of real property shall be determined as of the date of the adoption 36 of the resolution ordering the hearing. The notice shall include the follow - 37 ing: 38 (a) A description of the real property to be included within the assess - 39 ment area; 40 (b) A description of the method by which the amount of the proposed spe- 41 cial assessment will be determined for each class of real property to 42 which the special assessment is proposed to apply, in sufficient detail to 43 enable the owner of the affected parcel to determine the amount of the 44 special assessment; 45 (c) A description of the community infrastructure to be financed with 46 special assessment bonds or revenues; and 47 (d) A statement that any person affected by the proposed special assess - 48 ment may object in writing or in person at the hearing. 49 (3) If, after the hearing, the district board finds that it will be for 50 the best interest of the district and the real property within the assessment 51 area that the aggregate fair market value of the real property within the 52 assessment area, including the value of the community infrastructure to be 53 financed or paid for with the special assessments, and the infrastructure for 54 which performance bonds or other financial assurances have been received, is 12 1 at least three (3) times the aggregate principal amount of the special assess - 2 ment bonds as determined by an MAI appraisal in form and substance acceptable 3 to the district board, the district board shall adopt a resolution approving 4 the imposition of the special assessment and, also by resolution, shall pre - 5 pare a form of assessment roll numbering each assessment, giving the name, if 6 known, of the owner of each lot or parcel of real property assessed, showing 7 the amount chargeable to each such lot or parcel, and finding that each such 8 lot or parcel is benefited to the amount of assessment imposed thereon. Such 9 resolution shall be the final determination of the regularity, validity and 10 correctness of the assessment roll, of each assessment contained therein, and 11 of the amount thereof imposed on each such lot or parcel. Special assessments 12 may be prepaid and permanently satisfied in whole or in part at any point in 13 time. Prepayment of special assessments shall be paid in cash to the district 14 in the following manner: (i) the interest on such portion to the next date 15 special assessment bonds may be redeemed, plus (ii) the unpaid principal 16 amount of such portion rounded up to the next highest multiple of one thousand 17 dollars ($1,000), plus (iii) any premium due on such redemption date with 18 respect to such portion, plus (iv) any administrative or other fees charged by 19 the district with respect thereto, less (v) the amount by which any reserve 20 fund associated with the special assessment may be reduced on the redemption 21 date as a result of such prepayment. 22 (4) Special assessment bonds approved at the hearing shall be issued in 23 the manner provided by the laws of the state of Idaho, and the district board 24 by further resolution shall be entitled to issue and sell the bonds in series 25 or divisions up to the authorized amount without further hearing, and to issue 26 and sell such bonds at such times and in such amounts as the district board 27 deems appropriate to carry out a community infrastructure project or projects 28 in phases. Bond proceeds shall be expended on the community infrastructure 29 within three (3) years after issuance. Prior to issuance of the bonds, the 30 district board shall determine that such bond proceeds can reasonably be 31 expended within such time. 32 (5) After the bonds are issued, the district board shall enter in its 33 minutes a record of the bonds sold and their numbers and dates and shall peri - 34 odically collect the pledged revenues to pay the debt service on the bonds 35 when due. 36 (6) Each year, prior to the time for the certification required under 37 section 50-3114, Idaho Code, the district board shall impose a special assess - 38 ment upon the real property within the assessment area of the district that 39 will be subject to the special assessment sufficient, together with any moneys 40 from the sources described in section 50-3107(3), Idaho Code, to pay debt ser - 41 vice on the bonds when due, in addition to reasonable costs associated with 42 the collection of the special assessment payments. The special assessment 43 shall be made by resolution entered upon the minutes of the district board, 44 and it shall be the duty of the clerk of the district, immediately after entry 45 of the resolution in the minutes, to transmit to the board of county commis - 46 sioners in each county in which the district is located, the certification 47 required under section 50-3114, Idaho Code. Such special assessment shall then 48 be collected and accounted for at the time and in the form and manner as prop - 49 erty taxes are collected and accounted for under the laws of this state. 50 Moneys derived from the imposition of the special assessment to pay the debt 51 service on the bonds shall be kept separately from other moneys of the dis- 52 trict. 53 (7) Special assessments against privately owned residential property 54 shall be subject to the following provisions: 55 (a) The maximum amount of any special assessment that may be imposed 13 1 shall not be increased over time by any amount exceeding two percent 2 (2%) per year, up to a maximum of ten percent (10X); 3 (b) The special assessment shall be imposed for a specified time period, 4 after which no further special assessment shall be imposed and collected; 5 and 6 (c) Subject to the applicable laws of this state, nothing in this subsec- 7 tion shall preclude the establishment of different categories of residen- 8 tial property or changing the amount of the special assessment imposed 9 upon a parcel whose size or use is changed. A change in the amount of a 10 special assessment imposed upon a parcel due to a change in its size or 11 use shall not require notice and hearing, if the method for changing the 12 amount of special assessment was approved at the hearing approving the 13 special assessment and was described in sufficient detail to enable the 14 owner of the affected parcel to determine how the change in size or use of 15 the parcel would affect the amount of the special assessment. 16 (8) A district's imposition of a special assessment shall constitute a 17 lien on the real property within the assessment area subject to the special 18 assessment, including real property acquired by the state or its political 19 subdivisions after the imposition of the special assessment, which shall be 20 effective during the period in which the special assessment is imposed and 21 shall have a priority coequal to the lien of real property taxes. A special 22 assessment shall be subject to foreclosure by the district in the same manner 23 as real property tax liens under the laws of this state, provided that a spe- 24 cial assessment shall be subject to foreclosure at any time after thirty (30) 25 days following written notice of delinquency to the owner of the real property 26 to which the delinquency applies. The portion of proceeds of any foreclosure 27 sale necessary to discharge the lien for the special assessment shall be 28 deposited in the special bond fund for payment of any obligations secured 29 thereby. 30 (9) No holder of special assessment bonds issued pursuant to this chapter 31 may compel any exercise of the taxing power of the district, county or city to 32 pay the bonds or the interest on the bonds. Special assessment bonds issued 33 pursuant to this chapter are not a debt of the state of Idaho or any political 34 subdivision thereof including the district, county or city, nor is the payment 35 of special assessment bonds enforceable out of any moneys other than the reve- 36 nue pledged to the payment of the bonds. 37 (10) Subject to the provisions of this section, a district may issue spe- 38 cial assessment bonds at such times and in such amounts as the district deems 39 appropriate to carry out a project or projects in phases, and payment may be 40 made pursuant to a draw schedule. 41 (11) The district may issue and sell refunding bonds to refund any special 42 assessment bonds of the district authorized in this chapter. The principal 43 amount of the refunding bonds may be more or less than the principal amount of 44 the bonds being refunded, provided the proceeds of the refunding bonds are 45 used only for refunding purposes and payment of the costs thereof, and the 46 total obligation of the district is not increased, that is, if the amount of 47 the refunding bonds is more than the principal amount of the bonds being 48 refunded, issuance of the refunding bonds will result in a net present value 49 savings to the district. No election shall be required in connection with the 50 issuance and sale of such refunding bonds. Refunding bonds issued pursuant to 51 this section shall have a final maturity date no later than the final maturity 52 date of the bonds being refunded. 53 50-3110. REVENUE BONDS -- ELECTION. (1) Subject to section 3, article 54 VIII, of the constitution of the state of Idaho, after district formation, 14 1 whenever the district board shall deem it advisable to issue revenue bonds of 2 the district, the district board shall provide therefor by resolution, which 3 resolution shall specify and set forth the community infrastructure consistent 4 with the general plan to be financed with such bonds. 5 (2) The resolution shall also provide for holding an election, held in 6 compliance with section 50-3112, Idaho Code, to submit to the qualified elec- 7 tors of the district the question of authorizing the district to issue revenue 8 bonds of the district to provide moneys for such community infrastructure con - 9 sistent with the general plan. 10 (3) Except as otherwise specifically set forth in this section, the pro - 11 visions of the water and sewer district revenue bond act codified in chapter 12 41, title 42, Idaho Code, shall apply with respect to the issuance of revenue 13 bonds and refunding bonds under this section in substantially the same manner 14 as if the district were a water and/or sewer district issuing bonds pursuant 15 to the water and sewer district revenue bond act, and the district board shall 16 conduct itself in the issuance of revenue bonds in substantially the same man - 17 ner as the commissioners of a district under the water and sewer district rev - 18 enue bond act. 19 (4) If the revenue bonds are approved at the election, the district board 20 shall thereupon be authorized to issue and create such indebtedness in the 21 manner and for the purposes specified in said resolution, and such bonds shall 22 be issued and sold in the manner provided by the laws of the state of Idaho. 23 (5) After the bonds are issued, the district board shall enter in its 24 minutes a record of the bonds sold and their numbers and dates and shall peri - 25 odically collect the pledged revenues to pay the debt service on the bonds 26 when due. 27 (6) Money derived from the collection of revenues pledged to pay the debt 28 service on the bonds shall be kept separately from other moneys of the dis- 29 trict. 30 (7) No holder of revenue bonds issued pursuant to this chapter may compel 31 any exercise of the taxing power of the district, county or city to pay the 32 bonds or the interest on the bonds. Revenue bonds issued pursuant to this 33 chapter are not a debt of the state or any political subdivision thereof, 34 including any county or city in which the district is located, nor are they 35 the debt of the district, other than with respect to the revenue pledged to 36 the payment of the bonds. The payment of revenue bonds is not enforceable out 37 of any money other than the revenue pledged to the payment of the bonds. 38 (8) Subject to the provisions of this section, a district may issue reve- 39 nue bonds at such times and in such amounts as the district deems appropriate 40 to carry out a project in phases. 41 (9) The district may issue and sell refunding bonds to refund revenue 42 bonds of the district authorized by this section. The principal amount of the 43 refunding bonds may be more or less than the principal amount of the bonds 44 being refunded, provided the proceeds of the refunding bonds are used only for 45 refunding purposes and payment of the costs thereof, and the total obligation 46 of the district is not increased, that is, if the amount of the refunding 47 bonds is more than the principal amount of the bonds being refunded, issuance 48 of the refunding bonds will result in a net present value savings to the dis- 49 trict. No election shall be required in connection with the issuance and sale 50 of such refunding bonds. Refunding bonds issued pursuant to this section 51 shall have a final maturity date no later than the final maturity date of the 52 bonds being refunded. 53 50-3111. TERMS OF BONDS. For any bonds issued under this chapter, the 54 district board shall prescribe the denominations of the bonds, the principal 15 1 amount of each issue and the form of the bonds and shall establish the maturi- 2 ties, which shall not exceed thirty (30) years, interest payment dates and 3 interest rates, whether fixed or variable, not exceeding the maximum rate 4 stated in the notice of the election or the resolution of the district board. 5 The bonds, up to the aggregate authorized principal amount thereof, may be 6 issued in whole or divided into series, and by supplementary resolution 7 adopted from time to time by the district board, the district may issue any 8 remaining principal amount of the bonds in one (1) or more subsequent divi- 9 sions. No election shall be required in connection with the issuance of any 10 remaining principal amount of the bonds in a subsequent division. The bonds 11 may be sold by competitive bid or negotiated sale for public or private offer - 12 ing at, below or above par. The proceeds of the bonds shall be deposited with 13 the treasurer, or with a trustee or agent designated by the district board, to 14 the credit of the district to be withdrawn for the purposes provided by this 15 chapter. Pending that use, the proceeds may be invested as determined by the 16 district board. The bonds shall be made payable as to both principal and 17 interest solely from revenues of the district, and shall specify the revenues 18 pledged for such purposes, and shall contain such other terms, conditions, 19 covenants and agreements as the district board deems proper. The bonds may be 20 payable from any combination of taxes or revenues of the types described in 21 sections 50-3108, 50-3109 and 50-3110, Idaho Code. 22 50-3112. NOTICE AND CONDUCT OF ELECTION. (1) Any election pursuant to 23 this chapter shall be a nonpartisan election, and in regard to election dates, 24 shall be held in compliance with section 34-106, Idaho Code, or section 25 50-429, Idaho Code. Except as otherwise specifically set forth in this sec - 26 tion, the district board shall cause the election to be held and conducted in 27 the same manner prescribed by law for the holding of general elections in this 28 state, including chapter 14, title 34, Idaho Code, and shall call the election 29 by posting notices in three (3) public places within the boundaries of the 30 district not less than thirty (30) days before the election. Notice shall also 31 be published twice, the first time not less than twelve (12) days prior to the 32 election and the second time not less than five (5) days prior to the elec- 33 tion, in a newspaper of general circulation in each county or city in which 34 the proposed district is located. A copy of such notice shall also be mailed 35 to each district resident and each owner of real property in the district if 36 known or such owner's agent if known, addressed to such person at his or her 37 post office address if known or, if unknown, to a post office in the county or 38 city where the district is located. Ownership of real property shall be 39 determined as of the date of the adoption of the resolution ordering the hear - 40 ing. The notice shall state: 41 (a) The place of holding the election; 42 (b) Subject to section 34-1409, Idaho Code, the hours during the day in 43 which the polls will be open; 44 (c) If the election is a bond election, whether the bonds are general 45 obligation bonds or revenue bonds, the total principal amount of bonds to 46 be authorized, whether the bonds will be issued in series, the maximum 47 rate of interest to be paid on the bonds and the maximum term of the 48 bonds, not exceeding thirty (30) years; 49 (d) If the election is an election to change or eliminate an existing 50 tax, the maximum tax amount to be imposed as a result of the change or 51 elimination; 52 (e) The purposes for which property taxes levied and revenues raised will 53 be used, including a description of the community infrastructure to be 54 financed with tax revenues, district revenues or bond proceeds; 16 1 (f) That the imposition of property taxes will result in a lien for the 2 payment thereof on real property within the district; and 3 (g) That a general plan is on file with the county clerk of each county 4 in which the district is located. 5 (2) The district board shall determine the date of the election and the 6 polling place or places for the election. The district board may establish, 7 change, and consolidate election precincts within the district, as it deems 8 necessary and appropriate, and shall define precinct boundaries. 9 (3) Subject to sections 50-3102(10) and 50-3102(13), Idaho Code, the cur - 10 rent property rolls for the district and current voter lists in effect at the 11 time that the election has begun shall be used to determine the qualified 12 electors. If the district includes land lying partly in and partly out of any 13 precinct, the voter lists may contain the names of all electors in the pre - 14 cinct, and the precinct boards at those precincts shall require that a pro - 15 spective elector execute an affidavit stating that the elector is also a qual- 16 ified elector. 17 (4) If the district is to be located within two (2) or more counties 18 and/or cities, the election shall be held on the same day in each jurisdic- 19 tion. 20 (5) The ballot material provided to each voter shall include: 21 (a) For an election concerning the issuance of bonds, an impartial 22 description of the bonds to be issued and an impartial description of the 23 property taxes to be imposed; the method of apportionment, collection and 24 enforcement and other details sufficient to enable each qualified elector 25 to reasonably estimate the amount of tax he or she will be obligated to 26 pay; and a statement that the issuance of the bonds and the imposition of 27 property taxes is for the provision of certain, but not necessarily all, 28 community infrastructure that may be needed or desirable within the dis- 29 trict, and that other taxes or assessments by other governmental entities 30 may be presented for approval by qualified electors; and 31 (b) For an election to change an existing maximum tax or eliminate an 32 existing tax, an impartial description of the change or elimination. 33 (6) Within ten (10) days after an election, the district board shall meet 34 and canvass the returns, and declare the results thereof. At least a two - 35 thirds (2/3) majority of the votes cast at the election shall be required for 36 issuing bonds or changing an existing tax. The canvass may be continued for an 37 additional period not to exceed thirty (30) days at the election of the dis- 38 trict board for the purpose of completing the canvass. Failure of a required 39 majority to vote in favor of the matter submitted shall not prejudice the sub - 40 mission of the same or similar matters at a later election. The canvass of any 41 general obligation bond election shall be filed and recorded in each county in 42 which the district is located. 43 (7) In any election held pursuant to this chapter, every voter may vote 44 at any election held pursuant to this chapter, but shall be entitled to cast 45 votes, as follows: (i) each resident qualified elector shall be entitled to 46 one (1) vote; and (ii) each owner qualified elector shall be entitled to one 47 (1) vote. An owner qualified elector shall not be entitled to an additional 48 vote as a result of also being a resident of the district. When record title 49 is held in more than one (1) name, the owners shall file with the clerk of the 50 district at or prior to the election a designation in writing, of which one of 51 the owners shall be deemed the owner for purposes of voting. 52 (8) In conducting an election, the polling official may require evidence 53 of ownership of property and designation of the power to exercise the vote of 54 any owner consistent with the provisions of this section and section 55 50-3102(10), Idaho Code. 17 1 50-3113. COST OF ADMINISTRATION. Each year, prior to' the time for the 2 certification required under section 50-3114, Idaho Code, the district board 3 may levy a tax upon all taxable real property within the district of up to 4 one-hundredth of one percent (.01%) of the market value for assessment pur- 5 poses on all taxable real property within the district, to be used only to 6 reimburse or defray the administrative expenses of the district pursuant to a 7 district development agreement. No election shall be required. The levy shall 8 be made by resolution entered upon the minutes of the district board, and it 9 shall be the duty of the clerk of the district, immediately after entry of the 10 resolution in the minutes, to transmit to the board of county commissioners in 11 each county in which the district is located, the certification required under 12 section 50-3114, Idaho Code. Such tax shall then be collected and accounted 13 for at the time and in the form and manner as other taxes are collected and 14 accounted for under the laws of this state. 15 50-3114. ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ESTIMATES -- ANNUAL BUDGET -- 16 CERTIFICATION. (1) When levying property taxes or imposing special assess - 17 meets, and prior to certification of same to the county commissioners, the 18 district board shall make annual statements and estimates of the administra- 19 tive expenses of the district, the costs of community infrastructure to be 20 financed by property taxes and special assessments and the amount of all other 21 expenditures for community infrastructure proposed to be paid from property 22 taxes and special assessments and of the amount to be raised to pay general 23 obligation bonds and special assessment bonds of the district, all of which 24 shall be provided for by the levy, imposition and collection of property taxes 25 and special assessments. The annual estimates prepared by the district board 26 shall include an amount determined by the district board, in consultation with 27 the county tax collector, to defray the costs imposed upon the county tax 28 collector's office for any additional administrative services that will be 29 required in the collection of and accounting for such district property taxes 30 and special assessments. Such additional costs shall be for those services not 31 otherwise included in the general tax collection and accounting services 32 already provided by the county tax collector's office and otherwise paid for 33 by property tax revenues, and shall be reasonably related to, but shall not 34 exceed, the actual cost of the additional administrative services provided. 35 The district board shall file the annual statements and estimates with the 36 district clerk and, not later than the time required by section 63-802A, Idaho 37 Code, shall set and notify the county clerk of the date and location set for 38 the annual budget hearing of the district. The district board shall publish a 39 notice of the filing of the estimate, shall hold a public hearing on the por- 40 tion of the estimate not relating to debt service on general obligation bonds 41 and special assessment bonds and shall adopt a budget. Notice of the budget 42 hearing shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the date of said meet - 43 ing in at least one (1) conspicuous place within the district to be determined 44 by the district board; a copy of the notice shall also be published in a news - 45 paper of general circulation in the county or city in which the proposed dis- 46 trict is located, in one (1) issue thereof, during such ten (10) day period. 47 The place, hour and day of the hearing shall be specified in said notice, as 48 well as the place where the budget may be examined prior to the hearing. A 49 full and complete copy of the proposed budget shall be published with and as a 50 part of the publication of the notice of hearing. The budget shall be avail - 51 able for public inspection from and after the date of the posting of notices 52 of hearing as in this section provided, at such place and during such business 53 hours as the district board may direct. A quorum of the district board shall 54 attend the hearing and explain the proposed budget and hear any and all objec- 18 1 tions to the proposed budget. The district board at the time of the certifica- 2 tion required under subsection (2) of this section shall file with the board 3 of county commissioners in each county in which the district is located a cer- 4 tified copy of the annual budget as previously prepared, approved and adopted. 5 (2) The district board, having determined the total amount required from 6 property taxes and special assessments to raise the amount of money fixed by 7 the annual budget, including the amount of money needed to satisfy annual bond 8 payments, shall cause the amount of money so determined to be certified in 9 dollars to the board of county commissioners in each county in which the dis- 10 trict is located not later than the time required for certification under sec - 11 tion 63-803, Idaho Code. Said certification shall list separately each tax 12 levy and special assessment if more than one (1), and the purpose of each 13 thereof, and shall otherwise comply with the requirements of section 63-803, 14 Idaho Code. 15 (3) Following such certification to the county commissioners, district 16 property taxes and special assessments shall then be collected and accounted 17 for at the time and in the form and manner as other taxes are collected and 18 accounted for under the laws of this state. Except as specifically provided 19 otherwise in this chapter, all statutes of this state relating to the levy, 20 imposition, collection, settlement and payment of property taxes, including 21 the collection of delinquent taxes and sale of property for nonpayment of 22 taxes and special assessments, apply to district property taxes and special 23 assessments. 24 50-3115. DISCLOSURE. (1) The district board shall record with the county 25 clerk in each county in which the district is located, upon the records of 26 each parcel of real property within the district that will be encumbered with 27 any future general obligation bond or special assessment bond repayment lia- 28 bility, a notice setting forth: 29 (a) The current obligation of a property owner within the district with 30 respect to any bond repayment liability; 31 (b) That the obligation to retire the bonds will be the responsibility of 32 any property owner in the district through the payment of real property 33 taxes and special assessments collected by the county treasurer in addi- 34 tion to all other property tax payments; 35 (c) The estimated maximum tax or special assessment rate upon the parcel 36 for bond repayment; 37 (d) Whether the tax or special assessment rate is to be maintained at any 38 level by means of any developer agreement with the district; and 39 (e) That in the event of the failure to maintain the tax rate, the tax 40 rate on a parcel will increase, as needed, to provide for bond repayment. 41 (2) Such notice may be separately recorded or included in a recorded dis- 42 trict development agreement. The governing body, in its resolution approving 43 formation of the district, shall require that a form disclosure, consistent 44 with the foregoing, be signed and acknowledged by any purchaser of land within 45 the district prior to purchase. The form disclosure shall be entitled "CID 46 TAX AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISCLOSURE NOTICE" and shall specifically and con - 47 spicuously set forth "YOU ARE PURCHASING REAL PROPERTY THAT IS INCLUDED WITHIN 48 THE BOUNDARIES OF A COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE DISTRICT." Further, the notice 49 shall set forth such other notifications as determined appropriate by the dis- 50 trict board that shall fully and fairly disclose the property owner's general 51 obligation bond and special assessment repayment liability with examples pro - 52 vided. 53 50-3116. DISSOLUTION OF DISTRICT. (1) The district shall be dissolved by 19 1 the district board by a resolution of the district board upon a determination 2 that each of the following conditions exist: 3 (a) A11 community infrastructure owned by the district has been, or pro - 4 vision has been made for all community infrastructure to be conveyed, 5 either to the state of Idaho or to a political subdivision thereof, which 6 shall include a county or city in which the district is located, or to a 7 public district or other authority authorized by the laws of this state to 8 own such community infrastructure; 9 (b) The district has no outstanding bond obligations; and 10 (c) A11 obligations of the district pursuant to any contracts or agree - 11 ments entered into by the district have been satisfied. 12 (2) All property within the district that is subject to the lien of dis- 13 trict taxes or special assessments shall remain subject to the lien for the 14 payment of general obligation bonds or special assessment bonds, as the case 15 may be, notwithstanding dissolution of the district. The district shall not be 16 dissolved if any revenue bonds of the district remain outstanding unless an 17 amount of money sufficient, together with investment income thereon, to make 18 all payments due on the revenue bonds, either at maturity or prior redemption, 19 has been deposited with a trustee or escrow agent and pledged to the payment 20 and redemption of the bonds. The district may continue to operate after disso- 21 lution only as needed to collect money and make payments on any outstanding 22 bonds. 23 (3) The district shall send a notice of dissolution to the governing body 24 or bodies, the county assessor of each county in which the district is 25 located, and the state tax commission. The district shall also record a notice 26 of dissolution with the county clerk in each county in which the district is 27 located. 28 (4) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, if upon dissolu- 29 tion of the district there remain any excess moneys of the district, the dis- 30 trict board shall, by resolution, cause the same to be fairly distributed 31 among the current taxpayers of the district. If, as determined in the sole 32 discretion of the district board, the amount to be distributed is de minimis, 33 or the administrative cost of distribution is prohibitive, such remaining 34 moneys shall be paid to the county treasurer of each county in which the dis- 35 trict is located to be distributed among the cities and counties in which the 36 district is located in proportion to which said cities and counties receive 37 property tax revenues generally. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 50-3117. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. in section 61-129, Idaho Code, shall be ter. (2) No railroad right-of-way may be (1) All public utilities, as defined exempt from taxation under this chap - included within a community infra- structure district without the consent of the railroad. (3) No personal property within a community infrastructure district shall be subject to taxation under this chapter. 45 50-3118. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Neither any member of the district 46 board nor any person acting on behalf of the district, while acting within the 47 scope of his or her authority, shall be subject to any personal liability for 48 any action taken or omitted within that scope of authority. 49 50-3119. APPEAL -- EXCLUSIVE REMEDY -- CONCLUSIVENESS. Any person in 50 interest who feels aggrieved by the final decision of a governing body or a 51 district board in the formation or governing of a district, including, with 52 respect to any tax levy, special assessment or bond, may, within thirty (30) b 20 1 days after such final decision, seek judicial review by filing a written 2 notice of appeal with the clerk of the district and with the clerk of the dis- 3 trict court for the judicial district in which a majority of the land area of 4 the district is located. After said thirty (30) day period has run, no one 5 shall have any cause or right of action to contest the legality, formality or 6 regularity of said decision for any reason whatsoever and, thereafter, said 7 decision shall be considered valid and uncontestable and the validity, legal - 8 ity and regularity of any such decision shall be conclusively presumed. With 9 regard to the foregoing, if the question of validity of any bonds issued pur- 10 suant to this chapter is not raised on appeal as aforesaid, the authority to 11 issue the bonds, the legality thereof and of the levies or assessments neces- 12 sary to pay the same shall be conclusively presumed and no court shall there - 13 after have authority to inquire into such matters. 14 50-3120. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW. (1) A community infrastructure dis- 15 trict shall develop community infrastructure consistent with the general plan 16 and in compliance with the requirements of chapter 13, title 50, Idaho Code, 17 and chapter 65, title 67, Idaho Code. 18 (2) A community infrastructure district shall be deemed to be of the same 19 nature and afforded the same treatment as a local improvement district for 20 purposes of application of section 58-336, Idaho Code, relating to lands bene - 21 fitting by such district; section 67-8209, Idaho Code, authorizing development 22 impact fee credits; and section 67-8214, Idaho Code, providing that other 23 powers and rights of governmental entities are not affected. 24 50-3121. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this chapter are hereby declared 25 to be severable and if any provision or the application of the provision to 26 any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any reason, such declare - 27 tion shall not affect the validity of remaining portions of this chapter.