Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
Minutes - 2024 - City Council - 02/08/2024 - Special EAGLE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
February 8,2024
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pike calls the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: GINDLESPERGER, MAY,RUSSELL,KVAMME, . A quorum
is present.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
4. NEW BUSINESS:
A. State Highway 16 Re-Evaluation: ITD will present the access and improvement concepts
for SH-16 from SH-44 to Emmett.
Mayor Pike introduces the item.
Vincent Trimboli, with Idaho Transportation Department introduces the team that will be
presenting today.
Mark Wasdell, project manager Idaho Transportation Department states that they will be
conducting a reevaluation of the 2005 environmental document and discusses the same.
Chris Melander with Horrox Engineer, reviews traffic and accident data along the corridor.
General discussion.
Council requests staff draft a letter for Council review and approval at their next meeting. .
B. Water System Capitalization Fee Study Workshop:
Mayor Pike introduces the item.
City Engineer, Mike Davis HECO briefly reviews the history of the capitalization fee study,
and the updated fee calculation.
General discussion.
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 74-206 (1) An executive session at which members of the
public are excluded may be held, but only for the purposes and only in the manner set forth
in this section. The motion to go into executive session shall identify the specific subsections
of this section that authorize the executive session.There shall be a roll call vote on the motion
and the vote shall be recorded in the minutes. An executive session shall be authorized by a
two-thirds(2/3)vote of the governing body. An executive session may be held:
Gindlesperger move pursuant to I.C.74-206(1)that the City of Eagle convene an Executive
Session for the purpose of(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to
discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or
controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. Seconded by
May. GINDLESPERGER: AYE;RUSSELL: AYE: MAY AYE; KVAMME AYE.ALL
AYE: MOTION CARRIES.
Council enters executive session.
Page 1
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2024\CC-02-08-24spmi n.docx
Discussion of pending/threatened litigation.
Council exist executive session.
A. ACTION ITEMS Action Regarding Pending/Threatened Litigation. No action taken.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
May moves to adjourn. Seconded by Kvamme. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned.
Resp fully submitted: ;e`` ,,,,
w Oti i •
TRAC E. ,CMC -
CITY CLE % ; O ®�� o O
APPROVED: * S,S PS,,,,
BRAD ,
MAYOR
AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT
W W W.C ITYOFEAGLE.ORG.
Page 2
K:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\2024\CC-02-08-24spmin.docx
5/29/2024
SH-16, SH-44 to SH-52
Eagle City Council
SH 44toSH 52
16
ADA TO GEM COUNTY IDAHO
1
521 EMMETT
TT Q
Project Overview t .
The Idaho Transportation Department CHLN
ERRY 6
(ITD) is reevaluating the environmental "
document for State Highway 16 between
SH-44 in Ada County and SH-52 in Gem GEM COUNTY
16
County. ADA COUNTY IN
The purpose of today's meeting is to:
okt? �Po Project
• Introduce the project. Area
UGH D
• Identify issues and concerns.
FLOATING
• Gather your input on suggested FEATHER RD
modifications to the preferred alternative. aa '"` ""�
.44 to 5H-52
2
1
5/29/2024
Background
In 2005, ITD completed an environmental assessment for several long-term
improvements to State Highway 16 between SH-44 in Eagle and SH-52 in Emmett.
ITD received environmental approval to:
• Expand the highway to two lanes in both directions with a painted center median.
• Keep the highway on its current alignment.
• Build an interchange at SH-16 and Cherry Lane in Emmett.
• Locate intersections and other access points every half-mile in urban areas, and every mile in rural
areas.
• Build frontage and backage roads along SH-16.
• Any future highway improvements will need to be consistent with the roadway alignment that was
approved in 2005.
SH-44 to SH-52 16
Ll•:.1111i.14
3
Background
LEGEND _ � x
PRIVATE LAND
20631E LAND • ., I _ ^_
211D]EAALIGNMENTS
VAINDVA DRIVE 33
ACCESS ROADS
t -
(r" ! ` .
.a
'
x, tl‘>. 0>
..Ae
SH•44 to SH-52 16
4
2
5/29/2024
Updated Purpose & Need
PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to meet capacity and safety requirements on SH-
16,from its intersection with SH-44 to SH-52 in Emmett, based on the projected 2050
traffic volumes, and to modernize SH-16 access and function as a principal arterial.
NEED Improvements to SH-16 for highway safety and capacity are needed to:
• Bring SH-16 up to current design standards.
• Alleviate congestion by providing adequate capacity and level of
service for 2050 traffic.
• Improve and consolidate existing and future accesses according to the
current ITD Access Policy.
• Address safety concerns arising from the termination of the SH-16
freeway north of SH-44 following construction of the proposed
interchange. �.��J
SH-44 to SH S2�1LLJ
lltuix.cim,.ta ..,■
5
Environmental Reevaluation
This project involves a reevaluation of the 2005
environmental document. "
ITD is:
• Gathering updated information about population
growth,traffic and safety.
• Developing modifications to the preferred
alternative.
• Analyzing possible environmental or social impacts
from improvements.
• Gathering input from agencies, stakeholders and
community members.
Once the reevaluation process is complete,the project sH-16 near Floating Feather.
will be eligible for design and construction funding. •�
SH-44 t 11
lii
3
5/29/2024
0
Project Schedule
OCTOBER 2022 Idaho Transportation Board approves funding to conduct
the reevaluation
SUMMER 2023 Begin environmental document reevaluation:traffic,access control,
safety studies,resource assessment and stakeholder meetings
WINTER 2023 Develop design modifications to the preferred alternative
We are here I Host public meeting
SPRING/SUMMER 2024 Refine modifications to the preferred alternative
Host public meeting
FALL 2024 Approve the modified preferred alternative
Host public meeting
WINTER 2024 Complete traffic and environmental reports
SPRING 2025 Traffic and environmental reports in review
SUMMER 2025 Final reevaluation approval -..44.y�\i—
SH-44 to SH-52
Design and construction of improvements would be completed once funding is available, ri.:.,1.<.,,,,q..a am e 7
Crash History & Traffic Volumes
CRASH HISTORY Between 2007-2011 there were 152 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Improvements will be reevaluated
crashes and between 2017-2021 there were 288 crashes. to address the needs of growth through the year 2050.
M Cnshes:2017-2021 Intanection Crashes:2017-2021
J '—. - F.... 1 t d
w
� C CURRENT WILE
p 1N OH to la st iNrERsenwN
./ 6,800 I0.080
CHERRY LANE
© - IO,OW I5,800
FREE2EOUt HILL
UG RD
‘4, 2aR-l0I t 16.. 11.600 16,800
o4
CHAPARRAL ROAD
as
``PpPH 12,200 18,400
AvAL NOVA ORVF
Or°lest 12,200 26,500
A re of OUP CANVnn DRIVE
t It BEACOrc 14,200 29,300
LIOal PO
SBEACON UGHt ROAD
•
ID20.7t10 29.200
am... 1Q.. F 0 Nf,
A ., a ' A ii FEATHER uC WAVING FEATHER ROAD �■
© © - 22,800 33,20D N'.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 44 H..nH LmHTERuaaN SH-44 tDSX-S2 16.
,'::::,,.7,
.. :. . ,.,.mob. n...:."..,-,,.,. ..w "`. 38.800 73.000 ,n„,„rvLnt
Ill
8
4
5/29/2024
At-
Design Considerations
ITD is considering many factors during the design process. Improvements must be
consistent with what was approved in the original 2005 Environmental Assessment.
Considerations for traffic Other design ITD is also gathering design
operations include: considerations include: considerations from:
• Travel time • New SH-16 construction • The community
• Delay south of SH-44 • Local agencies
• Queue lengths • Cost of structures • Stakeholders and
• Safety • Noise impacts property owners
• Raised median • Property impact
• Access limits assessment
• Driver expectations
SH 44 to 5&S2
9
0
Concepts Removed
ITD has removed and/or altered some roadway segments from ..._a-
the 2005 preferred alternative: • � � "
• Changing the design of the proposed SH-44/SH-16 interchange - — >
• This modification has been completed and approved under a different
environmental document
• Local access roads(collector roads)between Floating Feather and Beacon Light •
-
• Adjacent developments have built a different system of roads that serve the • °
same purpose.
ITD is not advancing these concepts:
• Roundabout at Floating Feather
• Significant impacts to development and undesirable interchange spacing to SH-16 and Beacon Light.
SH-44/SH-16 Interchange.
• Cul-de-sac Cherry Lane in Emmett,.
• This modification shifts operational problems to other local roads.
10
5
5/29/2024
Concepts Not Recommended
©> ;a„ ..,...
n z.:
■ ITD recommends not advancing
„, w„ „,�, ,,,,„,„„„, „* several additional concepts for
SH-16 between Floating Feather
" ,.. "' `,, - and Beacon Light Road.
IIIIIIIIIIII
tom.. ......,..,.......
1
.--- 4H-4G to SH-52
11
J.
What is ITD advancing?
ITD has developed several modifications
to the preferred alternative established ::; =
in 2005.The corridor has been split into - ..4y .4. TM
four sections to show the various "*,` I .._
modifications:
• SH-44 to ValNova(3 modifications)
� • �� `
• ValNova to Chaparral (2 modifications)
• Chaparral to Cherry(2 modifications) ` '
• Cherry to SH-52 (no modifications)
5H-16 near Johns Ave.
5&�5�•
12
6
5/29/2024
SH-44 to ValNova
SH-16H-44toValNovaDriye i Modifications to the Preferred Altemative
--..
*ma.
6 )
Cl).
. • - t
44
- —
; .
4 F-2 11.
13
ValNova to Chaparral
SH 16,Valflova Drive to Chaparral Road Mixhficiations to the Preferred Alternative
•••••.--
oft. •
•
MIN111.4.
SH 4rame=srmi 52
tema
14
7
5/29/2024
0
Chaparral to Cherry
'•��' > �� �Tv,
SH16,Chaparral Road toChenylane I Modifications tottePrNeredAem# e
V. __ 4 « ., `.,,M�.... �w .
A.
u
' '[fi .n {>
15
Cherry to SH-52
SH 16,Cherry lane to SH 52 5 ".,�4 `�,
i + ,x
�.
rt
� a
e ,�, aP 6C e .. iEMMETTI `� t :' tbModMtatlonf
SR
.,. k �. It ^'k •Widen 16,o(wrlann
.. Mw^�4knH�on _ ..�, _." it ....
�n .d m.d�i MPH. ', R
mme
vie
r ' - T1
Ili
Y
41jilli...' ' ' "*4*:: '.:":'.
w �y Arta x� �` 'e-# . r
�I
SIC 44 to SH32
16
8
5/29/2024
0
Public Meeting Outcomes
r00� 478 people attended in-person and over 1,500
n online meeting views tH
,
-�� ITD received 184 comments `
Overall key themes we heard:
• SafetyHighway on 16 is a big concern and more safety
measures are needed
• Safe,free-flowing traffic on SH-16 is a top priority
• Impacts to property and business owners is a concern
44toSH
Eo 2
17
Public Meeting Outcomes
SH-44 to ValNova Drive Comments:
V Participants liked Modification 1(overpass at Floating Feather and interchange at
Beacon Light)because they felt it was the safest and best option for traffic flow.
• Some participants were concerned about impacts to properties at Beacon Light
• Participants liked the overpass at Floating Feather because is limits access on SH-
16
• Some were concerned about the removal of access to SH-16 at Floating Feather
ValNova Drive to Chaparral Road Comments:
V Participants liked Modification 2(interchange at Chaparral and a local access road to
Firebird Raceway)because they felt it was the safest and best option for traffic flow.
• Some participants disliked this modification because of the impacts to surrounding
properties.
• Others had question about the plan for local access and frontage roads.
g li to SH J
18
9
5/29/2024
Public Meeting Outcomes
Chaparral Road to Cherry Lane Comments:
✓ Participants liked Modification 2(interchange at Cherry Lane)because they felt it was
the safest and best option for traffic flow.
• Some participants disliked this modification because of the impacts to surrounding
properties.
• Some participants suggested looking at other options for improving the area
around Cherry Lane.
Cherry Lane to SH-52 Comments:
✓ Participants liked the plan to widen SH-16.
✓ Participants also expressed concerns about safety issues like speeding and heavy truck
traffic.
SH-44 to Strrtsmadli
19
Thank you !
Over the coming months,ITD will: Mark Wasdahl
Senior Planner
• Review all comments and input received. Idaho Transportation
• Collect additional technical data. Department, District 3
• Continue designing and refining the range of mark.wasdahl@itd.idaho.gov
modifications to the preferred alternative.
• Continue working with stakeholders, property
owners and local agencies. Kurt Wald
To stay up to date on the project: Consultant Project Manager
Horrocks
•Visit: itdprojects.idaho.gov/pages/sh1644to52 kurtw@horrocks.com
•Call: (208)334-8008
• Email:sh16corridor@itd.idaho.gov
SH-44 to 5H-5 �;�J
20
10
14
*Wri, tit
City of Eagle
Water Capitalization Fee ;Is
City Council F fi
February 8,2024 ' #
IleHECO •
ENGINEERS
1
Goals
• Review of the City's current fees
o Hookup
o STL—Storage&Trunk Line Fee
o WCE—Water Construction Equivalency Fee
■ Incorporate existing Hookup and STL fees into a new Capitalization Fee using
mandated methodology
• Eliminate WCE Fee
Air
HECO
ENGINEERS 2
2
1
• Existing Fees
• STL—Storage&Trunk Line Fee
o Implemented by Resolution 05-13
o Amended by Resolution 08-09
o Fee was last adjusted in 2008
• Hookup Fee
o Typically increased annually
• WCE—Water Construction Equivalency Fee
o Established in 1992;Title 6-5-24 in City Code
o Fee based on proportional share of existing system
o Fee was last adjusted prior to 2008
1110 HECO = `
E• NGINEERS
3
Capitalization Fee
• System equity buy-in imposed on new development
• Methodology based on Idaho Supreme Court ruling in North Idaho Building
Contractors Association(NIBCA)v.City of Hayden
• Limits the cost basis for the Cap Fee to the replacement cost of the existing
infrastructure
• Excludes any future planned project costs in the fee calculation
peHECO
ENGINEERS 4
4
2
• Methodology
• Determine the net system replacement value
■ Determine the capacity of the system
Replacement Value —Unfunded Depreciation
Cap Fee=
Existing System Capacity
Net Replacement Value Replacement Value-Unfunded Depreciation
HECO
E• NGINEERS 7r;7
5
• Net Replacement Value
• Replacement value of existing system
o Current replacement costs of system components
• Unfunded depreciation
o Accounts for decline in the value of the system due to age
• Current Fee Balances
o Amounts of Reserves and STL fees held by the City;Deducted from
replacement value since fees will be used for future improvements
• Current indebtedness
o Amount owed on the system;Deducted from replacement value since
repayment of debt is funded through rates;Currently$0 indebtedness
■ Steps
✓ Inventory existing system
✓ Determine age of system
✓ Determine current replacement costs
✓ Determine value of aged system
✓ Determine net replacement value
toHECO �'
ENGINEERS
6
3
• Existing System
• Groundwater wells—Total of 5
• 1 MG Concrete Reservoir
• Approximately 50 miles of water distribution pipe
• 497 Fire Hydrants
• Pressure Reducing Valve Stations—2
• Water Rights—3.25 cfs licensed in Eastern Zone;5.37 cfs permitted in
Western Zone
si
gY�
yes .
•:
r I
toHECO
ENGINEERS
7
• Net Replacement Value
Replacement Value
• Replacement costs determined using RSMeans for piping&hydrants
• Original Costs adjusted to current cost using RSMeans Construction Cost
Index(CCI)
• If Original Costs unknown—used original costs of similar project and adjusted
to project construction year using RSMeans CCI
• Water rights value determined using the rental price of storage from the
Boise River Rental Pool—Water District#63
Depreciation
Expected
Life
• Accounts for age and life expectancy pipe(PVC) 70
of each component using straight- Hydrant 40
line depreciation method Well 50
• Asset life expectancy based on Well House 50
Pressure Reducing Valve 50
typical industry values and AWWA& Station
EPA publications Reservoir 60
HECO
to ENGINEERS •,rra� � N
8
4
• Net Replacement Value
■ Summary
Component Eastern Zone Western Zone
Pipe(PVC) $17,518,998.73 $35,623,521.87
Hydrants $334,032.33 $1,540,862.97
Well/Well Houses $958,923.43 $2,937,461.30
PRV $70,664.24 $93,526.20
Reservoir $2,176,661.37 N/A
Water Rights $517,500.00 $1,788,343.14
Zone Net Replacement Value $21,576,780.10 $41,983,715.48
Combined Net Replacement Value $63,560,495.58
^ r
00 HECO
ENGINEERS
9
• Net Replacement Value
• Additional reductions
r Indebtedness (DEQ loan balance for construction of concrete reservoir)
Balance as of December 31,2023—$0.00
r Reserve Balance
Balance as of December 31,2023—$1,062,000.00
STL Fee Balance
Balance as of December 31,2023—$2,072,980.77
Eastern Zone Western Zone
Zone Net Replacement Value $20,512,553.17 $39,912,961.64
Combined Net Replacement Value $60,425,514.81
0i HECO iyllYt,
ENGINEERS "'. ors IU
10
5
System Capacity
■ Eastern Zone—Regulatory Capacity(Firm Capacity)
o DEQ required redundancy—Largest source out of service
o Limited by the pumping availability from the wells
o Source capacity shall meet maximum day demand
o Well 2 has a capacity of 650 gallons per minute(gpm)
o Water Master Plan(in progress)has an estimated maximum day demand
of 432 gallons per day(0.3 gpm)per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)
650 gpm
Eastern Capacity= = 2,167 EDUs
0.3 gpm/EDU
dr
HECO 111 -
►
ENGINEERS '� I
11
System Capacity
• Western Zone
o Limited by the available water rights(5.37 cfs=2,410 gpm)
o No storage—System must meet peak hour demand
o Water Master Plan(in progress)has an estimated peak hour demand of
648 gallons per day(0.45 gpm)per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU)
Western Capacity= z,4io gpm = 5,356 EDUs
0.45 gpm/EDU
• Total System Capacity
Total Capacity=2,167+5,356=7,523 EDUs
411/
HECO " ►7.
ENGINEERS
12
12
6
Cap Fee Calculation
Fee Cekulatlan
All data current as of: 12/31/2023
•eplocement Value
Full Replacement Value Depreciated Replacement Value
Eastern Zone Eastern Zone
Pipe $25,708,476.34 ?ipe $17,518,998.73
Hydrants $775,017.00 Hydrants $334,032.33
Wells/Wellhouses $1,788,191.64 Wells/Wellhouses $958,923.43
PRO $103,918.00 ?RV $70,664.24
Reservoir $2,968,174.59 Reservoir $2,176,661.37
Water Rights $517,500.00 Water Rights $517,500.00
Total Eastern $31,861,277.57 rotal Eastern $21,576,780.10
Western Zone Western Zone
Pipe $38,708,124.64 Pipe $35,623,521.87
Hydrants $1,792,872.66 Hydrants $1,540,862.97
PRV $103,918.00 PRV $93,526.20
Wells/Wellhouses $3,865,080.66 Wells/Wellhouses $2,937,461.30
Water Rights $1,788,343.14 Water Rights $1,788,343.14
Total Western $46,258,339.10 Total Western $41,983,715.48
Combined System $78,119,616.67 Combined System $63,560,495.58
ystem Capacity
System Capacity(EDU=Equivalent Dwelling Unit) fJmiting Fervor
Eastern Zone 2167 EDUs Source Supply With Largest Well Off
Western Zone 5356 EDUS Water Right Withdrawal of 5.37 cfs
Combined 7523 EDUe
lie HECO ENGINEERS ! • 13
13
• Cap Fee Calculation
ee Calculation
Alternative 1-Combined Cap Fee
Combined System
Replacement Value $63,560,495.58
Reserves(Replacement) $1,062,000.00
5TL Balance(Expansion) $2,072,980.77
lurrent Indebtedness $0.00
Yet Replacement Value 560,425,514.81
Cap Foe. $8,032
Pore'Excludes Meter Fee
Alternative 2-Separate Cap Fees
Separate System Eastern Western
Replacement Value $21,576,780.10 $41,983,715.48
Reserves(Replacement) $360,515.45 $701,484.55 Prapartian eased on Rauoaf Replacement Vamo.s
STL Balance(Expansion) $703,711.48 $1,369,269.29 Proportion Baud on flatfoot ReHaam.nc values
Current Indebtedness $0.00 $0.00
Net Replacement Value $20,512,553.17 $39,912,961.64
Cap Fee: Eastern Western
Note:Excludes meter Fee $9,466 $7,452
AI,►.,
toHECO '
ENGINEERS 14
14
7