HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntergovernmental Agreement by FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE for Land Use and Transportation
LAW OFFICES
FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE
IN KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI
ATTORNnS AT LAW
ROSERT H. 'RmICH. P.C'.'.'.'
MARnN L. CE<TNER. P.C.'
RICHARD G. CARUSCE. P.C.'
S. MARK WH<TE'.'
ROBIN A. KRAMER'.'.'
TYSON SM<TH'
EUSA L PASTER
A PARTNERSH'P 'NCWO'NO PRO>ESS'ONAL CORPORA"ONS
"""'"""""."'.0<'."'."°'.'"
.,"",",
1150 ONE MAIN PLAZA
4435 MAIN STREET
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64111-1858
FACSIMILE
(8161 561-7931
IN ASREN, COLORADO
FREILICH, MYLER. LEITNER & CARLISLE
'06 S. MICL ST.. SUITE 202
ASPEN, COCORADO .,." -'973
TnERHONE 19701 920-'0'8
FACS'MILE 19701920-4259
TELEPHONE
(816) 561-4414
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 200~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID J. MYLER. P.C.'
E. M'CHAn HOFFMAN'
July 13,2004
Sent via Email and Federal Express
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Judy Peavey-Derr, Chair
Ada County Commissioners
200 W. Front Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
John S. Franden, President
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Mayor Dave Bieter
City of Boise
150 N. Capitol Blvd
Boise, Idaho 83702
Mayor Nancy Merrill
City of Eagle
310 E. State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Mayor Ted Ellis
City of Garden City
6015 Glenwood Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Mayor DeanObray
CityofKuna
231 Kay Avenue
Kuna, Idaho 83634
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Mayor Nathan Mitchell
City of Star
10769 W. State Street
Star, Idaho 83669
David Ekern, Director
Idaho Transportation Department
3311 W. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83707-1129
Dear Governing Board Members:
Pursuant to my letter of July 9, 2004 (copy enclosed), I am enclosing the final
version of the Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") to establish the Ada County-wide
Land Use and Transportation Guide Plan ("Guide Plan") and Implementing Land Use and
Comprehensive Plan Elements and Land Development Regulations.
FREILICH, LEITNER ê CARLISLE
Governing Board Members
July 13,2004
Page 2
I am pleased to report that the COMPASS staff (Clair Bowman, Matt Stoll and
Charles Trainor) and I (with Michael Lauer of Planning Works) have reached complete
agreement on the language of the Ada Guide Plan Scope of Services which is attached to
the IGA as Exhibit "C.,,1 We have also reached agreement on the language of the
CaMP ASS Resolutions 04-2004 (Ada County) and 05-2004 (Canyon County) which are
attached as Exhibits "E-l" and "E-2."
The IGA agreement final language was approved by the Idaho Transportation
Department ("lID") legal counsel. I am forwarding this final approved form of the IGA
Agreement with Exhibits "A" through "F" bye-mail and by federal express with hard
copies. The IGA has the following exhibits attached:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E-l
E-2
F.
Letter ofIntent dated April 19, 2004.
The Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle White Paper Report, "Framework for
Developing a Countywide Land use and Transportation Plan."
Scope of Services for Ada Guide Plan Project
Contract for Legal Services with Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle.
Revised COMPASS Resolution 04-2004 (Ada County).
Revised COMPASS Resolution 05-2004 (Canyon County).
Resolution for Adoption of the IGA to be approved by each Governing
Board. lID as a state department has its own form of Resolution which it
will adopt on July 12-13, 2004.
Please ensure that the IGA, together with Exhibits "A" through "F," is noticed for
adoption by your Governing Board. Please return the executed copy to:
Steve Price
General Counsel
Ada County Highway District
318 E. 37th Street
Garden City, ID 83714
Steve will make a composite original of all the Resolutions of Adoption and will return a
complete set to each Governing Board and the lTD.
I We have also reached agreement on the language of the COMPASS Communities in Motion Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) Scope of Services. Duplication has been eliminated !Yom both Scopes of
Service and coordmation meetmgs have been incorporated as suggested by David Ekern ofITD. The
LRTP Scope of Services will be forwarded to you after the agreed upon changes have been mcorporated
mto the document by COMPASS staff.
FREILICH, LEITNER ê CARLISLE
Governing Board Members
July 13, 2004
Page 3
Thank you again for your support for this project and your confidence in our team. We
look forward to an exciting and productive land us d transportation ftamework for the
21st Century for Ada County. ./
RHFlslhiió3139
90885.007
( -
EXHIBIT
I -----Â-
IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOUlU
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LAw OFFIcES
FREILJCH, LEITNER & CARLISLE
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDlNG PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATIONS
1150 ONE MAIN PLAZA
4435 MAIN ST.
KANSAS Cm, MrssoURI64111-7727
FACSIMILE
(816) 561-7931
TELEPHONE
(816) 561-4414
"",or,"', LULU'" 0
ROBERrH FRE1LJCH P C,,'.4_'
MARTlNL: LEITNER,'P.C. I
RICHARD G. CARLJSLE, P.C.'
S. MARKWHITEIJ
ROBIN A KRAMER'~,4
TYSON SMITH'
ELISA PASTER'-'
FREILICH, MVLER, LEn-NER &
CARLISLE
106 S. MIlL ST., SUITE 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1973
TELEPHONE: (970) 920-1018
FACSIMILE: (970) 920-4259
A:DMIITEDlN MO', KS2, CA', NY", Nc', FL'
NM'
AITORNEVSATLAW
DAVID J. MYLER, P.C'
E. MrCHAELHo.FMAN'
ADMIITEDINCO'
April 19,2004
Judy Peavey-Derr, Chair
Ada County Commissioners
200 W. Front Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
John S. Franden, President
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Mayor Dave Bieter
Ciry of Boise
. 15-0 N. Capitol Bivd
Boise, Idaho 83702
Mayor Nancy Merrill
,City of Eagje
:3 iÙjn3taÚiStreet
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Mayor Ted Ellis
City of Garden City
6015 Glenwood Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Mayor Dean Obray
.city ofKuna
'P.O. Box 13
Kuna, Idaho 83634
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Mayor Nathan Mitchell
City of Star
P.O. Box 130
Star, Idaho 83669
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The finD of Freilich, LeitDer, & CarIisle ("FL&C") has been retained by the Ada COlmty
Highway District ("ACHD") to work with Ada County, the six cities of Ada County and ACHD
to develop a coordinated county-wide land use and transportation growth management plan
("Plan") and to implement the Plan by preparing ordinances, manuals and comprehensive plan
elements for the county, each city and ACHD. The Plan win be developed in two phases: (1)
development and 'adoption of the Countywide Plan; and (2) preparation of comprehensive plan
elements and manuals for the count)', each city, and ACHD together with implementing land
development regulations.
. :.
Each of the undersigned is signing this Letter of Intent to indicate its support for
preparation of the Plan and the Plan's implementation and to fully participate in the processing
and the allocation of iì.mding of that plan in accordance with the attached Final Report, entitled
"Framework for Developing a County~wide Land Use and Transportation Plan." Phase I of the
Plan will not exceed $450,000 and Phase n of the Plan will not exceed $350,000. -
The parties intend to execute a Joint Powers Agreement no later than May 15, 2004 in
order to carryout the scope, costs and schedule of the proposed Plan. The development of both
phases of the Plan would commence on ÌüÎy 1, 2004 and would be concÎuded by December 31,
2005.
~cf ~~
May Ted Ellis. .
City of Garden City
¡ß--¡q¡
Mayor Dean Obray
City ofKuna
R)~
Mayor Nathan Mitchell
City of Star
61840.doc
~~i.~,
~
FRAMEWORI< FOR
DEVELOPING A
COUNTYWIDE
LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
(I BaIT I
"
FINAL REPORT
FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE
1150 ONE MAIN PLAZA. 4435 MAIN STREET
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64111
816.561.4414 (PHONE) . 816.561.7931(FAX)
RFREILI CH @FLC-KC.COM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview...............................................................................................................................................................1
Planning Context ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Structure ................................................................................................................................................................3
Stakeholder Participation....................................................................................................................................4
Scope...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
A. Alternative Land Use and Growth Patterns/Tier systems .................................................................... 5
B. Transportation...............................................................................................................................................8
C. Legislation.................................................................................................................................................... 13
D. Jomt Public-Private Economic and Fiscal Considerations...................................................;.............. 13
E. Environmental Review Process ...................................................,....,...............................,...................... 14
F. Bus And Multi-Model Transit................................................................................................................... 14
G. Agricultural Preservation .......................................................................................................................... 15
H. Intergovernmental Joint Powers Agreements .......................................................................................15
Thning............................................................................................,.....................................................................15
Schedule...........................................................................:..............................................................................;.... 16
Financing......;......................................................................................................................................................17
RegclatotyTools............................................:...................................................................................................17
Costs of Growth ..............................................................................,.................................................................18
Consultants ..................................................;......................................................................................................19
Project Scope Schedule and Costs .............................................................................................................;....20
Conclusion .........................................................................................................,...........................................,....22
Appendix A: Draft Scope of Services .............................................................."........................................... 24
FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING A COUNTYWIDE LAND
USE AND TRANSPORTATION GUIDE PLAN
OVERVIEW
Ada County Highway District ("ACHD") has retamed Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle (FLC) to
perform consultallt services under a two-phased agreement. Phase I involves revisions to the ACHD
Policy Manual. Phase II involves the development of a countywide Ialld use aIld transportation guide
plan' ("Plan") with the cooperation of Ada County, the Idaho Transportation Depaxtment
("ITD")aIld the cities within the COlIDty. This Report is submitted in fulfillment of Phase II of the
FLC-ACHD agreement.
The Phase II project involves the development of a county wide trallsportation and land use
guide plan by the land use planning aIld implementing agencies within the county (the county, six
cities aIld ACHD). The objective is to create all intergovernmental coordinated growth strategy that
reflects what the citizens of the county aIld their elected leaders desire for better quality of life. The
Guide Plan will address demographic, economic, fiscal, land use aIld transportation factors. Analysis
of alternative development patterns and respective impacts will result in selection of a preferred
alternative, to form the backbone pattern of growth for the Guide Plan, The Guide Plan will then be
incorporated, with adaptive changes, into the comprehensive plans and land development regulations
of the COlIDty, the six cities, the ACHD Policy Mallual and the long range transportation plall (LRT1')
a=endy being prepaxed by the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
("COMPASS").
The Report recognizes that a signifiCallt amount of trallsportation planning has oca=ed in the
COMty. The purpose of the Report is not to wbolly replace or revisit those plalls aIld policies, but
rather to establisb a realistic action program to integrate aIld implement coordinated trallsportation
and lalld use policies aIld regulations throughout Ada County. The Plan will utilize base data
assembled in existing plans, as well as the long rallge transportation planning process currendy being
undertaken by COMPASS. The policies aIld implementation strategies that emerge frorn this process
will refine existing transportation and land use plallning efforts thronghout the County, resulting in
better coordination between land use and transportation decision making that will yield:
Prioritized and fully funded transportation capital improvement programs that promote
the preferred land use growth patterns;
Efficient growth patterns that reduce travel time, air pollution, capital improvement
costs, energy costs, aIld operation and maintenance costs;
. Infi1l compatibility in existing neighborhoods;
A rallge of choice in housing to accommodate maxket options from traditional
subdivisions to walkable pedestrian oriented neighborhoods and centers;
Feasible transit choices for transit dependent residents and those who chose to walk or
bike;
Feasible transit choices for transit-dependent residents and those who chose to walk or
bike;
. Enhanced economic development initiatives and job growth
Transportation on corridors aIld centers to reduce strip commercial aIld sprawl
developrnent
PLANNING CONTEXT
Ada County is the l:u:gest county in the state of Idaho; and the greatest. part of one of the fastest
growing regions in the nation. With a 2000 Census population of 300,904, nearly one-quarter (23%)
of the state's residents reside in Ada County. Accorcling to population projections by COMPASS,
total population and households are anticipated to increase by 63% and 61%, respectively, by the
year 202S. The share of population included in the cities, if cw:rent trends are rnaintained, is
anticipated to decline from 90% to 83%, reflectÙ1g decentralization from the region's city centers. As
the population has mcreased and decentralized, traffic congestion has increased Census statistics
reveal that travel time to work increased ,from 16.9 to 19.3 minutes from years 1990 to 2000. Public
transportation, walking, and bicycling remain a relatively small share of horne--to-work trips.
This pace of growth has provided nwnerous opportunities and challenges for the county. While
growth has opened economic development opportuoities the decentralization of growth has
presented challenges in terms of provicling infrastrocture and maintaining the unique character and
quality of life valued by existÙ1g and new residents. Low-density development in the county's rural
and suburban areas as well as in the ou1,lying impact areas of cities has increased traffic congestion,
while decreasing the ability to restore and enhance the county's city centers, infill in existing
neighborhoods and to provide public transportation.
Local jurisdictions exercising police power in the county include Ada County, six (6) cities
(Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, Meridian, Star), and the Ada County Highway District (ACHD).
The County and each city have the power to adopt comprehensive plans that establish land use and
transportation policies. Each implements land use policies through zoning, subdivision and capital
improvement programs. At a countywide level, the ACHD reviews subdivision plats for "contÙ1uity
of highway pattern, widths, drainage provisions, rights-of-way, constroction standards, traffic flow,
traffic volume, demand generated by the proposed subdivision (both within and outside the
subdivision boundaries), and other matters pertaining to the District's function as a highway district"
(ACHD Policy Manual § 7001.1.4).
Transportation planning and improvements within the region are.a shared function of the
federal, state and local governments. At the local level, ACHD has principal responsibility for
provicling and maintaining local transportation improvements in Ada County. ACHD was
established by referendum on:May 25,1971 as a separate unit oflocal government to consolidate thè
street and road functions of Ada County and the cities within the county. ACHD provides planning,
design, constroction, reconstroction, maintenance and traffic supervision for all urban streets, rural
roadways and bridges.
COMPASS is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) fot the Boise and
N=pa Urbanized Areas encompassmg northern Ada County and the expanded urbanized area in
Canyon County. COMPASS is designated as a Transportation Management Area (IMA) for the
Metropolitan Plannmg Boundary. COMPASS serves other cities within Canyon County, the Highway
Districts in each county -- Valley Ride, the regional public transportation authority -- and the Idaho
Transportation Department. COMPASS' separate legal status as a joint-powers entity accords with
tide 67, chapter 23, Idaho Code. COMPASS cw:rently is initiating the development of a long range
transportation plan (LRTP) fo+ the region.
In developing the LRTP with support fotm lID, COMPASS is required to assure "consistency
between transportation decision making and the provisions of all applicable short-range and long
range land use development plans". 23 u.S.C.§134(f). It is the cities, the county and ACHD which
2
have the responsibility to prepare and implement the plans, regulations, CIPS and funding programs
thatwill inform the COMPASS m preparing its LRTP and making transportation policy decisions
Under Idaho law, the authority for linking transportation planning to new growth and
development is found in the Local Land Use Planning Act ("LUPA"), tide 67, chapter 6S, Idaho
Code. LUPA requires local goveJ:runents to prepare a comprehensive plan that addresses property
rights, population, economic development, land use, public services/utilities/facilities, transportation,
housing, commucity design, and implementation (Idaho Code § 67-6508). LUPA provides for broad
regulatory tools ranging from conventional zoning and subdivision regulations, to more innovative
and flexible devices such as transfers of developrnent rights, development agreements, special nse
pennits, planned unit developments, and futw:e right-of-way acquisition maps.
Despite numerous land use planning and implementation programs of each jurisdiction in the
County, these policies have not been coordinated on a countywide basis. LUPA has a provision
authorizing negotiated areas of city impact within the unincOJporated area of the county (Idaho Code
§ 67-6526). Presendy, there is little coorcliÍ1ation between policies and standards relatÙ1g to land uses,
densities and intensities, adequate public facilities, funding, priorirized capital improvement
programming, community design, and other land use policies among the jurisdictions in the CoUÌlty.
Further, there is no active mechanism to address the transportation impacts, particularly cumulative
impacts, of land use activities throug~out the county. This report establishes a process for
developing a coordinated transportation and land use guide plan that will provide more effective land
use patterns, stimulate growth in infill areas, and along transportation-transit corridors and centers,
reduce sprawl, and provide coordination between the various jurisdictions that control transportation
and land use policy in the county. Most importantly the incorporation of the plan through a growth
management element into each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and the simultaneous preparation
and àdoption of ordinances and progtanlS to au:ry out the policies on the ground, will assure that the
Countywide Plan is fully implemented.
STRUCTURE
The plan process will be established by a joint powers agreement between all of the participant
jurisdictions. The intergovernmental agreement will establish constituent membership, the roles and
responsibilities of each member, finanèial cost, allocation of costs, and the procedures for formal
adoption of the countywide transportation and land use plan and implementÙ1g comprehensive Plan
elements and land development regulations by the county, cities and ACHD.
The participating governmental jurisdictions will appoint a 25- member Steering Committee and
an mter-agency Technical Committee to provide policy guidance throughout the project and assist
with interagency coordination. A suggested composition of these committees is listed in the
Stakeholder Participation section of this report below. Steering Committee members generally will
be asked to attend one meeting per month, thongh additional meetings may be desired for special
presentations at key decision points. Th~ Technical Committee will ensure that the Consultant team
has access to the most current data, assist in the alternatives analysis and review all documents
produced during the process. PeriodÍc meetings will be held with the governing boards of the
participatÙ1g jurisdictions at key decision points.
The project will be closely coordinated with the ongoing transportation planning effort currendy
being undertaken by COMPASS. The population and employment distributions resultÙ1g frorn each
of the growth alternatives discussed m the next section will be forwarded to COMPASS and ACHD
for traffic modeling. The traffic models will. yield futw:e level of service data and a list of
improvements required to serve each alternative. The preferred growth alternative will establish the
3
futw:e ß1'owth pattern that lays the fowru.tion of the Long fuLnge Transportation Plan (LRTP) beÙ1g
developed by COMPASS. In this way, the consOItium's project will shape future ttansportation
needs and the LRTP will be consistent with the transportation and land use guide plan ("Plan")
pursuant to Section 134 of the federal ttansportation act (IEA-21).
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
The intergovernmental agreement will include the participation of the six (6) cities in Ada
Cowty (Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kwa, Meridian, and Star), ACHD,and Ada Cowty. , To
facilitate the development of the Plan, key stakeholder ß1'oups will he represented on the Steering
Committee. Other groups should he contacted to participate through community workshops and
foClls groups described below. The composition will be subject to such arrangements as the
goveroing entities agree upon.
The Steering Committee could consist of 23-25 key stakeholders' as follows:
Ada Cowty
Boise
Eagle
GMden City
Kwa
Meridian
Star
ACHD
Agricultural interests
Chamber of Commerce
Neighborhood Interests
Idaho Smart Growth
Environmental Interests
Treasure Valley Partnership
Development interests (residential)
Development interests (commercial)
Redevelopment Agencies
Other Public Transportation Agencies
Canyon County non-voting representative
The Technical Committee should mclude participation as designated by the Steering
Committee as well as:
Idaho Transportation Department;
COMPASS
Other state agency representatives such as Idaho Division of Envirotilllental
Quality, Division of Natural Resources, Department of Health and Welfare and
the Treasure Valley Regional Public Transportation Authority;
Professionals with expertise in land use and transportation planning; and
Cowty, City, and ACHD, Department Heads.
, Numbers in parentheses indkate the number of representatives to be appointed by each jurisdiction.
4
In fo=ulating the substantive provisions of the plan described under "General Scope," below,
the consultant will use a number of public participation techniques includillg workshops, mternet,
newspaper fold-outs, smveys, chattettes, and focus group sessions to etlsute that the widest range of
citizens and groups have a voice in the outcome of this program.
SCOPE
This section discusses the getleral scope of the planning program. Key outcomes will include: (1)
the developmetlt and analysis of the impacts of distinct alternative land use and growth patterns; (2)
selection of a preferred growth pattern and appropriate growth policies for defined geographical
policy areas or tiers; (3) ttansportation planning coordinated with the prefetted land use patterns; (4)
suggested state legislation, if needed, to implement the prefetted alternative; (5) a framework for jomt
public-private econo11Úc developmetlt; (6) coordinated land use, growth and development plans and
policies; (7) land use patterns that support bus and multi-modal ttansit use; (8) intergovernmental
agreements and memotanda of understandings for implernetltation mechatùsms; (9) coordinated
developmetlt and environmental review standards and processes; and (10) prepatation of growth
managernent elements (ttansportation and land use) and land developmetlt regulations and ptOgrams
to be incorporated into comprehetlsive plans and ordinances of the county and cities and the ACHD
Policy Manual
A. ALTERNATIVE LAND USE AND GROWTH PATTERNS I TIER SYSTEM
This stage of the project involves the evaluation of alternative land use and growth patterns and
the establishmetlt of a prefetted growth system for cities, city-county growth areas and tntal-
agricultutal areas. Analysis of the choices will etlable decision makers to understand the impacts of
land use and capital investrnetlt decisions on local budgets, holding capacity, service capacities,
community character and other factors. Alternatives will focus on a systern of tiers, which will
identify and establish apptOpriate land use and growth policies for developed, developing, future
developmetlt and rotal agricultural ateas within the county. Developed tiers are existing, built-out
areas where infill developmetlt opportunities will be identified. Developing tiers are areas where new
developmetlt is occutting, and where specific timing, sequetlcing and mitigation measures will be
required to addtess etlVÌtonmetltal and mfrasttuclute constraints. Future development and rotal tiers
are not anticipated to be developed within the rime frame of the Plan, though developmetlt in each
of these tiers should reflect long tange desÍtes for the character and intetlsity of developrnetlt. A
final, etlVÌtonmetltal tier can be created to reflect natutal conditions or topographical constraints that
overlay urban developmetlt. While each of these tiers is likely to exist within each alternative, the
boundaries of the tiers and the growth policies within each tier will cliffer between alternatives.
The alternatives analysis ptOcess should involve the following tasks:
1.
Definition of Alternatives. SCetlarios will be initially defined by COMPASS's selected
four alternative SCetlarios as follows:
i. A compact developmetl.t SCetlario involving a shift in the location, timing,
and detlsity of new developmetlt to focus developtnetlt in designated nodes,
cetlters, and neighborhoods;
ii. A ttansportation conidor developmetlt SCetlario with ttansit stations and
ttansportation conidor cetlters;
5
ill. A center-based scenario itt which new growth is restricted primarily to the
existing urban centers and newly established centers m outlying areas; or
iv. ContÙ1uation of past developrnent trends,
Each scenario will be translated ittto detailed development patterns using
existÙ1g GIS-based land use, zoning, transportation and other ittfrasttucture
data. The model development patterns will also ittclude findings of the
Treasure Valley Futures Project and COMPASS Long Range Transportation
Plan Study.
2. Alternatives Analysis. A detailed quantitative impact analysis of each growth scenario will
provide decision-makers with ittformation as to the different outcomes resulting from each
growth pattern. Debates over the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative can be
focused. on specific impacts, thus nrisittg the level of discourse. At least two workshops will
be held to enable steering conn;nittee members to thoroughly discuss each scenario before
reco=ending a preferred scenario, which is likely to be an amalgam ot those analyzed.
The GIS-based analysis should, at a minimum, address:
a.
Future population and employment distributions;
b. Economic development and job creation
c.
Development capacity and abso1ption;
d. Housing impacts;
e.
Environmental impacts;
f.
Utility systems impacts;
g. School impacts;
h. Transportation impacts;
i.
Other ittfrasttucture and service impacts;
j.
Impacts on community character
k. The array of legal implementation tools and programs needed to carry out the
scenario; and
1
Political feasibility
3. Scenario Maps. Preparation of a county-wide GIS-based map that identifies future land
use patterns and growth tiers for each scenario selected by the conn;nitree. This map will
serve as the basis for analysis offuture development potential within each scenario.
4.
Policy Alternatives. The development of coordinated land use, transportation, funding and
implementation strategies that will guide the revision of local comprehensive plans and
regulatory mechanisms such as zoning; subdivision; CIP; right of way preservation; adequate
facilities; financmg mechanisms; and environmental, fiscal and monitoring review. Policy
alternatives will be designed to ensure that transportation and other ittfrastructure
6
investments by all entities support the desired countywide growth pattern. This should
include the Idaho Transportation Department as well as water and sewer districts and other
utility providers. The alternatives will include:
a.
Policies that require consistency with the Plan and an approval process for
prioritized and fully funded new transportation investments; and
b. Identification of priority growth areas suitable for new growth-mducing transit,
transportation, economic development, mixed use centers and other public facility
investments.
5. Preferred Alternative Selection. Alternatives analysis is a consensus-building process. The
preferred alternative is likely to encourage growth in suitable infill locations, corridors,
centers, and nodes; address growth pressures in the external suburbs; include policies to
promote orderly, contiguous growth patterns; propose mechanisms to ensure that the
growth is coordinated with infrastructure capacity and infrastructure financÙ1g capability;
provide a suitable range of choices m neighborhoods to accommodate projected needs from
all age and income groups; and assure environmental, rural and agricultural .land
preservation.
Figure 1 The prifemd land use wl/l direct the extelUÎon offuture Infra.rtructure improvements
The alternatives analysis will be prepared based upon population and employment projections by
traffic analysis zone (TAZ). COMPASS's consultant will use the adopted preferred land use pattern
of growth to develop TAZ projections to model traffic and develop the LRTP. This approach
ensures that transportation modeling in the region is responsive to the preferred land use alternative,
rather than existing trends or land use being responsive to transportation improvements. In retutn
transportation priorities and scheduling will enable ACHD, the county and cities to address the
tÍrnÙlg and sequencing of growth based upon the availability of transportation improvements.
7
B. TRANSPORTATION
There is a close nexus between transportation improvement and urban form. Growth adds new
demands on transportation facilities, while also providing some new revenue to expand capacity. As
the county decentralizes and growth spreads farther from the center, the ability to provide efficient,
and self-supporting multi-modal transportation improvements becomes more difficult. Local
governments lack sufficient revenue to provide system improvements at a pace commensurate with
recent and anticipated growth. To address these issues, the Plan will develop policies that condition
developmènt approval to transportation level of service ("adequate public facilities") standards
derived from the adopted land use alternative pattern of growth. Planning policies will ensure that
growth occurs more efficiently, through compact land use patterns, corridors, centers, street
connectivity, contÙ1uous bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit supportive development.
Transportation adequate public facilities policies and standards tie the pace and location of new
development to the priority, availability and capacity of transportation improvements. Development
and implementation of these policies and standards involves; (1) analysis of the inventory of
transportation facilities; (2) the capacity of each facility; (3) the remaining capacity of each facility to
accommodate projected new development and future transportation demand; (4) the location of each
facility in relation to the adopted land use alternative pattern of growth; and (5) the priority of the
facility on the capital improvement program. Transportation levels of service will address all forms
of þ:ansportation infrastructure including streets, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities.. The
minimum level of service (or maximum amount of congestion) will differ between different areas of
the county, with more congestion beÙ1g acceptable within the urban core and less in rural areas. The
Plan will identify the zoning, subdivision, and other land use controls that will implement timing and
sequencÙ1g policies. The policies will address mitigation techi1iques for funding transþortation
capacity. The Plan will establish policies for capital improvements programs identifying pri!>rities,
priority growth areas, financÙ1g resources, and the timing of the new transportation facilities needed
to support existÙ1g subdivision approvals and new growth in the region.
The preferred land use alternative will refine the tiers by identifying key transportation corridors,
nodes, and centers based on existÙ1g,: high-capacity transportation improvements, and desired
growth patterns. Transportation improvements will be based on existÙ1gand anticipated densities
and intensities within the adopted pattèm of growth land use alternative and define the land use
policies that will provide the basis for regulatÙ1g land use.
I : I I I C .d
¡-.--i-------;r~ om ors
i,n I ; ,
-t- ~-+--I- t-'--~
-4-L--- -:---+ ----1-
I'I/~
--r+-!-TT71- ~---'í- . .Centers
-'; -t--+ ~ --t - t--- -1- -
--~+---1- +-i-~. ;1_- Nodes
"-.; ~..J..(.'-:"-
---'-"-f--=-f--::;~'- --
i ¡I! I
Figure 2 Corridors, Nodes and Centers Conceptual Diagram
(S ourc" Freilich, Ldtner & Carlisle;
The land use pattern of growth can be conceptually described as follows;
8
Corridors - linear land use patterns that form around regional transportation
connectors such as highways arid public transit routes, that link areas of activity
within the region and provide access to surrounding land uses. Corridors can be
classified into residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use corridors. JlÆxed-
use corridors may include traditional- "1é[ain Street" blocks, transit-oriented
development, or new "traditional neighborhood developments" with interconnected
grids.
i.,.().;'\ t~~ ~'~l.""i
l_.____------- -.-- -----_!'! -----.- --~----- ."--_J .....
Figure 3 Corridors are framed fry buildings andstructuref centered on linear trantporlation
facilities (SOU"" ofgraphic: ACHD)
Nodes - concentrations of land use activities that form at the mtersectÍon of
corridors or transit routes. N~des are typified by land use intensities that exceed
rhose of surrounding areas and relatively compact development patterns.
Figure 4 Nodes are concentrations of actiDiIY at the intersection of corridors or transit routes
(Source: Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle;
Centers - Centers are the nuclei of the region, with a concentration of land use
activity and transportation improvement. Centei:s provide the commercial,
residential, entertainment, and employment hubs for the COMly. While nodes
typically are scaled to a residential neighborhood, centers are larger m scale because
they tend to serve as county or. regional destinations and jomt public-private
development of centers is the key to the future economic development of the
county.
9
Figure 5 The downtown areas of Boise and Kuna are example of Centers (Sources: VallryRide,
Downtown Boise Mobili!J StUffy REvised Report; COMPASS, Destination 2020)
The desired chaxacter of corridors, nodes, and centers will be defined by location within the
"Tier" system described in subsection "A" above. Based upon location within each "Tier"
(Urbanized, Urbacizing, Future Urbanizing or Rural/Agricultural) the densities, intensities, land uses,
design characteristics and transportation improvements will vary.
_ot,"""""'phm"'-'~-""'.""'-'"
"".~-"',."""""'m.-.w."""""""",,,...
-.....
_,.,
.... '
"...._~
-
""""',"'_,
"-"" .....
"""'0,..--
Figure 6 (Source: Idaho Smart Growth,
at ht!J>:11 www.idahosmartgrowth.oqJcrossroa.btl1l)
The following documents will be considered m establishing goals, objectives, policies nad
strategies and in defining tiers, corridors and nodes:
City and County Comprehensive Plans, Mea Plans and Zoning Regulations
ACHD 2005-2009 Five-Year Work Program
10
ACHD Impact Fee Program and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
ACHD Policy Manual
ACHD State Street Corridor Study
Ada Planning Association and Co:tvJPASS, Development Monitoring Reports for
Ada County
Ada Plannit1g Association, Interim Foothills Transportation Plan Only 20, 1998)
Ada Planning Associatiol1, Land Use and Transportation Workshop materials
(Model Calibration Report and supporting presentations)
Center for Public Policy and Administration, Boise State University, Treasure Valley
Infi:astructuJ:e Study Alternative Revenue Sources Oune 1999)
COMPASS, II-84 CottÏdor Study Fmal Report (October 15, 2001)
COMPASS, Ada County Long Range Highway & Street Map 2025 Functional Street
Classification System (Adopted Jilly 15, 2002)
COMPASS, Analysis of Transportation Components in the Comprehensive Plans
of Ada County Oilly 2003)
COMPASS, FY2004-2008 Boise Urbacized Area Transportation Improvement
Program (Approved September 15, 2003)
COMPASS, DestÙ1ation 2025: Long Range Transportation Plan for Ada County
(Report 12-2002, amended September 16, 2002)
COMPASS, Draft Treasure Valley Congestion Management System PIan
(September 2002)
COMPASS, FY2003-2007 List of Locally Funded Minor Arterials that add
ContÙ1uous Through Lane Capacity and ¡tte not Regionally Significant
(2002)(provided for InfottIlation Only. Not a Part of the Transportation
Improvement Program)
COMPASS, Regional Transportation Summit Executive Summary, First-Level
Overview, And SupportÙ1g Materials (November 30, 2001)
COMPASS, FY2004 Unified Planning Work Program and Budget Final (August 18,
2003)
COMPASS, Stonn Water Management Authorities and Requirements Of Local
Governments in Ada and Canyon Counties Oanuary 2003)
COMPASS, 2002 Treasure Valley Transportation Survey (Final Report, February
2003)
Idaho Transportation Department (lID), Idaho Futures documentation
(www.idah ofuturetravel.info)
11
Treasure Valley Futures Project, Treasure Valley Growth Scenario Analysis
(November 2002)
ValleyRide, Downtown Boise Mobility Study
ValleyRide, fuail Corridor Evaluation
ValleyRide, Regional Operations and Capital Improvement Plan
ValleyRide, Transportation Development Plan (IDP)
VIATrans, Valley Inte!:Area Transportation's Transit Development Plan Technical
Memorandum, Development Of Transit Alternatives
Å
Figure 7 (Soum:: VaUryRideJ
The Plan will: (1) evaluate existÙ1g road and sidewalk improvements to identify deficiencies and
facilities with surplus capacity (incorporating ACHD studies that identify !U:eas with high and low
street connectivity); (2) the availability of pedestrian and bicycle facilities; (3) establish policies to
resolve existÙ1g deficiencies and prevent new deficiencies from occurring; and (4) identify mitigation
measures that do not rely exclusively on automobile and roadway capacity, such as better
connectivity, transit and pedestrian facilities, and transportation demand management techniques
such as voluntary business rotation of work hours to relieve peak hour congestion, C!U: pooling and
p!U:king strategies.
C. LEGISLATION
The team will work with the Legislature with regard to suggested and recommended state
legislation. This will involve an analysis of existÙ1g constitutional provisions, statutes, and case law in
order to identify gaps in legislative authority, needed to support Plan strategies.
D. JOINT PUBLIC-PRIVATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Plan will identify jomt development strategies and land use policies to encourage a
partnership between the public and private sectors in providing economic development, new
12
inftastruct:OJ:e and resolving existÙ1g deficiencies. A toolbox of land use and transportation
techniques will be established to higWight where and how each technique can be applied to best
support local and countywide economic development objectives. The techniques will mclude
development agreements, tax exempt financing, tax increment financing, public guarahtees, public
donation of land, provision of infrastructure and related incentives. The Plan will explore the
feasibility of joint public-private development strategies along state ahd interstate highways, trahsit
facilities, and other multirnodal connection points within transportation corridors where
development becomes attractive due to the presence of transportation facilities. Due to limited
venture capital funcling, businesses, especially research, technology ahd start up firms, prefer to locate
at transportation or transit corridor centers where land assembly and infrastructure provision reduce
equity capital needs, and long-term revenue leasing repays the private land assembly and the public
infrastruct:OJ:e. The Plan will explore the potential for revenues, such as lease revenues, connection
fees, concession fees, and negotiated private sector investment. Planning policies that encourage
joint public-private development will be prepared and discussed with the committee.
The following tasks will be performed:
(a) Identify potential joint public-pri:vate corridor interchanges or nodes
(b) Map transportation corridor and interchanges and identify ownerships
(c) Develop transportation corridor/interchange overlay policies
(d) Prepare a joint public-private developrnent strategy for key private or public land assembly at
interchanges
(e) Identify needed capital improvement projects for sewer, water and roads at corridor
interchanges
(f) Outline revenue projections for public participation in joint public- private developments
13
Figure 8 Transportation interchanges can form th, basi! for pnb/ic-private partnerships (S onree
oj graphic: ACHD Stat, Street Corridor StUffy)
E, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES
The transportation and land use plan will establish policies for reviewing new transportation
improvements and land use activities for thcir impact on the environment. Policies will establish
guidance for mitigating the impact of new transportation improvements and land use activities on
environmental resources such as air quality, water quality, stonn water management, wetlands,
floodplains, steep slopes, environmentally sensitive lands, acquifer recharge areas, water rights
availability and allocation, and preservation of agricu1tutallands. The Plan will address the viability
of instituting programmatic environmental impact statements that address environmental impacts on
àtl areawide basis, without requiring additional environmental impact statements for individual
projects or private development proposals especially for anticipated economic development corridor
centers.
F. BUS AND MULTI-MODEL TRANSIT
The Plan will address the relationship between new development and transit usage, and will
identify policies to achieve intensive development in areas where public transportation improvements
exist or can be feasibly placed. The plan will quantify tuinimum densities needed to support types of
transit improvements that exist or are planned in the COWlty, and will include policies that prioritize
the location of new private development near public transit access,
G, AGRICULTUltAL PRESERVATION
14
The Plan will develop sttategies to provide farmers with economic alternatives for holding
land for agriculture in lieu of selling to development that will provide equal or higher
return. Techniques to be explored will include: conservation easements, federal tax
deductions, preferential taxation, cluster development (conservatio:n subdivisio:n); exclusive
agricultural distticts; tta:nsfers a:nd purchase of developme:nt rights; la:nd ttusts; mitigatio:n
fees and ope:n space bonding,
H. INTERGOVERNMENTAL jOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS .
The Platl will identify strategies needed, particularly cooperatio:n between different levels of
government i:n implementÙ1g the tra:nsportation atld land use plan. Legal tools such as development
agreeme:nts atld joi:nt public service districts will be discussed. The pIatl will ide:ntify respo:nsibilities
betwee:n different levels of government for impleme:ntatio:n of the tra:nsportation atld land use plan,
i:ncludi:ng establishment of city subdivision standards and capital improvement levels of service i:n
county impact areas..
SCHEDULE
The project will occur i:n two phases. Phase 1 will mclude the development of the Plan. Phase 2
will i:nvolve preparation of transportation - land use eleme:nts to be i:nserted i:n the city atld county
comprehensive plans and ACHD's Policy Manual, and implementÙ1g land development regulatio:ns
for the county, cities and ACHD. A summary of the 18-month process is provided below:
PHASE I
Intergovemme:ntal Agreeme:n! --,The cities, county atld ACHD will execute atl i:nter-
governmental joi:nt powers agreement that defines the schedule, scope atld cost of the project atld
each entity's allocated financial responsibility. A separate Memorandum of Understandi:ng will be
prepared for cooperation with COJ'vlPASS
l:nterim DeveIopme:nt Ordina:nce: (months 1-2) - Policies will be established to handle
development approvals and conditions during the preparatio:n of the Plan and implementi:ng
regulations.
l:nitial review a:nd analysis (months 1-2) - Collection of basic data needed to support the
pIannillg effort, and review of existÙ1g reports, comprehensive plans atld development codes that
affect the land use planning process. The consultant team will conduct an initial meetÙ1g with the
steering committee. An analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and problems will be
conducted with both the steering and technical committee to assess key issues and to identify
opportunities related to land use and transportation planning i:n the county; goals and objectives for
the Plan will be defined
Initial alternatives map (months 3-4) -Work with the steering and technical committees and
the public to develop maps of alternatives.
Refine alternatives map (month 5) -presentation of the refined alternatives maps to the
govemi:ng entities for their review to ensure that full range of growth alternatives is. considered.
Mtematives impact analyses (months 6-7) -<Ulalysis of each land use alternative with regard to
regional i:nfrasttucture, fiscal costs and benefits, urban form, urban design, environmental issues and
the feasibility of legal implementation.
15
Select preferred alternative (months 8) -discussion of impact analyses with the steering
committee and the governing entities to reach consensus on the preferred alternative and related
policies.
Preferred Alternative implementation strategy (months 9) -preparation of strategies. to
implement the preferred alternative through coordinated city, county comprehensive plans, and
Manual, land use regulations, capital improvement programniliog and fiscal management. The
process of updating local plans and regulations tomcorporate key growth rnanagement objectives
will begin at this point in the process and continue through the remainder of the project.
Initial plan draft (months 10-12) -preptlation of the initial draft of the Plan.
Stakeholder and public review (months 12-15) -facilitated discussion of the draft plan at
public workshops, workshops with the steering committee, and with the governing entities to analyze
the draft Plan.
Refine plan draft (months 16) - the draft plan will be revised to incorporate the findings and
recommendations of the steering committee and governing entities, which will constitute the Final
Plan.
Plan adoption (months 17-18) - the Final Plan will be presented to the county, cities and
ACHD for consideration, review and approval. The Intergovernmental Agreement will be revised
with the approved Final Plan attached as an appendix, adopting the plan as the Countywide Land
Use Transportation Guide Plan and recommending that the County, ACHD, COMPASS and the
cities incorporate the final plans, goals, objectives, policies and strategies into each entity's
Comprehensive Plan, ACHD's Policy Manual and COMPASS Long Range Transportation Plan.
PHASE II:
Plan Implementation
1.
Preparation of amendments to the county and cities comprehensive plans, ACHD's
Policy Manual adding new transportation and land use elements (Months 13-18)
Preparation of amendments to the county, cities and ACI-ID's land development regulations
including zoning, subdivision, CIP, annexation, utility service, urban impact tleas, infrastructure
finance, adequate public facilities and other related measures. (Months -13-18).
FINANCING
The Plan will identify comprehensive land use/transportation financing techniques available
under Idaho law. It also will recommend statutory revisions to existing legislation as needed to
implement or further the land use and transportation plan. Examples may, if needed, include but
not be limited to the following: exactions/mitigation fees, impact fees, school fees, dedication, special
assessments; creation of a transportation utility withill ACHD, community infrastructuJ:e districts for
improvements, operation and maintenance, tax-increment financing, general and special revenue
16
financing, bonding, and revenue sharing; land banking; joint development, and agricultural
preservation techniques. The plan will identify expected re.venue based on the preferred land use
pattern, ancillaJ:y impacts on development patterns, and political feasibility, The plan also will identify
revenue somces that require voter approval.
The plan will include an analysis of existÙ1g subsidies or hidden incentives that encomage growth
outside of urbanized areas, along with mechanisms to recover the cost of mfrastructure
improvement, operation and m..ultenance. This may include revisions to impact fees ordinances to
encourage redevelopment at designated nodes and centers, as well as in downtowns. Impact fees
should be coordinated with the effort described in subsection A, above. If the LOS is coordinated
with comprehensive policies to encomage growth in downtowns and corridor centers and to link
land use with anticipated increases in infrastructure capacity, the impact fees should decline in built-
up areas with existÙ1g mfrastructure. This will create an incentive for development to occur in
locations that have historically been bypassed m favor of remote or "greenfield" locations.
The plan may include policies for the revision of local improvement district (LID) statutes in
order to ensme that the fotmation of districts complies with the county-wide land use policies
developed in the Plan. This procedure may include revisions to the ACHD Policy Manual (Section
3200) and state legislation (Idaho Code Chapter 17, Tide 50) governing the applicability of LID
fonnation, initiation requirements, and district financing tools, Special district and transportation
legislation, may be addressed as well.
REGULATORY TOOLS
The plan will identify growth-management tools av:illabIe under Idaho law and any legislative
changes needed to enable other growth management tools recommended for use by the steering
committee and governing entities. Examples include concurrency management (adequate public
facilities); impact fees; community design; building design; transportation demand management;
connectivity; and similar measures. Land development regulation will be prepared that implement
Plan policies regarding.
adequate public facilities standards and ordillances;
prioritized and funded capital improvements programs;
agricultural and environmental preservation sttategies;
jomt public-private and economic development strategies;
traditional neighborhood development;
transit oriented development;
right-of-way preservation; and
consistency of city, county, ACHD, service districts, school district and public or
private utility plans, regulations and extension policies with the Plan
cooperation with state agencies to direct fundillg to priority growth areas designated
in the Plan
17
infill incenrives and comparibility standards.
A limited interim development ordinance ("IDO") will be prepared during Phase 1 to address
development that would impab: the effecriveness of future growth management transportarion and
land use. patterns of growth. The IDO will be designed to ensure that plan policies and
implementarion are not prematurely defeated. A properly drafted IDO will avoid the need for and
replace moratoria and other stop-gap measures.
cqSTS OF GROWTH
The plan will idenrify capital and service costs and revenues associated with different types of
development. This analysis will identify the financial costs and benefits of new development in each
rier, by development type. Revenue sources accruing clirectly or inclirectly £tom development will be
addressed, including sales taxes, impact fees, exacrions, assessment district, and utility rates and
charges, and property taxes. The cost-benefit analysis will address both the type and Iocarion of
development. The following matrix is a preliminary assessment of how the analysis will be
structured This will be based in part on informarion received during the stakeholder analysis:
Development Type
Urbanized
Convenrional
residential subdivision
Infill residential
Infill commercial
Infill office
Infill mixed use
Tradirional
neighborhood
devdo ent
Industrial
Bi box
Stri commercial
Commercial (grayfidd)
redevelo ment
Transit-Oriented
Develo rnent
Office/Institutional
Carn us
THIS TABlE WILL DISCUSS COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF
TTIvDNG, PHASING, ADEQUATE PUBUC FACILITIES; CAPITAL
FAClllTY FINANCING, AND FISCAL IMPACTS FOR EACH
ALTERNATIVE
The Plan will identify mechanisms to preserve agricultural environmental and natural resource
lands. This may include revenue sharing, open space bond issues, transfers of development rights
(!DRs), mitigation fees and infrastructure investment and reinvestment policies for centers and
nodes to accommodate IDR's..
18
Figure 9 Purchase oj d6tlelopment rights (PDRr) and transfers of development rights can preserve agriculturallanj try
assisting in fending growth into designated nocks and centers (Source oj graphic: ACHD)
CONSULTANTS
A multidisciplinary team will implement this project
(a) Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle (FLC) spearheaded by Dr. Robert H. Freilich will be in charge of
the entire project, FLC will formulate goals, objectives, policies and strategies; idenrify and <kaft
implementing land development regu1ations and statutory changes recommended in this process.
Freilich, Leitnl't & Carlisle one of the nation's leading land use and phnning law fums has created
and implemented over 200 growth management and transportation land use plans across the narion
and in the Rocky Mountain West.
(b) (b) Planning Works, Inc. specializes m preparing growth management and
transportation/land use plans, and analysis of population and employment growth trends,
infrastructure and service demands, public revenues a1ld alternative financÙ1g mechanisms. This will
be needed to quantify the demographic, infrastructure, service and financial impacts of each
alternative land use pattern. Planning Works will coordinate with ACHD and COMPASS
transportation planners during the analysis of each alternative and thedeveloptnent of the plan
Ù1oplementarion program and preparation of county, city and ACHD comprehensive plan elements
to incorporate the Countywide Plan.
(c) County and City planning, public works, utility and engineering support needed to
identify additional infrastructure needs :and costs. associated with each growth alternative will be
provided by each service provider and is not included in the project costs.
(d) COMPASS's LRTP consultant and staff and ACHD staff will collect and quantify
transpOItation &ta such as traffic volumes, roadway capacities. TIaIlSportarion engineers will also
assist in developing policies for new transportarion improvements that are tied to land use and
development, such as recommendations for street right of way and pavement widths, utility
locarions, and other street design criteria. InterfacÙ1g with these agencies is included within the
project costs below, but no cost is included for actual modeling and cost estimates to be perfònned
by these agencies.
PROJECT SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COSTS
19
Phase I - Scope of Services
Task 1 - Initial Review and Analysis
Task 2 - Initial Alternatives
Task 3 - Refine Alternative
Task 4 - Alternatives Impact analysis
Task 5 - Select Preferred Alternative
.
Task 6 - Preferred Alternative Implementation Strategies
Task 7 - Initial Plan Draft
.
Task 8 - Public Review
.
Task 9 - Refine Plan Draft
Task 10-PlanAdoption
Phase 1- Schedule
Phase I & II
Task I .. ..3 4 5 5' 7¡a¡e!,o 11 '213 1415 16 17 1 a 19 20 21 2223 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31
Initial reviBw and analvsis
Initial alternatives map
RefinB alternatives map ø.
Alternatives impact analyses
Select preferred alternative
Alternatives 1m IBmemation strategy
Initial plen dreft
Stake holder and public review
Refine plan draft
Plan adoption I I I I .
Month
Phase I - Project CO5t Components
Countywide Transportation and.Land Use Guide Plan ($450,000)
Intergovernmental Agreement
Interim Development Regulations
Data Analysis
Community Issues Identification
20
Alternatives Selecrion and Impact Analysis
Selection of Preferred alternative
Plan Adoption
Phase II Scope ofSetVÍces
Incorporation of the Transportation and Land Use Plan mto city and county
comprehensive plan growth management elements and the ACHD Policy Manual
Zoning (corridor center TaD and TND overlay zones), infill-compatibility and design
standards
.
Subdivision and Site Plan Adequate Public Facility Requirements
.
Right-of-Way and Future Acquisition Maps
.
County Impact Areas Boundaries/Tiers
.
Capital Improvement and aIM Fmancing Techniques
.
Prioritized and Funded Capital Improvement Programs
.
Affordable Housing Programs
Environmental Resource Protecrion
Revision of city, county and ACHD land development regulations to implement the
comprehensive plan elements
Orderly Annexation
Programmatic Environmental Review
.
Rural and Agricultural Preservation
.
Cooperation with COMPASS to Integrate the Plan into the Long Range
Transportation Plan
Intergovernmental Agreements on common standards in county impact areas,
.
Exploration of extension of the Plan to Canyon County.
Phase II
21
12345670
CONCLUSION
This report is the initial step toward achieving the objective of developing a unified
countywide transportation and land use guide plan. The Plan will then be mtegrated into city and
county cornprehensive plans and ACHD's Policy Manual, and implemented by city, county and
ACCHD land development regulations. All of Ada County's governmental entities will work
mdividually and with each other through intergovernmental agreements and with the private sector in
a true public-private partnership. The development of the countywide Plan will call for both the
public and private sector to participate and fund the Plan process to assure its success and approval
of the citizens of the county.
Appendix A establishes the scope of services that addreoses each of the recommendations in
this report.
22
APPENDIX A: DRAFT SCOPE OF SERVICES
Phase I - $450,000
Task 1: Intergovernmental Agreement, Preparation of an Intergovernmental Agreement that will
establish and control the phnning process for Phases I and II,
Task 2: Initial Review and Analysis
2,1 Data Assembly, Obtaini1lg supplemental reports, plans, ordinances, files, maps
"windshield" surveys and other data requb:ed to supplement existiJ;lg information. In
addition to providing available data, the governing entities will supplement the existing
list of key contacts to identify resources and stakeholders to be cousulted during the
project.
2.2 Physical Assessment. Evaluation of all resource materials necessary to complete the
physical planning portion of the plan. Materials will include maps or diagrams depicting
physical features, existing land uses, transportation, existing utilities and services, service
:u:eas and environmental characteristics (e.g. slopes, floodplain, and other constraints),
platted and unbuilt subdivisions, locations of all building permits (commercial and
residential).
2,3 Planning Assessment. Review of local comprehensive plans and policy materials;
capital improvements programs and plans., specific area plans, redevelopment plans and
planning studies and reports. The objective of this task is to assess planning
constraints/ opportunities, and to identify adopted goals, objectives, policies and
strategies.
2,4 Regulatory Assessment, Review and analysis of constitutional provisions, state
statutes, judicial cases, local land development reguhtions and manuals to identify gaps
in authority.
2.5 Growth Assessment, Review available demographic information to identify growth
trends throughout the county; subdivision and building permit activity data and adopted
popuhtion and employment projections provided by local governments will help to
identify growth :u:eas. The growth assessment will enable decision-makers to understand
past growth trends, the factors promoting these trends and the long-term impacts of
continuing recent trends.
2,6 Community Issues Identification
2,6,1
Focus Groups with Stakeholders
Conduct focus groups with stakeholders involved in growth and service
provision issues. Up to eight focus groups:u:e anticipated. Input will be
summarized in the Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report described in
task 1.7.
2,6,2
Community Workshop
Conduct three community-wide workshops, two at appropriate City
locations to be determined and one in the unincorporated :u:ea of the
County, to identify issues vital to quality of life, These workshops will
23
2,7
2,8
2,9
identify shared values and desires for the COUtlty'S future and consensus for
specific commUtlity policies aIld actions.
2,6,3
Steering Committee Workshop 1
Facilitation of a steering committee wOJ:kshop to orient participallts to the
planning process, provide backgroUtld infonnation aIld discuss the primary
concems aIld objectives of committee members.
Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report, Preparation of a "Needs, Issues aIld
Opportunities" report summarizing the findings in Tasks 1.1-1.6; identifying
pl.atu1ing aIld regulatory needs; suggesting opportunities for improving substantive
aIld procedural requirements; and, where applicable, recommending coordinatioo of
local pIaIltÙ1lg aIld regu1atory efforts.
Steering Committee Workshop. A Steering Committee Workshop will review the
findings from tasks 1.1-1.7 to develop a common Utldersta1lding of growth related
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities aIld threats aIld discuss issues that must be
addressed through the altematives process.
Interim Development Regulations, Drafting all interim development ordinance
to be adopted by the participating government entities that will preclude
establishment of uses not already in the pipeline that will become non-conforming
to the future Transportatioo and Land Use Plan including but not Iimitedto
corridor right-of-way; corridor centers; and agricultural and environmentally
sensitive lands.
24
Task 3: Alternatives
3;1 Steering Committee Workshop. Hold a woJ:kshop with the steering a11d technical
committees to identify prefen:ed growth patterns that should be considered through the
alternatives a11alysis process. Participa11ts will work in small groups with maps to
identify projected residential a11d commercial growth throughout the COU!lty.
3,2 Community Workshops, Conduct three commurcityworkshops (two within cities a11d
one in the UIlincorporated area of the COUtlty) durÎllg which participa11ts will present
their views for identifying projected growth throughout the COUtlty. This ioformation
will be used to supplement the steering committee's work io task 2.1.
3.3 Alternatives Mapping, Consolidation of the ioformation from the workshops io task
2.1 a11d 2.2 to generate 4 growth alternatives (meludiog a trend alternative) for
comparison. Each alternativ~ will be mapped (io GIS format) a11d defined io terms of
population a11d employment distribution, as well as key growth policies required to
affect each alternative.
3.4 Technical Committee and Governing Entity Work Sessions. Meet with the
technical committee a11d the governiog boards of the cities, COUtlty a11d ACHD to
discuss the implications of the alternatives a11d identify key policy implications associated
with each alternative.
Task4: Refine Alternatives Map
4,1 Steering Committee Workshop, The Steering Committee will solicit
recommendatiO!ls for adjus1ments prior to beginniog the a11alysis io Task 5.
4.2 Technical Committee Work Session, Conduct a workshop with the technical
committee to refine growth tier, la11d use, employment a11d population assumptions.
Additionally the committee will assign responsibilities for different elements of the
a11alysis (e;g" traffic rnodeliog, infrastructure improvement identification, etc.).
Task 5: Alternatives Impact Analysis
5.5 Initial Analysis, Meet with the staffs of the govemiog entities a11d COMPASS to
refine population a11d employment allocations by traffic a11alysis zone and prepare
dema11d data for further a11alysis, Population a11d employment data will be delivered m
digital form to CO11PASS for traffic modeliog. Holding capacity a11d numbers of
dwellings will be summarized by service area for a11alysis of the demand! capacity
implications for other public facilities a11d services, ioeluding. water, wastewater,
schools, parks, tra11sit a11d public safety. Issues of commurcity character a11d form will be
addressed io a qualitative manner.
5,5 Technical Committee Work Session, Conduct a work session with technical
committee members to discuss suitable approaches to developiog cost a11d revenue
estimates for each public facility a11d service.
5,4 Implementation Strategy Development. As part of the alternatives analysis, identify
the roles of agencies io implementing each alternative, ioeludiog cha11ges to existing
pla11s, policies, regulations a11d iotergovernmental service atta11gements. Following the
definition of a prefen:ed alternative, outline the implications of the preferred alternative
for each member jurisdictiO!l.
25
5,4 Steering Committee Workshop, Conduct a workshop to report illitial findings and
implications associated with each alternative, to describe data that will be provided for
each alternative and the approach used to analyze the impacts.
5,5 Alternatives Analysis Report, Assemble a report contrasting the impacts of each
growth alternative after 5,10 and 20 years. The report will identify longer range
ramifications. Prior to delivering the report to the steering committee, a copy will be
provided for review by technical committee members.
Task 6: Select Preferred Alternative
6,1 Steering Committee Workshops, Facilitate three workshops to discuss the
alternatives analysis and to forge consensus for a preferred alternative.
6,2 Community Workshops, Conduct three co=unity workshops prior to the final
steering committee workshop in task 6.1 to discuss the implications of the preferred
alternative and solicit recommendations for the preferred alternative.
6.3 Governing Entity Workshop. Review and adopt the preferred alternative.
Task 7: Preferred Alternative Implementation Strategy
7,1 Draft Implementation Strategy, Prepare detailed outlines of planning and regulatory
amendments requited to implement the preferred alternative.
7.2 Steering Committee Workshop, Present the implementation reco=endations to the
steering committee for review, co=ent and reco=endations.
Task 8: Initial Plan Draft
8.1 Draft Plan, Prepare a county-wide ttansportation and land use guide plan based on the
preferred alternative.
8.2 Steering Committee Workshop. Consultant will conduct two workshops with the
steering committee to review and refine the draft plan recommendations.
Task 9: Stakeholder and Public Review
9.1 Community Workshops, Conduct three workshops to gather public input on the draft
plan.
9.2 Focus Groups, Conduct up to 5 focus groups to discuss the implications of the plan
and to gather comments from stakeholders.
9,3 Decision-Maker Workshops, Conduct a workshop with the elected leaders of each
participating agency to discuss the implications of the plan and to present detailed
outlines of the recommended plan and regulatory amendments requited for the agency
to implement the plan.
9.4 Optional Survey, At the discretion of the governing entities and subject to provision
of additional funding, a local firm will be retained to oversee the preparation and
conduct of a statistically valid survey focused on plan issues. The local firm will
conduct a workshop with the steering committee to solicit input on the draft sutvey
insttument.
26
Task 10: Refine Plan Draft
10,1 Steering Committee Workshop, Report on the finclings from task 8 to the steering
committee and solicit final recommendalions. .
10,2Plan Refinement. Revise the plan to incorporate final recommendalions of the
steering committee. The County, ACHD and the six dries will approve the Fmal Plan as
the Countywide Transportalion and Land Use Guide Plan.
Task 11: Plan Regulation Adoption
11,1 Plan Adoption. The Intergovernmental Agreement will be revised to attach the
approved Final Plan as an Appendix to the Intergovernmental Agfeement. The IGA
will authorize (a) preparalion of three new elements in each enlity's comprehensive
plan: gfowth management, land use and transportalion elements; and (b) plan
implementation through land development regulalions.
Phase II $350.000
Task 1: Local Plan and Code Revisions. Prepare for Ada County, the six cilies (Boise, Eagle,
Garden City, Kuna, Meridian and Star) and ACHD, (a) amendments to their comprehensive plans
and ACHD Policy Manual to incorporate the Final Countywide Plan as gfowth management, land
use and transportalion elements; and (b) amendments to the county, cilies and ACHD land
development regulalions, implementing the adopted growth management, transportalion and land
use elements and the Countywide Plan's goals, objeclives, policies and strategies. The land
development regulalion amendments will include:
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
Right-of-way preservation orclinances
Transportation Corridor Overmy Districts inclucling joint public-private
development techniques
Prioritized Capital Improvement Progfam Orclinances
Adequate Public Facility Orclinances
Impact Fee Orclinance Standards and Procedures
Transit Oriented Zoning Districts
Tradilional Neighborhood Zoning Districts
Agricultural preservation techttiques
Common Subdivision standards to be used in county impact areas
Infill and Compalibility Standards
Extra-territorial improvement and levels of service for consistency between
the County and each City's impact area
Extraterritorial utility service area standards and regulations
Establishment of zoning and subdivision regulalions to implement
transportation corridor and centers boundaries and standards
27
EXHIBIT
b
I
1'-
SCOPE OF SERVICES
FO R THE
AD A COUNTY - WID E
LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION
GUIDE PLAN
FREILICH, LEITNER & CARLISLE
1150 ONE MAIN PLAZA
4435 MAIN STREET
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64111
(816) 561-4414 FAX: (816) 561-7931
RFREILI CH @FLC- KC. C OM
JULY 12, 2004
(I ~.IT I
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
CONTENTS
Exhibit C: Scope of Services .............................................,................................................ 1
Introduction...........,........,..............................................,......,.............................-................2
Phase 1: Countywide Plan ..............................................,................................................... 2
Overview:................................................................,.......................................................2
Tasks: .......................,....................................,.................................................................2
Task 1: Steering Committee Workshop 1. ...................,.............................................. 2
Task 2: Initial Review and Analysis........................................................................ 3
Task 3: Alternatives Map.......................................,.................................................,4
Task 4: Refme Alternatives Map ..............................................,................................ 5
Task 5: Alternatives Impact Analysis ....................,...................................................6
Task 6: Select Preferred Alternative.......................................................................... 7
Task 7: Preferred Alternative Implementation Strategy............................................ 7
Task 8: Initial Plan ..Draft.......................................................................................... 7
Task 9: Stakeholder and Public Review.................................................................... 8
Task 10: Refine Plan Draft ........................................................................................ 8
Task 11: Plan Regulation Adoption............,......,....................................................... 9
Budget Allocation: ..........................................................................................................9
Phase 11............................................................""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 11
Overview:.................................................."""""""""""""""""""""""""""'".........., 11
Tasks: .........,.....................,.........................""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""....... 11
Task 12: Initial Assessment...................................................c............................. 11
Task 13: Initial Draft of Local Plan and Code Revisions, .......................................12
Task 14: Initial Review of Regulatory Documents ............................................. 13
Task 15: Initial Revisions ......................................................................................... 13
Task 16: Final Revisions...........................................................................................13
Budget Allocation: ..................,.............................,.......................................................14
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
INTRODUCTION
This scope of services involves the development of an Ada County-Wide Transportation
and Land Use Guide Plan ("Guide Plan"). Phase 1 is the public process development and
adoption of the Guide Plan, while Phase 2 involves specific implementation of the Guide
Plan through preparation and adoption of comprehensive plan elements and land
development regulations by Ada County, Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, Meridian, and
Star, and the Ada County Highway District ("Governing Boards"). The tasks for Phase 2
will be conducted concurrently with late Phase 1 tasks to expedite the project.
The scope of services describes the budget for each phase, the anticipated budget
amounts for each individual taskand anticipated expenses and travel expenses based on
the number of person-trips. A "person-trip" is defmed as one trip for one member of the
consultant team. Resources may be shifted between tasks based on needs adjustment
during the project.
PHASE 1: COUNTYWIDE PLAN
Overview:
Phase I involves the public processing and drafting of the Guide Plan. Phase I will be
coordinated with, the Transportation Study for Communities in Motion, the Regional
Long-Range Transportation Plan ( "LRTP Study") being prepared by the Community
Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (CaMP ASS) concurrent with this project.
There will be no duplication of services between this project and the LRTP Study.
The total budget for Phase I is $410,000.00. The specific amount assigned to each task is
described in "budget allocation" below. The steering committee shall retain a local
project coordinator to coordinate meeting logistics, and facilitate communications
between the project team, steering committee members, the LRTP and other key
stakeholders. The cost for the local project coordinator will be separately paid for by the
Governing Boards and will not be part of the budget for this project.
Tasks:
Task 1: Steering Committee Workshop 1.
Meeting with the Steering Committee to explain growth management and Smart Growth
systems and techniques; review current status of comprehensive plans and land
development regulations; review Guide Plan and LR TP Study Scope of Services and
timelines, person-trips: 1.
/90885007
63103.DOcACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
2
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
Task 2:
Initial Review and Analysis
2,1 Data Assembly.
Obtain supplemental reports, plans, ordinances, files, maps, surveys, and other data
required to supplement existing information (e.g., aerial photography, GIS data, assessors
land use data). In addition to providing available data, the governing entities will
supplement the consultant's existing list of key contacts to identify resources and
stakeholders to be consulted during the project. Consultant will prepare a bibliography of
available information and share the bibliography with the LRTP Study consultants.
2.2 Physical Assessment,
Evaluate all available resource materials necessary to complete the physical planning
portion of the plan. Materials will include maps or diagrams depicting physical features,
existing land uses, transportation, existing utilities and services, service areas and
environmental characteristics (e.g. slopes, floodplain, and other constraints), platted and
un-built subdivisions and locations of all building permits (commercial and residential).
2.3 Planning Assessment,
Review oflocal comprehensive plans and policy materials, capital improvements
programs and plans, specific area plans, redevelopment plans, and planning studies and
reports. The objective of this task is to assess planning constraints/opportunities, and to
identify adopted goals, objectives, policies and strategies.
2,4 Regulatory Assessment.
Review and analyze constitutional provisions, state statutes, judicial cases, local land
development regulations and manuals to identify gaps in authority.
2.5 Growth Assessment.
Review available demographic information to identify growth trends in cities, city impact
areas and unincorporated areas throughout the county; and subdivision and building
permit activity data. Adopted population and employment projections provided by local
governments will help to identify growth areas. The growth assessment will enable
decision-makers to understand past growth trends, the factors promoting these trends and
the long-term impacts of continuing recent trends. Consultant will coordinate with the
LRTP Study consultants to ensure that both projects use the same base data for the
growth assessment.
2,6
Community Issues Identification
2,6,] Focus Groups with Stakeholders
Conduct focus groups with stakeholders involved in growth and service provision issues,
Up to eight focus groups are anticipated, Input will be summarized in a "Needs, Issues
and Opportunities Report" described in task 2.7. These focus groups will be conducted in
conjunction with the COMPASS LRTP Study outreach. Consultant will assist with the
COMPASS LRTP Study by coordinating with the LRTP consultants in developing
presentations and visioning workshop sessions for public outreach in Ada and the four (4)
adjacent counties to ensure consistency.
190885007
63JO3.DOcACHD scope ofServiccs rev 7-9-04)
3
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
Person-Trips: 2
2.6,2 Community Workshop
Conduct three community-wide workshops, two at appropriate city locations to be
determined and one in the unincorporated area of the county, to identify issues which are
vital to quality of life. These workshops will identify shared values and desires for the
county's future and consensus for specific community policies and actions. This
workshop will be conducted in conjunction with the COMPASS LRTP Study outreach
and visioning process.
Person-Trips: 3
2.7 Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report.
Prepare a "Needs, Issues and Opportunities" report summarizing the fIDdings in Tasks
2,1-2,6; identifying planning and regulatory needs; suggesting opportunities for
improving substantive and procedural requirements; and, where applicable,
recommending ways to coordinate local planning and regulatory efforts. This report will
be provided to the LRTP Study consultants for review and comment.
2.8 Steering Committee Workshop.
Facilitate a Steering Committee workshop will review the findings :!Tom tasks 2.1-2.7 to
develop a common understanding of growth related strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats and discuss issues that must be addressed through the alternatives process.
The LRTP Consultants will be invited to provide comments at this workshop.
Person-trips: 1
2.9 Interim Development Regulations.
Draft an interim development ordinance that may be adopted at the option of the
governing entities that will review the establishment of uses not already in the pipeline
that will become non-conforming to the future Transportation and Land Use Guide Plan
including corridor right of way; corridors and centers; economic development areas; and
agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands.
Task 3: Alternatives Map
3,1 Steering Committee Workshop.
Hold a workshop with the steering and technical committees to assess the scenarios
identified in Task 7 COMPASS LRTP Stndy. Participants will work in small groups
with maps to identify projected residential and commercial growth throughout the County
through the L TRP alternatives. This workshop will be conducted in conjunction with the
COMPASS LRTP Study outreach and visioning efforts.
Person-trips: 1
190885007
6J100.DOcACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9--04)
4
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
3.2 Community Workshops.
Conduct three commru1Ìty workshops (two within cities and one in the unincorporated
area of the county) during which participants will present their views for identifying
projected growth throughout the County within the LTRP alternatives. This information
will be used to supplement the steering committee's work in task 2.1. These workshops
will be conducted in conjunction with the COMPASS LRTP Study outreach and
visioning efforts.
Person-trips: 3
3,3 Alternatives Mapping.
Consolidate the information from the workshops in task 2.1 and 2.2 to generate 4 growth
alternatives (including a trend alternative) for comparison. Each alternative will be
mapped (in GIS format) and derIDed in terms of population and employment distribution,
as well as key growth policies required to affect each alternative. Mapping of
alternatives shall be conducted in coordination with the COMPASS Transportation Study
scenarios development process.
3,4 Technical Committee Work Session.
Meet with the technical committee and representatives of the Governing Boards to
discuss the implications of the alternatives and identify key policy implications
associated with each alternative. This work session will be conducted in conjunction
with the COMPASS LRTP Study consultants. Prior to this meeting, the technical
committee shall meet with COMPASS Transportation Study representatives to discuss
coordination and project timing issues.
Person-trips: 1
Task 4: Refine Alternatives Map
4.1 Steering Committee Workshop.
The steering committee will solicit recommendations for adjustments prior to beginning
the analysis in Task 5. Representatives of the COMPASS LRTP Study will be invited to
provide comments and recommendations at this workshop.
Person-trips: 1
4,2 Technical Committee Work Session,
Conduct a workshop with the technical committee to refine growth tier, land use,
employment and population assumptions. The technical committee will assign
responsibilities for different elements of the analysis (e.g., traffic modeling,
transportation infrastructure improvement identification, etc.). Representatives of the
COMPASS LRTP Study will be invited to participate in this work session to discuss
coordination and project timing issues as well as to participate in the primary agenda.
Person-trips: 1
190885007
63JOJ.DOcACIID Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
5
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
Task 5: Alternatives Impact Analysis
5.1 Initial Analysis.
Meet with the staffs of the governing entities and COMPASS to refine population and
employment allocations by traffic analysis zone and prepare demand data for further
analysis. Population and employment data for Ada County will be delivered in digital
form to the COMPASS consultant for traffic modeling. Holding capacity and nurnbers of
dwellings will be sununarized by service area for analysis of the demand/capacity
implications for other public facilities and services, including: water, wastewater,
stormwater, schools, parks and public safety. Issues of community character and form
will be addressed in a qualitative manner.
Person-trips: 1
5.2 Technical Committee Work Session,
Conduct a work session with technical committee members to discuss suitable
approaches to refine cost and revenue estimates for each public facility and service.
Consultants for the COMPASS LRTP Study will participate in this discussion, as well as
a discussion of other project coordination and timing issues.
Person-trips: 1
5,3 Implementation Strategy Development.
As part of the alternatives analysis, identify the roles of agencies in implementing each
alternative, including changes to existing plans, policies, regulations and
intergovernmental service arrangements. Following the definition of a preferred
alternative, outline the implications of the preferred alternative for each member
jurisdiction. This information will be forwarded to the COMPASS LRTP Study
representatives.
5,4 Steering Committee Workshop.
Conduct a workshop to report initial findings and implications associated with each
alternative, to describe data that will be provided for each alternative and the approach
used to analyze the impacts. Representatives of the COMPASS LRTP Study will be
invited to participate in discussions of the findings.
Person-trips: 1
5,5 Alternatives Analysis Report.
Assemble a report contrasting the impacts of each growth alternative after 5, 10 and 20
years. Prior to delivering the report to the steering committee, a .copy will be provided
for review by technical committee members and representatives of the COMPASS LRTP
Study, who also will be invited to attend the workshop and supplement information
provided in the Report
190385007
63103.DocACHD scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
6
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
Task 6: Select Preferred Alternative
6.1 Steering Committee Workshops.
Facilitate three workshops to discuss the alternatives analysis and to forge consensus for
a preferred alternative. Representatives of the COMPASS LR TP Study will be invited to
attend these workshops.
Person-trips: 3
6.2 Community Workshops.
Conduct three community workshops prior to the fmal steering committee workshop in
task 6.1 to discuss the implications of the preferred alternatives and solicit
recommendations for elements of the preferred alternative. These workshops will be
conducted in conjunction with the COMPASS LRTP Study public outreach program.
Person-trips: 3
6.3 Governing Entity Workshop.
Review and adopt the preferred alternative.
Person-trips: 1
Task 7: Preferred Alternative Implementation Strategy
7.1 Draft Implementation Strategy.
Prepare detailed outlines of planning and regulatory amendments required to implement
the preferred alternative. This information will be provided to representatives of the
COMPASS LRTP Study for review and comment.
7,2 Steering Committee Workshop.
Present the implementation recommendations to the steering committee for review,
comment, and recommendations,
Person-trips: 1
Task 8: Initial Plan Draft
8.1 Draft Plan,
Prepare a county-wide transportation and land use guide plan based on the preferred
alternative, This document will incorporate appropriate portions of the COMPASS
LRTP Study and be provided to representatives of that the LRTP study for review and
comment.
8,2 Steering Committee Workshop.
Conduct two workshops with the steering committee to review and refine the draft plan
recommendations.
/90"'5007
')l03.DOcACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
7
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
Person-trips: 2
Task 9: Stakeholder and Public Review
9.1 Community Workshops,
Conduct three workshops to gather public input on the draft plan. These workshops will
be conducted in conjunction with the CaMP ASS LRTP Study public outreach program.
Person-trips: 3
9,2 Focus Groups.
Conduct up to five focus groups to discuss the implications of the plan and to gather
comments ITom stakeholders. These focus groups will be conducted in conjunction with
the COMPASS LRTP Study public outreach program.
Person-trips: 1
9.3 Decision-Maker Workshop.
Conduct a workshop with the elected leaders of each participating agency to discuss the
implications of the plan and to present detailed outlines of the recommended plan and
regulatory amendments required for the agency to implement the plan. Representatives
ITom the COMPASS LRTP Study will be invited to attend this workshop.
Person-trips: 1
9.4 Optional Survey.
At the discretion of the governing entities and subject to provision of additional funding,
a local firm will be retained to oversee the preparation and conduct of a statistically valid
survey focused on plan issues, The local fIrm will conduct a workshop with the steering
committee to solicit input on the draft survey instrument.
Task 10: Refine Plan Draft
10.1 Steering Committee Workshop.
Report the findings ITom task 8 to the steering committee and solicit final
recommendations.
Person-trips: 1
10,2 Plan Refmement.
Revise the plan to incorporate final recommendations of the steering committee. The
County, ACHD and the six cities will approve the Final Plan as a Countywide
Transportation and Land Use Guide Plan.
190885007
63103.DOcACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
8
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
Task 11: Plan Regulation Adoption
11.1 Plan Adoption.
Revise the Inter-governmental Agreement to attach the approved Final Plan as an
Appendix. The IGA will authorize (a) preparation of three new elements in each entity's
comprehensive plan: growth management, land use and transportation elements; and (b)
plan implementation through land development regulations.
Budget AI/ocation:
Task Description Budget
Task I: Intergovernmental Agreement. $2,384
Task 2: Initial Review and Analysis $126,465
2.1 Data Assembly. $5,960
22 Physical Assessment. $19,868
2.3 Planning Assessment. $19,868
2.4 Regulatory Assessment. $19,868
2.5 Growth Assessment. $9,934
2.6 CommlU1Íty Issues Identification
2.6.1 Focus Groups with Stakeholders $8,544
2.62 CommlU1Íty Workshop $9,240
2.6.3 Steermg Committee Workshop I $4,272
2.7 Needs, Issues and Opportunities Report. $19,868
2.8 Steermg Committee Workshop. $4,272
2.9 Interim Development Regulations. $4,769
Task 3: Alternatives Map $28,116
3.1 Steermg Committee Workshop. $4,272
3.2 Community Workshops. $9,638
3.3 Alternatives Mappmg. $9,934
3.4 Technical Committee Work Session. $4,272
Task 4: Refme Alternatives Map $8,544
4.1 Steermg Committee Workshop. $4,272
42 Technical Committee Work Session. $4,272
Task 5: Alternatives Impact Analysis $80,170
5.1 Initial Analysis, $22,948
52 Technical Committee Work Session. $4,272
5.3 Implementation Strategy Development. $7,948
5.4 Steermg Committee Workshop. $4,272
5.5 Alternatives Analysis Report, $40,730
Task 6: Select Preferred Alternative $23,547
6.1 Steermg Committee Workshops, $9,638
190"SO07
631OJ.DOcACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
9
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
I
6.2 Community Workshops. $9,638
6.3 Governing Entity Workshop. $4,272
Task 7: Preferred Alternative Implementation Strategy $24,141
7.1 Draft Implementation Strategy. $19,868
7.2 Steermg Committee Workshop. $4,272
Task 8: Initial Plan Draft $69,936
8.1 Draft Plan. $64,571
8.2 Steermg Committee Workshop. $5,365
Task 9: Stakeholder and Public Review $18,579
9,1 Community Workshops. $9,638
9.2 Focus Groups. $4,669
9.3 Decision-Maker Workshops. $4,272
9.4 Optional Survey. $0
Task 10: Refine Plan Draft $24,141
10.1 I Steering Committee Workshop. $4,272
10.2 I Plan Refinement. $19,868
Task 11: Plan Regulation Adoption $3,973
II.1 I Plan Adoption. $3,973
TOTAL I Fees and expenses $409,996
¡90S85007
63lOJ.DocACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
10
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
PHASE II
Overview:
This phase of the project involves the development of specific tools to implement the
Transportation and Land Use Plan, The budget for this task is $350,000. The specific
amount assigned to each task is described in "budget allocation", below.
Tasks:
Task 12:
Initial Assessment
12.1 Physical Assessment,
Evaluate all available resource materials necessary to integrate the Transportation and
Land Use Plan recommendations into local comprehensive plan elements and
implementing regulations. Materials will include maps or diagrams depicting setbacks,
densities and intensities, and a windshield survey of building forms and site design
typologies in the region.
12.2 Regulatory Assessment.
Review local comprehensive plans and development regulations such as zoning,
subdivision, and related development controls. The objective of this task is to assess the
institutional framework for development regulation and each jurisdiction, administrative
and staffing issues, techniques that are already being used, techniques that have not been
tried, and specific goals, objectives, policies, and strategies for regulating new
development.
12.3 Legal Assessment,
Review and analyze the need for additional legislation to implement techniques such as
amortization, growth-management, aesthetic regulation, design regulations, and other
implementation recommended growth coordination strategies. Review and analyze
constitutional provisions, state statutes, and judicial cases relating to innovative and
effective land use controls to implement the plan.
12.4 Market and Construction Assessment,
ACHD, the public works officials of each jurisdiction, and real estate or market
professionals if available, will provide the consultant an overview of market values
throughout the county, including undeveloped land, developed land, construction costs,
and development costs and market values for the various densities currently permitted in
the zoning ordinances of the individual jurisdictions. The purpose of this exercise is to:
(a) identify PDR priorities; (b) to develop appropriate density and intensity standards, (c)
establish transfer ratios for transfer development rights (TDR) ordinances for
preservation of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands; (d) prepare guidelines
for public-private development; and (e) standards for right-of-way preservation.
Person-trips: 2
190885007
631O3.DOcACIID Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
11
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
12.5 Infrastructure Assessment
Interview the service providers for the following public facilities throughout the county in
order to assess existing levels of service, and anticipated service levels, and a proposed
improvements, and issues affecting the continuation of existing levels of service: water,
wastewater, roads, schools, EMS, police, and fire. Provide an assessment of the facilities
that are most appropriate for inclusion in an adequate public facilities ordinance due to
factors such as: constraints on future growth and development, the degree to which an
adequate public facilities standard can be integrated with countywide transportation and
land use policies, availability of financing, and the degree to which changes and levels of
service are responsive to future growth and development.
Person-trips: 2
Task 13: Initial Draft of Local Plan and Code Revisions.
13,1 Land Use/Growth Management Elements
Update the land use elements and prepare a growth management element for each
jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. The growth management elements will establish a
unifying framework for the entire comprehensive plan, while the land use element will
incorporate the provisions of the county-wide transportation and land use guide plan into
the jurisdiction's existing planning framework.
13.2 Draft Initial Code Text.
Prepare for ADA County, the six cities (Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, Meridian and
Star) and ACHD, (a) amendments to their comprehensive plans and ACHD Policy
Manual to incorporate the Final Countywide Guide Plan as growth management, land use
and transportation elements; (b) amendments to the county, cities and ACHD land
development regulations, implementing the adopted comprehensive transportation and
land use elements and the Countywide Plan's goals, objectives, policies and strategies.
The land development regulation amendments will include:
13.2.1
13.2.2
13.2.3
13.2.4
13.2.5
13.2.6
13.2.7
13.2.8
13.2.9
13.2.10
13 .2.11
13.2.12
19088SO07
Right-of-way preservation ordinances
Transportation Corridor Overlay Districts including joint public-
private development techniques
Prioritized Capital Improvement Program Ordinances
Adequate Public Facility Ordinances
Impact Fee Ordinance Standards and Procedures (not including
calculation of impact fee amounts)
Transit Oriented Zoning Districts
Traditional Neighborhood Zoning Districts
Agricultural preservation techniques
Common Subdivision standards to be used in county impact areas
Infill and Compatibility Standards
Extra-territorial improvement and levels of service for consistency
between the County and each City's impact area
Extraterritorial utility service area standards and regulations
6J1"'.DOcACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
12
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
13.2.13
Establishment of zoning and subdivision regulations to implement
transportation corridor and centers boundaries and standards
It is anticipated that these drafts will be textual overlays that can be applied to the zoning
and subdivision regulations of each individual jurisdiction. Specific applications of the
ordinances, such as the mapping of individual overlay districts, integration into
individuals zoning and subdivision regulations, and the allocation of densities, intensities,
or development potential to individual land areas, is not part of the scope of services and
that may be authorized by the individual jurisdiction pursuant to a separate contract.
Task 14:
Initial Review of Regulatory Documents
14,1 Planning Commission Summit
Provide an overview of the planning and regulatory docurnents prepared in Task 13 in a
joint public meeting of the planning commissions for each jurisdiction and COMPASS
Staff, Solicit the comments of the planning commissioners, and COMPASS Staff
provide a list of the concerns and suggestions provided at the meeting.
Person-trips: 1
14.2 Planning Commission Briefmg Report
Compile a list of common concerns and suggestions and a list of comments that are
inconsistent with each other. Provide a description of alternatives to reconcile the
inconsistencies identified in the Planning Commissioners' comments.
Task 15: Initial Revisions
15.1 Regulatory Revisions
Revise the ordinances to incorporate the comments received at the Planning Commission
Summit described in.14.1, above,
15.2 Public Workshops
Conduct a public workshop with each jurisdiction relating to the package of plan
amendments and development regulations described in Task 13, above.
Person-trips: 8
15,3 Planning Commission Briefmg Report
Compile a summary of concerns and suggestions from the individual Planning
Commission workshops.
Task 16: Final Revisions
16,1 Final draft ordinances
Based on the comments provided above, provide a fmal draft of the docurnents recited
and Task 13, above. Any further revisions to the ordinances may be authorized by
separate contract with the individual jurisdiction.
/90885007
6J107.DOcACHD Scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
13
.
Exhibit C: Scope of Services
16.2 Adoption
Consultant can provide support throughout the adoption process for each jurisdiction, as
requested, on a time and expense basis.
Budget Allocation:
Task Task Description Budget
Task 12: Initial Assessment
12.1 Physical and Market Assessment. $19,787 $103,735
12.2 Regulatory Assessment. $19,787
12.3 Legal Assessment. $19,787
12.4 Market and Construction Assessment. $22,187
12.5 Infrastructure Assessment $22,187
Task 13: Initial Draft Local Plan and Code Revisions
Land Use/Growth Management
13.1 Elements $39,574 $98,935
13.2 Draft Initial Code Text. $59,361
Task 14: Initial Review of Regulatory Documents
14.1 Planning Commission Summit $7,532 $23,361
14.2 Planning Commission Briefmg Report $15,830
Task 15: Initial Revisions
15.1 Regulatory Revisions $29,680 $94,288
15.2 Public Workshops $34,927
15.3 Planning Commission Briefing Report $29,680
Task 16: Final Revisions
16.1 Final draft ordinances $29,680 $29,680
$350,000 $350,000
190885007
63103.DocACHD scope of Services rev 7-9-04)
14
EXHIBIT
LAW OFFICES
I~
FREILICH, LEITNER 9 CARLISLE
IN KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RO8ERT H. 'REILlCH, P.C.'."','
MARTIN L. LEITNER. P.C.'
R'CHARD G. CARUSLE. P-C.'
S. MARK WHITE'.'
RO8'N A. KRAMER"'"
TYSON SMITH'
EUSA L. PAS<ER
A PARTNKRSHIP 'NCLUO'NG PROeESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
""""""""'~.,^'."T'.'O'.'"
'""'"'"
1150 ONE MAIN PLAZA
4435 MAIN STREET
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64111-1858
FACSIMILE
(816) 561-7931
IN A5REN. COLORADO
FREILICH. MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE
'06 S. MICL ST.. SUITE 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 8'6"-'073
TECEPHDNE 19701 020-'0'8
'ACSIMILE 10701 520-4259
TELEPHONE
(816) 561-44]4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAV'D J. MYLER. P.c.'
E. M'CHAEC HOFFMAN'
July 12, 2004
Judy Peavey-Derr, Chair
Ada County Commissioners
200 W. Front Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
John S. Franden, President
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Mayor Dave Bieter
City of Boise
150 N. Capitol Blvd
Boise, Idaho 83702
Mayor Nancy Merrill
City of Eagle
310 E. State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Mayor Ted Ellis
City of Garden City
6015 Glenwood Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Mayor Dean Obray
CityofKuna
231 Kay Avenue
Kuna, Idaho 83634
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Mayor Nathan Mitchell
City of Star
10769 W. State Street
Star, Idaho 83669
David Ekern, Director -
Idaho Transportation Department
3311 W. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83707-1129
Dear Governing Board Members:
We are very pleased to have the opportunity to provide legal services to the
Consortiurn of Member Agencies of Ada County as specified in the proposed
Intergovernmental Agreement. This letter will confirm the retention of Freilich, Leitner
& Carlisle ("FLC") to provide legal representation to the Consortium in connection with
the preparation of the Countywide Land Use and Transportation Guide Plan and Member
Agencies Comprehensive Plan elements and implementing land development regulations
(the "Project").
FREILICH, LEITNER ê CARLISLE
FLC's work on the Project shall be as set forth in the Scope of Services attached
as Exhibit C to the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement For A Transportation .Guide
Plan and Land Use Planning.
Our fees for the project will not exceed $405,000 for Phase I, and $350,000 for
Phase II. Such fees are based upon a blended hourly rate of $250/hour for each attorney.
You agree to pay FLC for professional services in accordance with the Scope of Services.
In acting under Phase II of the Scope of Services FLC shall be working solely for the
Consortiurn and not for the individual Member Agency.
Because timely payment of FLC's fees and expenses depends upon prompt
payment of our statements the assurance that FLC will receive payment in full within
thirty (30) days of your receipt of the statement is essential forFLC to undertake and
continue work on your behalf. It is agreed that FLC may discontinue all services to you
temporarily or permanently, if you the Consortium does not meet its payment obligations
to FLC on a timely basis.
Our files for work prepared pursuant to this engagement agreement are the
Consortiurn's property. We will release our files for work performed pursuant to this
Agreement to you or to anyone else you designate upon your written request delivered to
me. None of the work in this contract shall prohibit FLC from additional representation
of matters with the individual Member Agencies of the Consortium.
You agree to keep us informed of any change in your address or telephone
numbers or electronic mail address so that we may effectively communicate with you.
We will also advise you promptly of any change in the [!TIll'S business address, electronic
mail address or telephone or facsimile numbers. You agree that we may communicate
with you via electronic mail even though it may not be completely secure.
To aid in performing the contract scope of services it will become necessary to
hire experts, consultants or investigators which surns will be paid out of the $405,000 and
$350,000 set aside for Phases I and II. Such persons will be employed by us on your
behalf, not by you, so as to protect any privileged work; but we will not hire such persons
unless you approve in writing.
Thank you again for the confidence of th
services
~
RHF:bjs
FREILICH, LEITNER 8 CARLISLE
ACCEPTED:
Judy Peavey-Derr, Chair
Ada County Commissioners
Mayor Dave Bieter
City of Boise
Mayor Ted Ellis
City of Garden City
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
David Ekern, Director
Idaho Transportation Development
62088.doc
John S. Franden, President
Ada County Highway District
Mayor Nancy Merrill
City of Eagle
Mayor Dean Obray
CityofKuna
Mayor Nathan Mitchell
City of Star
ITEM IV - D
Community Planning Association
of Southwest Idaho
I
EXHIBIT
E-I
RESOLUTION NO. 04-2004
PROVIDING A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FORA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION
AND
LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS
AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR ADA COUNTY
WHEREAS, Ada County, the Ada County Highway District and the Cities of Boise, Eagle, Garden
City, Kuna, Meridian and Star (hereinafter "Member Agencies") executed a letter of intent on April 19,
2004 to engage in a joint effort to engage in a countywide land use planning and implementation
process; and
WHEREAS, the Member Agencies together with the Idaho Transportation Department (lID) intend to
execute an intergovernmental agreement to prepare a Countywide Transportation and Land Use Guide
Plan and Implementing Comprehensive Plan Elements and Land Development Regulations (hereinafter
the "Intergovernmental Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, Dr. Robert H. Freilich of Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, on behalf of the Member Agencies,
prepared a Framework for Developing a Countywide Land Use and Transportation Plan involving a
two-phased process, with the first phase resulting in the public process and drafting of a Countywide
Transportation and Land Use Guide Plan (hereinafter the "Guide Plan"), and the second phase involving
the preparation of local comprehensive plan transportation and land use elements, policy manual
amendments and implementing land development regulations by individual Member Agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement establishes a Consortiurn consisting of Member
Agencies, a Steering Committee consisting of representatives of Member Agencies, and other
Stakeholders, including the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (CaMP ASS); and
WHEREAS, COMPASS and ITD have selected a consultant team to prepare Communities in Motion, a
Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan (hereinafter the "LRTP") as required by 23 U.S.C. § 134; and
WHEREAS, the LRTP will produce a comprehensive transportation plan for the region including Ada,
Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, and Payette counties, Idaho with an emphasis on Ada and Canyon
counties; and
WHEREAS, several themes of the LRTP include: leveraging various established regional planning and
stakeholder outreach processes, technical tools and models; applying demographic analysis, modeling,
projecting and transportation data to support the technical analyses defined in the Guide Plan; and
supplementing the ongoing transportation planning processes currently underway and/or recently
800 S, Industry Way, Suite 100. Meridian, ID 83642 . (208) 855-- 2558. Fax (208) 855-2559 . www.compassidaho.org
,.
conducted by COMPASS, lID and other Treasure Valley Governmental Units, which themes and
studies will benefit from adoption of the Guide Plan; and
WHEREAS, the COMPASS Board has received the Intergovernmental Agreement which includes the
following Exibits: (a) Letter of Intent; (b) Framework for Developing a Countywide Land Use and
Transportation Guide Plan; (c) Scope of Services; and (d) Contract for Legal Services with Freilich,
Leitner and Carlisle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the COMPASS Board endorses and supports the
process for developing the Guide Plan as part of official COMPASS Policy; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the process for developing the Guide Plan and the Guide Plan
itself will incorporate and utilize all demographic and transportation information already prepared by or
currently being prepared by COMPASS; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the alternative growth scenarios identified in the LRTP will be
utilized in developing the Guide Plan and that the preferred land use alternative adopted in the Guide
Plan will be utilized in the LRTP as provided by the consistency requirement of 23 U.S.C. Section 134;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that COMPASS and the Consortiurn work cooperatively to achieve
compatible, consistent and effective regional and countywide transportation and land use policies and
shall ensure that both projects will be coordinated to avoid duplicative services and processes.
DATED this 21st day of June 2004.
REVISED this 19th day of ~, 2004.
APPROVED:
By:
Judy Peavey-Derr,Chair
Community Planning Association Board
ATTEST:
By:
Clair M, Bowman, Executive Director
Community Planning Association
T:1900supsvslboardlResolutions 04104-2004 with RF Comments.doc
EXHIBIT
~
iI
£-:J..
RESOLUTION NO. 05-2004
PROVIDING A CANYON COUNTY STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR A
COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS FOR ADA COUNTY
WHEREAS, Ada County, the Ada County Highway District and the Cities of
Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, Meridian and Star (hereinafter "Ada Member
Agencies") executed a letter of intent on April 19, 2004 to engage in a joint effort to
engage in a countywide land use planning and implementation process; and
WHEREAS, the Ada Member Agencies intend to execute an intergovernmental
agreement to prepare an Ada Countywide Transportation and Land Use Guide for
Implementation (hereinafter the "Intergovernmental Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, implementing the Intergovernmental Agreement is intended to
produce an Ada Countywide Transportation and Land Use Guide for Implementation
(hereinafter the "Guide Plan"), and a second phase involving the preparation of local
comprehensive plan transportation and land use elemen~s, policy manual amendments
and implementing ordinances by individual Ada Member Agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement establishes a Consortiurn
consisting of Ada Member Agencies, a Steering Committee consisting of representatives
of Member Agencies, and other Stakeholders, specifically including the Community
Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (CaMP ASS); and
WHEREAS, CaMP ASS is currently negotiating with a consultant to prepare
Communities in Motion, a Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan (hereinafter the
"LRTP") as required by 23 U,S.C. § 134; and
WHEREAS, the LRTP will produce a comprehensive transportation plan for the
region including Ada, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gern, and Payette counties, Idaho with an
emphasis on Ada and Canyon counties; and
WHEREAS, several themes of the LRTP include: leveraging various established
regional planning and stakeholder outreach processes, technical tools and models;
applying demographic analysis, modeling, projecting and transportation data to support
the technical analyses defined in the Guide Plan; and supplementing the ongoing
63098.OOc
transportation planning processes currently underway and/or recently conducted by
COMPASS, the Idaho Transportation Department and other Treasure Valley
Governmental Units, which themes and studies will benefit from adoption of the Ada
Countywide Transportation and Land Use Guide Plan for Implementation; and
WHEREAS, the Community Plarming Association Board has received the
Intergovernmental Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Canyon County General Members of the Community Planning
Association Board desire to express their support for the Transportation and Land Use
Ada County-wide Guide Plan ("Guide Plan") process and may at a future date decide to
utilize or incorporate all or part of the products of this effort.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CANYON COUNTY
MEMBERS OF THE COMPASS BOARD, that they endorse and support Ada General
Members in their process for developing the Guide Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the process for developing the Guide Plan
and the process for the LRTP Study are compatible and the scope of services for each
project have been coordinated to avoid overlapping or duplicate services or processes;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the alternative land use growth scenarios
identified in the LRTP will be utilized in developing the Guide Plan preferred alternative
that the LRTP will be consistent with the preferred and use latemative adopted in the
Guide Plan will be incorporated in the final LRTP for the Ada County portion of the
regional LRTP plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that COMPASS and the Consortiurn work
cooperatively to achieve compatible, consistent and effective regional and countywide
transportation and land use policies and ensure that there is no overlapping or duplicative
service.
DATED this 21st day of June 2004.
APPROVED:
By:
Judy Peavey-Derr, Chair
63098.doc
Community Planning Association Board
ATTEST:
By:
Clair M. Bowman, Executive Director
Community Planning Association
63098-OOc
. ~
EXHíBIT
.Ii
i
F
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO
RESOLUTION NO. -2004
APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR AN ADA
COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AND
IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AND
TRANSPORTATION PLAN ELEMENTS AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, Ada County ("County"), the Ada County Highway District
("ACHD") and the Cities of Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Kuna, Meridian and Star
(together "Member Agencies") executed a letter of intent on April' 19, 2004 to commence
a joint effort to engage in a countywide land use and transportation planning and
implementation process; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Robert H, Freilich of Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle, on behalf of
the Member Agencies, prepared a Framework for Developing a Countywide Land Use
and Transportation Plan involving a two-phased process, with the first phase resulting in
the public process and drafting of a Countywide Transportation and Land Use Guide Plan
("Guide Plan"), and the second phase involving the preparation for each Member Agency
of local comprehensive plan land use and transportation elements, policy manual
amendments and implementing land development regulations (together "Implementing
Actions"); and
WHEREAS, each of the Member Agencies has determined that comprehensive
and efficient land use and transportation planning for incorporated and unincorporated
Ada County can best be achieved by cooperating with the other Member Agencies in the
development of the Guide Plan and Implementing Actions, and cooperating with the
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho ("COMPASS") in its development
of the regional Communities in Progress Long Range Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Member Agencies together with the Idaho Transportation
Department (lID) intend to execute an intergovernmental agreement ( "IGA") to prepare
the Guide Plan and Implementing Actions; and
63143.doc
WHEREAS, the IGA establishes a Consortiurn consisting of Member Agencies,
a Steering Committee consisting of representatives of Member Agencies, COMPASS
and other Stakeholders; and
WHEREFORE, the City of Meridian has determined that it is in the best
interests of the City to enter into the IGA for the development of the Guide Plan and
Implementing Actions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Meridian approves
the process for dev,eloping the Guide Plan and Implementing Actions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Meridian is
hereby authorized to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement attached hereto, together
with Exhibits "A" through "F" incorporated in the Intergovernmental Agreement, and is
hereby further authorized to execute the Agreement with Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
incorporated in the IGA as Exhibit "D."
DATED: July -' 2004.
APPROVED:
By:
63143.doc