Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-21 Pre~~ t (~irE IDpAN MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and Cify Council are expected tv be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roli-call Attendance: David Zaremba Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Follpw Up Discussion ,Regarding the Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACRD Capital Projects Budged by Matt Ellsworth: 4. Update of Increased Costs with Request for Increased Fees for Solid W;r~s#e Collection by Steve Sedlacek of Sanitary Service Company: (*10 :min) 5. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67~345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member- or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) & (b) - (to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear,complaints or charges brought against, a;public officer, employee, staff;member or individua! agent, or public school student): * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change dap®nding on the discussion. Please use,the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council P.re-Council Meeting Agenda -August 21, 2007 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodatio~t for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's bfficc at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. N ~~E IDFZ IAN~- ~J MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: David Zaremba ~ Joe Borton Charlie Rountree ?C Keith Bird ~C. Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~f~"~ /~h ~ Gy 3. Follow Up Discussion Regarding the, Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACRD Capital Projects Budget by Matt Ellsworth: d,~cs,`r~cG~ 4. Update of Increased Costs with Request for Increased Fees for Solid Waste Collection by Steve Sedlacek of Sanitary Service Company: (*10 min) ~-~®~.~ mow- ®9.tibGz l~ean.~i~ 5. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) & (b) - (to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student): * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on the discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting Agenda -August 21, 2007 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. +`~" ` C:I"1'Y OP ! ~„~~~~ ~~ l ~rl~lcn ~~-~~ ~ ~ , , ,L~..~~-~~~~~ ,~ c Eti ,/, ~` ,,TeR ~'~ TRE,vsuHe V N-~FY ,. MAYOR ``~`~~~"'~'`~`'~'`'~~~~"`' NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS "'`~~"'"` MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~':~_, i~ 1 1Zoltntree ... Sri %~u'emlia NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of CITY DEPARTMENTS "~ ~~;H~, Meridian will hold aPre-Council Meetin at Cit Council Cha ber g y s, m ~i1~ it,,"l~ltoriaey) ,; , ~ r;) Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on _. _, „,, Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 5:30 P,M. The Meridian City Council 11'k i_r ',. 1'!"Cill~<il'I-L ItO~d ~'~`,~~ '.`~~~~! rr~~ 895-os~o will be discussing the following agenda items: N~., ~:: ~~_ I~ccrea ion j i 1~V. Bowea~ Street ~~s~~ ,;_s:~~~ .' r~~a 8~8-~SO~ ~ Follow Up Discussion Regarding the Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACHD Capital Projects Budget by Matt Ellsworth Update of Increased Costs with Request for Increased Fees ~- '~~'h s8s-c854 for Solid Waste Collection by Steve Sedlacek of Sanitary r , : ~ , ? Service Company ~ ~i ~, ~-- ~ ~. ~~,~'L~CTtGWI.T I ~illl.e ~`~~ ' ~ ~"` ~`~6-73~~ ~ Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a)&(b) ~'~' ~~~r"l~>~~Tet" L~11e The public is welcome to attend the meetin '~' r, -4 i 898 g. ~~~s~etuntlr~~~~~ t f i l\ -J551. ~\~;~ G; ~ L~~~~ ~p~~6f ''""' r 1' ~/ ~,.~c-~ ~. ~~'' °- DATED this 17th day of August 2007. ~\` C~°, i~enJ 1~~,. W~~LrcrloT-vec Line ~ , C 1, tt, tli-li ~.r-'.~. (; EHX 887-1-~C)i i"i-"'~~~ ~,F,. ~ ~le~" WILLIAM G. BERG, CL RI~-> ~ ~ t i ',,~i Mile Road ~~'~ '~ ~~ - ~ ' ~p ' t ~ ~ / ftix 884-0744 jr B a~ S . .,~~ % ~Q '~ „9 ~~. / E"L~ 4 ~~ (~l_VV. StrtSt7'eei /f~~f~flllil11SI7~~~\R ~:.'>~`'. fax 884-L159 Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting Agenda -August 21, 2007 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. CITY FALL 33 EAST IDAHO 1~VENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE -PAX 884-817.9 Printed nn recycled paper E IDIAN~ ~DaHO MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho :7 "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: David Zaremba Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Follow Up Discussion Regarding the, Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACHD Capital Projects Budget by Matt Ellsworth: 4. Update of Increased Costs with Request for Increased Fees for Solid Waste Collection by Steve Sedlacek of Sanitary Service Company: (*10 min) 5. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) & (b) - (to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public, officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student): * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on the discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Pre-Council Meeting Agenda -August 21, 2007 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~~~e ~ -- _~, ,~hQnksl ~ ~~ , . ,y~ s~-_ ~YlG~l~l? ~-~ ~~ti", '-i,"~ IDAHO j ',.?F ~~,e,~,re ~. R , Y '~ \\ ~ fir TRE.iSURE V •~,.-~.~ ------ - - Niihc~- "9fl3 MAYOR "~'~"~'-`' `~~ `'~"'~~ NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS __c ,, - U~-,_. ~"` ' ''~r"'~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ' ;~~ ~ 1 Po~~ntree iii aremba NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of CITY DEPARTMENTS `~~'~~ r~~"~~~,r~yi~rz Meridian will hold aPre-Council Meeting at City Council Chambers, ~;)~ h1~rh; 5tr~et ~~Jh ~,(1(~ ~C'it5~ Attorney) ~;~~, ~o~; , r ,,;; Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 5:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council r << :+;; 1~. t~t~r;kl~n Road ~~~~-~',~;~ ~~~~~ X95-0390 will be discussing the following agenda items: !yarkr o: fZeu'cation 1^~'. B~-,,~reJ Street ~~;~~~,~-~~ ,~ ta;< ~~~-5501 ~ Follow Up Discussion Regarding the Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACHD Capital Projects Budget by Matt Ellsworth I'-.~_.;_~ir,~ t~6,' E, E'v',ttr~otaerl_,ane ' ~ ~ ~= ~ Update of Increased Costs with Request for Increased Fees `~"~ '~ ~ `~~° ~~''-554 for Solid Waste Collection by Steve Sedlacek of Sanitary ~~~ s>> ~~, Service Company i=~~~ E`, 1^v~ic~tol~>er Lane ~~`' `''~-` ``~' ~~`'-'~'~'~ ~ Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a)&(b) ~.~,. ~,- ;~ti~~: i:,. <<,~~ r~ ~~~«r~~~-tc~wtlr La„e The public is welcome to attend the meeting. ~~, t ~~1O _ ~~~~~Rterarrrrdr~8 ~i~ i ' ; ~ ~ ~ 59h-9557. `~`~,"Po ~~ ~.'~~':"~~~°~'i°~ - ~ "~Qlll~ V 6 ,~, i ~w„~~~~-to,ve, Lane DATED this 17th day Of August, 2007. ,'~ ~~~ ~q,~~= ~'~" ~'`°, ~~ - `' ~ 1.7 ,tax b87-1297 ice` ~' - ~;~a~rE>~~~~,tt, WILLIAM G. BERG, - t .R~.' -t~~7 N. 'fat iVfi~le Road ~ ~~ ~~ ,~~~ ,r'~ '' 19 ; rax 554-0'44 9 Y ~t ~~ „~ tea ~. ,~. < ~, I~1.1'~'. nth Street //~~jdltdVfld I1S91~'`~`~\ <>~>ti :~?42 ; f<ix 3L~4-1159 Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting Agenda - August 21, 2007 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents andlor hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled paper • August 24, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUgUSt 28, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5-E REQUEST Approve Minutes of August 21, 2007 Pre-Council Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: w ~ ~/ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Emailed: 1 J Phone: JIUII Ifl1IlUIS: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • • Meridian Citv Pre-Council Meetins~ August 21 2007 The Meridian City Pre-Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 by President Councilman Joe Borton. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, David Zaremba, Charlie Rountree and Joe Borton. Staff Present: Bill Nary, Matt Ellsworth, Anna Canning, John Overton and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as published. Rountree: Second. Borton: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Item 3. Follow Up Discussion Regarding the Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACHD Capital Projects Budget by Matt Ellsworth: Borton: We have got some more material provided to us from Matt. So Matt I will turn it over to you to update us on what took place this last week. Ellsworth: Thank you President Borton, Members of the Council and to be completely honest there has been very little movement on this between last week and tonight. To back up for just a second and make sure that everybody is on the same page here. The situation we are looking at is the proposed 2008-2009 ACHD budget is under funded by $16.3 million. One way or another some projects are going to have to be chopped. So with the proposed budget, which Meridian City Pre-Council Meeti• r August 21, 2007 Page 2 of 20 will be the topic of a public hearing coming up tomorrow night over at ACHD - the projects proposed for delay are Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry; Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh; Victory and Eagle Intersections; McAllister to 36 and Deer Flat from 69 to Ten Mile. As we discussed last week in the 2007 to 2008 that they considered last year, the break down on construction projects city to city included 44.55 percent of projects in Meridian; 44.8 in Boise; Eagle had just over 6 percent; Garden City had right around 3 percent; Kuna had about 2.5 percent. That compared to what is currently proposed in the 2008-2009 budget which includes 15 percent of construction dollars going toward Meridian; right around 70 percent for Boise; a little over 10 for Eagle; a little over 5 for Garden City and none for Kuna. So obviously what it came down to is the distribution of projects proposed for delay landed fairly heavily on projects in Meridian. You see down there an upward of 85 percent of the projects proposed to fall out. That raised some concerns for several reasons and based on Council's direction last week, I prepared a memo for the ACHD Commission that they considered last Wednesday to work session note. It was only an information item on ACHD's agenda last week. It was not a discussion item. One of the Commission Members did indicate that the general perception that each of the five constituent municipalities that they work with, all operate under the impression that their projects are the important ones that need to continue moving forward. So planting that seed will affect that later. The budget came down to the points we discussed last week. Number one is the proposed budget delays too much in Meridian. Number two the budget strays from ACHD's prioritization process. It gets into political factors coming back to the Commissioner's comments. Number three it proposed keeping projects on track for future residents while delaying other projects that could provide relief for current residents. That was the topic of conversation -- that we spent a bit more time with the Transportation Task Force two weeks ago, but nonetheless it was something that they wanted included in the correspondence to the Commission and the umbrella comment that we discussed last week as it fails to address the problem. It is pushing the problem back until 2009 and we are aware of the direction that that is going. In that memo I indicated that we would be back with some more specific project oriented requests coming into the hearing and that is why we are here this evening. So I would like to request the Council consider several different things and then bring together a couple different things with the discussion tonight. First is to identify somewhat of a priority order for the projects that are proposed for delay at this time and again those are Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry; Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh and there has also been some discussion of the intersections within those projects. Number two is to identify projects to suggest for delay. Obviously in your request to keep a Meridian project on track will require the removal of another project that is slated for construction in 2008. So that is another thing that I will ask Council to consider this evening. Number three is to bring that together, develop an official city position and request and in that we will be making the argument, telling the story and based on last week's conversation I am comfortable with the direction that has been given to me, but if there are any other specifics we can get those on the table at that time and we can discuss the Meridian City Pre-Council Meeti• • August 21, 2007 Page 3 of 20 hearing coming up tomorrow evening as well. So again, some background on these projects that have been delayed or proposed to delay here in the Meridian area -Ten Mile from Franklin to Five Mile; this includes the signal at Ten Mile and Franklin as well as the signal at Ten Mile and Pine. Based on last year's five year work program as ACHD's number seven priority of roadway projects, city priority number two and that is from the Task Force through City Council forwarded to ACHD from there. Eagle from Victory to Ridenbaugh includes signals at Easy Jet and Victory -this one was ACHD's roadway priority number 16 and the city's priority number 15. Finally the intersection at Eagle and Victory and this one was rolled into the roadway project there on Eagle and therefore, it was not a part of the ranking process with the intersection projects that ACHD took a look at with the last five year work program. So, here is kind of a broad list of projects that could theoretically be shifted around by the ACHD Commission should they feel it is in their best interest to do so. The ones up top there in gray are the ones that are already proposed for the removal and they total $16.8 million. There is additional - a little over $12 million that, again, in theory they could shift around should they feel that it is in the best interest of Ada County. There are several other factors to consider. The first one pertains to Ten Mile, Franklin intersection. The right-of-way scheduled for this project has already been delayed - between that and conflicts with irrigation windows for construction as well as considerations for some of the improvements coming up on I-84, those two bridges in particular, Black Cat and Robinson Road, which will both be rebuilt in 2009, leaving Ten Mile as the only aerial alternative route for those. The long and short of it is in conversations with ACRD staff it does not look like it is possible to construct the intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin in 2008. Moving onto Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh, again in conversations with staff they have indicated that the intersection of such a large component of this roadway project that is not practical to separate the two and ACHD staff is not referring to the monetary considerations of that project, they were talking more about taper lengths, canal crossings and so forth. It was more technical on the ground issues, but the long and short of that one that I received from ACHD staff is that if they are going to proceed with the intersection they might as well go ahead and do the whole roadway as well. Two of the -well, hold off here for a second, one of the larger projects that the Task Force discussed two weeks ago to consider as a request for a fall out project in 2008 is the intersection of Fairview and Cloverdale. There are a couple of issues attached to that project, first of which is that it is coordinated with the Boise Public Works project. ACHD is obviously reluctant to have the city come in and tear out the intersection one year and then for them to follow it up the following year with an intersection reconstruction. That project is already delayed. Boise Public Works is ready to go with it and they have indicated that essentially with or without ACHD on board with the intersection project they are moving forward with their infrastructure improvements. Another thing to consider is other cities' priorities. The Floating Feather from Eagle to Edgewood is Eagle's number one priority and that is another one that has fallen out year after year after year and 42"d Street from Chinden to Adams and I have not seen Garden City's priority list. My assumption Meridian City Pre-Council Meeti• August 21, 2007 Page 4 of 20 is that that's right up there on it's - it is Garden City's only project in the program this year and actually that one doesn't have much attached to it. I want to say it is $600,000 give or take that ACHD has budgeted for that project in 2008. So we can give a brief run through just as a refresher on the two options I presented illustratively for your consideration last week and if you would like we can dive right into the discussion. Would it be beneficial to run back through these two options just showing kind of a broad stroke picture of the types of things I am requesting consideration for tonight? Borton: Are they the same options that you presented last week? Ellsworth: They are. Borton: Okay. I guess before we get to the options was there any response in the discussion that you had about inviting this type of presentation? I mean if we have got and we have established that prioritization - I think your memo hits it right on the head with the five year work plan and how we are prioritizing projects - is there a desire to have the five municipalities all try and act like road planners and come up with our own lists and tell them what other cities should be scratched and go back to the way it used to be? Do they want us to do that? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, nobody has expressed the - has stated that that is the way to pursue this, but in my limited experience with some of these things just pointing to the situation and saying that we don't like that hasn't been as well received as proposing some solutions along with it. That is when I dove into the budget and started seeing what could theoretically shift around and engaging in conversations with ACHD staff. De Weerd: Mr. President. Borton: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: You know I guess I am a little bit taken back by a Commissioner's comment that all member cities think that their projects are most important. They put together tools to evaluate project needs and they are pitting the cities against each other because they are not following their own tools. I find that comment offensive when they ignore the very tools that they established to take pitting one city against the other for this very reason. So you either use them or you don't and then you do end up pitting one against the other because if you have a critical project that is exactly what you are doing. So I guess I would like to hear the reason behind that kind of comment when they are ignoring their own process. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Madame Mayor I think that is a legit question and that is the sort of thing that we could bring up at the hearing tomorrow evening if Council deems that as the appropriate direction to take. I Meridian City Pre-Council Meeti• • August 21, 2007 Page 5 of 20 think that is one of the arguments that we could use depending on the direction that the city decides on this evening to point back to the prioritization process. As I mentioned last week the Floating Feather from Eagle to Edgewood project is the eleventh ranked roadway priority according to their criteria. That project is slated to remain on track and Ten Mile from Franklin to Cherry is, I believe, number seven or eight priority according to their criteria and of course that one is falling out or proposed to fall out. Jumping back to these options here, the Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood project is proposed for a little over $2.5 million spent in 2008, coinciding with this option one here. One option would be to request that ACHD separate out the component of that project that runs from Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry, which the estimates run about $3 million between that and somewhat of a cushion that is built in between the short fall next year and what is currently budgeted to delay into 2009. That would offset the difference on that project making at least the northern segment of Ten Mile an option in 2008. The overall projects delayed there would come down to Ten Mile, Franklin to Pine; Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh; Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood; Victory and Eagle intersection; (inaudible) McAllister to 36 and Deer Flat, 69 to Ten Mile. Again there were some advantages and disadvantages to both. I feel that the City of Meridian would still be shouldering a significant portion of the burden of delayed projects if this option were suggested, but it is better than the current situation; what is currently on the table. Here is that burden of distribution again and Meridian would still be shouldering 72 percent, with slightly more evenly distributed though. Again, Madame Mayor I think whatever recommendation Council feels is appropriate an argument can be made, whether it is stick to the prioritization process; or whether it is to more evenly distribute the burden of these delayed projects. Several other things to keep in mind are that the roadways, the intersections, the bridges and so forth are not ranked according to the same criteria. So you get into a slight problem of comparing apples to oranges when you discuss things that Cloverdale, Fairview intersection as opposed to Ten Mile from Franklin to Cherry. It is the same criteria, different competition. That intersection is ranked number two and the other roadway projects a little further back, but exactly how those two line up is somewhat subjective. But in any event to get back to your original point, I think an argument can be made in whichever direction Council feels it would like to go. So if it is okay that we jump back briefly to the three considerations here if this seems like a logical way for things to unfold, I suppose we could dive into identification of priorities and I know this is extremely hard to do. It is again, somewhat subjective. I can give you whatever background information that would be helpful in identifying some sort of priority criteria or priority ranking rather for these projects, but I guess I would like to request a little bit of indication as to which projects the city should approach ACHD to request remain on track for 2008. The example that I threw out to the Task Force was we are not saying that this left out project is not a priority, we are saying that if you were to hold a gun to our head and ask us which one goes first this is the order that we would give you and that is definitely another point that we can include in the message that we send ACHD. • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 6 of 20 De Weerd: Mr. President. Borton: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess when I look at this list, three projects are being paid for by the development community and (inaudible) the Pine, Eagle to Nola, the McMillan and Linder intersection, the Ten Mile and McMillan intersection those are all development paid. So I guess you wouldn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but those shouldn't even be items under consideration of cutting out. These others, Victory and Eagle intersection that was again part of a safety improvement; it was also an issue in putting our Fire Station in there. It has been delayed a couple of times if my memory serves me correctly -that intersection needs improvement. I hate to see any excuse to lose a priority of Ten Mile. I guess I am already seeing the writing on the wall, but can you tell me Ten Mile is at number seven is -what is the Park Center Bridge? Ellsworth: Park Center Bridge is the number one bridge priority, but again they don't compare bridges to roadways. De Weerd: Well, don't you think maybe the first suggestion is start comparing these all in need, safety, volume, congestion and even that playing field? If we are being told that we have to cut projects and reduce this amount, you better start making it apples to apples because they are essentially vehicles to more efficiently move traffic. So there has to be some comparison there. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Madame Mayor I agree and in discussions with ACHD staff, another thing that is sort of ongoing right now is to take another look at the prioritization criteria that they use. That is exactly one of the discussions that we have had in addition to ensuring that the projects for current needs of current residents and about weighing those of future needs for future residents, but that is not going to come into play for this year's budget cycle; they are going to take a look at that over the course of the next year and coming into next year's five year work program update, they should have an adjusted project scoring criteria that they will work under. That definitely is a big part of the conversation though is trying to troubleshoot some of these issues that are creating some frustrations under the current system. From the sound of it, it is within the realm of possibility to form a recommendation to ACHD to keep all of these projects on track, with the exception of again that intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin, which we could make the request, but again ACHD staff has indicated that is not an option due to the right-of-way schedule and so forth to let you know what it would entail making that recommendation. I believe and I haven't sat down and done that full fledged calculation just yet, but I am fairly certain it would require delaying Floating Feather from Eagle to Edgewood, delaying Cloverdale and Fairview intersection and also looking over to the Park Center Bridge as another possible source of funds. There is about $6 million currently proposed for FY 2008. We did discuss this at the Task Force and just Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 7 of 20 to relay the conversation there, they all agreed that an argument could be made for pushing that construction back whether it is fully into 2009 or just taking whatever the difference was between the need for those projects and what is on the table from that $6 million which would be delayed of several months or whatever the case is. While there is an argument that could be made there, they felt they we would lose that argument just due to the political direction that has been indicated by ACHD. Of course, it is entirely up to Council and if that is the direction that you would like to pursue then we can make the argument. De Weerd: Mr. President. Borton: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: I guess just to open the dialogue; it seems that Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry and maybe even that Ten Mile, Franklin intersection is being considered to fund a temporary solution under the connecting Idaho program. That is probably why they're working to separate that out. So, if we lost the Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry and the Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh, not the intersection, but those two pieces, the Meridian piece of the budget is still shouldering the lions share, but we are still getting critically needed intersection improvements done. At this point the goal is to move traffic and if Ten Mile is a consideration and how to move traffic once construction begins on I-84 and connecting Idaho is that piece of the solution then my suggestion would be to, you know I hate to say, we would agree to drop those off, but it seems like if we said if those two projects have to go and we could keep the rest of them then we can live with that. Bird: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: While I don't agree wholeheartedly with the Mayor because of the simple fact that if you drop off something like that, the connecting Idaho, there is no guarantee of it and we probably won't see it in our lifetime. For some reason we don't want to release the money and get started on stuff. I have a problem with doing the Victory and Eagle intersection and not doing the Victory to Ridenbaugh on Eagle Road also. I mean they are $16 million short in their budget. If we give back the $9 million, I think that the Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh can stay in there because why do the intersection if you are going to have a nice intersection there and have a two lane narrow road coming into it? I mean, we go from a four lane to a two lane to a nice intersection. It doesn't make sense to me. You are not talking about that much ground - by the time you get back to the intersection, Mayor, I think you are practically half way to Ridenbaugh by the time you do the intersection. So, I don't know. If we have to give anything back and I don't like giving (inaudible) back, but I think $9 million out of $16 is a pretty good give back by the City of Meridian, personally. • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 8 of 20 Zaremba: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: This is a frustration that I have experienced before. The priority system includes cost analysis and budget considerations and includes engineering analysis, which is whether there is bridges involved or canals involved or intersections involved and all of those things get points. The city is allowed to suggest to ACHD what our priorities are. Our number one priority gets a grand total of 5 out of 100 points. All of the other points are the engineering and budget considerations. The difficulty that I have is those are already in the priority system. It should almost be like you tack up on the wall priority one, priority two, priority three, priority four and the budget goes this far and we are not going to do number 20 and 23 this year, but we are going to do 1 through 22. If there is a problem with the budget, if we are discovered that we are going to be $16 million short then the ones that are on the bubble and 21, 20 and 19; not 2 and 3 and 6. The argument seems to me -that we get back as well, if we don't do a $9 million project then we can do nine other $1 million projects. Well that is always true. I understand that math, but if you keep putting the $9 million projects off, you will never have it and since there is the priority system, it already takes all of those into account. The word I use is that you totally ignore it, you trump it by saying okay if we are going to take the budget and we are going to look other places for cut other than the priorities and I have to emphasize part of what Matt says that on the part of the staff there has been no movement on this. We had another Capital Investment Citizens Advisory Committee meeting yesterday and the ACHD staff presented exactly what they presented a month ago with the justification that this is where they found the money and that it isn't about the priorities, it is about what they have to do with the money and that is a difficult learning (inaudible). The difficulty is as a regional agency, you know, to me it isn't about even whether the projects are in Meridian or not; yeah, the Meridian projects have been put off so long that they have risen to the top. Well, they need to stay on the top, not because they are in Meridian, but because Meridian roads shoulder the regional needs and their priority system shows that the roadways in Meridian need to solve the regional needs and I guess it is emotional, but it is difficult for me to have the budget process trump the priority process when the priority process -well, it does need some tweaks. I think some things ought to be given more travel counts on intersection and level of service and probably should have more points than they are getting even under the current service. But, still you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and say well because of the budget we are just not going to do whatever we select. I don't know a pleasant way to get that one across. Igo through the Ten Mile and Franklin intersection regularly and fortunately most of the time I am going the opposite direction of the traffic, but the times that I have been going the same direction as the traffic at the peak hour, it could take 25 minutes to get from Linder to Ten Mile. That is an immediate need. How can we explain to the public that we would be in favor of putting that off? • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 9 of 20 Borton: Matt, I think I would echo, maybe not as articulately, but echo the argument that David just referenced and we don't control the ultimate decision and it is our comments and recommendations that go back to ACHD, but I can't for the life of me see how I would want to recommend removing any of these particular projects based on their dollar value in any fashion other than as the ranking process that Councilman Zaremba just talked about and backing up from the lowest priority on up. I think the Mayor is right on the money about trying to pit cities against each other. I think it is a disaster. I don't know if I would go as far as to say it is cowardly to try and step off of its own objective analysis and try and make it more subjective. If they want us to be down there and then to come here and we can argue all day subjectively on how each and every one of these projects in Meridian is more important than everyone else's because our job is Meridian. I don't care if Eagle and Garden City and Kuna and Boise get anything done on their damn roads. Really we could present it that way, it is maybe not effective and now they have got five cities and griping at each other and (inaudible) and then we will say you know what we ought to do is come up with an objective process where we can break maybe out of 100 points, a system to try and take some of this back bickering out of it. Then we are going to have a list and then do this - De Weerd: (Inaudible) already did that Borton: Yeah, if they want a recommendation, my recommendation would be exactly as David had mentioned is you go in reverse order. Your budget covers the objective prioritization to a certain level and then tough. Then ACHD can look Boise or Meridian or someone else in the eye and say your priority wasn't high enough. We don't have enough money and tough that is the way it works. You can't go take me to lunch. You can't politicize this and twist my arm and gripe and moan to change those objective adjustments. De Weerd: But Mr. President, I guess there is still the inequity of the different lists and a bridge being the same priority as a road that is not new, that: is over capacity, you know it is not apples and apples. It is apples and oranges and so even there is (inaudible) to that. Rountree: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Boy this is fun. It reminds me of work. This discussion is not a new discussion. It is not new to us and it is not new to any community in the state and it is not new to the State of Idaho. To me it is indicative of the situation that we are all in and we are not paying enough attention to our infrastructure and we are not spending to the levels that we probably should and as a result, we are all scrambling for everything we can squeeze out of the system and that begets name calling and conversations about somebody not doing their job correctly. I • • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 10 of 20 look at this and unfortunately it starts out as if there is some parity amongst the bigger cities in Ada County and the end result is that Boise ends up the large money recipient in the 2008 budget and by virtue of the fact that Meridian has some large projects in our boundaries, we lose out. I think that is the name of the game. Do we have to accept that? No. What should we do to change that? I think we need to make our constituents and make our legislators aware that it is a critical issue. No matter how hard we try, no matter how many meetings we have, no matter how many bits of dialogue we have like this evening, the answers are not there. The answers are in funding. I think the funding and the programming that ACRD does, that ITD does, that any entity does for infrastructure is based on the dollars available, the priorities established by their board and their readiness of projects. If some of the projects for Meridian are not going to be ready in 2008 then I understand the reason for not necessarily programming funds for those. I would not, however, suggest that because they may not be funded in 2008 they are not priorities; they remain our priorities and they should maybe slip in the program, but not be forgotten. I do question that we do have a prioritization process and I am not sure how well that is being used or not used. I don't think Gary you could tell us how the programming sessions go. We probably need that part of ACHD to explain the magic and slight of hand that they use, but and it is a complicated process. It is based on way more information than I have here. If I were to use the information that I have in front of me and looking at need and basing projects on need and what I know of facilities that are there and the average daily traffics that I have in front of me, Parks Center Bridge shouldn't even be on the list. Nothing against Parks Center Bridge it just doesn't have much traffic as compared to some other areas of that part of town. I look at Ten Mile and see that it accommodates quite a few folks and it is going to slip. So even though we have categories and priorities, somewhere in between in limited resources I think we need to work with ACRD Board to say we are in a crisis and let's look at all of these categories. Let us see where we can serve the most customers. I guess if that is all in Boise then it is all in Boise. But, we have quite a few customers in Meridian as I see by the list in terms of average daily traffic where we are not being served with this proposed budget and let's work through the tough times and let us understand that there is just some projects we are not going to get for a while, but there are some projects that really affect a lot of people; a lot of people in our community and a lot of people in the region. We ought to do what we can to keep those things on the program, in the program and funded. If they are not ready, I fully appreciate the idea that they need to (inaudible) because there is no sense of budgeting something if they are not going to be able to spend the money on it. Having been there I understand the difficulty and I understand how hard it is to (inaudible--) and I think we need to help in the process - (Tape inaudible) Rountree: I don't think it does a whole lot of good to start harping on there is not enough money and we need more than anybody else. We all need alot - • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 11 of 20 (Tape inaudible) Zaremba: -- by the percentage that each city is getting or losing. That is the political side of it and whereas that is supposed to be confined within the five points on the priority system. It does seem to throw away a little more weight around than it should and as far as alienating all of the other cities that is one of those hornet's nest subjects. I think there are enough good points about the needs of the traffic that already exists either in Meridian or coming through Meridian to justify that they stick with their own priority system and maybe not play the cities against each other with the wrath of which cities are losing which. I don't know if I would throw that at them. It is a red flag kind of a subject and understand it and it is eye opening to look at it, but I am not sure it is (inaudible) before you drop that out, but I am not sure that that is a way to win points. To me the priority is to the (inaudible) system and as Councilman Rountree says keeping the projects where the most traffic needs to move. In the current environment that is going to focus a lot of business on Meridian anyhow. It has nothing to do with what other cities need. There is a need here that is brewing. That is a question, not a statement I guess. Borton: Matt can you put the option 1 and 2 back up that you put together? Ellsworth: Again, Mr. President, Members of the Council these are illustrative and it could be adjusted in anyway you see fit. The bottom line on the two of these is that they focus on some elements on both sides of this - on the Meridian side, one focuses on exactly this; the Ten Mile roadway project essentially cut in half to the tune of the $3 million there and it proposed one alternative to offset that difference. The other one shifts the focus over to the Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh and again rather than focusing on the Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood, it takes a look at that intersection project in Boise; the Fairview to Cloverdale - again I feel like -exactly as Council has been discussing this evening an argument could be made either way. One way that the Council could approach this is if you feel it would be appropriate to present ACHD with a couple of different options similar to the ones that are up here and indicate that there are a couple of different ways that they could go about this. Some have -they all have their advantages and disadvantages and if that Eagle or excuse me, the Fairview and Cloverdale intersection is to be included, it may make sense to suggest that ACHD throw that ball back in City of Boise's court and -- this comes back to the political side of it and that is still a question that is open for discussion here. But, just point out to them the fact that they have a major bridge project, they have a major intersection project and these are all priorities for the City of Boise, but the way that the ACHD construction budget is shaking out for next year is geared heavily in their direction and understanding that no solutions to the current problem are being proposed and the same issue is going to come up next year - taking a look at the projects that are even slated at present between Boise, Meridian and the rest of the county. Again it is fairly heavily shifted toward Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 12 of 20 Boise and that again comes back to the Park Center Bridge. It is around $14 or $15 million slated in 2009, but in any event it -again, there are arguments to be made for any of these. Borton: Matt I think your idea of proposing a couple of options is a good one and to continue and try and be constructive and you have done a great job and trying to be constructive and assisting them -Councilman Rountree is right it doesn't necessarily help to harp on them. I do not envy their position, but I am doing so despite the fact that I rant and rave about it. All I would ask is that one of the options, option 1 by my choice would be to do the prioritization, the pure objective approach, utilizing the statistics, the engineering calculations that we relied upon in the five year work plan and kind of work backwards based on the available budget. I would feel most comfortable with that option; however, those objective criteria, where it falls it falls and if what gets cut, gets cut because the money is not there, I understand. Now, whether there is an option 2 and 3 and what those comprise of, I would defer to the Mayor and the Council. There has been some suggestions - I don't know if I would feel comfortable picking and choosing those, so long as objective is one of the options proposed -- the other options that Council would like to come before ACRD. Zaremba: Mr. President I do support the idea of providing some options and again not to make ACHD's decisions for them, but if we just go there and complain about how they are doing it then all we are doing is complaining. So, I absolutely appreciate the work that Matt has put in to coming up with some suggestions and some options and I think it is wise to present them. If we are going to present the difficulty, it is nice to suggest at least there are ways that could be solved and in that discussion it may come up that some of the projects are in other cities. I guess my point is that I would resist starting with the presentation of the balance between cities. I am not sure that that part of it is constructive. It is certainly informative for us, but I am not sure it would be received by them - but, I would very much like the idea of presenting alternatives and saying there are ways to go, you know and we need to be able to discuss this and the city wants to work with solving it. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council if I may - in doing that, like I said I can outline and put some of the pros and the cons with approaching this from several different ways. I have received some indication from some Council Members that it is a bad idea to pursue this percent of burden type issue and other Council Members seem to be a little more comfortable with it. I am curious as to whether or not that is one that we should pursue within one of these options. Rountree: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 13 of 20 Rountree: I think you know where I am coming from, but I will just state it. I don't think it is a legitimate argument. I mean the next two years it could be the other way around. There is no formula and statute that says you -this community only gets so much and you get so many head count and you are going to get so much more. It is going to jump around. The point I would make is that there are projects out there that make significant contributions to the improvement of the system and the movement of people and the safety of the traveling public. They just need to make sure that their priorities are such that they are addressing those and I think those -and they are going to be expensive projects. That is another part of the problem is that when you throw a $9 million project in a $16 million program, they're not much of a program. So maybe they need to look at exactly the option you presented in your first option is scale back the size of the project and do a portion that has some functionality and phase. that project then over time - (Tape turned over) Rountree: -- on a system where you are going to see some value incrementally. I concur that I would suggest that we throw out some options we have looked at. We have a need for these, tell our story and we are serving 17,000 vehicles a day in this particular segment of road. If they are going to be served better by a $3 million project scaled back from a $9 million project, please consider this as an option. Now when the project gets cut to respond to our request, you are going to have the same dialogue with a City Council in Eagle or Boise or Star or whatever, but I think from our perspective and in a constructive approach, we have looked at it, we know our needs, we know how many people utilize the facility and they are not just folks from Meridian. They are folks from multiple counties and multiple cities and we are simply making their requests. Please rule-assess your budget recommendation and here is an option and a way to do it; make it balance, be constructive, be positive and be fully aware that they might consider any of it. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council thank you for your input and I can definitely get going on some requests for them. I was hoping to turn briefly to the hearing tomorrow that is up there on the board and it is going to start at 6:00 p.m. over at the ACHD Commission hearing room. I was planning to attend and I would be happy to move forward with testimony to the same affect of the feedback that I received this evening. I was also going to touch base to see if any of you have time in your schedule to attend as well. I wasn't sure if you were planning to or not, but if you are all unavailable to attend then I was hoping for some clear marching orders as to the testimony that I should give on behalf of the city. Zaremba: Mr. President I do plan to be there; whether I would speak or not, I would be willing as a representative of Meridian to introduce Matt as our expert on this subject and have him do the presentation. I agree that it would be helpful Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 14 of 20 to have as many of us there as possible; everybody always wants the Mayor of course. De Weerd: I have a conflict. Zaremba: If she were to be there, I would have her do the introduction of Matt. De Weerd: I do have a conflict. Zaremba: But, as many of us that can be there, I am sure would be good. The jest of it is I would have Matt do the presentation because he is the one that has the knowledge and the expertise, but if it would be helpful to Matt I would be happy to stand up first and introduce him. Would that work? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba I appreciate that and that works fine for me. I am comfortable doing so. I am not sure if Council desires any sort of a written submission in addition too. We could start with the memo that I submitted last week and again from the sound of it, there seems to be some indication coming to me to steer away from the pitting cities against one another notion here, at which point we are left with the prioritization that they established so I can adjust the memo accordingly. I can also make note of the fact that based on the current system that is exactly what it does; it winds up putting cities at each other's throats. It is not fair. It is not productive. We can take another stab at the prioritization process and indicate our eagerness to revisit some of those to stop comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges rather, get those leveled off so that in future years we don't run into this same problem. Then again, in stride with the prioritization notion come up with something that is somewhat similar to that option number 1 that was on the board earlier, but I will have to take another look at the five year work program to figure out exactly what projects fell where within each of their criterion and I will, like I said, I can adjust this memo as far as signatures and so forth, I can get something over to Will later on this evening if we could still have something signed by tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow evening at six to bring forward. I am not sure how realistic that is. Borton: Yes. Bird: Sounds like a winner. De Weerd: Mr. President. Borton: Madame Mayor. De Weerd: In that letter if you have the information available to spell out of the Meridian projects, where they fall on the prioritization by number and it might be helpful to include volume counts, any congestion information and certainly if the • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 15 of 20 Police Department could offer any safety considerations for the intersection or roadway projects that can help substantiate, you know, a critical need. I think those elements would be helpful too. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Madame Mayor I know that a lot of those considerations are built into the criteria; if you had in mind the intersection of Eagle, Victory - in that previous memo I did point to the location of the Fire Station down there and the degree into which that is built into the criteria, I am not sure. I know it may be a little bit more abstract than the technical criteria that they weighed can certainly give a nod to that and reiterating how important that project is even if based on their priority criteria, it doesn't fall with the argument that the city is moving forward. De Weerd: I think that is good and I appreciate how you have written it up in this memo, but I guess where we can show the value and critical need. Again, maybe balancing that evaluation tool with some factual information that can compare more apples to apples so that it is not just here is your list of roadway prioritizations or priorities, here is your list of bridge priorities and here is your list of intersection priorities and that maybe they can all be compared based on the same criteria. I am just trying to even the playing field. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Madame Mayor are you talking about something similar to in your support materials, such as the comparative traffic counts? That sort of information? De Weerd: Yes. Ellsworth: Okay, I can include something in that. Now would you like that included right in stride with the recommendation that they stick with their priority criteria or in addition to just acknowledge the fact that we are working with incomplete information at the moment, but stating that an argument could be made for A, B and C based on the information that we do have? De Weerd: I think so because it does go back to what Councilman Rountree was saying, it is based on the largest numbers served and when you look at some of the intersections that you do show here -you show road miles, I don't know where Fairview and Cloverdale the numbers that they serve, I imagine that they would be pretty high too, but again is just trying to show some comparisons that are fair in looking at numbers and maybe accident rates, I don't know. Zaremba: Mr. President just on the subject of traffic counts - I don't know the answer to this whether they use a per lane traffic count or not, but a traffic count with Franklin in the area of Ten Mile as opposed to a traffic count on Fairview in the area of Cloverdale - if they both carry 30,000 cars one of them is two lanes and one of them is five lanes and that makes - we should take the traffic count and divide by the number of lanes to see which one really has the serious Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 16 of 20 impact, I would think. I don't know remember whether their system does that or not, but it would be a thought. Borton: Well, thank you Matt. I appreciate your presentation. De Weerd: Good luck trying to figure out what we all said. Borton: You are solely responsible for the outcome. Ellsworth: I think I am coming down with something, so I am not sure if I am going to be to work tomorrow or not. Borton: We appreciate it. We know it is tough calls to make. De Weerd: Can you summarize this for us, please? Borton: Well, hopefully we have given you some direction for the letter and the presentation. Ellsworth: Mr. President, I feel that you have and depending on what Will's schedule is tomorrow I can like I said get this out in front of you guys tonight and look for any feedback that you would have. During the morning tomorrow and to the early afternoon; again it is kind of on your schedules as far as getting signatures and having it ready for the Commission hearing tomorrow evening. Borton: Okay. Rountree: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: A question for Matt or Gary, either one. Has the agenda been set and do we know approximately what time, I know it starts at six, but is the last thing on the agenda or the first thing on the agenda or --? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree it is the first item after the consent agenda's meeting starts at six o'clock. Item 4. Update of Increased Costs with Request for Increased Fees for Solid Waste Collection by Steve Sedlacek of Sanitary Service Company: Borton: Steve, thank you for coming tonight. Sedlacek: Thank you very much. I am not sure I would ever choose to follow an ACHD discussion, but be that as it may - Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 17 of 20 Borton: We are fired up. Sedlacek: Madame Mayor, Members of the Council we have before you a memorandum dated August 6t". This is a typical memo that we write every year to you regarding our CPI adjustment, Sanitary Service's Contract is tied to (inaudible--) price index, but this year it is different. We are in the midst of or have been notified of Ada County Landfill rate increases, which are very significant. It is 67 percent rate increase, effective October 1St. So what we have done is we rolled in their rate increase and our CPI adjustment to one rate increase. We have asked that the county do that because we want to adjust rates once a year as opposed to in 2005 where we adjusted rates because of the landfill and had to adjust them again because of the CPI and it got to be rather tiresome to send out notices of rate increases to the public. Anyway, I don't know that we want to go through this in detail. This is going to be at least for residential customers of 12 -well, 13 percent rate in crease on a monthly basis. So this will require a public hearing, I believe. So I suppose it is in that form that we would talk about all of the things that the landfill has got to do. They built a new state of the art facility. They just need more money, what can I say? I am not here to defend that or justify it in anyway; you know that is their budget and they control the landfill. So I guess that is about all I have to tell you - do you have questions? Borton: Steve the material that you presented is in great detail and you made it extremely clear how it is merely a pass through of an expense that you have to incur as a result of some of the counties (inaudible) operations and I think you are exactly right. We will have a public hearing - Mr. Nary, I don't know how far out that will need to be, but that would be the process where if there is comment from the public and any additional inquiry we would go over at that time. I don't know how far away - Nary: Mr. President approximately three weeks? Would that be a guesstimate, Mr. Berg? Approximately three weeks. So we could have it and you could hear it and if you wish to approve it, we could have it in place by October 1St. It wouldn't give a long period of time to provide notice -- I mean the noticing of the rates are going to be increased, I don't know if there is any other way to provide more notice than that and how we do that. Sedlacek: Basically we have struggled with the idea of noticing people and how do we quickly get to the Council with this rate change and we have actually accelerated the CPI adjustment month by one month. Actually the Bureau of Labor Statistics just published the CPI we would normally use; they published it like two days ago. So, we couldn't even come to you today with this. We have modified our protocols a little bit to accelerate this. But yes, as soon as we can get on the Council's agenda and have a public hearing - Borton: Set that for September 11 t", three weeks from today? • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 18 of 20 Sedlacek: 9-11? Okay. Bird: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I believe we just have to have 15 days and we could get the notice out - this Friday we need to publish - am I not right, Clerk? So we should be able to get it. Borton: Is the fourth doable? Bird: No, I don't think you can get on the fourth, but you can get it on the eleventh. Berg: Mr. President, we will just do it as fast as we can, so we can give as much notice to the residents. Bird: They need this in active. This needs to go in effect by October 1St because that is when they start paying. Sedlacek: That is correct. With the split billing that the city has, where half of the city is billed on the 5t" and half on the 20t", we are going to have to incrementally for one group, the north side of the city, we are going to have to do a half of a rate increase for half of a billing cycle and then do another half. Normally we would skip that first half - if it were just the twenty cents that we normally get, we would just not bother with it because it is not worth the agony, but this is very significant. The landfill will charge me more effective October 1St. I can't ask for any leeway there. Nary: They don't care when we bill them? Sedlacek: They simply don't care. That is right. Borton: We will put it on for the eleventh. Sedlacek: Excellent. Thank you. Rountree: Mr. President I don't know who you plan on having here, Steve, but I think if you had a representative from the landfill would be great or maybe even a County Commissioner. Sedlacek: Well, I am sure the Solid Waste Director will be here. I will ask him. They have actually -they emailed me today a PowerPoint presentation that they have ready now to talk about all of the things that they have got to do to comply with federal laws. I think they are prepared. • • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 19 of 20 Bird: That would be helpful. Rountree: I do appreciate the fact that they have reached this conclusion so we don't have to jump this process two or three times a year. Sedlacek: I hope that we find that in the future it is going to be very systematic like that. But, it will always be an increasing rate. That is the downside. Borton: Thanks Steve. Sedlacek: Thank you. Item 5. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) - (to consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, not to include. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office) & (b) - (to consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student): Bird: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(a) and (b). Rountree: Second. Borton: It has been moved and seconded to go into Executive Session. Mr. Berg please call roll. Roll Call Vote: Bird, aye; Rountree, aye; Zaremba, aye; Borton, aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Borton: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. Borton: It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. • • Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting August 21, 2007 Page 20 of 20 ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Borton: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. Borton: It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:14 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: TAMMY EERD, MAl(~Of~ ~~"'''~~,,~~~~/, ~~ T~. O ~~~~~ ~, TTESTE -• `~ ~~ ~a T ,~~ . U / jig / DATE APPROVED G. BERG, JR., eITY'CLERK August 17, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 21, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3 REQUEST Follow Up Discussion Regarding the Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACRD Captal Projects Budget by Matt Ellsworth AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached ~ ~U b~'~„+- Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. .= August 10, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING August 14, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Discussion of Transportation Task Force Recommendation Regarding the Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACHD Capital Projects Budget by Matt Ellsworth AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: 0 ~ / L~ CITY SEWER DEPT: ~ V CITY PARKS DEPT: U MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. RECEIVED RUC 1 ~ 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Proposed ACHD Budget FY2008-FY2009 Pre-Council Presentation Meridian City Council August 14, 2007 Support Materials. Construction Projects by City (Originally Proposed) ^ Boise: • Maple Grove Ext., McMillan to Chinden $200,000 • Maple Grove, Franklin to Fairview $100,000 • Overland, Topaz to Five Mile $100,000 • Ustick, Five Mile to Cole (Phases 1 & 2) $5,900,000 • Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,475,000 • 3rd and Myrtle Intersection $108,000 • Park Center Bridge $5,235,000 • Orchard Signal Upgrade $150,000 • Maple Grove, Bienapfl to Victory $389,000 • Maple Grove, Victory to Overland $250,000 • Catalba, Collister to 36th $1 030 000 • TOTAL: $17,937,000 ^ Meridian: • Overland, Linder to Meridian $800,000 • Pine, Eagle to Nola $700,000 • Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry $9,030,000 • Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh $3,862,000 • Overland and Meridian Intersection $200,000 • McMillan and Linder Intersection $1,000,000 • Ten Mile and McMillan Intersection $1,000,000 • Victory and Eagle Intersection $1 894 000 • TOTAL: $18,486,000 ^ Eagle: • Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood$2 485 000 • TOTAL: $2,485,000 ^ Garden City: • 42nd, Chinden to Adams $1 251 000 • TOTAL: $1,251,000 ^ Kuna: • Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1 023 000 • TOTAL: $1,023,000 ^ Construction Projects Total: • Boise $17,937,000 (43.55%) • Meridian $18,486,000 (44.88%) • Eagle $2,485,000 (6.03%) • Garden City $1,251,000(3.03%) • Kuna $1 023 000 (2 48%) • TOTAL: $41,182,000 Projects Proposed for Delay (Draft Budget) Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh Victory and Eagle Intersection Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile Catalpa, Collister to 36~' TOTAL By City $9,030,000 $3,862,000 $1,894,000 $1,023,000 1 030 000 $16,839,000 ~r....... o ,.,, : ,. gOSle Meridian Kuna ^ Eagle ^ Garden City ^ Meridian: ^ Boise: ^ Kuna: ^ Eagle: ^ Garden City: TOTAL $14,786,000 (87.8%) $1,030,000 (6.1%) $1,023,000 (6.1%) $0 (0%) 0 0% $16,839,000 iv~C~ iuia~ ~ • Possible Projects for Delay (Council Consideration) ^ Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh $3,862,000 ^ Victory and Eagle Intersection $1,894,000 ^ Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry $9,030,000 ^ Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023,000 ^ Catalpa, Collister to 36th $1,030,000 ^ 42nd, Chinden to Adams $1,251,000 ^ Ten Mile, Cherry to Ustick* $795,000 ^ Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood $2,541,000 ^ Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,703,000 ^ 30th Street Extension* $150,000 ^ 3rd and Myrtle Intersection $213,000 ^ 'Ten Mile and Amity Intersection* $150,000 ^ Five Mile Franklin to Fairview* $88,000 ^ TOTAL $26,700,000 ~ - ~rnpair~tiv~ Tr~~#ic +~aun~s AQT Lanes l~riari Const. Year Ot~'arm S rin s EI(~ l~lalnut 14,70fl 2 1 FPG Bri. a 2flO8-2009 4'VII~} Brid s 4,60fl ~ ~~ E/C3 Bride 5,7flfl 2 "' ~~ Fluting Fea#her WJC3 Ed ewaod 7, 839 2 11 20fl8 Wdf~ Ea ie 5,857 2 11 20OB Ea le SIU Fioati Feather 10,865 EdgeweMSd Sl© Fioatin Feather 1,426 Park Center WI4 Brid s 3,80fl 4 1 ERG Bri a 20fl8-2009 E.IO Bride IVIA NIA State` 'OIV'IC3 Pierce 270 2 N/A NJA .leffersc~n* WIC Pierce 167 2 NIA N1A Ustick WIQ Gois 19,193 2 to 3 21 2(308 E/G Gone 14, 004 2 to 3 21 2008 Ten Mile S/C3 Franki i n 8, 561 2 7 Pro .2009 SIO Pins 1 fl,151 2 '" NIQ Pins 11,983 2 ,~ iri1C3 Gher 17,106 5 NIA iV/A Pine EIO Ten Miie 4,132 Franklin Eli} Ten Miie 10,510 2 7 Pro .2009 l=a le S/O (~veriand 15,836 5 I'+UA N/A Slt7~ 1Jicta 7,931 2 16 Pro . 20fl9 Inoiuded bIc they are aiterrtats, parailel routes to Warm Springs Proposed ACHD Budget FY2008-FY2009 Pre-Council Presentation Meridian City Council August 14, 2007 Draft FY 2008 - FY 2009 ^ $16.3 million shortfall in FY 2008 ^ Some projects have to delay ^ Projects proposed for delay (draft b udget): • Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry (Meridian): $9,030,000 Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh (Meridian): $3,862,000 • Victory and Eagle Intersection (Meridian): $1,894,000 • Catalpa, Collister to 36a' (Boise): $1,030,000 • Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile (Kunal: $1,023,000 • TOTAL $16,839,000 None: Proposed budget delays roughly 5500, 000 more than neceesarv. Transportation Task Force ^ Separate intersections from roadway projects • Teo Mile & Franklin • Teo Mile & Pine • Eagle & Victory ^ Construct projects in phases • FY 2008, Construct Intersections • FY 2009, COnatfUCt Roadways ^ Park Center Bridge ($6,191,000 budgeted in FY 2008) • Projects for (upue residents v. projects for existing residents • Should Park Center Bridge delay... Projects Originally Proposed ^ Construction Projects Total: • Boise $]7,937,000(43.55'%) • Meridian $]A,486,000 (44.A8%) • Eagle $2,4A5,000 (6.03%) • Garden City $1,251,000(3.03%) • Kung __ $1023.000 (2.4R%] • TOTAL: $41,182,000 caa.traati*a ease*r ey cny C Delay/Burden by City ^ Meridian: $14,786,000 (87.8%) ^ Boise: $1,030,000 (6.1%) ^ Kuna: $1,023,000 (6.1%) ^ Eagle: $0 (0%) Kuna- -Boiie ^ Garden City: $0 (0%) ^aosre ~M ^Kuna ®Eagle ^Garden Gity Meridian' Projects to Consider for Delay ^ Eagle, Victory toRidenbaugh $3,862,000 ^ Victory and Eagle Intersection $1,894,000 ^ Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherty $9,030,000 o Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023,000 ^ Catalpa, Collister to 36'" $1,030,000 ^ 42'", Chinden to Adams $1,251,000 ^ Ten Mile, Cherry to Ustick* $795,000 ^ Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood $2,541,000 ^ Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,703,000 ^ 30'"StreetExtension* $15Q,000 ^ 3b and Myrtle Intersection $213,000 ^ Ten Mile and Amity Intersection* $150,000 ^ Five Mile. Franklin to Fairview* _.. _$88 000 ^ TOTAL $26,700,000 * Indicates funds for pro-consttuction activities Note: 56,191, 000 u proposed for Park Center Bridge in F'Y _'(108 1 Recommendation Complications ^ Ten Mile & Franklin Intersection • ROW schedule has alrcady bcrn dclayed • Imgation facilities limit window fm constmction • It is not possible to cons Wct intersection m 2008 • Alternate route (or Black Cat & Robinson Rebuilds m 2008-2009 ^ Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh • Intersection is such a largge part of the project that if ACHD conswcts one, they might as well do both ^ Fairview & Cloverdale Intersection • Project coordinated with Boise Public Works project • Aheady delayed last year ^ Other City's Priorities • Floating Feather, Eaglc to Edgcwood -Eagle (has bcen delayed.. J • 42^^, Chinden to Adams - Gardrn City For Council's Consideration ^ Option I :Request sepazation of Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry, with interim intersection improvements at Ten Mile and Franklin. • Rough estimated cost of Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry is $3,000,000 • Offset by delaying: Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood $2,541,000 "Cushion" built into proposed budget $500,000 TOTAL $3,041,000 For Council's Consideration ^ Option 1 Advantages: • With interim improvements at Ten Mile and Franklin, this allows construction of two out of three intersections recommended by the Task Force • Relatively few additional projects would have to delay (Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood) ^ Option 1 Disadvantages: • Causes Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh to slip... again • Sill places disproportionate amount of burden on Meridian • Impact to Eagle's project For Council's Consideration ^ Is Council willing to accept what is proposed in the draft budget? ^ If not, what should the City request that ACRD do about it? • Which projects should the City request for delay rather than projects in Meridian? • What trade-offs are acceptable? For Council's Consideration ^ Option 1 -Projects Delayed • Ten Mile, Franklin to Pine $6,030,000 • Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh $3,862,000 • Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood $2,541,000 • Victory and Eagle Intersection $1,894,000 • Catalpa, Collister to 36s' $1,030,000 • Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023,000 • TOTAL $16,380,000 Option 1 "Burden Distribution" Kuna (6.2%) Eagle ^ Meridian (72 % ) (15.5%) ^ Boise (6.3 % ) ^ Eagle (15.5%) ® Kuna (6.2 % ) Boise Meridian (6.3%) (72%) ^ Garden City (09 2 For Council's Consideration ^ Option 2: Request interim intersection improvements at Ten Mile and Franklin and full Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh project. • Estimated wst of Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh (including intersection) is $5,757,000 • Offset by delaying: Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,703,000 "Cushion" built into proposed budget $500,000 3'^ and Myrtle $213,000 30'" Street Extension' $150,000 Ten Mile and Amity Intersection' $150,000 Five Mile, Franklin to Fairview' $88,000 TOTAL $5,804,000 For Council's Consideration Option 2 Advantages: • With interim improvements at Ten Mile and Franklin, this allows construction of two out of three intersections recommended by the Task Force • Allows the construction of a roadway project that was delayed last year (Eagle, V ictory to Ridenbaugh) • Mare evenly distributes the burden of offsetting fimding shortfall Option 2 Disadvantages: • Delays many more projects • Delays future project design -could lead to "lull" in future constnuction years • Impact to Boise's project Next Steps ^ Preliminary Recommendation from City ^ ACHD Commission Workshop, August 15, 2007 ^ Pre-Hearing Preparation & Communication ^ (Optional) Update for Council, August 21, 2007 ^ ACHD Budget Hearing, August 22, 2007 For Council's Consideration ^ Option 2 -Projects Delayed • Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry $9,030,000 • Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,703,000 • Catalpa, Collister to 36's $1,030,000 • Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023,000 • 3rd and Myrtle $213,000 • 30's Street Extension* $150,000 • Ten Mile and Amity Intersection° $150,000 • Five Mile, Franklin to Fairview"` $88,000 • TOTAL 516,387,000 Option 2 "Burden Distribution" Kune (6.2%) eoise (a7.7%) _ ^Mendian (56%) 'j! ^ Boise (37.7 % ) ^ Eagle (0% ) ^ Garden City (0% Meridian (56%) 3 RECEIVED AUG 2 ] 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Proposed ACHD Budget FY2008-FY2009 Pre-Council Presentation Meridian City Council August 21, 2007 Support Materials • Construction Projects by City (Originally Proposed) ^ Boise: • Maple Grove Ext., McMillan to Chinden $200,000 • Maple Grove, Franklin to Fairview $100,000 • Overland, Topaz to Five Mile $100,000 • Ustick, Five Mile to Cole (Phases 1 & 2) $5,900,000 • Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,475,000 • 3rd and Myrtle Intersection $108,000 • Park Center Bridge $5,235,000 • Orchard Signal Upgrade $150,000 • Maple Grove, Bienapfl to Victory $389,000 • Maple Grove, Victory to Overland $250,000 • Catalpa, Collister to 36th $1,030,000 • TOTAL: $17,937,000 Note: The budget includes funds to start construction of Park Center Bridge ($6,191,000). ^ Meridian: ^ Eagle: • Overland, Linder to Meridian $800,000 • Pine, Eagle to Nola $700,000 • Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry $9,030,000 • Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh $3,862,000 • Overland and Meridian Intersection $200,000 • McMillan and Linder Intersection $1,000,000 • Ten Mile and McMillan Intersection $1,000,000 • Victory and Eagle Intersection $1,894,000 • TOTAL: $18,486,000 • Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood$2,485,000 • TOTAL: $2,485,000 ^ Garden City: • 42nd, Chinden to Adams $1,251,000 • TOTAL: $1,251,000 ^ Kuna: • Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023;000 • TOTAL: $1,023,000 ^ Construction Projects Total: • Boise $17,937,000 (43.55%) • Meridian $18,486,000 (44.88%) • Eagle $2,485,000 (6.03%) • Garden City $1,251,000 (3.03%) • Kuna $1,023,000 (2.48%) • TOTAL: $41,182,000 Projects Proposed for Delay (Draft .Budget) Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh Victory and Eagle Intersection Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile Catalpa, Collister to 36tH TOTAL By City $9,030,000 $3,862,000 $1,894,000 $1,023,000 $1,030,000 $16,839,000 BQSie Meridian ^Kuna ^ Eagle ^ Garden City ^ Meridian: ^ Boise: ^ Kuna: ^ Eagle: ^ Garden City: TOTAL $14,786,000 (87.8%) $1,030,000 (6.1%) $1,023,000 (6.1%) $0 (0%) $0 0% $16,839,000 ~~~G~~~~a~~ Possible Projects for Delay (Council Consideration) ^ Eagle; Victory to Ridenbaugh $3,862,000 ^ Victory and Eagle Intersection $1,894,000 ^ Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry $9,030,000 ^ Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023,000 ^ Catalpa, Collister to 36th $1,030,000 ^ Pine and Linder Intersection $1,511,000 ^ 42nd, Chinden to Adams $1,251,000 ^ Ustick and Linder* $608,000 ^ Ten Mile, Cherry to Ustick* $795,000 ^ Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood $2,541,000 ^ Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,703,000 ^ 30th Street Extension* $150,000 ^ 3rd and Myrtle Intersection $213,000 ^ Ten Mile and Amity Intersection* $150,000 ^ Five Mile, Franklin to Fairview* $88,000 ^ TOTAL $28,849,000 R '' ~ i AST i.anes Priori Cvnst. Fear Alarm ~ rin s FJ~t~ V!d`alnut 14,700 2 1 EPC Bri a 2008-2009 IQ Sri ~, 600 ~ ~R a~ EIC~ E~ri+ 5,700 2 ~~ '~ `tvating Feather V1IIU Ed ewooc! 7,839 2 11 2408 W/Q Ea le 5,857 2 11 2008 Eagle SICK Flc~atin Feather 10,865 Edgerovvo+d SJO Floatin Feather 1,426 Park Center V1fIQ Bric€ a 3,800 4 1 EPG Fri a 2008-2009 FJQ Brig t~UA NIA '~ ,~` State* ~fIQ Pierce 270 2 N/A NIA .J~fferavn'' `~IQ Pierc=e 163 2 NIA NIA lJsfick V11It~ Qule 19,193 2 to 3 21 2008 FJC3 C©le 14, 004 2 tc~ 3 21 2008 Ten.. ~Iie SIQ Franklin $,561 2 7 Pro .2009 SIQ Pine 10,151 2 '" '" NIU Pine 11,983 2 N/O Cher 17".,106 5 IVIA NIA Pine EIC3 Ten file 4,132 Franklin ~Z.J' !e `~~e i~3y~1~ 2 7 Pry 2~~~ Eagie SIC3 Overland 15, 836 5 NIA IiIIA S1O Vict© 7,931 2 16 Pre .2009 * Included bIc they are alternate, pa~°allel sautes to Warm Springs.. .~ - ~ " RECEIVED emo ~~~ ~, 007 City of Meridian City Clerk Office To: ACHD Commission c~ Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Meridian City Council, Robert Simison, Will Berg, Sabrina Bowman, Gary Inselman, Pat Heckmann, Karen Gallagher, Patricia Nilsson, Nichoel Baird Spencer From: Matt Ellsworth Date: August 14, 2007 Re: ACHD Draft FY2008-FY2009 Budget - The purpose of this memo is to provide initial response to the draft ACHD FY2008-FY2009 Budget. It also provides broad, preliminary requests for the Commission to consider. Due to the importance of the updated budget and the weight of the decisions the City will request the Commission to act upon, the City feels that it is appropriate to present these preliminary requests to the Commission prior to the budget hearing on August 22, 2007. Amore formal response and related requests will be provided at the August 22, 2007 hearing. General Response: 1. The City feels that based on the proposed budget, Meridian projects shoulder an unacceptable amount of the burden of balancing this year's budget. Over 85 percent of projects proposed for delay are within Meridian City or Area of City Impact. This impacts not only Meridian citizens but also residents of Kuna, Eagle, Star; and Canyon County who commute daily through Meridian thereby contributing to the congestion in the area. If cost escalations are the problem in balancing this year's budget then a more regionally equitable solution is appropriate. 2. At the core of the challenges the District currently faces is the fact that revenues are insufficient to meet the needs of Ada County residents. The approach that the District proposes in the draft budget is to cut badly needed construction projects in order to offset funding shortfalls. This fails to address the problem and instead pushes it into future years. The City of Meridian has in the past and continues to offer its assistance in any way it can to expand ACHD's funding. However, as the local road building entity in Ada County it is ACHD's responsibility to take the lead in identifying new revenue sources. 3. The District established a prioritization .process to insure the wise use of available resources: The City is extremely discouraged to see ACHD depart from its own priorities (as identified in the 2008 - 2012 Five Year Work Program) in the draft FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. One of the primary intentions of the prioritization criteria was, to the degree possible, to remove political considerations from the decision making process and instead to invest funds where needs are the ..: greatest. The draft budget proposes postponing some projects that ranked higher than others based on ACHD's criteria (which already considers city requests) while moving lower ranking projects forward. One example of this is the proposed delay of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry '(ACHD roadway priority number seven). Delaying this project and at the same time moving forward with Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood (ACHD roadway priority number eleven), for presumably political reasons is counter to the intent of the prioritization process. 4. The City is discouraged that the District proposes moving forward with relatively large projects that will primarily benefit future residents while delaying others that would provide much needed relief for existing residents. The use of limited funds in this manner is questionable, and the practice should be revisited in the prioritization criteria and process. Unofficial Requests for Consideration: 1: Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry -Idaho Transportation Department unwaveringly indicates that the Ten Mile Interchange is moving forward on schedule and will begin construction in calendar year 2009. This being the case it is imperative that (a) intersections on Ten Mile are equipped to handle increased volumes when the interstate and related facilities are under construction, and (b) the ultimate Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry ,roadway project is constructed before the Interchange opens. 2: Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh -This project was programmed for construction in 2007 in the 07-11 Five Year Work Program. In the 08-12 Update it was delayed until 2008. It is now proposed for another delay to 2009 in the draft budget. This is not only frustrating for area residents; it creates a potential safety concern as well. Agreements were made relative to this roadway segment with the placement of Meridian Fire Station Number 4. Without these improvements, emergency responders are forced to use an unsignalized, rural, two lane roadway when responding to incidents. Please keep this project on track for construction in 2008. 4. Moving these requests forward could involve delaying other projects that are currently proposed for 2008. The City is eager to work with ACHD and other impacted cities to identify the most acceptable solution to this challenging situation. 3. Overland Road Realignment -This project is absent from the proposed budget, and from ACHD's consideration to date. With the construction of the Ten Mile Interchange starting in 2009 and the presence of a developer who is willing to partner in constructing this beneficial project, the long-term alignment of Overland Road must be identified. Conclusion The City appreciates the tough decisions that must be made in finalizing the FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. The City also looks forward to working with ACHD in creating the most. equitable and beneficial budget possible for Ada County residents. Further, the City is eager to discuss the options the District has to increase available funds in order to avoid similar situations in future years. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. ~~ ~~~~~~ AUG 2 1 2007 City Of Meridian. City Clerk 0#~ice Proposed ACHD Budget FY2008-FY2009 Pre-Council Presentation Meridian City Council August 21, 2007 Support Materials Construction Projects by City (Originally Proposed) ^ Boise: • Maple Grove Ext., McMillan to Chinden $200,000 • Maple Grove, Franklin to Fairview $100,000 • Overland, Topaz to Five Mile $100,000 • Ustick, Five Mile to Cole (Phases 1 & 2) $5,900,000 • Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,475,000 • 3rd and Myrtle Intersection $108,000 • Park Center Bridge $5,235,000 • Orchard Signal Upgrade $150,000 • Maple Grove, Bienapfl to Victory $389,000 • Maple Grove, Victory to Overland $250,000 • Catalpa, Collister to 36th $1,030,000 • TOTAL: $17,937,000 Note: The budget includes funds to start construction of Park Center Bridge ($6,191,000). ^ Meridian: ^ Eagle: • Overland, Linder to Meridian $800,000 • Pine, Eagle to Nola $700,000 • Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry $9,030,000 • Eagle,, Victory to Ridenbaugh $3,862,000 • Overland and Meridian Intersection $200,000 • McMillan and Linder Intersection $1,000,000 • Ten Mile and McMillan Intersection $1,000,000 • Victory and Eagle Intersection $1,894,000 • TOTAL: $18,486,000 • Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood$2,485,000 • TOTAL: $2,485,000 ^ Garden City: • 42nd, Chinden to Adams $.1,251,000 • TOTAL: $1,251,000 ^ Kuna: • Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023,000 • TOTAL: $1,023,000 ^ Construction Projects Total: • Boise $17,937,000 (43.55%) • Meridian $18,486,000 (44.88%) • Eagle $2,485,000 (6.03%) • Garden City $1,251,000 (3.03%) • Kuna $1,023,000 (2.48%) • TOTAL: $41,182,000 Projects Proposed for Delay (Draft Budget) Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh Victory and Eagle Intersection Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile Catalpa, Collister to 36tH TOTAL By City I!. ~..,r. n__._ gOSle ^ Meridian ^Kuna ^ Eagle ^ Garden Gity ^ Meridian: ^ Boise: ^ Kuna: ^ Eagle: ^ Garden City: TOTAL $9,030,000 $3,862,000 $1,894,000 $1,023,000 $1,030,000 $16,839,000 $14,786,000 (87.8%) $1,030,000 (6.1%) $1,023,000 (6.1 %) $0 (0%) $0 0% $16,839,000 ~v~~~ ~~.t~u~ t • Possible Projects for Delay (Council Consideration) ^ Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh $3,862,000 ^ Victory and Eagle Intersection $1,894,000 ^ Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry $9,030,000 ^ Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile $1,023,000 ^ Catalpa, Collister to 36th $1,030,000 ^ Pine and Linder Intersection $1,511,000 ^ 42nd, Chinden to Adams $1,251,000 ^ Ustick and Linder* $608,000 ^ Ten Mile, Cherry to Ustick* $795,000 ^ Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood $2,541,000 ^ Fairview and Cloverdale Intersection $4,703,000 ^ 30th Street Extension* $150,000 ^ 3rd and Myrtle Intersection $213,000 ^ Ten Mile and Amity Intersection* $150,000 ^ Five Mile, Franklin to Fairview* $88,000 ^ TOTAL $28,849,000 • G4t11~-~~~IV@ Tr~lfiC Cai~1~tS U AL1T Lanes Priori t~onst. Year Warm ~ rin s Ef+t~ 11Valnut 14,700 2 1 EPC Bri a 2008-2009 WfC3 Brid 4y6fl0 2 `" EfQ Brid 5y700 2 ,, Pleating Feather Wf© Ed wQOd 7y 839 2 11 2fl08 Wf(~ Ea le 5y857 2 i 1 2008 Eagle ~fp Floatin Feather 10y865 Edgewocad SffJ Fleatin Feather 1,426 mark Center WfQ Bride 3y800 1 EPC Bride 20fl8-20fl9 Ef4 Brid I~/A NfA ," State* WfQ Pierce 270 2 N!A I\IfA .offers©n~ WfU Pierce 167 2 PrVA NfA Ustick WfC) Cole 19y 193 2 to 3 21 2008 EJC) Gale 14y 004 2 to 3 21 2008 Ten 14~i'e Sf0 Franklin 8, 561 2 7 Pr©.2009 Sfa Pine 1 fly 151 2 "" NfU Pine 11y983 2 ~" "' Na`~ Cher 17,106 5 [OVA Nf~l Pine EfC? ~Cen l~lile 4,132 Franklin F_fC} e'en bile 1 fly51 E} 2 7 Pro .2009 Eagle ~'4 ~Qverland 15,836 5 IVf,R NfA SfC) Victo 7y 931 2 1 ~ Pro .2009 * Included bfc they are alternate, parallel routes tc~ Warm Springs • ~~ ~~~~ emo AUG 2 1 2007 ro: ACHD Commission City Of Meridian City Clerk Office CC Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Meridian City Council, Robert Simison, Will Berg, Sabrina Bowman, Gary Inselman, Pat Heckmann, Karen Gallagher, Patricia Nilsson, Nichoel Baird Spencer From: Matt Ellsworth Date: August 14, 2007 Re: ACRD Draft FY2008-FY2009 Budget The purpose of this memo is to provide initial response to the draft ACHD FY2008-FY2009 Budget. It also provides broad, preliminary requests for the Commission to consider. Due to the importance of the updated budget and the weight of the decisions the City will request the Commission to act upon, the City feels that it is appropriate to present these preliminary requests to the Commission prior to the budget hearing on August 22, 2007. Amore formal response and related requests will be provided at the August 22, 2007 hearing. General Response: 1. The City feels that based on the proposed budget, Meridian projects shoulder an unacceptable amount of the burden of balancing this year's budget. Over 85 percent of projects proposed for delay are within Meridian City or Area of City Impact. This impacts not only Meridian citizens but also residents of Kuna, Eagle, Star, and Canyon County who commute daily through Meridian thereby contributing to the congestion in the area. If cost escalations are the problem in balancing this year's budget then a more regionally equitable solution is appropriate. 2. At the core of the challenges the District currently faces is the fact that revenues are insufficient to meet the needs of Ada County residents. The approach that the District proposes in the draft budget is to cut badly needed construction projects in order to offset funding shortfalls. This fails to address the problem and instead pushes it into future years. The City of Meridian has in the past and continues to offer its assistance in any way it can to expand ACHD's funding. However, as the local road building entity in Ada County it is ACHD's responsibility to take the lead in identifying new revenue sources.. 3. The District established a prioritization process to insure the wise use of available resources. The City is extremely discouraged to see ACHD depart from its own priorities (as identified in the 2008 - 2012 Five Year Work Program) in the draft FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. One of the primary intentions of the prioritization criteria was, to the degree possible, to remove political considerations from the decision making process and instead to invest funds where needs are the. greatest. The draft budget proposes postponing some projects that ranked higher than others based on ACHD's criteria (which already considers city requests) while moving lower ranking projects forward. One example of this is the proposed delay of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry (ACHD roadway priority number seven). Delaying this project and at the same time moving forward with Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood (ACHD roadway priority number eleven), for presumably political reasons is counter to the intent of the prioritization process. 4. The City is discouraged that the District proposes moving forward with relatively large projects that will primarily benefit future residents while delaying others that would provide much needed relief for existing residents. The use of limited funds in this manner, is questionable, and the practice should be revisited in the prioritization criteria and process. Unofficial Requests for Consideration: 1. Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry -Idaho Transportation Department unwaveringly indicates that the Ten Mile Interchange is moving forward on schedule and will begin construction in calendar year 2009. This being the case it is imperative that (a) intersections on Ten Mile are equipped to handle increased volumes when the interstate and related facilities are under construction, and (b) the ultimate Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry roadway project is constructed before the Interchange opens. 2. Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh -This project was programmed for construction in 2007. in the 07-11 Five Year Work Program. In the 08-12 Update it was delayed until 2008. It is now proposed for another delay to 2009 in the draft budget. This is not only frustrating for, area residents; it creates a potential safety concern as well. Agreements were made relative to this roadway segment with the placement of Meridian Fire Station' Number 4. Without these improvements, emergency responders are forced to use an unsignalized, rural, two lane roadway when responding to incidents. Please keep this project on track for construction in 2008. 4. Moving these requests forward could involve delaying other projects that are currently proposed for 2008. The City is eager to work with ACHD and other impacted cities to identify the most acceptable solution to this challenging situation. 3. Overland Road Realignment -This project is absent from the proposed budget, and from ACHD's consideration to date. With the construction of the Ten Mile Interchange starting in 2009 and the presence of a developer who is willing to partner in constructing this beneficial project, the long-term alignment of Overland Road must be identified. Conclusion The City appreciates the tough decisions that must be made in finalizing the FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. The City also. looks forward to working with ACRD in creating the most equitable and beneficial budget possible for Ada County residents. Further, the City is eager to discuss the options the District has to increase available funds in order to avoid similar situations in future years. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. f • r ., - crrv oi~ ' 1 '`` ~Y1G~1G~Yl ~~~ ~- IDAHO ,1 ~y ~j ~C~ry~F~~OIM~TREASVRE VN-~Y SIX I 1903 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd August 21, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS John Franden, President Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Ada County Highway District Commission Charles M. Rountree 3775 Adams Street David Zaremba Garden City, ID 83714 CITY DEPARTMENTS ~rJ; Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACHD Budget City Attorney/HR 703 Main Street Dear President Franden 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) of Meridian appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the The Cit Fax 884-8723 y draft FY2008-FY2009 ACRD Budget. Preparing the budget under continually Fire changing circumstances is an extremely challenging endeavor, and construction 540 E. Franklin Road cost escalations have predictably left some tough decisions for the Commission to 888-1234/fax 895-0390 make. The City requests that, the Commission consider the following general Parks & Recreation comments and specific requests prior to finalizing the FY2008-FY2009 Budget. 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579/fax 898-5501 General Comments: Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane At the core of the challenges the District currently faces is the fact that 1 suite 202 884-5533 /fax 888-6854 . revenues are insufficient to meet the needs of Ada County residents. The approach that the District proposes in the draft budget is to cut badly needed Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane construction projects in order to offset funding shortfalls. This fails to address the 888-6678 /fax 846-7366 problem and instead pushes it into future years. The City of Meridian has in the past and continues to offer its assistance in any way it can to expand ACHD's Public works 660 E. Watertower Lane funding. However, as the local road building entity in Ada County it is ACHD's suite zoo responsibility to take the lead in identifying new revenue sources. 898-5500/fax 898-9551 - Building 2. Project Prioritization: 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 a. Although it is not perfect, the District established a prioritization 887-2211 /fax 887-1297 process to insure the wise use of available resources, and it is the - wastewater 3401 N Ten Mile Road best system in place at this time. The City is extremely . 888-2191 /fax 884-0744 discouraged to see ACRD depart from its own priorities (as identified in the 2008 - 2012 Five Year Work Program) in the draft - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. One of the primary intentions of the 888-5242 /fax 884-1159 prioritization criteria is, to the degree possible, to remove political Page 1 of 6 CITY FALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 884-8719 Printed on recycled paper • • considerations from the decision making process and instead to invest funds where needs are the greatest. The draft budget proposes postponing some projects that ranked higher than others based on ACHD's criteria (which already considers city requests) while moving lower ranking projects forward. One example of this is the proposed delay of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry (ACRD roadway priority number seven). Delaying this project and at the same time moving forward with Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood (ACRD roadway priority number eleven), is counter to the intent of the prioritization process. When situations arise that require the District to postpone projects, the District should look first to those that ranked lowest in rank order. b. There are some inherent flaws with the District's prioritization criteria that the City is eager to work with ACRD to address. First, the prioritization process fails to offer a means of comparing projects in different programs. The fact that there are major roadway, bridge, and intersection projects working separately through the process in the absence of such comparative capabilities leads to decisions made based on subjective considerations and without complete information, If such an "apples to apples" comparison was possible, the attached hypothetical results may occur. Second, the criteria currently in place prioritizes projects that will primarily benefit future residents above those that meet the needs of current residents. The use of limited funds in this manner is questionable, and the practice should be revisited in the prioritization criteria and process. The bottom line is that we believe to do what is best for the greatest number of Ada County citizens, and the current process at times fails to do so. The City looks forward to revisiting the project prioritization process with ACRD in the weeks ahead. Specific Requests: It is extremely unfortunate that, due to a delay in the right-of--way acquisition schedule coupled with construction windows based on irrigation season and scheduling conflicts with several ITD projects, the District is not able to construct the intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin at this time. The City was relieved to hear that the District is working with ITD and the Connecting Idaho Partnership Page 2 of 6 • • on constructing interim intersection improvements and a temporary signal at this intersection (in 2008) until ACHI? can move forward with this project. It is important to regional traffic flow that this temporary improvement move forward in 2008 since construction of this project will not be possible until after the completion of Phase 1 of the Split Corridor, and the rebuild of Robinson and Black Cat overpasses (which should both be complete by 2010j. During the construction of these projects, Ten Mile Road will experience significant traffic increases since Robinson and Black Cat will temporarily close. The intersection of Franklin and Ten Mile is also likely to experience increased east/west traffic, since many users (during PM peak hour) will exit I-84 at Meridian Road instead of Garrity (rather than continue through lane restrictions on the interstate), then continue west on Franklin Road. The City is also adamant that the Ten Mile and Franklin component of this project be completed prior to 2011, when the Ten Mile Interchange is scheduled far completion. The increases in traffic that will occur when the Interchange opens will requvre these improvements, and it would be a tremendous waste of the resources invested in the Interchange if the adjacent roadway network lacks the capacity to allow it to function. It is important that ACHD action not cause delays in ITD action. The City recognizes the difficult position the Commission faces. These are extremely hard decisions, made no simpler by the fact that each City approaches the District demanding projects as if theirs are the most important, and at times without consideration of needs that exist in other communities. For this reason the City respectfully requests that the Commission rely on the District's roadway priorities as established in the 200&2012 Five Year Work Plan by delaying Floating Feather, Eagle to Ustick (roadway priority number eleven) until 2009 and instead move forward with the northern half of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry (including the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine) (roadway priority number seven). The now unavoidable delay in construction of the southern portion of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry should not prevent the District from moving forward with the northern half of this essential project. ACRD staff estimates that construction of Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry (including the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine) will cost approximately one third of the total cost of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry ($9,030,000 / 3 = $3,010,000). ACRD staff further indicates that the FY2008 budget is currently short by roughly $16,300,000. The draft budget proposes delaying $16,839,000 in 2008 projects until 2009; $539,000 more than is necessary. The estimated cost for construction of Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood is $2,541,000 which, combined with the additional dollars in delayed Page 3 of 6 • projects, is enough to construct the northern half of the Ten Mile roadway project (from Pine to Cherry). Estimated cost of Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry: $3,010,000 Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood: $2,541,000 ""Cushion" built into draft budget: + $539,000 TOTAL: $3,080,000 Should the Commission choose to act upon this request, the total list of delayed projects will be: Ten Mile, Franklin to Pine: Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh: Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood: Victory and Eagle Intersection: Catalpa, Collister to 36'x: Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile: TOTAL: $6,020,000 $3,862,000 $2,541,000 $1,894,000 $1,030,000 +$1.023.000 $16,370,000 Conclusion: The City recognizes the tough decisions that must be made in finalizing the FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. The City also looks forward to working with ACHD in creating the most equitable and beneficial budget possible for Ada County residents. Further, the City is eager to discuss ways to improve and reinforce the District's project prioritization process. The city is also eager to discuss options the District has to increase available funds in order to avoid similar situations in future years. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely d erd, Mayor oe ity Council President ccc-~, Cz~ Charlie Rountree, City Council Page 4 of 6 • L c Keith Bird, City Council David Zaremba, City Council Cc: ACHD Commission David Jones, ITD District 3 Engineer Page 5 of 6 • Hypothetical Prioritization of Selected Projects The following are averages of daily traffic (according to ACHD's website) for roadway segments that will be impacted by proposed construction projects: Project Average Traffic Rank Fairview & Cloverdale Intersection': 6,616.1 1 Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry: 5,533.5 2 Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh2: 3.,965.5 3 Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood: 3,919.5 4 East Park Center Bridge: 2,575 5 This example is purely illustrative and is relevant based only on the premise that ACRD should spend money on projects that benefit the greatest number of users. The City recognizes the fact that many other factors are rightfully considered in the prioritization process such as safety, presence of existing signals, "downstream" affects, impact on adjacent land uses, presence of alternate/parallel routes, etc. ' Number of lanes is calculated at links rather than intersections; these results are likely skewed in this project's favor. 2 Result obtained by dividing the best available traffic count -Eagle s/o Victory, 7,931 - by the number of lanes in this segment (2). The relevant traffic count -Eagle n/o Victory - is not available, but is likely much higher as evidenced by the count for Eagle s/o Overland (15,836). Page 6 of 6 August 22, 2007 John Franden, President Ada County Highway District Commission 3775 Adams Street Garden City, ID 83714 RE: Draft FY2008-FY2009 ACRD Budget Dear President Franden, • The City of Meridian appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the draft FY2008- FY2009 ACHD Budget. Preparing the budget under continually changing circumstances is an extremely challenging endeavor, and construction cost escalations have predictably left some tough decisions for the Commission to make. The City requests that the Commission consider the following general comments and specific requests prior to finalizing the FY2008-FY2009 Budget. General Comments: 1. At the core of the challenges the District currently faces is the fact that revenues are insufficient to meet the needs of Ada County residents. The approach that the District proposes in the draft budget is to cut badly needed construction projects in order to offset funding shortfalls. This fails to address the problem and instead pushes it into future years. The City of Meridian has in the past and continues to offer its assistance in any way it can to expand ACHD's funding. However, as the local road building entity in Ada County it is ACHD's responsibility to take the lead in identifying new revenue sources. Project Prioritization: .~ There are some inherent flaws with the District's prioritization criteria that the City is eager to work with ACHD to address. First, the prioritization process ~~~~~~ ,,.~ ~'~~~~~~~ theretaref major roadway, br dge, and intersec ton projects gworking^hrough the ~i` ~,~~~ (,~ ~ ~ process in the absence of such comparative capabilities leads to decisions made based on subjective considerations and without complete information. If such an "apples to apples" comparison was possible, the attached hypothetical results may occur. Second, the criteria currently in place prioritizes projects that will primarily benefit future residents above those that meet the needs of current residents. The use of limited funds in this manner is questionable, and the practice should ~,L~ e be revisited in the prioritization criteria and process. The bottom line is that ~- ~ ,~ /~ `~~ c to do what is best for the greatest number of Ada County citizens, and the current process at times fails to do so. The City looks forward to revisiting the project prioritization process with ACHD in the weeks ahead. ~~~~ . Third hen circumstances change and probe s must delay to offset construction cost calations, the District should start funded projects that rank the low st. Although it is not perfect, the D~striCt established ~ prioritization process to insure the wise use of available resources, and it is the best system in place at this time. The City is extremely discouraged to see ACHD depart from its own priorities (as identified in the 2008 - 2012 Five Year Work Program) in the ~. draft FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. One of the primary intentions of the prioritization criteria is, to the degree possible, to remove political considerations from the decision making process and instead to invest funds where needs are the greatest. The draft budget proposes postponing some projects that ranked higher than others based on ACHD's criteria (which already considers city requests) while moving lower ranking projects forward. One example of this is the proposed delay of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry (ACHD roadway priority number seven). Delaying this project and at the same time moving forward with Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood (ACHD roadway priority number eleven), is counter to the intent o the ri ~ roces hen situations arise that require the District to postpone projects, the District should look first to those that ranked lowest in rank order. Specific Requests: It is extremely unfortunate that, due to a delay in the right-of--way acquisition schedule coupled with construction windows based on irrigation season and scheduling conflicts with several ITD projects, the District is not able to construct the intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin at this time. The City was relieved to hear that the District is working with ITD and the Connecting Idaho Partnership on constructing interim intersection improvements and a temporary signal at this intersection (in 2008) until ACHD can move forward with this project. The City is adamant that this temporary improvement move forward in 2008 since construction of this project will not be possible until after the completion of Phase 1 of the Split Corridor, and the rebuild of Robinson and Black Cat overpasses (which should both be complete by 2010). During the construction of these projects, Ten Mile Road will experience significant traffic increases since Robinson and Black Cat will temporarily close. The intersection of Franklin and Ten Mile is also likely to experience increased east/west traffic, since many users (during PM peak hour) will exit I-84 at Meridian Road instead of Garrity (rather than continue through lane restrictions on the interstate), then continue west on Franklin Road. The City is also adamant that the Ten Mile and Franklin component of this project be completed prior to 2011, when the Ten Mile Interchange is scheduled for completion. The increases in traffic that will occur when the Interchange opens will require these improvements, and it would be a tremendous waste of the resources invested in the Interchange if the adjacent roadway network lacks the capacity to allow it to function. The City recognizes the difficult position the Commission faces. These are extremely hard decisions, made no simpler by the fact that each City approaches the District demanding Third, when circumstances change and projects must delay to offset construction cost escalations, the District should start with funded projects that rank the lowest. b. Although it is not perfect, the District established a prioritization process to insure the wise use of available resources, and it is the best system in place at this time. The City is extremely discouraged to see ACHD depart from its own priorities (as identified in the 2008 - 2012 Five Year Work Program) in the draft FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. One of the primary intentions of the prioritization criteria is, to the degree possible, to remove political considerations from the decision making process and instead to invest funds where needs are the greatest. The draft budget proposes postponing some projects that ranked higher than others based on ACHD's criteria (which already considers city requests) while moving lower ranking projects forward. One example of this is the proposed delay of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry (ACHD roadway priority number seven). Delaying this project and at the same time moving forward with Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood (ACHD roadway priority number eleven), for presumably political reasons is counter to the intent of the prioritization process. When situations arise that require the District to postpone projects, the District should look first to those that ranked lowest in rank order. Specific Requests: It is extremely unfortunate that, due to a delay in the right-of--way acquisition schedule coupled with construction windows based on irrigation season and scheduling conflicts with several ITD projects, the District is not able to construct the intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin at this time. The City was relieved to hear that the District is working with ITD and the Connecting Idaho Partnership on constructing interim intersection improvements and a temporary signal at this intersection (in 2008) until ACRD can move forward with this project. ~~ ~ 5 ~ PnL~oR'~`As~'~" ~ ~ ra. ~"~ ~ t: ~ ~ ~ ~"~~ r` ~. r ~~ ~'yp sn.~ that this temporary improvement move forward in 2008 since construction of this project will not be possible until after the completion of Phase 1 of the Split Corridor, and the rebuild of Robinson and Black Cat overpasses (which should both be complete by 2010). During the construction of these projects, Ten Mile Road will experience significant traffic increases since Robinson and Black Cat will temporarily close. The intersection of Franklin and Ten Mile is also likely to experience increased east/west traffic, since many users (during PM peak hour) will exit I-84 at Meridian Road instead of Garrity (rather than continue through lane restrictions on the interstate), then continue west on Franklin Road. The City is also adamant that the Ten Mile and Franklin component of this project be completed prior to 2011, when the .Ten Mile Interchange is scheduled for completion. The increases in traffic that will occur when the Interchange opens will require these improvements, and it would be a tremendous waste of the resources invested in the Interchange if the adjacent roadway network lacks the capacity to allow it to function. lz E ~ R ~^ ~d~°~' ~~-"~. -fNa; Prc N~ ~e~'~0~ Np~° cA~~~' ~~~~y5 IN I T~ ae°r~ ~, The City recognizes the difficult position the Commission faces. These are extremely hard decisions, made no simpler by the fact that each City approaches the District demanding projects as if theirs are the most important, and at times without consideration of needs that exist in other communities. For this reason the City respectfully requests that the Commission rely on the District's roadway priorities as established in the 2008-2012 Five Year Work Plan by delaying Floating Feather, Eagle to Ustick (roadway priority number eleven) unti12009 and instead move forward with the northern half of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry (including the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine) (roadway priority number seven). The now unavoidable delay in construction of the southern portion of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry should not prevent the District from moving forward with the northern half of this essential project. ACHD staff estimates that construction of Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry (including the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine) will cost approximately one third of the total cost of Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry ($9,030,000 / 3 = $3,010,000). ACHD staff further indicates that the FY2008 budget is currently short by roughly $16,300,000. The draft budget proposes delaying $16,839,000 in 2008 projects until 2009; $539,000 more than is necessary. The estimated cost for construction of Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood is $2,541,000 which, combined with the additional dollars in delayed projects, is enough to construct the northern half of the Ten Mile roadway project (from Pine to Cherry). Estimated cost of Ten Mile, Pine to Cherry: $3,010,000 Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood: $2,541,000 ""Cushion" built into draft budget: + $539,000 TOTAL: $3,080,000 Should the Comrission choose to act upon this request, the total list of delayed projects will be: Ten Mile, Franklin to Pine: Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaugh: Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood: Victory and Eagle Intersection: Catalpa, Collister to 36`h: Deer Flat, SH 69 to Ten Mile: TOTAL: $6,020,000 $3,862,000 $2,541,000 $1,894,000 $1,030,000 + $1,023,000 $16, 370, 000 Conclusion The City recognizes the tough decisions that must be made in finalizing the FY 2008 - FY 2009 Budget. The City also looks forward to working with ACHD in creating the most equitable and beneficial budget possible for Ada County residents. Further, the City is eager to discuss ways to improve he District's project prioritization process. The city is also eager to discuss options the Di trict has to increase available funds in order to avoid similar situations in future years. ~: Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~ Cc: ACHD Commission David Jones, ITD District 3 Engineer t • Hypothetical Prioritization of Selected Projects The following are averages of daily trafhc (according to ACHD's website) for roadway segments that will be impacted by proposed construction projects: Project Average Traffic Rank Fairview & Cloverdale Intersection': 6;616.1 1 Ten Mile, Franklin to Cherry: 5,533.5 2 Eagle, Victory to Ridenbaughz: ~ 3,965.5 3 Floating Feather, Eagle to Edgewood: ~--' 3,919.5 4 East Park Center Bridge: ~ 2,575 5 This example is purely illustrative and is relevant based only on the premise that ACHD should spend money on projects that benefit the greatest number of users. The City recognizes the fact that many other factors are rightfully considered in the prioritization process such as safety, presence of existing signals, "downstream" affects, impact on adjacent land uses, presence of alternate/parallel routes, etc. ' Number of lanes is calculated at links rather than intersections; these results are likely skewed in this project's favor. z Result obtained by dividing the best available traffic count -Eagle s/o Victory, 7,931 - by the number of lanes in this segment (2). The relevant traffic count -Eagle n/o Victory - is not available, but is likely much higher as evidenced by the count for Eagle s/o Overland (15,836). Broadcast Report Date/Time 08-17-2007 01:33:09 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11 " 1 `t4SC ~~} ~ Imo- vl~i, G NO~C~ - ,~ ~4r-><sfl ~a,~ ~,. er'i~i~~r `'`~ iDni1U ~~ r ~"O'+~rr,m.,~v~~ igl MA(OR Iizr°~i" ~"'"ecr° AIOTICE QF PRE-COUP}Cli. AAEETtPIG CCIY COANGYL MBMBBRB S.er[h 0vd w~e~t, w. g~t~m„ MERtiDiAN CITY C~tlNgL C7,artr_a kl. Riwnrree IJavid Larembn . NOTICE !S HEREBY GNEN that the City Counr~l ~ the City of ~~ ~~~,~ sty At4~may}t-IR Meridian wfA hold a Pf8-Council M98ting at City Council Chambers ?C3 hlain SrfYet , ifz7l3-.5505 {C'.ity Arcaney) Meridian C1 Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, On Fax fifft-R. 9~ r;n Tuesday. Aug~t 2t, 2007' 8t 8:30 P.Nt. The Meridian City Council :i4U I:. FrankJin:ftusd iris-t,~ ; rnx s95.u39o wiH tae diacusetng the following agenda items: I^srka +I;• Rcwrrarirm i J Y~'. He+wur Stnxr ~K-;)579; fax It9s-;sor ~ Folknv Up DisCtrssion Rege-oHrrg the DreA` FY2008-FY2~09 ' ACND Capital ProJer~`s Btxig~et by AAatt ENswortn F i.+riring (6fJ Ii. VNatertrn.~er Cone s~ct.~ ace. ~ tlpdarer of Increased Costs wi4ft Request Mr Inweased Fees F84-,;s.ss i i~ax sae-r,a;Yr f or Solial Waste CoJlecfran by Steve Sedlaraek of Sanitary P»iicp p ,79f1N~ COmparlJr ]oat e.lNatenoworLane M9Ji-667i},fax 2kPi-7;65 - Executive session p®r Idaho stare Code s7-2345(11 fe1~(b) I'i.ibti~ wi~rl:s 5(i01:. 4^~atertnwer Lane Ttle pWbliC iS w~B{COITIB t0 atfBRd ti19 rl'1B8tlr~. ' tiuite 20it ,,ntnti+ltrgry ~(( E4&~ 500 /fax 69~ 955: (ii~` ~x\~~ Q¢ ib4~{~ - su;Jd;,tt; + 4 DATED this 17th day of Aught 2007. .~~~' ~' °`+~; 650 &. Y1'nh+.rrowar Lane , ~ swJr too ;+f,7-231i (fax 857.7297 /.^'~--' ~ n • wastewater WILLIAM G. BERG, _ - ~ ~ 3401 I~. "tin Pfile Road t4t18-2791 !fax 8f14-0'J64 ~ ~ ,~ ~'4 ~~ Y !$'f ' `C , _ ~,ntr ~ I~ r1h. __ .. ~ . t\ ! ~iJ~~ "~ ``'( ~` r4~ ?v,Y4~ Btl'+Sf1Y'ei ~f~/ltbffi,iiiit+t t3t},4-5243. fax FtFiR-17.59 Meridian Clly pre-Catlrial Heating Agenda - August 24. Tgt17 Page 1 of 1 AH materiels pi'eeeaitad H puh3c maetlnga atisll tieeortte property t>f die ~ of Harlan Anyone dlisirirtg afxArrunodadon feu dhrabWdea relsied to doetener~ arndlor hearings. pleas mlrtsd the t:tgf Clerks OlRoe ~ 886-4433 at paeat 48 hours pttwto dig pubtlc maetltig. CI7v Har..L 33 Essr 1'natyo Avrstra M~R.Cnrnat, lDaLxo 83642 (208) 888-44.33 Cf7Y CttaCR •}N:69P-fate rJtdA:tlC6ku17[d'lY HtLt1*iG-FaX 863-0B1,a MAYLRt'SOFfICG-FN: ASY-8119 IMMrtE on mcuciM a~aer Total Panes Scanned : 5 Total Paaes Confirmed : 80 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 931 3810160 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:04:47 5/5 1 EC HS CP9600 002 931 8989551 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:10 5/5 1 EC HS CP21600 003 931 8848723 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:50 5/5 1 EC HS CP14400 004 937 8886854 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:00:59 5/5 1 EC HS CP31200 005 931 2088985501 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:23 5/5 1 EC HS CP31200 006 931 8467366 12:57:58 p.m.08-77-2007 00:00:59 5/5 1 EC HS CP28800 007 931 8950390 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:00:59 5/5 1 EC HS CP31200 Broadcast Report Date/Time 08-17-2007 01:33:16 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. lob Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 008 931 208 888 2682 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:00:58 5/5 1 EC HS CP31200 009 931 8886777 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:49 5/5 1 EC HS CP14400 010 931 8840745 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:00:57 5!5 1 EC HS CP31200 011 931 2088885052 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:00:57 5/5 1 EC HS CP31200 012 931 8881983 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:07 5/5 1 EC HS CP24000 013 931 2083776449 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:50 5/5 1 EC HS CP14400 014 931 4679562 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:06 5/5 1 EC HS CP24000 015 931 8886700 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:00:00 0/5 1 -- HS FA 016 931 8841159 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:00:57 5/5 1 EC HS CP31200 017 931 8840744 12:57:58 p.m.08-17-2007 00:01:03 5/5 1 EC HS CP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 W5: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct