Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 01-22 PreMeridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 The Meridian City Pre-Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 P.M. on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 by President Councilman Charlie Rountree. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird., David Zaremba, Charlie Rountree and Joe Borton. Staff Present: Ted Baird, Matt Ellsworth, Stacy Kilchenmann, Keith Watts, Len Grady, Jeff Lavey, Tom Barry, Steve Siddoway and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Gorton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as published. Borton: Second. Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Item 3. FY07 Financial Review by Stacy Kilchenmann: Kilchenmann: I put a packet in front of you of draft statements. They weren't ready to go into electronic statements because they were just finished, like they are off of the press. As we talked about last year, this is the first year that we were required to actually do these statements; in other words, take the governmental statements and convert them to GASB statements. It has been very interesting and we have learned a lot. I think we understand the statements better now that we have agonized through the creation of them. We actually - these statements -they all flow from the balance sheet through the income statements -actually from the governmental statements through a conversion to Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 2 of 22 GASB which GASB stands for Governmental Accounting Standards Board. So the income statement has to flow through the balance sheet, through the cash flow and that is the problem because if you are not balanced it will show up one place or the other. So we actually ended up being a dollar off and we are sure it is rounding and they told us it was a material weakness, even though it wasn't nice or something like our statements weren't nice, but we are done. We are not chasing the dollar anymore. So I am just going to briefly go through these statements given they are draft and you will have the final report and I am not going to talk about every single one of them, which you will be relieved. I am not going to go through every GASB statement. So the one on top is actually a governmental fund statement. It is a statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance for the governmental funds. So in other words this is the general fund and a capital projects fund.. This is basically as you are used to looking at the monthly financial statements - we have revenues, expenditures for both general fund and the capital projects fund and we end up with the fund balance.. So if you just look to the bottom and you look at the changes in the fund balance, you see we had a very slight increase in fund balance this year. That is because we spent so much in the capital improvement fund that we used for the City Hall, so you can see that for the general fund; the other funds we actually had a $3.5 million increase. So the next statement that I put in here is - you have seen this one before, it is the general fund revenue projection that we put in the monthly statements and just to review '07, we came in significantly over budgeted in the general fund. The four principle reasons were -the big one was revenue sharing, that was like $1.6 million over what we budgeted and this number is always a tricky one because it is depended on state legislation, it is dependent on the general state economy as a whole, so that is one that we will probably stay conservative with when we budget it for '09. The property tax and when we actually do the property tax we don't have annexation numbers; that usually always comes in higher. So it was $780,000 higher and we had some interest exceeded budget and then our franchise fees exceeded budget and one of the big reasons for that was Intermountain Gas as they had some rate increases and they had a cold year. The next statement is called the statement of revenue expenses and changes in fund balance for the proprietary fund. So this is basically the enterprise fund and this takes information on the monthly statements that you are familiar with and basically restates it into a formalized income statement format. So if we look at the operating income it is $474,000. We do show that in the monthly statements, but this is consolidated for water and wastewater and that income all comes from Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water actually had a slight loss. Then we go back in and we look at non-operating revenues and expenses, which is interest revenue, the assessment fee revenue and then loss on sale fixed assets and that decreased in fair value of expenses. So we came up with a $7.9 million income and that is principally because of connection assessment fees and this is done on an accrual basis so we have depreciation and we do not have what you are used to seeing where we just show the cash that we spent on construction. That construction doesn't show up here because we use the depreciation number. So finally when we get to the Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 3 of 22 bottom line, we also include donated water and sewer lines, which we transfer based on developer, statements of costs, at the end of the year we transfer those into the financial statements. So we ended up with an increase of net assets. You can see that we went from $170 million to $186 million of enterprise fund. Borton: Stacy what is operating transfers out? Kilchenmann: That is the transfer to the general fund.. It is actually a cash transfer. The next statement is the statement of cash flows for the enterprise fund. This, I won't go into the detail, but it is a two page report. The second page of it shows you how we convert the net income from the accrual basis to a cash basis. We go through a lot of things; adding back depreciation, adding back changes and accounts payable changes and accounts receivable so we can just focus strictly on cash. So you can see that the operating activities produced $4.9 million in cash and we have that operating transfer again and we have the $5.2 million in connection assessment fees and then the acquisition of capital assets which is the big number, the $20 million. So that shows you the cash from operations, the cash we use for construction and then the other source of cash are the investments and this year, '07 was spent liquidating investments so that we can pay for construction. So you can see that the sale of investments exceeding the purchase of investments. so that we could generate that $17 million in cash from selling off investments. So we still did end up with a net increase in cash of $6.3 million. But, I think it is important to note that comes from liquidating, mostly liquidating investments. Like I said the second page is just the detail on how we converted the net income. It is another one of those tricky statements that show up if it doesn't balance. The final year end statement, well almost the final year end statement we are going to talk about - I know it is really tiny print and when auditors come back and we do the review we will talk about it in more detail, but the statement of activities is like the premiere focus GASB statement. This is the statement that they were really aiming for when they went through a lot of these changes and what it attempts to do is to show a government's operations and revenues based on programmatic focus. So it takes the whole government and it wants to look at the whole city, the general fund and enterprise fund together as one unit. Then we look by the functions, so we have public safety, parks and recreations, community planning and development and business type activities. It combines them into one statement. So the first column, which I don't know why, but they started out with expenses and I think we are generally used to seeing revenues, but it shows you in the column of format expenses and revenues for each of the governments main functions and then it comes down at the bottom and it picks out some things that cannot be traced to a particular function, which is property taxes, tax franchise fees and lumps those together and then at the end we come up with an ending net assets changing and assets, which for the total city was an increase of $27 million, increase in net assets. Again a lot of that -part of that is generated by income, especially on the general fund side; part of it is generated by changing cash for asset. So we are changing - or we are taking that money Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 4 of 22 and we are increasing our fixed assets with our construction and so forth. The component unit that you will see at the side of a lot of these statements is MDC and we are required to report on them within our financial statements. They have their own audit report. They go through their own statements. But, they also are reported as a part of the component unit for us. Some of this - at the top for the program revenues, where you have operating grants and contributions and then you have capital grants and contributions and you see that big $3.6 million number for Parks; those are impact fees and then we also had, well over $2.7 million in donated land for parks and that is included in here as well as the contributing capital for the enterprise fund is included in here. So those numbers, that $8 million plus $2.7 million that really jumps those net assets up a lot. The final statement is the statement of net assets and that -- this was the income statement for the government as a whole; this is a balance sheet for the government as a whole and it is a two page statement. Again, it is on an accrual basis. It's had the conversion entry so if you took this and you just look at our balance sheet for the general fund, it won't look just like this because we have done conversion entries that I am not going to go through, but the auditors will talk about them and they will be in your audit report, but it is things like depreciation, accruals, changes in fair market value, some odd rules about whether investments are liquid cash or cash (inaudible) depending on their maturity date and so forth. So this is just kind of, again, they look at the -they call it the primary government, the government as a whole a balance sheet and then MDC is included as a component unit. The back page -the second page of the report where its net assets, if you were relating this to a private government that would be like that is your equity, we call it net assets. Are there any questions on these statements? As I said, these are drafts. I don't anticipate them changing, but they will look prettier when you get them. Rountree: Any questions for Stacy? Kilchenmann: I have some more, but that is just on the - it will be short. The next items I put into your packet are just current jumping into '08 and in the financial statements we are going to start including fund balance projections and the first one on top is the fund balance projection for the enterprise fund. What we are doing is we are taking -where we ended the year, then we are projecting revenue expense basically off of the balance sheet, but as we get more actual revenue we will start trending that to actual instead of just - or not the balance sheet, the budget, but we will start trending that to actual and then we have the amendments and we are adding them as they have been approved. So that tells you the net fund balance after amendments. So you can see -then we always want to reserve three to four months of operating. So you can see the enterprise fund balances projection has dropped considerably; so I just wanted you to be aware of that as you kind of go through the amendment process and so forth. The next one is one you have seen too; this is the general fund and this report was actually done to look at the cost of the city hall. So I am going to change this because it doesn't really highlight the fund balance, it is more looking at City Hall. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 5 of 22 So we go down, we look at what we ended the year with the fund balance and this does not do a projection of new income. So we will add this is just static like the fund balance was at the end of the year. We are trying to update what we think we need to add to the budget for the City Hall. So right now we are looking at an increase of about $2.7 million that will need to amend the budget for City Hall, which leaves us without the additional revenue from '08 with an unreserved general fund balance of $7.8 million and we do take out, again, $6.5 million for an operating reserve that we would never want to go below. Then the final statement is the development services fund and that fund -this is updated through December, so I just updated it and December was not a good month. I looked back at historical figures and this year, of course, is trending lower than any of the prior years for this time. So even though we actually had in '05 and '06 the building permit numbers were fairly high for the fall months and they are not this month. So just based on what's happened in the first quarter; we would look at about a $300 deficit in that fund - or it changed fund balance, it just didn't say deficit because again we do have that operating reserve that we always keep in that fund.. Are there any questions on any of that? Rountree: I don't see any questions Stacy. Good job. I know it was a struggle converting to this new responsibility the city has and I can tell you a week ago they were chasing a size of a chunk of money trying to make things balance and as of I think just recently in the last day or two it is down to a dollar. Kilchenmann: Yeah, it is that rounding. Rountree: Good job. Kilchenmann: We are screaming unclear for that. He said it wouldn't be material weakness if we were off a dollar, it just wouldn't look nice. So if you were to add up every number, it would be off a dollar. Rountree: Thank you. I trust you. Zaremba: Mr. President. Rountree.: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I also thank you for this and it was a very clear explanation. I was understanding it as you went along., which was cool. I actually had an unrelated question. I think we all got an email from you about the Pine Street School. Did you get an answer on that? It was my understanding that we were not paying the full cost of it that the School District was paying the balance that we didn't approve. Did I understand that wrong - or? Bird: I thought Mr. Borton's motion was to pay up to not to exceed $55,000. Isn't that right? Where's the minutes on that? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 6 of 22 Zaremba: So the only question is that we have not actually done a budget amendment (inaudible)? Kilchenmann: I didn't find an actual motion. I mean you could just do a budget amendment and approve that. Bird: We had a motion. I know that. Watts: Excuse me Council Members, I did go through all of the minutes and we have not authorized the spending of those funds, only the $10,000. I went back to February of last year and searched all of the minutes. There was quite a bit of discussion, but it was never brought for a voter a decision. We had an estimate of $65,000 I think for the total project. Bird: We went down (inaudible) not to exceed $5.5,000 and it was passed on a motion. Joe made the motion, I can't remember who seconded it, but it has got to be in the minutes somewhere. Zaremba: That does sound familiar to me. I may have been the second. Bird: So we need to find the minutes and get it cleared up. Kilchenmann: I will write a budget amendment, just so you can approve the budget amendment because when you formally approve those it gets them into our system so at the end of the year we don't forget to actually amend the budget for that. Zaremba: So when we go to do this for next year - Kilchenmann: Yeah it is in there. Rountree: If you'd do that we would appreciate it. Kilchenmann: Okay, I will send it to somebody. I will send it to Will to put on the Consent Agenda. Rountree: Thank you, Stacy. Before we go on to Item Number 4 I just wanted to recognize our new Public Works Director, Tom Barry. Tom, welcome. Today is your first full day, I understand.. Not new to us, but new to the position, Steve Siddoway. Steve, welcome. Item 4. Discussion Regarding Proposed Local Option Tax Legislation by Matt Ellsworth: Ellsworth: Thank you Mr. President, Members of the Council. Again for this item am doing more of an introduction than I am the actual presentation. This item Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 7 of 22 pertains to the proposed local option sales tax legislation that will be coming up this spring to the Idaho Legislature and here with us to describe some of the changes from the earlier draft that was presented several weeks ago to the newer draft that is currently on the table is Matt Stohl the Executive Director for Community Planning Association. Stohl: Mayor, Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to review with you the proposed legislation and our request for a passage of a resolution supporting the legislation as we have drafted it. As you remember when a couple weeks back when I met with you all, we had taken the existing Regional Public Transportation Authority Act and tailored it to add in a revenue stream and also to add in a revenue stream for both public transportation and roadways. We shopped at legislation around., got some good feedback across the State of Idaho from local governments sent from legislators and basically we redrafted and created a separate act that would rescind the existing Regional Public Transportation Authority Act and create a Regional Transportation Authority Act that would fund a transportation system utilizing sales tax upon approval of the legislature to go to ask the citizens whether they are willing to tax themselves and the transportation system that would be funded would be roadways, above and beyond existing funding streams that are provided to local governments and to the State's Transportation Department and then also if it is a desired requirement of the citizens, a public transportation system which this Regional Transportation Authority would operate on if the Board that operates the authority so desired. The Act is slightly different than what we presented to you in several ways. The Horizon year, if you remember in the past that we had identified that it would be a 20 year Horizon year, so that basically once the citizens voted on the proposed plan that if they cast it at a two thirds majority level that it would continue on for 20 years. There also was bonding requirements associated with that and the tax would not sunset even if you the citizens declined to renew the local option authority. The tax would continue until the bond indebtedness was .paid off. They cause a lot of confusion as I am having trouble just describing it. So, what we did is we had a 30 year - we added a 30 year window for the bond for the authorization of the sales tax. Any bond indebtedness that is approved by the citizens has to conclude within that 30 year window. So the citizens know once that 30 year is done and if they decide not to renew the local option sales tax then everything is completed and the sales tax goes back to the state general sales tax as is proposed by the State Legislature. We also took away any requirements regarding voting structure of the Board. We wanted to allow that to be specified by the individual Board and regions to decide how they want to govern themselves through their own governing structure. Then we also eliminated the requirement that the Metropolitan Planning Organization would be this Regional Transportation Authority and enforcing the merger of the Transit Authority with the MPO. We wanted to allow that to be decided upon by the individual region and that is something that is forced through state legislative rationale. Interestingly enough we felt that also that we didn't want to have a creature of the Federal Government being specified as a requirement to be the Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 8 of 22 receiving agency for the local option sales tax and we have heard from some of the house leadership that asked the question of why don't you just have the MPO doing that? So we have kind of gone full circle on that, but we are keeping legislation the way that it is. With that I will stand for any questions. I think that pretty much summarizes what we had proposed to you at the last meeting and then identifies the specific changes. I would like to -there is a lot of confusion on this bill in that number one we are not talking about taking away any operational authority away from the road building agencies like an ACRD or the Highway Districts or even the cities in Canyon County and we are not talking about taking on any road building authority from the Transportation Department. This would be a funding. mechanism. A granting agency above and beyond existing revenue streams that is available to those agencies. Then if the Electorate decided that they wanted to have a public transportation system they would be allowed to fund their public transportation system utilizing this revenue stream. Rountree: Any other questions for Matt? Zaremba: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: May actually be a question for Mr. Nary and it may be - I don't know if this is going to be our next subject or whether you are included in this. My question is actually about our resolution and how it is worded.. I will say that .have because of various different committees and wards I have had an opportunity to see most of the iterations of this legislation as it went along. I think the current version is excellent and hoping stands a good chance of passing and certainly with my support subject to a little semantics here, but I think that what has come as a result of expanding it to a state-wide look has been an excellent addition and the other changes make this a superb piece of legislation. Now the question is are we going to talk about our resolution or were you going to say something about that separately? Stohl: I wasn't sure exactly when you were going to be considering the resolution. We have provided to your attorney and to the Council a sample resolution, but' it was pretty generic and applicable to any governmental agency in the Valley. The intent was that you would draft that and change it to meet your particular needs for your agency and certainly we have seen a variety of options across the two counties that folks have changed it significantly and other folks have just cut and paste the names in there. What our main thing is that we want to be able to say each city and local governmental entity in this Valley has signed on and supported this legislation as it is drafted. The reality is once we go into negotiations with the Legislature on the Legislation what we presented to you is probably not what is going to get adopted if anything gets adopted by the State - or passed by the State Legislature. That is just a reality of the political process. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 9 of 22 Zaremba: I guess I will first ask the question I was going to ask and then ask Mr. Nary if he has had the chance to analyze it. I really am picking on one word and that is in the - in Section 1 of what we would actually be resolving is that we agree with the local option sales tax for transportation and it is the word transportation -and the reason I bring this up is that one of the issues that keeps coming up is that state wide there may not be the need for public transportation that way that we have it here and everybody keeps threatening to cut that word out of the legislation or that possibility out of it. My feeling is that while I understand that there is going to be other iterations of this legislation and it will be massaged., I feel it is important to make the statement that what is being asked for now, which is the local ability to choose whether or not -whoever decides to do this, if they do it and if they get it .passed by the local voters can put money into roadways or public transit or their own balance of either one of them. Our statement that we are just in favor of the local option sales tax for transportation certainly covers that, but it would also cover that we have agreed that they could cut out public transportation from the legislation and I feel that needs (inaudible) remain our approval of what you are trying to take forward needs to strongly support keeping public transportation in it. Any other opinions? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba we have advanced beyond Item 4 and into Item 5 for discussion. Matt do you have anything more you want to offer and then we can discuss that item and I can respond to Mr. Zaremba's concern? Stohl: Unless there are any questions then no I don't have anything else to add. Rountree: Okay, if you would stay in case there are questions? Stohl: Certainly. Item 5. Resolution No. 08-595 :Support for Local Option Tax Legislation: Rountree: I guess in .response to your comment, Mr. Zaremba, the word transportation is defined in the statute to include public transportation and all the lengthy things that can be associated with public transportation. It is a generic term as far as the legislation goes. I don't think this resolution by its nature would take away from public transportation. I think the transportation usage here is as it is defined in the legislation.. I guess my question was could it be interpreted if the legislators tried to cut public transportation out of the legislation and does our wording sound like we support that iteration of it? That change? De Weerd: Mr. President. Rountree: Madame Mayor. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 10 of 22 De Weerd: Personally I would guess we had that discussion then and that question was asked of me several weeks ago before this was even a discussion and said it is not an issue right now. I don't know if anyone else feels that that needs to be clarified., but we are going under the basis of the definition. Zaremba: If everybody is satisfied I would be happy to move the resolution forward. Bird: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: I have no problem. If you look at the proposed wording .in the deal it covers both the roads and transportation and all we are doing is basically by this resolution is agreeing and supporting the opportunity for our citizen tax payers to put themselves on an option tax if they prefer for transportation., whether it is public transportation or highways. That is the way that I look at it. So, I have no problem with the resolution. I think it is good. Rountree: Any further discussion or comments? Zaremba: Mr. President did we get Mr. Nary's comments? Nary: Madame Mayor, Mr. President and Members of the Council I would agree. In reading the resolution it obviously is fairly open ended. It would seem to me that if the concern that you raise was really an issue in a community, they don't need to cut out that they have the option on how it gets spent and the direction that it goes.. So I am not sure that - I think what you raise is a valid point. I don't know that ultimately that that would be the area that people would address it in. I think they could certainly address it to their individual voters how they want it, but I think leaving it broader certainly gives the community that flexibility that you are looking for. Zaremba: That is my point. I want to preserve that in the legislation and not have the Legislature not be able to cut a piece of it out. So if we think that that is what this says, I am comfortable with it. Bird.: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: David regardless of what we adopt in our resolution, all we are doing is we are saying we are supporting this bill that Matt and Kelli and Charlie and all of the people in that has taken forward. But, we can't tell a Legislature what they are going to adopt. We support the local option tax in a resolution. I think I have been very forward that if it passes and comes back, I am not sure that I would Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 11 of 22 support the local option tax. But, still our taxpayers have the right to vote on it. If they want to use it for public transportation or for roads or for both that is the way it should be. I think the Legislature -they are going to change it a little bit, but think they understand that. I hope. So I think our resolution is perfect myself. Rountree: Further comments? Zaremba: Mr. President, if the Clerk would assign a resolution number, I would make the motion. Bird: Identify it. Zaremba: Okay, in that case I move we approve Resolution No. 08-595 in support of the Local Option Tax Legislation as presented to us. Bird: Second.. Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to approve Resolution No. 08-595. Berg: Thank you Mr. President, if I could take the liberty to read the title so the public understands this resolution. Resolution No. 08-595 by the City of Meridian to support legislation for local governments to establish a regional transportation authority and to seek voter approval of an associated local option tax authority - excuse me, local option sales tax authority. Roll Call Vote: Zaremba, aye; Bird., aye; Borton, aye; Rountree, aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Item 6. Roadway Design for West Franklin Road from Linder Road to Ten Mile Road ~in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan by Matt Ellsworth: Ellsworth: Thank you Mr. President, Madame Mayor and Members of the Council the next item is consideration of ACHD's design of Franklin Road from Linder to Ten Mile, but briefly and kind of a heads up and other ACHD news. ACHD is moving forward with developing the next annual update of the Five Year Work Plan. Their targeted date for adoption of that plan is February 27tH. In light of the fact that Council will not convene for the next two weeks, what I proposed doing to request your input on that plan was to prepare a memo over the course of this week to circulate among you and provide different details and so forth as far as the data breakdown; but at the higher level here ACHD's Commission will get together on February 13tH to finalize the draft. Also related is on the 19tH ACHD will open the bids for the East Park Center Bridge, which may wind up having additional implications for finalization of the plan, but once again as I just mentioned February 27tH is the target date for adoption of the plans. So that is Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 12 of 22 just kind of a heads up. Expect some more information on that later this week. Diving into the design of Franklin Road from Linder to Ten Mile, ACHD is working through that roadway project design and here with us this evening is ACHD's Project Manager for that one mile segment, Tim Morgan of ACHD. So back in 2007 ACHD went through a conceptual design for this one mile segment of roadway, which of course is a part of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Up on the overhead there is the cross section that came out of the concept design.. As you can see it entails a five foot separated sidewalk, a 5'/2 foot safety shoulder, two 12 foot travel lanes, continuous center turn lanes and it is symmetrical, so it is the same thing on both sides there. In the Interchange Specific Area Plan, which was adopted last year, certain cross sections are proposed to get back to livable streets and other elements of that plan -- the high level again -what the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan proposes for Franklin Road is a four lane parkway with restricted access, bike lanes, raised landscape medians and detached sidewalks. Current lane uses in this area as you can see, the area on the overhead that is tanned out are the parcels that have already annexed into the city, essentially 75 percent of the adjacent land directing north of Franklin Road between Ten Mile and Linder has annexed into the city and it is all zoned industrial. To the south, obviously there is a lot more undeveloped land, so potentially some more flexibility as to what moves forward in the future. ACHD staff approached city staff early on in the engineering design for this one mile segment to discuss the design and how best to incorporate some of the recommendations of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Through those discussions, ACRD staff and city staff developed an additional alternative, which we are presenting to you for consideration this evening. Elements of that proposed design - on one hand it scales back the total amount of right-of-way from 96 feet to 78 feet. The majority of that savings is with the detached sidewalks. What this alternative proposes, rather than having ACRD purchase the right-of-way for from the back of curb, a 5 foot separation, an additional 5 foot sidewalk and then 2 feet for maintenance and so forth, having the amount of right-of-way secured to 2 feet from behind the curb and that is for, again, maintenance, it is for the base of the road and it is for a lot of different reasons that they would do that. Working in between the curbs, it extends the shoulder to, which was at 5 '/2 foot un-striped shoulder to a 6 '/2 foot striped bike lane, which comes down to a 5 foot bike lane and a 1 '/2 foot gutter pan. Travel lanes going in both directions are still 12 foot. The amount of space for the center median is 12 feet, curb to curb on the median itself, it would be a 9 foot median with 6 inches of curb on either side would allow 8 feet for planting in that median and then again 12 foot travel lanes in other directions, 6 foot bike lane. Now on the north side of Franklin, along this one mile segment there are power poles; so there are certain challenges to an attached verses a detached sidewalk. The initial thought was there may be an opportunity through development to save ACHD some of the right-of-way costs by rather than constructing permanent attached sidewalk concrete to attach an asphalt temporary sidewalk, which would suffice between now and when development occurs. Of course with the power poles along the northern edge of the street and Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 13 of 22 in light of the fact that three quarters of that land is already annexed into the city and has established existing uses on it, the likelihood of redevelopment in near future is somewhat limited and so instead on the northern side of the street what ACRD staff and city staff came up with is instead of 5 foot separation, 3 feet of which would be in an easement and then an easement for the rest of the 5 foot sidewalk and that would be in concrete because once again if this land doesn't redevelop in the foreseeable future, something a little bit more long term than an asphalt temporary sidewalk may be appropriate. Looking to the south side of the street where there is a bit more undeveloped land, the thought is that between the completion of construction of this roadway project and when development occurs that a temporary 5 foot asphalt sidewalk may suffice. Down the road when the development does occur for the specifications of the Interchange Specific Area Plan, the developments could then construct the permanent concrete sidewalks. For several advantages as well as disadvantages of this alternative that is in front of you today, ACRD staff estimates as much as $200,000 could be saved on right-of-way, the difference between the 96 feet and 78 feet and also construction in the asphalt pathway would cost a bit less than the concrete, although the cost is not all as much. Another advantage is that it permanently establishes left turn locations, which was a big component of the Interchange Specific Area Plan as identifying locations for future accesses to preserve the function of the arterial network and again, in general it advances the intent of the Specific Area Plan, both with the bike lanes providing opportunities for more modes of travel and also with the installation of a landscape that would be fitted for conduit for future irrigation hook-ins once city services are available and the city decides to move forward with landscaping. Some of the disadvantages include if sidewalks are constructed prior to development meaning if the construction of this roadway occurs before development occurs, a separated attached sidewalk will not be as attractive as a detached concrete sidewalk. There would also be limited flexibility in access locations due to the center median there -where the breaks are in the median is kind of where the left turns would be an option at that point. Number three existing access becomes right-in right-out with the exception of those median breaks and this may present somewhat of inconvenience for some of the existing users especially further toward the eastern edge of this one mile segment. The Bus Barn is a perfect example. In conversations with one landowner in particular, David Turnbull from Brighton Corporation submitted a letter to me this afternoon, which I would like to now read onto the record if that is okay with Council? It is dated January 22, 2008 to Mayor Tammy de Weerd and Meridian City Council regarding Franklin, Linder, Ten Mile design. "As you review ACHD's design plans for Franklin Road this evening I want to affirm Brighton's support as an active participant in Ten Mile Specific Area Plan and the design efforts of ITD and ACHD. The city's vision for the Ten Mile Plan will be realized through the success of the private sector as it implements the plan to bring goods, services and commerce to the city and surrounding area. The private sector success will depend in large part on the efficiency of the roadway system design; but more importantly on the ease of access to businesses fronting Franklin and Ten Mile. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 14 of 22 With that foremost in our site development planning, we have worked closely with the Transportation Planners to secure commitment for access. Specific to Franklin Road in a letter dated September 21, 2007, ACHD agreed with our request for access at the following points. Point 1 "the right-in right-out driveway located 220 feet east of Ten Mile Road will be constructed with ACHD project as a commercial access". Point 2 "the proposed full access located at 660 feet east of Ten Mile Road is expected to conform with near term changes to the access management policy and, therefore, as approved as a commercial access". Point 3 "the proposed public street located at 1,330 feet east of Ten Mile Road is located in accordance with the Ten Mile Area Plan and has the full support of staff'. We support the roadway treatments noted in the staff memo, including the four lane parkway, landscaped medians, restricted access to that noted above detached sidewalks preferring an 8 foot planter strip will provide easements to ACHD and bike lanes. However, we believe that placing a temporary attached asphalt sidewalk would be unsightly, unsafe and a waste of resources. We would propose that at least to the extent of our property that the sidewalk would be installed in the location anticipated by the Ten Mile Plan, which I believe, is an 8 foot separation. If ACHD needs additional right-of-way to accommodate that configuration, we would be willing to grant an easement. We ask that the Mayor and Council support the mutual commitments between Brighton and ACHD in the planning design on Franklin Road, sincerely, David Turnbull, President, Brighton Corporation." In addition, I was going to read some components of the letter referenced by Brighton, the September 21, 2007 letter to Matt Smith at Brighton Corporation from Gary Inselman, Manager of Roadway and Development Services at ACRD - "Dear Matt, staff has analyzed the proposed locations of the future access points for the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Franklin Road. As previously discussed I would like to reiterate that while staff can support the proposed access points at this time, the access points will be reviewed with the submission of a future development application in the context of the proposed land use -the transportation conditions at that time when the Ten Mile Area Plan is adopted by the City of Meridian". It goes on to acknowledge the same access locations that Mr. Turnbull identified in his letter to me today. Moving on to the final paragraph in Mr. Inselman's letter is "it is important to consider that the City of Meridian is also very concerned about access management and that the city may be more restrictive than ACHD. It will be critical that as the land use changes in the future, the location of access points be coordinated with not only ACHD, but also the City of Meridian in relation to their ordinances and the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan. If you will recall from the Specific Area Plan, again, access management was one of the primary focuses of that; the Interchange Specific Area Plan was adopted into a Comprehensive Plan and briefly as it relates to access control, the Ten Mile Plan states that based on the proposed street network and in order to facilitate traffic and optimize performance, direct property access to arterial streets is prohibited". There is other support language that we can dive into a little bit more in-depth if Council would like, but in the meantime, I would like to open it up to any questions that you may have at this point relating to the proposed alternative design or original design. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 15 of 22 Rountree: Any questions for Matt? Zaremba: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Excellent work and I know a lot of work has gone into this with a lot of people and a lot of thought. Can you go back to -you had an aerial of the current land uses? The specific spot I would ask about, you made some mention of it, but this is Sanitary Services, this is the Bus Barn - (Tape turned over) Zaremba: -- this is on both ends there. They have, as I recall, I don't see Wendell Bigham here, but they have enough space there to buy 100 more busses and I think they are planning on having a 100 more busses, so I guess my question is going to be based on my experience of driving Franklin Road as it is now, we have two things in close proximity, where large vehicles are making turning movements and way back when there was an open house by ACHD, I put in the suggestion that the center turn lane be widened beyond its standard 12 feet to maybe 14 feet and that there be acceleration, deceleration lanes along the north side. I realize there is constriction because of the power poles, but that means acquiring probably more property to the south and the center line will deviate just a little bit. But, has there been any continuing discussion of providing a little extra space for the turning movements of the large vehicles in that small area or is there a way to accommodate it by making the roadway 4 feet wider at that point or can we do acceleration, deceleration lanes? I guess that is my question. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Madame Mayor there have not been any discussions between ACRD staff and I to that effect as yet as far as the potential to do so, I may defer to Tim Morgan, ACHD's Project Manager. Morgan: President, Madame Mayor and Council the concept design which was completed in March 2007 didn't have any additional or a wider center turn lane or an acceleration or deceleration lights included in that. I just picked the project up since that was completed and I would have to go back and look to see why or if anything was warranted. Zaremba: I guess I would ask is there any wisdom in having that small piece of it reconsidered? The school busses in particular have .pretty good rear overhang and when they turn they can take up more space - I guess I would just like - if it is not a good idea and it gets rejected, I would at least like to know that somebody thought about it and considered it. Morgan: Okay. I can look into that and. get back to Matt. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 16 of 22 Zaremba: Okay, I would appreciate that. Rountree: Comments, questions? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Madame Mayor and Members of the Council I would also point out that when this roadway project is completed, there will be the additional three lanes in either direction and that obviously has impacts for the turn radiuses that would be allowed. But again, as Tim said as far as looking into the additional amounts of right-of-way we haven't dived into that. De Weerd': Mr. President. Rountree: Madame Mayor. De Weerd.: I guess I need to understand the sidewalk situation. The city is encouraged detached sidewalks. In particular on these kind of arterials because of the speed and the amount of traffic that is carried and certainly I know that the avid bicyclists likes to ride their bikes on the pavement, but most of us, at least parents, would prefer to see our kids ride their bicycles on an off street system more in terms of sidewalks in enlarged sidewalks. What did the Ten Mile Area Plan envision as far as that and is this consistent with whatever that plan envisioned? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Madame Mayor and Members of the Council the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan does envision detached sidewalks and if you look on the overhead there that is the cross section in the adopted plan. I assume it is detached at least 8 feet and the reason I say that is that is because it is a rather large tree there in between the back of the curb and the start of the sidewalks. So for ACHD's tree policy it has to be at least 8 feet. Now you are correct it would be inconsistent with Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan today, but the rationale at the staff level is that between now and when development occurs, the attached sidewalk may be acceptable and the reason is because if the adjacent land uses are not there to generate some of those pedestrian trips then the likelihood of those pedestrian trips occurring is somewhat minimal. De Weerd: So do you lose your opportunity for the detached? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Madame Mayor and Members of the Council the discussions at staff level would be for that to be a requirement of development upon annexation of the parcel. De Weerd: So you will have a chalked up sidewalk system until every parcel develops? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Madame Mayor and Members of the Council on the one hand looking back to the ownership map there are some rather large parcels Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 17 of 22 in that area so at the staff level we are hoping that that would take care of some of that concern, although there would still be the possibility of a poorly connected system. Although, I think there could be some opportunity when we get into the specifics of this to design it such that it would be a connected usable system and even if everything didn't annex in at the same time. Rountree: Further comments, questions? I think Matt is looking for some guidance in terms of how do we move forward? David did you want to say anything since you submitted a letter to us? Turnbull: Members of the Council, Madame Mayor thank you for the opportunity. I would say in the matter of the detached sidewalks, it appalls me as a taxpayer or as a private developer to see resources wasted and to have something put in on a temporary basis only to be torn up and then replaced later when it could be done right the first time. It seems like just such a case. So, you know if - we own some of that property along Franklin Road. We own a quarter of a mile of it, the quarter section there right on the southeast corner. I think ACHD has already acquired from us the right-of-way for this project and what we are suggesting in our letter is in order to accommodate the 8 foot detached sidewalk, they require an additional right-of-way we would be happy to provide that in an easement for them. That way we get a continuous system. You get it done right the first time instead of putting in something temporary that is going to be, one, unsightly; two, unsafe and three just a waste of resources. So that is what we are suggesting at least as far as our property goes and so when ACHD is designing this, we feel like let's just it right the first time and then we don't have any retrofits. As far as the access issue, this is something that just goes to the viability of the Master Plan out there and we have worked with ACHD and we have, I guess, been very accommodating to the concerns about access restrictions in multiple parts of this city and have agreed to access restrictions and even in this case we went to them and asked what are your access restriction policies going to be in your upcoming policy draft and let's work with those. So we are not even asking for access that would be allowed under their current access management plan, but what their future access management plan would be and so that is what Gary Inselman was referring to there in the letter to us in August, I believe, of 2007. So those are our concerns. If those aren't acceptable then we would say don't put the median in and let those things work themselves out as development occurs, but to put a median in and block off access points that we think are necessary for the viability of a project there of what has been approved in the Comprehensive Plan, we think that is critical. Otherwise, we may be coming back in for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to put all back into residential because without access, of course, commercial is very difficult to do. That is the concerns and that is why we post letter. We are supportive of the corridor that has been envisioned there and we just want to be on the record for indicating what it is going to take for us to .have an attractive and a viable development in that area. Any questions, I would be happy to answer. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 18 of 22 Rountree: David was your concept with you providing an easement with a separated sidewalk (inaudible) that you would incorporate that as part of your landscape requirement? Turnbull: Yes. Rountree: Okay. Which is similar to the concept that we have done on Eagle Road. Turnbull: Yes. Rountree: Any other questions of Matt or David? Does anybody else want to speak on this particular topic while I have opened it up? Concerns, questions, direction? De Weerd: Matt do you have anything more to say? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Madame Mayor and Members of the Council just to provide some of the background on a suggestion of a separated sidewalk -the notion there was to save ACHD some of the cost of securing the right-of-way for the detachment. Mr. Turnbull's suggestion to include that in an easement would meet the same intent and in fact I think that is a much better idea and that makes a lot more sense than having the attached. Again, just so that you are aware of staffs rationale in making the initial suggestion, Mr. Turnbull's letter outlines a solution that may address some of the Mayor's concerns and still meet the intent of staff in making the original suggestion. Rountree: Thank you, Matt and I guess I will just throw this out and I don't know that we will go with direction tonight, maybe shortly. But, I like the idea of the separated sidewalk. I like the idea of not building something and having to turn around and tear it out because we all look bad when we do that. I like what we have flexed and done kind of in a partnership on Eagle Road with developers to let them incorporate part of their landscape requirements in the existing right-of- way orthe sidewalks, so they benefit a little bit with a little more space to develop on. We benefit with the fact that they provided a landscaping in the sidewalk and in a lot of instances the maintenance, the traveling public doesn't know the difference, I think we are getting a pretty good product doing that. I just throw this out is that something that we want to consider on this one and maybe make a statement to ACHD that we would be willing to work with them on other properties out there to let those property owners know that if they were to give an easement as they develop that there is this accommodation on the part of the city's part with respect to the sidewalk landscaping requirements and setbacks. mean we could float that amongst ourselves. I am not saying let's act on it tonight, if you want to think about. Matt what is the deadline on this? Is ACHD in a holding pattern waiting for us, I doubt? But, if they are it is pretty soon, but if they have got a couple of weeks maybe we could get back. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 19 of 22 Ellsworfih: For that, again, I may defer to Tim Morgan. I know that there is a schedule associated with the design, but I would let him speak to that. Morgan: President, Madame Mayor and Council the design consultant is on board and ready to go, so soon is better. If you needed a couple of weeks to make a more informed decision - I will just add that we did while looking at the sidewalk as originally it was just focusing on the south side was a 5 foot setback and then a 5 foot sidewalk is what came out of the design - or out of the concept designs. Looking at increasing the safety shoulder by a foot on each side, it took about 2 feet of that space and then Iguess -and also originally it was just the 5 feet, which you can't put a tree in and the ultimate plan is to have a wider setback, even 8 feet or beyond - in the interim we would do just a temporary attached and because we did the 5 feet even in concrete you still couldn't put trees in there in the future. Also to note this is currently in the current draft of the Five Year Work Plan is for construction in 2013, there is a high likelihood that development may occur before we even build a project and then the developer would be building the setbacks sidewalk and we wouldn't actually put in the temporary sidewalk. So, your guess is as good as mine as whether that is the case. Rountree: Okay, thank you. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. President, I guess my question would be why do we need to even bother with a temporary? Are there likely to be -there aren't schools along that line. There aren't going to be people walking to school. There are no sidewalks now and I realize that our in goal is to approve that, but if we are talking about construction timeframe of 2013 and the likelihood that development may be occurring either by then or soon after that, why even bother with a temporary one? I am going to the wrong direction with it? Morgan: I think - I asked that question and ADA requires that we do build the sidewalk on that section and to meet the ADA requirements, at least a minimum sidewalk. Borton: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Borton. Borton: To cut it sort of short, I am fully supportive of the alternative design. After hearing everyone's comments and I appreciate, Matt, the work you put into this. Inclusive of what Mr. Turnbull has said and addressed, with providing the permanent sidewalk and the easement, so to answer today's question at least that is my position. I think what you bring up and you want to put forth a broader policy to make others aware of - or not as if (inaudible) a right to do it, but they were open to that alternate solution and that is not a bad idea. For the purposes Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 20 of 22 of today I am comfortable with the alternative plan and the permanent sidewalk component. Rountree: Mr. Borton would that be a motion? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council just to make sure that I am clear. Mr. Borton, were you speaking in support of the alternative cross section or the component of the alternative cross section relative to the sidewalks? Borton: The former. Ellsworth: Okay. Borton: I think that was the discussion and, I think, that was what Mr. Turnbull was conveying and it sounds like that was the blended solution, which made most sense to me. Morgan: Mr. President, Madame Mayor and Council I guess schedule wise the raised median - a decision on that on how to move forward and that could keep our consultant going and the design on schedule. How the sidewalk is worked out is kind of on the edge of things and it isn't necessarily a critical scheduled component. So, if you have more direction on that or your thoughts on that? Rountree: Council? Borton: Mr. President, I think the alternative design it had the raised median component within it. Morgan: From your Ten Mile Specific Area, yeah that is correct. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council if I may, just to make sure that everybody is clear the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan proposes the two full accesses as indicated on the board there; now Mr. Turnbull's letter proposes an additional full access, which would also require a break in that median in excess from what is outlined in the Specific Area Plan, so just to make sure that everybody is aware about the difference between what Mr. Turnbull's letter stated and what the alternative that staff is proposing has on the table. Rountree: Is that understood, Council? Borton: Yes. Bird: Yeah. Rountree: So do you need a motion Matt or do you just need us to nod our heads that what you have wrapped up is our direction? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 21 of 22 Ellsworth: Again, Mr. President, Members of the Council I may defer to Mr. Morgan on that since he is sort of steering the ship with the roadway design. Tim, would you need a motion or would you need a nod of the head? Morgan: At this time, I think a nod of the head is fine. We will need to work on a cooperative agreement that defines that yes everyone is on board with holding the two locations is the only full access locations and I think that is it. Zaremba: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I am on board with the medians. I would like to see consideration given to the third access. I certainly understand the nature of what we are hoping happens here and Mr. Turnbull is offering to do if it works out to be economically pleasing for him -Franklin is going to need to be fairly limited access, but I can see the reason for having the accesses that he is suggesting. While I am in favor of the median, I can see punching an extra hole in it and I have already raised my other issue is to make sure that somebody has looked at this turning movement safety of the oversized vehicles and whether we need an extra foot or two on the lanes. Rountree: Council, not to hurry this along, but if we could get this wrapped up, we have got another item that we have got to attend to. Borton: Mr. President, I don't disagree, the three accesses is my intent. Bird: I am with you. Let's get it going. Rountree: I guess my point on the access is I think it is premature. You have got other owners out there that are probably going to be paying a visit to your board looking at accesses as the design goes through design hearing process, so what we say tonight with respect to access may be different six months from now, but in terms of considering it, yes. Item 7. 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) & (c) - (to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property, which is not owned by a public agency): Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67- 2345(1)(a)(c). Zaremba: Second. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting January 22, 2008 Page 22 of 22 Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to go into Executive Session. Roll call vote. Roll Call Vote: Bird, aye; Zaremba, aye; Borton, aye; Rountree, aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Bird: Mr. President, I move we come out of Executive Session. Borton: Second.. Rountree: It has been moved and seconded to come out of Executive Session. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Borton: Move to adjourn.. Bird: Second. Rountree: All those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: TAMMY D ERD, MAYOR ATTESTED: U~~a~ ~o~ DATE APPROVED .~ ti T ~ FO _ , JAYCE OLMAN, CITY R ~, - ~' 9Q~T 1~T ' 1 .~~ ~ ., ''%,,~~~aCt~l~Y ~~~~~'