Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-11• C�VE IDIAN--- • CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING / WORKSHOP AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. 0 David Zaremba X Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item Agenda Item Presenter Action Needed Time 1 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE City Clerk taken - 2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA City Council approve 15 �ti - 3 COMMUNITY ITEMS / PRESENTATIONS (a) Tour New City Hall Building Petra, Inc. 25 mins Construction Site (b) Update on City Hall Building Petra, Inc. & 10 mins LCA Architects (c) Arts Commission Update Meg Peters — direction on art 15 mins Arts budget for new city Commission hall Chair — feedback on percentage for public art program facilitator for strategic planning xr,,*qr (d) ACHD Roundabout Siting & Peter Friedman endorse or modify alilh 60 mins Design Critera — Planning Dept recommendations from Transportation Task Force 74,o CrL. Meridian City Council Special Meeting / Workshop Agenda — December 11, 2007 Page 1 of 2 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. u Meridian City Council Special Meeting / Workshop Agenda — December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly 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) City Transportation Corridor Matt Ellsworth — 10 mins Priorities — STP-TMA Funds Planning Dept 12^ds or• r�fph. (f) Support Proposed Matt Ellsworth — Prepare Forr ction 5 mins Legislation for Local Funding Planning Dept on December 18th Options for Transportation (g) Issues / Items for Joint Peter Friedman 15 mins Workshop with ACHD 1-7-08 — Planning Dept (h) Kit Kat Club Construction Barry Tassler / request for sewer 15 mins Improvements Anna Canning service 4 CITY POLICY REVIEW (a) Policy on Surplus Property Joe Borton Direction 15 mins (b) Update on Revised Policies Bill Nary Update 5 mins 5 Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f) — (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation); Meridian City Council Special Meeting / Workshop Agenda — December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly 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. Broadcast Report Date/Time 12-07-2007 01:38:42 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 " ` ifl]Si Vbsf qtr ' -W-- .C., Nki-A'x,--ihOjU4 Total Paaes Scanned : 2 C�fER,IDIAN*--, IDAHd CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ! WORKSHOP AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. _ David Zaremba ,toe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird _ Mayor Tammy de Weerd 1 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE City Clerk taken Remote Station 2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA City Council approve 3 COMMUNITY ITEMS / Mode Job Type Results PRESENTATIONS 502 3810160 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 (a) Tour New City Hail Building Petra, Inc. 25 mins EC Construction Site CP9600 002 502 (b) Update on City Hall Building Petra, Inc. & 10 mins 2/2 1 LCA Architects HS CP19200 (c) Arts Commission Update Meg Peters - - direction on art 15 mins 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:24 Arts budget for new city 1 EC HS Commission hall 004 502 8886854 Chair - feedback on 00:00:23 2/2 1 percentage for public HS CP31200 005 all program 2088985501 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:29 -- facilitator fpr 1 EC HS strategic planning 006 502 (d) ACRD Roundabout Siting & Peter Friedman endorse or modify 60 mins 2/2 Design Critera - Pianning Dept recommendations HS CP28800 007 from Transportation 8950390 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:44 Task Force 11 ------.. _ ...__..,.y, .........,�.. „yo.„,aw,,w, gcwr rage i orz Ail materia--ls pr..esented at public meetings..shall become—�prop.erty of the City of merk9an. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabWes 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. Tntal Panac rnnfirmarl • an No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 502 3810160 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:02:02 2/2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 502 8989551 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP19200 003 502 2088848723 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:24 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 004 502 8886854 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:23 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 502 2088985501 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 502 8467366 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:24 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 502 8950390 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:44 2/2 11 1EC HS CP21600 Broadcast Report Date/Time 12-07-2007 01:38:49 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. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode I Job Type Results 008 502 208 888 2682 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:23 2/2 1 EC IHS CP33600 009 502 8840745 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:23 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 010 502 2088885052 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:23 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 011 502 8881983 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:26 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 012 502 2083776449 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:48 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 013 502 4679562 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:23 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 014 502 8886700 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 015 502 8841159 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:25 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 016 502 8840744 01:20:56 p.m. 12-07-2007 00:00:25 2/2 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 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct C� E IDIAM-- CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING / WORKSHOP AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. David Zaremba Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item Agenda .Item Presenter Action Needed Time 1 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE City Clerk taken - 2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA City Council approve - 3 COMMUNITY ITEMS / PRESENTATIONS (a) Tour New City Hall Building Petra, Inc. 25 mins Construction Site (b) Update on City Hall Building Petra, Inc. & 10 mins LCA Architects (c) Arts Commission Update Meg Peters - - direction on art 15 mins Arts budget for new city Commission hall Chair - feedback on percentage for public art program - facilitator for strategic planning (d) ACHD Roundabout Siting & Peter Friedman endorse or modify 60 mins Design Critera - Planning Dept recommendations from Transportation Task Force Meridian city Council Special Meeting / Workshop Agenda — December 11, 2007 Page 1 of 2 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. • • Meridian City Council Special Meeting /Workshop Agenda — December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 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) City Transportation Corridor Matt Ellsworth — 10 mins Priorities — STP -TMA Funds Planning Dept (f) Support Proposed Matt Ellsworth — Prepare For Action 5 mins Legislation for Local Funding Planning Dept on December 18th Options for Transportation (g) Issues / Items for Joint Peter Friedman 15 mins Workshop with ACHD 1-7-08 — Planning Dept (h) Kit Kat Club Construction Barry Tassler / request for sewer 15 mins Improvements Anna Canning service 4 CITY POLICY REVIEW (a) Policy on Surplus Property Joe Borton Direction 15 mins (b) Update on Revised Policies Bill Nary Update 5 mins 5 Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f) — (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation); Meridian City Council Special Meeting /Workshop Agenda — December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 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. tjl�Se CUs t %cr I�ubl i Qllksa[a--, VIE IDIANr*. NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING / WORKSHOP MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting / Workshop in the City Council Chambers at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, December 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pm. The Meridian City Council will be discussion the following following agenda items: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Charles Rountree David Zaremba - Tour New City Hall Building Construction Site: -- Update on City Hall Building - Arts Commission Update -- ACHD Roundabout Siting & Design Criteria •- City Transportation Corridor Priorities - STP -TMA Funds Support Proposed Legislation for Local Funding Options for Transportation - Issues / Items for Joint Workshop with ACHD 1-7-08 - Kit Kat Club Construction Improvements - Policy on Surplus Property - Update on Revised Policies - Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f) The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 7th day of Decembe;CL�IA—MG—.BERG, JR. - I CL€RK k Meridian City Council Special Workshop / Meeting — Decemti e , 'A� ' All materials presented at public meetings shall become property oft�64tg ,t an`� ,<t* Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents al%dipf�ieta`Fi��s please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the puife(i'c� }�'eeting. �E IDIAN-- • NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING / WORKSHOP MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting / Workshop in the City Council Chambers at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, December 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pm. The Meridian City Council will be discussion the following following agenda items: — Tour New City Hall Building Construction Site: — Update on City Hall Building Arts Commission Update -- ACHD Roundabout Siting & Design Criteria Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Charles Rountree David Zaremba — City Transportation Corridor Priorities — STP -TMA Funds — Support Proposed Legislation for Local Funding Options for Transportation - Issues / Items for Joint Workshop with ACHD 1-7-08 -- Kit Kat Club Construction Improvements - Policy on Surplus Property - Update on Revised Policies -- Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f) ���tltlllllll!!!! The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 7th day of December, 2007.�i v , LLIAM G. BERG, JR. - I CLgRK Meridian City Council Special Workshop / Meeting — Decerrier9Q All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of t�el it , �n�� Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents arifi/pr J�e'al%d����>`'� please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the 061k {fleeting. Meridian City Council Special Workshop Meeting December 11, 2007 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 11, 2007, by President Joe Borton. Members Present: Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and Joe Borton. Members Absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd and David Zaremba. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Joe Silva, Len Grady, Keith Watts, Matt Ellsworth, Pete Friedman, Tracy Basterrechea, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. 0 David Zaremba X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird 0 Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borton: Moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: COMMUNITY ITEMS / PRESENTATIONS (b) Update on City Hall Building - Petra, Inc. & LCA Architects Borton: Item No. 3. We have got a list of community items and presentations, but first, Gene, we are going to have you come forward, before we go on our tour across the street and give us your update and, then, we will head across over there, if that works out. Bennett: That's fine. Thank you, Chairman, for -- Members of the City Council. I have two documents before you tonight. First is a monthly report for December and that's for your review and the second item of business that I bring before you is the low bidders on plaza -- for plaza work and those are listed before you. The companies listed are the low bidders. Their paperwork is complete, bonds are current. Public Works numbers are on file and they are qualified for their specific bid packages and they have a noted addendum one for the bid. It will end in December -- or November. We need to make award within 30 days, which would be prior to Christmas and so I leave this for your review and approval. 9 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 2 of 46 Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. 0 Bird: Gene, would you explain that this is not complete on the plaza? Bennett: That's correct. You will see that bid package number three is yet to bid. Bid package three is the concrete and the water feature. If you will turn to section four of your monthly report that bid package will bid in the tail end of January and we have estimated what that bid package is going to allow, have here for bid with an allowance. That will bring in the -- the plaza somewhere between 2.2 and 1.7 million dollars, depending on which alternates you decide to take at that time, so we will bring back to you that decision in February. The overall project budget is behind that on the next two sheets, depending on which alternates you pick, building construction in total on the second sheet will be somewhere between 19.9 and 20.4 million, depending on which alternate you take in February. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: One more clarification. Gene, these plaza bids, it's a full bid and, then, on some of the alternates, which are deducts, that we will take that off later; right? Bennett: That's correct. This is for the full amount. The contracts would be awarded. It's a provision that we can take those alternates in February at the same price that they bid and those contractors have agreed to that. Borton: Counsel, do you want to bring these back on the 18th? Bird: You know, we have got to get -- Rountree: We could do them now. Bird: We could -- I could do them tonight. I have no problem with it. Rountree: Comment from Keith? Watts: Well, I just -- Keith clarified my -- my concern, too. I just wanted you to know, as Gene talks about the alternates, the 2.1 is as specified in the drawings and what we originally intended. Bennett: That's correct. 0 • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 3 of 46 Bird: And that's just an estimate, because we haven't -- we haven't got building package three in. Bennett: Correct. Bird: And, hopefully, they will sharpen their pencils. Mr. President, I would -- Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: -- I would have no problem making a motion now to accept the bids for the new City Hall plaza site work, Terra West for 338,000; landscaping, Sunshine Landscape, $199,678.75. Masonry, Alpha Masonry, $194,585. Metal is KB Fabrication is $130,450. Mechanical is Page Mechanical Group for $29,064. And Tri-State Electric has the electrical for $344,090. Rountree: I'll second that motion. Watts: I would -- Borton: It's been moved and seconded. Keith. Watts: Can we also include to authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest to the AIA document contracts as modified by our legal department? Bird: We would allow the -- that would be included in my deal, but I -- the Mayor isn't here, so it would be the Council President and the Clerk to attest. Watts: Okay. Rountree: Second agrees. Watts: Thank you. Borton: Thanks, Keith. Any further discussion? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Borton: No further comments, it's been moved and seconded to approve the bid packages for phase four as described. Mr. Berg, would you please call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea. 9 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 4 of 46 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT Borton: Thanks, Gene. (a) Tour New City Hall Building Construction Site - Petra, Inc. Bennett: Thank you. Are we headed over for the tour? Borton: We are headed over for the tour. (Recess.) (c) Arts Commission Update — Meg Peters — Arts Commission Chair Borton: Item 3-B -- or, excuse me, 3-C, Arts Commission update. Meg Glasgow, Nancy Rountree, welcome. I don't know who is -- Meg, you're up. Thanks for coming. Peters: This is wonderful. I am going to pass along some notes. Well, Mr. Councilman and Council members, we are happy to be here and we are happy to report that we have been busy at work for the last nine months we have been at it and I have kind of detailed a few things that we -- we have accomplished in the short time that we have been in existence and that is, first of all, developing our logo, which is designed by Ann Hottinger. We are grateful for her donation in kind services for that. We have created our slogan, which is Take Part in the Arts, which is something we wanted to really be proactive in letting the community know about our role as being advocates for the arts. We have met initially with LCA Architects and seen the plans, the potential for public art in City Hall and after hearing the plaza plans tonight and seeing the facility, we are really excited to be -- become more involved with certainly planning with the architect and hearing the opportunities there are for City Hall and so I'm hoping to get more involved in that and be involved in the meetings as we were planning in the very short about securing financing for public arts in City Hall and we will talk about that more in just a minute. We sponsored our first concert during the Scarecrow Festival. We received our first 500 dollar corporate donation from Key Bank, so we are grateful for them for supporting the arts. We have also recently just assisted the parks department with holiday decorations. You notice the banners we have downtown on Main Street, as well as giving some artistic input to that. We were -- our committee has been joined by members of the Youth Advisory Council, so we are seeking outside input. Recently, we have done a couple community outreach presentations what the Meridian Arts Commission is doing. We have presented to the Meridian Chamber of Commerce last week and Thursday morning I present to the Meridian Kiwanis Club. And we have also appointed subcommittees, chairs are listed below, subcommittees for finance, web development, events and public art. So, we felt like we could accomplish more if we Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 5 of 46 kind of divided and conquered there. Looking ahead to 2008, we have a very -- very big ambition and we are certainly limited by both time and money, but what we have set forth for ourselves is, first, we have seen the incredible need for strategic planning regarding public art policy and that's -- I'm working with city leaders, people in the art community, parks and rec to put together a comprehensive strategic plan that models the city's Comprehensive Plan in identifying places for public art throughout the City of Meridian. That would also include a partnering with MDC, looking for possibilities of public art spaces, working in the redevelopment area as well. In helping us with the strategic planning, we find that hiring outside expertise is going to be critical for us to move forward. We are a good natured group with big hearts, but certainly we know our own limitations on our areas of expertise and we are lucky enough in our area to have a gal Delta James, who just recently left the Idaho Commission on the Arts to go into a private practice and she has prepared a proposal for contracted services for me that I'm hoping to get approved and those professional services would include helping us with a three day -- or three hour planning session, a two day workshop on strategic planning, as well as write our grants for us as well. So, in the short term -- I mean she is ready once these documents are signed, the contract's signed, she's ready to get started work on Monday and which is critical, because as it would have it, the deadline for us applying for a 10,000 dollar grant is the end of January and we would like to secure -- do our best to secure that grant to use that money to purchase art for City Hall. So, we are looking ahead to that, so we are hoping to get some input from the Council on that. Borton: Meg? Peters: Yes. Borton: If I could interrupt real quick, has that proposal gone to the legal department yet to take a look at? Peters: It has gone -- Emily Kane received a copy of -- including the amendment. Would you like me to leave it with you? Nary: She has it. Borton: Okay. Peters: She's got it. So, she's reviewing it and she said that there were a couple just little notes that she had to make on it and it was going forward. So, I'm hoping that that can be taken care of quickly, so we can get going and so we will work on that. Borton: Okay. Peters: Purchasing art for public -- or public art for City Hall is certainly first on our agenda and that requires a lot of pre -planning that Delta James has agreed to help us Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 6 of 46 with, as well as putting policies in place on how to go about the selection for the public arts. I mentioned MDC and fostering the development of public art downtown. We certainly see a huge opportunity there and we want to provide helpful input. Adoption of an art in public spaces ordinance we see as kind of the key piece of this equation. Many cities throughout the state of Idaho, as well as nationally, have adopted a percent for art, so like, for example, Boise, I believe, is a one percent for every capital improvement goes to public art for that project. That we see as a critical funding source for public art moving forward and so we are looking at that option. We have also talked about a Take Part in the Arts arts and humanity advocacy series to bring awareness to the arts that already exists in Meridian, as well as fostering and developing community awareness. We are preparing a web database of artists, events, resources and info. Initially this is going to be the MAC -- the MAC page as part of the Meridian city web page and we are already working with the IT department on that. We have just established our own e-mail account, so we are moving rapidly forward with that. Seeking corporate and private sponsorship funding for the arts is on our agenda, too, and Nancy Rountree is chairing that committee. Ultimately, looking for a performing arts center in Meridian, because as I found out in a meeting that I attended today with BVAP and Eagle Arts Commission, Boise Arts Commission, Nampa Arts Commission, that what we lack in coming to the table and trying to recruit a national ballet company out of San Francisco looking at relocating in the greater Treasure Valley, what Meridian cannot offer, although we are the fastest growing city and we have a great population base, as they are looking for, you know, audience goers, what we lack is a public performing arts space. So, that's something that we certainly need to be thinking about -- forward thinking and I just heard that Eagle is pursuing -- they have got some land set aside that they are looking at putting one in. They are like three to five years out I heard on that. But I thought, gosh, our city is quite a bit larger and I would just hope that we can kind of pursue that a little more seriously going forward. So, that is what we have going on. I'm certainly open to any questions if you have any other comments for me. Borton: Thanks, Meg. Peters: I wanted to make you aware of what we have got going on. Borton: It sounds like the first thing on the burner is the proposal from Delta to get that back before Council for us to discuss and review. That's going to guide a lot of your plan in '08, so -- Nary: Mr. President? Borton: Yes. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I did speak with Mrs. Kane this afternoon and she was reviewing that document. I'm hopeful that we could have it on your Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 7 of 46 agenda, then, for next Tuesday, since you don't have another meeting for a few weeks after that. Do you want that on for a discussion item as well? Borton: Yes. Nary: Okay. So, maybe we will put it on as a department report, so that there is an opportunity for discussion and maybe Mrs. Glasgow if you could be here again, so -- Borton: That's great. Peters: Okay. Nary: Peters. I'm sorry. Rountree: Meg, I know you're new at this and it's -- it's always tough to get something like this going, but is there anything that the city can do in the way of guidance or fostering information exchange, et cetera, particularly in the strategic planning piece for the public that -- Peters: I think -- yes. I think there is a lot that the city could do. It's really going to take a collaboration. When you're talking about establishing a public art policy, it's going to require a people certainly with artistic vision, but also people that are interested in, you know, certainly identifying where it's going to be placed, how it's going to be maintained, how the selection of the artist is going to happen. I mean it needs to be a very very public process in getting public input and whatnot. So, I think it's going to be important to -- for the Meridian Arts Commission to have a liaison with the City Council, as well as MDC, in the short term here working with the architect in talking about planning public art spaces with the new building. We have got that on our agenda for the short term. I think it's going to be critical that there be a lot of collaboration and communication among all the agencies. Rountree: Has a liaison been established at this point? Peters: Joe has been working with us and attending -- attending some of our meetings. Borton: Very spotty. Rountree: That's your duty as president. Bird: That's great. You're doing a good job. Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 8 of 46 Ll Bird: Meg, I agree wholeheartedly and it's been a dream of mine for years to have a Nampa Civic Center sitting in Meridian. I can't figure out -- I can't talk them into moving it over here, but -- I don't want -- I don't want that to die and we can't do it as a city on the whole. We can help, I think. But we need to really work at it from the private part and get something, because I feel that could be the centerpiece of Meridian, Idaho, to have something like that where we could have ballet performances, concerts, plays -- Peters: That's right. We have got, you know, that New Heritage Theater Company in town, we have got the Meridian symphony -- there is certainly enough organizations to keep a place like that. Bird: We don't want to put that on the back burner, we want to keep that out front. Peters: Great. Well, I'm glad to hear your enthusiasm. Bird: I have discussed it with a couple of people, hopefully, they can come through with some cash. Peters: That would be great. That would be wonderful. Borton: Meg, we love what you guys are doing and how you're going about it. You're not getting lost in the forest. You know, I think this attack of trying to get the strategic planning set first is a great idea and as much as contact -- it sounds like you had from -- you met somebody over at City Hall tonight to communicate with -- Peters: Yes. In fact, I have met with the LCA architect that was here tonight and we are going to set up a meeting and talk about spots that they have identified for public art, so we can move forward in going through the, you know, soliciting for artists. Borton: Super. Awesome. Peters: Okay. Rountree: Just a final thing, Joe. At least from this Council person, I can, obviously, every evening thank my wife for the time she puts in, but express our thanks to your committee for taking on a challenging activity. Anytime you do create something new it takes time. I know it's frustrating, having done -- not a number of these in the city, but once you get rolling and once you find that spot, it will be more rewarding and keep up the good work. We appreciate it. Peters: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Borton: Thanks, Meg. We will see you next week. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 9 of 46 Peters: All right. Perfect. • C (d) ACHD Roundabout Siting & Design Critera - Peter Friedman — Planning Dept Borton: Thanks. Thank you, Nancy. Well done. Item D on tonight's agenda we have got materials passed out before today and, then, again today some additional materials, so I'll turn it over to Pete to start the next presentation. Friedman: Thank you, Council President Borton, Members of the Council. Item D has been put on your agenda as the ACHD roundabout siting and design criteria, but, really, when we planned tonight's Council presentation we wanted to bill it as everything roundabouts and so we have three presentations for you tonight. Justin Bledsoe from ACHD will be here -- is here to discuss the Amity Road core intersection study, which they looked at traditional intersection designs, as well as roundabout designs. Eric Drose from ACHD is here to talk about the draft design criteria that the highway district is developing for roundabouts and, then, Deanna Smith and Rocky Bogart are here to give you kind of a general presentation on roundabouts. A lot of it is information that Councilmember Rountree and I saw in a presentation last year by a roundabout consultant that's been doing a lot of work in the area and most particularly working on the Harris Ranch project in Boise. So, we are going to turn the discussion -- turn the presentation over to those folks. On your agenda it said action needed to endorse or modify recommendations for transportation task force. That, actually, is a misprint and goes to Item E, which will follow this. So, tonight is a presentation on roundabouts for you and I'm going to turn it over, I believe, you're going to kick off first? You want to do the Amity Road study or do you want to do the design? Borton: Is there a schedule issue? Friedman: Okay. Drose: President Borton, Council members, my name is Eric Drose, I'm an assistant traffic engineer with the highway department and I have copies of the guidelines here. I don't know if you guys want some sleeping material, but I could give you guys one of these. Rountree: That way you won't have to take them back home. Borton: Yeah. Lighten your load. Drose: I will warn you I have never spoken in front of an elected body before, so if I mess up a little bit, forgive me. Bird: Don't worry about it. 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 10 of 46 Rountree: We will correct you. Drose: This was -- this was a slide I was thinking we were going to go after these guys over here, but we are not. So, the question is is this the modern roundabout that we are dealing with here in the United States? No. No. This is a giant rotary. They haven't looked at the path, it's kind of a mess out there. Now, here is a question. This one's kind of local. This one's out in Paramount Subdivision. Is this a roundabout? The question is no. It's a circular roadway, but it's not a modern roundabout. You can see the stop on there. This car back in the back over here, this guy is parked, actually. Everybody comes up, makes left turns in front of it, I have seen someone parked in the middle of it before. So, this is part of why we had to come up with some guidelines. We need to get this down on the ground before we get anymore of these out there that we have to worry about. Give you a quick history. Thirteen years ago Terry Little, our department manager, wanted to get a set of guidelines going, but he got scared off, because we weren't sure about pedestrians at the time. Well, things have come around now and, actually, the public is demanding them so much that they made us look at them again and we weren't still going to do it. Okay. We always thought we were on the cutting edge, but we kind of fell off. There is -- you know, Canyon county now has one, so -- and there is 20 proposed out there, we figure we better get on the ball. So, we have -- we didn't want to just sit down with a bunch of engineers to do this, you know, they can kind of be bull headed and you come up with something that no one would like. So, we figure we better come up with a steering committee with people from the -- you know, from your sector we got Matt Ellsworth, he was on the steering committee, Kenny Bowers, we had utilities contacts, policeman -- we are trying to get a general feel from everybody's concerns on these guys. Go ahead, Matt. We didn't just go off of one consultant and these -- these 17 members either, we went nationally, we got a ton of experts to give their inputs, and from that we decided that what we are coming up with is not -- not -- you know, not meant to be the ultimate, we want -- we want trained people doing this and it shouldn't -- it will never replace the FHWA or the bigger guidelines. What we want to do is -- go ahead. We came up with siting and design criteria to compliment those, basically. Go ahead. The siting guidelines, something you guys are probably pretty interested in. We came up with three major areas, that's the inappropriate locations, places where they are really good to have one, and ones that you're not quite sure and you need to look at it a little closer. Inappropriate locations -- well, once you build this split corridor and you got all these new big businesses here, we probably don't want to tear out a corner to put in a roundabout, so with the costs of right of way in, you know, urban core is probably not the best place. This one may never be a big one here in Idaho, not yet at least. You know, if you have got more people than cars at a location, you probably don't want a roundabout. Here is another one that if you're in San Francisco it's a big deal, but here not so much. Four percent. We have a few sloping hills that may come into there. And for now the two lane, the 50,000 max, is kind of what the -- the limit of what you can do without a -- without looking at it pretty close. Where they are good at is high accident C� Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 11 of 46 i locations, you know, if you get a three leg intersection or an odd ball one, they can really help there. They can increase capacity, especially on the smaller ones. If you don't have a lot of -- for cues, they tend to move cues out faster, so they are good there. Gateways. This is probably a big one for you guys, you know, separate yourself from Kuna a little more, we are going to put these on the edge of our area. And if you -- they can be used to help speeding. You got to slow way down to get into them. Now, where you get in the tricky part is so in the middle, a set of five signals, is that roundabout going to take the platooning away from it or not. It's something that can be analyzed and that's what we expect the consultants to do. Some grades of four percent, if they flatten out, you're not sure, they will take a more detailed analysis. Close to a railroad track, where a signal will -- you can put a red light on one leg and you can't get to the railroad track, with a roundabout you can, you got to do some pretty good analysis to make sure it doesn't happen like that. Large splits -- you know, I have heard everything from -- some consultants out there say, oh, 60-40 and you can't do that anymore. Well, I'm thinking more 80-20 and you do a detailed analysis and prove to me that it still won't work, but a good designer should be able to make it work, so it's something you have got to look at. And if you have got a huge canal on a corner or some, you know, big -- one of those monster power poles you got on Franklin there, you may -- a signal may end up working better. We look at four types, the mini, urban compact, single lane and double lane in our guidelines. There is a whole bunch of stuff that you guys probably aren't all that interested in. I could bore you to death with circle size and the truck apron and I'm going to try to skip on that. If you have questions about it, go ahead and hit me, but I'll go to the stuff you might be a little more interested in. Lanes I want to touch on again. Right now we are only looking at -- at two lane roundabouts. There is not a ton of three laners out there across the states. There is a lot of conflicting information if they are -- if the accident rates actually decrease once you get that big or not. So, we are just -- we also know that this is a work in progress, these things are changing every year, and we plan on looking at this again in five years, if new data comes in, then, we will increase the -- what we think is acceptable size around here. Our goal is just to get them in the ground right now. Borton: Eric, is Figure Two, from what you have passed out, the two lane that you're making reference to? Drose: Hold on a second. Bird: That's a two lane right there, isn't it? Drose: Mr. President, Council members; that would be the equivalent of a five by five intersection. A two lane would be -- yeah, this would be a two lane, the one up on the -- Borton: Okay. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 12 of 46 Drose: It's a single lane roundabout. A dual lane -- you're thinking -- looking at a dual lane roundabout there. Borton: Okay. Drose: Which is equivalent to a five by five. Sorry. Borton: Okay. Bird: There is dual lanes in here. The one at Nampa is just a -- Drose: It's a single -- Bird: Yeah. I'm sorry. Single lane. Drose: Councilmember, yes, it's a single that's planned to be expanded to a dual as -- as they -- as they grow out there. As development comes in each corner they are going to require them to do the landscaping, sidewalks, and everything else. Bird: Let me ask you a question. I have never seen -- and I haven't been on a lot of roundabouts. Bend, Oregon, is the best example, they got about six in three miles on one road. But I have never seen one signalized. You signalize them at all, do you? Drose: No. There is some concern with ADA requirements coming up that possibly it looks like more of the dual lane roundabouts, the -- where the ADA might push some sort of ped signal on the end of them, and they are throwing around a couple different new ideas. Bird: That actually gets -- that's -- in my thinking, that actually takes away the theory of a roundabout, if you -- if you have to signalize it. Drose: Yeah. And that's why they are fighting back and forth. They know these things are good, they are good and safe for people, they are not sure how safe they are for -- most of the time -- 99 percent of the pedestrians they are safer for; right? It's the blind where you can't hear the differential directions on a normal intersection, they are not sure about on these, and they are coming up with not full signals, they are thinking more of these little hocks that would be for each crossing, you only cross one direction at a time, right, so it would be just stopping there for a few seconds while they get across and, then, cross again. Bird: Is there -- I don't foresee us in years of having a roundabout in pedestrian friendly locations. I mean you can see -- you can look at Amity and Happy Valley, which is where the one over at Nampa is, and I'm sure they put that in because of the school there and it was an area and they had a lot of accidents there and it's calmed it down 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 13 of 46 0 and -- and I don't see much pedestrian traffic at those and the five or six that's over at Bend, I wouldn't -- I mean you wouldn't be walking on that. Drose: Well, the one at 36th and Hill and Catalpa is right next to the junior high, it's going to have a ton of kids and that will be a dual lane. It's really -- it's still a lot safer, instead of having to cross both directions with a turn lane or so, they only cross one direction there is still -- it's a crossing guard right now, anyways, out there, so, then, they will just have a crossing guard for smaller sections. So, we think it's going to be just as safe or safer for them. Bird: Thank you. Drose: I think I have touched on lanes enough. Something you guys are probably pretty interested in is what can we do for these guys out there. They -- we really encourage landscaping and art in the middle, basically. What we don't want is things that have intricate details or legends, something that we don't want to drag pedestrians to it. That's forbidden. That's taboo. No fountains out there. Fountains are huge kid collectors. The funny thin is without these guidelines we are getting tons of requests for that sort of thing, fountains, and, oh, it will make our subdivision so much prettier. Well, great, you got your kids out there playing in it. Let's go back a second. The splitter islands -- we did -- a lot of standards out there say six foot. The pedestrian crossing, if you see it in between them there, we went with eight that would hold a bicycle and a kid carrier behind it, kind of stretch that out. And you can put landscaping in those, as long as you're not impacting your sight distance, so it would have to be low shrubs in those guys. Bird: Do you elevate the center? Drose: Yes, you do. You don't -- you don't want people to see across to the other side, to give them the impression that they could go straight through, especially at night where you can see the other headlights coming at you, so it's kind of a -- it's a safety thing that adds to it. A lot of this will be answered in their overview, so I have kind of skipped over a lot of this. Sorry. Practical ped facilities. Like I was saying before, you cross one direction of travel at a time. We want them perpendicular to the road, so they are as short as possible crossings. The yield line will hold a car in front of it, so when a car is coming up they will have to stop on either side of it to -- to give the pedestrian more access. Of course, now everything is ADA compliant, so we have that written in the guidelines. Bike lanes -- bikes have to think of this two ways, either you're the serious biker and you take the lane -- because we slow them down, these are designed to slow down traffic to about the speed of a serious commuter bicycle, 20 miles an hour range. The ones that don't feel comfortable in that we are leaving -- down at the bottom of that picture little angle ramps for them to exit and get off into the -- the sidewalks around it and walk their way around it where they feel safe. Access control -- we haven't changed as much. Basically, it's the same as what we have got in our policy 0 • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 14 of 46 manual right now. Where we can't get full access, saying right -in, right -out -- there is some -- there is a little bit of discussion now on the locals in an established area if someone has a driveway right on the corner there is -- there is some train of thought out there that you can actually exit into the roundabout itself if the volumes are low enough. So, that's another possibility we might put in there. With the Happy Valley - Amity, one of the big things is expandability. We are growing so much around here, we really need to look at making these so they are -- so in five years, the way we are growing, we got to build them out another lane and there is -- there is pros and cons to doing inside and out. The biggest thing to it is designing it for both right off the bat. If you don't, you can get a really good single lane, but if you expand it to a dual lane you're going to have some serious problems, so it's making the consultants aware that they really got to look at both at the same time. So, from here we are sending it back to you guys. We have done our rounds of reviews. We will hopefully get one more review from all the cities. We will take it to our commission for adoption and, then, hand it out to the public, and, hopefully, get some of these built right around here. Borton: Thank you, Eric. Council, any questions for Eric or -- Bird: He's answered all the ones I had. We will move through the rest of the proposals -- or presentations. Bledsoe: Mr. President, Council members, Justin Bledsoe, Ada County Highway District capital projects. The second part of this is the Amity corridor roundabout study. You should have received a copy of a little memo with some attachments to it last week. The purpose of this study is we wanted to take these guidelines that had been developed and see what it means in real life applications for some intersections, and so we took the Amity corridor to look at. The study looked at six intersections ranging from Eagle Road down to McDermott. We didn't do Meridian Road, obviously, it's built out with signalized intersections and a roundabout wouldn't work there. Did some initial traffic analysis. We looked at all the different traffic forecasts that we could think of, dropped two of the intersections out, Eagle Road and Locust Grove. The forecasted traffic counts said that a two lane roundabout or a dual roundabout wouldn't work with these for long term and, then, so we went into the further analysis of the next four intersections. The only one that's currently scheduled in the near future is the Ten Mile intersection. Right now we anticipate designing that this year. If the -- if the study is adopted by the commission, then, we will jump into that design with construction scheduled for 2011. The other three intersections, two of them are on the CIP in the 11 to 20 years. One is not in the CIP, so we are 20 years out. What we plan on doing for these ones is we will take the study -- we have sketches of what the roundabouts may look like, what the impacts would be for right of way, that as those areas developed, we would be able to get the right of way necessary for when we do do a roundabout we have it and we can proceed forward. So, really, at this time what I wanted to do today is, one, update you on -- that we are -- have the study out there on Amity Road. We are looking at doing roundabouts there, continuous corridor roundabouts, and, second, Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 15 of 46 wanted to give you the opportunity to, one, either ask me questions about this or to be able to supply comments. I will be going back to our commission next Wednesday for adoption of this study and wanted to allow you the opportunity to comment, questions, or any additional information you'd like me to look at. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: All the intersections you propose to do with roundabouts you propose to do as single lane initially, with expandability and you showed a cost for both single and dual lane ultimate and projected out 15 to 20 years, I think, in most cases where you would be expanding. The cost differences were not quite, but close to double between the initial construction and, then, the expansion. Does that take into account inflation and does the original right of way acquisition with the first project include all the right of way necessary for expansion and are those cost figured in with the first phase or the expanded phase? Bledsoe: Mr. President, Council member, the thought is is when you go to do the initial one, where possible you would get the right of way for the ultimate. And, then, that way you would have all the right of way up front. You could -- then, you could build out you - - you can build your single, but, yes, all of them do plan on an initial build single lane, being able to expand to a dual lane roundabout. And it all would be depending on when those traffic numbers hit to require that. Rountree: So, the initial cost of the single lane includes the cost of the ultimate right of way? Bledsoe: Yes. Rountree: Or has that been pro rated out? Bledsoe: It's not been pro rated. It's at today's dollars. Rountree: At today's dollars. And as well as the projection for the expansion based on today's dollars? Bledsoe: Correct. Rountree: Okay. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 16 of 46 Bird: What -- what's the difference between a roundabout, a single lane roundabout, I'll call it, and a signalized intersection? Bledsoe: For traffic capacity? Bird: Well, no, for cost. Is signalized half the cost or -- Bledsoe: Mr. President, Council member, we didn't look at if you just went with a signal without the ultimate, we only looked at if you built an ultimate, basically, widened the intersection to five lanes for capacity, what did that mean versus the ultimate for a roundabout and compared, so -- and the comparison there really came out at almost the same, if you're going to blow an intersection out, add your turn lanes, versus doing a dual lane roundabout. I wouldn't be able to say if you just signalized it, because you can go out and, you know, drop poles in and if you didn't do any improvement for a fairly cheap project, but we didn't look at that for comparison purposes. Borton: Justin, I think Eric wants to -- you got to come on up into the mike if you want to add some information. Rountree: One more time. Drose: Mr. President, Council members, we looked at that in the study, we just -- we did generic -- I think you're looking for generic. If you plop two in the ground at the same day, what's the difference. Well, a little more right of way in the corners for the roundabouts, it's a little more right of way on the straight-aways for the widened road on the other ones. They actually came out to a wash. I think the single lane was 70,000 dollars more for the signal than it was for the roundabout. We didn't -- we didn't count into any cost benefits of safety or anything like that, it was just, basically, cost of right of way, plus the -- putting them in the ground. So, it's a wash. Bird: Basically, a roundabout is just as safe as a signalized, isn't it? Drose: Oh, it's -- no, it's a whole lot safer. Bird: That's what I was going to say. Drose: Yeah. There is about a quarter of the conflict points. Thank you. Borton: Thanks, Eric. Bledsoe: Any additional questions? Is Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 17 of 46 Bird: I welcome your Amity Road deal and I'd like to see one at Ten Mile and Linder and down at Black Cat and get rid of those stop signs. Well, Black Cat isn't a stop sign. Both Linder and Ten Mile are both four way stops and it's -- I think it's a good place to start. Bledsoe: We think so. Borton: Justin, this is -- it's great work. I appreciate seeing all of this information. One question that came to mind is -- is there any requirement that it's sort of all or none? You know, the success of the Amity corridor that -- that each of those intersections be built out ultimately with the roundabouts versus just having one and the rest signalized, mean does success depend on all of it going? Bledsoe: Mr. President, no, there is -- there is -- I believe there is enough distance between them that you could have a roundabout at one location and a signal at another location. Borton: Okay. Do you need any additional comment, action, from us, seal of approval? Kudos. Bledsoe: It would be nice if we could just receive some -- just the City of Meridian support for roundabouts on the Amity corridor or something along that line, just so when go back to the commission I can say this has been presented to the City of Meridian and they concur with the -- with the study. Borton: Okay. Bledsoe: It may help with it in proceeding forward. Borton: Council, any preference or comment on that? Bird: Oh, I'm a hundred percent behind it. Rountree: Sounds great to me. Let's move it forward. Bird: If he needs it in a letter form, I would recommend that we have the clerk write a letter and get it over. Borton: Okay. When do you need that? Rountree: Pete's got a comment he wants to -- Borton: Pete. 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 18 of 46 0 Friedman: Mr. President, Council members, depending on what your feelings are, we would be happy to draft a letter -- Borton: That would be great. Friedman: -- of support. I think I heard that, you know, there may be support for more than one in that corridor if it's possible to -- whatever you want us to do, we would be happy to get the letter out for your. Bird: I'll take one, but two and three would be nice. Borton: Yeah. Ten Mile for sure, but -- Bird: Yeah. Ten Mile for sure. Borton: The entire project. Absolutely. Okay. Bledsoe: Thank you. Borton: Thanks, Justin. Friedman: We will take care of it. Borton: Thanks, Pete. Bogart: Mr. President, Council members, it sounds like a very positive audience here, so I'm not going to worry about it too much. I'm not too nervous about it. My name is Rocky Bogart, I live at 2105 Warm Springs Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 83712. And I am a neighborhood activist, but I'm also on the ACHD bicycle advisory committee, the ACHD neighborhood advisory committee, and wrote a grant for a roundabout at Warms Springs and Penitentiary Road, which we hope some day to have in. So, I have worked on this quite a bit and to start this off, there was some concern initially that we were going oppose or counter to ACHD's proposals. That is not the intent at all. I'd love to see roundabouts, just like you, sooner rather than later. I will have a qualification on -- and ask on your recommendation to ACHD, but I will come to that in a few minutes. I just wanted to ask a point of clarification. On the cost comparisons that you had for the Amity project, I am reading that it's only 500,000 more on top of the initial build out of the roundabout by the graph here. It's not 2.5 million. But I'd like that clarified, just for the benefit of everybody. Is that -- Justin, is that -- on your chart it has an initial roundabout costs a million, ultimate build out is 1.5. Is the total two and a half or is it 1.5 for the ultimate build? So, it's only 500 more expensive. I think that was where you were going with your question, Councilmember Rountree. Rountree: Yeah. 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 19 of 46 Bogart: Roundabout corridors. Okay. This is quick and dirty on advantages. Roundabouts improve efficiency of traffic flow, reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, enhance esthetic by providing landscaping opportunities. I'd like to emphasize that one. And reduce vehicle delays 62 to 74 percent. Remember that number on the delay, because that's going to be important later on in the presentation. Safety. Roundabouts promote safety. Vehicles travel in the same direction and they are traveling at low speeds. Generally, the interactions are at 20 miles an hour -- or approximately 20 miles a hour. This results -- and this is data from the Insurance Institute -- 80 percent injury crashes and all crashes by 40 percent. A 61 -- 41 to 61 reduction on injury crashes and 45-75 -- this is an FHA report in 2000. So, go ahead. Slide from the Ada county roundabout guidelines that wasn't shown. These are the cost comparisons and how -- what they studied when they looked through the -- for the costs on there two -- three lane roadways, a three and a five -- a three by five and two five by fives. Next slide. And here is a comparison of the cost benefit differential and actual costs. And, then, also cost benefits that weren't quantified and I'd like to -- the one cost benefit that favored the signals with the landscape maintenance, but -- and, then, I talk about the power consumption and signal equipment maintenance. I have been told that it's about 10,000 dollars -- that might be exaggerated -- per intersection per year for those power consumption and signal equipment maintenance, even if it's only a couple of thousand, you can see the payback on a roundabout over time, quickly eats up that extra expense on a three by five. Next slide, please. Now, this presentation was roundabouts in an arterial network. This is an example of an installed arterial network roundabout. The first two are exits off of the interstate, 1-70, in Avon, Colorado, and, then, you have a series of three more roundabouts. The intent on this was -- they had a choice of widening the streets on the signals or leaving the street cross-section the same and putting in roundabouts. They went this way. Go ahead. What this leads to is wide nodes and narrow roads. Wide nodes and narrow roads are critical for -- go back for a minute, Matt. Thank you. When you say wide nodes and narrow roads, the red indicates the impact on the right of way around the intersection with a roundabout. The blue is what you have if you signalize and expand the intersection. Why is this important? I believe this -- and this is the crux of the issue on this -- on a corridor is what you do with the blue section is extremely important. Go to the next slide, please. The normal connection between the two roundabouts would be a -- correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be a 96 foot right of way, would allow five lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. That's what the expectation is for Amity Road at build out later downstream. Ninety-six foot. Here is where I think -- looking at -- excuse me -- roundabouts in a corridor allows you to do something different. As I show up here, you can use a 76 foot right of way and still get the same capacity. In fact, you actually improve on the quality of the corridor, because instead of having turn lanes, you can have landscaping, median refuge for your pedestrians and things like that, you still have the sidewalks and the bike lanes, so -- one important thing I think that is standard right now is we have to go wider with roadways. lanes need to be wider. I think as Mr. Nolen points out, as we increase the width of lanes, traffic fatalities and injuries increase. Another issue that I think is E Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 20 of 46 important when you have -- go ahead. That narrower cross-section is -- you can have some nice elements on the corridor and the roundabouts allow you to have this for a couple of reasons. What's the average speed on these roads out in southwest Meridian and things like that, posted average speed? I think it's about 45 miles per hour. Because of the efficiency -- remember the efficiency, 62 to 74 percent efficiency in delays -- reduces delays, you don't have to have 45 miles per hour speed limits on the corridor. You can actually go down to 35 miles per hour, move across the entire corridor faster at a lower speed. The picture at Avon, Colorado, that's exactly what they found. They took the signals out, people could move all the way across that corridor faster at a lower speed. What I'm suggesting here is that with a corridor of roundabouts you have the option of changing the cross-section. Commission -- Councilmember Bird, you mentioned what about pedestrians and things like that, why would pedestrians be there and interacting with the roundabouts. I maintain that if you can take and recoup some of that land from being a wasteland of pavement and have it look like this and have the ability for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross those corridors every mile, you're going to have much more connectivity. I know you just recently completed your trails plan and things like that. It runs across all of these major corridors. So, if you have that ability, then, I -- you know, there is an option out there. Now, this -- this portion is not where ACHD is at this time. They don't look at anything but a corridor of 96 foot of right of way. But if we narrow the streets down, they are safer for everybody. Vehicles also. So, I will turn it over to Deanna Smith for a little higher elevation picture. Thank you. Borton: Thank you, Rocky. Smith: Good evening, Council members. Is this on? I can't bring it down any further, so -- it keeps bouncing up. My name is Deanna Smith and I am also a neighborhood activist, I also work for Idaho Smart Growth and serve on the Blueprint For Good Growth steering committee and have since its inception. And I wanted to speak to you a little bit this evening about roundabouts from a land use perspective. Roundabouts are really something of a paradigm shift in this valley in terms of road design and construction and you have heard tonight about the many transportation reasons to consider roundabouts, including your congestion management, safety, improved pedestrian access, et cetera. But I believe there are also some really important land use reasons to consider roundabouts and, in fact, there are now jurisdictions around the country who have included roundabouts in considering -- for consideration for every intersection they look at and some of them have even gone so far as to prioritize roundabouts as the first thing you will look at. This does not mean that every intersection should become a roundabout, but in recognizing the value that they bring and communities who are beginning to use them are starting to say, you know, we need to look at them first. And that's some of what I'm advocating here tonight, whether it's first or just that they are always on the plate of possibilities and considered and it's really exciting to me and encouraging to me to see ACHD embracing that. So, I'm excited to see the design guidelines they have developed and to see them really looking hard at these. Perhaps the jurisdictions in this valley can appreciate how critical land use -- the Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 21 of 46 connection between land use and transportation is in Meridian. As Meridian has become the crossroads of this valley, you have more regional traffic moving through your community than any other community in Ada county and as a result you have some of the most congested intersections and roadways. There are policies in Blueprint For Good Growth and the ACHD's KILA for their transportation and land use integration plan that they are developing that provide some guidance to begin addressing these challenges. Among these many strategies, roadway design has emerged as an important element in maintaining and creating pedestrian friendly environments, transportation options, helping neighborhoods and vibrant commercial activities in our communities. I think roundabouts need to be considered in the role that they play in helping us get to better land use and transportation patterns. Roundabouts help reduce congestion by allowing a continual movement of traffic, where the lights increase congestion. One of the primary results from this is the need for fewer lanes. This holds an economic benefit, as well as the obvious transportation benefit. From a land use perspective, roadways are one of the least beneficial developments. Narrow roadways allow more land to go into productive development, expanding the tax base, rather than a greater tax demand that they would be as a roadway. In addition, roundabouts have a lower maintenance cost overall, which Rocky showed you. The initial cost sometimes can be greater. That depends upon at what point in time it's done. If it's done at the beginning of development, not necessarily. But everything we have seen out there nationally shows that in the long run their maintenance costs are significantly lower. In replacing a light with a roundabout, only the intersections need to be widened, rather than the entire roadway. This can also lead to a cost savings, particularly in a situation where you're looking at having to -- you have got a congested road, it's already developed, how much right of way are you going to have to buy. Those are in situations where you have an existing developed corridor. In looking at those corridors and thinking you have to buy right of way for a roundabout, but particularly along the entire corridor, based on the wide nodes, narrow roads slide that Rocky showed you, you don't have to buy all of that right of way. That doesn't impact this jurisdiction directly, since you're not the ones who have to buy right of way, but it's important in terms of freeing up monies that do go to ACHD, which all the jurisdictions do pay into, to maybe do some of the other things your community would like to see done. Roundabouts have been shown to reduce travel time, while slowing the speed of traffic down when used in a corridor. Thus, they provide safer passage for pedestrians and bicycles through the intersections. All of these get to the potential for better land use around and along your roadways and around your intersections. As we look more and more to developing mixed use developments in some of our more congested corridors or high traffic corridors -- and as we look to developing transit -oriented development, we will need to become increasingly creative about how we provide a full transportation system, one that responds to all modes. And I suggest to you that roundabouts are one of the most critical elements in looking at that. They reduce -- they increase safety, they provide narrower roadways, and, as I said, there is the economic benefit of not having to put your land into road, but, instead, into development. So, roundabouts provide many incentives and we believe they should always be considered • 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 22 of 46 when developing or improving a roadway, especially where there are congestion management problems and/or when safety is a concern. Thank you. Borton: Thank you, Deanna. Pete, it's back to you. Is there any other information you or Matt or Anna want to provide on it? Friedman: I don't believe we have much more information than you have received tonight. Borton: Okay. Friedman: Probably have got quite a bit coming at you. We may have a possibility of another presentation in the next month or two by the gentleman that Councilmember Rountree and I heard. I was -- talked to him the other day, he may be out here. I'm not sure if the stars will align to get him come before you, but if they do we will certainly try to get that onto your agenda, too. Again, given a much larger -- both national -- almost international perspective on the evolving part of roundabout design and one thing I think that I have learned through all of this is we look at these varying drawings of roundabouts, but I think what I came away from the presentation was is that there is no one size fits all and there is all kinds of variations being -- being constructed around the country and used to successfully manage traffic flows. So, if we can get that to work out, we will be back to you with that. Borton: Okay. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: A comment and maybe somebody can answer my comment, but all presenters talked about deficiencies, moving traffic, cost savings, that sort of thing, but didn't hear anybody mention anything costs related to road user benefit and it seems to me that's what it boils down to. It was alluded to in fact of moving more people through a pipe, but what's the cost savings to those road users. I know there is ways to calculate that. Has anybody done that and is there a break even point at some point between a roundabout and/or a signalized intersection related to traffic volumes and road user delay. Smith: All the studies show that a roundabout corridor, which is separate from, you know, a mixed corridor, or I don't know if studies have been done on mixed corridors, but a roundabout corridor clearly shows that people get from point A to point B quicker at a slow speed. So, from an efficiency perspective, from the user, the driver, efficient in terms of our time, you don't have as much idle time, that you use less gas, because you're not sitting anywhere, you pollute the air less, which doesn't directly impact that • 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 23 of 46 person immediately, but it impacts all of us. So, I don't know if that gets to some of what you're asking. That's the one piece of information I have related to that. Rountree: And I understand that, but it seems to me that that's only going to work as long as there is somebody at the end of that corridor metering the traffic. You know, at some point in time -- at 35 miles an hour you can only get so many cars through a one lane road for however long you want to do it. So, at some point in time that's going to breakdown. So, in looking at road users cost, which is what I'm concern about driving my vehicle at three plus dollars a gallon and even though I'm retired my time's worth something. Anybody else who is working sitting in a car it's taking away from your productive time. So, somewhere the grandiose aspects of either multiple lanes or roundabouts or signalized intersections converge and one's better than the other. Now, ACHD indicated that if it's 50,000 ATD or more, probably roundabouts aren't going to work. But I suppose there are -- in your case if you had a roundabout corridor that was built for 50,000 ATD, it would work better than the signalized corridor. Is that bad logic? I know Eric's back there trying to figure that out. Smith: All the research I have done shows that, in fact, the high capacity really is the primary place where people are trying to use these. So, I know that ACHD has that 50,000 mark, but that's not necessarily -- that wouldn't necessarily hold true with some of the engineers out there who are building in places around the country, they wouldn't say that 50,000 is the limit. Rountree: Which is, in fact, what Pete and I heard when we listened to the gentleman from Canada; right? Friedman: Well, Canada and now as of -- by a conversation with them last week, Madison, Wisconsin. Rountree: Madison, Wisconsin. That's close. Friedman: Probably just as cold. Rountree: Eric. Drose: The 50,000 is just what a two lane can take right now. I think -- I only know of two three lanes in the United States. There is a couple in Vegas. I know there is a couple more planned in Iowa, I believe. So, there is not a lot out there right now. I'm all for them. If we can get up there 70,000 on a corridor, great. If that's -- if they can still prove to be safe. Going back to the dollar value for when one is better than the other, right now in this guideline we are saying once you get to an all way stop and you want to do any improvements out there, or even put an all way stop in, you should be looking at a roundabout now. If you take it lower than that, someone is proposing -- we get developers coming all the time. This is where it's going to get tricky, at a place where a 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 24 of 46 CI two way stop is -- should it be a two way stop? They are saying let's throw a roundabout in. Now, you got to assign a dollar value to that delay, because you're inducing delay on a 35 mile an hour road and you're slowing them down to 20, where you may only have a few cars a day that actually stop and cause delay on the sides on the side streets. So, it's kind of that -- Rountree: So, you're taking that into consideration. Drose: Yes. We are looking at all of that. Rountree: That's what I wanted to know. Borton: Thanks, Eric. Rountree: Matt wants to jump into the learning experience here. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members -- Members of the Council, as a member who sat on the steering committee that put together ACHD's roundabout guidelines, jumping back over the two -- to the two versus three lane consideration, the analyses that we were looking at said that, as Eric just mentioned, 50,000 ATD was about the max that a two lane could take. While we recognize the benefit of the three lanes, at some point in the future we thought from a user standpoint, jumping from no roundabouts into a situation where you have potentially three lane roundabouts, my be a bit of an extreme jump and it may wind up negating some of the safety -- safety elements of the roundabouts that were initially intended. As Eric mentioned during his presentation, these are guidelines on the one hand, so each location is different, a lot different considerations are going to have to play into it. And, on the other hand, it's not -- it's not carved in stone. This is the sort of thing that they plan to revisit and especially in a lot of locations that they are looking at right now up and down Amity Road, 50,000 ATD isn't necessarily an issue there today. But presumably further down the road that's something that ACHD may want to take another look at, but the gist of the conversation of the committee on which I sat was there is a time and a place, we aren't necessarily there now, and that was why -- why the two lane cap ended up making it's way into the guidelines. Borton: Thanks, Matt. Rountree: Thank you. Borton: Council, any questions of -- anybody? Bird: I have none. 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 25 of 46 C, J Borton: No? Okay. So, we will get a letter, Pete, from you to review for support and the siting and design criteria. Okay. Thank you. I thank everybody for coming -- Rountree: Yeah. Thanks for you time. (e) City Transportation Corridor Priorities — STP -TMA Funds - Matt Ellsworth — Planning Dept. Borton: -- and presenting and sharing the information. Deanna, are you heading back down to Boise right now? All right. Safe travel. One hearing to the next. Matt, you get to start the next Item E, the transportation corridor priorities. We have all got materials passed out regarding that. Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, thank you very much. This is a -- this is a previous item that was before you several months ago and just to back up before we dive into that, as you know, each year the federal government filters sort of a separate type of fund into each -- each local area, based on population for -- for discretionary funding for transportation projects, essentially, is what it boils down to. And those funds are filtered through the regional NPOs, which in our case, of course, is Compass, and Compass recently ended up developing a new approach to spending these dollars. These are the surface transportation program, transportation management area funds and the major shift comes into more of a focus on corridors, as opposed to piecemeal projects scattered throughout -- throughout the jurisdiction. As a result, Compass has asked member jurisdictions to prioritize some of the corridors that are identified in Communities in Motion and when this item was before you previously, the Mayor and Council directed staff to -- to communicate with Compass to figure out what corridors are being identified as top priorities by some of the other jurisdictions in Compass' jurisdiction. As the handout that I gave you guys earlier mentions, there was no official response from any of the other member jurisdictions. Compass staff was able to touch base on an individual basis with staff from some of the other jurisdictions and their response is identified there. The city of Nampa identified Highway 20-26 as their top priority. Nampa Highway District had the same top priority. And the other entity that Compass staff had spoken to is Notus-Parma Highway District, excuse me, which identified Homedale Road as the -- the informal top priority for their jurisdiction. This matter came before the transportation task force on October 11th of this year. The top three roadway corridors that the task force identified were Meridian Road from Waltman to Chinden. Ten Mile from Lake Hazel to Chinden. Arid U.S. 20-26 from Exit 29 to Eagle. The task force forwarded an addition to their top priority a couple of caveats to go along with that. On the one hand, they wanted to stress the fact that -- that that segment of roadway is not appropriate for use of federal funds. Federal funds kind of come with a lot of additional strings and they can complicate projects at times. So, for that reason the task force felt that it was important to note that Meridian from Waltman to Chinden is more appropriate for use of local funds than federal funds. In addition, as outlined in Communities in Motion, Meridian Road is only considered north 0 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 26 of 46 up to Ustick and the task force felt that it was more appropriate, if that corridor is going to receive any attention, that they look -- take a look at it all the way out to Chinden. And, finally, there was some lane recommendations that the task force integrated into this recommendation and specifically that is to plan for a five lane section all the way north to Chinden, rather than the three lane section as identified in Communities in Motion. Excuse me. Borton: Matt, did you -- I think I heard you wrong. Did you say that the Meridian Waltman to Chinden is not an appropriate project for the federal funding? Ellsworth: That's for the use of federal funds, Mr. President, Members of the Council. That's correct. And as it's currently programmed through ACRD, that project does not use any federal funds and the transportation task force felt that that's a good thing. While the federal funds are great to have and they lead to a lot of great projects, Ten Mile interchange, for example, will be funded by -- by federal processes. It initiates a lot of additional processes, NEPA and so forth, that can considerably increase both the time and the cost for those projects in the long run. So, the recommendation that the task force ended up mentioning is this is the city's top priority. However, we would like to see it built with local funds, rather than the additional complication and in some cases uncertainty of using federal funds. If you look to some of the projects further west over on Franklin Road, Black Cat to Ten Mile and also Ten Mile to Linder were previously programmed with federal funds and due to uncertainty and cost escalations and so forth, ACHD is now taking another look at those two segments and they are figuring out different ways that they can approach those with local funds, rather than the federal funds. So, that was sort of the short version of the rationale that the task force provided for emphasizing that while, essentially, a split corridor is a top priority for the city, it's -- they are not recommending the use of federal funds for that project. Borton: Which means the request is to remove it from the recommended priority list for this. Ellsworth: As far as consistency and message is concerned, I think that's the main reason that Meridian from Waltman to Chinden is included on here. If you think back to the recommendations that both the task force and City Council ended up sending to ACHD for their consideration and the five year work plan and some of the other planning processes that they will do, Ten Mile interchange was the number one priority for the city and part of that is just to look at -- at the network as a network, if you install Ten Mile interchange, that has implications for the local system and that's something that they wanted ACHD to keep in mind. So, on the one hand it's consistency in message and on the other hand it's in recognition of the fact that it's a single transportation network for the purposes that Compass is soliciting this information for, it may be appropriate to focus only on the corridors where the use of federal funds is deemed as appropriate and essentially take the inverse of the recommendation from the task force in this case and whatever explanation the city forwards onto Compass, it 0 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 27 of 46 could be noted that while project X has been identified as the number one priority, were it not for the consideration or the expended time and cost associated with federal funds. This is project Y in this case the split corridor may be the -- may be the top priority of the city. Borton: Okay. Ellsworth: So, the question was before you this evening, again, is -- is to consider the recommendation as forwarded by the task force and, again, to feed back into Compass board's consideration of future use of STP -TMA dollars, again, as noted in the handout there, the STP -TMA funds are already committed through at least 2012, after which time these projects would be considered -- or this recommendation would be considered for the future use of that source of funds. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Matt, does the task force understand that these recommendations for -- in Meridian for north -south corridors just exacerbate the existing problem? We need to get east and west done. We have got to get Pine done. We have got to get Ustick done. We have got to get Amity done. The interstate is only going to handle so much traffic and it isn't going to get any bigger than what we got going through the major part of our community right now. I don't see it ever getting much beyond eight lanes. So, to continue to funnel traffic to the interstate in my mind is -- is not the solution. We have got to get some alternative corridors. I agree with 20-26. 1 think that's significant. That would be my number one. My number two for federal dollars -- and keep in mind Pine was improved with federal dollars from Meridian Road to Linder. So, federal dollars could be spent on that system. Pine, as soon as that piece from Eagle this direction opens up, from Locust into downtown Meridian is going to be a mess and it's going take significant dollars to make those improvements, because you're constrained by a rather large drainageway and a fairly extensive residential community. Ten Mile will serve the Ten Mile interchange, but there is going to be significant improvements on Ten Mile hopefully between now and 2012. So, I guess just looking at this -- that's my initial reaction. I think there is some -- I can appreciate people wanting to get to the interstate and wanting to alleviate Eagle Road, but the real issue is give me another choice to get to Nampa or Boise, besides the interstate and having to drive -- it takes me longer to drive through Meridian to get to the interstate than it takes me on the interstate to get to anyplace in Boise, to and including the skating rink. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. 0 a Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 28 of 46 Bird: To echo Councilman Rountree's deal, I think U.S. 20-26 has to definitely be number one and I -- Pine's very important -- now that we have got that Locust Grove overpass, I had the opportunity morning Monday to take that right in the busy time at about 7:15 and I took Pine down to Locust and, then, went over it and went that way. And it's being well used, but we have got -- we have got to get our east -west and I -- Ustick is a very important east -west, because it goes from the river to Boise, just like 20-26, and we have got to alleviate all the 1-84 traffic. Amity also is very important, in my opinion. I'm like Councilman Rountree, the north -south corridors don't worry me right now as much as east -west, getting from town to town, not through the city. Borton: Matt, did the task force address that issue and purposely decide let's focus north -south versus east -west or -- were some of those concerns discussed? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, as I recall the conversation that was not a conscious decision that they made to focus on those north -south versus east -west and I know that they previously had considered -- and to back up briefly, I ended up presenting to the transportation task force a list of projects as conveyed by Compass and Communities in Motion for them to range and they each gave a number ranking to those. Staff, then, went back and with the raw scores tallied the totals. At the subsequent task force meeting, the group ended up taking a look at -- based on the raw scores what that priority list would have been and, then, they ground truthed them and they started applying the common sense factor to it and they adjusted that list from there. I can't remember offhand, for example, if Pine Road was one of the Communities in Motion corridors that Compass asked that the group prioritize -- Rountree: Probably wasn't. Bird: It wasn't. Ellsworth: So -- and, again, this is -- this is based on somewhat of a new direction that Compass is taking with the use of these STP -TMA funds. And, then, maybe a high level discussion that could be addressed at the Compass board level, but for the purposes of this discussion here, staff decided to isolate the top three as handed forward by the transportation task force for Council's consideration and a lot of the reason that I did that was because Compass staff said that, if anything, they expected to get a number one priority from the other jurisdictions, so I was trying to narrow things down a little bit. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Matt, was future 16 one of their corridors to prioritize? I guess if I'm going to look at a north -south, that's the one I -- • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 29 of 46 40 Ellsworth: Mr. President, Councilman Rountree, that was one of the corridors that was considered and it was within certainly the top ten and from what I recall at least the top five of the groups prioritized and I apologize I did not grab their top ten list on the way over this evening. Rountree: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure it was something that was considered. Borton: Well, it sounds like the choices before us are -- follow some, all, or none of the task force recommendations in the priority list to Compass. Rountree: Mr. President, question for Matt. We are, obviously, not going to get three. We will be lucky to get one. If our first three choices were 20-26 1 don't have any problem with that, you know. Ellsworth: And, Mr. President, Members of the Council, I guess what I envisioned coming into this evening was for -- for Council to choose their number one priority and -- because that's consistent with the conversation that I had with Compass staff was similar to what Councilman Rountree just identified. Typically, they expect between five and six million dollars annually to come into the northern Ada county transportation management area. When you start talking about intersections that could, hypothetically, cost up to eight million dollars. One mile roadway segments that can cost up to fifteen, all of sudden five to six million dollars doesn't do you all that much, especially when you're talking about 16, 20 mile corridors. So, what I'm hearing, I suppose, from Council is that 20-26 is the city's number one priority for the use of these funds as far as this recommendation to the Compass board is concerned; is that correct or -- Borton: I think that's what you're hearing, unless you're saying -- you're saying that's a drop in the bucket for putting that at the top of the list? Ellsworth: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think any -- any of the corridors that are identified within Communities in Motion would take multiple years to construct based solely on this STP -TMA source of funds. So, that shouldn't weigh into Council's decision I don't believe. Borton: That's fine by me. Make it number three and number one? One, two, and three. Rountree: Yeah. I'm comfortable with that. That's kind of our northern border. I would, Matt, however, like you to point out that Pine is going to become an issue in the not too distant future if we don't start thinking about it. • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 30 of 46 Borton: We ought to put that as a two just to have it on the awareness -- Rountree: No, because it -- really, it's -- it's new. I don't think anybody's really given it a lot of thought, because it's been kind of developer driven on the one end, but, boy once that -- once it gets to Locust Grove, it's -- I mean look what happened to Locust Grove in a week. And it's not done yet. Borton: Matt, is that -- is that sufficient direction for that recommendation to Compass? Ellsworth: President Borton, Members of the Council, it is. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Ellsworth: I can relay that sentiment to them. (f) Support Proposed Legislation for Local Funding Options for Transportation - Matt Ellsworth — Planning Dept Borton: Okay. Now, you're up for Item F as well, the local option funding for transportation that we had before and brought back today. Ellsworth: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is sort of an interim follow up to the pre -Council discussion on November 13th where Matt Stoll from Compass presented the draft local option sales tax bill that Valley Regional Transit and Community Planning Association have been drafting over the course of this past year. I imagine you will recall that during that presentation Mr. Stoll indicated the desire for each member jurisdiction to consider a resolution in support of the proposed bill once the final adjustments and so forth are made. Compass and BRT are in the process of making those final revisions right now and in conversations with staff I'm told that those revisions will be available and complete by the end of this week. My request for you tonight was, essentially, to -- green light staff moving forward with drafting the language and bringing back to you next week on the one hand some proposed -- or proposed draft resolution and on the other hand all those recommended changes that are going to -- or, excuse me, the final changes that will be coming forward prior to presenting that bill to the legislature this spring. Borton: Okay. Council, any -- it sounds like a great idea to bring it forward. It would be nice -- I don't know how quickly you can -- it will be done this week, we will have ample time to take a look at it, maybe make some comment in advance, but good by me. Rountree: Let me see if I understand what you said, Matt. You want to move forward with preparing a draft letter in support of the legislation in anticipation that it's going to be acceptable, so after we see it we can get it in the mail? 0 i Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 31 of 46 Ellsworth: Mr. President, Councilman Rountree, that's, essentially, the case. Rountree: Okay. Ellsworth: They asked specifically for a resolution, though, rather than an informal letter. Rountree: Okay. Ellsworth: And at this point I'm not sure that even more iterative comments from the city would make -- would make further adjustments in the proposed legislation, so my thought was at this point the city would either endorse it or they would not and all those changes will be attachments to that resolution. The final bill will be an attachment to that resolution and, again, in conversations with staff, this is identified in the handout there. They indicate that some minor tweaks will be made, basically, to allow localities in other parts of the state to use the same tool that this could potentially create, the same premise for the local interest in this would remain the same, is the conversation that I have had with staff, who has been involved so far. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'm not for passing any resolution until I see the final draft. I don't want a draft, I want the final bill in its entirety that's attached to it. Rountree: Mr. President, I feel the same way, because I happen to sit with a group pulling the comments together and some of the comments are not mine. There is some pretty significant redrafting they had to do to make it palatable and depending on how that's done, I'll either have more to say about it or I'll support it. I support -- I support the concept. Some of the language was very vague in some areas and needed some major rewriting. And I have not seen that. I suspect that if they are anticipating the end of the week, that we should see something soon. Ellsworth: President Borton, Councilmen, would it be a better approach, then, to identify a future date for a follow-up presentation from Valley Regional Transit and/or Compass to unveil all the changes in the final draft legislation prior to considering a resolution or any language to that effect? Borton: I think it depends on the gravity of the changes. I know one of their concerns was to get our action one way or the other I thought before session started, you know. If It's not the 18th, it's January 8th will be the next time that we are all together, so -- 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 32 of 46 Rountree: Right. Borton: Kind of depends on what it looks like right now. Rountree: Mr. President, I don't have a problem getting the resolution put together, but I would take no action on it until we have had an opportunity to look at the draft and if the draft seems to address the comments that either the city made or that some of us made in particular, I don't have a problem moving forward with approving it. If there is still some issues with understanding what's said, I'm sure that Compass or Valley Regional Transit or somebody will come and talk to us about it quickly, because I know they want it done. But I don't have a problem being posed and ready. Borton: For the 18th? Rountree: Yeah. Borton: With an understanding that it may or may not be ripe for action. That's fine. And Mr. Berg said that the Chamber had comments on it I guess today. That's something that you can gather and circulate to us as well. Be interesting to see their perspective. But we will leave it on for the 18th for -- and to the extent a resolution in support be drafted in anticipation, but I guess it depends to see what the most recent version of it. Does that work? Ellsworth: President Borton, Members of the Council, it does. Borton: Okay. Council, any other comments, questions on the local option? (g) Issues / Items for Joint Workshop with ACHD 1-7-08 - Peter Friedman — Planning Dept Borton: Okay. Item G, the joint workshop on January 7th. Pete, we saw the short list. Friedman: Yeah. Thank you, President Borton, Council members. You do have a list before you tonight of items for your next joint meeting with the ACHD commission. This list was jointly put together by ACHD staff and City of Meridian staff. The purpose of us coming to you early -- this is a new protocol we have worked out with the district, so that we can make these meetings more productive for you. But I think I'm hearing another topic that you might want to add to this list for early consideration and that's the possibility of maybe starting to bring Pine Street into a little higher level of exposure. So, if you want us to, we could easily add that to the list or we could just as easily add that to the list and delete the -- for example, the update of the split corridor. That's moving along enough that we can -- actually, staff can update you on that at some point in the future. So, we wanted to bring this list to you. These were our thoughts. Are 0 • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 33 of 46 there other thoughts that Council had, so that if there are we will have time to work on them and develop appropriate background information for the meeting. Borton: Pete, that's -- I think Councilman Rountree's comments on Pine Street make great sense to get that on everyone's radar. I don't know if -- the Overland Road realignment status. Friedman: That would -- Mr. President, Council members, that will actually fold into the south Meridian transportation plan. One of the things that both staffs are going to be seeking from -- or at least kind of getting a -- kind of a thumbs up, thumbs down direction on it is that the south Meridian transportation plan draft is completed. One of the things that ACHD staff is looking at is that Overland Road extension question and one of the questions that we are going to bring to both bodies will be do you want that south Meridian transportation plan to come up for consideration currently and, then, come back with an Overland Road extension or do you want to hold off on the adoption of the south Meridian transportation plan, do the examination of the Overland Road extension and, then, fold that in and bring it back for consideration. So, that was the idea of bringing that forward to both bodies. Borton: Okay. Rountree: We need to do that. Borton: Okay. Anything else, Council, with ACHD discussion? Okay. Thanks, Pete. Friedman: Thank you. (h) Kit Kat Club Construction Improvements - Barry Tassler /Anna Canning Borton: Anna, did you have something? Okay. You're just getting up and ready? Okay. Item H is a discussion and request on the Kit Kat Club construction improvements and, Anna, I'm going to -- if you're willing, start with you to sort of introduce what got us where we are. Canning: Yes, sir. I will certainly do that. The owner of the Kit Kat Club requested sewer service in the fall of 2006. They cannot request annexation at this time because they do not actually adjoin annexed property and the City Council denied that request for services. The Kit Kat Club did, then, submit a request -- or has concurrently submitted a request to Ada county development services to expand their kitchen facilities and remodel the interior of the existing building. At that time the city -- I believe it was a letter signed by the Mayor, but we did respond to Ada county with a number of concerns, including traffic safety, future functioning of the transportation system, having the site in -- sufficient in size to accommodate the use, and that the use was not Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 34 of 46 consistent with the, then, draft Ten Mile specific plan or the then -- our Comprehensive Plan in effect for the area. So, the owner sought out advice from staff as to how he might gain City Council approval of the request for sewer service. With guidance from Council I suggested that Mr. Tassler, the owner, should develop a site plan that brought the property into closer compliance with our development standards, with particular attention to a parking arrangement that did not require backing out onto an arterial roadway. We have received a couple of different landscape plans. This is the most recent landscape plan in front of you and it does address many of those initial concerns. With regard to -- this is Black Cat. Here is Franklin down at the bottom. So, they would actually come into a parking lot. They have moved this building, so that they can build a parking lot. There is parallel parking on the west side of the building and 90 degree angle parking on the north side of the building. Here is the building. You can see that they have landscape buffers in that are heavily vegetated. So, the current configuration with the current right of way or the current land available that's not constructed as roadway, does meet our development standards with regard to streetscape buffers and I'll talk about the feature situation in a second. So, the traffic safety is much improved. Instead of backing out onto Black Cat or onto Ten Mile, you would be coming out as you would from a typical commercial development. And, again, by removing the existing home on the property, the size of the property is now sufficient in area to accommodate the parking. Okay. Now, you're going to have to kind of squint and look at some lines here. This line is the existing right of way, that heavy dashed line. At some point in the future ACHD -- their plans show for a right of way that would come to this dashed line. That -- if it doesn't clip the corner of the building, it's within inches. So, at that time, if ACHD were to take that right of way, then, we lose our street buffer there. There is -- they have got the sidewalk shown and, then, the parking lot immediately on the other side. Now, on Franklin -- this is the right of way, so that, again, they have got the sidewalk shown just on the other side of the right of way. There is some landscape buffer before you hit the building. At this -- at this point they don't anticipate -- ACHD does not anticipate taking right of way on the north side of Franklin to accommodate the development. I think that there is also a question say if somebody wanted to do a roundabout at this location, then, ACHD would end up buying the whole property, because there is just -- that building is too close to the right of way. So, there is always that possibility. So, I think that that's why, you know, the -- Mr. Tassler, if he had tried to accommodate our full landscape buffer even at ultimate right of way, then, the site does become insufficient in area to get the parking that he needs. So, I think what he's shown is about as much as we could expect from anyone given a building that's this close to the roadway. So, with regard to that, I think the site plan is -- comes as far as I would expect anybody to come as a nonconforming use. With regard to the Comp Plan, this property is designated as low density employment on the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. An industrial zoning, which is what would be needed to accommodate this use, is not one that's suggested as being appropriate within that zone. So, there is still some question as to the use issue. Mr. Tassler was also asked to give Council an idea on the timing of the improvements. You had an e-mail from him, but I asked -- specifically asked Mr. Walker, who is here representing Mr. Tassler, to • 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 35 of 46 discuss some of the timing issues related to if Mr. Tassler can get the sewer service and, then, seeks his -- his application with Ada county, then, he would need some time before he could install the improvements, so -- and I'll let Mr. Walker address that. Do you have any questions from the President or Council members? Bird: I have none. Borton: Thanks, Anna. Frank, you're up. Walker: Mr. President and Council, my name is Frank Walker. My address is 200 North 4th, Boise, Idaho. That's my office. The question really is that this property does need sewer and it should be sewered. There is challenges to it, but, again, we -- it does need to be sewered. The timing -- Mr. Tassler would like to submit an application with Ada County for a small remodel. If that conditional use is granted, he would, then, commence with that conditional use and, then, once that is finished, then, do the landscaping. He anticipates no later than probably September 2009. If you have any questions, I would be happy to address them. I think Mr. Tassler's come a long way in adjusting his approach and that the City of Meridian is going to benefit from what he's willing to do here. Borton: Council, any questions needed? Rountree: I have no questions. Bird: I have none. Borton: It sounds as -- from every indication that at the very least -- Silva: Mr. President, Members of the Council -- Borton: At the very least, I would defer to Mr. Silva to speak. Silva: Thank you. Mr. President, Members of the Council, I would like to share with you a memo. Once I became aware of this issue being put in front of Council for consideration, I conferred with the fire chief, Mr. Tassler, and Len Grady to see whether or not it would be possible for us to provide a fire hydrant to protect Mr. Tassler's property. I consulted via phone with Mr. Tassler today and he had no objection to placing a hydrant that we would locate on his site at his cost as a condition -- as a condition of hooking up to city sewer should the Council decide to support that decision for hooking up to city sewer. So, that would enable us to -- one hydrant would enable us to properly protect Mr. Tassler's property with pressurized water. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 36 of 46 Walker: And I didn't mention the right of way. I mean, obviously, at some point in time ACHD may eliminate that building, because of right of way. That's something in the future. But, you know, as far as providing sewer and water today, I think it would -- Central District Health certainly supports it and I think Public Works does as well. So, it would be a benefit to the area. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is it just request for sewer or is it sewer and water? Yeah. Sewer and water, Frank? Walker: I always presumed it was sewer and water. I can't definitely answer that, but always presume that it was. Borton: Okay. Bird: Maybe Len can -- Grady: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yeah, we would require sewer and water to the site. We have both stubbed and ready to go. And as far as Public Works supporting this, we supported him so far as we like to get rid of septic systems. We are silent on anything else, so -- Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, I just noticed that Mr. -- Mike Reno is here with us in the audience tonight and he's with Central District Health. So, if you have any questions regarding the septic ability or need for -- the ability for septic or need for sewer in this area, he can answer those questions. Borton: Council, any questions in that regard? Anna, it sounds like despite many changes there is still several items of either the zoning and UDC compliance, which, for whatever reason, can't be met with these revisions and there is still some insurmountable -- insurmountable hurdles we are seeing. Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, there are some uses that will likely always be nonconforming as the city expands into the area. I think this is probably one of them. It's -- from a planning standpoint, I try and get any property that's nonconforming as close as I can to our development regulations and at the time of annexation is an opportunity with this one to get it with the sewer hook up. Should the Council never want to annex it, at least we have the opportunity to bring the site closer to our norms with regard to the development standards. 0 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 37 of 46 Borton: Okay. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, if we water and sewer it, when they -- become contiguous they automatically have to come in, don't they? And does the business get grandfathered? Canning: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I asked Mr. Grady if the sewer agreement expressly said that they needed to request annexation. It is not his understanding that it is not. It is -- it is an express agreement for consent to annexation, but it does not require them. So, we could make that decision -- Council could make the decision as to when or if to annex the property, but it does say that he consents to annexation when Council chooses to annex the property. Nary: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. Depending on the application, the Council has certainly taken a number of different approaches. I would agree, I think the standard is exactly as Mr. Grady said, that the consent to annex is a standard part of the agreement. It has been the direction of this Council on occasion to direct that they were required to request annexation and still the discussion comes before the Council at that time whether or not they choose to annex that property at that time. The obligation on the land owner is simply to make the request. If you make it simply a requirement to consent to annex, then, at the point in time that the city felt compelled to want to annex that property, whether it's to clean up enclaves, whether it's to deal with some other issue, whether it's right of way or adjoining property issues and things like that, the city would have the ability to move forward with -- with an annexation under the current statute with that consent and it wouldn't require the property owners to do anything. So, it's really your -- your direction as to how you would like that done. Borton: Okay. Council, any other information needed or any action you want to -- Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I assume the action is whether or not we would approve the request for sewer. My point is that it seems we have difficulty enough with conforming annexation • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 38 of 46 is and uses in Meridian, why do we want to pursue a nonconforming use in that regard. So, I'm just looking at our full plate now and why do we want to fill it up with some more. Borton: That's the same question we had before. Rountree: Same question we had before. Bird: I certainly haven't changed. Borton: Mr. Nary, the way this is on the agenda is it somewhat discussion -- or discussion format, does it need a formal motion to act on it, to approve or deny the specific request or -- Nary: Well, Mr. President, Members of the Council, I guess I put that back to the -- either the Planning or Public Work staff. I believe they want to bring -- my understanding is this property owner wants to bring forward a request for service. You see those requests for service on your agenda all the time. Rountree: Right. Nary: So, I think because of the prior decision of this Council to not approve that request for services is the reason you're having a discussion tonight. Certainly they can apply, just like they did in the past, you can have it back in front of you for discussion. I think all the -- all the staff was looking for was some general direction from you, not a specific ruling tonight on this request, but merely general direction. Now, am I incorrect? Is that -- were you wanting more than that? Canning: Well, I -- Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think the applicant wanted some clear direction as to whether this would suffice to gain your support and I think the answer has been pretty clearly no. So, in that sense whether or not you vote on it or make a motion, I think that they have what they need. Borton: Okay. Rountree: I guess the question is we haven't received a request, this is just kind of a tester. Nary: This appears to -- I think from a procedural standpoint he's looking for smily faces or frowny faces. I think he's looking to see whether or not you are receptive to their request. But you certainly aren't required to make a decision tonight, because there is no active application in front of you. Rountree: Okay. • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 39 of 46 Nary: If they want to apply based on the general comments you have made certainly they understand there are still some concerns, but you don't have a full Council here or the Mayor, so certainly there is certainly opportunity for further discussion and actual vote. Rountree: Okay. Borton: Okay. Nary: Did I get it wrong, Mr. Grady? Were you looking for more than that? Grady: Mr. President, Members of the Council, no, that, basically, sums it up. We are looking for guidance. I think in the end I think the city engineer does have authority to grant that, we are just looking for guidance. So, I think I have the authority to grant that service, but I certainly wouldn't do so without your permission on this one. Borton: I think the guidance from Council that at least from what I have heard tonight, is that in light of the various nonconforming concerns that we are not supportive. Rountree: And I think that's consistent with our past guidance in terms wanting to provide services to properties that are within the annexed boundaries of the City of Meridian and I just don't see that happening here. I don't see how it would ever conform. Well, it could, but it doesn't, so -- Borton: Is that good enough? Canning: Yes, sir. Item 4: CITY POLICY REVIEW (a) Policy on Surplus Property - Joe Borton Borton: Okay. Okay. That ends Item H -- 3-H. I'll move onto 4-A, policy on surplus property. This came up very briefly in our discussion a couple weeks ago about a request that I had made concerning donating -- or if the city was able to donate surplus computers to the Big Brothers, Big Sisters, and -- and while that seems to be a good worthy cause, do we have a policy set forth -- and we should get a policy set for going forward that will govern any nonprofit contributions of surplus property and put some parameters on that before one of us -- somebody makes a request to donate to some organization or the other that people don't like. So, with that vague introduction, Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Basically, I had asked President Borton if we could have this discussion with you, because there is a couple of �J Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 40 of 46 • different parts to this request. President Borton had asked if the city would be able to donate as surplus property some of our computers as roll out of our inventory each year. I spoke with Mr. Paternoster, our IT manager, and he was certainly not concerned about that. These are five year old machines, they come with -- they don't come with screens, they don't come with -- they don't come with keyboards, they don't come with any software. The value to the city is minimal. It probably has a higher scrap value, in our opinion, than it probably does for usable value, but they can be used by people for certain functions. So, from his perspective for IT's needs or for the city's needs, there is no objection, we have enough machinery to be able to donate that. The city has the authority to donate property to either nonprofits or other governmental entities. My question more from the policy standpoint isn't just for computers, but we get requests from other agencies or other people for other equipment. Computers themselves, again, probably after the five year life span of our computers, their value isn't really significant. But in the past we have only donated, that I'm aware of at least, primarily to other municipal agencies or other state agencies or to nonprofits and most of the time to nonprofits it's been local ones here in the Meridian city limits. My only suggestion, President Borton, is that, one, decide the direction we can bring a resolution back to you next week to approve that transfer if you're okay with the Boys and Girls Club and maybe some direction from you as to what type of policy, if anything, you'd like to see, because I don't envision a huge run on equipment or property of the city, but assessing what the value is -- when we deal with another entity many times, like another municipality, we don't get as concerned about the value to transfer it if we don't have use for it. We have to be concerned about the value when we transfer it to a nongovernmental entity and that was more my concern. I just was envisioning people, you know, walking up here with their 5013C paperwork and saying can I have a computer, but I can also see them saying can I have old fire hoses or can I have old boots or can I have old equipment that you have or old tools or old trucks or old stuff that we don't necessarily use anymore and, then, becoming really quite a chore to do that. Right now we choose to do it when the city chooses to, the departments bring them in front of you and you make that direction. I don't necessarily think one request that President Borton's bringing forward requires a monumental change, but we probably need to look at establishing some criteria and some standard and some policy to go forward, so that you aren't always having to decide is this worthy, is this something we want to be a part of. We don't want to get into a situation where you as the Council are having to make a decision on whether you like one entity over another, because of the type of work they do or the type of -- the type of activity that they perform, if they qualify as a nonprofit and we have given it to everybody else who has asked us. So, those are the kind of questions I had that I thought would be helpful from a discussion standpoint and, then, for you folks to give us some direction a policy. And I'm not suggesting, again, that we establish a policy before we deal with the Ione request, but that we at least in conjunction with that request, then, begin a policy process to bring that back to you as well. Bird: Mr. President? • 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 41 of 46 Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Well, I think a policy would be ideal, but I think you got to look at situations. When we -- when we have had some fire trucks that we have donated when we probably could have recovered some money on some of these tankers out doing it, but something like computers that are outdated and the Boys and Girls Club -- or Big Sister -- Borton: Big Brother, Big Sister. Bird: Big Brother, Big Sisters, man, I'm in favor of it. But I think -- I think we need to deal with it on a per request basis, because some nonprofit organizations deserve it and, to be truthful with you, some of them are fronts. I think it's great. If we -- if we need to change it, we can change policy, but I'm for bringing that resolution forward for the Boys and Girls Club -- or Big Brother, Big Sisters. Rountree: Whatever it is, Joe, you're asking for. Bird: Bill got me -- I knew it was Big Brother, Big Sister, and Bill said Boys and Girls Club. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Two pieces. I fully support the donating of used PCs to Big Sisters and Big Brothers or Boys and Girls or whomever they are. Your request, I think that's -- I think that's a right thing to do. There is another facet of that that is really the right thing to do, because what happens with used PCs is they seem to never go away and pretty soon you will walk around and there will be people with two and three and four of them in their office and they are using them all and they are requesting replacements every three or four years based on a replacement cycle and all of a sudden we have got an inventory of these things. They kind of grow. So, I think it's great that we have a -- we have a replacement cycle. I think we need a disposal cycle to make sure they get out of inventory and to be donating them to these worthy nonprofit the place to go. As far as a policy, I think we need to have a policy related to all that sort of thing. I'm wondering if we ought not to have an estimated value in that policy which can be donated at the discretion of the department director and in the case that Councilman Bird brought up, if it has value in the open market and an auction bid might actually yield revenue to the city, that we ought not to be big hearted in some instances and regain those values, to kinds of things like vehicle trailers that we might have that we no longer need. Our favor discussion topic, backhoes, that we might have and we might need. There is always a market for those kinds of things at auction and I know at the state if they have an 0 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 42 of 46 auction, if the city wants a vehicle or a piece of equipment, they can go acquire that from the state without going through the auction at its estimated value. So, there is an exchange of revenue there. In, essence, it's almost a donation, because the estimated values aren't great, but we get something we need, they get rid of something they don't need, and they get a little monetary reimbursement. So, I think the policy ought to be kind of formulated in that sort of fashion. Not that we have -- not that we get rid of great amounts of equipment like that, because I think our patrol vehicles are off line there, used up, and a good share of the rest of the equipment that we no longer use and the value has been extracted out of them. Nary: Mr. President. Borton: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, we will follow up and start crafting a policy. We will probably maybe even bring it back in one of these sessions in a month or two if even in draft form to get some further guidance. But we can do that. To follow on one comment by Councilmember Rountree, we did -- a couple years ago Mr. Paternoster and I discovered exactly what you were talking about, Council member, regarding computers or laptops that the people that requested replacements kept the old one and wanted to use the old one for something else and buy a new one and all of a sudden we have eight laptops where we think we have an inventory of four. And so at the Mayor's direction she said that IT and part of my department that they were now responsible to track that and keep up with that, so that the departments didn't just keep hording these things, so that we ended up with numbers of them in different departments, so we did try to centralize that process to avoid that very thing. So, we are aware of that what you're saying can happen pretty easily and we wanted to make sure we don't continue to do that. But we will bring a resolution next week on this request for the Boys and -- Rountree: We are all confused. Bird: That's why I'm saying it. Nary: For the children of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters, we will bring a resolution forward for you on your agenda next week for that transfer and, then, we will begin the crafting of policy that you will, then, have back in front of you. (b) Update on Revised Policies — Bill Nary. Borton: And while you're at it, you've got other revised policies you wanted to comment on? Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 43 of 46 Nary: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. There is two policies I just wanted to bring you up to date on. We had a discussion a few -- the beginning of October regarding travel policies and moving to a per diem process. When we began that discussion the beginning of October the finance department asked if we could wait until our audit was at least initially completed with the IRS, so that we would have some guidance from them, as well as the time that they could devote to the -- the drafting of that policy. So we did, we met the first week of November, they created the first draft of that policy. I revised that, sent that back to them before Thanksgiving and Mrs. Kilchenmann has it at the moment and thinks we are pretty close. I think we have ironed out as many of the different issues that we have and also in advising the Mayor of the different departments to really keep a much closer scrutiny of these types of expenses, but we should have -- hopefully have a policy back in front of you again to discuss in January, maybe as a department report. The other one we discussed executive benefits and it is the end of the -- the calendar year, so it's our opportunity in time to make sure we have covered all of the different facets of that. In our October discussion we discussed a clean up of that in regards to all the appointed positions in the city. The other part of that, though, we didn't discuss whether or not you, as a Council, felt it was appropriate to include either the Council Members or the Mayor in that policy. A majority of the policy deals with vacation times, so that doesn't apply, generally, to you folks or to the Mayor, but there is a provision of that policy that can be of both benefit to you and to the Mayor -- the Mayor's position, because there is additional insurance -- life insurance that's provided by the city. We don't provide -- the city ordinance currently says that the Mayor and the Council members receive the same benefits as general employees, unless you specifically designate something else. There is a provision in the policy that I was planning to bring back in front of you next week for final approval that says any position you so designate can be included in this policy and we are -- in the HR are responsible to track that. Currently it's designated all the directors of the city and all the appointed officials of the city and I just wanted your direction. Do you want me to include either the Council members or the Mayor in that policy, because, if so, we need to do that this month before the end of the month to make sure we notice that with the insurance company. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: We have already -- if I'm right, we have already doubled our life insurance, haven't we? Because that's what we did all the -- Nary: All employees' policies went from 25,000 for general life and 25,000 accidental death to 50,000 and 50,000. Yes. And the directors all receive a hundred. Bird: And that's fine. We are elected officials, we are elected at that. My personal thing is 50 is fine with me. I think it -- I appreciate it, to be truthful with you. Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 44 of 46 Nary: And the only issue that -- the cost to the city is fairly minimal. The only -- you can certainly opt in or out if you choose. I did request all the directors -- there is a tax implication. Everything above the 50 there is a tax to the individual for the amount of the premium that is paid for them for just that portion. It's a fairly small number. Most of the directors that responded to my inquiry all opted to remain in the program. They felt the benefit of the program -- the insurance was greater than the tax implication of it. So, you could certainly provide that as an option for both yourselves and the Mayor if you wish. If you don't want to do that, that's within your prerogative. Rountree: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Personally, it's probably nothing that I would opt into, but looking at the future and I know Councilman Bird and -- I feel the same way he does about it, but as we look two and four and six and eight years from now in terms getting people to serve on the Council, we have all been elected unopposed as of the last election on this Council and, to me, we have got to do something to entice people and hopefully quality folks to get interested and if part of that interest is what do I get out of it and they have a possibility of getting the extension life insurance at a very minimal premium to the city, additive to what the rest of the employees get, if it's an opt in, opt out kind of a situation, I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't want to see it mandatory. Borton: I agree. Rountree: And that's the only reason I would support it is, you know, I -- I guess I'm just really disappointed that there is -- we're either doing such a great job or that there is just that much lack of interest and lack of people wanting to spend additional time out of their busy lives to be part of the city. So, if it takes additional enticement, then, maybe we ought to start looking at stuff like that. Nary: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'm sure it is because you're doing an excellent job. If it's all right with -- Rountree: Suck up. Nary: If it would be all right, then, what I will do is I will bring a resolution -- I'll bring the policy back on your agenda next week and include, again, the directors as the appointed officials, any other designees that you make, including the Mayor and the Council and they have -- all have the ability to opt in or out of those benefits if they • Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 45 of 46 0 choose on an annual basis. If that's okay I'll bring that back for the next Tuesday for consideration. Bird: They have automatically got the 50-50 -- Nary: Yes. Rountree: Yeah. That's -- Bird: --automatically. Item 5: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)0 — (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation); Borton: Thanks, Bill. Item 5. Executive Session. Rountree: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67- 2345(1)(f) and any other paragraphs? Okay. Borton: It's been moved and -- Bird: Second. I'm sorry. Borton: -- seconded to go into Executive Session as stated. Roll call. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, absent; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Rountree: I move to come out of Executive Session. Bird: Second. Borton: A motion and a second to come out of Executive Session. All those in favor say aye. THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. 0 Meridian City Council Special Meeting December 11, 2007 Page 46 of 46 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:52 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: i 0%1111111fill,i/, PRESIDEN JOE BORTON -k l /2 1 o DATE APPROVED )ATTESTED: -- WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CIT(CLERK Cti i �O '9� )r J SI %.. Ci December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT REQUEST Tour New City Hall Building AGENCY December 11, 2007 COMMENTS ITEM NO. 3-A 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: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT REQUEST Update on City Hall Building 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: 0 December 11, 2007 Date: COMMENTS ITEM NO. 3-B Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • EIR-A-'T RECEIVE DEC 11 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk 0f :c TM GENERAL CONTRACTORS & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT December 12, 2007 Meridian City Council 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 It is Petra Inc.'s recommendation for Meridian City Council's consideration that the bids for Phase IV Plaza be accepted and awarded as follows: Bid Package 41 - Sitework Terra West $ 338,000.00 Bid Package #2 — Landscaping Sunshine Landscape $ 199,678.75 Bid Package #4 - Masonry Alpha Masonry $ 194,585.00 Bid Package 45 - Metal KB Fabrication $ 130,450.00 Bid Package 46 — Mechanical Paige Mechanical Group $ 29,064.00 Bid Package #7 — Electrical Tri State Electric $ 344,090.00 TOTAL AWARD: $ 1,235,867.75 The companies listed above are the apparent low bidder and all their paperwork is complete. All Bonds are current, Public Works numbers on file and subcontractors listed above are qualified for specific bid packages. Addendum No. 1 is noted and all alternates are verified. If you have any questions, please feel free to call for discussion. Best Regards, Gene Bennett Sr. Project Manager 1097 N. ROSARIO ST. ' MERIDIAN, ID 83642 - PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 WWW.PETRAINC.NET RCE -1875 1 L 4 G E 7 E c 1C 11 12 12 14 1E 1E 17 1E 1s 2C 21 22 I;1 GENERAL CONTRACTORS MERIDIAN CITY HALL PROJECT Phase IV Community Plaza and Site Improvements 11/29/2007 Bid Package Summary Bid Package Contractor Amount Sitework Terra West 338,000.00 Landscaping Sunshine Landscape 199,678.75 Water Feature and Plaza Structures Masonry and Stone Alpha Masonry Inc 194,585.00 Metal Fabrications and Railings KB Fabrication and Weldin 130,450.00 Mechanical Paige Mechanical Group 29,064.00 Electrical Tri State Electric 344,090.00 Community Plaza and Site Improvements $ 1,235,867.75 12/11/200712:22 PM Summary 1 Ll LJ.I Q U a a1 � __ m > v CLW a� 0 co O� _ a. co cc Q r� u O O >N o O O (L6 O � M tq M L O V C O c E 0 Q m 3 O J J � C c `1 R R Q CL Q a m Y a m 2 CL v N_ n O O N K 0 O 0 O Q o O M r> c } N O M 6q va va c 0 U zs Q O O C to O LO O (n N (n N Lo M ti 0 U } o } } 7 V bq a bG LU CO LU J a 0 o O U uj w Q Z Q m s Q — N C9 O LU w Z a ? °' °' �; �; Q D w a Z 0 w Q O Z R E R E R E R E D m O N Q U Z w O .. N �+ d d .r m avow o o a a a a w J p U Q Cl)to < LuJ m a m a O U Z a r� u O O >N o O O (L6 O � M tq M L O V C O c E 0 Q m 3 O J J � C c `1 R R Q CL Q a m Y a m 2 CL v N_ n O O N K 1= d a, ,u N Z L a� CD o E Q > j r.LW a�0cn 0 Q) CL c� U LO 00 JI- Q) -C cy c L V3 O U a 'm 'm 3 o O J J f+ .+ C C CD R R CL G CL a a Cl) a v r 0 O N Q O N O 0 Y i QU O LO 06 O } C) O } } W N � N m ell ull 61) 619 C Q R Q Q O U 707 c Q U U O (D J N a) a) O) (1) -p L (D O O N EA EA 61) 69 Eft Q N U N C fB ? O O Y } O61) U } rn U cu 3 ull 61) V� 64 a) Q cu U c LO LO J a) } m � N_ a) } N } 00 ~ O c Vy W Y LLIJ O a J w o m a W U pm J w>Z (L > a °�' N °0 Cl) a0 v °: O 2 0 o w (, a �= O Z a 0 0 R L R L R L R L a cl m a °�o N W o w w o m a m a m a m a ca -Cl L) m a Cf)J m °° d O U Z a 0 Q) CL c� U LO 00 JI- Q) -C cy c L V3 O U a 'm 'm 3 o O J J f+ .+ C C CD R R CL G CL a a Cl) a v r 0 O N W N C E a) O L E d } C 1II N N t0 ER s bq EA c E E 0 U I— �J LU IY 11 V C- W m0cn In. m a CL a 0 CD CD C? 0 L U � 0 c E 0 ¢ m 0 J J ++ C cL0 Q ¢ (V 0 0 CV a1 CU } ER EA bq EA a� } N N } (jq 61). 6q } cq V). Ul w CO F- LU J CL O � U 0 w H w m =¢ U Z Jw pm a> a) a) m g o w Z (90w Z Q o a E E o E a E ¢ o p m a O Q� 0 Z Z w °' :: ' ,a3 m W °gyp w O o ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ w U_ m in Q N J m U) 0 m a v O w Z 0 CD CD C? 0 L U � 0 c E 0 ¢ m 0 J J ++ C cL0 Q ¢ (V 0 0 CV a1 ,W V U a • is lffi�ll w U U [0 E441 ER Efl EA EFi v o C-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N NN mcn N � rn r O N N H M } >-M 00 C4 Efl 6q C) C) 0 0 0 (1) N U U) 4 J 4) o LO Cl) r- OD ori O LO cv 00 CLO O } } Ef3 (D co 00 L Q Ef3 64 EA ul Q E» W Y LLJJ a O p N o Lu a a N M O O LU p? J w a a p za d z W R R ca O O m O Na cap z z w :r Q :3 Q °-' a :3 Q m m d p U Co Q N tW J J p m m U) p m a O U w Z N C N w L a0 ^� O V E Ea - CD > LL O° z� Q U a WM, c > CL LLI O u) O ICL CO d 0 v C) 0 0 N A N } (fi 64 fA fA U) (U } Hi EA EA 6q N N } fA ffl fA EA 0 0 C C) LO 0 Q 00 m o U N M o li f6 } N } } O LL LO fp m Y U3. W Y LUJ a O U w 0 = z i• Q J W CO rZ =) Q d N a> M () It 0) O � LU cl w za C7 d �x z O LU a 0 o W c L L R L L a 0 m O cn Q m w z O o m .� a m � a m = a m � ¢ m w - U m Q N LU J 0_ m U o m a J O � U z CL 0 v C) 0 0 N A W, 0 W M 0 CO Q i ti 7 Q O � N m Q 00 } � } } O O M ER c� cfl e» cfl Q O � U Y O O C cn r U U O O L U } (Op L ( ) } ai O N N a1 (6 EA fA bl) EA (6 U_ (0 Q O U U Q N U00 O N } O } } Cl) U) O v Cl) EA m U U Q O M L to Q N U) 2 } � } fA Gl} EH fA W Y LUJ O a U0 H O m Q Om J U Q r N m v D O WCL Z a F- D :± w :+ Q 0 W �= Z Q 0 t6 m E m E f6 E o_ o op a O F W Q Q Z z W :3 CD a3 f3 m a 06 W O o Q Q Q Q W J U J m U) Q m fA m O J a O U Z a i ti 7 r N C d d C R Z ON woo c > V a W aa0cn .6.02 0 0 m Y m 2i d _N C) O O N U O O O O O O O O U _N p U � N N O M O W Z z } N O co M m N J 00 EA N 61) _O Efl 'IT EH N pQ O O O O DL `° c 0 °� Q Q W u, 0 LO 0 O 0 o ,n o C) o (3)CF)LO m ,�; t" LO M vi U U Q O O O O O O O _N W <n 1 cn 6 u i ori O 0')N p � N � N } LO oo Cl) r O _ L v L � 61) W Y � J O CL 2 o O v W = ¢ z co W } o J w CO d Q N Cl) 0 o MZ w OO Z ¢ o R R R R L ¢ 0 o M a O �a W N Q Z Z w L °' L :3 L °: �' m W ca( w O o a ¢ a a w J O V m ¢ CO ¢ J O J CL O v Z a 0 0 m Y m 2i d _N C) O O N w E IDIANIZ,- �J ME RI D IAN CITY HALL MONTHLY REPORT DECEMBER, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Section 1 Executive Summary Section 2 Schedule Section 3 LEED Section 4 Financial Section 5 ASI's Section 6 RFI's Section 7 Submittals Section 8 Photos 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SCHEDULE: o Project is on schedule with no remaining float. o Critical path for the Project is M.E.P. rough -in followed by computer flooring and drywall. LEED'S: o Project is scheduled for Silver LEED's accreditation. o Targeted points are 34 points out of a range of 33-38 for Silver. FINANCIAL: o Phase IV Plaza Bid Package is at $1.7mm to $2.2mm (depending on deductive alternates). o The resulting building budget is $19.9mm to $20.4mm. o Phase I, II, and III are 35% billed to date. ASI'S: o There is a total of 57 ASI's issued to date. o Resulting change orders are being processed and a requested time extension of 27 days is being evaluated. RFI'S: o There is a total of 66 RFI's to date; one is active and 65 are closed. SUMBITTALS: o There is a total of 166 submittals to date; 13 are active and 153 are approved. a • a .. .... ------ --- z z a � ------ ----g >,{; ------- a— ---------- -------------- ------- _ 8 ----------------------- — -------------------------- --- --- ------ g------------- ;° ----- ---------- ----- ----------------------- e-------- —----------------------- --------------- ------ p------ O_:: •�___._ -------;° O r r z --__-_Q_____ LL _______ 'ao _ x E _ }:':+I a ;N G: 5 $ a o N m ------------ W El, D a N 2 o o = ° W O. > g y 1C 'F n O ° O ° M J--------,�--�- m ;_ °m ----- ------------- -- o > - ------ ----- — — ---------- ----- .0 ioo U •� O�- Z Q2-!__-____ O z •p r _______ ,f y______ , ______ ____ U a` Q H K K 0 0 O • 2 � ---- ----- ------ ---- ----- --------------------- ------ ------ ------ -- ------ ----- -a - - --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------ £ -& 7 t2 a a------ a s ? a a n n n n n m m n n n n n ffi U 2 2 2 2 S S2 2 y O O ° O N Z Z z N Z 2 or JI 2 0. ZO OzN N Z 2 ° rcO (� Z N 2 Z � � � H 2 O 0 O O O Z Z (� O O Z LL O O O O O O O Z W � ° ° KK° O M 0 � N z r-5 m � . F . F N N 2 Z K K > > > > > > J N m H n O ° O O O n N m m LL O c7 O O O O O O O O O O S S S 3 N > O o c K °°°°°°° K K K w w w w z z z z z z a > > > > > m m m O O O O o 0 0 0 O w O V w w m ww ¢ JW¢ W.U ¢ wx w, w O O O z W Z WOO wLLa O Z w U U W W W W Z O O O O O w aO a wwW WO O O O O w w W < °O ° °° U UUU U �2 m 2 E 2 H � _❑ _ N w! n N � N N Si t'.l � (� xo Iwl M � � 1° N S z W f N Q m LL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N N m W --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- m J fg.7 W W cJ a t a a c w 3 � � J O r; 1 Q h N > m w F y �+ z z0 0 0 OO - m LU J A N Q z O C -- ::: U a a yxj U J N N J W ::: V / -------------'--'------------_-------------- -- }Zo 3 Z 7 s ': •'• •': •' J a H 0 •.' .:'. 3 :' o a �N x QAct j EIX W co N ° N— J m ............. 3 -------- ------------------LU E a r co ` F LL O :'.'. O N p O Q z O ------------ -------------------- Q--- __.-.__L__-._._._-----_---m_-m- -m- --_ Z _ .oN__0a_.0a.N_ _aO_ _aL_ m O 0000Om m o m m OO a-, �O m 0 N 0N �D Oo a_ _ mNiz E2 _ a, d L d O O O O O O 7 3 m m LL � O mO no n n n n r r m n r n m m o m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N n M m aa W r a N N N 47 N O D O O d D J d j d C N d C O L c l L LUL ILN D IL LL LL 'LL ILL IL ICi ' d lL LL LLll �0 H��� m F 3. IIF 3 Q A T O O 9 9 0 0 D O O C D O D O C�O D O L D I a 0 0 M D D O L C 0 24 O p O m t•'1 O N m m Y1 N O tN m n O N1 N t0•I v N N O ❑ 1+1 K > O W Oa w w z z < p z x = m H F w w m O W m W = N N Y U Z J O O W Q O m W Z j Gl K z J� C7 z 0 p H U H J° W 7 m U N m W f z m z w a a J w z 9 m y° 00 < j o f> W Q N 0p 0 y m a z p0 CWj O 3 z a o¢ Q z z U< K N m O o W N V =U_' 7 a O 7 W U Y m 0 2 W z z w z> H a J o o FW- j K K K U Z o>>W w m a z, w W p O K y w m a= OLL, m� p Q O y o Q o d o E m m> m r r oe O 2Q2 m I N N -� ('J N N Q Q W z~ p H W W U J J S 0 K J J W Z T U Q U F O U W> W O J IL W x Q m m 7 N m m y t~/1 m O N W d W K W 0 W W m 17i. � p Q 7 a� U W°? Q m Vai m LL. m O W s f O LL C n 00 ao CI 0 0 LEED for New Construction v2.2 LEE D Registered Project Checklist Project Name: Project Address: Yes ? No 8 2 4Sustainable Sites 14 Points Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Credit 1 Site Selection 1 1 Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 1 1 1 JCreclit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 1 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 1 Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 1 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low -Emitting & Fuel -Efficient Vehicles 1 1 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 1 1 Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat 1 1 Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1 1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1 1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non -Roof 1 1 Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 Yes ? No 1 3 water Efriciency 5 Points Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1 9 3 3Energy & Atmosphere'• Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required 'Note for EAcl: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June 26 ", 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) points under FAcl. ®Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10 10.5% New Buildings or 3.5% Existing Building Renovations 14% New Buildings or 7% Existing Building Renovations - 17.5% New Buildings or 10.5% Existing Building Renovations 21% New Buildings or 14% Existing Building Renovations 24.5% New Buildings or 17.5% Existing Building Renovations 28% New Buildings or 21 % Existing Building Renovations 31.5% New Buildings or 24.5% Existing Building Renovations 8 35% New Buildings or 28% Existing Building Renovations 38.5% New Buildings or 31.5% Existing Building Renovations 42% New Buildings or 35% Existing Building Renovations Credit 2 On -Site Renewable Energy 1 to 3 2.5% Renewable Energy 7.5% Renewable Energy 2 12.5% Renewable Energy 1 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 1 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1 Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 1 Credit 6 Green Power 1 Yes 1 No Yes ? No Yes ? No Prereq 1 Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 1.3 Credit 2.1 Credit 2.2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6 Credit 7 Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 4.3 Credit 4.4 Credit 5 Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7.1 Credit 7.2 Credit 8.1 Credit 8.2 0 10 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non -Structural Elements Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal Materials Reuse, 5% Materials Reuse, 10% Recycled Content, 10% (post -consumer +'/z pre -consumer) Recycled Content, 20% (post -consumer +'/2 pre -consumer) Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regions Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regions Rapidly Renewable Materials Certified Wood Minimum IAQ Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Increased Ventilation Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy Low -Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants Low -Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings Low -Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems Low -Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Controllability of Systems, Lighting Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort, Design Thermal Comfort, Verification Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Required Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 1 Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 1 Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 1 Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 1 Credit 2 LEED°Accredited Professional 1 Yes ? No Certified: 26-32 points, Silver: 33-38 points, Gold: 39-51 points, Platinum: 52-69 poinl 0 PETRO RO SOLID GE -N UtAL CONTRACTORS MERIDIAN CITY HALL PROJECT Phase IV Community Plaza and Site Improvements 11/29/2007 Bid Package Summary Bid Recap Sheet Total Base Bids Bid Package 3 Allowance (Plaza Structure and Water Feature) Pavers (Allowance) Total w/Allowance Bid Alternate No. 2&4 Deduct for the canal / stream water feature. Substitute Colored Concrete vs Pavers Bid Alternate No. 4 Deduct all work associated with the metal trellis Substitute Alternate Light Fixtures Total w/Alternates $ 1,235,867.75 $ 850,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 2,185,867.75 $ 400,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 98,250.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 1,648,617.75 12/11/200711:18 AM Bid Recap(Meeting) 1 • Meridian City Hall �« trot rn' Meridian, Idaho December 12, 2007 • Ci E IDIAN - Iuntsc INCLUDED IN BUDGETS Current Budget December 12, 2007 Current Budget December 12, 2007 1 2 3 Phase 1- Buildina Demolition & Abatement 4 Creamery Demolition & Abatement $426,357 $426,357 5 6 Total Phase I - Building Demolition & Abatement $426,357 $426,357 7 8 Phase II - Core & Shell 9 Sitework & Utilities $610,314 $610,314 10 Structural Concrete $655,595 $655,595 11 Masonry $1,584,760 $1,584,760 12 Structural Steel $1,847,000 $1,847,000 13 Rough Carpentry $0 $0 14 Insulation & Dampproofing $67,182 $67,182 15 Roofinq & Sheetmetal $182,990 $182,990 16 Exterior Doors $7,820 $7,820 17 Storefronts & Curtainwall $295,321 $295,321 18 Sha 11 Framing & Drywall $363,287 $363,287 19 Elevator $222,100 $222,100 20 Total Phase II - Core & Shell $5,836,369 $5,836,369 21 22 Phase III - TI/MEP 23 Architectural Metalworks $73,265 $73,265 24 Carpe t-Framin , Backing $112,000 $112,000 25 Cabinetry & Casework $464,000 $464,000 26 Insulation & Dampproofing $22,388 $22,388 27 Interior Doors $277,230 $277,230 28 Interior Storefront $68,678 $68,678 29 Coilinq Overhead Doors/Screens $5,590 $5,590 30 Interior Gypsum Drywall Systems $1,038,550 $1,038,550 31 Ceramic Tile $110.953 $110,953 32 Resilient Flooring $182,354 $182,354 33 Paint & Wallcoverin s $151,275 $151,275 34 Specialties $110,000 $110,000 35 Operable Partitions $20,840 $20,840 36 Access Flooring $528,800 $528,800 37 Window -Coverings $11,900 $11,900 38 Fire Suppression Systems $412,879 $412,879 39 Plumbing $953,385 $953,385 40 HVAC $2,060,000 $2,060,000 41 Electrical $2,749,895 $2,749,895 42 Total Phase III - TIIMEP $9,353,982 $9,353,982 43 44 Phase IV - Plaza Landscaping & Site Improvements 45 Sitework & Utilities 46 AC Paving 47 Concrete Paving 48 Landscaping 49 Structural Concrete 50 Masonry 51 Steel Fabrications 52 Framing Carpentry 53 Roofin , Insulation & Waterproofing 54 Doors, Frames & Hardware 55 Interior Walls & Painting 56 Specialties 57 Mechanical 58 Electrical 59 Total Phase IV - Plaza, Landscaping & Site Im rovements - Total $2,200,000 Total Phase IV - Plaza, Landscaping & Site Improvements - With Deductive Alternates $1,700,000 60 61 FF&E 62 Demountable Walls (Options to $1.163 Million $0 $0- 63 Audio Visual Systems $204,379 $204,379 64 Telecommunication Systems $219,000 $219,000 Budget History & Projections 12-12-07-8xl1.xls 11 11 11 I 65 Security Systems 84,695 84,695 66 Phone Service & Equipment Provider 67 Interior Signage Package Allowance 25,000 25,000 68 Total FF&E $508,074 $508,074 69 70 General Conditions & Fees 71 Project Reimbursable Cost Allowances $279,812 $279,812 72 Phase II General Conditions $181,029 $181,029 73 Phase III General Conditions $181,029 $181,029 74 Construction Contingency & Winter Conditions Allowance $700,000 $700,000 75 Estimated LEED Certification Costs for Silver $205,000 $205,000 76 Estimated Value Engineering Allowance $0 $0 77 Contract CM Fee $574,000 $574,000 78 CM Fee Pending Chane Order Chane in Scope & Complexity $376,808 $376,808 79 Total General Conditions & Fee $2,497,678 $2,497,678 80 Total Project Direct Costs $20,822,460 $20,322,460 81 82 Pro'ect Site Costs 83 Contaminated Soils Removal $422,000 $422,000 84 Unsuitable Soils Removal and Structural Fill for Contm & Unsuit. $379,526 $379.526 85 Total Project Site Costs $801,526 $801,526 86 87 Building Construction Budget w/Site Development Costs $21,623,986 $21,123,986 88 Less Creamery Demolition & Abatement $426,357 $426,357 89 Less Contaminated and Unsuitable Soils Removal $801,526 801 526 90 lCurrent Building Construction Budget $20,396,103 $19,896,103 Budget History & Projections 12-12-07-8x11.xls r+o, • N V cn co U 1I C) 2 W� lii -�pp O 'G 41 w U M � m UCD co c m m M �-�eco o m M c � CO I Lu I ci r 0-rnM r U tU r a rs c '~�' 'Q E F' P v. 4 c '� q m C o h Q y U E 4\ i z G r Ki LL. °� § U c o gi Co. P u Q 1 yUE � i J 3' y\ u. I LU a es a° R a z z q } 'm 10m O i Ldt7S11N M N N T M0 N to to CO) m tfD M N Om Lo N m coo CD m � r OS MLoTN N m MP CO �! T cri s� P P ��' P 64 co I - Lo ;i co c tR 0 U Z rs C L9 0 <_7 O cg v U. ° w U f9 a C t� ff < K CL m E? w o io r s V E W 1 3 a c .�6 S c7 i� n p z to tiC 5 g L) tm O L P. d G g iJ} LL d w y O p 09 bi V n O E p 0 m 7' d I C a M i O s v ID a`� W C zv Z a v LU V c* O p ui a w O w n�pf C� U r q C q a mi f -u m mi >•: w 1 AML'ROW � Note Pads 1 PEA, 323-4500 1 BOISSE, IDAHO TM 1 GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 1 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Re uired Ball In CourtNotes 4 Opened Closed 1 ASI 01 ASI No. 01 00001 PRO Furnish all labor, materials and equipment 4/20/2007 necessary to revise details A4 and 135 on sheet S3.1 and A3, 133 and C3 on sheet S7.2 as shown on attached sketches dated march 28,2007. ASI 02 ASI No. 02 00001 PRO Furnish all labor, material and equipment 6/26/2007 necessary to preform the following work: 1 -Revise the finish floor elevation to 2610.4 -Footings and foundation shall bear on undisturbed native gravel or compacted 1 granular fill per specification section 02300. -Any existing site fill encountered beneath the footings and foundations shall be removed to the undisturbed native sand and gravel. 1 -In areas where removal of contaminated materials has extended below the bottom of footings, the over excavated areas shall be back 1 filled and compacted with granular fill per specification section 02300. -Areas where excavation has occourred to ' enable the abandonment of water wells shall be backfilled with granular fill per specification section 02300. 1 ASI 03 - ASI No. 03 _ 00001 PRO Sheet A3.1: D1 - Window Frames Types -revise 6/13/2007 frame type 13 per the enclosed Sketch. 1 Attachments: SK- 1 ASI 04 ASI No. 04 00001 PRO Sheet S5.2: The framing layout for the roof 6/26/2007 joists is specified to be at 5 equal spaces; 1 however the framing plan shows 6 equal spaces. The enclosed sketch SK -1 shows the appropriate number of joists and spaces. Ij Sheet S7.5, Detail E4: Revise the detail callouts for the TS sections to be TS 20x4x5/16 in lieu of 1 the TS 16x4x5/16. See enclosed sketch SK -2. Attachments: SK -1, SK -2. AwL TRNote Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE-1875 TM OF -NERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 2 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 05 ASI No. 05 00001 PRO Sheet S2.11 and S2.12: Refer to the enclosed 6/26/2007 sheets for revisions required for the top of footing elevations based on the revised grading plan. Sheets S5.2: Revised details D2, D5, D6, and E1 to reflect a deeper grade beam at the similar conditions on the north side of the building. Sheet S5.3: Revise details 131, 62, and 133 to reflect the reference to the foundation plan for the T.O.F. elevations. Add the Footing Step Detail D6 to Sheet S5.3. Attachments: Sheets S2.1 and S2.12, Sketches SK -1 thru SK -8. GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 3 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 06 ASI No. 06 00001 NEW In response to the ACRD plan review 6/4/2007 comments, the attached civil drawings reflect the following modifications that have occurred to the civil drawings: 1. Sheet C1.0 has been added regarding construction requirements. Sheet C1.1 2. Keynote 14 has been modified to include ACHD truncated dome requirements. 3. Dimensions have been included to R/W line from centerline for both Meridian and Broadway Road. 4. A dimension has been added showing the distance from centerline of railroad tracks to the south property line. 5. Longitudinal and cross slopes have been added. 6. The driveway approach has been modified per ACHD requirements. 7. Detail reference for curb terminus has been added to the plans. See added key note 28. 8. Grade break has been added at the new driveway. 9. Radii at the driveway have added. 10. The radii of the inside curves at the on street parking at on Broadway has been modified to 20' at TBC. 11. The roof drain has been rerouted to the southern seepage bed in the parking lot. The seepage bed size has been changed accordingly. 12. The seepage bed located in Broadway Avenue has been eliminated. All storm water from the Broadway Ave right of way will be routed into existing storm drain lines in Broadway Avenue. 13. The sand and grease trap elevations have been modified. 14. Key Note 27 has been added for pedestrian ramps at driveway. 15. Key Note 29 has been added for new stop sign at driveway. 16. Key Note 30 has been added for new 4" pvc pipe that is used to tie foundation drainage system into new 48 " dia. manhole per added kev note 31. I� Note Pads ETR ......... .._......_..... ................ 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 3 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 06 ASI No. 06 00001 NEW In response to the ACRD plan review 6/4/2007 comments, the attached civil drawings reflect the following modifications that have occurred to the civil drawings: 1. Sheet C1.0 has been added regarding construction requirements. Sheet C1.1 2. Keynote 14 has been modified to include ACHD truncated dome requirements. 3. Dimensions have been included to R/W line from centerline for both Meridian and Broadway Road. 4. A dimension has been added showing the distance from centerline of railroad tracks to the south property line. 5. Longitudinal and cross slopes have been added. 6. The driveway approach has been modified per ACHD requirements. 7. Detail reference for curb terminus has been added to the plans. See added key note 28. 8. Grade break has been added at the new driveway. 9. Radii at the driveway have added. 10. The radii of the inside curves at the on street parking at on Broadway has been modified to 20' at TBC. 11. The roof drain has been rerouted to the southern seepage bed in the parking lot. The seepage bed size has been changed accordingly. 12. The seepage bed located in Broadway Avenue has been eliminated. All storm water from the Broadway Ave right of way will be routed into existing storm drain lines in Broadway Avenue. 13. The sand and grease trap elevations have been modified. 14. Key Note 27 has been added for pedestrian ramps at driveway. 15. Key Note 29 has been added for new stop sign at driveway. 16. Key Note 30 has been added for new 4" pvc pipe that is used to tie foundation drainage system into new 48 " dia. manhole per added kev note 31. 11 11 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 Note Pads ' GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 4 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Ooened Closed 17. Key Note 32 has been added for reference to curb taper at curb terminus at Broadway Ave. 18. Key Note 33 has been added for connection of inlet catch basin inlet to existing storm drain manhole at Broadway Ave. Sheet C4.1 has be renumbered to Sheet C3.1 Sheet C3.1 19. Source of groundwater data and design infiltration rate has been added to Sheet C3.1 Sheet C4.2 has been renumbered to Sheet C3.2 Sheet C3.2 20. Note 2 and sub notes 1 through 5 have been added to detail 1 on sheet C3.2 Sheet c4.3 has been renumbered C3.3 Sheet C4.1, C4.2, C4.3, C5.1 and Sheet C5.2 has been added to the set. 11 11 11 GENERAL CONTRACTORS Note Pads 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 5 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 07 ASI No. 07 F�,0 Sheet C1.0: has been added regarding 6/26/2007 construction requirements Sheet C1. I: 2. Keynote 14 has been modified to include ACHD truncated dome requirements. 3. Dimensions have been included to R/W line form centerline for both Meridian and Broadway Rd... 4.A dimension has been added showing distance from centerline of railroad tracks to the south property line. 5. Longitudinal and cross slopes have been added. 6. The driveway approach has been modified per ACHD requirements. 7. Detail reference for curb terminus has been added to the plans. See added key note 28. 8. Grade break has been added at the new driveway. 9. Radii at the driveway have added. 10. The radii of the inside curves at the on street parking at on Broadway has been modified to 20' at TBC. 11. The roof drain has been rerouted to the southern seepage bed in the parking lot. The seepage bed size has been changed accordingly. 12. The seepage bed located in Broadway Avenue has been eliminated. All stormwater form the Broadway Avenue right-of-way will be routed into the existing storm drain lines in Broadway Avenue. 13. The sand and grease trap elevations have been modified. 14. Key Note 27 has been added for pedestrian ramps at driveway. 15. Key Note 29 has been added for new stop sign at driveway. 16. Key Not 30 has been added for new 4" pvc pipe that is used to tie foundation drainage system into new 48" dia. Manhole per added key not 31. 17. Key Note 32 has been added for reference to curb taper at curb terminus at Broadway Note Pads YRQCKSO�IM TM GENERAL CONTRACTORS ' 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 6 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed Avenue. 18. Key Note 33 has been added for connection of inlet catch basin inlet to existing storm drain manhole at Broadway Ave. ' Sheet C4.1: Has been renumbered to Sheet C3.1 Sheet C3.1 19: Source of groundwater data and design infiltration rate has been added to sheet C3.1 1 Sheet C4.2: Has been renumbered to Sheet C3.d- Sheet C3.2: ' 20. Note 2 and sub notes 1 through 5 have been added to detail 1 on sheet C3.2 Sheet C4.3: has been renumbered to Sheet C3.3 Sheet C4.1, C4.2, C4.3, C5.1 and Sheet C5.2 have been added to the set Attachments: Civil Drawings C1.0, C1.1, C2.1, C3.1, C3.2, C3.3, C4.1, C4.2, C4.3, C5.1 and C5.. ASI 08 ASI No. 08 _ 00001 PRO Sheet S0.01: Add details C4, C5 and D4 to this 6/26/2007 sheet, per enclosed sketches SK -1, SK -2 and SK -3 Sheet S3.1: Revise details A4 and B5 enclosed sketches SK -4 and SK -5 Sheet S7.2: Revise detail A3 per enclosed ' sketch SK -4 Attachments: Sketches SK -1 thru SK -6 II • 11 Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 7 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 09 ASI No. 09 00001 PRO Elevator Opening Framing: Revise the 6/26/2007 dimensions for the framing locations around the elevators at each level based on the enclosed sketches SK -1 and SK -2. Sheet S7.2: Provide and additional detail C7 showing the increased dimensions between the edge of slab and the perimeter support framing. See enclosed sketch SK -3. ASI 10 ASI No. 10 00001 PRO Sheets A4.0, A4.11 A4.2, A4.3: Revise the 6/19/2007 exterior elevations per the enclosed revision sheets: A4.OR, A4.1R, A4.2R, AUR. Sheets A5.0, A5.1, 5.2, A5.3: Revise the wall sections per the enclosed revised sheets: A5.OR, A5.1R, 5.2, A5.3R. Note Pads P T 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 TM Roca SOLID - GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 . Project No: 06-0675 Page: 8 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI11 ASI_N_9.11 00001 PRO Sheet S2.31: Revise the dimension between 6/19/2007 beams on gridlines 3 and 10 at the roof transition edge to be V-8". This will correspond with the dimension noted in the referenced detail. Sheet S2.31:Provide an additional detail reference E1/S7.6 at the non-bearing edge of the stair vestibule adjacent to gridline F2.5. See enclosed sketch SK -1. Sheet S2.32: Revise the dimension between beams on gridlines 3 and 10 at the roof transition edge to be 1"-8". This will correspond with the dimension noted in the referenced detail dimension between the edge of slab and the perimeter support framing. Sheet S2.32: Provide an additional detail reference E1/S7.6 at the non bearing edge of the stair vestibule adjacent to F10.5. See enclosed sketch SK -2. Sheet S2.42: Revise the dimensions for the elevator deck support beams as shown. See enclosed sketch SK -3. Sheet S7.6: Add detail E1 showing the configuration of the slab and wall framing at the stair vestibules of the 4th floor. See enclosed sketch SK -4. ASI 12 ASI No. 12 00001 PRO ASI 13 ASI No. 13 00001 PRO Attachements: Sketches SK -1 thru SK -4. Please issue the following clarification to the 6/19/2007 contract documents per attached Stapley Engineering Memorandum dated June 15, 2007. Please issue the following clarification to the 6/25/2007 contract documents per attached Stapley Engineering Memorandum dated June 20, 2007. ZZ zz Note Pads PETR 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 ,, ROCK SOLID GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 9 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed 'ASI 14 ASI No. 14 00001 PRO 1. Furnish all labor, materials and equipment as 6/26/2007 required to install plastic laminate panels in elevator cars No. 2 and No. 2 as supplied and installed by the elevator manufacturer. Color of panels shall be 7922-07 Brighton Walnut as manufactured by Wilsonart. 2. Furnish all labor material and equipment necessary to install software as required for card reader access system operation of elevator No. 3. ASI 15 ASI No. 15___ 00001 PRO 1.Furnish all labor, material and equipment as 6/26/2007 required to install drainage fill and filter fabric at foundation drainage system. Drainage fill shall be clean crushed rock containing less then f percent fines passing the No. 200 Sieve. The I filter fabric shall be woven or non -woven geotextile filter fabric of PP or polyester fibers, or combination of both. Flow rates range from 110 to 330 gpm per sq. ft. when tested according to ASTM D4491. 2.Install fabric and drainage fill as follows: a.Before installing drainage fill, lay geotextile filter fabric in trench and overlap trench sides, b.Place supporting layer of compacted drainage fill over compacted sub grade to a depth of 4". Install drainage pipe. Add drainage fill such that it is 12" minimum from face of footing and extend over top of footing a minimum of 12". Return drainage fill to face of foundation wall. Place drainage fill layer not exceeding 3 inches in depth. Compact each layer placed. c.After drainage fill has been installed, wrap top of drainage fill with geotextile fabric. Fasten and lap geotextile fabric per manufactures instructions. 1 3.Foundation drainage system shall run to the 4" pvc pipe connection the foundation drainage system to the 48" diameter manhole as shown on the revised civil drawings. II 11 u . Note Padsr!pml 9 323-4500 BOISSE, IDAHO C3E1*ERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 10 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 16 _ASI No. 16_ 00001 NEW Furnish all labor materials, and equipment 6/26/2007 necessary to install a 48" diameter manhole and 4" pvc pipe for the foundation drainage system per key note 30 and 31 shown on the revised civil drawings. A_SI 17 ASI No. 17 00001 NEW The work shall be carried out in accordance 7/10/2007 with the following supplemental instructions issued in accordance with the contract documents without change in contract sum or contract time. Prior to proceeding in accordance with this instruction, indicate your acceptance of this instruction, for minor change to the work as consistent with the contract documents and return a copy to the architect. Sheet A5.4 Detail A4: Add the following note: Provide 2" I.D. pipe nozzle outlet in bottom of gutter for connection of drain piping by mechanical. 11 Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 11 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 18 ASI No. 18 00001 NEW Sheet 52.41: 7/13/2007 1. Connections Grid lines 6 and 7. Remove the moment connection symbol from the V24x55 beams on grids 6 and 7 at the columns on Grid E. Provide a simple gravity connection at these locations. 2. Connectins Grid lines 6 and 7. Provide a moment connection symbol from the W24 x 55 beams on grids 6 and 7 at the columns on Grid G. Provide a rigid frame connection at these locations. 3. W12x16 beams. Provide 1/2" camber at all W12x16 beams with spans greater than 25 feet. Sheet 52.42: 1.Connections Grid line 7. Remove the moment connection symbol from the W24 x 55 beam on grid 7 at the column on Grid E. Provide a simple gravity connection at this location. 2. Connections Grid line 7. Provide a moment connection symbol from the W 24 x 55 beam on grid 7 at the column on Grid G. Provide a rigid frame connection at these locations. 3. W12 x 16 Beams. Provide 1/2" camber at all W12 x 16 beams with spans greater than 25 feet. II • 11 Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 GIRNERA - 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 12 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 19 ASI No. 19 00001 NEW Sheet S2.41: Show 6 x 6 steel columns in 7/23/2007 canopy area build out at grids 6 and 7. See sketch SK -1. Sheet 52.52: 1. Provide dimensions for the locations of the TS sections that span east/west beyond grid A at the west side canopy. These TS members, TS 20x4x5/16 are supported by the bracing located at the column noted in item #1. See sketch SK -2. 2. Delete the TS 20x4x5/16 shown midway between grids 6 and 7 spanning from grid H to the TS20x4x5/16 at the entry column line. See sketch SK -2. Sheet S7.4 Detail E4: Add TS 6x6.1/4" column and the dimension locating the column. This column was shown in detail e4/S7.5 and in the architectural drawings, but was not reflected in the related plan view. See sketch SK -3. - Additional Sketches Enclosed. - Architectural Partial Wall Sections/Elevations: These sketches are the architectural elevations showing the configuration of the bracing at the East and West end of the building. Note the configuration of the braces is altered fro what appears in the original building elevations and details. See sketches SK -4 and SK -5. -Markups of the Canopy Sections from Steel shop drawings Sheet E -7L: These sketches reflect additional information that was not relayed during the review of the shop drawings. This additional information should allow completion of the shop drawings for the entry canopy areas. See sketches SK -6 and SK -7. II 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 QENERAI Ah Note Pads 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 13 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 20 ASI No. 20 00001 NEW Sheet A2.01T: Per the contractors request the 8/2/2007 wall between Electrical 002 and Mechanical 003 may be left out until the electrical gear is installed and all clearances are verified. This wall may be moved as required into the Mechanical room 003 to accommodate this change. Additionally door 003A may be reositioned within this wall as required. Sheet MO. 11: FCU 2 is to be relocated above door 003A as required, maintain all connections and piping as shown. 11 ``_ T N : Ifl 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 t3BNSRAL C 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 14 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Ouened Closed ASI 21 ASI No. 21 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEPs 9/4/2007 Door Hardware Specification Section 0871013e advised of the following modifications to hardware requirements to the following doors: 1.Add Card Readers to doors 101B, 101C and 101D. These doors shall be secure from the Lobby. 2.Add Card Reader to door 101A. This door shall be secure from Stair 101 3.Add Card Reader to door 10413. This door to be secure from the exterior. 4.Add Card Reader to door 129. This door shall be secure from Receiving 129. 5.Add Card Reader to door 141. This door shall be secure from Corridor 140. 6.Revise door swing at door 152 to swing into Lobby 151. Revise lockset to Storeroom function 7.Delete Card Reader from door 124. 8.Add Card Readers to doors 232A and 238A. These doors shall be secure from Waiting Area 237. 9.Add Card Reader to door 252. This door shall be secure from Corridor 246. 10.Delete Card Reader from door 312. Revise lockset to Storeroom Function. 11.Revise lockset at door 315B to a Storeroom Function. This door shall be secure from Training 315. 12.Add Card Reader to Door 354. Door shall be secure from Lobby 304. 13.Add Card Reader to Door 307A. Door shall be secure from Corridor 305. - w —"� Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 Roca So1.m - GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 ' Project No: 06-0675 Page: 15 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ' ASI 22 ASI No. 22 -- - 00001 NEW PETRA A3 Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEPs 9/4/2007 Reflected Ceiling Plan Sheets A7.21T and A7.221 Be advised of the following modifications to following ceiling heights: 1. Revise ceiling heights at Corridors 205, 222, ' 246 and 262 from 10'-0" to 9'-6"and revise soffits from 9'-6" to 9'-5". Note, the IV -0" high ceiling at these locations shall remain as shown. 2. Revise ceiling height at Plan Vault 210 from 10'-0" to 8'-6". ASI 23 ASI No. 23 00001 NEW Sheet A3.3 - Detail A5: Provide a 9"x8 1/2"x3/8" 9/4/2007 fabricated angle with epoxy anchors at 24" o.c. ' for the steel lintel at the stair tower header per RFI #24. Fourth Floor Stair Construction: Provide ' columns and channels per RFI # 28 for the framing of Stair #4. Sheet S2.Il/S2.12: Revise the floor framing to be a W21x44 at the following locations: Gridline 5.5 from D to E and Gridline 7.5 from D to E. ASI 24 ASI No. 24 00001 NEW PETRA A7 Refer to attached civil drawings sheet C2.1. 9/21/2007 Revise location of new water service to connect ' into existing 10" water service within property line as shown in lieu of connecting into existing 12" waterline located in Meridian Road. Note: Routing of sanitary service shall be located within the building structure per ' response to RFI No 22 see attached in lieu of location shown on sheet C2.1. P. , Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 „A GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 ' Project No: 06-0675 Page: 16 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 25 ASI No_-. 25 00001 NEW The electrical engineer has been in discussions 9/11/2007 with the supplier for the electrical bus -duct for the above referenced project. In there discussions, the question was raised whether the specified 208V bus -duct is required to be provided with a 200% neutral bus to match the specified 200% neutral bus for the main switchboard (MSBL). The specification for the bus -duct requires a 100% rated neutral bus. The electrical engineer has recommend that the 208V bus -duct be provided with a 200% rated neutral bus to keep the intent of the design consistent throughout the distribution system, and to minimize the effects of harmonic loads (computers, etc.) that are anticipated to be prevalent on the 208 volt distribution system in ' the facility. As such the electrical engineer recommends that the contractor provide the following revision in electrical work: Sheet E5.00 1. Bus-ducts'BD-LA' and BD -LB' shall be furnished and installed with 200% rated neutral bussing and the appropriate lugs necessary to accommodate the specified feeders. ' The electrical engineer has also reviewed the construction requirements for emergency distribution switchboard'ESB3' with the ' electrical gear supplier, and has found that the contract documents indicate that the feeder for 'ES133' is sized for 2,280 amps. Per the schedule ' on the documents, 'ESB3' is rated for 400 amps. The electrical engineer dose not believe that the feeder to this switchboard needs to be sized for 2,280 amps. Therefore, in addition to the work recommended above, please direct the contractor to provide the following revisions in electrical work: ' Sheet E5.00 1.Feeder for'ES133' (indicated as feeder'I' on feeder schedule) shall be 4-500 and 1-3(G)-4" __ in lieu of specified. AM f PNote Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 ,m Roca SouD GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 17 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 26 ASI No. 26 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvment twith MEP's 9/18/2007 Door Hardware Specification Section 08710. Be advised of the following modifications to hardware requirments to the following doors. 1. Add Card Readers to doors 102A. This door shall be secure from Stair 104. 2. Add Card Reader to door 110A. This door shall be secure from Stair 110. 3. Add Card Reader to door 124A. This door to be secure from Corridor 113. 4. Add Card Reader to door 102C. This door shall be secure from Stair 104. 5. Delete Card Reader from door 224. 6. Add Card Reader to door 309. This door shall be secure from Corridor 305. 7. Add Card Reader to door 337B. This door shall be secure from Corridor 337. Steve Christiansen, LCA 9/17/2007 ASI 27 ASI No. 27 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 9/20/2007 Hallow Metal Frames, Doors and Glazing. 1. Refer frame hallow metal frame type 'M'. Revise the two T-9" dimension to read 2'-0". Revise the overall 11'-2" dimension to read T-8". Glazing in this frame shall be 1/4" wire glass. 2. Glass in frame type 'B' located at door 346B shall be 1/4" clear tempered glass. 3. Glass in frame type 'B' located at doors 135A and 135B shal be type 3 "Fire Lite Plus" 4. Glass in door 133B shall be 1/4 wire glass. 5. Glass in door 135C shall be bype 3 "Fire Lite Plus" 6. Revise frame type for door 144A to read type 'X' in the door and frame schedule. This door and frame shall be glazed with "Fire Lite Plus". 7. Revise frame type for door 124 A to read type 'C' in the door and frame schedule. 8. Revise frame type for door 347 to read type Von the floor plan. ' r As pngNote Pads � 323-4500 BOISSE, IDAHO ASI 31 ASI No. 31 00001 NEW ASI 32 ASI No. 32 ' 00001 NEW PETRA Full Tenant Improvement with MEPs: 10/1/2007 Dimension Clarification: Revise the following dimensions typical all sheets. Gridline G to H is 27'-8", Gridline H to 3 is 18'-8". SK -1 A3 Refer to specification section 09511 Acoustical 10/15/2007 Panel Ceilings item 2.3. -Revise ACP -1 Product to Dune 2712 Tegular Second Look (24x48). -Revise ACP -2 Product to Cortega 2758 Tegular Second Look (24x48). G IRT-MRAL CONTRACTORS ' 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 ' Project No: 06-0675 Page: 18 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ' ASI 28_ _ASI No. 28 - - 00001 NEW Sheet A6.1T: See attached sketches SK -1 and 9/18/2007 SK -2 for additional dimensions of millwork and ' walls at the City Council Chambers. ASI 28: SKI, SK2. ' ASI 29 ASI No. 29_ 00001 NEW Sheet M1.11: Provide (2) smoke dampers at 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 ' VAV #134 per enclosed RFI #38. Reference RFI #38. ' ASI 30 ASI No. 30_ 00001 NEW Sheet A8.1T: Revise Folding Partition detail D5 9/25/2007 per the enclosed sketch SK -1. Verify all framing ' requirment with Operable Folding Partition Submittial dated September 7, 2007. ASI 31 ASI No. 31 00001 NEW ASI 32 ASI No. 32 ' 00001 NEW PETRA Full Tenant Improvement with MEPs: 10/1/2007 Dimension Clarification: Revise the following dimensions typical all sheets. Gridline G to H is 27'-8", Gridline H to 3 is 18'-8". SK -1 A3 Refer to specification section 09511 Acoustical 10/15/2007 Panel Ceilings item 2.3. -Revise ACP -1 Product to Dune 2712 Tegular Second Look (24x48). -Revise ACP -2 Product to Cortega 2758 Tegular Second Look (24x48). Revisions ' Sheet A6.6T: Delete the upper cabinets over the refrigerator or the copy machine at the following elevations: Al, A2, A4, 61, 65, D1, D2 ' and E1. Sheet A6.7T: Delete the upper cabinets over the refrigerator or the copy machine at the ' following elevations: Al, 62, Cl, C4, C5 and D2. Note: At copy machine locations, just the first (2) equal sections of cabinet are to be deleted. ASI 34 ASI No. 34 00001 NEW Sheet A8.1T: At detail 62, provide a 24" x 24" 10/15/2007 opeing at each wall and trhough the insulation ' as shown on the enclosed sketch SK -1 to allow a return air path over the folding partition. Attachement: SK -1 ASI 35 ASI No. 35 ' 00001 NEW ALLCON AB(Cold Shell and Core Package 10/29/2007 Screen Wall, Loading Dock and Ramp Area Revisions: 1 Sheets A1.0 and Al. l: Modify the area of the loading dock, trash enclosure, ramp and screen walls per the enclosed sheets. Note Pads - PETR INCOYMaR.1TfiD 323-4500 ' BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 Roca SOLID GENERAL CONTRACTORS ' 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 19 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 33 ASI No. 33 - 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Full Tenant Improvement with MEPs Ceiling 10/15/2007 Revisions ' Sheet A6.6T: Delete the upper cabinets over the refrigerator or the copy machine at the following elevations: Al, A2, A4, 61, 65, D1, D2 ' and E1. Sheet A6.7T: Delete the upper cabinets over the refrigerator or the copy machine at the ' following elevations: Al, 62, Cl, C4, C5 and D2. Note: At copy machine locations, just the first (2) equal sections of cabinet are to be deleted. ASI 34 ASI No. 34 00001 NEW Sheet A8.1T: At detail 62, provide a 24" x 24" 10/15/2007 opeing at each wall and trhough the insulation ' as shown on the enclosed sketch SK -1 to allow a return air path over the folding partition. Attachement: SK -1 ASI 35 ASI No. 35 ' 00001 NEW ALLCON AB(Cold Shell and Core Package 10/29/2007 Screen Wall, Loading Dock and Ramp Area Revisions: 1 Sheets A1.0 and Al. l: Modify the area of the loading dock, trash enclosure, ramp and screen walls per the enclosed sheets. ' - r i PETR Note Pads 323-4500 ' BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 TM, ri-K SOLID ' QENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 20 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 36 ASI No. 36 00001 NEW Sheet A2.01TF: 10/17/2007 1. At Elevator Equipment Room #001: Revise the North and West alls to be Wall Type #8A, 2 hour rated walls. 2. At Elevator Equipment Room #001: Provide a wall mounted fire extinguisher (10520) inside the door to this room. Sheet A2.02TF: 1.At Elevator Equipment Room #017: Revise the North, East and West walls to be Wall Type #8A, 2 hour rated walls. 2.At Elevator Equipment Room #017: Provide a wall mounted fire extinguisher (10520) inside the door to this room. Sheet A3.OT: Revise doors 001 and 017 to be provided with a 90 minute rating. Sheet A8.OT: E4- Wall Types, Wall Type #8: Add note as follows: Wall Type 8A is to be a 2 hour rated wall per U.L. U419. Provide (2) layers of 5/8" type X gypsum board each side of wall. This wall is to be constructed at all walls of the elevator equipment rooms, unless already shown to have a 2 hour wall. Sheet A9.OT: 1.Revise Detail B4 - Elevator Wall to be A4. 2.Revise Detail A4 as shown on sketch SK -1. Sheets E2.01L/E2.02L: Light fixture type WF3 in elevator pits shall be revised to Canlet no. 68 -02 -21 -OG -39. Fixture to be NEMA 4 rated vapor proof light fixture, wall mount, with 26W TRT lamp, polycarbonate globe and guard. Sheet E2.01M: 1.Furnish and install dedicated circuit for shunt trip connection to elevator disconnecting means in room 001. Circuit shall be LBA-59, #12's. Connect to shunt -trip device as required. Coordinate connection with elevator equipment supplier. 2.Locate elevator disconnecting means in accordance with elevator equipment supplier and the local Authority having jurisdiction. Locations shown on plans are general and are to be coordinated for exact placement. II • 11 Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 GENERAL 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET - MERIDIAN, ID 83642 - PHONE: (2 8) 323-4500 - FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 21 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed 3.All wiring in elevator pit shall conform to requirements of NEMA 4 for wet locations. Sheet E2.02M: 1.Furnish and install dedicated circuit for shunt trip connection to both elevator disconnecting means in room 017. Circuits shall be LBB -27 and LBB -29, #12's. Connect to shunt -trip device as required. Coordinate connection with elevator equipment supplier. 21ocate elevator disconnecting means in accordance with elevator equipment supplier and the local Authority having jurisdiction. Locations shown on plans are general and are to be coordinated for exact placement. 3.Receptacles in elevator pits 1 and 2 are to be GFI type receptacles. 4.AII wiring in elevator pit shall conform to requirements on NEMA 4 for wet locations. ASI 37 ASI No. 37 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Full Tenant Improvements with MEP's. 10/17/2007 Based on discussions between Geoff Johnson and Idaho Power Co. regarding the capacity of the pad mounted transformer(s) for doubling the neutral conductor capacity from the main switchboard MSBL to the pad mounted transformer, Idaho Power has indicated that the 200% neutral conductor's requirement shown on the documents can not be met. As such, the following electrical revisions are to be made: Sheet E5.00: Feeder `P' between main switchboard MSBL and Idaho Power 208V transformer to be revised to be (8) 4" C's each with 4-500 MCM in lieu of indicated. Please provide credit pricing for this revision in work. Because the system neutral is bonded to ground at the main switchboard, we do not believe that this revision will compromise the intent of the design to provide a system to accommodate the heating effects of non-linear electrical loads on the system. low Note Pads 11 11 ASI 39 ASI No. 39 hardware requirements to the following doors. Modify hardware as required for a secure door with access by card reader and or key only. 1.Add Card Reader to door 002 2.Add Card Reader to door 004 (One active leaf of pair of doors to room 004) 3.Add Card Reader to door 005 4.Add Card Reader to door 106 5 -Add Card Reader to door 108 6.Add Card Reader to door 200 7.Add Card Reader to door 202 8.Add Card Reader to door 300 9 -Add Card Reader to door 302 10.Add Card Reader to door 101E 11.Add Card Reader to door 312 00001 NEW Sheets A2 1]Td A2 12T R ASI 40 ASI No. 40 00001 NEW an a ocate WIndow 11/2/2007 Type "Q", typical of (2), at the City Council Chambers per the enclosed sketch SK -1 and SK -2. PETRA AJ Sheets A2.11T, A2.12T, A2.21T and A2.22T: Relocate the roof and overflow drain piping shown at gridlines 1-F and 12-F per the enclosed Sketches SK -1, SK -2, SK -3, and SK -4. Coordinate relocation with mechanical. Attachments SK -1, SK -2, SK -3, SK -4. 11/8/2007 t 7S011MDt- GENERALCONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 22 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ' ASI 38 ASI No. 38 00001 NEW Be advised of the following modifications to 10/31/2007 11 11 ASI 39 ASI No. 39 hardware requirements to the following doors. Modify hardware as required for a secure door with access by card reader and or key only. 1.Add Card Reader to door 002 2.Add Card Reader to door 004 (One active leaf of pair of doors to room 004) 3.Add Card Reader to door 005 4.Add Card Reader to door 106 5 -Add Card Reader to door 108 6.Add Card Reader to door 200 7.Add Card Reader to door 202 8.Add Card Reader to door 300 9 -Add Card Reader to door 302 10.Add Card Reader to door 101E 11.Add Card Reader to door 312 00001 NEW Sheets A2 1]Td A2 12T R ASI 40 ASI No. 40 00001 NEW an a ocate WIndow 11/2/2007 Type "Q", typical of (2), at the City Council Chambers per the enclosed sketch SK -1 and SK -2. PETRA AJ Sheets A2.11T, A2.12T, A2.21T and A2.22T: Relocate the roof and overflow drain piping shown at gridlines 1-F and 12-F per the enclosed Sketches SK -1, SK -2, SK -3, and SK -4. Coordinate relocation with mechanical. Attachments SK -1, SK -2, SK -3, SK -4. 11/8/2007 11 Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 GF -NERAL C 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 23 of 28 Note Paditem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 41 ASI No. 41 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/19/2007 .. a Sheets A2.12T and P1.12: Multi Purpose 142 - Delete the sink (P-11) from South section cabinets. Sheet A2.21T: 1. Work area 212: Revise per enclosed sketch SK -1. 2. Mens Shower 225 and Womens Shower 226: Delete all plumbing fixtures and revise to be Storage Rooms 225/226 as shown on enclosed sketch DK -1. Coordinate deletion with mechanical. Sheet A7.21T: 1. Work Area 212: Revise per enclosed sketch SK -2. 2. Men's Shower 225 and Women's Shower 226: Delete all plumbing fixtures and revise to be Storage Rooms 225/226 as shown on enclosed sketch SK -2. Provide lay -in acoustical ceiling as shown. SheetP2.11: Mens shower 225 and Womens Shower 226: Delete all plumbing fixtures and associated piping from these rooms. Sheet M2.11: Mens Shower 225 and Womens Shower 226: Delete all exhaust grills and associated duct work from these rooms. Sheet E2.21F: Mens Shower 225 and Womens Shower 226: Delete the Fire Alarm Horns at these two rooms. Sheet E2.21L: Mens Shower 225 and Womens Shower 226: Revise lighting at these two rooms to provide (1) GF2 type fixture at each room with normal switching. Attachements: Sketches SK -1, SK -2. AEM, a p ETA _` Note Pads 323-4500 ' BOISE, IDAHO RCE -18" TM ROCK SOLID GENERAL CONTRACTORS ' 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 24 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed 'ASI 42 ASI No. 42 - 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/19/2007 Sheets A6.12T: Elevation C5 - Revise the millwork for Reception 354 per the enclosed sketch SK -1. Note the millwork for Reception '321 to remain as per the original drawing. ASI 43 ASI No. 43 ' 00001 NEW PETRA WB Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/19/2007 Access Flooring System 10270: Color selection for the Static Conductive Plastic Laminate in Rooms 311 and 312 is Tate `Access Floor System Folkstone Graphix. ASI 44 ASI No. 44 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/19/2007 Sheet A8.3T: Detail E1, revise condoc note 06402110 (Wood veneer over MDF) to be 09260.P (5/8" type 'X' Gypsum Board). ASI 45 ASI No. 45 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Reference: Full Tenant Improvment with MEP's 11/19/2007 Sheet A7.21T and A7.22T: Revise the ceiling I height of Unassigned Rooms 211 and 252 to be 9'-4". Revise the soffits of Lobby 111 to 9'-4" above the 2nd floor. ' Sheet M2.11 and M2.12: Revise the duct work at FT -18 and FT -19 per the enclosed sketch SK -12 and SK -13. ASI 46 ASI No. 46 _ 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/19/2007 Sheet A6.6T: Elevation -D1• Revise elevation per enclosed sketch SK -1. PURRNote Pads 323-4500 BOISE,IDAHORCE_ 1875 TM _ GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 25 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 47 ASI No. 47 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/20/2007 Sheets M1.01, M1.02, M2.01, M3.01, and M3.02: Revise the locations of the clouded VAV units per the enclosed sketches. ' Attachementsl- SK -9, SK SK -8, -7, SK -5, SK -6. ASI 49 ASI No. 49 ' 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/20/2007 Sheets E2.11S, E2.12S, E2.21S, E2.22S, E2.31S 1 and E2.32S: Revise the layout of the cable tray at each area per the enclosed drawings. ' ASI 50 ASI No. 50 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/19/2007 Sheet A2.22T: Provide openings in the gypsum board at the top 12" of the wall along Gridline 9 for a return air path, net open area in wall shall ' be at least 13.33 sq. ft. See enclosed sketch SK -1. Sheet M2.11 and M2.12: Revise the duct work ' layout at the clouded areas shown on the enclosed sketch SK -14 and SK -15. Attachements: Sheet SK -1, SK -14 and SK -15. ASI 51 ASI No. 51R 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 11/20/2007 Sheet A3.3T: Revise detail D1 per enclosed ' sketch SK -1. Note this revision only occurs at the head of window type '3' along gridlines 1 and 12, between gridlines F -J. All other locations are to be per the Construction Documents. 11 11 11 Note Pads ' GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 . Project No: 06-0675 Page: 26 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 52 ASI No. 52 00001 NEW PETRA A] Reference: Cold Shell and Core 11/26/2007 Sheet S2.41: Add W8x10 beam at the east end of the elevator penthouse at gridline 3 F. Provide additional detail reference C7/S7.5 for angle deck support between column and stair corner. See attached sketch SK -1. Sheet S2.42L Add W8x10 beams at each end of the elevator at the elevation of the primary roof. Add W8x10 beam to the west elevator shaft also. See attached sketch SK -2. Sheet S2.42: Provide additional detail reference C7/S7.5 for angle deck support between column and stair corner. See attached sketch SK -3. Sheet S7.5: Add detail C5 showing a 4x4x1/4 angle spanning between the column and the masonry wall to provide support for the roof decking. See attached sketch SK -4. Attachements: Sheets SK -1, SK -2, SK -3, SK -4 ASI 53 ASI No. 53 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEPs 12/2/2007 Sheets M2.01, M2.02, M3.01 and M3.02: Delete all manual dampers shown on the inlets of all under floor VAV boxes. 11 Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 GENERAL 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 27 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 54 ASI No. 54 00001 NEW PETRA AJ Reference: Cold Core and Shell Package. 12/3/2007 Sheet S2.41: Adjust the roof elevation at gridline E to be 46-10 1/2". This information was revised in submittals. Provide reference to new detail B5/S/7.6, which shows the proposed method to adjust the top of the masonry wall to the correct elevations. See enclosed sketch SK -1. Sheet S2.42: Adjust the roof elevation at gridline E to be 46-10 1/2". This information was revised in submittals. See enclosed sketch SK -2. Sheet 57.6: Add detail 135 showing a TS12x2x3/16 section cut to match the roof slope for the wall adjacent to gridline 3. See enclosed sketch SK -3. Sheet S 7.6: Revise detail C7 to indicate that the length of the dowels between the masonry wall and the concrete slab on deck will need to vary due to the slope of the roof. See enclosed sketch SK -4. ' Sheet S7.6: Revise detail C7 to indicate that the length of the dowels between ASI 55 ASI No. 55 __.. 00001 NEW Reference: Community Plaza and Site 12/3/2007 Improvements: Sheet L1.70: Terllis Construction Details, See enclosed sketches SK -1, SK -2, SK -3, which clarify the materials and construction of this ' structure. II • 11 Note Pads 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 EN'ERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 28 of 28 Note PadItem No. Status Required Ball In CourtNotes Opened Closed ASI 56 ASI No. 56 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 12/10/2007 Sheet A2.11TF: Revise wall type at Plan Vault 118 and Storage 126 to wall type 6 as detailed on sheet A8.OT. Sheet A2.21TF: Revise wall type at Plan Vault 210 to wall type 6 as detailed on sheet A8.OT. Sheet A2.22TF: Revise wlal type at Storage 244 to wall type 6 as detailed on sheet A8.OT. Sheet M1.01: Provide (2) additional fire smoke dampers and duct work at Storage Rooms 126 and 134 (leach) per enclosed sketch SK -1. ASI 57 ASI No. 57 00001 NEW Reference: Full Tenant Improvement with MEP's 12/10/2007 Note: This ASI is clarifying the ceiling heights of the 2nd floor Lobby, Waiting and Main Corridors. Previously issued ASI's #22 and #45 had revised some of the ceiling heights in this area, please disregard these and use the information described here. Sheets A7.21T and A7.22T: Revise ceiling heights per enclosed sketches. Sheets A2.21T and A2.22T: At doors #222A and 262 only, revise frame type "Z" to be 9'-4" tall. At door #224 only revise frame type "C" to be 9'-4" tall. ��� Requests for Information Log rifM]iA-4500 E, IDAHO CE -1875 GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 1 of 3 Type To From NumberTitle Status Date Approved Responded Required RFI CITYMER PETRA 00001 Sample CLO 5/14/2007 5/21/2007 5/21/2007 5/21/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00002 Project Director CLO 3/12/2007 3/19/2007 3/19/2007 3/19/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00003 Water / Sewer for Plaza CLO 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 4/25/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00004 Change Detail C2 - S 5.2 CLO 4/20/2007 5/3/2007 5/3/2007 4/27/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00005 Base Plate Change CLO 4/30/2007 5/3/2007 5/3/2007 5/7/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00006 Embed Plate P-1, P-2 CLO 4/30/2007 5/3/2007 5/3/2007 5/7/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00007 Rule Steel RFI No 2 CLO 5/1/2007 6/13/2007 6/13/2007 5/8/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00008 Rule Steel RFI No 3 CLO 5/1/2007 5/21/2007 5/21/2007 5/8/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00009 Wall & Footing height CLO 5/8/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 5/15/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00010 Foundation Drain at Basement CLO 5/16/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 5/23/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00011 ASI Requests -Elevations and Details CLO 5/16/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 5/25/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00012 Rule Steel RFI No. 4 CLO 5/24/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 5/31/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00013 Rule Steel RFI No. 5 CLO 5/30/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 6/6/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00014 Rule Steel RFI No. 6 CLO 5/30/2007 6/5/2007 6/5/2007 6/6/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00015 Top steel elevation@Detail(RS-7) CLO 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 6/12/2007 6/18/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00016 Beam Verification (RS -8) CLO 6/14/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 6/21/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00017 Domestic Water Source CLO 6/18/2007 6/20/2007 6/20/2007 6/20/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00018 Wall Fix at Grid "D" CLO 7/5/2007 7/3/2007 7/3/2007 7/12/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00019 Arched Chord Joist Connection(RS-9) CLO 7/5/2007 7/6/2007 7/6/2007 7/12/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00020 Foundation Drain Colection Manhole CLO 7/11/2007 7/5/2007 7/5/2007 7/18/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00021 Back Filling Basement Walls CLO 7/19/2007 7/19/2007 7/19/2007 7/26/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00022 Sewer Modification Request CLO 7/23/2007 8/1/2007 8/1/2007 7/30/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00023 Masonry Mortar Color Clarification CLO 7/25/2007 7/27/2007 7/27/2007 8/1/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00024 Steel Lintel at Stair Tower Header CLO 7/31/2007 8/2/2007 8/2/2007 8/7/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00025 AC Bolt Correction CLO 7/31/2007 8/2/2007 8/2/2007 8/7/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00026 Moment Frame Shear Tab Weld CLO 7/31/2007 8/2/2007 8/2/2007 8/7/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00027 Sewage Ejector Tank CLO 8/6/2007 9/3/2007 9/3/2007 8/13/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00028 4th Floor Stair Assembly CLO 8/8/2007 .............__ __._._........ 8/14/2007 8/14/2007 8/15/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00029 Wall at Grid H - 4, 9 CLO 8/24/2007 _...... 9/18/2007 9/18/2007 8/31/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00030 Water to fixture P-18 . ..... _....... CLO 8/29/2007 9/5/2007 9/5/2007 9/5/2007 P -Hili -k ' r r� Requests for Information Log ����INCOB1 L ATED 323-4500 BOISE, IDAHO RCE -1875 GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 2 of 3 Type To From NumberTitle Status Date Approved Responded Required RFI LOMARC PETRA 00031 Vent for Ejector Pump CLO 8/29/2007 9/6/2007 9/6/2007 9/5/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00032 Basement Toilet Rooms CLO 8/29/2007 9/6/2007 9/6/2007 9/5/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00033 Floor Sink Near Grid 5-F CLO 8/29/2007 9/6/2007 9/6/2007 9/5/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00034 Sink Near Grid 10-E CLO 8/29/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/5/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00035 Sink Near Grid 10-B CLO 8/29/2007 9/4/2007 9/4/2007 9/5/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00036 Plumbing Drawing for 4th Floor CLO 8/29/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/5/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00037 Switch Board MDS Feeders CLO 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/10/2007 9/12/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00038 VAV at Room 134 CLO 9/11/2007 9/14/2007 9/14/2007 9/18/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00039 Interconnection of Fire Stand Pipes CLO 9/11/2007 9/11/2007 9/11/2007 9/18/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00040 RWD 10-D CLO 9/12/2007 9/13/2007 9/13/2007 9/19/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00041 Misc. Plumbing Questions P2.12 CLO 9/12/2007 9/13/2007 9/13/2007 9/19/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00042 Shear Tab Correction CLO 9/18/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 9/25/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00043 Radius SOG at Zed Floor CLO 9/24/2007 10/9/2007 10/9/2007 10/1/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00044 Smoke Dampers CLO 9/27/2007 9/28/2007 9/28/2007 10/4/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00045 Operable Wall Partition-Submittial CLO 9/27/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007 10/4/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00046 HWS & HWS At Basement CLO 10/2/2007 10/2/2007 10/2/2007 10/9/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00047 W8x10 at North Cold Air Return CLO 10/2/2007 10/5/2007 10/5/2007 10/9/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00048 Clean Agent Releasing Panel CLO 10/3/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/10/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00049 Pre -Action Sequence of Operations CLO 10/3/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/10/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00050 Elevator Shaft Fire Alarm Question CLO 10/4/2007 10/16/2007 10/16/2007 10/11/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00051 Beam Web to Column Flange Weld CLO 10/4/2007 10/5/2007 10/5/2007 10/11/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00052 Electrcal Drawings TI and Plaza CLO 10/18/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00053 Sprinkler Pipe Hangers CLO 10/22/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00054 Fire Suppression Flow Meter CLO 10/22/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/29/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00055 RDL & OFL CLO 10/29/2007 11/1/2007 11/1/2007 11/5/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00056 ASI 32 Ceiling Tile Clarification CLO 10/30/2007 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 11/6/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00057 Entry Vestibule Fire Suppression CLO 10/31/2007 11/7/2007 11/7/2007 11/7/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00058 Fire Riser Room Issues CLO 10/31/2007 11/6/2007 11/6/2007 11/7/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00059 Supply & Return 1 -Hr Rated Assembly CLO 11/2/2007 11/14/2007 11/14/2007 11/9/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00060 Under Floor Conflicts CLO 11/2/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/9/2007 Fmorr�t�nn a0 F-Hif -C: Requests for Information Log MROCKSOUID ,p 1 GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1097 N. ROSARIO STREET • MERIDIAN, ID 83642 • PHONE: (208) 323-4500 • FAX: (208) 323-4507 Project Name: Meridian City Hall Date: 12/11/2007 1 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 3 of 3 Type To From NumberTitle Status Date Approved Responded Required RFI LOMARC PETRA 00061 Access to Fire Smoke Dampers CLO 11/2/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 11/9/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00062 Data Drops CLO 11/9/2007 11/20/2007 11/20/2007 11/16/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00063 Electrical through Concrete Wall CLO 11/27/2007 12/3/2007 12/3/2007 12/4/2007 ' RFI LOMARC PETRA 00064 3ed Floor Sink at Grid 5/E CLO 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 12/4/2007 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00065 Diminution Verification CLO 11/28/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 12/5/2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RFI LOMARC PETRA 00066 Fire Alarm Questions OPN 12/4/2007 12/11/2007 F-Hif -C: 1901k Awk Petra Incorporated MW MF Meridian City Hall ' Job No: 060675 Submittals by Package Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 1 of 4 Package Submittal Rev. Title ___Required Status Start Finish __ Rcvd. Latest Dates Sent Return Forward BIC DIV 02 001 Grout Mix Design APP 04-200-02 001 Concrete Masonry Units APP 04-200-03 02-222 029 Structural Excavation and AAN 5/10/2007 5/11/2007 5/18/2007 5/22/2007 001 Mutual Brick Specifications APP Bacfill 001 Arriscraft Stone Submittial APP 04-200-07 001 Mortar Mix Colorchart 02-222-01 001 Drain Rock APP 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 9/6/2007 9/7/2007 02-222-02 001 1500 Gal Sand and Grease APP 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 9/6/2007 9/7/2007 Set Intercepto 001 Weld Procedure Specifications APP 05-000-02 001 Welding Procedures and AAN 02-222-03 001 Manhole Ring APP 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 9/6/2007 9/7/2007 02-222-04 001 Tapping Valves, 6" APP 7/27/2007 7/30/2007 9/6/2007 9/7/2007 DIV 03_— Cold Formed Metal Framing - _ ---Concrete--- 05-500 001 Anchor Bolt Plan MCN 05-500-03 001 03-100 011 Footings and Foundations AAN 4/30/2007 4/30/2007 5/1/2007 5/1/2007 Stair #2 Plans 03-100-02 002 Concrete Mix Designs AAN 5/8/2007 5/8/2007 5/14/2007 5/16/2007 APP 03-100-03 001 Concrete Mix Designs APP 5/10/2007 5/11/2007 5/31/2007 5/31/2007 03-100-06 001 First Floor Deck Rebar Shops AAN 7/24/2007 7/27/2007 8/6/2007 8/8/2007 03-100-3 002 Upper Footings - Rebar Shops AAN 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 7/23/2007 7/23/2007 03300-01 001 PVC Waterstop APP 4/30/2007 4/30/2007 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 03300-02 001 Vapor Block APP 4/30/2007 4/30/2007 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 03300-03 001 Concrete Accessories -Epoxy APP 4/30/2007 4/30/2007 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 03300-04 001 Concrete Accessories -Form APP 4/30/2007 4/30/2007 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 Oil 03300-05 001 Concrete Accessories -Curing APP 4/30/2007 4/30/2007 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 Compoun 03300-06 001 Silicate Hardener and Sealer APP 9/6/2007 9/6/2007 9/14/2007 9/14/2007 DIV 04_--_-. __— ---- - — - — Conry --- -- — 7/3/2007 04-000-01 001 Masonry Accessories APP 04-200-01 001 Grout Mix Design APP 04-200-02 001 Concrete Masonry Units APP 04-200-03 001 Mortar Mix Design Type S APP 04-200-04 001 Mortar Mix Design Type N APP 04-200-05 001 Mutual Brick Specifications APP 04-200-06 001 Arriscraft Stone Submittial APP 04-200-07 001 Mortar Mix Colorchart NEW DIV 06— ---..-- -- --- __Metals___05500-02 005 Structural Steel Shops AAN (Phase1) 05500-04 001 Revised Sheets from Phase 1 APP Set 05-000-01 001 Weld Procedure Specifications APP 05-000-02 001 Welding Procedures and AAN Specs -Field 05-300-01 001 Metal Deck- Shop Drawings APP No.1 05-300-02 002 J1, J2 Joists and Decking APP 05-400-01 001 Cold Formed Metal Framing AAN 05-500 001 Anchor Bolt Plan MCN 05-500-03 001 Stair #1 Plans APP 05-500-04 001 Structural Steel Shop (Phase ll) AAN 05-500-05 001 Stair #2 Plans AAN 05-500-06 001 Shop Drawings - Bent Plate AAN 05-500-07 001 Revised lst,2nd,3rd,4th, APP Framing 05-500-08 001 Sunscreens and Chiller Frame AAN Shops 05-500-09 006 EL -Beams and Canopys MCNR 6/14/2007 6/18/2007 7/3/2007 7/3/2007 6/14/2007 6/18/2007 7/11/2007 7/11/2007 6/14/2007 6/18/2007 7/10/2007 7/11/2007 6/14/2007 6/18/2007 7/10/2007 7/11/2007 6/14/2007 6/18/2007 7/10/2007 7/11/2007 7/10/2007 7/13/2007 8/9/2007 8/9/2007 7/16/2007 7/18/2007 7/23/2007 7/23/2007 7/25/2007 7/25/2007 LOMARC 5/23/2007 5/29/2007 6/12/2007 6/13/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 7/6/2007 7/6/2007 6/14/2007 6/20/2007 7/9/2007 7/10/2007 7/10/2007 7/12/2007 8/6/2007 8/8/2007 5/7/2007 5/9/2007 5/16/2007 5/17/2007 5/23/2007 5/29/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 7/11/2007 7/12/2007 4/27/2007 4/30/2007 5/16/2007 5/17/2007 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 7/9/2007 7/10/2007 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 7/11/2007 7/13/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 7/9/2007 7/10/2007 7/13/2007 7/18/2007 8/6/2007 8/8/2007 8/29/2007 8/30/2007 9/27/2007 10/1/2007 9/4/2007 9/4/2007 9/27/2007 10/1/2007 10/2/2007 10/3/2007 LOMARC 11 11 Adlk Petra Incorporated Meridian City Hall Job No: 060675 Project No: 06-0675 Submittals by Package Date: 12/11/2007 Page: 2 of 4 Required Latest Dates ' Package Submittal Rev. Title Status Start Finish Rcvd. Sent Return Forward BIC DIV 45 --- - -- --_Metals - -- - - - - 05-500-10 006 EL -Beams and Canopys AAN 11/2/2007 11/15/2007 11/26/2007 11/26/2007 Resubmit DIV _06 -- Wood & CarPenSry - - - - --- - --- -- - - - -- - - -- - - 06-402-01 001 Interior Architectural AAN 10/26/2007 10/30/2007 12/3/2007 12/3/2007 ' Woodwork DIV 07 - -_ Thermal -and Moisture -Protection 07210-01 001 Rigid Foam APP 4/30/2007 4/30/2007 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 Insulation -Foundation 07-210-01 001 Building Insulation APP 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 7/11/2007 7/12/2007 07-210-02 001 Foil Faced Fiberboard APP 8/15/2007 8/21/2007 9/14/2007 9/14/2007 Insulation 07-500-01 003 Roofing NEW 12/3/2007 12/3/2007 LOMARC 07-900 001 Joint Sealants AAN 5/8/2007 5/9/2007 5/15/2007 5/21/2007 DIV 08 -_Doors and Windows__ 08-211-01 001 Wood Doors AAN 8/8/2007 8/9/2007 9/6/2007 9/6/2007 08-211-02 001 Wood Door Cut Sheets MCNR 8/8/2007 8/9/2007 9/6/2007 9/6/2007 ABS 08-211-03 001 Door Sample for Color and NEW 12/3/2007 12/4/2007 LOMARC ' Finish 08-334-01 001 Overhead Coiling Grilles AAN 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 11/1/2007 11/8/2007 08-411-01 002 Aluminum Entrances and AAN 6/28/2007 6/28/2007 7/11/2007 7/13/2007 08-630-01 001 Storefronts Metal Framed Skylights APP 6/25/2007 6/28/2007 7/11/2007 7/13/2007 08-711-01 001 Finish Hardware Schedule MCN 8/8/2007 8/9/2007 9/6/2007 9/6/2007 08-800-01 001 Glazing AAN 6/25/2007 6/28/2007 7/11/2007 7/13/2007 08-800-02 001 Glazing Shop Drawings AAN 8/27/2007 9/4/2007 9/14/2007 9/14/2007 DIV 09. - - ---- -- -- Finishes. 09-260-01 001 Gypsum Board Assemblies APP 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 7/11/2007 7/12/2007 1 09-562-01 001 Sheet Vinyl APP 10/29/2007 10/30/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 09-574-01 001 Linear Metal Ceilings APP 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 7/11/2007 7/12/2007 09-651-01 09-653-01 001 001 Resilient Floor Tile Rubber Base APP APP 10/29/2007 10/29/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 09-680-01 001 Carpet APP 10/29/2007 10/30/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 09-720-01004 Textile Wallcovering APP 8/8/2007 8/9/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 09-900-01 002 Paint APP 9/27/2007 9/27/2007 10/10/2007 10/15/2007 DIV 110_ 10-100-01 10-155-01 001 001 Visual Display Surfaces Toilet Partitions APP OPN 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 11/5/2007 11/8/2007 LOMARC 10-265-01 001 Corner Guards NEW 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 LOMARC 10-270-01 002 Access Flooring APP 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 11/6/2007 11/8/2007 10-505-01 001 Lockers AAN 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 11/5/2007 11/8/2007 10-520-01 001 Fire Extinguisher and Cabinet NEW 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 LOMARC 10-605-01 001 Wire Mesh Partitons AAN 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 10/31/2007 11/8/2007 ' 10-651-01001 Operable Panel Partitions AAN 9/11/2007 9/14/2007 9/27/2007 9/27/2007 10-801-01 001 Toilet Room Accesories AAN 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 11/8/2007 11/8/2007 10-900-01 001 Television Wall Mounts APP 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 11/5/2007 11/8/2007 ' 10-900-02 001 Knox Box APP 10/4/2007 10/4/2007 11/5/2007 11/8/2007 DIV 12- - _---- _ Furnishings-____-- ---- _ 12-484-01 001 Walk Off Mats APP 10/29/2007 10/30/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 1 AmIlk Am MW NW Petra Incorporated Meridian City Hall Submittals Job No: 060675 by Package Date: 12/11/2007 Project No: 06-0675 Page: 3 of 4 Required Latest_ Dates Package Submittal g Rev. Title Status Start Finish Rcvd. Sent _ Return Forward BIC DIV _14 _ _ -- --_Conveying SysUm& 002 Elevator Submittials AAN 5/3/2007 5/7/2007 7/31/2007 5/31/2007 r14-000-01 DIV -15- — - - --- _-- Me�haniEat_ 15-061-01 001 Fire Piping Hangars AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 ' 15-075-01 001 Mechanical Identification APP 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-082-01 003 Pipe Insulation APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-083-01 001 Mechanical Insulation APP 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-185-01 001 Hydronic Pumps AAN 9/14/2007 9/14/2007 10/12/2007 10/15/2007 ' 15-185-02 001 Hydronic Pumps 1,2,3,4,5 APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-03 001 Suction Diffuser APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-04 001 Pressurized Expansion Tanks APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 ' 15-185-05 001 Air Separator APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-06 001 Air Vent APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-07 001 Flexible Connectors APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-08 001 Thermometers APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-10 001 Pressure Gauges APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-12 001 Circuit Setters APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-13 001 Read Out Kit APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-14 001 Safety Relief Valves APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-15 001 Reducing Valves APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-16 001 Reduced Pressure Backflow APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 Preventer 15-185-17 001 Chem By -Pass Feeder APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-185-18 001 Test Plugs APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 ' 15- 1 85-19 001 Chemical Feeder Package APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-320-01 001 Fire Bell AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 15-325-01 001 Fire Sprinkler Heads AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 15-325-02 001 Riser Manifold AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 15-325-03 001 Fire Pre -Action Valve AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 15-325-04 001 Fire Backflow Preventor AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 ' 15-325-05 001 Groove Fittings AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 15-325-06 001 FDC,Hose Valve, Pump Test AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 Connector 15-325-07 001 Check Valve AAN 10/9/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 15-325-08 001 Basment and 1st Piping Shops NEW 10/29/2007 10/31/2007 LOMARC 15-325-09 001 Piping Plans Basement and NEW 11/26/2007 11/30/2007 LOMARC 1 st Floor ' 15-325-10 001 Hydrolic Calculations NEW 11/26/2007 11/30/2007 LOMARC 15-328-01 001 Fire Pump AAN 10/10/2007 10/10/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 15-400-01 001 Sewage Ejector System AAN 7/30/2007 7/30/2007 8/9/2007 8/9/2007 15-400-02 002 P-1 Water Closet APP 11/1/2007 11/6/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 15-400-03 002 P-2 Water Closet ADA APP 11/6/2007 11/6/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 15-400-04 002 P-3 Urinal APP 11/6/2007 11/6/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 15-400-05 001 P-4 Lavatory (ADA) (1) AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 ' 15-400-06 001 P-5 Lavatory (ADA) (2) AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-07 001 P-6 Floor Drain AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-08 001 P-7 Shower Stall ADA AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-09 001 P-8 Shower Stall AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-10 001 P-9 Janitor Sink APP 917/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15400-11 001 P-10 Floor Sink AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-12 001 P-11 Sink AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15400-13 001 P-12 Floor Sink (2) AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 Petra Incorporated lowMeridian City Hall 11 Job No: 060675 Project No: 06-0675 Submittals by Package Date: 12/11/2007 Page: 4 of 4 Required Latest Dates Package Submittal 9 Rev. Title Status Start Finish Rcvd. Sent Return -- Forward BIC DIV 15_ 15-400-14 001 P-15 Water Heater APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-15 001 P-16 Thermostatic Mixing APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 Valve 15-400-16 001 P-17 Water Heater (2) AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-17 001 P-18 Water Cooler APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 15-400-18 001 P-19 Eyewash AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-19 001 P-20 Breakroom Sink AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-20 001 DC - Downspout Covers APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-21 001 RD - Roof Drain AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-22 001 OFD - Overflow Drain AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-400-23 001 Hose Bibb APP 11/6/2007 11/6/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 15-513-01 001 Condensing Boilers AAN 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-626-01 002 Rotary Screw Water Chillers APP 11/1/2007 11/7/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 15-725-01 001 Modular Indoor Cetral Air Unit APP 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-725-02 001 Modular Indoor Cetral Air Unit APP 8/29/2007 9/10/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007 15-734-01 001 Computer Room Air AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 Conditioning Unit 15-738-01 001 Split System Air Conditioning AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 Units 15-762-01 001 Unit Heaters AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-765-01 001 Access Floor Terminal Units APP 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-815-01 001 Metal Duct APP 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-820-01 001 Duct Accessories AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-838-01 001 Power Venilator AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15-855-01 001 Diffusers, Registers, Grilles AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15900-01 001 Controler and Panel Device AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 Data 15900-02 001 Field Device Data AAN 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15900-03 001 Control Valve Schedule Data APP 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 15900-04 001 Circuit Sensors APP 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/26/2007 9/26/2007 15-950-01 001 Test and Ballance Qualification APP 9/5/2007 9/10/2007 9/25/2007 9/25/2007 DIV 16 — —_ Electrical 16-000-01 001 MSB Submittials NEW 7/20/2007 7/23/2007 LOMARC 16-111-01 001 Conduit APP 10/1/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-114-01 001 Cable Tray APP 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 11/5/2007 11/5/2007 16-120-01 001 Wires and Cables APP 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-125-01 001 Modular floor Systems AAN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 11/5/2007 11/5/2007 16-130-01 001 Boxes AAN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-141-01 001 Wiring Devices APP 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-149-01 001 Low Voltage Switching APP 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-425-01 001 Switchboards AAN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-465-01 001 Bus Duct AAN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-470-01 001 Panel Boards MCN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-510-01 001 Lighting Fixtures AAN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-622-01 001 Generator Set AAN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-721-01 001 Fire Alarm AAN 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 12/4/2007 12/5/2007 16-721-02 001 Fire Alarm System Drawings NEW 10/3/2007 10/3/2007 LOMARC _ `�-.� \� 2\w: < i�a .. � ®� y y' /\� «. ,td � Z � �� �f . /,` ����� f « J � \ \� \ \ 2 . . � y� .y«= � �?:° /./§�� / / � ` � � /�¥�\j //\�\ � �\. � � , . /`� . \� y : � � �� \ \� ,» ` �/ 2 \»°\ ! � ,. . . . ,} � ~\ �\ � �) \ ( � �� t� . � \} . , � / ° . � . .� �\`� �� .� x� /` � � .�� ��� �f � , .� �� �� �� �3\ �� < �»�: \ a f ° December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-C REQUEST Arts Commission Update 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: Date: COMMENTS Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 0 RECEIVED Meridian Commission DEC 1 1 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk office OUR VISION: A vibrant arts community that integrates the arts experience into our everyday life and enhances the spirit of our city. ACOMPLISHMENTS FOR 2007: Developed MAC logo with Ann Hottinger Created slogan - Take Part in the Arts! Met with LCA Architects Sponsored concert during Scarecrow Festival Received first $500 corporate donation from Key Bank Assisted Parks Department with holiday decorations Joined by members of Youth Advisory Council Community outreach presentations Appointed sub -committees PLANS FOR 2008 & BEYOND: Strategic Planning public art policy Hire planning facilitator Apply for grant funding Purchase public art for City Hall Foster development of public art downtown Adoption of art in public spaces ordinance "Take Part in the Arts" arts & humanities advocacy series Web database of area artists, events, resources & info Seek Corporate & Private Sponsorship funding Performing arts center COMMISSION MEMBERS: Meg Glasgow, Chair Sandra Cavanaugh, Vice -Chair David Stolhand, Secretary Nancy Rountree - Finance Fred Shaddick - Web Development Dwight Williams - Events & Public Art • December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT • December 11, 2007 ITEM NO. 3-D REQUEST ACHD Roundabout Siting & Design Criteria 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: Date: COMMENTS See afFached Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 Tara Green • Page 1 of 1 From: Matthew Ellsworth Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 4:15 PM To: Tammy de Weerd; Joe Borton; Keith Bird; Charlie Rountree; David Zaremba Cc: Peter Friedman; Will Berg; Tara Green; Justin Bledsoe Subject: Amity Roundabout Memo Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Green Attachments: Amity Road.pdf Mayor de Weerd and Council Members, The attached memo from ACHD staff relates to the Amity Road component of the Roundabouts Workshop scheduled for December 11th. ACHD staff asked that I forward the memo to you prior to the workshop to allow enough time for you to review in preparation for the discussion. ACHD staff plans to bring the Amity Roundabout Study forward for Commission consideration on December 19. It would therefore be ideal if the City can identify any issues with the Study on the 11 th, and staff can role those into the presentation to the Commission on the 19tH Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time, Matt Ellsworth Associate City Planner Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 12/7/2007 Pi -- ACHD C'9111 vvVi1a't0 J"CN ' December 4, 2007 To: Mayor and Council Members From: Justin Bledsoe Project Manager Subject: Amity Road Intersections Study Project No. 507014 December 11 th. 2007 • John S. Franden, President Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President David Bivens, 2nd Vice President Carol A. McKee, Commissioner Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner RECEIVES DEC - 4 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Executive Summary: Project Engineering Consultants was hired by ACRD to perform a study of the Amity Corridor from McDermott to Eagle Road, which included six intersections. The objective of this study was to use the roundabout application guidelines currently being developed to analyze six intersections on Amity Road to determine if roundabouts are desirable. The six intersections on Amity included: McDermott, Black Cat, Ten Mile, Linder, Locust Grove, and Eagle Road. The draft study stated that the intersections of Eagle & Amity and Locust Grove & Amity would not effectively function long-term with a roundabout, due to their high traffic volumes. The other four intersections were recommended as locations for future roundabouts. Currently, the Ten Mile & Amity intersection is the only one among those in the study programmed for construction in the near future, which is anticipated for 2011. The Ten Mile & Amity intersection is scheduled for design to start in 2008. ACHD Development Services will use the outcome of the concept study to obtain right-of-way for the other intersections as they develop in the future. City staff has been involved in the roundabout guidelines and the Amity study. The Amity study is currently scheduled to be presented to ACHD Commission on December 19th for adoption. Prior to this Amity study being adopted, is there any information that the City would like staff or Commission to consider? Background: Each of the six intersections had a traffic analysis performed that looked at the functionality of a roundabout at 5, 10, 15, and 20 year traffic projections using the Trend Model as it was the worst case scenario. The Ten Mile intersection also looked at the Kuna-Mora study to make sure that a roundabout would work at this location with the additional traffic growth to the south. The traffic analysis stated that alternatives should be developed for the McDermott Road, Black Cat Road, Ten Mile Road, and the Linder Road intersections. The alternatives also looked at a signal option and a roundabout option. The draft study suggests the following for each of the four intersections: Ada County Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 208 387 6100 • FX 345-7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us • Ten Mile Intersection o A project is programmed for this intersection with design beginning in FY 2008 and construction in FY 2011. o The dual -lane roundabout configuration is expected to be needed in about 10 to 15 years. The recommendation is that this be built initially as a single -lane rural roundabout with expansion occurring at a future date, most likely by development. McDermott Intersection o No improvements to this intersection are currently included in ACHD's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). o The two-lane roundabout configuration is expected to be needed in about 20 years. A decision on whether to build a single -lane or two-lane will depend on when the improvements are made and what the traffic data is at that time. Right-of-way should be preserved for the dual -lane roundabout. Black Cat Intersection o The CIP calls for improvements to this intersection to be made in 11 to 20 years. o The two-lane roundabout configuration is expected to be needed in about 20 years. A decision on whether to build a single -lane or two-lane will depend on when the improvements are made and what the traffic data is at that time. Right-of-way should be preserved for the dual -lane roundabout. Linder Intersection o The CIP calls for improvements to this intersection to be made in 11 to 20 years. o The two-lane roundabout configuration is expected to be needed in about 15 years. A decision on whether to build a single -lane or dual -lane will depend on when the improvements are made and what the traffic data is at that time. However, it seems likely that this intersection will be constructed as a dual -lane roundabout from the start unless construction is advanced to an earlier year than is indicated in the CIP. Right-of-way should be preserved for the two-lane roundabout. Concept -Level Cost Comparison Cost estimates for the ultimate build signal and roundabout options and the initial build roundabout option were created and are show below. The costs were similar with the roundabouts being slightly less expensive. Although the costs were similar the roundabouts were recommended because of their safety and traffic flow benefits. COST COMPARISON - TRAFFIC SIGNALS VS. ROUNDABOUTS Intersection Alternative Ultimate Build Initial Build Traffic Signal Roundabout Roundabout McDermott Road $ i,600,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 Black Cat Road $1,600,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 Ten Mile Road $ 2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,100,000 Linder Road $ 2,000,000 $1,900,000 $1,100,000 Conclusion The Ten Mile intersection is currently scheduled for design this year with construction being in FY11. Attached are some conceptual drawings of what the intersection may look like at the initial build and ultimate build. ACHD is seeking City input on these recommendations? If the City could supply any additional comments by December 18`' that would be greatly appreciated. Amity Coil ,'idor Roundabjut Study from McDermott Road to Eagle Road ACHD Open House • June 20, 2007 • Mary McPherson Elementary, 1050 E. Amitv Proje(A Description The Amily Corridor Study is evaluating six intersect ions from McDermott to Eagle Road along Amity as possible locations for rotrnfabouts with the intent of improving traffic flow, and safety. The study will compare round- abouts v01'sus lrirffic; signals at each intersection to de- termine, whether traffic control measures are warranted and %hick would be most effective. any, would be the most effective in the Amity Road area. The Amity Corridor is used frequently as a parallel alternate access to Interstate 84. The use of roundabouts on this cor- ridor would lend to consistency with the existing roundabout on Amity in Canyon County, would increase traffic flow and would improve safety. Q: How were the six intersections evaluated for round- abouts? A: A list of criteria was used in assessing whether a round- about would effectively work at each intersection. Among the criteria: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) • Right-of-way impacts Q: Why was Amity Road chosen for this study? • Pedestrian use A: Amity Road was chosen for several reasons, one is • Traffic speed because of its current rural nature, which provides space for potential roundabouts. The goal is to plan for future growth and to determine what traffic control measures, if M • Crash data • Topography & grade • Current & future traffic volumes More information on the back ..............,. _717Fri Vict d > a a4 F" a Amity Rd. ° � a e Hazel Rd. ro intersections belnc studi(id More information on the back ..............,. 0 0 FAQsContinued................................................................ Q: Why install roundabouts? A: Roundabouts can offer a good solution to safety and capacity problems at intersections and work to slow traffic. In Maryland where roundabouts have replaced conventional intersections, crashes of all types have been reduced by over 60 percent, and injury crashes have been reduced by more than 75 percent. Roundabouts can increase capacity at intersec- tions without requiring the expense of constructing and maintaining a traffic signal. Q: Where is ACHD at with studying the Amity Corridor? A: ACHD along with its consultant has evaluated each intersection as a possible roundabout location. So far, four of the six intersections have been identified as possible areas for roundabouts. In later stages of this study, each of the recommended intersections will also be evaluated on the merits of traffic signals versus roundabouts. Q: When might Amity Corridor intersection improvements be made? A: The outcome of the study and public input will help determine whether ACHD will proceed with design for the Amity Corridor. Currently, the Ten Mile/Amity intersection is the only one among those in the study programmed for construction, which is anticipated for 2011. The intersections of Black Cat/Amity and Linder/Amity are included in ACHD's Capital Improve- ment Pian (long-term planning document) and are expected in the next 11 to 20 years. The intersections of Eagle/Amity and Locust Grove/Amity have been determined by this study as intersections that would not effectively function long-term with roundabouts in place. Overall data obtained from the Amity Corridor Study will be used in future roadway planning. Q: What is the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)? A: The Capital Improvements Plan is ACHD's long-range planning document that lists the roadway, intersection and other infrastructure improvements needed to serve our fast-growing community over the next two decades. For more information... Contact Justin Bledsoe, ACRD Project Manager • 208-387-6235 w v1 .a(,hd.ada.id.us (Information on display at il7is 0I)en house can be viewed on the AND websile under "Projects" --> "Current Projects.") • Cot»menis regarding this study can also be sent via e-mail to: tnrojects@achd.ada.id.us is a4w-m 0 0 ►W" W ILO Ir 04ir � dd N md� J Q D = r Naga Ze■ C RECEIVED DEC 11 2007 City of Meridian ADA COUNTY Cis cIerk office ROUNDABOUTSTUDY Roundabout Application Guidelines for Ada County Submitted to: Ada County Highway District C 3775 Adams Street Garden City, ID 83714 Submitted by: Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. 1307 North 39th Street, Suite 1o1 Nampa, ID 83687 (208) 466-7190 MODIFICATIONS TO DRAFT November 9, 2007 ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY IRoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County fly-2WNovember9, 2007 INTRODUCTION Roundabouts are gaining popularity across the United States as a safe, efficient means of controlling and accommodating intersection traffic. This trend has reached the Treasure Valley with the construction of a roundabout in Canyon County and a proliferation of circular, low-volume intersections resembling roundabouts located within residential subdivisions. Additionally, roundabouts are under design at a couple of locations on arterial or collector roadways in Ada County and more are anticipated. The Ada County Highway District (ACRD) recognizes the need to develop a common approach to roundabout development in the county to serve as an aid to ACHD staff, city planners, design engineers, developers and others as they consider and pursue roundabout solutions. To that end, ACHD contracted with Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. (PEC) to develop of set of guidelines for the development of roundabouts on roadways within the District's jurisdiction. A steering committee was also assembled to assist with this study. The committee, with representation from various agencies in the county, met several times from August 2006 to January 2007 to review and provide input on the development of the various study tasks. Below is a list of the steering committee members. Name Agency Eric Droz (client project manager) Ada County Highway District Terry Little Ada County Highway District Sally Goodell Ada County Highway District Chuck Rindaldi Ada County Highway District Kristin Lundstrom Ada County Highway District Karen Gallagher City of Boise Dave Hanneman Boise CityFire Department Dave Thomas Boise City Police Matt Ellsworth City of Meridian John Overton Meridian Police Department Kenny Bowers Meridian Fire Department Kevin Sablan Idaho Transportation Department Dean Gunderson Ada County Gary Brodin Ada County Sheriffs Office Kent Fugal (consultant project manager) Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Ryan Peterson Project En ineering Consultants, Ltd. Stephen Lewis Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. Also assisting with the study were Mark Lenters and Troy Pankratz of Ourston Roundabout Engineering, Inc., who performed a peer review of this report and the work leading to its contents. PEC's work addressed the following topics: • Research of existing best practices nationwide • Siting guidelines • Design guidelines Project Engineering Page 1 Consultants, Ltd. 'i*.,,, ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY IRoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County ftrly- WNovember9.1007 BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH PEC contacted many roundabout experts across the country via email and/or telephone to solicit their input on the current state of the practice of roundabout design and on this guideline development effort. These experts provided valuable comments, documents, and links to additional information. The list of experts contacted targeted public agency personnel. The question posed to them was as follows: My company has a contract with the Ada County Highway District (Boise, Idaho area) to help them develop a set of guidelines for the siting and design of roundabouts in the county. The end result of the study will be an addition to their development policy manual that will give guidance to agency staff, developers, and consultants regarding a number of issues, including (but not necessarily limited to): the selection of suitable locations for roundabouts, "typical' right-of-way requirements (in order to preserve right-of-way for future roundabout projects), ranges of appropriate design parameter values for different functional types and sizes of intersections, construction concerns, utility issues, and public outreach. If you are aware of any similar endeavors that others have already undertaken, please direct me to them so that we can learn from their previous work. Also, please let me know of other information sources relating to our study that you feel would be helpful. Individuals responding to the request for information included the following: • Aron Baker — City of St. George, UT • Bill Baranowski —City of West Jordan, UT; RoundaboutsUSA.com • Joe Bared — FHWA • Peter Beaudry — City of Kennewick, WA • Michael Kyte — University of Idaho o Forwarded request to Lee Rodegerdts — Kittelson & Associates, who also responded • Howard McCulloch — New York State DOT • Gene Russell — Kansas State University • Ken Sides — City of Clearwater, FL • Brian Walsh — Washington State DOT Information was obtained from these individuals in the form of email messages, phone conversations, and references to other documents. Some forwarded other guides and/or technical papers for reference use on this project. PEC also performed an extensive internet search for information on this topic. The results of this best practices research were summarized in a memo to ACHD. That memo is included in this report as Appendix A. Project Engineering Page 3 Consultants, Ltd. • �,,: �AM►�* .,,, ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY IRoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County y4tl23November9, 2007 High Crash Rate Locations A roundabout can provide a possible solution for locations that experience high crash rates or crash trends by reducing the number of conflict points where the paths of opposing vehicles intersect. For example, many of the crashes at conventional intersections occur when a driver either: 1. Misjudges the distance or speed of approaching vehicles while making a left turn, or 2. Causes a right angle collision after violating a red light or stop sign. Such crashes are eliminated at roundabouts, where crossing movements are non-existent. Furthermore, collisions that do occur at roundabouts involve low speeds and low angles of impact, and therefore, are less likely to result in serious injury for all road users. Pedestrians are more safely accommodated since the vehicular speeds are slower and crossing tasks are simplified by the utilization of the refuge area in the splitter islands. (However, sight -impaired pedestrians may find it difficult discern safe gaps in traffic when crossing exiting lanes.) Crash evaluation is an important process to complete for any intersection improvement alternative. Crash evaluation will consist of reviewing individual crash records and will typically include factors such as location, date, type of crash, time of day, age of driver, weather conditions, severity of crash, and other important information to assess the problem(s), patterns and potential improvement need. Unconventional Intersection Geometry Conventional forms of traffic control are often less efficient at intersections with a severe skew angle, significant offset, odd number of approaches, or close spacing to other intersections. Roundabouts may be better suited for such intersections, because they do not require complicated signing or signal phasing. Their ability to accommodate high turning volumes makes them especially effective at "Y" or "T" junctions. Roundabouts may also be useful in eliminating a pair of closely spaced intersections by combining them to form a multi -legged roundabout. Locations with Increased Capacity Needs When considering methods to increase the capacity of an intersection, a roundabout can be an alternative to stop signs or traffic signals. In general, any location where warrants for traffic signals or all -way stops have been met is a candidate for a roundabout, subject to an engineering study. With conventional signal traffic controls, only alternating streams of vehicles are permitted to proceed through the intersections at one time, causing a loss of capacity when the intersection clears between phases. In contrast, the only restriction on entering a roundabout is the availability of gaps in the circulating flow. The slow speeds within the roundabout allow drivers to safely select a gap that is relatively small. By allowing vehicles to enter simultaneously from multiple approaches using short headways, an advantage in capacity is frequently achieved with roundabouts. This advantage, when compared to traffic signals, becomes more prominent when the volumes of left or right turning movements are relatively high. Depending on site conditions, an intersection evaluation which includes analyses of alternatives including a signal and a roundabout will usually favor the roundabout in terms of delay experienced by drivers. Locations with Constrained Queue Storage Roundabouts can produce operational improvements in locations where the space available for queuing is limited. Roads are often widened to create storage for vehicles waiting at traffic signals, Project Engineering Page S _,� Consultants, Ltd. 0 0 COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY I' Roundabout Application Guidelines forAda County SNovember9,1007 into two systems, thus improving the efficiency of both halves while improving the efficiency of the entire roadway segment.) • Locations where grades through the intersection exceeding 4% are difficult to eliminate. • Locations where there is inadequate sight distance. • Locations where a downstream traffic control device or other constraint would cause queues that extend into the roundabout, causing the roundabout to fail. Detailed queuing analysis or simulation should be conducted to determine the feasibility of the roundabout and should also include possible remediation to reduce the queue lengths. • Locations where there is a heavy flow of through traffic on the major street opposed by relatively light traffic on the minor street. At these locations, a minor approach may become backed up due to a lack of gaps in a heavy directional flow in the major street traffic coming from the left. Another possibility is that the major movement may experience unnecessary delay. Traditional controls may be better able to address the needs of these intersections. (However, the traditional controls can have adverse safety impacts compared to a roundabout installed at the same location. In these situations, an operational and safety analysis should be conducted to determine the best alternative.) • Locations where there are major utility, irrigation, or drainage conflicts that could be more easily avoided with the installation of a different form of intersection control. _ Project Engineering page 7 Consultants, Ltd. 0 0 ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY �T RoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County Jtdy- SNovember9, 2007 Design Parameters The following table presents each design parameter of concern, discusses the issues associated with that parameter, and includes design guidelines. Figures 1-35 illustrate sample roundabout layouts incorporating these guidelines for various combinations of 3 -lane and 5 -lane intersecting roadways. Figure 46 illustrates in more detail the application of the signing and pavement marking guidance. Design Discussion Design Guidance Parameter Design Roundabouts must be designed to accommodate any WB -67 for principal arterial Vehicle vehicle type and size that regularly uses the intersection. intersections, industrial areas, In general, this "maximum" vehicle will vary from and access to industrial areas. location to location based on the adjacent land use and roadway function. It is incumbent on the designer to do WB -50 or larger for minor background research to determine what vehicles must be arterial intersections. accommodated at a particular location. Analysis of vehicle turning movements using a software package BUS or larger for roadways in (AutoTURN, for example) should be done to check that residential areas not intended to the proposed geometry is adequate for the selected design serve thru traffic. vehicle. Design Speed Free-flow (non -congested) speeds in a roundabout are Entering and circulating (left, directly related to the curvature of the vehicular paths thru, and right -turn movements) and the pavement cross -slope. The relationship between traffic speeds should be within a curve radius, cross -slope, and speed is detailed in A 6 mph spread from slowest to Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets fastest. In order to minimize (AASHTO "Green Book", latest edition). Vehicles these differential speeds, design making left -turns or U-turns travel in a path that approaches to limit entry speeds corresponds to the centerline radius of the circulatory to approximately the following: roadway. Their speeds are therefore directly controlled, at least to some extent, by the roundabout diameter. The 180' ICD: 16-22 mph speeds of vehicles in the roundabout that are going 150' ICD: 15-21 mph straight through or turning right, however, are less 130' ICD: 14-20 mph impacted by the circle diameter. All of these movements 100' ICD: 13-19 mph have their paths (and speeds) controlled by a 80' ICD: 12-18 mph combination of roundabout diameter and the geometry 45' ICD: 10-14 mph of the entrances and exits. It is important to minimize the differences in speeds of the various vehicles using the Other environmental factors roundabout. Guidance from the FHWA Guide, ORE (schools, etc.) may require Guide, and NCHRP 3-65 on fastest path analysis should further reduction in entry speeds. be used to determine the expected speeds based on the proposed design. Inscribed Several factors must be considered in selecting an Dual -lane: 150-180 feet. Circle inscribed circle diameter (ICD) to use for a given Diameter intersection. Prominent considerations are the number Single -lane: 100-130 feet. of lanes in the circulatory roadway, number of intersecting legs, angle of intersecting legs, traffic Urban compact: 80-100 feet. composition, and topographic constraints. Larger diameters can more easily accommodate dual -lane Mini: 45-80 feet. operation without path overlap issues, facilitate creating adequate horizontal deflection, and generally yield 1 Project Engineering Page 9 NK_ Consultants, Ltd ADA COUNTYROUNDAROUTSTUDY A5� Roundabout Application Guidelines forAda County *t#- WNovember9, 2007 Design Discussion Design Guidance Parameter of the roundabout. Because the central island at mini -roundabouts is fully The truck apron must be sloped to provide for drainage. It must also be set 3-4 inches above the adjoining mountable, no separate truck apron is necessary at those pavement to discourage drivers from "short -cutting" across the apron. A mountable/traversable curb should locations. be used between the pavement and the apron. The apron should also be constructed of colored/textured concrete or pavers to provide contrast with the pavement surface. Number of The numbers of entering, circulating, and exiting lanes To be determined by approach - Lanes at roundabouts have a pronounced effect on their by -approach operation. In general, it is desirable to provide only the capacity/operational analysis. numbers of lanes that are needed. Fewer lanes provide less complex operation, which generally translates into "Rules -of -thumb" for improved safety. The number of approach lanes needed determining starting point for should be determined on an approach -by -approach basis. analysis: Not all approaches need have the same number of lanes. • Combination of entering The circulating roadway needs to be able to receive the and circulating volume at entering lanes, and the number of circulating lanes is merge point < 1100 vph then therefore driven by the number of approach lanes. Some one approach lane. portions of the circulatory roadway may have more lanes • Combination volume > 1400 than others. The number of exiting lanes on a given leg vph and < 1800 vph then is driven by the traffic volumes, but never needs to be two approach lanes. more than the number of circulating lanes immediately • Combination volume >2300 upstream of the exit. In considering the number of lanes vph then three approach for each portion of the roundabout, attention must be lanes. paid to issues of lane balance and continuity. • ADT <22,000 then single - At the right are some "rules -of -thumb" regarding the lane roundabout. . ADT > 27,000 and <39,000 capacity of roundabouts. Note that the ADT's shown are then two-lane roundabout. for a typical 4 -leg intersection with legs at approximate right angles to each other. More or fewer intersection • ADT > 49,000 then three - legs or other unusual configurations will result in lane roundabout. different capacities. Sight It is important that an appropriate amount of sight See description at left. Distance distance be provided to drivers as they approach the yield line on a roundabout entry. The concept of "sight triangles" as discussed in the AASHTO "Green Book" is applicable to roundabouts with some adaptation: • Driver position for measuring sight distance (i.e. "decision point") is approximately 50 feet from the yield line. • The length of the conflicting leg of the sight "triangle" should be measured along the curvilinear path of the approaching conflicting traffic, not as a straight line. • Sight distances significantly in excess of the Project Engineering Page 11 Consultants, Ltd. 0 0 ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY RoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County frtly- WNovember9, 2007 Design Discussion Design Guidance Parameter them, rather than just ignore striping and follow a straightened path. Splitter islands therefore perform an Splitter islands at mini - important role in controlling the speeds of vehicles roundabouts and urban compact roundabouts are to be traversable entering the roundabout. The length of the splitter can by trucks. Minis may have vary significantly based on the geometry of the roundabout. Splitter islands that are wide at the edge of painted splitter islands. the circulatory roadway provide somewhat improved capacity. This is because the increased separation between the entrance and the upstream exit aids the entering driver in determining early whether an upstream vehicle will continue in the circulatory roadway or exit. This allows the driver to accept a gap and enter traffic when he may not otherwise know that gap is going too en up until it's too late to take advantage of it. Pedestrian & Where the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities is Provide pedestrian crosswalks Bicycle deemed appropriate, they must be designed in a way that approximately 1 to 1.5 car Facilities best provides for the safety of these vulnerable roadway lengths back from the yield lines. users. They should be designed in a way that (Note that the crosswalk discourages pedestrian crossings to the central island. configuration shown on Figures (Crosswalks to and/or pedestrian ramps oriented toward 1-4 illustrates only one of the the central island should never be provided.) Providing potentially acceptable planter areas between the sidewalks and curbs around configurations.) the exterior of the roundabout helps to discourage crossings to the central island and also enhances Provide ADA -compliant pedestrian safety and comfort. Separating crosswalks pedestrian ramps, including from the yield lines allows drivers to deal with crossing truncated domes, at all pedestrians independently from the vehicle merges and crosswalks. Provide truncated turning movements. This allows them to focus an domes at the entrances to the appropriate amount of attention on the pedestrians, crosswalks from the splitter thereby improving pedestrian safety. The use of the island refuges also. splitter island as a refuge allows pedestrians to make the crossing as a series of two crossings of one-way traffic, Provide planter strips between rather than a longer crossing of two-way traffic. This the sidewalks and curbs around further aids pedestrian safety. the exterior of the roundabout (minimum 5' wide — no trees). When bicycle lanes (or "safety shoulders") are provided along approaching roadways, they must be terminated Terminate bike lanes prior to the prior to the roundabout. Bicyclists are at that point roundabout. Provide ramps at allowed to choose whether they want to proceed through these locations for bicycles to the roundabout in the same manner as a motor vehicle access the sidewalks. Ramps for (in which case they move to the center of the vehicular bicycles should not include lane and claim it as their own as they proceed through) truncated domes. In locations or whether they want to exit the roadway and cross as a where significant pedestrian and pedestrian. Ramps provided at the ends of the bike lanes bicycle traffic is anticipated, allow cyclists who choose the latter option to access the consideration should be given to pedestrian facilities. These ramps should be separate widening the sidewalk between from the pedestrian ramps and should not include bicycle ramps to shared path truncated domes. In no case should bicycle lanes be standards. rovided within the roundabout. V f Project Engineering Page 13 _ Consultants, Ltd 0 ,,rr•<�gM v/ ,,,,, ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUT STUDY AUWP RoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County fttlySNovember9, 2007 Design Discussion Design Guidance Parameter mini -roundabouts on on the splitter islands at urban compact roundabouts. Optional signs and markings include: • W3-2 (Yield Ahead) warning signs on each leg. • W11-2 pedestrian warning signs on each approach (with W 16-7p arrow plaque). • Yellow edge line on the left side of the circulatory roadway. • Yield lines and pavement word markings on entrance lanes. Markings that shall not be used include: • Crosswalks to the central island. • Bike lanes within the roundabout. • Continuous concentric lane lines on the circulatory roadway. Drainage Pavements, aprons, and hard -surfaced islands must be Cross -slope: 2% outward sloped to provide for adequate drainage. The most desirable on circulatory roadway, common guidance on drainage is to slope the circulating entrances, and exits. 1-2% roadway away from the central island at a 2% slope. Two outward or 2% inward desirable reasons are generally used to justify this practice. The on truck apron. However, first is that by sloping away from the central island, the inward cross -slope undesirable on traversable central islands at island can more readily be seen by approaching vehicles. mini -roundabouts. The second reason is that sloping the roadway away from the island creates a negative superelevation which helps to control speeds. Truck aprons must also be sloped. Curbs: Low -profile (3-4") They are commonly sloped outward, but can also be mountable curb between sloped inward if a means of disposing of the runoff water circulatory roadway and truck at the central island is provided. Sloping the apron apron. Mountable curbs only inward helps to reduce truck tipping for vehicles that around splitter islands at mini - or urban compact roundabouts. must use the apron. Mountable or vertical curb around splitter islands at all other roundabouts. Vertical curb on inside edge of truck apron. Standard vertical curb and gutter WE Project Engineering Page IS Consultants, Ltd. 0 0 ,,,. "div.,,,, ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY ACAPP RoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County 3November9, 2007 Single -lane to Dual -lane Roundabout Expandability It is generally undesirable to construct a dual -lane roundabout in locations where a single -lane roundabout would handle the traffic for many years. Where they can safely and efficiently handle the anticipated traffic, single -lane roundabouts are preferable to dual -lane for the following reasons: • Operational simplicity of single -lane roundabouts • Better safety record of single -lane roundabouts as compared to dual -lane • Higher speeds on dual -lane during low-volume periods due to "short -cutting" across lanes — less obedience to signing & pavement markings Therefore, in locations where a dual -lane roundabout will not be needed for a significant number of years, two possible approaches can be taken: • Construct a single -lane roundabout that will be replaced by a dual -lane roundabout in the future • Construct a single -lane roundabout that is expandable to a dual -lane in the future The first approach will generally be less cost-effective and therefore less desirable than the second. In designing an expandable roundabout, the following issues must be considered: • Expanding a "good" single -lane design does not necessarily result in a "good" dual -lane design. This is due to the fact that the issues associated with dual -lane design are much more complex, particularly with the issue of path overlap. • The design process must start with a good dual -lane roundabout layout that addresses the issues of fastest path, path overlap, truck turning, etc. Once the ultimate dual -lane layout is determined then the designer can evaluate the options for phasing the development of that dual -lane roundabout with an initial build design that will operate as a single -lane. • Both the initial single -lane design and the ultimate dual -lane design must be thoroughly analyzed to ensure proper operations. The design cannot short-change either the near-term single -lane operation or the long-term dual -lane operation. • A roundabout constructed for dual -lane operation and striped for single -lane is not acceptable. Proper channelization for single -lane operation must be provided by hard improvements, not just striping, • Depending on the particulars of a given site, it may not be feasible to construct an expandable roundabout. In that case, a different option must be pursued. The initial single -lane build of an ultimate dual -lane roundabout can occur utilizing one of two basic schemes. Those two schemes, with the advantages and disadvantages of each are: Scheme Advantages Disadvantages Build Full Outside Footprint & Drainage features & 0 More widening on each Widen Inward sidewalks are built initially leg — longer transitions • Full right-of-way needs 0 Higher initial cost taken care of up front • Future expansion impacts islands & striping only — no impacts to adjoining property Project Engineering Page 17 J Consultants, Ltd. ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY RoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County ftilyLSNovember9,1007 TEST GUIDELINES THROUGH MODELING Computer modeling was used to test the recommended guidelines. For this testing, two computer software packages were utilized: the VISSIM micro -simulation model and the RODEL capacity analysis model. The purpose of the modeling was not to perform a detailed comparison of analysis models or an exhaustive evaluation of all possible roundabout operational possibilities. Rather, the modeling was targeted to two specific objectives: 1. Get a "feel" for how the capacity, delays, etc. vary as a function of the ICD, turning percentages, truck percentages, and approach imbalance. 2. Test the "rules -of -thumb" for number of approach lanes shown in the design guidance. An analysis was performed on the following scenarios: a. "Typical" commuter traffic, assuming 70% of traffic using a given approach of the intersection would be thru- moving vehicles. Left and right -turning vehicles would make up 15% each of the total approach traffic b. Heavy left -turning traffic. This option assumed a 40 % left turn percentage on one approach with the opposite right -turn having 40% of the total approach traffic also. This scenario would be typical of an intersection with heavy traffic on two adjacent legs rather than an intersection with evenly distributed traffic volumes or a major - minor distribution. c. High truck percentages. This option used the same traffic distribution as the typical commuter option described above with trucks making up 15% of the total traffic. d. Directional imbalance. This option again assumed the same turning movement distribution as the typical commuter traffic but the total intersection volume was divided between a major and minor route. The major route was assumed to carry 80% of the total intersection volume while the minor carried the remaining 20%. These options were analyzed under two different geometric conditions. The first condition was a single -lane roundabout with a 110' ICD, 100' entry radius, and 400' exit radius. The second condition was a dual -lane roundabout with a 150' ICD, 100' entry radius, and 400' exit radius. In addition, a single -lane roundabout with an ICD of 130' and a dual -lane roundabout with a 180' ICD were analyzed under the typical commuter scenario to evaluate the effects of a larger ICD. As discussed in the Design Guidelines section of this report, a range of potentially -acceptable ICD's should be considered at any given location. In no way should the choice of ICD's included here for analysis purposes be construed as suggested standard or default roundabout sizes The analysis was performed using two different software packages. RODEL is a software based out of the United Kingdom and is calibrated for British driving behavior. It is possible, however, to calibrate this model to reflect local driver behavior and is widely used in the US. VISSIM is a micro- simulation model used to model a wide variety of traffic conditions. The benefit of using VISSIM is the detail to which the model can be calibrated. This allows for the modeling of very complex and non -typical traffic conditions, i.e. roundabouts. The results of the analysis were fairly intuitive. The typical commuter traffic scenario resulted in the highest numbers for capacity and circulating + entry (C+E) volumes. The worst-case scenario resulted from the heavy left -turning traffic scenario. This was mainly due to the increase in circulating traffic in areas downstream from the approach delivering the weighted left -turn volumes. J Project Engineering Page 19 1 Consultants, Ltd. • 0 ,,,..=rAMh*:•,,,, ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY RoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County 3November9, 2007 COST COMPARISON: Roundabout vs. Signalized Intersection As mentioned earlier in this report, Figures 1-3 illustrate sample roundabout layouts incorporating these guidelines for various combinations of 3 -lane and 5 -lane intersecting roadways. Figures 57-79 illustrate sample signalized intersection layouts for the same combinations. Note that the addition of right -turn lanes and/or dual left -turn lanes on some approaches was done to create signalized options that provide approximately the same capacities as the corresponding roundabout options. For each of the six layouts, quantity take -offs were done for the following items: • Right-of-way area • Pavement area • Length of curb • Sidewalk area • Landscaping area • Truck apron area Estimated lump sum differences for the signal/lighting item were also estimated (assuming $60,000 for lighting on the roundabout options). The following tables compare the quantities and corresponding costs for each of the three combinations of 3 -lane and 5 -lane roadways. Please note that these cost estimates do not represent total project cost. Instead, these estimates focus just on those items for which there is an identifiable, predictable difference between the two options. Other items, such as engineering, utility relocations, drainage features, landscape restoration, removals, etc. are not included. The quantities of those items are site-specific, making it impossible to estimate them on a general basis. Intersection of Two 3 -Lane Road wa s Item Roundabout (Figure 1) Quantity Cost Signal (Figure 5) Quantity Cost Pavement area 47,000 S.F. $235,000 58,800 S.F. $294,000 Length of curb 2,640 FT. $60,700 2,115 FT. $48,600 Sidewalk area 15,140 S.F. $30,300 15,210 S.F. $30,400 Landscaping area 11,300 S.F. $22,600 -0- -0- Truck apron area 2,500 S.F. $27,500 -0- - -0- Si nal/li htin Signal/lighting $60,000 $180,000 Totals (w/o right-of-way) $436,100 $553,000 R/W (rural - $7.50/S.F.) 9,100 S.F. $68,300 5,700 S.F. $42,800 R/W (urban - $11.00/S.F.) 9,100 S.F. $100,100 5,700 S.F. $62,700 R/W (resid. - $9.50/S.F.) 9,100 S.F. $86,500 5,700 S.F. $54,200 Totals w/Ri ht-of-wa $504,400-536,200 $595,800-615,700 For the intersection of two 3 -lane roadways, the signalized intersection construction cost estimate exceeds that of the roundabout by a range of $79,500 to $91,400, depending on the right-of-way cost (location). Project Engineering Page 21 Consultants, Ltd. .,' ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY AU9Roundabout Application Guidelines forAda County fmiy--ZWNovember9, 2007 Differences in ACHD maintenance cost • Power consumption — greater for signals and lighting at signalized intersections than for lighting only at roundabouts —favors roundabouts • Signal equipment and timing plan maintenance — at signalized intersections only, none at roundabouts —favors roundabouts • Pavement maintenance — more paved area in signalized intersections translates to higher cost than for roundabouts —favors roundabouts Differences in maintenance cost to other entities • Landscape maintenance — cost to city or neighborhood group for maintenance of islands at roundabouts, no such cost at signalized intersections —favors signalized intersections Differences in user costs • Delay — average delay is normally lower at roundabouts than at signalized intersections — favors roundabouts • Fuel consumption — reduced starting, stopping, and idling at roundabouts compared to traffic signals results in fuel savings —favors roundabouts Differences in costs to both roadway users and the community at lame • Injuries, fatalities, and property damage — roundabouts have been shown to reduce total crashes and to greatly reduce injury and fatal crashes —favors roundabouts • Air pollution — reduced starting, stopping, idling, and fuel consumption at roundabouts results in lower vehicle emissions than at traffic signals —favors roundabouts Project Engineering Page 23 I Consultants, Ltd 0 0 ,01! -,,ADA COUNTYROUNDABOUTSTUDY RoundaboutApplication Guidelines forAda County fitly- WNovember9, 2007 PEER REVIEW During December 2006 and January 2007 a peer review of a draft of this report was conducted by Ourston Roundabout Engineering, Inc. of Madison, Wisconsin. Their review effort was led by Mark Lenters, P.E. At the conclusion of their review, they issued a report (in letter format) dated January 18, 2007. Their report has been added to this document in it's entirety as Appendix D. The recommendations contained in the report were reviewed by PEC staff and with ACHD and the rest of the Steering Committee at a subsequent meeting. Many of the suggestions made in the Ourston review were incorporated into the guidelines and other sections of this report. However, there were some suggestions regarding which the Steering Committee and PEC did not agree with Ourston and those changes were not made. A detailed listing of the comments, along with PEC's responses, is included in this report as Appendix E. j. Project Engineering Page ZS Consultants, Ltd M/2j 1�:j 06 ld O(DT 1-j i8 3 rr L� --------------- (,n \ � � I � 3 p 0 M Q I Q Z Z I N w Dz cr � a uI a �' I I 1 D 1 C7 Z LC) a j I i I It J0 3 ~ Ln a 0 L N , oo I ! 1 1 z lil I I Adikk M/8 l-� 09 3 N l� Iz `L ill 111 Ln Ar% , z w a I— a D ¢ O a CO Z Q � W O J cr Z 0 D D 0 O 1 Ln rr G I ; I I I i I I I I I I I � I M/H l—� Ob I I I I 1 I ! I I I ' I I I I 1� o�z I I I I I l� ssz I I I 3 I \ I � 1_J 9z I I N I I ' I @ -------------- I I - - - - - - - - - - - - I------ I ------- I I I I I I I i1i I a I 3 J acr O I I I it N 00c.� Z I II w wc�¢ GC O U J LL LL LL � 3 I LL I I O ' I � I ~ I Z I i I I I I • LAL 0 13LML LJ • V aO L am ii N O V Q .- E O O t cu O cn 4; N � � O O j � � u � � � O L ii N 0 > w 4-J .O O u L� Q) O .i V1 '� w w 4 -JE O cz E tA O L � 4-+ — O > O � ce • c 4-J '44 Fm Q) a Q) cn cn C • .c_ c� O O 4-J u :3 O ,� oC Lo O 4-0 ; as O 00 Cl O. W Ln .CM _ a ce v1 V a i Ln Cd LL - , cd tA M ce V Q : �_ :3 .� 0 .— .— PAF • s "r u a�• t • �r wj� 'FH rN ^^O ill O cz � o ct oj cr i � 0 3 0 o cz Y4 M V V> i� i Iri -W ct =o 0 It c� � ct U cz UO CGr. -- f a�• t • �r wj� 'FH rN ^^O ill O cz � o ct oj cr i � 0 3 0 o cz Y4 M V V> i� i Iri -W '.O O �— CN 44.L 3 0 0 0 Lf), O 0 '.O • a 0 O �— CN 44.L 0 0 Lf), O 0 A42.r O 1 . 1 1 TN cu 1 1 1 1 O Z • a 0 vll If Ir s� " r t Q) i� Q) '•r c� •O Cl > ci CA 0 0 023 ct u a� Ct cd O • �A • � r 0 �— CN 44.L 0 0 Lf), 0 A42.r 1 . 1 1 TN cu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41� � A 3 O C: M CU cU >% 0 0 L 3 —a c c 0 cc c� M a� f to F— H ch vll If Ir s� " r t Q) i� Q) '•r c� •O Cl > ci CA 0 0 023 ct u a� Ct cd O • �A • � r c eu r_r _ = W eu • y i I ,e• C. ,�, fix• .�• iS t r_ R t 1 y i I 3 r' I • 0 N u oa u��+�a�� �n CO J td H tv> N— J cd C(1) O �- i cd > GJ — J cd C GJ o 0C w +- = rn w -- 2 w -0 •— cv C 0 �n CO •— -�L w J to C 01 N u=3 L--0 oa U=4� 4�W �n CA .— -C w 3 m — -�c • LA O M tA W O A Ln > U \ O CJ , N E U> Q r -- i w Q J 4- ry _ E E .— Ln LA -0 U .N J — Q > > cCS c� 0 O cn LA 0 c� LA 0 c 3: LA rz 1 LA ■_ 0 w 4—+ C1 W �- N ' V w wo QJ 0 Q LA LA W o L� ma LA V m - LA cC J J • December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING U December 11, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-E REQUEST City Transportation Corridor Priorities -- STP -TMA Funds 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: Date: COMMENTS Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. City Council Special Meeting/Workshop RECEIVE D Tuesday, December 11, 2007 DEC 1 1 2007 3.e. City Transportation Corridor Priorities —STP -TMA Fundsofmar Situation: Each year, the federal government filters approximately $5.5 million in Surface Transportation Program — Transportation Management Area (STP -TMA) funds into Northern Ada County. These formula funds are spent at the discretion of the regional metropolitan planning organization (COMPASS), and can be used for projects on or off the state or interstate system. COMPASS- has already programmed these funds through at least 2012 in Northern Ada County. COMPASS recently developed a new approach to spending STP -TMA funds that focuses on corridor development (rather than individual, piecemeal projects). COMPASS requests member jurisdiction feedback about priority corridors for consideration in identifying where to spend these funds starting in 2013. Note: COMPASS anticipates that by 2012 the Northern Ada County Transportation Management Area and the Nampa Urbanized Area will be considered a single Transportation Management Area for transportation planning purposes. Requests are therefore being sought from members in both Ada County and Canyon County. The Transportation Task Force discussed regional priority corridors as outlined in Communities in Motion on October 11, 2007. The Task Force identified the following three top priorities: 1. Meridian, Waltman to Chinden* 2. Ten Mile, Lake Hazel to Chinden 3. US 20/26, Exit 29 to Eagle *Communities in Motion identifies Ustick Road as the northern terminus for this corridor. The TTF feels that Chinden is a more appropriate endpoint, and that Meridian Road should ultimately be constructed to a 4/5 lane section all the way to Chinden. TTF members also recommended that the City clearly state that this project is not appropriate for use of federal funds — it should be constructed with local/ACHD dollars only. Staff first presented this item to Council on October 23, 2007. Mayor and Council directed staff to determine what priorities were identified by other jurisdictions. COMPASS staff indicates that as of December 7, 2007, no other jurisdictions have formally forwarded corridor priorities. However, staff from both the City of Nampa and Nampa Highway District identified US 20/26 at the (informal) top priority for their entities. Notus-Parma Highway District staff identified Homedale Road as the (informal) top priority for their entity. Staff assumes that the reason for the lack of feedback from other jurisdictions is the number of unknowns that may impact the use of STP -TMA funds between now and 2013 including: 1. Whether local option authority is granted by the Legislature 2. If local option authority is granted, whether voters approve a sales tax increase 3. If voters approve a sales tax increase, which projects are included in the Financing Plan 4. If additional revenue options become available for specific projects in the next few years. Request: To consider the three top priority corridors as identified by the Transportation Task Force and either forward the list above as the City's top priorities or adjust as Council sees fit prior to forwarding to COMPASS. 0 . 31. Support Proposed Legislation for Local Funding Options for Transportation Situation: On November 13, 2007, Matt Stoll from COMPASS presented the draft Regional Transportation Authority Act to Council. The bill, which was drafted jointly by VRT and COMPASS, would grant local entities the authority to present ballot measures to the public to raise local sales tax to fund transportation improvements. Mr. Stoll indicated that, after final revisions are made to the draft bill, COMPASS and VRT would like Council to consider a formal resolution supporting the proposed bill. VRT and COMPASS staff are finalizing revisions to the earlier draft bill, and hope to have the final draft available for review by the end of the week. VRT staff indicates that the changes being integrated into the draft bill aim to garner additional support in other parts of the state and will not impact the ability of VRT/COMPASS to (1) develop a detailed, corridor -by -corridor financing plan for transportation projects, and (2) go to the voters to request approval to implement the plan. Request: Staff requests Council's approval to draft a resolution for consideration on December 18, 2007, in support of the proposed bill. Staff will include with the resolution (1) the revised bill, and (2) a memo outlining all changes from the previous draft (dated October 3, 2007) which was the subject of the presentation on November 13, 2007. • November 30, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 4, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 34 REQUEST Support Proposed Legislation for Local funding Options for Transportation 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: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i 0 RECEIVED (I MOORS INFORMATION OPINION RESEARCH • STRATEGIC ANALYSIS September 28, 2007 TO: Mark Carnopis FROM: Bob Moore and Kelly Middendorff RE: Idaho Voters and Transl2ortation Issues N2 V 13 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk Office This memo contains results of a statewide telephone survey conducted by Moore Information, Inc. The survey was conducted among a representative sample of 600 voters in Idaho on September 11-13, 2007. The potential sampling error is plus or minus 4% at the 95% confidence level. Overview Transportation is a major issue concern among voters in the Treasure Valley, but voters elsewhere in the state are much less concerned. Not surprisingly, tax increases are not popular anywhere in the state - the survey finds only a slim majority of voters statewide would support an increase in rental car taxes and development impact fees to fund transportation improvements, but majorities oppose a local sales tax, an increase in vehicle registration fees and a fuel tax increase. However a majority of voters in the state are willing to consider a local sales tax to fund transportation improvements of three quarters of a cent or less, and support increases steadily as the tax rate decreases. Specifically; • A three quarters of one cent sales tax is favored by a margin of 52-46% • A one half cent sales tax was is favored 57-41% • A quarter of one cent sales tax Is favored 61-38% These sales tax proposals are more popular in Ada County than elsewhere in the state, but even in Ada County, fewer than two -in -three voters currently support a quarter of one cent sales tax. Use of local government property tax revenues to fund transportation improvements is opposed by a majority of Treasure Valley voters (55-40%). There is plurality support statewide for continuing GARVEE funding - 49% favor continuation, while 34% are opposed and 18% have no opinion. This program is significantly more popular in the Treasure Valley than elsewhere in the state. 2130 SW Jefferson St. Ste. 200, Portland, OR 97201 I PO Box 86, Annapolis, MD 21404 Phone 503.221.3100 • Fax 503.221.9861 Phone 410.216.9856 • Fax 410.216.9857 www.moore-infocom leading concern, while in urban, rural and rural/suburban communities, transportation is mentioned by no more than 10%. Funding Transportation Improvements Idahoans are not overly impressed with the job Idaho is doing funding the state's transportation system - only 10% give the state an "excellent" or "above average" rating, while 40% say the state is doing an "average" job in this area, and 41% give the state a below average/poor rating. The remaining 9% have no opinion. Here, too, we see notable differences of opinion along party lines - Republicans are less critical of the state's efforts to fund transportation (11% excellent/above average, 43% average and 35% below average/poor), than Independents 13%/38%/42%) and Democrats are largely unimpressed (7%/36%/52%). In exploring reactions to potential funding options to pay for transportation improvements in the state, we find voters most receptive to an increase in rental car taxes and impact fees on commercial residential and industrial development. However, there is majority opposition today to three other potential funding options, including a local sales tax, an increase in vehicle registration fees, and a fuel tax increase. The following table illustrates voters' reactions to each of these five potential funding options. Potential Funding Options Support Oppose Net support An increase in the tax on rental cars 54% 33% +21% _ Impact fees on commercial, residential and industrial development A local sales tax approved by voters An increase in vehicle registration fees A fuel tax increase 54% 36% +18% 41% 55% -14% 36% 61% -25% 15% 84% -69% Impact fees find majority support throughout the state; however, Ada County voters are most likely to favor this mechanism. In suburban and rural changing to suburban areas, impact fees are widely popular, however, there is only marginal support for this option in urban areas, and in rural communities, voters are divided about impact fees on commercial, residential and industrial development. By party, we find Democrats widely supportive of impact fees, but Republicans and Independents are only marginally supportive of this option. Rental car tax increases also find majority support throughout the state. However, by area, again we find this option more popular in suburban and rural changing to suburban communities. Voters in rural and urban areas are less enthused about rental car tax increases. Democrats are more supportive of rental car tax increases than Republicans or Independents. As previously mentioned, the concept of an increase in the state gas tax as a means of funding transportation improvements in the state generates majority opposition today (55% oppose, 41% support). However, in further discussion about the gas tax, we find voter Idaho Voters Moore Information 23 of questions, starting with a one -cent local sales tax, the survey find voters are divided (48% for, 49% against). When voters who were undecided or opposed to this proposal are asked whether they would vote for or against a three-quarters of one cent sales tax, support widens to a 52% for, 46% against margin. The gap widens further when the dollar amount is dropped to one-half of one percent (57% to 41%), and finally, a one-quarter of one -cent sales tax finds 61% support and 38% opposition today. In looking at support for the one-quarter of one -cent sales tax proposal, we find majority support throughout the state; however, the widest margin comes from voters inside Ada County (65% for, 34% against). Further, this proposal finds majority support in urban, suburban and rural communities, and while Democrats are more supportive (68% to 32%) than both Republicans (57% to 41%) and Independents (62% to 38%), there is majority support across the partisan spectrum. In terms of impacting support for a local sales tax to fund transportation improvements, the commonality of goals of the Treasure Valley Air Quality Council's plan to improve the quality of public transportation as part of their plan to improve air quality in the region does not improve support for a local sales tax proposal. After hearing the TVAQC's plan to improve air quality includes improving public transportation, 42% are more likely, but 47% are less likely to support a local option sales tax for transportation improvements. Voters in Ada County have a positive reaction to this information, but sentiment is divided in Canyon County and elsewhere in the state, the reaction is a net negative. Likewise, in urban areas reaction is divided, while in suburban areas there is a positive reaction to hearing about the TVAQC's plan from a plurality. In the state's rural communities, the reaction is negative. Using local property tax revenues to improve and expand public transportation services in the Treasure Valley finds majority opposition from Ada and Canyon County voters - 40% would support government use of property tax revenues to improve and expand public transportation services, while 55% are opposed and 5% have no opinion. GARVEE Idaho voters are generally positive about the GARVEE program after hearing the following description: "There is a new transportation funding mechanism being utilized in the state of Idaho called Grant Anticipated Revenue Vehicle, or GARVEE This program is also known as the Connecting Idaho Plan. This program borrows against future federal transportation money coming to the state in an effort to get more projects completed in a shorter time frame and decreasing the inflationary costs of these projects. " Based on this information, 49% of voters statewide believe the program should be continued, while 34% would discontinue GARVEE and 18% have no opinion. Continuation of GARVEE finds majority support in Ada and Canyon Counties, but outside the Treasure Valley region, sentiment about GARVEE is divided. By party, Democrats favor continuation of GARVEE (57% continue, 27% discontinue), but Independents are divided and a plurality of Republicans would continue the program (46% continue, 35% discontinue). Information Sources When it comes to transportation funding issues, Idahoans do not put a great deal of trust in any of the six individuals and organizations that might have something to say on the subject. In fact, none of the six groups or individuals was deemed credible by more than three -in -ten voters. The following table illustrates the perceived credibility of each of the groups tested in the survey. Idaho Voters 25 Moore Information i 0 Rising gas prices do appear to be a motivating factor in voters' willingness to explore public transportation options. If gas prices were to reach $4 per gallon, 58% of Idaho voters say they would likely consider using public transportation, and if gas prices reach $5 per gallon, this percentage jumps to 65%. At $6 per gallon, fully 701/o would consider public transportation. Dedicated Funding for Public Transportation Knowledge that Idaho is only one -of -four states in the nation that does not provide state funding or a dedicated local funding source for public transportation is effective in prompting 58% of Idaho voters to support such a dedicated funding source. Just 32% are less likely to support a dedicated funding source and 10% have no opinion. Reaction to this information is positive throughout the state; however, residents of Ada and Canyon Counties are most positive (66% more likely, 26% less likely). By party, majorities of Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike are more likely to support a dedicated local funding source for public transportation, but this sentiment is most pronounced among Democrats. Purchasing Future Transportation Corridors Today, 55% support, while 36% oppose governmental entities and transportation planning organizations using tax dollars to purchase land for future planned roadways and/or pubic transit. The remaining 10% are undecided. Regionally, there is majority support for this proposal among residents of both Ada and Canyon Counties, as well as other Boise TV market counties, but voters residing in the Twin Falls TV market counties are divided, and support in the rest of the state is only marginal. There is also majority support among Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike, but Democrats are most likely to feel this way. Idaho Voters 27 Moore Information RECEIVED NOV 13 2007 City of Mcri�ian C ty Cls;rk 0Qicc REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT - LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX ► The legislation is an amendment to the existing Regional Public Transportation Authority Act (RPTA) that re-establishes the act as the Regional Transportation Authority Act (RTA). ► With a 66-2/3 approval by voters within the RTA's service boundaries, the RTA Board of Directors may levy a local option sales tax for two purposes: (1) to finance the construction and maintenance of highways under the jurisdiction of countie!, cities, highway districts & the Idaho Transportation Department within the geographic boun Jaries of the Authority in amounts above and beyond all other existing sources of financing available to such governmental units, and;(2) to finance, construct, operate and maintain public transportation systems. ► The RTA Board of Directors are required to develop a long-range transportation financing plan that must be approved by voters within the RTA's service boundaries in any election where voters decide whether to allow for the imposition of a local option sales tax. ► 100% of the sales tax revenue collected can only be allocated by the RTA Board of Directors to counties, cities, highway districts and the Idaho Transportat on Department based upon the transportation financing plan. ► The RTA Board of Directors consists of only elected public officials from the cities, counties and highway districts located within the service boundaries of any RTA and shall serve as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for those areas of the state so designated pursuant to federal law. The member of the Idaho Transportation Cepartment Board within whose district the RTA exists shall also serve on the RTA Board of Directors. ► Decisions of the RTA Board of Directors to adopt the transportz tion financing plan, set budgets, allocate sales tax revenues and establish sales tax rates must be made by a majority of Directors present and voting as well as such Directors whc represent counties and cities collectively that includes at least a majority of the population within the region (county population not included within city populations). ► "Public Transportation Systems" include systems and services designed to transport customers on local and regional routes, includfng buses, vanpools, demand response services, rail, rail corridor, park and ride and so forth, which are compatible with adopted state, regional or local transportation plans. ► The corporate powers have been expanded to provide the polo er and authority to accomplish the types of transactions contemplated by the statute. Those t-ansactions include levying the tax, entering into the financial agreements necessary to bu ld and operate an integrated transportation system that includes highways and public transportation and issuing bonds. ► The ballot question to levy such a sales tax can only be on the ballot at an election in May or November of any year. The legislation authorizes a sales tax c,f not less than 0.1 percent or more than .75 percent in the initial election. The tax may be imposed in amounts necessary to finance the transportation funding plan and related budgets. The maximum tax authorized may not exceed 1.00 percent. ► The sales tax sunsets after 20 years unless it is reauthorized by a subsequent 66-2/3 voter approval. The sales tax collections may continue until existing bended indebtedness is retired. 40874 0007.870652.1 9 Transportation Funding Opinion Poll RECEIVED NOV 13 2007 City Of Meridian When asked what single issue is of greatest concern, the results were: Education 27% Health Care 21% Economy 20% Taxes 12% Transportation 10% Environment 5% However, in the Treasure Valley, transportation ranked near the top: Ada 23% Canyon 21% When asked their views on potential transportation funding options: Statewide Support I Oppose Tax on rental cars 54% 33% Impact fees on commercial, residential and industrial development 540% 36% A local sales tax approved by voters 41% 55% An increase in vehicle registration fees 36% 61% A fuel tax increase 15% 84% When told that Idaho is one of four states without a state or local funding source for public transportation, respondents were more likely to support a local option tax for public transportation: Support O pose Statewide 58 % 32 % Ada and Canyon 66 % —26% Survey conducted Sept. 11-13, 2007, by Moore Information. Sample of 600 likely voters. The potential sampling error is f/- 4%,3t the 955Vo confidence level. 3 2007 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT - LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX ► The legislation is an amendment to the existing Regional Public Transportation Authority Act (RPTA) that re-establishes the act as the Regional Transportation Authority Act (RTA). With a 66-2/3 approval by voters within the RTA's service boundaries, the RTA Board of Directors may levy a local option sales tax for two purposes: (1) to finance the construction and maintenance of highways under the jurisdiction of counties, cities, highway districts & the Idaho Transportation Department within the geographic boundaries of the Authority in amounts above and beyond all other existing sources of financing available to such governmental units, and;(2) to finance, construct, operate and maintain public transportation systems. ► The RTA Board of Directors are required to develop a long-range transportation financing plan that must be approved by voters within the RTA's service boundaries in any election where voters decide whether to allow for the imposition of a local option sales tax. ► 100% of the sales tax revenue collected can only be allocated by the RTA Board of Directors to counties, cities, highway districts and the Idaho Transportation Department based upon the transportation financing plan. ► The RTA Board of Directors consists of only elected public officials from the cities, counties and highway districts located within the service boundaries of any RTA and shall serve as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for those areas of the state so designated pursuant to federal law. The member of the Idaho Transportation Department Board within whose district the RTA exists shall also serve on the RTA Board of Directors. ► Decisions of the RTA Board of Directors to adopt the transportation financing plan, set budgets, allocate sales tax revenues and establish sales tax rates must be made by a majority of Directors present and voting as well as such Directors who represent counties and cities collectively that includes at least a majority of the population within the region (county population not included within city populations). ► "Public Transportation Systems" include systems and services designed to transport customers on local and regional routes, including buses, vanpools, demand response services, rail, rail corridor, park and ride and so forth, which are compatible with adopted state, regional or local transportation plans. ► The corporate powers have been expanded to provide the power and authority to accomplish the types of transactions contemplated by the statute. Those transactions include levying the tax, entering into the financial agreements necessary to build and operate an integrated transportation system that includes highways and public transportation and issuing bonds. ► The ballot question to levy such a sales tax can only be on the ballot at an election in May or November of any year. The legislation authorizes a sales tax of not less than 0.1 percent or more than .75 percent in the initial election. The tax may be imposed in amounts necessary to finance the transportation funding plan and related budgets. The maximum tax authorized may not exceed 1.00 percent. ► The sales tax sunsets after 20 years unless it is reauthorized by a subsequent 66-2/3 voter approval. The sales tax collections may continue until existing bonded indebtedness is retired. 40874.0007.870652.1 0 DRAFT 0 DRMLI226 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Fifty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE BILL NO. BY 1 AN ACT 2 RELATING TO THE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT; 3 AMENDING SECTION 40-2103, IDAHO CODE, TO REVISE THE 4 DEFINITIONS OF "AUTHORITY", "BOARD" AND "COMMISSION," TO 5 DEFINE "CITY HIGHWAY SYSTEM," "CONSTRUCT" OR "CONSTRUCTION,-- 6 CONSTRUCTION,"6 "COUNTY HIGHWAY SYSTEM," "HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMISSION," 7 "HIGHWAY' DISTRICT SYSTEM," "PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM," 8 "REVENUES," "STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM," AND "TRANSPORTATION 9 FINANCING PLAN" AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; AMENDING 10 SECTION 40-2104, IDAHO CODE, TO REVISE THE PURPOSE OF AN 11 AUTHORITY AND TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGNATING A REGIONAL 12 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AS THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING 13 ORGANIZATION; AMENDING SECTION 40-2105, IDAHO CODE, TO 14 PROVIDE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE BALLOT 15 QUESTION FOR THE CREATION OF A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION 16 AUTHORITY SHALL IDENTIFY HIGHWAY DISTRICTS THAT WILL BE 17 LOCATED EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF 18 THE AUTHORITY; REPEALING SECTION 40-2106, IDAHO CODE, 19 RELATING TO AUTHORITY OF A BOARD; AMENDING CHAPTER.21, TITLE 20 40, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 40-2106, IDAHO 21 CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND COMPOSITION OF A 22 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD AND TO PROVIDE FOR 23 TRANSACTING BUSINESS OF THE AUTHORITY; AMENDING SECTION 24 40-2108, IDAHO CODE, TO EXPAND THE CORPORATE POWERS OF AN 25 AUTHORITY AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; AMENDING SECTION 26 40-2109, IDAHO CODE, TO REQUIRE THE BOARD TO ADOPT A 27 TRANSPORTATION FINANCING PLAN AND TO SPECIFY PROVISIONS OF 28 THE PLAN, TO PROVIDE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY, TO AUTHORIZE 29 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES BETWEEN SPECIFIED SITES TO INCLUDE 30 COLLEGES, TO REVISE THE DATE BY WHICH THE ANNUAL AUDIT IS DUE 31 AND TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS; AMENDING SECTION 40-2111, 32 IDAHO CODE, TO DELETE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF 33 REVENUE BONDS AND TO PROVIDE AUTHORITY FOR A LOCAL SALES AND 34 USE TAX; AMENDING CHAPTER 21, TITLE 40, IDAHO CODE, BY THE 35 ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 40-2112, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE 36 GENERAL PROVISIONS OF LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX ELECTIONS; 37 AMENDING CHAPTER 21, TITLE 40, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF 38 A NEW SECTION 40-2113, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR COLLECTION 39 AND ADMINISTRATION OF AN AUTHORIZED LOCAL SALES AND USE TAX 40 BY THE STATE TAX COMMISSION AND TO PROVIDE FOR DISTRIBUTION 41 OF REVENUES; AMENDING CHAPTER 21, TITLE 40, IDAHO CODE, BY 42 THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 40-2114, IDAHO CODE, TO 43 ESTABLISH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES FUND AND TO Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM DRML1226 2 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 • DRAFT 0 40-2102. POLICY OF STATE. It is hereby recognized by the legislature of the state of Idaho that, as the population and economy of areas of this state grow, the total needs for mobility of commerce and people cannot myIJ be met solely with a combination of r giona_iBublic trans rtatign and highway and road systems; that motor vehicle congestion and air quality problems result which may adversely affect health and safety; that there are a variety of persons who are elderly, who have disabilities, who live in rural areas or who otherwise require public transportation services for their general welfare; and that prosperous commerce and industry depend upon effective regional systems of transportation. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the state to maintain a state commitment to improve public transportation; to increase the use of transportation alternatives to single occupancy motor vehicles; to promote cooperative agreements among governmental entities in providing regional, public transportation services sv_gtems and h,ighwav and roadygtems; and to attain greater efficiency in the use of public transportation funds in a manner consistent with the needs, health, safety and general welfare of the people of Idaho. SECTION 4. That Section 40-2103, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 40-2103. DEFINITIONS. (1) "Authority" means the jj regional public transportation authority Created pursuant to this chapter. (2) "Board" means the governing body of the regional public transportation authority. (3) "City" means an incorporated city. (4 ) "city highway syt- 1sem, " ( See "City Ivstem section (4.5) "Commission" means the board of county commissioners or the-board--of--costmtssieners--of--a--single--eeuntp-aide--highway district. (S.i) "Con true or n i n" means _ the ., ij "Public transportation service" means, without limitation, fixed transit routes; scheduled or unscheduled transit service provided by motor vehicle, bus, rail, van, aerial tramway and other modes of public conveyance; paratransit service for the elderly and disabled; shuttle and commuter service between cities, counties, health care facilities, employment Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM DRAFT 0 DRML1226 5 1 transportation programs, services and support functions. 2 3 anBli able a regional transnrtat-ion authority 4 designated a,s the metropolitan olannin_q organizaurtion n 5 23 SC ection 134 and 49 USC 5303,and shill carr 6 � igs yre cribe by federal law for a 7 orgs1nization in addition to any other duties -r b� 8 statute. 9 SECTION 6. That Section 40-2105, Idaho Code, be, and the 10 same is hereby amended to read as follows: 11 40-2105. CREATION OF AUTHORITY -- VOTER APPROVAL -- NAME. 12 Authorities may be established in one (1) of the following ways: 13 (1) (a) County -wide authorities. A city or commission by 14 resolution may call for an election to establish a regional 15 pnblie transportation authority in the county to carry out 16 the purposes of this chapter. The entire geographical area of 17 the county must be included within the jurisdiction of an 18 authority created pursuant to this subsection. 19 (b) The ballot question shall seek voter approval of the 20 establishment of the authority. 21 (2) (a) Regional authorities. A city or commission may adopt 22 a resolution proposing to establish an authority which 23 contains contiguous parts of one (1) or more counties. The 24 resolutions shall include a legal description of a contiguous 25 region encompassed by the proposed authority and specifically 26 name each city, county and highway district wholly or 27 partially included therein. Boundaries of the proposed 28 authority shall conform insofar as possible to existing 29 boundaries dividing voting precincts. 30 (b) A certified copy of the resolution shall be transmitted 31 by registered mail to the chief elected official of each city 32 and county wholly or partially included in the proposed 33 region. 34 (c) Each city and county shall, by resolution, either 35 approve without alteration or reject the resolution proposing 36 the establishment of an authority and transmit a certified 37 copy to the clerk or recorder of the initiating city or 38 commission. If a city or county fails to act upon the 39 resolution proposing the establishment of an authority within 40 sixty (60) days after receipt of the certified copy, the city 41 or county is deemed to have rejected the resolution. 42 (d) If the city councils and county commissions of all 43 cities and counties wholly or partially included in the 44 proposed region approve the resolution proposing the 45 establishment of an authority, the question shall be 46 submitted, for voter approval. The ballot question shall 47 generally, describe the area which is proposed to be included 48 in the authority, identify each city,. and county and hiahwav 49 district,which will be located either wholly or partially 50 within the authority,.and shall seek voter approval of the Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM DRMLI226 • oRAFr • 7 1 shall require: 2 (i) The affirmative vote of a majority of all the 3 voting members of the board present and voting, and 4 (ii) Such members present and voting in the affirmative 5 shall be representatives of counties and cities that 6 collectively include at least a majority of the 7 population within the region at the time of the vote. 8 For purposes of this paragraph (5)(a)(ii), the 9 population of counties and cities within the region 10 shall be the population as determined by the most 11 recently -preceding population estimates conducted by the 12 authority, and county population shall not include 13 population within a city. 14 (b) All other decisions of the board shall require only the 15 affirmative vote of a majority of the voting members of the 16 board present and voting. 17 (6) Board members shall be appointed by resolution of the 18 appointing agency and shall serve at the pleasure of the 19 appointing agency. Voting board members shall be 'elected 20 officials of the appointing agency except for the one (1) voting 21 board member from the Idaho transportation board. 22 (7) Ex officio members may be appointed to the board by any 23 city or commission, by the Idaho transportation board and by the 24 board itself, and shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing 25 agency. Ex officio members shall not be entitled to vote. 26 (8) Board members shall not be compensated either for the 27 actual performance of duties or for expenses. 28 (9) The authority shall be liable and responsible for the 29 actions of the board members and employees of the authority when 30 the board members and employees are performing their duties on 31 behalf of the authority. 32 SECTION 9. That Section 40-2108, Idaho Code, be, and the 33 same is hereby amended to read as follows: 34 40-2108. CORPORATE POWERS OF AN AUTHORITY. A regional peb}xe 35 transportation authority has power: 36 (1) To sue and be sued; 37 (2) To raise and expend funds as provided in this chapter; 38 (3) To issue revenee bonds as Brovide�! in this chaAt r; 39 (4) To adopt and use an official seal; 40 (5) To purchase and hold lands, make contracts, purchase and 41 hold personal property as may be necessary or convenient for the 42 purposes of this act ghapter, and to sell and exchange real and 43 personal property. The board shall first adopt a resolution 44 finding that the property to be sold or exchanged is no longer 45 needed by or useful to the district authority; that a public 46 hearing is to be held, of which hearing notice shall be published 47 in accordance with the provisions of section 40-206, Idaho Code 48 (6) In accordance with the pro isigns on eminent domain set 49 forth in ch Ater 7. title 7, Idaho Code, to exercise the oower of 50 eminent domain in the manner provided by law for the condemnation Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM DRKL1226 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 • DRAFT 0 Prior to adopting any such resolution, the board shall publish proposed fares and fees in at least one (1) issue of a newspaper having general circulation in the region and shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on the proposed fares and fees. (4) The authority may establish, fund, control and operate the administrative, equipment maintenance, servicing, storage, fueling, and other facilities required to support a safe and efficient public transportation system. In carrying out the purposes of this chapter, the authority may employ personnel, contract for services with public and private agencies and retain iPoal and other professional counsel. future; (b) DetCrmine projegj demand for transport tion services oyer twenty L201 ygars: . i], The board may adopt resolur.xon�:i wjt-.. s 4.., -- necessary, for carrying out the purposes of this chapter and discharging all powers and duties conferred to the authority pursuant to this chapter. (6Z) The authority shall have an annual audit made of the financial affairs of the authority as required in section 67-450B, Idaho Code, by-the-first-dap-ef-December-felloaing-the close within o g hundred eighty (18Q) days after the end of the fiscal year. (7Q) The authority may enter into cooperative agreements with the state, other authorities, counties, cities and highway districts under the provisions of section 67-2328, Idaho Code Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM. DRMLI226 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 0 DRAFT 0 11 (2) Upon voter approval of the local sales and use tax, the board shall provide by resolution the methods for reporting and collecting the taxes due. Such resolution shall also state the initial rate to be assessed, established as follows: (a) The board, pursuant to an estimate based upon the budget adopted, the transportation financing plan and anticipated reserve or other monetary requirements, shall impose an initial local sales and use tax of at least one-tenth of one percent (0.10$) but not more than three-quarters of one percent (0.75$) of the sales price of an item subject to taxation. (b) In subsequent periods, the board may increase the rate of the sales and use tax over the initial rate established in paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), but only if the rate increase is authorized at a reauthorization election held for the purpose as provided in subsection (4)(a) of this section. (c) The board may provide by resolution for an increase or decrease of the rate of the local sales and use tax, but only as shall be within the range established, that being the range between one-tenth of one percent (0.10%) and the rate initially established or as increased by a subsequent reauthorization election held as provided in subsection (4)(a) of this section. The board shall comply with the filing and recording requirements a copy of any of section 63-215, Idaho Code, and shall cause resolution, or amendment thereto, to be forwarded to the state treasurer, the chairman of the state tax commission and the chairman of the state board of tax appeals. (3) Taxes collected shall constitute revenue of the authority available for purposes of financing, constructing, operating or maintaining the region's public transportation system. Tax collection shall commence on a date set forth in the resolution, but not earlier than the next quarter that continences at least sixty (60) days after the date of the election. (4) Reauthorization elections may be held to increase the rate of the local sales and use tax then in effect, or to extend the term of the local sales and use tax then in effect, or to both increase the rate and to extend the term of the local sales and use tax then in effect, under the following conditions: (a) The rate of the tax may be increased, but only if approved by two-thirds (2/3) of all votes cast by the qualified electors voting in a reauthorization election conducted for the purpose, if such election is held on the fourth Tuesday in May in any year or on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in any year, and if a copy of the transportation financing plan adopted by the board with respect to the local sales and use tax increase in question is included. No reauthorized local sales and use tax rate shall ever exceed a maximum rate of one percent (1.0%). (b) The term of the local sales and use tax may be extended, but only if approved by two-thirds (2/3) of all votes cast by the qualified electors voting in a reauthorization election Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM 0 DRMLI226 13 0 1 compliance or legal representation, may be contracted with the 2 state tax commission as determined appropriate by the board. The 3 costs of any such contracted services shall be paid from the tax 4 receipts, subject to subsection (3)(b) of this section. 5 (3) A13. revenues collected by the state tax commission 6 pursuant to section 40-213.2, Idaho Code, shall be distributed as 7 follows: 8 (a) An amount of money shall be distributed to the state 9 refund fund sufficient to pay current refund claims. All 10 refunds authorized by the state tax commission to be paid 11 shall be paid through the state refund fund and those moneys 12 are continuously appropriated. 13 (b) An amount of money shall be distributed to the state tax 14 commission equal to such fee as may be agreed upon between 15 the state tax commission and such authority for the actual 16 cost of the collection and administration of the local sales 17 and use tax. The amount retained by the state tax commission 18 shall not exceed the amount authorized to be expended by 19 appropriation by the legislature. Any unencumbered balance in 20 excess of the actual cost at the end of each fiscal year 21 shall be distributed as provided in subsection (3)(c) of this 22 section. 23 (c) All remaining moneys shall be placed in the regional 24 transportation authorities fund established in section 25 40-2114, Idaho Code, and distributed as provided in that 26 section to the appropriate board of the authority levying 27 such local sales and use tax. 28 SECTION 14. That Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code, be, and 29 the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a ,NEW 30 SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 40-2114, Idaho 31 Code, and to read as follows: 32 40-2114. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES FUND 33 ESTABLISHED -- DISTRIBUTION OF MONEYS. (1) There is hereby 34 established in the state treasury a fund known as the "Regional 35 Transportation Authorities Fund," which shall be referred to as 36 the RTA fund, to which shall be credited moneys as provided by 37 section 40-2113(3)(c), Idaho Code. 38 (2) Interest earned on the investment of idle moneys in the 39 RTA fund shall be paid to the RTA fund. 40 (3) Distributions from the fund shall be made to the 41 appropriate 'board, upon demand of the board, to be spent, pledged 42 or accumulated for any purpose in furtherance of each element of 43 the transportation financing plan. 44 SECTION .15. That Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code, be, and 45 the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NIM 46 SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 40-2115, Idaho 47 Code, and to read as follows: 48 40-2115. BOND ISSUES.. (1) An authority shall have power to Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM • p,A ! DRML1226 15 1 (2) The bonds may be sold at public or private sale at such 2 price or prices, in such manner, and at such times as determined 3 by the board, and the board may pay all fees, expenses, and 4 commissions that it deems necessary or advantageous in connection 5 with the sale of the bonds. 6 (3) In case any of the board members or officers of the 7 authority whose signatures appear on any bonds or coupons shall 8 cease to be a board member or officer before the delivery of such 9 bonds, such signatures shall, nevertheless, be valid and 10 sufficient I -or all purposes, the same as if such board member or 11 officer had remained in office until such delivery. Any provision 12 of any lz1w to the contrary notwithstanding, any bonds issued 13 pursuant to this chapter shall be fully negotiable. 14 (4) In any suit, action or proceeding involving the validity 15 or enforceability of any bond of an authority or the security 16 thereof, any such bond, reciting, in substance, that it has been 17 issued by the authority for purposes of financing the region's 18 public transportation system, shall be conclusively deemed to 19 have been issued for such purposes in accordance with the 20 provisions of this chapter. 21 SECT=:ON 17. That Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code, be, and 22 the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a M 23 SECTIO , to be known and designated as Section 40-2117, Idaho 24 Code, and to read as follows: 25 40-2:_17. RESOLUTION --- ELECTION. (1) Whenever the board 26 shall deem it advisable to issue the bonds of the authority, the 27 board shall provide for the same by resolution, which shall 28 specify and set forth all the purposes and objects of such bonds. 29 The reso:.ution shall also provide for holding an election at a 30 time specified in section 34-106, Idaho Code, for which thirty 31 (30) day:' notice shall be given in the official newspaper of 32 each county within the boundaries of the region. The voting at 33 such elections shall be by ballot, and the ballot used shall be 34 substant.Lally as follows: "In favor of issuing bonds to the 35 amount oi'.. dollars for the purpose stated in resolution no. 36 .....," iand"Against issuing bonds to the amount of ..... dollars 37 for the purpose stated in resolution no. . 38 (2) If two-thirds (2,/3) of the qualified electors voting at 39 such election assent to the issuing of such bonds and the 40 incurring of the indebtedness thereby created for the purpose 41 aforesaid, such bonds shall be issued in the manner provided in 42 this chapter. 43 SECTION 18. That Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code, be, and 44 the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a Nom% 45 ,ECT�ION, to be known and designated as Section 40-2118, Idaho 46 Code, and to read as follows: 47 40-2:118. POWERS TO SECURE PAYMENT OF BONDS. In connection 48 with the issuance of bonds or the incurring of obligations under Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM • DRAFT • DRMLI226 17 1 agreement of the authority with said trustee, to provide for the 2 powers and duties of a trustee or trustees and to limit the 3 liabilities thereof; and to provide the terms and conditions upon 4 which the trustee or trustees or the holders of bonds or any 5 portion of them, may enforce any covenant or rights securing or 6 relating to the bonds. 7 (10) Exercise all or any part or combination of the powers 8 herein granted; to make covenants other than and in addition to 9 the covenants herein expressly authorized, of like or different 10 character; to make such covenants as will tend to make the bonds 11 more marketable, notwithstanding that such covenants, acts or 12 things may not be enumerated herein. 13 SECTION 19. That Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code, be, and 14 the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NM 15 SECTI to be known and designated as Section 40-2119, Idaho 16 Code, and to read as follows: 17 40-2119. LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF BONDS AND REVENUES PLEDGED. 18 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 40-2115 through 19 40-2118, Idaho Code, no authority shall have outstanding at any 20 time an amount of bonds that requires more than twenty percent 21 (20%) of the authority's revenues in such year to pay the highest 22 amount of principal and interest on the bonds coming due in any 23 year thereafter to and including the maturity date of the bonds. 24 SECTION 20. That Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code, be, and 25 the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW 26 SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 40-2120, Idaho 27 Code, and to read as follows: 28 40-2120, RIGHTS OF OBLIGEES -- MANDAMUS -- INJUNCTION. An 29 obligee of an authority shall have the right, in addition to all 30 other rights which may be conferred on such obligee, subject only 31 to any contractual restrictions binding upon such obligee: 32 (1) By mandamus, suit, action or proceedings at law or in 33 equity, to compel said authority and the board, officers, agents 34 or employees thereof to perform each and every term, provision 35 and covenant contained in any contract of said authority, with or 36 for the benefit of such obligee, and to require the carrying out 37 of any or all such covenants and agreements of said authority and 38 the fulfillment of all duties imposed upon said authority by this 39 chapter. 40 (2) By suit, action or proceeding in equity, to enjoin any 41 acts which may be unlawful, or the violation of any of the rights 42 of such obligee of said authority. 43 SECTION 21. That Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code, be, and 44 the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW 45 aza-IDN, to be known and designated as Section 40-2121, Idaho 46 Code, and to read as follows: Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM DRML1226 DRAFT . 0 19 1 40-2123. ELECTION CONTEST. With respect to the contest of 2 any local sales and use tax or bond election held pursuant to 3 this chapter, the provisions of section 34-2001A, Idaho Code, 4 shall be applicable to the same effect as if the election were a 5 bond election conducted by a county and a contest of same were 6 being pursued in accordance with the provisions of section 7 34-2001A, Idaho Code. 8 SECTION 24. That Section 40-2112, Idaho Code, be, and the 9 same is hereby amended to read as follows: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 40-2112_4. BUDGET. (1) The board shall annually adopt a budget and cause a public hearing to be held upon the budget. (2) Notice of the budget hearing shall be posted at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting in at least one (1) conspicuous place in each county within the boundaries of the regional public transportation authority and at the administrative offices of the regional public transportation authority. A copy of the notice shall also be published in accordance with the provisions of section 40-206, Idaho Code. The place, hour and day of the hearing shall be specified in the notice, as well as the place where the budget may be examined prior to the hearing. A .full and complete copy of the proposed budget shall be published with and as a part of the publication of the notice of hearing. (3) The budget shall be available for public inspection from and after the date of the posting of notice of hearing at a place and during business hours as the board may direct. (4) A quorum of the board shall attend the hearing and explain the proposed budget and hear any and all objections to it. (5) The budget shall be completed and finalized not later than the Tuesday following the first Monday in September for the ensuing fiscal year. (6) The fiscal year of the authority shall commence on the first day of October of each year. SECTION 25. That Section 40-2113, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 40-211325. EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the creation of a regional public transportation authority is in all respects for the benefit of the people of the state of Idaho, for the improvement of their welfare and prosperity, and for the promotion of their transportation, and is a public purpose and that projects and services operated by authorities are essential parts of the public transportation system, and that such authorities will be performing essential governmental functions in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them by this chapter. The state of Idaho declares that authorities shall be required to pay no taxes or assessments upon any of the property acquired by them or under Wednesday October 3, 2007 5:52 PM Transportation Funding Opinion Poll When asked what single issue is of greatest concern, the results were: Education 27% Health Care 21% Economy 20% Taxes 12% Transportation 10% Environment 5% However, in the Treasure Valley, transportation ranked near the top: Ada 23% Canyon 21% When asked their views on potential transportation funding options: Statewide support I oppose Tax on rental cars 54%t36% 3% Impact fees on commercial, residential and industrial development 54% A local sales tax approved by voters 41% 55% An increase in vehicle registration fees 36% 61% A fuel tax increase 15% 84% When told that Idaho is one of four states without a state or local funding source for public transportation, respondents were more likely to support a local option tax for public transportation: _ Support O pose Statewide 58% 32 % Ada and Canyon 66% 26% Survey conducted Sept. 11-13, 2007, by Moore Information. Sample of 600 likely voters The potential sampling error is f/- 4% at the 95% confidence level. 11 December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING 0 December 11, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO REQUEST Issues / Items for Joint Workshop with ACHD 1-7-08 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: COMMENTS See attached Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 3-G . 0 Page 1 of 1 Will Berg From: Susan Slaughter [sslaughter@achd.ada.id.us] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:56 AM To: Peter Friedman Cc: Will Berg Subject: Joint Meeting Agenda Pete, As promised by week's end, I have our suggestions. They are: 1) Status report on impact fees — ACRD (Mike Brokaw) 2) Update on split corridor — ACRD (Justin Bledsoe) 3) Update on alignment of 2-1/2 and 3rd streets — City of Meridian These items are only if the city concurs. Get back with me next week after you've had time to talk about these items and the ones the City is proposing. Susan 12/7/2007 • 0 MERIDIAN CC/ ACHD JOINT MEETING PROCESS Meeting Purpose: To allow the Mayor, City Council and Commission to address policy matters and other items of mutual interest in some degree of detail. To encourage more productive discussions, the agendas could have fewer items with time reserved at the end of the meeting for project updates and status reports. For major discussion items, staff proposes the following process: Approximately four (4) weeks before quarterly meeting, staff reviews a list of suggested topics with Mayor and City Council at a City Council workshop((usually 2°d Tuesday of each month with the possible exception of January 2008). These topics would likely be suggested by the Mayor, Council, ACHD Commissioners and/or the respective staffs. Topics should be policy, "big picture" items. There can be room at the end of the agenda for status reports and updates. ■ Specific agenda items are identified. ■ Staff transmits agenda items to Will and Susan at ACHD within the same week. This allows District staff to add items to the agenda ■ Two weeks before the meeting, staff begins work on any memos or other supporting materials as appropriate. The written materials will identify and define the agenda item ( i.e. policy issue ) and the desired outcome of the discussion. ■ One week before meeting staff (City and District) transmit memos to City Clerk (Will and Tara) and Susan for the agenda packet. Will Berg, City Clerk will be Susan's point of contact for coordinating final agenda packets. (I Et IDIAN:--- December 7, 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Pete Friedman • Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Charles Rountree David Zaremba RECEIVED DEC 0 7 2007 City Of Meridian City Clerk Office RE: AGENDA ITEMS FOR JOINT MEETING WITH ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT COMMISSION The next joint meeting with the Ada County Highway District Commission is scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2008. We have worked out a protocol with the District staff for identifying meeting topics early enough for the respective staffs to develop appropriate supporting materials in advance of the meeting. In order to accomplish this, we are utilizing the Council workshop meetings to identify the topics for the joint meetings. The topics that are suggested for January meeting are: ■ Draft Five Year Work Program. ■ South Meridian Transportation Plan. ■ Status report on impact fees. ■ Update on split corridor. ■ Update on 2 '/2 and 3rd Street alignments. Please advise us Tuesday night if there are other topics that you wish to add or would like to delete. Once we have your preferences, we will transmit the information to the District. Thank you. • December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT REQUEST Kit Kat Club Construction Improvements December 11, 2007 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: Date: COMMENTS ITEM NO. Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 3-H • • Page 1 of 1 Will Berg From: Joe Silva Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:28 AM To: Peggy Gardner; Clerks Cc: Bill Nary; Anna Canning; Len Grady; Ron Anderson; Bird ronaldkeith@Msn. Com (birdronaldkeith@msn.com); (rountrec@meridiancity. org); David Zaremba; Joe Borton; Tammy de Weerd; tassler@aol.com Subject: Request for Sewer Service at the Kit Kat Klub Mayor de Weerd & City Council The Meridian Fire Department would like to request that two additional conditions be placed upon the request for sewer service at the Kit Kat Klub 1. That one fire hydrant be installed on site at the owners expense as a condition of connecting City Sewer. We will work out the details of the location at a later date with Mr. Tassler. 2. The any additions to the building require that the entire structure be fire sprinkled. The 2006 International Fire Code which currently adopted by the State Fire Marshal effective Aug 7, 2006 requires that drinking establishments with over 100 occupants be fire sprinklered. I have spoken to Mr. Tassler, the owner of the Kit Kat Klub, and Len Grady and both have no issues with the request. Joseph P. Silva Deputy Chief/ Fire Prevention Meridian Fire Department silvaj@meridiancity.org (208) 888-1234 Office (208)895-0390 Fax 12/11/2007 December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT U December 11, 2007 ITEM NO. 4-A REQUEST Policy on Surplus Property 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: Date: COMMENTS Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT REQUEST Update on Revised Policies 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: December 11, 2007 Date: COMMENTS ITEM NO. 4-B Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. E • December 7, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 11, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S REQUEST Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345( 1 ) {f} 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: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joe Borton Charles Rountree David Zaremba CITY DEPARTMENTS Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234 / fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 / fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533 / fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678 / fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500 / fax 898-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211 / fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191 / fax 884-0744 - Water 2355 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242 / fax 884-1159 DELIQUENCY FOR TURN OFF RECEIVED Schedule for December 11, 2007 Cycle 2 DEC 1 1 2007 City of Meridian City Clerk Otiice MAYOR: This letter attests to the fact that no water users have requested a pre -termination hearing for December 11, 2007. Users having delinquent utility bills will be shut off on December 12, 2007. The total amount past due is $ 14,838.81. The number of past due customers is 178. Jaycee Holman Billing Manager CITY FALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK — FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / FIR — FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & I:TILITY BILLING — FAX 887-4813 M AYOR's OFFICE — FAX 884-8116 • • CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 1 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:51 pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Report Criteria: RECEIVED E CE T� TE D Terminated customers not included 1 V Customer.Cust No () = {<}7700000001 Customer.Bill Cycle = 2 DEC 1 1 2007 Custom er.disconnected = No City of Meridian Customer.shut off list = No City Clerk Office Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 1 17.34.3290.03 ADAMS, BRIANNA & JASON 58.55 118.27 1579 STORMY DR E 2 16.31.0226.05 AFRAM, HAMOURABI 120.57 173.08 1725 WEST 13TH ST N 3 9.90.1912.02 ALLEN, RALPH 70.61 155.56 3945 BRYCE CANYON PL N 4 13.13.6082.04 ALVARADO, STEVEN 59.87 84.67 4997 SHIRDALE DR W 5 17.33.1828.04 ANDERSON, MILES 78.64 107.87 117 WOODBURY DR E 6 16.31.3328.02 ANDREWS, AYA 52.86 128.50 923 DELMAR DR 7 3.15.4619.02 ARMSTRONG, BRADLEY & RAQUEL 79.84 210.95 2161 TANGO CREEK DR W NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED TIL 7/11/07 --CASH ONLY TIL 3/12/08 8 8.08.5184.02 ARREAZA, JOSE & MIRIAM 121.75 185.75 1220 GRAND CANYON ST E 9 17.79.0102.02 ARTE, BRENT & KELLI 61.40 138.63 416 BLUE HERON ST E 10 15.21.0066.01 ATHAY, ROBERT 65.71 115.15 2288 LEANN WAY 11 17.33.2592.03 ATWOOD, K. & KIBBEE, J. 75.78 128.29 664 WAKELY CT E NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED FOR ANY RENTERS PER THE OWNER!!!!!!!! 12 15.22.1404.03 BACA, ENRIQUE & DEBORAH 65.24 125.46 1816 MCGLINCHEY ST W 13 16.15.0110.02 BACHMAN, STEVEN & MARIA 73.46 122.01 2948 WEST 3RD AVE N CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 2 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:51 pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 14 17.33.1856.04 BARBEY, STEPHEN 51.60 111.03 2475 EUREKA AVE N 15 9.92.7102.02 BARNES, SABRINA 101.63 151.70 4488 MOLLY AVE N 16 10.10.2564.02 BARSANTI, TODD & ALICE J. 80.00 162.03 2015 WINDCHIME DR W 17 14.20.1848.02 BARUCK, ROB & ANNA 63.87 115.77 2153 TURNBERRY CL 18 13.13.8834.04 BATTISTI, MITCH 62.93 90.51 2780 EVENINGSIDE WAY N 19 15.21.0130.01 BESKER, GLORIA 68.53 198.70 2624 LEANN WAY N NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED FOR CUSTOMER UNTIL 9/11/08 --USED 2ND ONE ON 10/9/07 --DB 10/9 20 10.20.0250.02 BOSIER, T. & T./ GOURLEY, T. 63.13 125.34 3820 TWIN EAGLES WAY N 21 18.43.0090.03 BOYLL, KRISTOPHER 52.49 113.60 2081 JUSTIN WAY N 22 3.90.0274.02 BROWN, MATT & KRISSA 77.03 116.25 5458 VERCELLI WAY N 23 16.32.1274.02 BROWN, MELISSA 50.21 113.47 320 WOODBURY DR W 24 17.33.2616.02 BROWN, RON & COLETTE 54.22 118.71 2958 CAPE COD AVE N 25 7.48.1906.02 BROWN, SEAN & TAWNI 60.08 132.83 3724 PETTY WAY N 26 18.42.2398.02 BRYANT, JOHN 85.98 182.61 1673 GREEN MEADOW CT E • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 3 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:51 pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 27 16.32.1432.01 BUEHRING, RANDI 75.92 133.96 572 WOODBURY DR W 28 14.19.5494.05 BURCHFIELD, MATTHEW 118.98 172.30 2853 VALAM AVE N 29 17.34.0696.01 BUTTRAM, DEANNA 71.55 104.63 1513 TOURMALINE ST E 30 13.13.6008.03 CAGLE, JAY 74.55 99.35 5180 MCMURTREY ST W 31 15.22.1050.01 CANON, BILL & BETSY 133.83 199.34 2070 GLENNFIELD PL N 32 16.32.0884.01 CARLSON, DEBORAH J. 50.71 108.91 566 TIFFANY DR 33 17.34.1808.02 CARPENTER, DOUGLAS 64.52 138.63 1010 CLAYBOURNE DR 34 9.09.9614.02 CARREON, TONIA 81.68 143.89 1021 WHITE SANDS DR W 35 8.08.1086.03 CATOVIC, MERSIHA 50.06 108.10 184 MOSKEE ST E NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED FOR RENTERS. 36 18.42.2582.01 CHAPMAN, LORRI 76.36 123.26 2542 MEADOWGLEN PL N 37 15.21.1936.02 CLARK, D. & THOMAS, N. 63.36 136.04 2618 REBECCA WAY 38 17.33.2328.01 COPELAND, WILLIAM 58.77 87.71 587 WOODBURY DR E 39 15.22.0922.04 COX, KATHY 65.45 136.03 2155 MONACO WAY 40 3.15.4617.01 CRONER, CHAD 106.71 255.21 2211 TANGO CREEK DR W NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED AND CASH ONLY PERMANENTLY FOR CHAD CRONER AND ANYONE NO LISTED ON THIS ACCOUNT. SEE NOTES. CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 4 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:52pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 41 16.32.0714.02 CRUZ, EDUARDO & MARCIA 79.28 144.53 275 WILLOWBROOK DR W 42 15.21.2922.04 CUTLER, KIMBERLY 72.99 126.86 2905 ELK STREAM ST W CASH ONLY PERMANENTLY --CUSTOMER WROTE 2 NSF'S IN A MONTH -LAST ONE WAS TO GET/KEEP WATER ON.--DB-4/23/07 43 15.15.0042.03 DAVIS, CAMILLE & FARRELL, D. 147.76 210.23 1680 CLAIRE ST W 44 3.03.5178.02 DAVIS, ROMAN & HEATHER 57.25 82.05 1625 PUZZLE CREEK CT W 45 3.15.3708.02 DAVIS, WILLIAM & KATHLEEN 98.98 160.69 2667 LADLE RAPIDS ST W 46 17.85.0424.04 DENTONE, STEVEN & LYNN 79.72 140.80 230 BALDWIN ST E NO ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE RENTERS PER PM 47 6.06.1312.03 DYE, DEBBIE & RON 53.42 110.10 5325 SCHUMANN AVE N 48 9.15.2803.02 ECKHOFF, DARIN 85.15 133.49 4125 RHODES AVE N 49 17.34.1898.01 EDINGER, REX S. 87.63 182.75 2111 LARK PL N 50 8.22.0306.01 EQUITY QUEST HOMES IDAHO 59.87 80.63 1179 STAR DR E 51 8.22.0406.01 EQUITY QUEST HOMES IDAHO 59.87 84.67 4327 HERITAGE WOODS WAY N 52 9.15.2712.04 FIELDS, MICHAEL & JULIE 101.27 185.23 568 YOSEMITE DR W 53 6.06.1318.02 FRETWELL, ALEXANDER & JENNIFER 52.26 114.44 5261 SCHUMANN AVE N 54 15.21.1014.01 FUNK, KATHY A 67.86 145.99 2879 QUARRYSTONE WAY N CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 5 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:52pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 55 6.06.2000.03 GANSBERGER, DALE & DENNIS 81.60 151.04 2141 COMISKY ST E 56 12.40.0206.02 GIBBS, GAYLENE & JOSEPH 63.08 153.11 3390 OAKSTONE AVE N 57 3.03.5394.01 GOODWIN, BRENT 63.59 149.84 1969 DIVIDE CREEK ST W 58 15.22.1754.03 GRAPATIN, JEREMY & EMILY 61.31 177.25 3101 MARBURG AVE N 59 17.33.2752.01 GRAVES, DENNIS 79.08 230.29 3120 CAPE COD AVE N 60 9.92.1205.04 GRAY, STERLIN 81.38 128.44 1212 TIDA ST W 61 15.21.0582.03 GREENWOOD, ROB & KELLY 50.38 118.57 2606 PEBBLESTONE CT W 62 9.15.2715.02 GRIFFIN, DIANE & DAVID 57.98 148.43 642 YOSEMITE DR W 63 17.34.0382.03 GRIMM, KEITH & DESTINY 53.34 134.44 1184 WILLOWBROOK DR E 64 4.70.2007.03 HAMILTON, AMY ROSE 76.75 125.46 652 BARRYMORE DR W 65 9.15.3720.03 HARRIS, JEBADIAH & SHANDA 86.02 148.65 694 BIRD WING DR W 66 17.34.1048.05 HARRIS, PATRICIA K. 55.11 89.87 2550 BOBCAT WAY N 67 17.34.0616.04 HAZEN, PAUL 175.65 229.26 1478 TOURMALINE ST E 68 16.31.0828.04 HELTON, DEWEY & LISA 58.78 119.86 1211 DELMAR DR 69 16.07.0001.01 HERON RIVER DEVELOP. 1,261.72 2,259.22 SPK - CROSSFIELD 0 • CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 6 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:52pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 70 19.10.0906.02 HIGGENBOTHAM, JOLEEN 71.81 134.28 4218 CHANDLER ST E 71 16.31.0478.01 HIRAHARA, ED 163.42 438.37 1532 SANDALWOOD DR 72 17.33.4346.01 HOLLOWAY, PAIGE 82.57 169.85 2531 LARCHMONT AVE N 73 15.21.2736.03 HOPPER, WILLIAM & NANCY 171.38 212.48 2506 STONE PL N NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED AND CASH ONLY TIL 9/25/08 DUE TO NSF TO GET/KEEP WATER ON --DB 9/25/07 74 13.11.0208.01 HORIZON DEVELOPMENTS 52.52 77.32 5198 RIDGESIDE ST W 75 15.22.2076.05 HOTCHKISS, JAMES & MEREDITH 102.87 165.34 2258 ANDREW CREEK ST W 76 3.15.3706.02 HYMAS, RICHARD & SANDY 59.39 143.22 2595 LADLE RAPIDS ST W NO ARRANGEMENTS EVER ALLOWED!! CASH ONLY UNTIL 2/1/2008. 77 3.15.1403.02 IVERS, BEN & MIMI 96.18 155.59 1807 HAM RAPIDS ST W 78 17.34.0012.03 JACKET, JANETTE 53.32 95.58 1502 WILLOWBROOK CT E CANCELED D/P PER CUSTOMER REQUEST--10/1/07--DB 79 16.31.2298.03 JACKSON, DAVID & CONNIE 65.42 122.44 1516 LOWRY ST 80 6.45.0419.02 JAMIESON, TRACY 74.67 138.57 4832 SCHUBERT AVE N 81 9.15.2824.03 JASON FULLER/BRYAN PALMER 121.82 160.67 771 WHITE SANDS DR W • • CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 7 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:53pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 82 6.45.0422.03 JENSEN, A. LEILANI 58.12 100.09 1963 REDW ICK CT E 83 15.21.2830.01 JESSEE, KEVIN 64.88 145.60 2471 MAN O' WAR AVE N 84 15.21.0080.03 JOHNSON, TIFFANY M 74.64 124.08 2402 LEANN WAY N 85 16.32.0350.01 JONES, WILLIAM 83.23 175.34 306 CHERRY LN W 86 13.13.4038.02 JUSTESEN, LARRY & DANIELLE 92.03 155.60 5030 TOURNAMENT DR W 87 8.81.0509.05 KARRICK, JOSHUA 51.03 119.19 385 HERITAGE PARK ST E 88 6.06.1926.02 KELLY, MICHAEL & LESLIE 87.52 135.54 1677 SABALIOUS ST E 89 15.21.2671.01 KENTFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. 116.63 124.71 SPK - BY 2358 MORELLO AVE N 90 8.08.5380.02 KETCHUM. MATTHEW & CARRIE 66.16 138.88 4508 TEMPEST WAY N 91 8.30.1305.02 KONZEN, TIMOTHY 77.04 121.39 1166 LEIGH FIELD DR E 92 8.85.0100.03 KULM, ERIC 50.67 82.65 4154 DONAVAN WAY N 93 15.22.1538.02 LARSEN, JEFF 55.84 127.54 1922 KINGSWOOD CT 94 16.26.0302.02 LASSITER, JENNIFER 54.98 131.35 18 INDIAN ROCKS ST W 95 15.21.2120.04 LEE, EARL & LINDA 90.71 147.86 1761 MORELLO AVE N 96 16.31.0538.06 LEMA, BENJAMIN & HEIDI 97.46 164.07 1521 KINGSWOOD AVE 97 4.70.2505.03 LEWIS, BRAD 69.52 123.76 5366 FOX RUN WAY N • • CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 8 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:53pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 98 7.04.1206.05 LIGHT, STARR 73.62 105.60 4664 JOURNEY PL N 99 8.81.0609.02 LIPSH, JASON & DONNA 108.27 173.52 3894 LONGABAUGH AVE N CASH ONLY FOR LIPSH DUE TO 2 NSF'S UNTIL 9/18/07--DB 100 14.20.2042.02 LIZAMA & HERNANDEZ 114.24 172.02 1620 LAUDERHILL WAY N 101 7.48.0034.03 LOOS, MELISSA & GRADY 69.60 163.56 2219 SATTERFIELD ST E NO ARRANGEMENTS FOR RENTER!!! 102 8.08.1058.05 LOPEZ, THERESA & LITTY, JOSEPH 109.65 164.62 245 MOSKEE ST E 103 17.34.1978.03 LYTLE, KARRIE 55.01 116.12 1012 CLARENE ST NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED WITH RENTER (LYTLE) UNTIL 6/8/08 DUE TO EXTENDING ARRANGEMENTS IN JUNE 2007. 104 9.92.7152.04 MACK, BRETT 59.85 91.57 1446 LORETTA ST W 105 17.34.0436.03 MALOY, RAY & BETTY 88.54 195.69 2191 ZIRCON PL N 106 5.80.0404.03 MARCILLIAT, LOUIS & LAURA 54.58 133.89 272 IRONSTONE CT E 107 19.10.1739.02 MARSHALL, MICAH & RACHEL 66.81 117.64 4184 GRANGER DR E 108 14.14.1034.02 MASSEY-TAYLOR, MCKENZIE 65.81 129.38 4489 CAMPFIRE ST W 109 14.02.0104.01 MATRIX HOMES 75.55 100.35 4604 NIEMANN CT W CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 9 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:53pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 110 10.20.0070.03 McCAULEY, JAMES R 97.78 145.86 3864 COOL RIVER WAY N 111 17.34.1656.03 MCKEEF, DANA 92.79 167.19 2723 WOLVERINE AVE N NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED FOR THE RENTERS PER THE OWNER 112 17.34.1088.03 McNEIL, BRAD 61.78 93.79 1421 SAGE HEN CT E 113 16.31.3648.03 MEACHAM, BRENT & KIMBERLY 103.74 214.97 1926 BLOSSOM PL 114 15.21.2730.01 MILNER, KIM AND BRIAN 80.11 128.79 2466 STONE PL N 115 17.34.1580.02 MINERT, JEFF & CARRIE 55.22 130.98 919 HAWK ST E 116 17.33.2744.01 MOFFIT, JENNIFER 59.83 119.55 637 EDGAR ST E 117 14.20.1762.02 MOORE, STEPHANIE 114.36 175.05 3634 STANWICH DR W 118 15.21.3292.02 MORRISON, MIKE 52.33 116.43 3117 HEARTH AVE N 119 17.34.0500.01 MOURITSEN, LAYNE 121.24 237.82 2092 SAPPHIRE PL N 120 9.20.0104.03 MURRAY, DESSIE 79.90 141.12 3779 LORNA PL N 121 15.21.1776.04 OSTER, DAVID & SHARON 52.49 133.84 1920 TODD WAY 122 3.15.4907.02 PACHECO, RICHARD & SANDRA 65.66 116.49 1852 BOULDER BAR DR W 123 17.07.0211.02 PAPE, MATT 134.24 202.53 3096 TIMBERFALLS WAY N NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED AND CASH ONLY UNTIL 7/23/07 FOR PAPE. WROTE NSF TO GET/KEEP WATER ON.--DB-7/23/07 CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 10 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:53pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 124 18.42.3112.04 PARKER, JAMIE & MIKE 75.36 128.21 1856 CHIMERE DR E 125 18.43.0444.03 PERRY, JOHN & CARA 57.26 124.79 2434 MEADOWGRASS ST E 126 18.42.2372.01 PERRY, STEVE & SHERRY 82.95 171.74 1682 GREEN MEADOW CT E 127 6.06.1510.02 PETERSON, RANDY & DIANE 53.26 102.39 5380 CHOPIN PL N 128 6.06.1438.03 PFEIFER, DINA 111.20 158.99 2262 HANDEL ST E 129 3.03.5708.05 POLLOCK, JASON 62.76 126.62 2310 DITCH CREEK DR W 130 17.33.2574.02 PORTER, SIDNEY 59.99 94.91 664 HAWK ST E NO ARRANGEMENTS AND CASH ONLY FOR HETH--STOP PAYMENT WRITTEN TO GET/KEEP WATER ON --NOT ON ACCT; THEREFORE, THIS IS TO PROTECT OWNER --DB 9/25/07 131 16.21.0508.03 PRE -SETTLEMENT FINANCING INC 50.61 75.41 752 INDIAN ROCKS ST W 132 18.42.1988.03 RANSOM, JON 80.84 124.49 2219 MEADOWROSE PL N 133 16.31.3406.03 RIDER, ARTHUR & MAXINE 78.65 174.52 1111 FAIRWOOD CT 134 7.48.1825.02 ROBERTS, RUSSELL 75.24 145.43 3715 PETTY WAY N 135 14.20.1456.04 ROBINSON, KEITH W 50.81 100.25 3451 STANWICH DR W 136 18.42.0394.03 ROSE, JENNIFER 50.71 91.29 2430 GRAPEWOOD DR E 137 16.32.0526.02 ROSE, SARA 61.47 135.61 1819 LAWNDALE DR 138 8.30.2903.02 ROSS, SHELLY 78.39 133.65 3930 HERITAGE VIEW AVE N CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 11 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:54pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 139 17.34.1078.04 SALVELBERG, DOYLE K 94.14 135.01 2591 SHOVELER WAY N 140 16.32.1686.05 SANCHEZ, JAVIER 89.18 171.16 29 WATERBURY DR W 141 17.34.1986.05 SCHMIDT, JEREMY & SARAH 145.57 205.29 930 CLARENE ST NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED UNTIL 9/21/08--DID NOT KEEP ARRANGEMENTS--DB 9/24/07 142 15.21.2024.03 SCHWISOW, JERRY & LOIS 55.46 171.23 2948 GEMSTONE DR W 143 15.15.0764.02 SILVA, MANUEL & MARIA 86.12 140.62 2558 ROUGH STONE PL N 144 10.10.1108.02 SIMMONS, JON & JANA 56.39 129.85 2565 CROSSLAND DR W 145 17.34.0822.01 SITZLAR, RON 68.70 144.00 973 BLUE HERON ST E CANCELED D/P ON 12/4/06 FOR RENTER (HAMER)---DB. PUT RENTER (HAMER) ON DIRECT PAY 7/17/06. 146 15.21.1402.03 STALLINGS, WILLIAM D 58.31 158.28 2757 GEMSTONE DR W NO ARRANGEMENTS & CASH ONLY PERMANENTLY FOR CHAPMAN (?) DUE TO NSF WRITTEN TO GET/KEEP WATER ON. NOT SURE WHO THEY ARE, NOT ON THE ACCOUNT, BUT THIS IS TO PROTECT OWNER. 147 16.31.3594.02 STANDLEY, TERRY & HEATHER 74.17 124.40 925 YOST AVE 148 12.40.0104.01 STONE, BRANDON 67.38 194.49 3456 MAPLESTONE AVE N 149 14.20.0206.03 STUART, SCOTT & KARMEN 81.37 129.45 4437 RED GRASS CT W 150 3.15.0412.01 SUMMERS, WADE 61.42 165.67 2122 MARTEN CREEK CT W PUT ON D/P 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 12 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:54pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance 151 16.31.2228.04 TADEVIC, GEORGE 68.93 106.60 2721 WEST 13TH ST N 152 18.42.2350.02 TADEVIC, GEORGE 80.81 160.09 1787 GREEN MEADOW CT E 153 17.34.3314.03 THOMAS, DAVE 83.17 126.95 3078 SHEEPHORN AVE N 154 17.33.2768.05 THOMAS, JEAN 52.36 117.77 596 EDGAR ST E 155 16.32.1310.03 THOMASSON, KANE 101.60 147.53 213 WOODBURY DR W 156 14.19.5490.01 THOMPSON, DENNIS 80.54 174.13 3551 ANGELICA DR W 157 15.21.1172.04 THOMPSON, JASON & APRIL 63.32 115.54 2375 LEANN WAY N 158 15.22.1078.01 THOMPSON, JEFF 108.05 206.29 1955 SPARKLING PL N 159 14.14.3018.01 VAIL, RANDY & VICTORIA 66.28 137.64 3075 HIGH DESERT WAY N (CORNER 160 15.21.1582.04 VASQUEZ, JOE & DELIA 93.93 155.04 2741 JANELLE ST W 161 17.33.3746.05 WALLACE, BOW 60.14 125.62 2769 ARROW WOOD WAY N 162 10.55.3308.02 WALLIN, PAUL 51.21 129.07 2273 PIAZZA ST W 163 8.08.0001.01 WANDA'S MEADOWS CORP HOA 136.63 194.75 SPK - WANDAS MEADOWS 164 12.40.0507.02 WARD, HEATHER & ALLAN 51.78 118.00 5141 ALDERSTONE ST W NO ARRANGEMENTS ALLOWED FOR RENTERS, PER HPM!!! 165 15.21.2240.01 WARD, MIKE 59.05 202.90 3020 KANDICE ST W • • CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 13 Standard Payment Customers Dec 11, 2007 04:54pm Current Period: 12/20/2007 - Transactions Included Through: 12/20/2007 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name / Service Address Past Due Balance 166 3.18.0912.02 WATTS, HEATHER 87.89 136.31 2306 APGAR CREEK DR W 167 15.21.3028.04 WEBB, JASON & BRENDA 67.22 101.98 3095 RAVENHURST ST W 168 3.18.0311.02 WEEKS, JEFFREY & LADAWN 52.55 126.66 2313 WAPOOT DR W 169 18.43.0396.04 WELCH, BOB 84.81 218.23 2535 LOCHMEADOW ST E 170 16.31.0010.03 WEST, TOBERT & JONI 80.59 193.13 1131 CHERRY LN W 171 3.15.1412.02 WESTOVER, JUSTIN & HEATHER 75.57 123.65 1896 MARTEN CREEK DR 172 16.32.1664.04 WHEELOCK, HOLLY 90.57 149.24 249 WATERBURY DR W 173 15.21.2132.03 WHITLEY, JENNIFER 50.81 113.28 2930 ANN ST W 174 8.08.1244.02 WILSON, JACOB & 64.01 104.59 411 CASSIDY DR E 175 3.15.3801.01 WOLFE, BRANDON AND ZANE, STERL 66.41 117.53 5625 BIG CEDAR AVE N 176 12.40.0230.02 WRIGHT, RANDOLPH & LINDA 67.04 157.28 3482 ELMSTONE PL N NO ARRANGEMENTS FOR RENTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 177 15.22.1530.02 WUPPER, ROBERT & JENNIFER 70.66 170.47 1931 KINGSWOOD CT 178 10.55.1356.02 YABLONSKY, VASILY & NINA 78.83 131.68 2611 LOS FLORES CT W Grand Totals: 178 Customers Listed 14,838.81 27,479.72