Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-03-02
WERIDIAM_ - CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 02, 2010 at 7:00 PM 1. Roll -Call Attendance X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun O Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by Dave Duron with Meridian First Baptist Church 4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 5. Consent Agenda Approved A. February 23, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes B. Professional Service Agreement between Schindler Elevator Corporation and the City of Meridian for an Extended Warranty on Elevator Services for an Amount Not -to -Exceed $6,000.00 C. Cooperative Agreement with ITD for Ten Mile Road and Tasa Drive Lighting D. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living E. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living (Roger & Teresa Taylor) F. Final Decision and Order for Approval: AP 10-001 Pet Care Clinic by BRS Architects Located at 1151 E. Fairview G. Development Agreement: AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent & Coleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder Road Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, March 02, 2010 Page 1 of 4 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. H. Resolution No. 10-712: Adopting Standard Operating Policy No. 6.17, Response to Request for Public Records or Information 6. Department Reports A. Planning Department: Traffic Impact Analysis and Request for Additional Access Considerations onto Ten Mile and Franklin Roads Motion approved to draft a letter to ACHD B. Planning Department: Airport Road - Overland Road Alignment Study: Overview of Scope, Timeline and Process of a Transportation Study That Will Evaluate Alternatives for Connectivity Between Meridian (Overland Road) and Nampa (Airport Road) Councilman Zaremba volunteered to be City of Meridian's representative 7. Items Moved From Consent Agenda 8. Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies Located at NW Corner of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road, south of Harris Street Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) Zoning Districts Continued to May 25, 2010 B. Public Hearing: VAR 08-008 Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies Located at NW Corner of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road, south of Harris Street Request for Variance to UDC 11-31-1-4 which prohibits new approaches from directly accessing a state highway to allow 2 right -in / right -out access points (approximately 660 feet from the north and south intersections) and 1 right -in / right -out, left -in access point at the 114 mile to State Highway 691 Meridian Road Continued to May 25, 2010 C. Public Hearing: MDA 10-003 Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park by City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Located NE Corner of the intersection of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Eagle Road Request for Modification to the Development Agreement to remove the requirement that public streets be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, March 02, 2010 Page 2 of 4 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. extended into the site at the north and east property boundaries and waiver from Council to allow the irrigation ditches within the site to be tiled Approved D. Public Hearing: TE 10-002 Emerson Park by Kuna Victory, LLC Located at 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road Request for an 18 - month Time Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the Final Plat Continued to April 6, 2010 E. Continued from February 23, 2010 MFP 09-004 Southridge Subdivision No. 1 by Linder 109, LLC, Meridian Library District and Joint School District No. 2 Located at Southwest Corner of West Overland Road and South Linder Road Request for Modification to the Street Sections Shown on the Final Plat to Include the Addition of Detached Sidewalks Along Spanish Sun and Spanish Fork Streets; and Modification to the Roadway Improvements Along the South Boundary of Phase 1 to Reduce the Amount of Asphalt and Concrete Curb Approved with Modifications F. Public Hearing: Proposed 2010 Fee Schedule of the Parks and Recreation Department G. Resolution No. 10-713: 2010 Fee Schedule of Meridian Parks & Recreation Department Approved 9. Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 10-1442: AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent & Coleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder Road: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.98 of an Acre from R1 in Ada County to C -C (Community Business) Zoning District Approved 10. Presentation by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and SysTek International LLC. Regarding Emission Testing in Ada County 11. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) — (f) - (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation) Into Executive Session at 11:02 p.m. Out of Executive Session at 11:30 p.m. Adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, March 02, 2010 Page 3 of 4 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 Meeting March 2. 2010 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 2, 2010, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Brad Hoaglun, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Pete Friedman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Silva, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: If I could get everyone's attention, please. I would like to call this meeting to order. Excuse me. If we could, please, get this meeting to order. Thank you. For the record, it is Tuesday, March 2nd. It's five minutes after 7:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. And tonight we have the honor to be led by Troop 151 with the Meridian LDS stake and we have Carter Andrew and Jared Gibson who will be leading us in the pledge. If you will all rise. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) De Weerd: Boys, I would like to present you with a City of Meridian pin. There you go. Thank you for leading us. Item 3: Community Invocation by Dave Duron with Meridian First Baptist Church. De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor Dave Duron with the Meridian First Baptist Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Duron: Let's pray. Father, we thank you for this evening. Lord, I am thankful for the civil servants that you have placed here in our community. I ask that you would guide and direct in this meeting. May we sense your leading in all decisions for the citizens of Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 2 of 76 our city of Meridian. Bless everyone that is here and the business that will follow to your glory, in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda. De Weerd: Thank you, pastor. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: A couple additions in the agenda here before we adopt it. Under the Consent Agenda, Item 5-H, that resolution number is 10-712. Under Action Items, 8-A and B -- A is a public hearing AZ 08-005. They are requesting to continue to May 25th, 2010, and the public hearing on VAR 08-008 has also requested to continue to May 25th. And also under 8-G, that resolution number is 10-713. And under 9-A, Ordinances, ordinance number is 10-1442. So, with that, Madam Mayor, I move adoption of the agenda. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda A. February 23, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes B. Professional Service Agreement between Schindler Elevator Corporation and the City of Meridian for an Extended Warranty on Elevator Services for an Amount Not -to -Exceed $6,000.00 C. Cooperative Agreement with ITD for Ten Mile Road and Tasa Drive Lighting D. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living E. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living (Roger & Teresa Taylor) F. Final Decision and Order for Approval: AP 10-001 Pet Care Clinic by BRS Architects Located at 1151 E. Fairview Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 3 of 76 G. Development Agreement: AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent & Coleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder Road H. Resolution No. : Adopting Standard Operating Policy No. 6.17, Response to Request for Public Records or Information De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to note under the Consent Agenda 5-H, that resolution number is 10- 712. And with that I move approval of the Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have motion and second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports A. Planning Department: Traffic Impact Analysis and Request for Additional Access Considerations onto Ten Mile and Franklin Roads De Weerd: Before I get to Item No. 6, 1 do want to comment on two of our agenda items. Item 8-C, which is a public hearing on MDA 10-003, we are not discussing a plat, it's only opening up the development agreement for a couple of things. This will not discuss any access into a neighborhood. The city remains uninterested in accessing into that neighborhood. So, I did want to clarify that. We love to see a lot of faces in our audience and would love to have you join us for the presentation on this park, but if you're here because you're concerned we will be opening access into your neighborhood, we will not be doing that. If Ada County Highway District has an interest, I don't even think they will have an opportunity. So, just -- that's an FYI on that one. The other item that probably has some interest is Item 10, which is a presentation by DEQ regarding the emissions testing in Ada County. This is only a report. We will not be accepting any public testimony. There will be no decisions made and so I wanted to Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 4 of 76 clarify that as well. So, thank you all for joining us here today. We appreciate always having our public in our City Hall and our City Council chambers. De Weerd: With that I will move to Item 6, our Department Reports, and tum this over to our planning department for A and B. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 6-A is -- under Department Reports, David Turnbull is here, along with some folks from both Brighton and HDR and I'll tum over a lot of the heavy lifting to them, but I do want to set the stage for them regarding some additional access points out in Ten Mile. Primarily what I'm going to do tonight is just go through the history and kind of why we are here and I'll let them, again, run through their proposal to you. During the Ten Mile specific area adoption hearing in 2007 Mr. Turnbull testified that he wanted a different land use for the subject property than what the consultant through the Charrette had planned. The Council accommodated this request for different land use and acknowledged that the traffic impacts HDR had performed for the city did not reflect this modified land use. Therefore, more detailed impacts of traffic was needed to address this last minute change in the land use. So, based on the revised land use being more intense than originally planned, Brighton also hired HDR sometime ago to do some more, again, detailed traffic analysis and they have some additional access points proposed. Again, I'll let them go through the details of that. I also just want to take a minute, though, again, setting the history of what's in the plan today. So, there is a few elements in the Ten Mile specific area plan and I'm just going to read them very quickly. Transportation element of the plan is to guide transportation decisions in the Ten Mile interchange area. It was developed concurrently with the land use and design elements and has been designed to, one, preserve the integrity of the arterial road system and the proposed Ten Mile interchange over the long term. To enhance pedestrian -bicycle mobility and accessibility. Three, support new development in accordance with the land use element by emphasizing the importance of developing activity centers, housing, and attracting key employers that will benefit the city and the area and minimize the negative impacts of transportation on existing and future neighborhoods. Establishing a sound and effective transportation system for the Ten Mile interchange area will involve significant coordination among the various interested parties. How and where street access is allowed is one of the greatest influencing factors on the overall performance of the streets. Direct access to properties must be balanced with the use of the thoroughfare to move traffic. The Ten Mile interchange specific area plan has proposed a complete network of arterial and collector streets to insure reasonable connectivity throughout the area and support the development of a local street system in association with the development of individual properties. Based on our proposed street networks, in order to facilitate traffic and optimize performance, direct property access to arterial streets is prohibited. And I think Brighton hits on a lot of those key elements that I just mentioned. What I have got on the screen right now is a transportation map that talks about, in the text I just read, your arterials and your collector street system that's planned for this area. I'm zooming in now to the southeast quadrant, essentially, of Ten Mile and Franklin where the detailed analysis and traffic study was primarily performed and, again, where Mr. Turnbull will go through some more details. So, this is not a Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 5 of 76 Comp Plan amendment. Again as the City Council previously agreed to evaluate potential other access points here due to the difference in land use types and the City Council is not approving an access plan tonight, but ACHD has requested that if they are to -- to consider any access points that are different than the Ten Mile Specific area plan, they want to have a letter from the city stating just that, that we are -- we do want ACHD to evaluate and we are okay with considering additional access points in this area. So, if the Council does support a proposal tonight that's what we will do, we will draft up a letter and have that for the Mayor's signature that, then, will go over to ACHD. So, that's kind of background of why we are here today. It's not a public hearing, it was just a -- again, the developer would like to get some feedback from the Council on how you all feel about this access plan that's on the table. So, do you have any questions of me at this point? De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Council, any questions? Bird: Not at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Tumbull. Good evening. if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Turnbull: David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Turnbull: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to thank Caleb for the introduction that we received -- that he just gave and state that we are in agreement with all of the things that he just read to you regarding the plan. As you know, we have been involved in support of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan from the beginning. I'd note that when we bought this property that the whole area was -- on the land use plan was just a red -- a red for commercial, but we recognize the city's desire to make this an appropriate gateway to the city and we have been supportive of that. At the April 2007 hearing I testified about the access restrictions and the need for the city and ACHD to consider some enhanced accesses that would adequately serve the scope of the development that was being proposed in your own plan. In other words, in order to get the scope of development that you were desiring, we needed some access that was in addition to the ones being proposed. Since that time we have been wrestling with a myriad of design related issues. As you know, there has been a lot of work going on out there. We have been working for a couple of years with ITD just trying to figure out one access point and I can't say that it's been a painless process, it's been very complicated. So, it's been, you know, almost three years since this plan was adopted and we have been working pretty diligently on it since that time. In 2009 after we had solved the first pieces of the puzzle, which was the access on the southerly -- what we call the southerly road, we met with HDR -- no. Excuse me. We met with Meridian city and ACHD staff to outline a process to move forward and at that time we talked with Anna and Caleb and since HDR has done the original study for the Ten Mile area plan, we decided to retain them to do this more detailed analysis and by -- and that Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 6 of 76 was by mutual agreement. So -- let's see. If I can figure out how to use this. I think this -- okay. This just outlines a bit of the study process. In May we scoped the process with the city and ACHD and for the next several months we developed a concept development and approval to study the methodology that we were going to use, including -- including the use of the COMPASS model. In October through January we -- HDR worked on the development of the trip generation tables and the approval by ACHD and, then, in January through February they proceeded to do the modeling for the area development. And, then, just toward the latter half of February we met with the city, we went over the analysis, we met with ACHD and we went over the analysis and that's what we are here to present to you tonight after going through those details with staff. Just want to emphasize that there are, basically, three key points -- summary points that came out of this analysis. The first one is that the restricted access scenario that's currently in place would not allow for the uses and the development densities indicated in the Ten Mile specific area plan or the city's Comprehensive Plan. Second is that an enhanced access scenario would solve significant queuing and delay issues on the south road of Ten Mile Road and the intersection of the north road. And I need to probably get to a map and explain where those are to you in a little bit better detail. And the other key point is that other issues such as esthetics, pedestrian and bicycle safety can actually be mitigated through proper design or even enhanced through this plan. Okay. So, this gives you a map of the area and I will try to outline -- we are dealing in detail with this area right in here. Can you see that if I point there? Bird: You bet. Turnbull: That's a 40 acre parcel that we own on the comer of Ten Mile and Franklin Road. We also own this 80 acre parcel down here along the interchange and what we are calling the south road -- so, you see the -- the -- oops. Touchy. How do I get back there, Caleb? Okay. So, you see where the interchange is, it's a SPUI design and we were supportive of that, because of what it does to alleviate -- you know, to promote cross -traffic between the north and the south side of the freeway and it does cause some complications for our property in that the SPUI raises the elevation of the whole interchange and causes the grade down to our property to be more severe, but we have worked through those issues with ITD. So, what we are calling the south road is this area right here. That's the first access point coming off the interchange and we refer to that as the south road. What we are referring to as the north road is the next one to the north here and those were the main circulators that were -- have always been part of the Ten Mile specific plan. So, when I refer to south road and north road, those are the ones that I'm talking about. We worked through the numbers with COMPASS and ACHD and city staff. This shows you what the actual numbers are for that area in 2008 for this -- what they call TAZ number 278, that's that southeast quadrant of the Ten Mile Franklin area. What the 2030 projections are -- and this proposed development just includes the 40 acre parcel on the hard comer of Franklin and Ten Mile. But if you have any questions on that I can open it up to Miguel from HDR, but move forward if you don't. Okay. These two slides show -- again on the left side is the Ten Mile area specific plan access points and I want to be clear that when we got together with the city and, then, we brought in HDR, HDR made it very clear that their task, as part of the Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 7 of 76 specific area plan, was only to consider the collector road system, not any other accesses, and they had quite a restricted budget to be able to do that. So, it was our task to go into more -- a higher level of detail to show the functionality of that internal system. So, that's the restrict -- what we are calling the restricted accesses on the left, what we are calling enhanced accesses on the right. And it includes some significant differences. On the north road right here, that includes a signalized intersection. The south road is already planned as a signalized intersection and, then, you have going north a right -in, right -out, a full access -- excuse me. A full access is what was being proposed there at the -- about the 660 foot south of Franklin Road and, then, moving around to Franklin Road, a right -in, right -out at 220 feet, a full access at 660 and, then, a signalized intersection at the quarter mile section of Franklin Road. Is there any questions on that? Have I explained that clearly enough? Okay. So -- Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Real quick. That right -in, right -out on Franklin that looks like that's right near that bridge. Is it back a ways from that? Turnbull: It's back a little bit. I'll explain that a little further as we go along. Hoaglun: Thank you. Turnbull: That was a good comment, though. Okay. This is an exhibit from a letter that we received from Gary Inselman of ACHD back in September of 2007, where we were trying to get some indication from ACHD about what accesses would be approved under -- under their policies and it, essentially, shows those accesses that I just pointed out in the enhanced access scenario in the previous slide. Accompanying that letter -- and I can read that, but Gary made it clear that these access points would need to be supported by Meridian city for them to consider them. So, that, essentially, is a graphic of the previous slide. And I can have HDR explain these numbers better. This is just the background work that went into it. It shows traffic counts at various road segments throughout the network and this is the trip generation table that was approved by ACHD. Again, I can have HDR go into details if you need to, but if not I'll continue on. I think what you're going to need to see is probably the synchro models that shows what happens under various scenarios. Okay. On the restricted access -- this gets into the heart of the matter that -- and we will show this a little bit better later. On the south road what the restricted access model showed -- at total of -- a level of service I believe F. Is that right, Miguel? On the south road. Primarily because all of the traffic from the development area would stack up and I think the queues would be in excess of a quarter of a mile long trying to get out onto Ten Mile Road, because that's the only place in this whole TAZ in this whole quadrant to where they could get left out of this quadrant onto Ten Mile Road and the -- the traffic count moving left is 890, with a dual lane left tum. It actually failed with about 700 vehicles at the peak -- that's the peak hour count. The other issue is on the north road where under the plan it's restricted to a right -out Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page S of 76 only, without that -- without that signalization there they can't get any access to the road and, likewise, on the westerly side of that road traffic backs up -- Miguel can give you harder numbers than this, but it backs up about a quarter of a mile in the peak hour. So, those two roads fail under that restricted access scenario. Is there any questions before I move on from that? Okay. This shows the project levels of service in the 2030 -- at 2030 with the restricted access scenario. Without those it operates at a level of service D, but it actually fails when you consider the traffic coming out of the development, because the left -outs can't -- can't get out. The right -in, right -out at the north road fails at the level of service F. The intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin is at a level of service D and, then, the accesses off of Franklin Road actually operate at a level of service A. That's assuming there is -- yeah. That's assuming signalized accesses. Miguel, is this -- okay. Caleb, you're going to run that synchro model there? Okay. Miguel, you want to explain this a little bit? Gaddi: What the video is showing -- De Weerd: Excuse me. You will first have to state your name and address for the record. Gaddi: Miguel Gaddi. 1486 South Loder Place, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Gaddi: So, basically, what we are seeing on the video, they describe -- this is the south intersection there and you see this queue of cars -- this is the left turning movements already considering two left tum lanes. So, you can see pretty good amount of vehicles trying to make that movement and, basically, this is a main movement that would cause that intersection to fail. The access, of course, which is increasing signal timing for that movement, but that would affect movement on Ten Mile. The other movement that's constrained is here. This is a right -in, right -out in the constrained model, so, therefore, all these vehicles have to wait for a gap on the Ten Mile oncoming traffic to be able to make that movement if there is no signal there. So, that's what's generating -- you see it again here. You know, that queue on that right -out movement. And as you can see, Ten Mile and Franklin and the other intersections on the Franklin function, you know, at a -- at a good level of service and you don't see any queues there. De Weerd: Okay. Miguel. I'm assuming that's not just dirt, but that this is full build out of the contemplated plans? Gaddi: No. This is 2030, so -- because we -- the official mall community choices from COMPASS that goes to 2030. So, we took those numbers and do those numbers that COMPASS had -- we added the ones for this specific development. De Weerd: So, Caleb, this considers to 2030 with our area specific plan, then? Hood: Correct. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 9 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. Gaddi: Yes. But, for example, we look -- we broke this PAC 278 into smaller PACs of the Ten Mile study and just to give you an idea what COMPASS has today for -- I think it's office jobs is slightly over a thousand. Can we go back to that slide, Caleb? I'm not sure how we get out of the video. Yes. The office jobs COMPASS had 1,321 and what we estimated for build out for the Ten Mile specific area plan was, you know, closer to 3,000. Most of those office jobs would be located closer to the interchange towards the south portion off the PAC. So, again, this is a moment in time, but we still have additional traffic and additional development that we estimated to happen after 2030, if that answers your question. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: And, Miguel, if I might ask, on the north street, the right -in, right -outs as originally proposed, would that -- the backup of traffic be helped by Ten Mile having an acceleration lane? Ten Mile is, I think, designed to be a five lane and you're expressing that the backup would occur because there wouldn't be enough gaps in traffic to make that right tum. Would it help to have an acceleration lane, an additional lane? Gaddi: That would alleviate it a little, but by no means it would be able to handle the -- I think it was over 400 vehicles. Zaremba: That wouldn't be enough, then? Gaddi: To make that movement. Plus, I see some here, I know that ACHD is this -- well, it's not, you know, completely in favor of an acceleration base lane, they -- the deceleration lanes, they are okay with those, but acceleration lanes I think they have some more reservations. I don't know. Gary, do you want to elaborate on that or -- Zaremba: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, do you need Mr. Inselman to comment? Zaremba: No. I'm happy with Miguel's answer. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Gaddi: Again, even if we were to implement that, by no means it would a solution to the scale of the problem that is -- Zaremba: And that's what I was asking. It would help, but not enough. Okay. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 10 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Tumbull: And, Madam Mayor, this next slide show the turning movements and the segments -- vehicle segments given the enhanced access scenario and, then, this slide shows you what the level of services are under that enhanced access. So, if you go back again to the south road, it's a level of service D, but it's really a full level of service D, because it didn't fail on the left -outs. In other words, we can get traffic out of the development onto Ten Mile Road without the virtual parking lot of queuing going back onto the south road. The signalized intersection at the quarter mile, the north road, operates at a level of service C, which is, you know, better than our typical threshold. The right -in, right -out at the 660 operates at a level of service B and, then, we had the full access at the -- at the 660 and that operated at a level of service E on Ten Mile and, then, the one up on Franklin operated at a level of service F and that was one of the points we brought up in our last couple of weeks with the city and with ACHD and we determined to go back and analyze those, restricted to a three-quarter access. So, in other words, left -in, right -in, right -out, but no left -out of the development. And we will show you that model, but, essentially, those are the two trouble points, those 660 full service accesses. So, we went back and remodeled those and that's -- this is what you get with the three-quarter access -- what we are calling the enhance three-quarter access where the 660s are at a three-quarter. Which is similar to what you have at Portico. It's a level -- it's a left -in, but no left -out at the 660. Those showed very good levels of service. I don't think we have the legend on here, but they are -- throughout -- throughout -- other than the south intersection, which is still at a D, all the others are level of service A, B, or C, which are very good. And this is a synchro model showing -- it's really kind of hard to see on this scale. I don't know if you can really appreciate it, but we can run it for you and it just shows that the queuing lines shorten up significantly and things tend to operate much more efficiently. So, as Caleb mentioned, you know, we understand the balancing act that we need to do between moving the general commuter traffic on the arterials, but still accommodating the development that's been envisioned in the plan. So, if you have any questions on this, we can go over those. But that, essentially, shows you -- this was peak hour traffic and how -- how traffic is moving along. You can see that the queues are significantly shortened. Okay. Network performance. This is the balancing act we are talking about. So, what happens to the total network performance? Under the three-quarter access scenario we have an average delay time per vehicle -- all vehicles of 70 seconds versus 77.9 seconds. So, it's, actually, an improvement for the overall network of 7.7 seconds or nine percent. On the average number of stops per vehicle, all vehicles, we have a slight degradation, but less than two percent. So, it's 1.57 versus 1.55. And the average speed under the three-quarter access versus the restricted access actually is an improvement of three percent. So, I think HDR has done a pretty good job of analyzing the network impacts and they show that -- that the system is well balanced. The question came up what are the Ten Mile corridor specifics. In other words, what's the travel time to get from Franklin to the interchange I think, isn't it Miguel? From Franklin to the interchange going north to south and, then, south to north and you can see those statistics there. Each one of these is five percent or less. So, it's very minimal degradation of moving that traffic. So, we think it's well balanced. Any questions here? Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 11 of 76 De Weerd: No. Turnbull: So, in summary, submit the following, that without the enhanced access scenario development densities that meet the city's Comprehensive Plan can't be achieved. In the restricted access scenario the intersection of Ten Mile and south road shows long queues on the side street approaches. This intersection would require massive storage lanes to accommodate left turning traffic queues. The enhanced access scenario resolves that issue. In the restricted access scenario the right -in, right - out at the north road fails on the west approach and it's also the reason why it fails on the south left getting out, because they have nowhere else to get out, because that's a right -in, right -out only. In the enhanced access scenario queues do not cause additional congestion between Ten Mile and Franklin intersections and adjacent access roads with the expected volumes. The enhanced access scenario allows for safer and more efficient pedestrian and bicycle movements across Ten Mile Road and that's because we can create some queues -- some queues and some breaks that will allow crossing, not just at Franklin and Ten Mile, but at intervening spots as well, if that's the desire of the city and ACHD. And, then, I guess our request today is -- you can see we have been working at this for quite a long time and in the meantime ITD is moving forward with their plans, ACHD is -- for Ten Mile interchange. ACHD is moving along with theirs for Franklin Road. We'd like to get an expeditious resolution of this, so that we can avoid any wasted dollars in retrofits as much as possible. So, we appreciate a strong letter of support from the city. I know that this is a lot of information to digest. We have been over this in detail with Anna and Caleb and Tim and at your staff level and I believe there is support of this plan and the work we have done. So, we would appreciate the Council's letter of support moving forward to ACHD, so we can keep this moving along. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: I do. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: One of them I probably would direct to Gary Inselman. And while he's coming forward I'll actually direct the same question to our acting police chief Terry -- Tracy. The three-quarters access intersections are kind of a new thing to our citizens and my question to both of you -- and I will start with Tracy -- is are the citizens getting it? I mean we have one on Franklin now near Eagle. What's our accident statistics or are people understanding it? I have driven by it a few times and it appears to me to be working well, but I'm kind of hit and miss as an observer. Basterrechea: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we haven't had any major issues with the three-quarters access. People seem to be figuring that out. Obviously, Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 12 of 76 we are always concerned with left -in access, because the access -- but more importantly left -out access is what -- where most accidents occur. And so those are always a concern for us. With this one of the concerns I guess I would have is -- is we would want to know is the right -in, right -out access that is currently on Franklin Road going to go away, because we would prefer that if we are going to have the three- quarter access not much further down the road from there, that would cause us some -- more likely congestion and accidents at that intersection. Zaremba: It looks like he wants to respond to that before I get to Gary. Turnbull: Madam Mayor, Mr. Zaremba, I forgot to address that point in our last meeting with the city staff and ACHD down at ACHD. That access became a topic of conversation, primarily because they were concerned about -- and I don't think the traffic -- the traffic analysis didn't show that, but they didn't want any potential for traffic stalling to go right -in, right -out backing up into Ten Mile Road. And we have proposed -- and, then, there is also the little bit of a conflict issue with the bridge and it's probably not the best place to put it, so we propose moving that around the comer to -- and moving it back to 330 feet from the Ten Mile intersection to provide the right -in to that -- to that quadrant and eliminating it on Franklin Road. Zaremba: Okay. Gary. Turnbull: So, we moved it around the corner, instead of 220, it's 330. Pretty much the same question. How is ACHD's experience with a three-quarter access intersection? Inselman: For the record, Gary Inselman, Ada County Highway District, 3775 North Adams, Garden City. De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. Inselman: Councilman Zaremba, we believe the -- the three-quarter accesses are much safer than the full accesses and if designed properly will operate much safer than the three-quarter. I'd concur with what the police officer stated, that the left -outs are a much greater concern as people try to shoot across the lanes to challenge the oncoming vehicles. We haven't had time to analyze all of the data presented to you tonight, but in general when the situation calls for it we are in favor of those three-quarter type accesses. Zaremba: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: David -- Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 13 of 76 De Weerd: Are you -- any further questions for Gary? Okay. Thank you, Gary. Bird: David, what you're telling us is the right -in, right -out that's on Franklin you want to move around 330 up south of the intersection there, so we have a signal light and, then, we have a right -in, right -out, and, then, the three-quarter and, then, a right -in, right -out between the signalized and the -- and the Franklin - Ten Mile intersection? Turnbull: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, that's correct. De Weerd: Any further questions from Council? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: And this may be a question for Caleb, maybe. I just -- in visualizing what this area will be, I'm thinking of equating this to -- similar to what Eagle and Overland are doing now. The two large developments that are on the south side, one on the east -- southeast side and one on the southwest side, don't have access to Eagle Road for a considerable distance, like a quarter of a mile. At full build out they will be less dense than this area is proposed to be; am I correct on that? Hood: I would have to -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, Council Members, I would have to look a little bit closer at the densities, the intensities that are at, if you will, Silverstone, EI Dorado complexes. But this is pretty intense. So, this would be, in my estimation, a little bit more intense than what you see there. I mean this is pretty -- this is cutting edge for the City of Meridian at this -- in this area, so, yeah, it's a little more intense. Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I think just to supplement what Caleb was saying, when we did approve the mixed use commercial designation in the Ten Mile plan, that designation contemplates, as Caleb said, a much more intense use, because it has a much more intense commercial retail component, as opposed to sort of the office park development that Council Member Zaremba was referring to. Hopefully, also, there may even be a more intense residential component, too. But it certainly does contemplate more retail in this areas than we have in either one of the two developments that you're referring to. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Well -- and I guess, Mr. Zaremba, the other thing that is different is what we tried to do was create a spine, so it connects almost the whole -- it's not a square mile, but that whole area to interconnect, whereas you see in some of these other areas, the Silverstone and EI Dorado, they are confined to just those developments and they are not necessarily the collector or maybe a minor arterial. I don't know what they will be designed or designated, but I think they would cavy more traffic, because it's to serve Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 14 of 76 that entire area, not just one development. Is that what the modeling contemplated, David, do you know? Turnbull: Yes. That's correct. You know, I go back and I'd say that HDR, in the conceptual when they designed the network system, the basic collector system internally, did an excellent job, but it was just that, it was just a collector system. It's kind of like the main arteries running through the system, not just the veins and capillaries and things that have to service the whole system. So, we went to that finer level of detail on this study. De Weerd: Anything further? Zaremba: No more questions, I guess. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Hood: Madam Mayor, I have maybe one more question for David while he's still here. Through our staff level discussions I asked him to put together an exhibit basically showing -- and I hate to bring this up, because it's like the third meeting I have been at that's talked about center medians. But ITD is constructing center medians in Ten Mile Road and I wanted them to maybe show just the schematic of maybe how much of that median would have to be cut to accommodate this three-quarter access and what that could potentially look like. Did you guys -- were you able to come up with some diagram that kind of shows, you know -- it would have to be 100 or 300 feet of the median being cut or anything that kind of shows that? Turnbull: We can certainly provide that, but, essentially, there would have to be -- at the north road there would have to be a break in that with turning bay movement and, then, at the three-quarter accesses we discussed that queuing level isn't very long, so it would be kind of minimal left-hand turn bay through that. But there probably will already be a significant -- I guess -- or how would I say -- minimization of that median at dual lefts on Ten Mile going onto Franklin already. So, I think -- I think once you get to that point you already have significant removal of the median. And we would probably just be tucking in behind that to provide a left -in at the 660. Hood: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further for Mr. Turnbull? Thank you. Okay. Council, what direction do you want to move on this? Caleb, do you have any final comments? Pete? Friedman: None from me. Hood: No. That was it, Mayor. I just wanted you all to be aware that -- to make this work you will have breaks in those big medians that ITD will potentially be constructing. So, that's just the -- that's really aside from making sure we have all the safety factors figured out and that it's sufficient. Esthetically it's not going to be -- it's not going to look Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 15 of 76 the same as what is currently moving forward. So, I just wanted that to be -- just you guys to be aware of that as well, so -- not that I don't think we can make it look nice and pretty, but it's not going to look exactly the same. That's all. De Weerd: We want it to be safe. Yeah. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just a question about process, I guess. If by some chance we were to say, yes, this is something we would like to have ACHD consider, that would be a letter to ACHD and, then, ACHD would repeat the engineering study to see whether it works or not? Hood: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, we may have to have Gary come up here, but I think I know the answer. We will send a letter to ACHD and what I think will shortly follow is some development application, then, from the developer that justifies some of those, as well as the traffic study and the traffic work that HDR has already done. So, they will review that, not necessarily do their own, but review that work and, then, give a thumbs up, thumbs down kind of concurrently with some type of development application. So, maybe some other behind the scenes review, but I think that's how the official review will play out, but if anybody else wants to step up and say, no, that's totally wrong, I'm -- but that's how I understand it will play out, too. De Weerd: Well, this is the first step in the approval process. Hood: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, as Mr. Turnbull mentioned, he needs to get the ball rolling, because they are starting construction out there on some of these things, so if you want to start waving the red flag saying hold on a minute, we are talking about doing something a little different here. So, yeah, it's one of the earlier stuff that needs to occur. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Turnbull. Turnbull: Well, I guess I'd just modify Caleb's comments a little bit. We -- it's the chicken and the egg kind of a thing. We have to determine what kind of an access allowance we are going to have before we get into really detailed plans on a development application. So, really, what we are looking for is support for the type of access that will allow us to move forward with development and once we get that, then, we can submit the more detailed development applications that will get into more of the design issues. So, I guess that's kind what we are looking for. De Weerd: But your assertion is that by these changes this would accommodate what was contemplated in the area specific plan at not the 20,000 foot level, but more in terms of the development level. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 16 of 76 Turnbull: Yeah. Well, without appropriate access we will probably be grazing that property for quite some time. So, we have intemally called it the no build -- the original plan the no build scenario, because we weren't going to build anymore accesses and we probably weren't going to build any development either, because the system fails for our development -- for development purposes. It's just not possible to accommodate the types of development that are in the Comprehensive Plan without the appropriate accesses. De Weerd: Well, the idea was with the area specific plan is all of that would be contemplated, so that the road infrastructure network would support whatever came at whatever phase and we wouldn't have to do something over again. We didn't want to do do -overs, we wanted to get it right and if this analysis shows that at the build out with all of the land uses contemplated, we certainly want to do it right the first time. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: As this chart we are looking at right now, they moved the one over to the Ten Mile Road. I'm sure we are going to have the same problem when they start development on Franklin. There is a lot of landowners over there that they are going to want to have access and I agree with -- with David, that what we'd like just to have a couple of accesses there, it's not practical to development and go forward with our comp plan, unless you want to just have some big commercial buildings out there. So, I would move that we draft a letter to ACHD showing that we agree with the chart that shows two right -in and rights -out at three-quarter and two signalized between Franklin Road and the interchange. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second and this would be to authorize the drafting of the letter and signature by the Mayor? Bird: That's what -- to draft a letter. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: For the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. De Weerd: Just as part of a discussion, I hope, you know, if Council chooses to approve this in moving forward, staff, I would appreciate if you could have a discussion with Ada County Highway District in looking at the whole specific area plan and looking at where those access points are going to need to be and -- because we don't need to bit and piece this one together. This will open the discussion for consideration perhaps Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 17 of 76 at future areas and we want to make sure that we are fair and consistent and the integrity of that system is kept intact and that was the vision for that area. So, if it needs to be something that -- that we look at in partnership with our road agencies, certainly would like to see it as part of a budget enhancement in the coming year, if Council, then, would consider it. I think that's the only way we can do this. Okay. Any further discussion? Zaremba: I guess this is a separate question. Should we also write a letter to ITD suggesting that they hold off on building the medians while this is being finalized? Yeah. I hesitate to hold it -- we could always cut the median back out again, I suppose, but -- De Weerd: We will put that in ACHD and Mr. Turnbull's capable hands. Zaremba: Okay. De Weerd: So, if there is no further discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll on this. Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, before you call roll, the motion was for a letter to be signed by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk? Bird: No. Just signed by the Mayor. Nary: Okay. And I didn't think you -- Bird: I thought we was passing an ordinance. Nary: Right. I didn't think you meant that, I just thought I'd make that clear. De Weerd: Well, that's why I clarified it was just a letter. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Planning Department: Airport Road - Overland Road Alignment Study: Overview of Scope, Timeline and Process of a Transportation Study That Will Evaluate Alternatives for Connectivity Between Meridian (Overland Road) and Nampa (Airport Road) Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 18 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. Item 6-13 is also on transportation -- all things transportation, Caleb. Hood: Not under that heading. I know you guys have other things going on this evening. This one should just take a minute. Susan Graham is here this evening. Clair Bowman was supposed to be here, but he got double booked and decided you guys weren't as important, so he's doing his whatever else he had on his agenda, so -- but, no, Susan has come this evening to, basically, ask for a volunteer. I'll let her get to that part of it. I attended a meeting early last week on a plan that's getting kicked off to look at a way to tie in Overland Road at Ten Mile with the airport in Nampa and so some alignment study to make Overland fit in with the airport. So, that is a very, very high level overview of this study. I'm going to turn it over to Susan, she can give you just a little bit more details on that and, then, talk to you about a policy committee that is part of that study. Graham: Hello. Susan Graham. Parametrics. 7761 West Riverside Drive, Boise. I'm going to be really quick. I know we are here talking about new roads and more access and the next agenda item is talking about less roads, so I want to get to that, too. De Weerd: And less access. Graham: Yes. So, I'm just providing you with a little bit better graphic than the quality that you have in that one, because we had to squish it down and I can't see it anymore, so I'm assuming that you may not be able to either. De Weerd: Right. Graham: I'm actually here tonight on behalf of Clair Bowman and I'm managing this corridor study for the city of Nampa, which has impact and influence on the City of Meridian and, basically, what we are looking to do is find the best route to connect the realigned intersection of Ten Mile and Overland with Robinson at one of three locations, either Stamm Lane, Airport Road, or Victory Road and we will be going through a process developing evaluation criteria, talking to stake holders and major property owners as we do that and you will see me several more times updating you over the course of a year on where we are with that and Caleb sits -- he has been invited it sit on our project team monthly meeting. So, the city will definitely be in the loop as this project moves forward and will have many opportunities for input on it. So, tonight the main request that Clair had of the city, Madam Mayor, is to appoint someone from the Council to sit on our policy committee. The policy committee will include representation from the cities of Nampa, Meridian, the Nampa highway district one, ACHD, and the airport. And so that policy committee will direct things like what the evaluation criteria is that we measure the preferred alignment against. De Weerd: Thank you. I'm glad you asked for Council, not Mayor. Council? Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 19 of 76 Zaremba: I am very much disqualify me from being an would volunteer to be on that. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: I would second that. Hoaglun: Well, I third that. in favor of making that connection and if that doesn't objective participant as to how that connection is made, I De Weerd: I think we are all very excited to hear that. So, you have your volunteer. Graham: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Zaremba. And that first meeting will be in May -- Zaremba: Okay. Graham: -- that we will be coordinating. Thank you very much. Zaremba: What's the matter with March? Graham: We are hardly doing anything in March. Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda De Weerd: A very eager participant. Thank you. We did not move any items from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Action Items A. Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies Located at NW Corner of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road, south of Harris Street Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) Zoning Districts B. Public Hearing: VAR 08-008 Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies Located at NW Corner of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road, south of Harris Street Request for Variance to UDC 11-3H-4 which prohibits new approaches from directly accessing a state highway to allow 2 right -in / right -out access points (approximately 660 feet from the north and south intersections) and 1 right -in / right -out, left -in access point at Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 20 of 76 the 1/4 mile to State Highway 69 / Meridian Road De Weerd: We will move to Item 8. Both A and B have had a request to continue to May 25th. I will go ahead first and open these two public hearings. Public hearing on AZ 08-005 and VAR 08-008. And, Council, I would entertain a motion to continue these two items to May 25th. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue AZ 08-005 and VAR 08-008 to May 25th, 2010. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: MDA 10-003 Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park by City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Located NE Corner of the intersection of E. Fairview Avenue and N. Eagle Road Request for Modification to the Development Agreement to remove the requirement that public streets be extended into the site at the north and east property boundaries and waiver from Council to allow the irrigation ditches within the site to be tiled De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-C is a public hearing on MDA 10-003. 1 will open this public here with staff comments. Friedman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Just a couple of general comments before we get into the specifics on the development agreement modification request. The Mayor indicated the application before you tonight is for modification to three items on the development agreement for the development of Kleiner Park. They have to do with emergency turnarounds at the end of the two streets, as well as an issue dealing with the tiling of a ditch. But what I -- and Sonya will get into that and you will also be hearing from the applicant, which will be our parks department. In my review of the development agreement I came across an interesting provision and it said the development of the area for the city park, in review of the site plan, shall be the subject of review and approval by the City Council on a noticed agenda with notices sent to the property owners within 300 feet of the property boundaries. Well, we know that you have been through the process, you have reviewed the site plan, pretty well bought off on it. We feel that tonight's hearing, because it was noticed, even though it's on specifically the development agreement, truly satisfies that -- that condition of the Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 21 of 76 development agreement. So, unless Council wishes to hold another public meeting with notice to the adjacent property owners, we feel that we have satisfied that particular provision of the development agreement. And with that I'm going to turn the specific request over to Sonya and, then, you will hear from the parks department and our consultant. De Weerd: Thank you, Pete. Watters: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the property before you is located northeast of the Fairview -Eagle intersection. The applicant is requesting a development agreement modification as follows: Section 4-C of the development agreement, the applicant proposes to remove the language requiring Tweed Brook Avenue to be extended into the site and connect to a public street or a public cul-de-sac for a turnaround. The applicant proposes to add language requiring a pathway connection instead. Tweed Brook is located at the north boundary of the subject property. Having a little technical difficulties here. Can't point to that for you. Hoaglun: Sonya, is that off of Tahiti Drive that -- Watters: It is. Hoaglun: Okay. Watters: And, then, the next item is number 4-D. The applicant proposes to remove the language requiring additional right of way to be provided for the construction of a street to link Green Meadow and Meadow Wood streets together on the east boundary of the site. Instead the applicant proposes to add language requiring hammerheads or cul-de-sacs to be constructed at the west end of both streets for turnaround. Additionally, the applicant proposes to remove the language requiring the remaining portion of unused right of way, if any, to be vacated. On this site plan here it shows -- the red circles indicate on the east boundary of the property where the hammerheads are proposed and on the north boundary where the pathway connection is proposed. Actually, pathway connections are proposed on each one of those. Section 4-F of the development agreement, the applicant proposes to add a provision clarifying with Council approval that the Stokesberry Lateral and the Finch Lateral, South Slough, along the north boundary of the site -- you can see that here on this map -- will be tiled where it crosses the subject property. The UDC requires natural waterways to remain as a natural amenity and not be covered. All other waterways, unless they are approved as a water amenity, are required to be covered. There has been some confusion as to whether or not the portion of the South Slough on the site is considered a natural waterway. Initially the applicant wanted to leave the waterway open as an amenity, but Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District requires fencing along both sides of waterways. Both the applicant and staff believe this will be detrimental to the park design and the function. Therefore, the applicant requests Council approval to tile the waterway. Exhibit A-2 of the staff report includes changes to the development agreement proposed by the applicant, along with those recommended by staff. Written Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 22 of 76 testimony has been received on this application from Larry and Juanita Brook, Oggie and Carol Hyatt, John Thiebald, Lynn Thiebald, Joann Rayberg, Don and Linda Huffman, Jamie and Wendy Letterman -- excuse me if I mispronounce your name. Robert Allen. David Kleiner. Angela and John Shindler. Nona and Robert Doyron and Sarah Wright. All in favor of the proposed changes to development agreement that would not require Meadow Wood, Green Meadow, and Tweed Brook Street to be extended into the park site as public streets. ACHD also submitted a letter requesting City Council defer action on this application as the proposed modifications conflict with? ACHD policies and previous actions. They further request that if action must be taken that Items 4-C and 4-D be approved as previously proposed without the requested modifications. The Meridian Fire Department submitted comments stating they do not feel there is a need for emergency access points to connect Tweed Brook to Green Meadow and/or Meadow Wood Streets. Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's requested changes to the development agreement, along with staffs recommended changes as noted in Exhibit A-2 of the staff report and as shown on the screen here. Staff will stand for any questions the Council may have at this time. De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions at this point? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Good evening. Siddoway: Members of the Council. De Weerd: You do have to state your name and address for the record, even though you are an employee. Siddoway: Steve Siddoway. Shall I give the work address? De Weerd: Yeah. I would. Siddoway: 33 East Broadway, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: I think Dean knows who you are, but -- Siddoway: I -- first of all, I just want to say that I have been in contact with the Kleiner Park trustees, including Mr. Eugene Kleiner in Seattle and we are in agreement with the staff report as proposed tonight. As stated, there are three specific modifications to the development agreement that we are requesting. At Tweed Brook from the north we propose not extending the road into the site, nor a cul-de-sac on that road. The Fire Department does not require a turnaround in this location, because the stub is not more Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 23 of 76 than 150 feet in length. We will provide the pathway connection for nonmotorized use as per the staff report. And in 4-D regarding Green Meadow and Meadow Wood Streets, we will construct hammerheads as per Fire Department requirements in place of the cul-de-sacs mentioned in the development agreement. And since we intend to build the hammerhead turnarounds, we have proposed striking the option to connect the existing roads. Similarly, we have also struck the requirement to vacate the unopened right of way, which I don't believe is an issue at this time. Under 4-K regarding the tiling, as stated we -- we did hope to keep those waterways open and we have been before the Council before as we reviewed modifications to the master plan. As we met with Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District we did learn of their requirement to either tile them or if we would keep them open we would have to fence both sides, which would cut off one side of the park from the other. So, we -- given those options we propose tiling the -- the existing waterways, including the South Slough and the Stokesberry Lateral and we seek Council's confirmation on that decision. Regarding the ACHD comments, we are aware that ACHD has submitted a letter and have met with them. They requested the DA modifications not be approved tonight, so that they can weigh in on the need for roads to connect during the development application process. While I will allow ACHD to address their desire to keep the language as is, I would point out that in the ACHD staff report, dated September 28, 2007, for the annexation of the property, it does state that the district is not supportive of tying these rural residential streets into the proposed commercial development. Speaking of Center Cal, because it was annexed at the same time. The district is supportive of providing the existing residences access to the proposed park. We certainly hope and feel that the proposed design complies with those original comments. You do have the Fire Department's comments regarding emergency access, stating that they feel there is already sufficient emergency access in the area and my final point is regarding the neighborhood meeting as part of the DA modification process, we are required to notice and hold, prior to this meeting, a neighborhood meeting. We did notify neighbors beyond the 300 foot requirement. We had a great attendance with approximately 16 lines signed in. Most of those were multiple individuals. We probably had -- we had 30 -- between 30 and 40 people attend that meeting. During that meeting the comments were positive and the proposed changes to the DA were well received by the neighbors. A copy of the comments we received that night should have been provided to you as part of the application. In general, the neighbors supported not -- vacating the existing right of way and supported building the hammerheads, as opposed -- as proposed and not connecting the roads into the site and there are several here tonight. We support the modifications and clarifications that are proposed by the planning staff in Exhibit A-2 of the staff report and would accept those into the DA modifications that were proposed and at this time I'd like to tum the balance of our presentation to Susan Graham from Parametrics to address the timeline, relationship to the upcoming CZC submittal and address comments received regarding Park Lane, after which Eldon Gray from the trust also has a few final comments and I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for Steve at this time? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 24 of 76 Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I have one quick one, Steve, and I don't know if you can answer it, because, you know, as the parks works on the pathways we do have some waterways that we work on and there have been developments that have improved the sloughs and have pathways along there. Do you know why this change, why this one is different than some of the others that we have had? Have they had a change of policy or have they given you any reason? Siddoway: I. know some of that and part of it is that their policy allows pathways without a fence adjacent to facilities that they consider drains only. Both the Stokesberry and the South Slough, which they call the Finch Lateral, they deem to cant' live water and any irrigation facility with a pathway adjacent to it that they deem as a live water facility, they require fencing. They would allow a pathway, but they require the fencing adjacent to that if it's considered a canal. Hoaglun: Okay. I guess I understand that. I don't like it. I thought that would have been a very nice amenity to have as part of that park, but -- okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Graham: Good evening. Susan Graham. Parametrics. 7761 West Riverside, Boise. Madam Mayor and Councilmen, on behalf of Kleiner Park trust we are requesting that the city process a development agreement modification as soon as possible. The DA allows the park to be annexed into the city, which would allow the trustees to officially submit a CZC application. We intend to submit the CZC application as soon as the DA has been processed and the ordinance signed. Hopefully as soon as next week. This will allow us to remain on schedule and begin construction this summer. The CZC will trigger a formal review by ACHD on the proposed roadway network to serve the park. A traffic study was submitted to ACHD today. We fully understand the need to comply with the formal ACHD review and comment process for the public roadways related to the park and we look forward to a public hearing at a future ACHD commission meeting that we will invite comments from the neighbors. We are also aware that there are comments that the Council has received from David Kleiner on behalf of the Kleiner family trust in regards to Park Lane. Park Lane has been specifically located along the southern border of the park in order to provide multiple emergency access points to the site and to accommodate future east -west travel once left turns are no longer allowed from Venture onto Fairview. De Weerd: Excuse me, Susan. Staff, can you pull up the map of the park, so we can see what's being referred to. Thank you. Graham: The roadway is currently proposed as a two lane collector. Forty feet of Park Lane is accommodated on the park property. The remaining 18 feet, which includes three feet of pavement, a five foot bike lane, a five foot planter strip, and a five foot Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 25 of 76 sidewalk, would, then, be constructed on the Kleiner family trust park -- oh -- part of the property upon development of their site. ACHD has provided preliminary feedback that Park Lane is appropriately located based upon their criteria. It's also important to note that an access further south, which would be closer to Fairview, would likely not be full access as the left tum out of there would likely conflict with left turn movements on Records Road that are queued to make that tum. Eldon Gray is now going to provide some feedback that we have received from the two public meetings that we have held over the course of the summer and fall, as well as the many personal contacts that he and Orville Teak have made in their outreach with our neighbors. Eldon would also like to state that the trust position in regards to the fact that they do not support the connection of residential roads through the park. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening, Eldon. Gray: Good evening. De Weerd: If you will state your name and address for the record, please. Gray: Eldon Gray. 12022 Chinden Boulevard, Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Gray: Mayor, Councilmen, thanks for the time. We -- this has been a great experience to work with the city in this project with the Parks Department. The -- our concerns as we talk with the community at the east of us, they see no value in a road connection there. We see no value in a road connection there. The one thing that seems interesting as a trustee is that it's just a little narrow piece of ground. What are you concerned about? The fact is it's not a little narrow piece of ground, it's -- we have to make a decision to build the road or something else in the park, because we are to a point where any additional things simply take away. So, it's not a case of a little strip of ground. There is a lot more to it and I'm sure your people are totally aware of that. But our concern is that this is where that is from the trustee's side is that we are spending money that really is not an advantage to anyone and we don't want to do that now. We want to put all that in the park if we can. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, this is a public hearing. I do have 36 people who have signed up indicating their support. No doubt I think a park of this caliber is kind of once in a lifetime thing that we have ever seen and they are intended to do it right and they have appreciated the involvement of the neighbors and certainly the support. If any of the 36 people who have signed up have a desire to provide testimony, I would invite you up at this time. It is a public hearing. Otherwise, your names -- your indication of your support of this project and of the applicant's position to not extend those roads will be noted for the public record. Is there any member of the this public -- of the public that would like to provide testimony at this time? Yes, sir. If you will, please, come forward. And, sir, if I could ask you to state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 26 of 76 Allen: My name is Robert Allen. My address is 12366 West Clovermeadows Drive. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Allen: I am a relatively new property owner on West Clovermeadows Drive, but my and my wife's background is years of farming and when we came to Boise we were delighted to find rural type property in the -- in the environs of a fairly large city and I'm very adamant and so is my wife that destroying that -- that atmosphere would be devastating to us. To open that West Clovermeadows Drive to through traffic would destroy the kind of character that we feel our property has and I speak as a relatively new member of that particular community. Most of my neighbors have been there for 25 or 35 years, since the inception of the property, and it never goes up for sale, because they are so happy with the area they are in. Please don't destroy our atmosphere. And we feel that -- that that proposed roadway going through would do that. We also are there because we have acreage and -- well, all of us do. And that acreage allows us to have livestock and livestock sometimes is out even in the streets, along with our children. This is devastating. So, that's my comment. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Allen: Thank you. Any questions? De Weerd: I think we all support that statement. Allen: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony? Yes. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Luderman: Wendy Luderman. 4040 East Meadow Wood Drive, Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Luderman: Mayor and Members of the City Council, I'd just like to add to what Bob stated and just say as somebody who grew up in that neighborhood from 1978 through 1991, 1 graduated high school from Centennial and now I'm married and have a son who is two years old, a house did actually come up for sale in that neighborhood and my husband and I instantly snapped it up for the exact reason Bob stated. We knew what a great neighborhood it was, obviously, since I grew up there from the time I was six years old until I graduated high school. If such streets were to be extended I feel it would allow for increased criminal activity, vandalism, littering, decreased water fowl and wildlife habitat, as well as the possible degradation of home values. I also feel that it would take away from the esthetic appearance of the park itself, which I think would be very detrimental and could also be a safety concern for people in the park and Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 27 of 76 people in our neighborhood. So, that would be my comment and I would hope that ACHD would pay attention to that in their thoughts of public hearings in the future. De Weerd: Thank you. Luderman: Thank you. De Weerd: Any further testimony? Yes, sir. I know we have an enthusiastic audience here, but if we can -- yeah, I know it's hard not to applaud, but if we will hold that. Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rayberg: Madam Mayor, Council Members, my name is Jim Rayberg. 4075 East Meadow Wood Drive, Meridian. I got here late. I didn't get a chance to sign that. I just want to get my name on the record as being affirmative. De Weerd: Thank you. Rayberg: That's all I had to say. De Weerd: You know, it's very rare that we get a whole lot of people that are signed up in favor of anything, so we appreciate you all being here. This is -- this is certainly a testimony to the public out reach and to the caliber of this project. It's -- it's heart warming to see this. Any further testimony? Yes, Mr. Inselman. If you will state your name and address for the record. Inselman: Sure. Gary Inselman, representing ACHD, 3775 North Adams. De Weerd: And we have never portrayed you as the enemy. Inselman: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the highway district has not taken an action on that larger annexation from '07, '08. The comments that Steve referred to are from the staff letter stating that we hadn't received a traffic study to date that would provide some very generic comments. Later in January '08 we sent a letter requesting that the city wait until we had an approved traffic study, but we never received that. We still don't have an approved traffic study. So, we -- our commission hasn't taken an action on the annexation. So, I just wanted to clarify that. And, then, also just to clarify that, we -- the highway district has not reviewed or taken an action on any application for the park, so we have made no proposals or taken no action to date and do look forward to receiving that application. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Staff, any comments? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 28 of 76 Zaremba: I -- since you came forward and I appreciate that, I would comment that way back when I think ACHD issued -- instituted its policy that stub streets could connect to something at the request of the city, because it made a difference to our Fire Department, it made a difference to our Police Department, it made a difference to our sewer department, to have those kind of connections. This is a case where our Fire Department in particular has said they don't feel this connection is necessary. It would be helpful to have the walkways there, which, of course, our Parks Department also wants. So, I understand why the policy is in place and in general normally thank ACHD for having that policy. I do believe this is a case where it makes sense not to make those connections and our Fire Department has said they don't need it, I believe our Public Works Department doesn't need it, so -- also, in response to the overwhelming support for not having them connected, I suspect that's the direction we are going to take. But I just wanted to say there was a reason for that being a requirement and it's a good requirement most of the time and thank you very much. Inselman: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further testimony? Council, any questions for staff or the applicant? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: While the public hearing is still open I would ask our acting police chief again a question. On a hammerhead I know we are going to put up signs that say no parking. Is that an enforcement issue? Do we have trouble with that? Do we have to tow cars away? Basterrechea: Yes. Zaremba: So, we should be prepared for that. Basterrechea: We should be prepared for that if we posted no parking and they -- they won't be towed away, they will be cited, and that's always a contentious issue whenever we have parks and -- but we deal with it and we are not always on the supportive end of things when the phone calls roll in, but we are used to that. De Weerd: Well -- and, you know, on the east side it's Boise city police that have to deal with it; right? Basterrechea: It is. But we will get the calls. But we will direct them appropriately. Zaremba: Thank you. Bird: No. It's -- Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 29 of 76 De Weerd: Oh, bummer. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Hoaglun: Question for staff. I want to go back, since we received it today, the comments from David Kleiner, the trustee on behalf of the Kleiner family trust, on that road issue. Can you go through that again? I want to make sure I understand that there is -- it sounds like there is two different -- there is a proposal what they have agreed to build a road and, then, there is another proposal. Can you just quickly enlighten me on that? Friedman: Certainly. Madam Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, Council, as Councilman Hoaglun indicated, you received testimony from Mr. Kleiner, who indicated that, essentially, they are really in favor of not having to construct any kind of improvement. When all of this property was annexed into the city as part of the Center Cal annexation there were three separate development agreements. One, obviously, for the Center Cal property, one for the park property, and, then, one for the residual Kleiner properties and the property that is south of the park is the one that he is referring to. In that development agreement it says that the owner shall provide a minimum of one private or public road or drive aisle connecting Venture Street with Records Road. Well, the park plan, as has been reviewed and pretty much accepted by Council, has placed Park Lane, that east -west road between Records and Venture, along the center line. So, part of it -- the bulk of it, actually, will be developed through the development of the park. It will be the standard travel lane -- street plus 12 -- half street plus 12. So, the park will develop sidewalk, curb, gutter, travel lane and, then, an additional 12 feet to accommodate the other -- the other way -- traffic. Mr. Kleiner feels that really it shouldn't be forced on them to have to provide the additional right of way, which would be curb, gutter, sidewalk and about six feet of pavement in order to accommodate some future development, because they may choose to put their road somewhere else on the property. I think it's interesting that the development agreement says a minimum of one private or public street connecting the two. It didn't say -- it didn't restrict it to that, it says -- it didn't say a maximum, it said a minimum. So, really, what we are forced with is moving the -- potential would be moving the road entirely onto the -- onto the park property. Physically we could accommodate it, but that means, then, the park trust would be responsible for building the full road -- full road section, curb, gutter, sidewalk on both sides, therefore, obviating any responsibility from the property to the south. So, that's the crux of -- in my conversations with Mr. Kleiner leading up to the letter that we wrote today. So, his feeling should be that his -- the Kleiner family trust is that they just want to simply be held to the provision of their development agreement, which talks about the minimum of one public or private road and not possibly be required to build a small portion of Park Lane in the future as that property develops. That's pretty much the crux of his testimony, if I answered your question. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 30 of 76 Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Pete. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I understand the description of -- and the problem. If we approve what is being presented to us tonight, Park Street or Avenue is not mentioned in what we have discussed so far. How do we impact what happens to Park? Friedman: Okay. Madam Mayor, Council Members, Council Member Zaremba, that's very correct. When I was speaking with Mr. Kleiner I said, you know, there is three issues before Council tonight. They all have to do with the development agreement modification. But since you are expressing your concerns and because it is an open public record, if you have concerns, submit them to the Council, we will put them on the record and he's done that, there is nothing in your actions tonight that affect that and, in effect, you have agreed on a park master plan and I anticipate that when the CZC is submitted to the city that that park master plan will show a -- you know, half street plus 12. And when the property to the south develops, depending on how it develops, it's likely that we would recommend that that street be completed. Or maybe, in fact, they may determine that, hey, you know what, it makes more sense just to do the other portion of that street than have to build the whole street somewhere else through the property. But as far as your action on the development agreement tonight, there is really nothing in the testimony presented that impacts that. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, one other question. And this is kind of what Pete led off with and maybe I need to ask our city attorney Mr. Nary. We are at some point required to have a hearing on the concept plan and my question is does this hearing satisfy that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, I think that was part of Mr. Friedman's original portion of the presentation that from the staffs perspective they believe this is adequate to satisfy that condition, but it, really, also if it's the Council's desire to have another hearing that certainly is fine. It is in the conditions of annexation that they have a hearing with notice to the neighbors. The previous one where you -- the Council reviewed the concept plan at the 30 present or whatever it was, was a noticed hearing, but it wasn't sent specifically to the neighbors, but it was noticed on your agenda. Tonight's the same. It was noticed on your agenda, but not sent specifically to the neighbors. They were, obviously, able to figure out that's what we were doing, so they are here, but it really is your -- your decision on whether or not you want to have another hearing on the plan as it progresses and, then, provide, again, specific notice to the neighbors. Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members -- and just to follow up on this from what Mr. Nary was saying, it looking -- as we discussed earlier this morning, the condition talks about that the park site shall be subject to review and approval by the Council on a Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 31 of 76 noticed agenda and as we discussed it doesn't specify that it has to be a public hearing, it simply says a noticed agenda with notice sent to the neighbors. Well, since the night of the public hearing we did provide notice to all the abutting property owners -- I think well beyond the 300 feet that would normally be required for the public hearing. So, we have had a public hearing on a noticed agenda with specific notice to the property owners. But, again, as Mr. Nary has indicated, if it's the Council's pleasure to have another review of the site plan at a publicly noticed hearing -- meeting, not necessarily a hearing -- we leave that up to you and we certainly would be prepared to accommodate everyone at that meeting. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Since we have many of the neighbors here, would it be appropriate to ask for a show of hands if they would be satisfied with this being the concept meeting? Bird: Sure. De Weerd: Okay. By show of hands from the neighbors that this satisfies your curiosity for the site design concept plan. These are all in favor, I assume. Thank you. Any opposed? Would you like to provide public testimony? Okay. I just thought I would offer that. Does that work for you, Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: That satisfies me. Bird: It satisfies me, Your Honor. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Again, I would ask for -- if there is any desire to -- for further testimony on this application from the public? To the applicant, any final comments? Graham: Thank you. I would just like -- De Weerd: Please state your name again. Graham: Oh. Again? De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. Graham: Me again. Susan Graham, Parametrics, 7761 West Riverside Drive, Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Graham: I would just like to thank the City Council for hearing this and thank the neighbors for coming. I do want to assure them, although we might not be required to have an additional hearing, we do fully intend to have additional public meetings that the Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 32 of 76 neighbors will be invited to as we progress. So, we do intend to continue to engage our neighbors as we have throughout and just, again, to reiterate that once the DA modification is approved and the ordinance is signed and we are annexed, we intend to move through the formal CZC process and we will work with the other jurisdictions and agencies to make sure that our plans are processed as they would in any other development. So, again, thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, any further questions for Council -- or for staff I mean. Sony. Any additional staff comments? Friedman: No, ma'am. De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we close the public hearing on MDA 10-003. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close Item 8-C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve MDA 10-003 as presented, with the addition of the two statements that were provided in the staffs addendum and with the addition of the comment that we believe this satisfies the DA provision requiring a public hearing on the concept for the park. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 33 of 76 De Weerd: Thank you for coming this evening to the neighbors. We appreciate your support and your involvement. Bird: They don't have to leave. De Weerd: You know, you can leave, but you can stay. We are really entertaining. Bird: We are going to be here a little while longer. D. Public Hearing: TE 10-002 Emerson Park by Kuna Victory, LLC Located at 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road Request for an 18 - month Time Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the Final Plat De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and move on to Item 8-D. It's a public hearing on TE 10-002. 1 will ask for staff comments at this time. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a time extension request on Emerson Park. The site is located at 2910 and 3030 South Meridian Road, northeast of the south Meridian Road, East Victory Road intersection. The applicant is requesting approval of an 18 month time extension for the preliminary plat in order to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat for Emerson Park. The plat consists of 34 building lots and one common lot on 17.84 acres of land, zoned C -G. Excuse me just a moment. My computer is doing funny things again. Well, anyway. A little background on this project. An 18 month time extension was approved by the planning director in December of 2009. A condition of the time extension required submittal of a letter of credit for a proportionate share of the Black Cat sewer trunk line construction as originally required with this development along the project's frontage on Victory Road. The letter of credit was required to be submitted by January 31 st, 2010, in order for the extension to remain valid. The applicant failed to do so and, consequently, the extension has expired. The reason the applicant allowed the previous time extension to expire is because they disagreed with the condition requiring the letter of credit and failed to request City Council review of the director's decision within the allowed time period. The applicant requests an 18 month time extension to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat, be approved without the requirement for the letter of credit. Staff recommends approval of the time extension request with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B of the staff report, including the condition of approval for the applicant to submit the letter of credit. Staff will stand for any questions that Council may have at this time. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this point? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 34 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Oaas: Eric Oaas. 519 West Front, Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Oaas: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council. Eric Oaas here representing the development entity of Kuna Victory, LLC, which is an entity owned by both -- by two parties. Our company and another development partner of ours. Before I get started I was really actually a little disappointed. I thought all these people were here to show their support for us, but I guess not. The -- we really appreciate you listening to us tonight and -- and at least being willing to hear us out. We appreciate staffs report and I guess I would say this, that to begin with we -- we all are painfully aware of the sort of the economic development issues that we are all facing today and our -- I guess our conversation here with you tonight is really sort of -- it's sort of structured with that thought in mind, that we are all -- we are all sort of in this together and we are trying to do -- trying to do our part to keep economic growth happening and jobs happening and property rolls -- tax rolls increasing for the city and that's the spirit that we are talking to you about tonight. In our -- we have had some discussions with our development partner on this -- on our application or our request for you tonight and we very much appreciate staff recommending at least a 30 day period between now and when our actual preplat application would expire. We have had some preliminary discussions with our -- with our partner and because of the fact that -- that we cannot -- we don't have any firm demand for any -- any economic development projects or development activities I should say on this site, we are struggling really directly with the -- or the requirement to put up 150 -- approximately 150,000 dollar letter of credit, because there just isn't any -- there just isn't any activity to really support that and we just can't -- we just -- realistically we haven't made a final decision and we will over the course of the next 30 days. But it's highly unlikely that we would -- that we would -- or could put up that 150 K LLC or LOC, because there just isn't the activity there to justify it. Now -- so, from our perspective there is really -- there is really two decisions to -- to be made tonight. One is that either -- you know, either the City Council would -- you know, would support these -- the staff recommendation to -- to require us to put this up and in the event that happens, as I said within the next 30 days we will make a final decision, but in all likelihood we will have to let that preplat application expire. We want -- as sort of alternative -- and we haven't talked to staff about this, so we are -- we are sort of -- sort of stepping out in new ground here, but as an alternative we want to -- to sort of propose another way of looking at this and that proposal would be that we would be asking the city to, essentially, work with us on that 150 -- roughly 150 K letter of credit and sort of take some risk with -- with us, if you will. And by that I mean we -- we would -- we would be willing to -- to sort of take a step forward, step out on the limb, if you will, and even though the demand isn't there for any tenants in that development, that we would be willing to step forward, construct the building, and we think that -- we believe that if we took that step, that, you know, quite likely there would be some tenants and businesses that we could -- you know, that we could provide some opportunities for. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 35 of 76 Today, as you know, businesses are just not willing to take that step forward and -- you know, and take a real risk and buy and build a new building, because they just don't know what's going to happen. If we, on the other hand, give them -- give them a building to potentially move into, it makes it an awful lot easier. We, however -- we, however, can't -- we can't take that entire risk on our own and pay the 150 K -- roughly the 150 K in -- in off-site improvement costs and what we would like to -- the city to do is to -- one of two things. That if -- if, in fact, we -- we have to walk away from the preplat and the city needs to move forward with the sewer anyway, that maybe there is another way of looking at that 150 K that the city potentially could have to come up with and one way to -- one way to -- one of two things is what we would propose. That -- that the city defer the 150 K into five equal payments over the next five years. So, 30 -- 30 K per year over the next five years, that way we are not having to carry that additional burden today or the city would defer that 150 K to the end of the development -- or the reimbursement agreement that we currently have in place and if the amount that we would have been reimbursed doesn't cover that 150 K, we would pick up the difference, pay it at that time, as well as any accrued interest. So -- so, at the end of the day what we are saying is we are asking you to work with us and allow us to sort of -- to take a risk -- take a risk, step forward, put up a 10,000 square foot building that's going to increase the city's tax rolls and we think -- we think that it will attract -- attract some businesses, but at the end of the day we are just -- we are just not able to -- to do both, to take the risk on the building and to pay that 150 -- roughly the 150 K in off-site improvement costs. So, it's a -- I know it's throwing a lot at you without your having opportunity to see this ahead of time, but -- but at the end of the day we are -- you know, we are just -- we are looking for you to partner with us, rather than just flat out require us to pay this 150 K today. So, I will stand open to answer any questions. I'm sure it's a little confusing. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Eric, did I -- maybe it went over my head, but, then, it isn't hard to do, but you're asking for 30 days to work with the staff and, then, have a decision made, is that what I'm understanding? Either that or we partner with you now. Oaas: Yeah. Councilman Bird, the staff has recommended that -- that we would have 30 days in which to put up this 150 K letter of credit and that's -- that's, essentially, the recommendation that they are making to you tonight. What I'm saying is that rather than making that decision, we are asking you to, essentially, look at that -- to look at that 150 K in a different way and allow us to defer that over a -- over a five year period or to defer it at the end of the reimbursement period and whatever we would not have been reimbursed we would make up the difference at that time with any accrued interest. Does that make sense? Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 36 of 76 De Weerd: Mr. Oaas, you haven't talked with staff about these options -- Oaas: No. De Weerd: It would -- I think what Mr. Bird was getting at is if -- if these options you're looking at them to consider probably needs to be vetted through staff first and, then, come back without the -- the expiration to extend that until staff can come back with a recommendation and we can hear it again then. I don't know, Council, it seems like that would be probably the best way to look at this. We can continue this public hearing, ask you to work with staff, and, then, come back at a date certain. Bird: I would agree on that. But I think we got to include our Public Works staff, as well as Planning and Zoning, because that, as we all know, is a very important area out there and I certainly want their input. And how long do you suppose we do it -- De Weerd: Pete, do you have -- Friedman: Madam Mayor, Council Members, yeah, I concur with both comments made tonight. Obviously, given the newness of this information, Public Works hasn't had a chance to analyze it and make an informed recommendation for you since we had originally recommended that in approving any time extension that the letter of credit be submitted in 30 days, I guess it would seem reasonable that if we continue this perhaps to your first hearing next month that we give time for Public Works to analyze the proposal and, then, formulate a recommendation back to Council if that's your pleasure. De Weerd: So, that would be April 6th. Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Not to confuse the issue, but I would add a couple other things to consider in what you would work out during a continued period. If I am understanding right, this was already expired; is that correct? Friedman: Yes and no. What happened was -- Madam Mayor, Council Members, Council Member Zaremba, the -- when the extension was applied for and it was granted it was a staff level extension and it had the letter of credit requirement on there, that the applicant did not choose to request the Council review in a timely manner, so it may have expired, but what we said is if you can get -- because what we really need and would like to get before Council and they said, fine, if you can get an application for a time extension in before the date that had for that to expire, which I believe was January 31 st, then, in essence, we have kept it alive by making that request for the extension, so since the second extension application was filed in a timely manner, it pretty much has stopped the clock and given us all time to -- time for us to make our staff report and recommendation and now it seems like you will continue the hearing, everything is Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 37 of 76 pretty much on hold until we can formulate a recommendation back to you and you can act on the time extension, whether conditionally or not. Zaremba: Follow up. Yes. I think I understood and you reconfirmed how I thought about it. So, that leads me to question -- if, eventually, an extension is approved is that, then, 18 months from the day we approve it or 18 months from the original expiration? Friedman: It would be 18 months from the day you approved it. De Weerd: That's consistent with what we have -- yeah. Zaremba: All right. I'm just not asking in this particular application, but all applications. De Weerd: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Friedman: Well, I may have spoken too hastily on that. I would need to research that for you. We can have that for you at the next meeting. Zaremba: Okay. De Weerd: I think that is what we have done in the past. Follow up? Zaremba: Well, it's a separate question and, actually, it's just a comment, I guess. I would be happy if there was a way that we could work something out, but I'm very protective of the reason behind the letter of credit and there is a couple other similar things, performance completion bonds and just giving us cash to hold -- I mean there is several different instruments by which we make sure that we don't -- that we and our taxpayers don't get left holding the bag for something that we were promised and -- not that I doubt you, but you sell the property and the next guy says, well, I don't want to do this and if we find a way around the letters of credits and the other things, we have a lot of people out here that are in the same situation that are going to come back to us and say this is expensive to do and, like I say, I don't have a problem if there is a way we can work out something that works, but we do need to protect the citizens for the reason that this requirement exists in the first place and not open up a can of worms with everybody else who is your competitor, we need to be fair to everybody. As long as we can meet those requirements I'm happy to listen. Oaas: Councilman Zaremba, I think the -- it seems -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it used to be a surety or a letter of credit only; is that correct? Freckleton: Sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Oaas. The city used to be able to accept bonds or letters of credit as an instrument for surety. We several years ago -- I think it was with the UDC changes that we removed the bond as an option for the reasons that they are very difficult to exercise. Essentially with a bond you're Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 38 of 76 dealing with an underwriter and the underwriter makes the decision or determination whether they are going to cash the bond. They are problematic for that reason. And so in the UDC the letter of credit is the -- is the instrument for surety. Oaas: And that's -- Freckleton: And cash. Cash works, too. Oaas: Well, yeah, they are really kind of the same, but thank you. De Weerd: Well, Council, if it sounds feasible to continue this discussion, certainly I would -- it looks like Mr. Oaas and staff are ready for those discussions. I would entertain a motion to do so. Zaremba: And, Madam Mayor, just a feeling. Does this need to be continued for a month or would March 23rd -- how much pressure are we putting on people to work this out? Friedman: Since Public Works will be primarily involved with this and they have indicated that March 23rd seems to be a reasonable day, we could continue it to March 23rd. Zaremba: Okay. Madam Mayor, I move we -- De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba, just let me take a look at -- I think the 23rd -- Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Is that where we moved our discussion? Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: I was going to say, that's the night we were going to have a discussion about the solid waste collection and it may be a fairly lengthy meeting. De Weerd: Yeah. I would suggest April 6th. Nary: And also your purchasing policy is back on there, too. Zaremba: All right. That works for me. The 6th, is that what you said? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I'm not flipping my calendar fast enough. All right. So, I move that we continue public hearing TE 10-002 on Emerson Park to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2010. Hoaglun: Second. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 39 of 76 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. Oaas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. E. Continued from February 23, 2010 MFP 09-004 Southridge Subdivision No. 1 by Linder 109, LLC, Meridian Library District and Joint School District No. 2 Located at Southwest Corner of West Overland Road and South Linder Road Request for Modification to the Street Sections Shown on the Final Plat to Include the Addition of Detached Sidewalks Along Spanish Sun and Spanish Fork Streets; and Modification to the Roadway Improvements Along the South Boundary of Phase 1 to Reduce the Amount of Asphalt and Concrete Curb De Weerd: Okay. Under Item 8-E is a continued -- was continued from February 23rd. MFP 09-004. 1 will ask for staff comments at this time. Watters: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next application before you is a modification to the approved final plat for Southridge Subdivision No. 1. The property is located on the southwest comer of West Overland Road and South Linder Road. Some highlights of the request and staff recommendation following. The applicants request approval to construct the northern half street section of Heavy Timber Drive, plus an additional 12 feet with an interim gravel shoulder, instead of the full street section as shown on the construction drawing approved with the final plat. As you can see on the overhead here, this is the approved street section for Heavy Timber. It was a condition of approval that the subdivision improvements shown on the construction drawings be constructed with development of the final plat. Therefore, staff does not recommend approval of the requested modification that would allow for only a portion of the street section to be constructed at this time. The second modification, the applicant requests approval to construct five foot wide detached sidewalks with eight foot wide landscape parkways along South Spanish Sun Way and South Spanish Fork Way, instead of ten foot wide attached sidewalks as previously approved. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal for the following reasons: The first, the proposed design is consistent with the previously approved street section for Spanish Fork Way south of American Fork Drive. And, second, the UDC requires a minimum of five foot wide detached sidewalks with eight foot wide landscaped parkways along collector streets as proposed by the applicant. So, staff is supportive of this modification to the final plat. And this is the proposed street section on the overhead here. The next request by the applicant is a clarification that the following items are required to be completed with the first phase of development as depicted on the master plan. Included in the development Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 40 of 76 agreement and as conditions of approval of the preliminary plat be deferred until such time as the applicable phasing within which they are associated are platted. The first is construction of a multi -use pathway and five foot wide buffer along the Ridenbaugh Canal, as depicted on the plan in front of you. The second is the construction of the club house and swimming pool. And the third is the dedication of the private park and landscape buffers and approximately 8.9 acres of common area. Staff realizes that due to market demands the developer would not able to include the larger area designated on the phasing plan of phase one, in which the above listed items are located within the first phase of the final plat. Staff envisions these amenities being constructed with the applicable phase in which they are associated prior to the development of the mega lots. However, in order to officially defer the requirements for these items, the modification to the development agreement is necessary. Therefore, staff is recommending the applicants apply for a modification to the development agreement to update the timing of construction of these items. Staff does not feel that Council action on this item is necessary. The next item is in regard to the street light requirement, which I will tum over to Public Works to address. Kerns: Tim Kerns with Public Works, engineering division. De Weerd: Thank you, Tim. Kerns: The third request is for approval of streetlights within the platted area to be installed as required in the preliminary plat general requirement 119, as opposed to the plan previously approved by Public Works and staff recommends that the applicants install street lighting on the site consistent with the minimum guidelines stated in preliminary plat condition of approval 2.31 as shown on the approved street light plan included in Exhibit A-6. Old background on how -- with this item how we get to streetlight layout. It's the standard practice of Public Works that we provide a streetlight layout to the developer when they are ready at that time and they request it, not for the consulting engineer the developer to provide it. So, we actually provide the street layout for them and approve it, so we provided a layout for Southridge with 100 watt interior streetlights and 250 watt exterior streetlights to safely light the streets and the sidewalks with that subdivision shown there in Exhibit A-6. Mr. Jewett asked if we could further reduce the lights that we had out there possible -- if it was possible. And so I stretched the spacing as far as we were comfortable with. He felt it was still an excessive amount of streetlights and asked if we could reduce it some more and staff wasn't comfortable reducing the locations and number any further. So, given the safety benefits of the streetlights, we just didn't feel like any further reduction could be done. So, that's just kind of a brief rundown on the streetlight layout. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this time. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, quick question for Tim. So, the sheet that we see and that's before us on the screen, is that the revised addition that you guys worked on? Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 41 of 76 Kerns: Correct. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Tim. Any further comment from staff? Kerns: None. Friedman: None. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Jewett: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. For the record, Jim Jewett, 1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. With permission from the Mayor, I would like to take each item individually and, then, stand for questions, so I can try to keep them separate, if I could, if that would be okay. De Weerd: Okay. Jewett: Thank you. So, on the first item where the -- the staff is in agreement, I will only stand for questions at the end for that one. So, I will go onto the -- the half street. So, I'm going to start by giving the background. When we were first working through this subdivision in a preliminary plat stage, we originally were proposing I believe 181 lots in the preliminary first phrase. That was back when we were all crazy developing too many lots and we all see our error of our ways now. So, subsequent to that we asked for a reduction or a phrasing plan that would phase that first preliminary plat into three phases, with the first phase that we submitted of 54 lots. That street that's in question was at the southern boundary of that division, butting on a nonpreliminary plat, which would generally be built as a half plus 12 to allow for that future development to dictate what happens on that side of the street as far as approaches, utilities, that's just generally what we would do. So, when the final plat was submitted, the engineers just included it. I did not catch that until pre -con with ACHD and so we needed to correct this, because there is a lot of utilities and a lot of planning that has to go in that preliminary plat to the south boundary that I don't want to tear out curb, landscaping, and gutter, sidewalks, to not -- not knowing what that preliminary plat would -- layout would look like. So, although I agree the UDC requires that any plat -- any improvement that we show in the preliminary plat must be improved, that's why we are requesting the modification to that final plat. That road would still be improved, it simply will be improved when that next preliminary plat goes forward. Just as you heard earlier tonight -- or a half plus 12 was going to be built with a future development building the rest of it. We are asking for no different than that. We are not asking to reduce our requirements on our plat, simply to adjust the sequencing of when certain improvements occur. Also in consideration of why we are requesting that it not be built -- obviously finances and the cost of our lots is important. In today's market lots are being discounted by banks that are foreclosing as well below what it costs for us to replace Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 42 of 76 the lot without including land. That's what we have to compete against. We have decided in this phase to go forward to get it started, even though that we will lose money on the first phase, getting this project going I think is a better benefit than waiting for the market to change. So, I'm going to have our engineer come up and talk to you about what discussions he's had with ACHD about whether or not we can or cannot perform the half plus 12 and give you his history and, then, we will stand for questions on that particular issue. Densmer: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Jason Densmer, I'm with The Land Group. Our address is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. As Mr. Jewett's engineer, he's correct that customarily where streets abut properties that are likely to develop in the future and in this case a mega lot a subsequent preliminary plat application that will have to come to the city, we would normally design that street to be the half that serves the lots on that side. Put 12 feet of asphalt and an interim gravel shoulder to allow for flexibility in the future. We have discussed this at length and over some time now with ACHD and they agree that there are really three different options available moving forward and that the half plus 12 section is certainly a viable alternative that they would support. In doing that they would request that instead of dedicating the full 50 feet of right of way, in which case ACHD would receive some unimproved right of way, that the plat boundary on the south side be adjusted to only result in an overall 45 feet of right of way, basically, allowing ACHD opportunity in the future to assure that that right of way gets developed to a full street section when they receive southerly five feet of right of way. If you have any questions I can address them. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this point? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. One more comment on the street. I do recognize that we did submit our final plat with the construction drawings that were approved by both ACHD and the city with that full street. That we did do that. So, I do recognize it's -- it's a request of the city to us that we remove that portion from it. Secondly, the street lighting. In our original conditions of approval it talks about our street lighting, that doesn't -- what it speaks of in the street lighting is a minimum requirement of intersections, fire hydrants, the entrance at collector roads and no greater than 400 feet and that was consistent with every plat that had went forward before that and as I drove in tonight I drove through a couple of them and some of them didn't meet that standard. But when we submitted our construction drawings we like to submit our lighting plan, because we need to know where our sleeving is going to be and where we can provide that to cross the road. We were asked to remove that street lighting plan when we submitting our construction drawings and got our final plat approved. It wasn't a year -- it wasn't a year later until we got something from the city after many requests on what the street lighting was going to be, what the street lighting was going to be. When we Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 43 of 76 got the street lighting plan we were completely shocked. There was considerably more lights than what we would expect, considerably more lights than the standard as you read it would require and considerably more lights than required on any developer in the past. And also during the construction and design of Overland Road we raised the question of street lighting several times with the city. What was wanted, what was required. ACHD finally approved the street lighting plans, because we got no comments from the city and we did a conduit plan, because there was nobody to pay for those street lights. So, we provided a conduit plan that was put in, it was installed. Then, the street lighting plan comes out for Overland that's completely different and more intense than what was approved that was seemingly approved with some set of standards that ACHD and my engineer used. So, we met with staff and my concerns were that where did these standards come from. I had not been informed of any change of standards, whether a policy change was going forward or where it was coming from, although we had requested several times within the year what those were going to be. And when we came out we said can we compromise, so we can just get this project moving. They did provide a compromise, I felt that it was still excessive to what our conditions of approval are and to where the standards are coming from. I mean was there a public process which adopted some policy on what the street lighting plan would be? And also the type of lighting. There is now a standard for a light -- and Jason will show it to you in a minute -- for these collection roads that potentially I don't really want in front of my subdivision, but if it's going to be a city standard I'd like to see it uniformly adopted. I can leave my project and drive to Eagle Road and only see a signal light at every signal. Excuse me. Streetlight at every signal. No street lighting. I can drive down Fairview, I can drive down Locust Grove, all new roads in front of my office that don't have streetlights, but yet I'm being requested to put streetlights on. both Linder and Overland at some 150 to 200 foot spacing that I don't believe anybody has been requested or required to do in the past and I guess I need to seek clarification of where those requirements are coming from and how they were adopted without the development community that I can know every was aware of. The staff talks about unsafe. Boy, if the lighting that I'm submitting is unsafe, then, what are you going to do with the rest of the city that has far inferior to what I'm submitting? We are covering every intersection, we are covering every fire hydrant, and we do not exceed 400 feet and Jason has a map that shows you what we have submitted and has all the dimensions on it that shows that. As far as this very issues is what are we going to do about section line roads? Am I going to be required to put all those streetlights up Overload Road? And who is going to be required to put all the streetlights down Ten Mile? I'm understanding, I don't know for sure on what ITD's is, but I think ACHD only has signal lights on Ten Mile north of Franklin at the signalization again. So, why are we building new roads there and yet I'm being required to put lights on it every 200 feet at a cost of, you know, 3,000 dollars apiece to me. So, with that I'll have Jason come up and show you what we have submitted and what we have been provided. De Weerd: I would ask not yet. I would like comment from staff on what testimony we just received in terms of the time frame it took us to provide comment on the light plan and are we really asking this developer to do more than we have asked anyone else to? Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 44 of 76 Kerns: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the original plan that was provided I believe was provided sometime in the -- towards the end of the summer. I believe the turnaround time on that may have been a few weeks. The second plan -- or the request to have it revised was made sometime in the mid fall and I believe we provided that at the beginning of December. De Weerd: Okay. Tim, I guess we are hearing a suggestion that these requirements are more than what we are asking of others. Do we have a policy and is this consistent with it? Kerns: We do have a policy. Our new policy is not the policy which we used for this particular subdivision. It was previous to our new policy. Our new policy would require street lighting on whatever street the subdivision's affecting -- what the development is affecting. The previous policy was, basically, to set lights at a spacing so that we don't have large dark spots in between and that was the procedure that was used for this subdivision. As far as lights along the section roads, we haven't frequently required those. In fact, I'm not sure quite how often we have. This is the first one I did myself. But that was exactly the point was that we wanted it -- we wanted to be able to provide a streetlight layout that was based on something and for that we used the American Society of -- American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials guidelines for street lighting as a guide to make sure that we meet some kind of minimum lighting levels. De Weerd: Well, certainly I'm an advocate of lighting, but I do agree that as we look at policies that we do it through the public process and allow for comment. I know we had this discussion, especially with the energy efficiency block grant and how we can have better street lighting. It is an issue and certainly as we have seen 19 percent decrease in our crime rate, I think a lot of that was probably in crime in new construction areas that probably aren't well lit. So, there is a reason to have it, I just don't know if we can impose it on something without having gone through the process and I guess that's certainly Council's decision tonight, but -- Jewett: So, Madam Mayor, Council, for point of clarification, I don't know when -- when Tim specifically got involved in the street lighting. We submitted a street lighting plan with the construction drawings for the final plat that was over a year and a half ago and it wasn't until late last summer through Jason's insistence that we get something back from them. So, we waited over a year. But I'm not saying that Tim -- I don't know when he got involved. We were introduced with Tim last summer. That's the first involvement we had with him. But we requested it a year prior to that. So, that's the point of clarification. The other point I want to -- I want to clear up -- it -- I want consistency in our project. You know, the project is going to be multiple phases for multiple years and what I want and I spoke to Tim about it, I want a standard that we can adhere to throughout the whole project and say, okay, we know what we got to do. We got to do this, this and this and it's just going to be uniform. The other side issue is how we are going to address -- as Tim spoke I don't know -- he said I don't know if anybody's required to have done section line roads and I don't know of one that was. Not that Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 45 of 76 there hasn't been in the past, but I don't know one that was and with that requirement on us I think there is five additional lights being required on us that are section line roads that are non -entrance and the conditions of approval say section line roads at the entrance. De Weerd: Okay. Jim, I guess in -- just to make an observation. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to do phase one without all of the necessary improvements you do leave yourself open to -- if there is a new policy that is a policy that your new phases would adhere to. So, you want some here and you don't want it there. I think that is an unfair request that you're making, just for the record. Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, what I want to do is make it fair. And what I want to do is -- if we are going to have a standard that's going to be adopted citywide, that it go through the public process. De Weerd: I understand that. Jewett: But for our particular plat, I just as soon find an acceptable mechanism in which the conditions of approval can be uniformly set across the entire plat at this point. I don't know exactly, but I would believe that something new would not be retroactive back to this plat, but, you're correct, the future plats within Southridge are not preliminary platted yet, so they are not bound by any old ordinance, they are going to be bound by any ordinance that's been in effect when we actually ask for those preliminary plats. So, one of my suggestions might be is that we can find some middle ground. We are going to have to do another DA mod. We will just adjust these conditions of approval to set a standard that's going to be uniform across the entire plat. I just got to find out what that uniformity is. I believe that we can accept all the interior lights that he's asked, it's just the section line roads is the one we are having the real heartburn with. So, with that, again, I'll have Jason show you what we have. De Weerd: I would ask Council any questions before Jason comes up? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Jim, the only thing I fear is this -- we approve something here and, then, every plat that comes in we are going to have this same argument. It's not -- it's going to be -- want to move from this standard, because we are doing it this way or something like that. That's my one fear, to be truthful with you. Jewett: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I agree with you one hundred percent and that's why codified in some ordinance and, then, we all live by the same standard and we can't come and ask for different things and the only thing we can fall back on is the conditions of approval that I have today, which our map meets that requirement and so Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 46 of 76 -- but I agree with you, we should have it, that there is no question that anybody can come forward and say, well, he, she, shouldn't have them. De Weerd: Okay. Densmer: Madam Mayor, just to -- De Weerd: If you will just state your name once again. Densmer: Jason Densmer. De Weerd: Every time you get up and down, you know, I'm sorry. Densmer: That's fine. If you can bear with me, I kind of expected a document camera. De Weerd: There is -- Friedman: Jason, we can put it up over here. Densmer: That would be fine. Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just while they are setting that up, many of the policies or standards that Mr. Jewett is talking about -- not all of those are encapsulated in ordinances and so I think we are talking about two different things here and so not all of those things are in ordinances for a variety of reasons and one of them is flexibility, one of them standards do change for a variety of reasons. I don't disagree that a process is appropriate in making sure the Council adopts that as a standard or a policy for the city, but for every standard or requirement or policy of the city to be encapsulated into an ordinance is not practical or reasonable and it's not common in my experience. So, I think there is a little disconnect here about what standards are, what's necessary to require that Mr. Jewett adhere to and it does not have to all be in ordinance as he's asking. De Weerd: Okay. Densmer: So, on the overhead you can see the layout that we propose to staff. It meets the conditions of approval and providing a light at entrances and intersections and fire hydrants and spacing not exceeding 400 feet, which seems to very much in conformance with the conditions of approval. The direction we were provided by Mr. Kerns is on a second overhead. He had proposed 17 fixtures in total and we are directed that 31 would be better. Although I didn't measure the distance between the recommended locations, if you were providing -- De Weerd: Excuse me, but that's not the one that is in front of us. Densmer: No. That was the initial one. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 47 of 76 De Weerd: Okay. We saw it, so -- Densmer: Since then it's been take down to 25. De Weerd: Okay. Densmer: But still includes a number of fixtures along the arterials of Overland and Linder particularly that are of fairly large concern. It may be concerning to you also -- I don't know to the level that any of these fixtures have been installed before, but the particular fixture type that we were directed to use is a -- specifically it's a GE model M400, which I agree they are everywhere, I just don't see them in Meridian very often. They are called a cobra head fixture and they remind me of Los Angeles in about 1960 or so. De Weerd: If you want to give it to staff they can put that also up. Densmer: It doesn't seem correct, but it doesn't seem negotiable either, to provide those along the collector roads inside the subdivision. I certainly don't see them in other projects in Meridian, so -- De Weerd: You know, fortunately, we don't always do what we have done in the past and I could cite a number of things that we have -- we have learned from and so just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's -- there doesn't have a good reason behind it. Densmer: Well, Madam Mayor, I agree, there is a lot of things that I haven't seen and that doesn't mean that only the things I see are good ideas. De Weerd: Have you asked for explanation from staff? Densmer: We have. De Weerd: And that has not satisfied your questions? Densmer: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Tim, if you could satisfy at least the question that's been raised. Kerns: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that particular light there that is shown is a suggested model. We can't, as a government agency, require a specific model. We can -- we basically state you can use this one or an approved equal and we are willing to look at any other types. This particular type is also only for use on the section line roads exterior to the development, not on the inside. That would be a standard shoe box light that we use in all of our other developments. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 48 of 76 De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Did the applicant give you -- or equal or something to look at, Tim? Kerns: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bird, no, I did not receive a request to look at a different model. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Jewett. Jewett: Council, we provided cut sheets on our plan that specifies what lights we wanted to use specifically and that's the standard lights you see in every subdivision and they are (right on our plan. I don't know how to illustrate, but you will see on the right-hand side the two cut sheets, one is a section line road and one is the interior. So, we have submitted and it's just what you see in every subdivision. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Did you submit this with cut sheets and specifications on this light? Jewett: Yes. Bird: Is that the same type of -- you submitted the same type as the Luminair -- what we see on the Luminair? Jewett: What we are providing up here on the illustrator is what we submitted. Bird: And it's got all the specifications and stuff on it? Jewett: It's right out of the specifications book. Bird: Okay. Hoaglun: So, real quick, before we leave that, Jim, you said you were -- you did plan for having lighting on section line -- Jewett: At the entrances. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 49 of 76 Hoaglun: At the entrances. Okay. Thank you. Jewett: Having said that, I don't agree that whatever I put at the entrance should be different than the rest of the street, it should be all consistent. But as Jason said, I don't think I have seen this particular galvanized matched on cobra head used in the city to date. It's used a lot in Boise. I mean it's what you see predominately in Boise on all their new streets. Hoaglun: And, Jim, if I -- just to clarify, when you say consistent, do you mean style or the lighting wattage -- I can't remember the correct term. When you say consistent -- Jewett: I have a -- you know, I have a problem of being frank. They are ugly. They are just not very attractive. Hoaglun: The arm that -- Jewett: And my objection to it -- but at the end of the day, if it's the city's desire to have this consistent on this section line road, then, so be it. I will adhere to it. But I haven't seen that consistency and I haven't seen any type of public forum that even discussed it. I believe Ten Mile is being built without street lighting. I don't know how much of it north or south of Franklin -- and I guess I'd just like to see it consistent. I leave my site and I drive Eagle Road and there is not a streetlight from when I leave until I get to Eagle Road, except over the signals and yet now I'm being required to put them at the spacing that's provided here. And to me -- if it's safety I'm not going to argue safety, because I'm all for that, but there has got to be a balance who pays. You know, it's -- I think it's my understanding in talking in Boise -- the city of Boise pays for their streetlights on section line roads when ACHD does projects. So, I'd simply like to be involved in -- if there is going to be some public forum in which to discuss this, that we discuss it. But here we are today. I have a set of conditions of approval that I interpret the way Jason interprets and the staff has -- has taken a revised stand based on policy change that's post the -- our plat being approved. How do I blend that with what's going to happen in the future with our project is what I need to find out, how we do that, and I don't know. I'm here saying I think it's excessive, but I haven't had enough research in it to say one way or another that it's unsafe. It just seems like the amount of lighting that is provided in the original plan, which has been revised by six, and we do appreciate that. And I think if we could deal with the section line roads I don't think there would be an objection, but I'm hearing that in the future it's going to be back to what the original plan they submitted and I'm saying, okay, I don't want to do phase one different than the rest of the phases and it's not I want my cake and eat it, too, I just want consistency. Hoaglun: Okay. Jewett: But if that's truly the policy, then, I guess I have to adjust. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 50 of 76 Hoaglun: Madam Mayor. Let's try to knock some of these off the table, if you will, and we can deal with the ones that we need to deal with. Internal lots. When I looked at the plan submitted that Jason put up there I think on yours you had 17 lights on the internal sections, what -- the nonsection lights, leaving the ones at the intersection as you propose. On the plan that we have here, again, not counting the section line lights, 21 are required. Did I hear you say correctly -- did I correctly hear you say that you're fine with that -- with that 21, it's the section line lights that you have the biggest problem with? Jewett: It is. Hoaglun: Are you regretting that you said that? Jewett: No. I want to have consistency and if that's going to be the requirement going forward, I'm not going to short change a phase to have phasing two look different. Hoaglun: Well, you know, last night I -- it was a beautiful evening, my folks live a mile away in the same development, and I took a walk down, my dad needed help moving something, so I was getting my exercise. It's exactly one mile and that's the thing when you're on City Council you pay attention to things like streetlights, because I had read about this over the weekend, doing my study and I start looking at streetlights and by what I see that Public Works has here and this development is less than ten years old, about -- that area would be about five, six years old, what they show here is about what they had on that development. So, to me that was, okay, that's consistent. What I see being required here was consistent with what was applied five, six years ago. So, to me there hasn't been a lot of change for what they required. Now, it sounds like there is change for future developments and, again, as we talked about and the Mayor talked about, future plats, that if it's not platted you're going to fall under those guidelines for what's platted and what's been discussed I think we have met the minimum requirements, so we can -- we can take out the lights that are internal and say, okay, Public Works says you need 21, plus the entrances, we are not talking about design for those entrances, you don't like -- they are ugly, that sort of thing, so if now the section line lights and what they look like at those entrances, is that -- are we that far yet? Jewett: Madam Mayor, Commissioner Hoaglun, yes. Hoaglun: Okay. Jewett: That would be acceptable. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: I would say that that's where we are at. Hoaglun: Okay. Now, for the section line lights at the entrances, those were in your -- your original thing that you sent to them. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 51 of 76 Jewett: In the conditions of approval. Hoaglun: It's in the conditions of approval. Now it's just a matter of what type of lights those are and Tim or Bruce, whoever wants to answer this, is there a reason why we have -- have the arms or are we trying to get more light out onto a major roadway? Kerns: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Hoaglun, that's exactly correct. The light -- the two light types that Mr. Jewett submitted there on the right, those are drawings of some of the state standards and they are pretty typical for what you would find in Idaho and the top one with the mast arm, the reason for using those on the entrances and external roads is simply because they project the light. So, they are designed for a high speed facility, a larger facility, and they project the light farther out. If you were to put them internal to the development they would project light into people's windows and whatnot, so -- Hoaglun: Which -- okay. I understand that. Now, the section lines, the Mayor asked a question -- section line lights that are not at the entrances, those were also the same -- they would also be the projecting type lights -- Kerns: Correct. Hoaglun: -- but I want to go back to a question she asked earlier to make sure I understood the answer. Is that something we have required in the past and have we gone through a process to say that will be a requirement? Kerns: I don't believe we have required those in the past. The new standards that we now have are the -- were developed the AASHTO standards that I mentioned earlier, so they are the minimum lighting levels that were -- that AASHTO suggests as a guide and that particular lighting guide is widely accepted throughout the United States. Hoaglun: So, to follow up, Madam Mayor and Tim. So, future developments, future plats, whether it's here or other parts of Overland Road or down Ten Mile, they will be subject to that -- that design -- that requirement -- not design. Requirement. Kerns: As it stands now. Hoaglun: Okay. I think we are getting somewhere. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Jewett: Well, I don't know if anything was decided on the section line road. De Weerd: They don't need to yet. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 52 of 76 Jewett: Okay. Then what I'd ask -- and it does not have to occur tonight -- is that -- and whoever you direct me to engage this with, is to come up with a lighting plan for Overland Road on our side of the road that we can come up with some mechanism to get all those lights in, so that it matches the other side of Overland Road, which I think ACHD is going to move forward to finish the north side and then -- so, we can -- so they can include that in their plan, so that we get Overland, at least on this section, completed. And however you direct me to go forward, that's -- I really would like to see that happen, since we have already got the conduit plan started on our side and so we can get it finished on the other. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This a public hearing. Is there public testimony on this item? Any further staff comments? Council, any questions for staff or the applicant? Zaremba: I assume you're asking on this one bullet point. There is two more bullet points. De Weerd: Did you have further comment, Mr. Jewett? I figured since he sat down he was done. Jewett: I did say at the end -- De Weerd: We knew it was hopeful. Jewett: Yeah. I did say at the beginning that at the end I would stand for questions on the other items that I did not have any issues with, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Jewett: -- with that I would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Actually, my question on the second bullet point would be directed to our parks director Mr. Siddoway. De Weerd: And if you could explain what the second bullet point is, so -- Zaremba: The second bullet is that the applicant requests approval to construct a five foot detached sidewalk with an eight foot wide landscape, which is something that sounds appealing, but that is instead of a ten foot wide attached sidewalk that was previously approved and whenever I see the ten foot wide immediately comes to mind pull a multi -use pathway and what I'm asking the parks director about is did we originally ask for a ten foot wide -- because we think that's a multi -use pathway connecting to something else? Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, let me -- let me clarify that. That ten foot attached sidewalk had tree wells taking take up five feet of that ten foot. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 53 of 76 Zaremba: Okay. Jewett: Still only leaving five foot of usable area. We decided to have -- and the rest of the subdivision would simple be eight foot detached. So, we decided that consistency -- and staff agreed with us that a consistency in that area was better. The multi -use pathway that we specifically asked to be sequenced in those -- in those phasings is still going to be constructed, it's just in a later phase and, then, I'll let Steve -- Zaremba: So, if I understood that, there is a multi -use pathway, but it's not along the two streets that we are talking about. Jewett: That is correct. De Weerd: Mr. Siddoway. Zaremba: I would ask if Mr. Siddoway has anything to add to that. I know we are putting you on the spot here to remember all the maps, but -- Siddoway: Yeah. I did not come prepared to -- I have not looked at the multi -use pathway, but I know there is one along the Ridenbaugh Canal. I do believe that is in a future phase. And there is also one along Ten Mile. That would be for a portion of this. As to this specific sidewalk, I would defer to planning staff. Watters: Council -- Councilman Zaremba, Madam Mayor, Councilmen, that is not a multi -use pathway along Spanish Fork Way and Spanish Sun Way. The reason it was a requirement for a ten foot wide sidewalk was because the applicant originally showed that on their plans, thus, making it a requirement now. Zaremba: Okay. Watters: So, they are just asking to provide a detached sidewalk with an eight foot wide landscape parkway instead, which we agree is consistent with the rest of the development and we would rather see that than just pavement. Zaremba: And that's even an improvement and I -- just trying to protect our pathways, if that's what was the original thought, so thank you. And this is kind of unrelated, but I have noticed that it looks like you are realigning the Ridenbaugh Canal at some point in a future phrase of this -- Jewett: Oh, I think it's done. Zaremba: Oh, it's done? Okay. But what I meant was the plat will be a future phase. Jewett: Correct. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 54 of 76 Zaremba: I assume that the multi -use pathway is going to go along the new alignment of the Ridenbaugh; is that correct? Jewett: Well, I'm glad you asked that, but I'd like to put my two cents in on one other issue. I hope all your -- De Weerd: Unrelated to this application. Zaremba: It is unrelated to this, but -- De Weerd: But thank you for the side road question. Jewett: I'm sure most of you are aware that ACHD is now moving forward with completing Ten Mile all the way to our realigned entrance, which calls into question the multi -use pathway down that. Currently it does not show that multi -use pathway down that alignment and across the freeway. I'd ask the land engineers to talk to ACHD about that and I just don't know if you guys were aware of that. We had proposed realigning the multi -use pathway up along Overland, across the new intersection of Overland and back to down Ten Mile. So, we -- our plans are a ten foot multi -use pathway in that location. I hate to see our -- and, then, ACHD put something in that has to be tore up. If some input could be put on that, I'd appreciate it. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Gary Inselman from ACHD and this is related to the Heavy Timber Drive and request to -- De Weerd: Can we get the different map? Hoaglun: Yeah. There is a different map that interim gravel shoulder, instead of a full street section. And this is bullet point one. What is ACHD's position on -- on that sort of thing? There was some comment about what they would require for right of way and different things. Can you explain that? De Weerd: Can we get the different slide? Watters: It's on your screen, Madam Mayor. The applicant did not submit a proposed street section. This is the approved street section. Inselman: Madam Mayor and Council Members, Gary Inselman again. ACHD. Our position has been -- it was originally submitted as a full street section, that's the way the plat was submitted. If the plat remained with the full right of way, then, we wanted to see the full street. If the city approved amending the plat to reduce the right of way, we would approve the reduced street section. But as submitted and as approved — previously approved, it was the full street section. So, that's what -- where we were at with the plans. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 55 of 76 Hoaglun: Okay. Thanks, Gary. You got a good workout tonight. To follow up on that, Madam Mayor, staff, I'm trying to think and I don't have a long history here on this Council, but how often has this occurred? I can't think of any streets in Meridian in developments going in that we have done that, but I could be wrong. Like I said, I don't have a long history. Friedman: Madam Mayor, Councilmen -- Council Members, I can't give you specifics, but I can give you circumstances and typically when we do have a situation where we have the half plus 12 occur is where we have development occur and we have that development occurring by one particular property owner, but we don't have a development application on the other side of the street. That really kind of comes back to I think the example we talked about tonight with Park Lane is a very good example. We have the Kleiner Park being built on the north. You have the Kleiner family trust property to the south, who currently has no development plans on that. So, in order to accommodate the two-way traffic on that Park -- future Park Lane, we get the half street plus 12. So, that's the typical situation where we have that occur. Again, in this situation we have one developer, even though it's a development that's occurring in phases and that the full street section was portrayed on the preliminary plat and it's approved as part of the preliminary and final plat. The code says the responsibility and liability to construct the improvements as shown on the public record, if you will, before the Council rests with the developer, unless, of course, waived by the Council. So, that's kind of a long winded way of I hope answering your question. Hoaglun: Got it. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: The two examples that I can think of would have -- would be Pine east of Black Cat. There is a portion of that that I think was built as half plus 12 and the other -- it doesn't connect to Ten Mile yet, but if you start at Black Cat and go east, there is a full section and, then, I think a little bit farther down it's a half plus 12. I'm not absolutely sure of that, but I think it was. And that's a case where there are different owners on the opposite side of the street. The other one would have been a connection between Lanark and Pine that never got built. It was a requirement of what somebody was going to put in and, then, they ended up not doing anything and, therefore, I think that one has disappeared. But it was, again, a case where there were different owners on opposite sides of the street. This is a little unique to have that request by somebody who owns both sides of the future street and I guess I can understand the phasing, but to me that does make it unusual from the other times that that has been required. De Weerd: I think there is a couple of other developments, but, you know, I -- I do know it's difficult economic times and, then, those and I guess my opinion is if ACHD doesn't have an issue with it and it doesn't provide a safety issue, I guess my comments are more geared towards the lighting and some of the ideas behind -- we have to start Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 56 of 76 addressing some of our lighting issues and it seems like staff has been working towards solutions in that regard. I'd rather see the complete road money. If you want to limit the up front expense to go to lighting and wait to get the full road, if it doesn't hamper safety services or ACHD requirements, but that's a personal opinion. Any final comments from the applicant? Jewett: Madam Mayor, Council, I just appreciate the time tonight and appreciate your consideration in the matter. We want to just be part of the city and be a future part of a growing Meridian and be proactive in that and, again, as to the lighting on Overland Road, I really would like to engage the city and come up with a plan that we can provide ACHD for their -- they are going to handle the north side of Overland Road and, like I say, have provided a conduit on our side, so we'd just like to find some -- some staging, phasing, financial consideration as far as how all that is going to get done. De Weerd: And I understand that and I guess, Jim, you have to understand, too, that this is a new part of town and there is nothing out there. I think there are some real legitimate safety concerns to make sure that we do have light and that we can help protect your investments as you're building out there, too. And that's going to be equally important. Jewett: I agree. And because there is nothing out there it gives us the opportunity to lay down the foundation for going forward and I want to be a part of that, so that we are consistent. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: Again, thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if you have no further questions for staff or applicant, if you're ready to close this public hearing, I would entertain a motion. Okay. Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Tim, to go back to lighting on our section lines, then, does ACHD have a particular plan in place that you're aware of or what they are to look like? We talked earlier about the arm. Is that what they are going for? Do we know that for certain that's where they are headed? Kerns: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Councilman Hoaglun, ACHD only provides conduit in their roadway projects for the cities or if we require development to, then, install the lights, so they won't be installing any lights. The type of light that we have specified for these roads is similar to ACHD does use at their intersections, but with the mast arm. I don't know if that totally answers your question. Hoaglun: No. That's good. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 57 of 76 Hoaglun: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing on MFP 09-004. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, for discussion, start with the lighting. I really do want to see where this plan that Public Works has brought forth with the 21 lights that are within the development and at the intersections to go in. I think that's -- the minimum standard, I think as Tim indicated earlier, that's as far as they want to go. It provides the safety and this -- this is operating under the old standard and that's -- that's what we have to deal with. I'm a little tom on the section lighting. That was something that's new and in the process that we go through to -- to bring folks into that, we want to have comments, we want to have a plan, we want to make sure everyone knows what the rules are ongoing forward. But this being a major development that a --South Linder and Overland Road in a location where there will likely be an overpass some day, you know, we want to do this right from the get go. I'm willing to trade the half of the street — I didn't think I would be, but if -- for all of the lighting required and only half construction on -- on that road, but I just -- that's where my thoughts are right now. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Regarding the lighting along Overland Road, I -- I think that it's important that we go along with that and also on Linder for the simple fact because we got Ten Mile and Franklin coming up we are going to -- I'm sure going to want them — we do need to get a policy in place that -- or a standard that covers this. I have a real problem of not doing that road complete. I -- I don't know. I just — I have a real problem with that, the 21 interior lights, but I also — I think that we need to go along Overland and Linder with some lighting, too. De Weerd: You know, I guess I understand your hesitation, Mr. Bird, but in terms of — we have had these half roads in the middle of subdivisions before and the only difference is between ownership and that's the only difference. So, I guess just to restate, you know, it is a give and take and, you know, I agree with Mr. Jewett and the need to make sure that there is consistency along the -- both Overland and Linder in regards to the lighting and certainly we need to make sure as new development moves Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 58 of 76 forward there is an understanding of there will be an expectation to plug something into that conduit that ACHD lays along those road improvements, so it doesn't catch someone off guard and it does have to be part of that business pro forma and I guess in terms of that, so that business pro forma has a chance to work itself out I would agree with Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And just to comment on that further, Councilman Bird, I recognize the fact it is unusual, because it is one owner. It hasn't been done, it's always been between the two. I look at it as part of the economic times. I know staff isn't recommending that. I'm not excited to do it. At the same time, I have to be prepared that if -- if a future developer comes in I'd have to be consistent. It's -- I could still be persuaded, but that's where I'm leaning right now. So, I'm open to your best argument. Bird: I don't have no argument, I just -- I just think that we talk about economic times, it's going to -- I don't think construction is any cheaper than it's been in 40 years right now. So, you're not saving -- you know, a year or two years from now asphalt might be twice what it is now. I just -- I just think it could cause some confusion on the way down on out on this, as you start developing the rest of it. I really do. Pretty soon it's going to be every time you come in with a phase we only complete half of a road and that's exactly what's going to happen. You're setting a precedent here. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: And this is a question for staff. ACHD has made it plain that the only way they would not require the whole road to be built is if the plat boundary was moved. That's an entirely new re-application process, isn't it? Friedman: Yes, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I think that's -- I mean the real issue tonight is just amending that plat condition and, yeah, to move that plat boundary is going to required a new -- require a new plat. Zaremba: So, in fact, the roadway agency isn't going to allow them to build half plus 12 anyhow it sounds to me. That's the roadway authority. De Weerd: I heard Gary say it would -- they would look at what our recommendations are and, you know, then, that's a different application. Zaremba: But I felt he based that on the requirement that the plat line had to move. De Weerd: And if we were to change that requirement that would probably follow what requirement ACHD would have and, then, if that wasn't done, it would remain the same. Hoaglun: Well, that was good information, Councilman Zaremba. I don't think we want to go into a new plat. It opens up -- if I might ask Pete or Sonya, whoever -- Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 59 of 76 De Weerd: You can't. Hoaglun: Oh, I can't. That's right. De Weerd: Certainly we can reopen the public -- Hoaglun: No. I think I'm ready. I think I'm ready here. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move approval of MFP 09-004 with the following modifications: That the applicant be required to construct a full street section of Heavy Timber Drive. That the request to construct a five foot wide detached sidewalk with eight foot wide landscape parkways along South Spanish Sun Way and South Spanish Fork Way, instead of ten foot wide attached, be approved. That modification to the development agreement move forward. I don't think we need Council action on that, but just as a comment that that will move forward for modification. And that the streetlight requirements be met as provided by the information given to us by Public Works that there would be 21 lights in the interior of the project and at the intersections and that the section line lights also be provided as shown. Or the lights on the section line roads be provided as shown. Zaremba: I will second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carnes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing: Proposed 2010 Fee Schedule of the Parks and Recreation Department De Weerd: Okay. Item 8-F is a public hearing on the proposed 2010 fee schedule for the Parks Department. I will ask staff for comment. Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, hopefully, will be quick and easy on you. I was before you a few weeks ago with staff to talk about our fee schedule. It was presented to you in detail that night, along with discussion about the nonresident fees. At that time we received instruction from Council to work with legal department to draft up the -- I believe it's an ordinance, is that right, Mr. Nary? Nary: Resolution. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 60 of 76 Siddoway: Resolution. And get it properly noticed in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks. That has been done and tonight is the required public hearing for those fees. The only item I would like to add is that in subsequent discussions with legal we have discovered that we need to alter our annual process. We have been in -- up until now we have been coming to you on an annual basis to update fees that have been added to our activity guides, things like that, over the course of the year. We -- it sounds like we may need to come before you in association with each activity guide to do this correctly. So, we will be before you more often than once a year this year. So, with that I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Steve, I like your fees. They are very fair and very equitable and I take it that our team fees actually stayed the same and we just added the resident and nonresident, am I correct there? Siddoway: They didn't stay the same as they were last year. They were reduced to the levels they were close to the previous year when we had player fees. So, they went down. So, the team fees went down and to reflect the approximate break even point, including the player fees. Bird: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Yes. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Steve. This is a public hearing. Is there any member of the public who would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Seeing none, Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearing on proposed 2010 fee -- recreation fee schedule for Parks and Recreation. Zaremba: Second. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 61 of 76 Hoaglun: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-F. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. G. Resolution No. : 2010 Fee Schedule of Meridian Parks & Recreation Department De Weerd: Item 8-G is resolution 10-713. Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve resolution number 10-713, the fee schedule, dated February 12th, 2010, for Parks and Recreation. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. : AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent & Colleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder Road: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.98 of an Acre from R1 in Ada County to C -C (Community Business) Zoning District De Weerd: Item 9-A is ordinance number 10-1442. 1 will ask the clerk to, please, read this ordinance by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 10-1442, an ordinance AZ -09-004, the Baby Place, for annexation of a tract of land situated on Lot 5 of Hepper Acres Subdivision, situated in the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territory situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-1 to C -C, Community Business District in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law and Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 62 of 76 providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing everyone nodding off in the audience, I assume that no. Council, do I have a motion to approve this ordinance? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve ordinance number 10-1442 with suspension of rules. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve 9-A. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: I am going to recess for five minutes to allow our next presentation to set up and to take a quick break. (Recess 10:15 p.m. to 10:21 p.m.) Item 10: Presentation by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and SysTek International LLC. Regarding Emission Testing in Ada County De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. We appreciate you tolerating our five minute break. Our next item on the agenda is Item No. 10. We do have a presentation by DEQ and, Pete, do you want to introduce -- kick this off? Okay. Just, again, I know I noted this at the beginning of the program. This is just a report. Council is not expected to take any action. It is information only and this will not be for public testimony. Thank you for being here. Wagner: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Pete Wagner. I'm the regional administrator for the Boise office of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in Boise, Idaho. I appreciate you asking us to come to present information to you tonight and we are here to do that. I just wanted to back up a little bit and refresh your memory. We actually came in late December, early January, and actually presented to you to give you an overview at that period of time and so I was Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 63 of 76 going to start from that point on, if that's okay with the Council, to expedite things here. At that point in time, actually, we were in the process of the RFP, the request for proposal, and so we couldn't talk a lot about that request for proposal, because it's a confidential bidding process. We actually went through that process. We actually had six different bidders actually bid on the contract for Canyon county and Kuna. We scored those with a team of personnel. It was based on the technical merits of their proposal. After that we actually invited the finalists back for oral presentations. They gave an hour presentation and, then, an hour question and answer. Final step of the way was actually checking the references of the finalists, so we actually split that work up among the people who were on the committee and actually contacted every reference. We did speak to most of those references, not all of them called us back, but most of them did. The other thing we did -- we had our financial administrator for the agency -- actually he is a CPA, actually review all the financials for the finalists. With that it was a unanimous decision. We actually chose SysTek, International, to be our contractor for the Kuna and the Canyon county emission testing program. So, the reason we are here before you today, actually, through exchanges of letters actually with the Mayor and actually the director in accordance with the state law 39-116(b), we had, actually, told the Mayor and the city, actually, that we would pick our contractor, basically, and, then, look to sign a joint powers agreement with the city and at that time the city would have the choice in signing the joint powers agreement to either choose to use our contractor or to use the existing contractor and program with the Ada County Air Board. So, tonight we are just here to present information to you, so you can make that decision. And with that, actually, I would like to introduce Bill Dell, he's actually a member of SysTech, been intimately involved with us since signing the contract. I would like to state, actually, we did some of the criteria, actually. We did choose SysTech on was the price, the convenience to the customer and, actually, the credentials of SysTech and I think Bill will address all those. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Dell: I will. My name is Bill Dell. I am executive director of business development for SysTech International, 1121 West Grant Road, Tucson, Arizona. 85705. Madam Mayor and Council Members, I admire your stamina. I'm going to try to keep this really brief, since it's getting so late. I do have a presentation which you have copies of and I'm going to just try to step through it pretty quickly, so we can have time to answer any questions you might have. I wanted an opportunity just to introduce SysTech, let you know what we bid in our proposal to DEQ, which was primarily a proposal to provide services in Canyon county. The proposal also included an option to provide the same or similar services in Ada County. And that's entirely up to you all as whether or not you want to proceed in that direction and we are here to support the process. SysTech has been around since July 1999. Vehicle emission inspection programs -- vehicle inspection programs are the only thing we do. That's our entire business. We are the only company in the industry that's totally vertically integrated, that is we control all aspects of the inspection process from building equipment, designing software, networking the facility, telecommunications, staffing, training, certification, auditing, et Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 64 of 76 cetera. It's all done within our corporate structure, so we can control the pace and process and cost of delivery and I think those are things that help us come out to be successful in our bid here. And this isn't working well, so, Steve, I'll just say next slide and next slide. Okay. And as I just said, we -- we can skip this slide. Next slide. We are -- what we propose in -- for -- to do in Canyon county was to -- was to establish an inspection program where we will select local businesses as subcontractors to SysTech. We are going to -- in the Canyon county case we are going to -- and Kuna, we are going to select 20 -- 20 subcontractors in Canyon county and two in Kuna who will actually perform the inspections. SysTech will provide each one of our subcontractors with a complete hardware and software solution that is networked and integrated to our central database, which will be located in the Nampa area. All of the equipment that will be supplied, all of the service on that equipment, all of the maintenance, the consumables, the supplies, everything needed for the subcontractor program will be provided at no cost to them. So, there is no barrier or no threshold for them to get into the program. Next slide. This is just a quick picture of where we are in the country, various other programs, and it included Idaho and that's the Canyon county program. Next slide. Our corporate structure, as I said, we are fully integrated in-house. On the right-hand side our engineering team, to the left-hand side our accounting team on this chart. The green boxes indicate resources within the company that are already working on the program for Idaho and this -- this slide indicates the staffing specifically for Idaho, including positions will be hired locally. And next slide. So, with the participation of local businesses, what we have done and what we will be doing is selecting the 20 based upon convenience. We run a rather detailed demographic model to insure that -- that over 98 percent of the population will be within five miles of a station, most of them much closer, and also within 15 minutes drive time of a station. As I said before, we are going to provide a computerized centralized system called a VID or Vehicle Inspection Database and a network that ties each one of those stations together real time through the intemet for management control by DEQ, as well as our staff, the ability to do instant auditing and trigger reports, et cetera, which I will cover in just a minute. Next slide. Part of our station -- part of how we are going to go about selecting the station is to actually go out and interview each potential business candidate -- subcontractor candidate to -- that will become part of our program and I personally, along with other members of my team, will go and visit each and every one that -- that could participate and would be interested in participating. I suspect that we will -- in Canyon county, for example, probably interview about 40 businesses. In that interview process we will be using a grading system to identify such things as how they are at customer service, whether or not they have the basic things we need for them to be a subcontractor, such as intemet -- intemet service, compressed air, things like that. Comfortable waiting areas, et cetera. So, that when -- at the end of all those interviews we will put those -- we can rank order the potential partners and match them together with the geographic considerations and come up with the final 20. If Ada County decides to join the program, we will go through a similar process here. We will come up with a standard grading system -- it may not be exactly the same as what we use in Canyon county, the demographics are different, the geography is different, but we will come up with a standard system in consultation with DEQ, so that we will go out and meet with all the possible participants, whoever they are, no one is to be excluded at this phase, no one Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 65 of 76 is -- no decisions have been made as to who to include or not include. Next slide. Once we have selected our subcontractor partners, we will provide inspector training and licensing services under our contract to DEQ. We will be holding classes to train all the inspectors and license them. They will have hands-on training, as well as written -- hand -- written test to pass before they can actually begin testing vehicles. Next slide. This is just a picture of a -- the first prototype. We have already assembled the first prototype of the Idaho 2010 analyzer. This one hasn't been painted a pretty color yet, but this was just done last week. The analyzer will be capable of doing both tail pipe test, that's a two speed idle test, so within this box is the complete plumbing system and analytical system. It also does OBD tests for the 1996 and newer vehicles, which is just connecting the vehicle's on -board computer to the analyzer and interrogating the system. We will have bar code reader and other -- and biometric systems to authenticate the inspectors. Next slide. Biometric options, we looked at several of them that we are capable of implementing and in consultation with DEQ we have selected fingerprint scanning as the biometric tool. Every analyzer will have a fingerprint scanner on it. Every inspector will be logged into our central database with their fingerprint ID and will have to identify themselves securely using fingerprints before every single test. That's part of our audit trail process, so that we can insure that every test can be traceable back to an actual person that did it. Next slide. We will be providing -- as I think I already said earlier, a complete turn key solution with no out-of-pocket cost to the stations that will participate and that each of our -- since -- since each of the analyzers will, essentially, belong to SysTech, they won't be selling those to the -- to the inspection stations, we will be the single point of contact for DEQ if anything goes wrong, we are the only place that one has to contact for solving any problem. In terms of hardware or software problems, we guarantee a four hour or less service response time to all of our subcontractors if there is any problems with their system hardware or software. We are providing an end-to-end solution, go the left box here. The analyzer is traditionally what is -- has been done in past inspection programs where a contractor will come in and sell an analyzer package. We are providing much more. We are providing not only that package, but the entire IT network connectivity and the central database system that I talked about. And next slide. And this is for the technology geeks, so I won't dwell on it, but it is a design for our central database system, high level of redundancy, both on site and off site. Basically, our database systems -- vehicle inspection databases and other programs around the country built just like this one, we will achieve a 99.8 percent up time standard. So, they don't go down. Very, very rare. Part of the software solution is to provide a dashboard of applications for DEQ to manage the program. This is a bit of an eye chart, but just as an example, some -- some of these tools will allow the DEQ to know exactly what's going on in inspection at any station by any inspector at anytime instantly. For example, let's say -- let's say an inspector is testing a Ford, you know, a '98 Ford. The computer system is watching this real-time and says, gee, that really looks a lot like a -- like a Volkswagen to me. If that happens, the computer system can instantly -- does instantly notify DEQ and our staff by e-mail or text that there is an issue with a test occurring and that allows us to jump into action and identify whether or not that test is valid, to go see if the inspector needs additional training or if that inspector needs something other than training and occasionally you do undercover a fraud and that's an important part of managing one of these programs is to insure the integrity of Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 66 of 76 the data and the integrity of the system. So, that's just one example of the various tools that are provided for the dashboard system. Under the contract with DEQ SysTech is going to provide an extensive auditing program. We are going to do covert and overt audits of the stations. We are going to go look at the analyzer equipment itself, software, triggers, everything associated with managing the program. The same audit tools will be provided to DEQ on a laptop computer, so that their own auditor can perform those audits as well. Overt and covert. Next. Also under contract with DEQ SysTech will provide a complete waiver and referee service for the public. This is to provide the consumer with a confirmatory test in the case of a referee test, so that if they go to one of our subcontractors and aren't satisfied at all with how the test was done for any reason, they call us on our 800 hotline, we will dispatch our technician to the consumer at the location where the inspection was done or the consumer can come to our headquarters in the Nampa area where we will have a full test lane as well that we operate and get a confirmatory test and a corrected record if necessary. Same thing with waivers. If a consumer spends, for example, you know, over a certain threshold on trying to get a car repaired and still can't get repaired, there is a repair cost waiver that is available and our technicians will, once, again, meet the motorist or the motorist can come to us. Next slide. We are committed to start this program on June 1 st. It's a very tight timeline. We have done this kind of thing before. An example is the Missouri program where we implemented a program very similar to this, decentralized -- although in that case it had 700 stations. We rolled out 700 analyzers, trained over a thousand -- well, over two thousand inspectors and got the whole thing up and running in about four months. So, we know how to do it and we are already underway and we commit to do the same thing in Ada County, assuming that Ada County joins at least soon enough that we can get the long lead items into the pipeline. But things like the software, the database system, those that are under development right now will be sized to handle Ada County if Ada County chooses to join. Next slide. Also under contract to DEQ SysTech is going to be doing a public information education program. It's, basically, a four phase program. It starts with grass roots outreach. It's an organization. You might even call this part of that process. Phase two will be earned media. We will meet with the editorial boards and the press conferences and do new medias as well. Phase three shortly before the initial mailing of postcards goes out we will do a mass mailing, direct mail, with information about the program brochure style, tri -fold and, then, finally just before the program is launched there will be some paid advertising to make sure the public is aware that things are changing or things are happening and what the requirements are. So, that's pretty much it. We are committing to start on June 1st. We know how to do it. We are going to have a tailored system that DEQ is going to be proud of and we are ready to get going. We are already starting in Canyon county. So, with that. Next slide. Any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I got a couple. Where is Opus group out of? Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 67 of 76 Dell: Sweden. Bird: And on your 11 dollar breakdown how much goes to DEQ? Dell: Three dollars -- Madam Mayor, Councilmen, three dollars goes to DEQ. Bird: How much to the operator? Dell: That is actually not determined yet, because we have not finished our subcontract agreement. We will expect to have that done next week. Bird: If 11 -- what can your subcontractors -- they -- that leaves us with eight dollars left. Are we going to split it or -- do you have any idea? Dell: Yeah. We will split it somehow, but I don't know the exact split yet. Bird: Okay. You certainly know what you need to break even on your -- Dell: I hope we do a little better than break even, Councilman. Bird: I beg your pardon? Dell: I hope to do just a little better than break even, but -- Bird: That's what I mean. You need to -- you know what you have got to have -- how much you got to have out of a machine. Four dollars? Five dollars? Two dollars? One dollar? Dell: In order to supply the equipment and all the service and everything else, we will be -- we will be providing our subcontractors with somewhere between two and three dollars a test. The exact number hasn't been issued yet. Bird: Okay. Is DEQ open for questions, too? The system we got in place right now, are we having a hard time policing it or are we having a lot of problems with it or why do we want to go to a one source contract? Wagner: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, actually, the choice is entirely yours whether you want to utilize the DEQ contract or stay with your own program. DEQ is not a member of Air Quality Board. You, actually, are members of that, actually, and I don't want to speak for them by any means at how their program is running. Bird: But what made you want to go to a single source operator. DEQ. Because you went to it -- you evidently started in Canyon and Kuna, so -- Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, actually, we are not looking to go to a single source, if I understand your question correctly. All we are doing is -- we were Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 68 of 76 mandated to the state law and Canyon county and Kuna, actually -- there are three options that all cities have and one of those options was to implement a vehicle emission testing program themselves. They could have DEQ implement a program or they could submit an alternative program. Canyon county actually submitted an alternative program and, unfortunately, the emissions that they proposed were about four to five tons of emissions reductions. They needed to propose somewhere around 252 tons of emission reductions. So, because they didn't meet the state law, actually, the state law, then, says that DEQ has to implement a vehicle emission testing program in those areas, so, actually, that's what we are doing. Your city and, actually, many of the other cities in Ada County, except for Kuna, actually opted to send the director a letter saying that you wanted to sign a joint powers agreement with the director to continue with a vehicle emission testing program. So, all we are doing today is providing the information to make a choice and it's your choice clearly of whether you want to continue with your existing program or you wanted to use the DEQ contractor. Bird: Thank you very much. Hoaglun: Question, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: For either one of you. But if I'm driving around, I have got the card, I have got to get it inspected, we have got our current setup with the City of Meridian and I happen to be visiting friends out in Kuna and I realize, man, today's Saturday, last day, I see a testing station, can I go in there, since it's Ada County, even though it's a different -- and I'm from Meridian, can I go into the station at Kuna and have it tested? Wagner: If there are two different programs is what you're asking? Hoaglun: Yes. Wagner: If there are two different programs, actually, the director will move in the direction to have reciprocity, actually, between the two programs and we would plan to work with Ada County Air Board to try to do that. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Question on the registration enforcement and appeal process and, actually, included in that notification in the first place. I know there are many states where, actually, the Department of Motor Vehicles won't issue a registration unless you have had the emissions test. We haven't gotten to that in Idaho yet. It's kind of after the fact. And the way the current Ada County system works, the Air Quality Board sends out a Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 69 of 76 notice to each car owner that needs to bring their car in this month. If they don't respond that's when we tray to revoke their registration. How does your process work first and how does a person get notified that they need to come in and test and what do you do if they don't? Dell: We plan to implement a program, essentially, exactly how it's done in Ada County currently. The -- we will be sending out post cards to Canyon county residents and if they don't respond they will get a second notice and if they don't respond, then, we will prepare a data tape to go to ITD and ITD actually does the enforcement. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Dell: So, it will be the same. Zaremba: Okay. Wagner: And I guess the only thing I would like to add, Madam Mayor and Council Members, is before we do any revocations, actually, in the business rules that we have set up with the contractor, DEQ will have the opportunity to review those revocations. De Weerd: So, Pete, what do you do with the three dollar portion that DEQ receives? Wagner: Good question. Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, the three dollars, actually -- some of that is statutory. There is an air quality education fund that is required by the statute and so money will be placed in that fund and would be used to help educate the greater Treasure Valley area about air quality issues. It's specific to that, actually, by statute. The other part of that fund would be for the revocation cost, actually, for ITD and that's print materials and things like that to do the revocation and, then, thirdly, actually, we will be hiring one staff person to oversee the Canyon county program. De Weerd: So, David, how does that break out with our current method with the Air Quality Board? What portion goes to them? Zaremba: What the Air Quality Board has instituted beginning January 1 st of this year is a similar cycle. The vehicles would be tested every other year, excluding the first four years, and also excluding vehicles older than I think 1981. For which the individual operator -- well, let me back up. People are not necessarily licensed by the Air Quality Board, they are certified to be a tester and allowed to be a tester. The Air Quality Board doesn't put any limit at the moment on how many of those stations there are. That's pretty much left up to the economy to determine how many stations there are. Along with that change we instituted the fees that the Treasure Valley Air Quality Council had recommended to the legislature and which they adopt, which is the maximum fee that the station charges per person coming in to be tested each time is 20 dollars. That would be every other year. They could be charge 20 dollars. Many of our stations even now at what was the old rate give a discount and the place that I go has been charging Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 70 of 76 me 12 dollars I think and -- but we also have to realize they were testing every car every month -- every year. So, the reason that we allowed the raise to the 20 dollars on their behalf was they will be testing less than half as many cars that they have been. Out of whatever they charge, if it's the 20 dollars or some discounted amount, they send to the Air Quality Board -- I forget what we settled on, either three dollars or 3.25 -- 3.50. As a maximum. De Weerd: 3.75. Zaremba: 3.75. That sounds right to me. We specified that as the maximum and I believe, in fact, that is what we are charging. Nothing goes to DEQ out of that, because this was a program that was already existing and DEQ is not forced by state law to step in and take us over, because we have a program. I think the question that we have is if there is going to be reciprocity -- yes. Thank you. Somebody else used that word already. How viable is it for us to be charging 20 dollars in Ada County and another system to be charging 11 dollars right next door, which means that the Ada County system needs to seriously consider whether we can even consider operating and we do operate currently under a joint powers agreement signed by five of the six cities, not including Kuna, and the county. So, there are six jurisdictions that have given the joint powers agreement to the Air Quality Board. We would cease to exist if the cities withdrew that joint powers agreement and reformed another organization that included the Canyon county group, which is the city's right to do and that is one avenue. And the other avenue that the Air Quality Board will need to be discussing is how viable are we and how viable are our stations if they can give a discount that brings their cost down -- brings the citizens testing cost down to 11 dollars. So, that's a discussion we are going to have to have. Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, if I might. De Weerd: Yes. Wagner: I just wanted to clarify one thing. Councilman, you actually had talked about a joint organization with Canyon county. Canyon county actually made a choice, actually, not to sign a joint powers agreement, actually. So, they potentially aren't included in the -- they are not included in the joint powers agreement we would be signing with your city and with the other Ada County cities, excluding Kuna, because Kuna also is not part of that joint powers. So, I just want to make that clarification. Zaremba: Good point. Thank you. De Weerd: We have a choice, they don't. Zaremba: Yes. Our choice would be to withdraw our joint powers agreement with the current Air Quality Board and set up a new one that incorporates this program or to leave it the way it is. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 71 of 76 De Weerd: Well -- and it doesn't make sense that Ada County would do it differently with the five cities and county. And certainly it's not like our community is going to say, yeah, we want to go with you, because you're less expensive. I think this is a countywide thing and right now we have a structure to it. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If I understood right, we can go with joint powers with DEQ, but we can stay under the existing emission testing that we are doing right now within the city, am I not right? De Weerd: Yeah. We already do. Bird: Yeah. Wagner: And just -- Madam Mayor, Councilmen, that is correct, actually. The joint powers agreement that you have to sign with DEQ gives you the option to continue with your program or to join and use our contractor. Again, I want to make it extremely clear that is your choice. DEQ -- you know, it doesn't matter to us, to be perfectly honest, which you choose, we just need to know which one you want to go down. Our hope is, like the Mayor said, is all of the cities within Ada County and Ada County itself choose to do the same thing, so we have consistency among the program. Canyon county and the other cities actually did that in their decision making also. Bird: Madam Mayor, can I ask one other question? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: This is of Bill. Bill, the -- you go in brick and mortar with your machine. It don't go in vans or anything like that, because we do have a lot of people that have their vans set up and make their living -- they are a small business, they -- you know, they contribute a lot of taxes and money to our economy, but -- and this is strictly rumor. I understand you're just going to go brick and mortar store front? Dell: Well, we haven't made any decision at all on what we would do in Ada County. There are no vans in Canyon county. So, that may be where the rumor came from. I'm only talking to who exists as business partners in Canyon county so far. We haven't ruled out anything. I have no -- no opinion at all as to the vans or brick and mortar. What SysTech wants to do is find the best business partners to implement this program and there are a lot of good businessmen and women and I want to meet with all of them and, then, choose the best of the best. Bird: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 72 of 76 Dell: And the equipment will -- if I may, Madam Mayor, Councilman, the equipment certainly could go anywhere. We -- the system we are implementing requires internet connectivity, so that's something that we would want to have at every location, whether it's a van or a brick and mortar. The system also -- in order to maintain a high degree of accuracy, uses something called a zero air and a zero air generator which requires compressed air. So, that would have to be done. But, then, again, there is no reason why that can't be done at any location. Bird: Thank you. Hoaglun: Madam Mayor, a question for Pete. Is there a time frame when this has to be -- a decision has to be made? Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, technically, no, there is not a time frame from a legal standpoint for you to make a decision. However, we are getting the Canyon county program up and running June 1 st, so there is a time frame if you like the Ada County program to be up and running by June 1 st, we have a -- pretty much a drop dead date of March 12th to be able to get the Ada County program up and running by then, but there is nothing that says it has to. Hoaglun: If I heard you correctly, you said that all the cities within Ada County have to agree to do it, is that -- De Weerd: By March 12th. Hoaglun: By March -- I mean we don't -- I mean we agree on a lot of things, but not everything and -- Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, your point's well taken and, again, that's only if they wanted to start -- if you wanted to start your program up by June 1 st there is nothing that says you have to. We could do phase in, things like that. So, I would like to clarify a point earlier if I might, actually, on the -- the criteria used in the scoring. We actually listened to like officials in Canyon county and, actually, worked with the SysTech, actually, for the scoring that Bill was talking about, so that is another option for you to be able to provide some input to DEQ and we could actually use that and work with SysTech to score the different businesses. Hoaglun: Okay. Follow up on that question. I mean what if Meridian was the hold out? Let's say we said, yeah, we like what we have, we got small business people and -- does the rest of the county move forward or does it kill the whole thing? I mean does one city have veto power over the rest of them? Wagner: Sure. First off, I will clarify, I am not an attorney. But, actually, the Attorney General's office that works very closely with us actually in reading of the statute actually has said that each city actually and the county has independent authority to make that decision. That's how the statute is written. So, theoretically you could make the Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 73 of 76 decision to utilize our contractor and say the city of Boise could continue with the existing program. Again, we, actually, would hope that the cities and the county would work together and move forward as one entity, so we don't have disjointed programs. De Weerd: In whatever you decide. Wagner: Correct. De Weerd: And, you know, I guess the economies of scale to make the Air Quality Board work can be able to -- to run an operation you have to have more than one city involved. Hoaglun: What -- Madam Mayor, just to kind of follow up on that, then, Pete or -- and maybe, Bill, you looked at the -- at the numbers. I mean Ada County is bigger than Canyon county, the numbers are -- there is a difference there. What type of difference, though, are we looking at in number of cars between the two counties. Does anybody know that off the top of their head? Wagner: It's about 67 to 70 thousand cars in Canyon county every year would be tested and in Ada County it's about -- Dell: About 120. Excuse me. About 120. Wagner: About 120. Hoaglun: So, we are talking almost double in Ada County than what would be done in Canyon county. Okay. And that -- is that with the every other year now testing, that 120,000? Wagner: What I gave you was actually every year. Hoaglun: Every year. Okay. Okay. So, it would drop down to 60,000 cars per year. Wagner: No. No. Let me clarify. I'm song. So, in Canyon county there is actually about 120 to 140 thousand cars that would be tested total and so if you divide that in half, because half the cars are tested each year. Hoaglun: Okay. Bird: Actually, 120 every year. Wagner: Correct. Yes. Because that's the statute and the state law requires testing every other year. Correct. And also just want to clarify, too. The rules from DEQ in the rule making -- actually, different cities participated in that and there is minimum standards that are in those rules. So, one of the things that we have heard -- and I just want to clarify is the stations, no matter if they are with the Ada County program or the Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 74 of 76 Canyon county program, are not allowed to be test and repair stations. You get your test done at one of the emission testing stations and if you fail you would have to go get repaired somewhere else. That's just a misconception that's been thrown out there. But it's clearly in our rules. Bird: That's what I understand. Yeah. De Weerd: And this isn't a question of if we do emissions testing. Canyon county -- or Ada County has to do emissions testing. Wagner: You do actually. There is a state law, so that is one reason, but also -- De Weerd: Saw the big debate and everyone says, well, we shouldn't be doing it anyway. We don't have that choice. Bird: You know my feelings. The whole state should be doing it. If one does it, the whole state. Wagner: And just to clarify a little bit more, Madam Mayor and Council, actually -- you, actually, were a nonattainment area at one point in time and you are now a maintenance area, so in addition to the state law, you, actually, are required by a state implementation plan to continue with a vehicle emission program. De Weerd: But we chose our own program. Wagner: According to the state law you did. That is correct. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: We appreciate you coming and joining us tonight and when you were last here it was reporting that as the RFP went out it was open to Ada County and that is why we asked you to come and share what the details were on that one. Certainly you are talking to the other cities and county as well? Wagner: Madam Mayor and Council Members, if those cities or organizations invite us, we have told them we have a contractor and the choice is theirs. So, like you, you invited us out here tonight and the other cities have -- not all of them have those, so we will go at their request. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, anything further? Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you for being here. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 75 of 76 Wagner: Thank you very much. And, again, if you need more information we would be happy to come back anytime, meet with you or any of your staff. Item 11: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1) — (f) - (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation) De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item No. 11 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(f). Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per the code you just reported. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, roll call. Roll -Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Hoaglun, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (11:02 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.) De Weerd: I'll entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Bird: I move we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? All ayes. Meridian City Council March 2, 2010 Page 76 of 76 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 3 i a3 i aoty MAYOR T Y De WEERR , DATE APPROVED of AY_EEO. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK SEUL 0 E • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT March 2, 2010 ITEM NO. 5A REQUEST February 23, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS See Attached Date: Phone: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. SB REQUEST PSA between Schindler Elevator Corp. and the City of Meridian for an Extended Warranty on Elevator Services for an Amount Not-to-Exceed $6,000.00 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: See Attached 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. � �EIDIAN�-- Public IDAHO Works Department TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Members of the City Council FROM: Eric Jensen, Building Maintenance DATE: February 23, 2010 Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Comdl Memberss Keith Bird Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON ELEVATOR SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $6,000.00. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: 1. Approve the Professional Services Agreement between Schindler Elevator Corporation and the City of Meridian for a one year extended warranty on elevator services in an amount not -to -exceed $6,000.00; and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest the agreement. 11. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Eric Jensen, Building Maintenance 489-0374 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 489-0362 Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372 ITI. DESCRIPTION A. Back rg ound The Meridian City Hall building has three (3) elevators. All elevators were supplied and installed by Schindler Elevator Corporation during the time of building construction. During the first year of operation all elevator parts/service charges, and remote monitoring were covered under the installation contract. Page I of 3 We have confirmed through Schindler, that had we not been under the first year warranty, the total cost to the city for the services provided during that period would have been $8,369.00. B. Proposal This extended warranty agreement will allow the City of Meridian to properly maintain and service the elevators within City Hall for a set annual rate of $6,000.00. This warranty agreement covers all scheduled maintenance, and parts/service charges. This agreement also provides remote monitoring services for automatic notification to Schindler Elevator Corporation as to any components of the elevators that may be functioning outside established parameters. Since the end of the first year warranty period on October 15, 2009, to January 10, 2010, Schindler has been to City Hall on 4 separate service calls. Total billing for these 4 visits equals $1,632.61. These charges will be credited towards the $6,000.00 extended warranty if we enter into this Professional Services Agreement. Based upon the various service calls that we experienced during the initial warranty period, and the calls that we have experienced thus far out of warranty, we would recommend entering into this annual Professional Services Agreement. We would also propose reevaluating its benefit at the end of the contract term to is determine whether to continue as is, negotiate a lower level service agreement, or terminate services with Schindler. IV. IMPACT A. Strateizic Impact: This agreement is in alignment with the City's Focus Areas and Initiative that states, "Demonstrate financial responsibility - accountable to City of Meridian stakeholders to encourage fiscal conservatism and to ensure that all financial transactions of the City are transparent and defendable." B. Service/Delivery Impact: This warranty contract will help us to guarantee the safety of the public and our employees by properly maintaining and servicing our elevators. It will also help to preserve the longevity of service life for the elevators. C. Fiscal Impact: Annual Cost Extended Warranty Agreement (Not to Exceed) $6,000.00 Total $6,000.00 Page 2 of 3 0 VTI. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS • 11 A. Extended Warranty Agreement Approved for Council Agenda: 2-23-10 , Development Services Manager Date Page 3 of 3 • • • Schindler Custom SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION 743 McGregor Ct., Suite 140 Boise, ID 83705-5225 Phone: 20B-577-5541 Fax: 208-577-5526 Date: February 19, 2010 To: City Of Meridian 33 E Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642-2631 Attn: Keith Watts EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION Estimate Number: Building Name: Meridian City Hall PMAN-7JTRA8 (2009.4) Rise/Length MY Manufacturer E ipmant Application Deamription Openinge Ca •city d Install# Meridian City Hall - $500.00 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, ID 83642-2619 2 Schindler Hydraulic Passenger Elev 01 & 02 4F/OR 3500 150 1 Schindler Hydraulic Passenger Elev 03 4F/2R 4000 150 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION ("Schindler", "we", "us") 743 McGregor Ct., Suite 140, Boise, ID 83705-5225, and CITY OF MERIDIAN, 33 E Broadway Avenue, Meridian, 10 83642-2631 ("you") agree as follows: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE SERVICE • Our preventive maintenance program performed in accordance with a maintenance schedule specific to your equipment • Examine, lubricate, adjust, and repair/replace covered components • Prompt callback coverage • Safety testing • Customer friendly and responsive communications PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Our Preventive Maintenance Program, as described in this agreement will be performed in accordance with a maintenance schedule specific to your equipment. A Schindler technician will be assigned to you, and back up technicians are available as required to give you prompt service as required at all times. A Schindler account representative will be assigned to you, and will be your primary contact for communications regarding your agreement. Also available to you is our extensive technical support and parts inventory, at the site as needed, and local warehouses and our national Service Distribution Center available for express delivery in emergencies. EXAMINE, LUBRICATE, ADJUST, AND REPAIRIREPLACE COVERED COMPONENTS We will on a periodic basis examine, lubricate, adjust, and as needed repair or replace the Covered Components listed below in accordance with Schindler's Maintenance Control Program (Attachment A). Page 4 of 7 PMAN 7.1"MAR • HYDRAULIC ELEVATORS Basic components: Controller components: resistors, timers, fuses, overloads, minor contacts, wiring, coils; packing, drive belts, strainers, functional components of car and corridor operating stations, hangers and tracks, door operating devices, door gibs, guide shoes, rollers, traveling cables, signal lamps (replacement during regular visits only), interlocks, door closers, buffers, switches, door protection devices, and alarm bells. Major components: Exposed piping in the Machine Room & hoistway, motor, PC boards, pump, pump unit, solid state devices, contactors, and valve. We assume no responsibility for the following items: hoistway door hinges, panels, frames, gates and sills; cabs and cab flooring; cab doors, gates and removable cab panels; cab mirrors and handrails; power switches, fuses and feeders to controllers; emergency cab lighting; light fixtures and lamps; cover plates for signal fixtures and operating stations; card readers or other access control devices; smoke/fire alarms and detectors; pit pumps and alarms; cleaning of cab interiors and exposed sills; plungers, casings and cylinders; automatic ejection systems; all piping and connections except that portion which is exposed in the machine room and hoistway; guide rails; tank; emergency power generators; telephone service, communication devices; disposal of used oil; intercom or music systems; ventilators, air conditioners or heaters; media displays; fireman's phones; exterior panels, skirt and deck panels, balustrades, relamping of illuminated balustrades; attachments to skirts, decking or balustrades; moving walk belts; pallets; steps; skirt brushes; sideplate devices; any batteries associated with the equipment; obsolete items, (defined as parts, components or equipment either 20 or more years from original installation, or no longer available from the original equipment manufacturer or an industry parts supplier, replaceable only by refabrication.) CLEANING We will periodically clean the machine room, car top, and pit of debris related to our work in these areas. TESTING OF SAFETY DEVICES F-aulument Test Freauencv Hydraulic Pressure/Relief Valve Annually Our testing responsibilities do not include fees or changes imposed by local authorities in conjunction with Inspecting; licensing or testing the Equipment including observation of testing by 3rd parties; changes in the testing requirements after the initial start date of this Agreement, or any other testing obligations other than as specifically set forth above. Since these tests may expose the equipment to strains well in excess of those experienced during normal operation, Schindler will not be responsible for any damage to the equipment or property, or injury to or death of any persons, resulting from or arising out of the performance of these tests. CUSTOMER FRIENDLY AND RESPONSIVE COMMUNICATIONS Service dispatching will take place through our Schindler Customer Service Network (SCSN), which is staffed by qualified Schindler personnel, 2417. You will be provided with a customer identification number, which must be referenced when a call is placed for your facility. Our dispatchers will have access to your building's service call records, and will promptly relay the details of your call to the assigned technician. Your cab telephone will be directly programmed to dial SCSN. You will also have access to Schindler SCORE CARDTM, through Schindler's website, which gives you instant access to the performance history of your equipment covered by this Agreement. Page AN -2017 PMANJJ7RA8 2009.4 ADDITIONAL COVERAGES We will remotely monitor (if applicable) those functions of the Equipment described above which are remote monitoring capable. Our remote monitoring system ("SRM") will automatically notify us if any monitored component or function Is operating outside established parameters. We will then communicate with you to schedule appropriate service calls. Monitoring will be performed on a 24 hour, 7 day basis and will communicate toll free with our Customer Service Network using dedicated elevator telephone service. The operation and monitoring of SRM Is contingent upon availability and maintenance of dedicated elevator telephone service. You have the responsibility to install, maintain and pay for such telephone service, and to notify us at any time of any interruption of such telephone service. If requested, you will provide the proper wiring diagrams for the equipment covered. These diagrams will remain your property, and will be maintained by Schindler for use in troubleshooting and servicing the equipment. CALLBACK RESPONSE TIME We will respond to callbacks during regular working hours within an average of 4 hours of notification, and during overtime hours within an average of 12 hours of notification, unless we are prevented from doing so by causes beyond our control. HOURS OF SERVICE We will perform the services during our regular working hours of regular working days, excluding elevator trade holidays. The services include callbacks for emergency minor adjustment callbacks during regular working hours, including all calls received prior to 3:30 p.m. local time. If you authorize callbacks outside regular working hours, you will pay us at our standard billing rates, plus materials not covered by contract, expenses and travel. All other work outside the services will be billed at our standard billing rates. A request for service will be considered an "emergency minor adjustment callback' if it is to correct a malfunction or adjust the equipment and requires immediate attention and is not caused by misuse, abuse or other factors beyond our control. The term does not include any correction or adjustment that requires more than one technician or more than two hours to complete. TERM This Agreement commences on October 14, 2009, and continues until September 30, 2010. PRICE In consideration of the services provided hereunder, you agree to pay us the sum of $500.00 per month, payable in annual Installments of $6,000.00, exclusive of applicable taxes, subject to payment terms and Price Adjustment set forth below. You agree to pay, as an addition to the price herein, the amount of any current or future sales, use, excise or other tax applicable to the services provided hereunder. You may alternatively choose to make semi-annual payments of $3,030.00 {a 1% premium for a price of $505.00 per month; initial here if semi-annual __), or quarterly payments of $1,545.00 (a 3 % premium for a price of $515.00 per month; initial here 0 quarterly . This offer is firm for 90 days from the date of our proposal. Acceptance beyond that date may require updates of the Price and Price Adjustment Provisions. For work outside the scope of the agreement, the following hourly rates will apply and be adjusted based on the price adjustment outlined below. Straight Time: $234.59 Per Hour Nights & Saturdays: $398.80 Per Hour Sundays & Holidays: $469.18 Per Hour The contract amount for the period October 15, 2009 through September 30, 20t0 will be a prorated amount reflecting an 11.5 month initial term. Page 3of 7 PA+IAN-7JTRTRA8 N)09 4 • • PRICE ADJUSTMENT The contract Price and labor rates for extra work will be adjusted annually, as of October 1st, and will be increased or decreased to reflect increases or decreases in the labor and material costs as follows: (1) $400.00 of the original per month contract Price will be Increased or decreased on the basis of changes to the local straight time hourly rate for mechanics in accordance with the Master Agreement between Schindler Elevator and the International Union of Elevator Constructors; and (2) $100.00 of the original per month contract Price will be increased or decreased by the percent increase or decrease in the "Producer Commodity Prices for Metals and Metal Products, published by the U.S. Department of Labor (based upon index in effect as of initial start date)." If there is a delay in determining a new labor rate, or an interim determination of a new labor rate, we will notify you and adjust the price at the time of such determination, and we will retroactively bill or issue credit, as appropriate, for the period of such delay. We also reserve the right to adjust the contract price quarterly annually on the basis of changes in other expenses such as fuel, waste disposal, government regulations or administrative costs. Page d of 7 r'rinra•7.1TRA8 . Tf-9 4 The attached terms and conditions are incorporated herein by reference. Acceptance by you as owner's agent or authorized representative and subsequent approval by our authorized representative will be required to validate this agreement Proposed: By: Phil Martin For: Schindler Elevator Corporation Titre: Sales Representative For: City Of Meridian Date: February 19, 2010 ����""" ��h��ite: 3 • —a01 V Title: District Manager Date: Az&O- f 13BAL =C1 9(�N. Page 5 of 7 PMAN-7JTRA8 2008.4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. This is the entire Agreement between us, and no other terms or conditions shall apply. This service proposal does not void or negate the terms and conditions of any existing service agreement unless fully executed by both parties. No services or work other than specifically set forth herein are included or intended by this Agreement. 2. You retain your responsibilities as Owner and/or Manager of the promises and of the Equipment You will provide us with clear and safe access to the Equipment and a safe workplace for our employees as wall as a safe storage location for parts and other materials to be stored on site which remain our property, in compliance with all applicable regulations related thereto, you will Inspect and observe the condition of the Equipment and workplace and you will promptly report potentially hazardous conditions and malfunctions, and you will call for service as required; you will promptly authorize needed repairs or replacements outside the scope of this Agreement, and observe all testing and reporting responsibilities based upon local codes. You will not permit others to work on the Equipment during the term of this Agreement. You agree that you will authorize and pay for any proposed premaintenance repairs or upgrades (including any such repairs or upgrades proposed during the first 30 days of this agreement), or we will have the option to terminate this Agreement Immediately, without penalty to us. You agreed to post and maintain necessary Instructions and / or warnings relating to the equipment 3. '(0 pAss ell this Agreems" We will not be llable4aowpevsm4or special, indirect or consequential damages, which include but are not limited to loss of rents, revenues, profit, good will, or use of Equipment or property, or business interruption. 4. Neither party shall be responsible for any loss, damage, detention or delay caused by labor trouble or disputes, strikes, lockouts, fire, explosion, theft, lightning, wind storm, earthquake, floods, storms, riot, civil commotion, malicious mischief, embargoes, shortages of materials or workmen, unavailability of material from usual sources, govemment priorities or requests or demands of the National Defense Program, civil or military authority, war, insurrection, failure to act on the part of either party's suppliers or subcontractors, orders or instructions of any federal, state, or municipal government or any department or agency thereof, acts of God, or by any other cause beyond the reasonable control of either party. Dates for the performance or completion of the work shall be extended by such delay of time as may be reasonably necessary to compensate for the delay. 5. You will assign this Agreement to your successor in Interest, should your Interest in the premises cease prior to the Initial or any renewal termination date. If this Agreement Is terminated prematurely for any reason, other than our default, Including failure to assign to a successor in interest as required above, you will pay as liquidated damages (but not penalty) one/half the remaining amount due under this Agreement 8. The Equipment consists of mechanical and electrical devices subject to wear and tear, deterioration, obsolescence and possible malfunction as a result of causes beyond our control. The services do not guarantee against failure or malfunction, but are Intended to reduce wear and prolong useful life of the Equipment. We are not required to perform tests other than those specified previously, to Install new devices on the equipment which may be recommended or directed by Insurance companies, federal, state, municipal or other authorities, to make changes or modifications in design, or to make any replacements with parts of a different design. We are responsible to perform such work as is required due to ordinary wear and tear. [Unless otherwise agreed], We are not responsible for any work required due to obsolescence; accident; abuse; misuse; vandalism; adverse machine room conditions (including temperature variations below 60 degrees and above 90 degrees Fahrenheit) or excessive humidity; adverse premises or environmental conditions, power fluctuations, rust, or any other cause beyond our control. We will not be responsible for correction of outstanding violations or test requirements cited by appropriate authorities prior to the effective date of this agreement. 7. Invoices (including Invoices for extra work outside the fixed price) will be paid upon presentation, on or before the last day of the month prior to the billing period. Late or non -payments will result in: (a) (b) Termination of the Agreement on ten (10) days prior written notice; and 31 (c) Attomeys' fees, cost of collection and all other appropriate remedies for breach of contract 8. If either party to this Agreement claims default by the other, written notice of at least 10 days shall be provided, specifically describing the default If cure of the default is not commenced within the ten-day notification period, this Agreement may be terminated. In the event of litigation, the prevailing party will be entity to its reasonable attomeys' fees and costs. Page 6 of 7 PMAN-7JTRA6 2009.4 • • 9. Any proprietary material, information, data or devices contained in the equipment or work provided hereunder, or any component or feature thereof, remains our property. This includes, but Is not limited to, any tools, devices, manuals, software (which is subject to a limited license for use in this building/premises/ equipment only), modems, source/ access/ object codes, passwords and the Schindler Remote Monitoring feature ("SRM") (if applicable) which we will deactivate and remove If the Agreement is terminated. to. You will prevent access to the Equipment, including the SRM feature and/or dedicated telephone line if applicable, by anyone other than us. We will not be responsible for any claims, losses, demands, -lawsuits, judgment, verdicts, awards or settlements ("claims") arising from the use or misuse of SAM, if it or any portion of it has been modified, tampered with, misused or abused. We will not be responsible for use, misuse, or misinterpretation of the reports, calls, signals, alarms or other such SRM output, nor for claims arising from acts or omissions of others in connection with SRM or from interruptions of telephone service to SRM regardless of cause, You agree that you will defend, indemnify and hold us harmless from and against any such claims, and from any and all claims arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, and/or the Equipment, unless caused directly and solely by our established fault. 11. Should this Agreement be accepted by you in the form of a purchase order, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will take precedence over those of the purchase order. 12. Schindler Elevator Corporation is insured at all locations where it undertakes business for the type of insurance. You agree to accept in full satisfaction of the insurance requirements for this Agreement, our standard Certificate of Insurance. We will not name additional insureds. Limits of liability as follows: (a) Workers' Compensation - Equal to or in excess of limits of Workers' Compensation laws in all states and the District of Columbia. (b) Comprehensive Liability - Up to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) single limit per occurrence, Products/Completed Ops Aggregate $5,000,004. (c) Auto Liability- $5,000,000 CSL (d) Employer's Liability - $5,000,000 Each Accident/Employee/Policy Limit. Page 7of7 PMAN-AN-7JTRAE3 2009.4 Maintenance Control Program Schindler 330A'm hydraulic elevators Schindler Service 0 Schindler 1 0 Schindler About The Maintenance Control Program Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") manufactures, installs, services and modernizes internal transportation systems for virtually every type of building. Schindler specializes in latest -technology engineering, as well as mechanical and micro -technology products designed and rigorously tested for safety, comfort, efficiency and reliability. As an owner or operator of an elevator, escalator or moving walk system, you must familiarize yourself with this equipment and take steps to help promote its safe and reliable operation. The Maintenance Control Program ("MCP") is not a substitute for a complete maintenance program and is provided in accordance with applicable ASME A17.1 requirements. The information, recommendations, descriptions, warnings, cautions and notes in this MCP are based upon Schindler expertise, experience and judgment with respect to the installation, adjustment, operation, service, repair and maintenance of internal transportation systems. The MCP is provided "as -is" and the information contained herein should not be considered as all-inclusive or covering all contingencies. Any Schindler proprietary information, data or know-how that may be contained in this MCP remains its property and is provided pursuant to a non-exclusive use license. Reproduction, disclosure or use of the MCP and its contents other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. If further information is required, please consult with your maintenance provider or Schindler. THIS MCP MANUAL IS RESTRICTED FOR USE BY ELEVATOR PERSONNEL ONLY (see ASME A17.1 / CSA B44 for the definition of elevator personnel). Schindler hereby disclaims and shall not be responsible for any personal injury, properly damage or loss related to the use of this MCP manual by non -Schindler personnel. This document was prepared in accordance with ASME A17.1-2007 / CSA B44-2007 and earlier editions and with the regulation of the authorities having jurisdiction. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 1 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Schindler Elevator Corporation Maintenance Control Program 330ATm Hydraulic Elevators Table of Contents Chapter 1 Duties of the Owner 5 Chapter 2 General Maintenance 7 Chapter 3 330Arm Hydraulic Maintenance 9 Chapter 4 Special Procedures — 330PP Hydraulic 11 Chapter 5 Special Procedures — Emergency Situations 13 Chapter 6 Special Procedures — Cleaning of Transparent Cars & Hoistways 15 Chapter 7 Lubrication 17 The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 3 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 1 Duties of the Owner Intended Use The owner of the installation is responsible for ensuring the installation is used as intended (transport of passengers). He is also responsible for ensuring that the installation is maintained in a safe operating condition. Safe Work Environment It is the duty of the owner to provide a safe work environment for elevator inspectors, elevator technicians and other personnel. Code Required Inspections Code required inspections must be carried out according to the local regulations. If the inspection is not witnessed, the owner has the responsibility to arrange for the inspection to be performed. Returning to Normal Operation If the elevator has been approved to be placed in service, but used as a construction elevator, or if it has been taken out of service for an extended period of time, the following work must be carried out by a qualified elevator technician before the installation is put back into normal operation. • Clean and lubricate the installation. • Replace damaged components. • Check the safety components. • Run the car and verify safe operation. Maintenance Obligations Schindler elevator and escalators are built in state of the art facilities and according to recognized safety standards. In order to ensure safe operation after turn -over, the installation must regularly be maintained by a competent maintenance company. Notification to the Maintenance Company If irregularities in the installation are observed (e.g. leveling inaccuracy, noises, vibrations, defective car lighting, etc.) the maintenance company must be notified immediately. The owner of the installation must notify the maintenance company of any relevant building changes, and whenever an emergency has occurred. Access to Building and Installation For emergencies and to cant' out maintenance operations, safe access to the building and to the installation must be guaranteed at all times. Access to the machine room must be secured. The keys may only be made available to persons authorized by the owner. Temperature and Humidity Machinery spaces, machine rooms, control spaces, and control rooms shall be provided with natural or mechanical means to keep the ambient air temperature and humidity in the range specified by the elevator equipment manufacturer to ensure safe and normal operation of the elevator. The temperature and humidity range shall be permanently posted in the machine room, control room, control space, or where specified by the equipment manufacturer, in the machinery space. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 5 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 1 Duties of the Owner (con't) Code References Elevators and escalators are governed under the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ("ASME") code ASME A17.1. Schindler equipment is manufactured consistent with the code version in effect at the time of manufacture. The owner of the installation is responsible for knowing the applicable code, as amended from time to time, and the requirements that it places on him regarding the elevators or escalators in his building. The owner should research and understand any Code references in this manual. Emergency Evacuation Procedures for Elevators • Only authorized elevator and/or emergency personnel shall perform the evacuation of passengers from stalled elevators. • A written emergency evacuation procedure shall be made and kept on the premises where an elevator is located. • Schindler recommends the use of ASME Al 7.4, Guide for Emergency Personnel for the required written emergency procedure, tailored to the particular building or facility. • All authorized personnel who are assigned to assist in evacuating passengers from a stalled elevator, and all persons who use special purpose personnel elevators, shall be given a copy of these procedures and all necessary training to assure that they understand and comply with the procedures. • These procedures shall be available to authorized elevator and emergency personnel. • A record of authorized personnel trained, and all persons who use special purpose personnel elevators, shall be kept on the premises where the elevator is located and shall be available to the authority having jurisdiction. • All building personnel should be familiar with Responding to an Entrapment Situation (See Chapter - Special Procedures — Emergency Situations). Fire Service On elevators provided with firefighters' emergency operation, the owner shall test monthly Phase I recall by use of the key switch, and a minimum of one -floor operation on Phase II and maintain a record of such tests that shall be available to the authority having jurisdiction. Cleaning of Car and Hoistway Transparent Enclosures • If the requirements of ASME A17.1 2.11.1.4 or 2.14.2.6 are not met, cleaning of transparent enclosures on the exterior of an elevator car or on the interior of an elevator hoistway shall be done under the direct supervision of a maintenance mechanic who shall be present at the site of the cleaning. • The owner is responsible to maintain a record of persons authorized to clean transparent car and hoistway enclosures. • See Chapter - Cleaning of Transparent Cars & Hoistways. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 6 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 2 General Maintenance Use of Jumpers • When jumpers are used during maintenance, repair, or testing, all jumpers shall be removed and the equipment tested prior to returning it to service. • Jumpers shall not be stored in machine rooms, control rooms, hoistways, machinery spaces, control spaces escalator/moving walk wellways, or pits. Making Safety -Related Devices Inoperative • No person shall at any time make inoperative any component on which safety of users is dependent, nor shall any electrical protective device be made inoperative, except where necessary during testing, inspections, and maintenance. • During such tests, inspections, and maintenance, the installation shall not be made available to the public. Immediately upon completion, the installation shall be restored to its normal operating condition in conformity with the applicable requirements. • Substitution of any wire or current -carrying device for the proper fuse or circuit breaker in an elevator circuit shall not be permitted. Hoistways, Pits, and Machine Rooms • Hoistways, trusses, and pits shall be kept clean and dry. Accumulation of rubbish in elevator pits and the use of these areas for storage shall not be permitted. • The machine room floor shall be kept clean and free from oil or grease. Articles or materials that are not necessary for the maintenance or operation of the elevator shall not be stored in the machine room. Flammable liquids having a flashpoint of less than 44°C (111 °F) shall not be kept in the machine room. • Access doors shall be kept closed and locked, except during periods when a qualified person is in the machine room or secondary sheave space. • Care shall be used in the painting of the equipment to ensure that the paint does not interfere with the proper function of the equipment. Brakes, governors, car -safety parts, and buffer parts shall be tested for proper operation after completion of painting. Top of Cars • The top of cars shall be kept free of oil or grease and shall not be used for storing lubricants, tools, or other material. Car and Counterweight Safeties Mechanism All moving parts of car and counterweight safeties mechanism shall be kept clean and free of rust and dirt and shall be lubricated at frequent intervals. This is especially important where the equipment is exposed to water or corrosive vapors or excessively damp conditions, as corrosion or rusting of the parts can prevent operation of the safety. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 7 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 2 General Maintenance (con't) Lubrication • All parts of the machinery and equipment requiring lubrication shall be maintained with lubricants of a grade and quantity recommended by the manufacturer. • Precautions shall be taken in lubricating suspension wire ropes to prevent loss of traction. • Governor wire ropes shall not be lubricated unless recommended by the manufacturer of the governor. • Guide rails shall be lubricated only on elevators equipped with guiding members requiring lubrication. Rail lubricants or coatings shall comply with ASME All 7.1 2.17.16. Means shall be provided at the base of the rails to collect excess lubricant. • Rails shall be kept clean and free of excess lubricant, lint, and dirt accumulation. Where necessary, a nonflammable or high -flashpoint solvent shall be used for cleaning the rails. • Rust -preventive compounds such as paint, lubricants such as graphite or oil, and similar coatings shall not be applied unless recommended by the manufacturer. Note: Schindler equipment does not require rail lubrication. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 8 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 3 330ATM Hydraulic Maintenance 3.1 330ATm Hydraulic Maintenance Tasks 330A Hydraulic Elevators - Maintenance Tasks Task Description ASME A17.1 Code Reference Performance Interval Visual check pump unit operation / component 8.6.5.9 8.6.5.5.1 8.6.5.6 Semi Annual Visual check oil level 8.6.5.4 8.6.5.7 8.6.5.1.2 Semi Annual Visual check controller operation / components / motor starter 8.6.1.6.3 Semi Annual Check / tighten controller connections 8.6.1.6.3 Annual Visual check overall machine room space / area 8.6.4.8 8.6.1.6.5 Semi Annual Clean machine room 8.6.4.8 Semi Annual Ride unit / check ride quality 8.6.5.12 8.6.4.16 Semi Annual Visual check cab interior / components / fixtures 8.6.4.15 Semi Annual Check emergency lighting / alarm bell 8.6.4.15 Semi Annual Visual check guide rails & brackets / lube as applicable 8.6.4.3 Semi Annual Check, lube all hoistway safe / terminal switches 8.6.4.14 Semi Annual Check, clean, lube car door & door operator hardware 8.6.1.6.2 8.6.4.13.1 Semi Annual Check, clean, lube all landing door hardware 8.6.1.6.2 8.6.4.1 3.1 Semi Annual Clean car top 8.6.4.9 Semi Annual Visual check pit / pit equipment 8.6.5.11 8.6.5.5.1 8.6.5.5.2 Semi Annual Check, lube, pit safety switches 8.6.1.6.2 Semi Annual Clean pit 8.6.4.7.1 Semi Annual Confirm sign & data plates 8.6.1.6.7 Annual 3.2 330ATm Hydraulic Maintenance Tasks — Details Visual check pump unit operation / components: • Check motor, pump, piping, belts, drip pan, valve and 330A muffler bladder, if applicable. • Confirm relief valve seal is intact. • If applicable, check condition of any flexible hoses. Visual check oil level: • A record of oil usage will be kept in the machine room. • Adjust oil level as necessary. • Record all oil additions, unexplained oil loss. • Verify low oil protection function. • If pressure tanks used, check & maintain proper liquid level at about 2/3 full. Visual check controller operation / component / motor starter: • Check all components, faults lights, burnt contacts, motor starter, etc. Clean if necessary. • If applicable, test & if necessary replace any control battery. • Confirm wiring diagrams available. • Confirm no temporary wiring / relay, blocks / contact insulators, jumpers in place. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 9 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. 3.2 330ATm Hydraulic Maintenance Tasks — Details (con't) Check i tighten controller connections: • Check power & field terminal connection. Visual check overall machine room space/ area: • Check condition of air conditioning, lighting, outlet, improper machine room / material, storage / installation, equipment guards, proper fire extinguisher. • Check access doors closed & locked. • No flammable liquid storage. • Improper conditions should be reported to the owner & corrected. Clean machine room: • Sweep floor & clean any lubricant, water dirt, rubbish from floor. Ride unit / check ride quality: • Check vibration, noise, ride quality, leveling (including anti -creep function), etc. Visual check cab interior / components / fixtures: • Check handrail, signs, lighting, phone, fan, platform, sills, ventilation and signaling devices. • Verify proper fixture operation / condition etc. Check emergency lighting / alarm bell: • Verify proper operation / condition. Visual check guide rails & brackets / lube as applicable: • Check for damage. Check / lube all hoistway safety / terminal switches: • Verify operation, visual check condition. • Also check hoistway access switch operation, if applicable. Check, clean, lube car door & door operator hardware: • Check condition / operation. • Check door lock & contacts, reopening devices, vision panels & grills, unlocking devices & escutcheons, hanger, tracks, rollers, gibs, up -thrusts, door safety retainers, astragals, sills & bottom guides, fastenings, clutches, vanes, retiring cams, relating cables / belts, door closers, door restrictors. All as applicable. Check, clean, lube all landing door hardware: • Check door lock & contacts, reopening devices, vision panels & grills, unlocking devices & escutcheons, hanger, tracks, rollers, gibs, up -thrusts, door safety retainers, astragals, sills & bottom guides, fastenings, clutches, vanes, retiring cams, relating cables / belts, door closers, door restrictors. All as applicable. Clean car top: • Clean any lubricants, dirt, water, rubbish from car top. No material, parts, tools, etc. stored on car top. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 10 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 4 Special Procedures — 330ATm Hydraulic 4.1 Overspeed Test for BLAIN Valves • Blain overspeed valve adjustment is opposite that of the Maxton overspeed valve. Clockwise turn of the adjustment screw increases the tripping speed. 1. Loosen locking nut on Adjustment Screw. (See Figure 1) 2. Turn Adjustment Screw clockwise fully until flush with locking nut. (Do this for both valves for Gemini Jack applications). 3. Set elevator car to contract speed with rated load. Use a tachometer to check car speed. 4. Turn Adjustment Screw COUNTERCLOCKWISE, two turns. (For Gemini Jack applications, perform Steps 4 through 7 only to the right-hand side valve.) 5. Run car in DOWN direction with a down call. Valve tripping will stop the car from completing the down call. After a valve trip, run the car upwards under manual control to re -open the valve. 6. Repeat steps (4) through (5) until the valve trips at car contract speed. If the valve trips before car reaches contract speed, then tum the Adjustment Screw CLOCKWISE to raise valve -tripping speed. 7. Turn the Adjustment Screw 3/4 turn, CLOCKWISE. Re -tighten the jacking nut on the Adjustment Screw. 8. For Gemini Jack applications, adjust the left-hand side valve Adjustment Screw setting to match that of the right-hand side valve. 9. Check actual overspeed valve trip setting: a) Locate the Down Speed Control Valve inside the power unit. b) Note the setting position of the Down Speed Control Valve. After the test, resetting to this position is required. c) Adjust the Down Speed Control Valve to increase down travel car speed. d) Run car in down direction with a down call. e) Measure car speed during overspeed valve set. The tripping speed must be less than 125% of contract speed. f) IMPORTANT: Return the Down Speed Control Valve to its contract speed setting. g) After a valve trip, run the car upwards under manual control to re -open the valve. TTOPIOIVAR Orracnsrr P4' M!TIr oR OSV-W REV.3 Aiwa N The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 11 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 5 Special Procedures — Emergency Situations 5.1 Emergency Evacuation Procedure for Elevators Responding to an Entrapment Situation Notice: Only authorized elevator and/or emergency personnel must perform the evacuation of passengers from a stalled elevator. Elevator systems are electro -mechanical cars operating on cables and driven in a shaft that normally spans the height of the building. Contact with live electrical circuits, exposure to an open shaft and uncontrolled car movement are all dangers that can result in death or serious injury. Never attempt to evacuate passengers from a stalled elevator. Immediately contact the elevator maintenance company or emergency personnel. Procedure to be Followed: 1. Establish contact with the people in the elevator through your communication system (phone or intercom) or through the elevator doors. 2. Explain that the elevator is experiencing a temporary problem and that qualified personnel are being called to release them. 3. Assure the passengers that they are safe; there should be sufficient ventilation for normal breathing: and they MUST NOT attempt to free themselves by prying the doors or some other dangerous activity. 4. Ask how many people are in the car and if anyone is injured and the extent of the injuries. 5. Ask if the emergency stop was tripped and if so, request that it be returned to its original position. 6. Designate a person to remain in contact with the passengers. 7. Call the elevator maintenance company and request emergency service. Tell them that people are in the stalled elevator and ask for the technician's estimated time of arrival ("ETA"). 8. Inform the passengers that help is on the way and provide the ETA, if possible. 9. If there are injuries or if the ETA is too long, call the fire department. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 13 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 6 Cleaning of Transparent Cars & Hoistways Notice: Only authorized personnel in compliance with this procedure shall perform the cleaning of the exterior of transparent car enclosures or hoistway enclosures from inside the hoistway. An elevator that is used for cleaning purposes exposes the workers to electrical and mechanical elevator equipment as a result of riding on top of the car. Contact with live electrical circuits, exposure to an open shaft and falling from a car top are all dangers that can result in death or serious injury. Use of an elevator car for cleaning purposes must only be carried out under the direction of a competent elevator technician using the following procedure. Procedure to be Followed: 1. Building personnel must clearly establish that all cleaning activities performed from the elevator are under the direct control of the elevator technician. 2. The elevator technician must establish a clear set of communications with the cleaners; for example, when the elevator will be moved, the direction of car movement, position of personnel and hand holds on car top when moving, etc. 3. The elevator technician and the cleaners will wear fall protection equipment secured to the car top at all times. 4. Any elevators operating in an adjoining hoistway shall be positioned at the top landing and locked out of service. 5. All tools must be kept in a toolbox when not in use and stored at the front of the car. 6. The elevator technician shall clearly communicate the position on the car top from which the cleaner may work. Notice: Schindler Elevator Corporation will provide resources to assist in this procedure pursuant to a separate agreement. Contact your Schindler sales representative. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 15 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Chapter 7 330ATm Hydraulic Elevator Lubrication Equipment ----Suggested Grade of Lubricant Hy draulic oil Bore hole ISO AW 32 Holeless Citgo Transguard THF Guide rails — slide guide Sli it Synchronization cable 34-38 SSU light viscosity spindle oil Door operator Grease fittings Lithium EP#2 Pins, levers, bushings & relating cables ISO 68 SAE 20 All other common bearings, pins & friction points requiring rease Lithium EP#2 All other small bearings, pins & friction points requiring light lubricant ISO 68 SAE 20 Note: Synthetic lubricants must not be mixed with each other or with non -synthetic lubricants. The information contained herein is confidential and/or proprietary to Schindler Elevator Corporation ("Schindler") and is 17 compiled and presented to applicable ASME A17.1 maintenance control program requirements. It is provided subject to a non- exclusive license and the reproduction, printing, transmittal, disclosure or use of any of the information presented other than for the limited purpose set forth herein is prohibited. Before You Call For Service Often times, a few simple checks can prevent unnecessary service calls. Prior to calling Schindler Service, check into these common causes of service interruption. Often times, you may be able to immediately restore safe, reliable service yourself. — Confirm that there is a problem, especially if you learn about the situation second hand. — Check the Stop switch button. Confirm that it is in the normal "run" position. — Make sure all restricted access and keyed switches are in their "run" positions. — Look for doorway obstructions — including foreign matter in the door sill grooves or objects that prevent complete door closure. — Be sure the building is receiving full electric power. Have a qualified person check to see if there is a blown fuse on the main power supply. Schindler Safety begins with you Unsafe ridership If you see passengers misusing the equipment or riding in an unsafe manner, warn them immediately. Be sure that children are always accompanied by an adult. Leveling Tripping hazards can result when an elevator doesn't land evenly with the floor. If you see mis-leveling, put the car out of service and call Schindler immediately. Door operation If elevator doors close with excessive force or if the safety edges or light rays appear to be malfunctioning, put the car out of service and call Schindler immediately. Users with special needs Be alert to the special needs of the elderly or those with disabilities who may need assistance when using your equipment. Clearly indicate the location of elevators for those who cannot use or choose not to use the escalator. Abnormal operation or noises Although the preceding list covers many common situations, it does not cover everything. If you ever sense an abnormal condition, such as a strange "feel" or sound, let us know immediately. If there is any chance the equipment is not operating safely, shut it down until we can analyze the situation. If you need to call us To expedite your call for service, please have the following information ready: — Your building ID number — The building name and address — The specific nature of the problem — The name and phone number of the building personnel to contact — For prompt service, call Schindler at 1.800.225.3123. Schindler Service Reliability from the ground level For further information including location of the Schindler office nearest you, please visit: www.us.schindler.com U.S. Headquarters Schindler Elevator Corporation 20 Whippany Road, P.O. Box 1935 Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1935 Tel. 973.397.6500 Canada Headquarters Schindler Elevator Corporation 40 Cowdray Court Scarborough, Ontario M1S 1A1 Tel. 416.332.8280 • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. SC REQUEST Cooperative Agreement with ITD for Ten Mile Road and Tasa Drive Lighting AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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: COMMENTS See Attached Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CE IDIAN'%-�,-o Public I DA H O Works Department TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Members of the City Council FROM: Tim Curns, Transportation and Utility Coordinator DATE: February 19, 2010 Mayor Tammy de Weerd Cny Ceamil Memberss Keith Bird Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH ITD FOR TEN MILE ROAD AND TASA DRIVE LIGHTING I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: 1. Approve the cooperative agreement for street lighting associated with the Ten Mile Road Interchange Project, Key Number 08915; and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Tim Curns, Transportation and Utility Coordinator 489-0342 Warren Stewart, PW Engineering Manager 489-0350 Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372 III � I Y '7 IM C�hl Background The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has included the installation of street lights along Ten Mile Road and Tasa Drive with the Interchange Project. Upon completion of the Project, the lights will be given to the City, just as intersection street lights installed by ACRD are given to the City after installation. Idaho State code affirms that street lights shall be installed by the transportation authority and maintained by the Cities, if such lights are within a city. ITD has requested that the Page 1 of 2 City enter into a maintenance agreement prior to installing the street lights for the Ten Mile Project. IV. IMPACT A. Strategic Impact: This agreement furthers the objective of Public Works to increase street lighting in the City limits to enhance the safety of our citizens in a fiscally responsible manner. B. Service/Deliveryl=act: The installation of these street lights expands coverage of the City's system by approximately one-half of a mile, in aggregate. C. Fiscal Impact: There is no initial fiscal impact to the City, as the street lights will be installed at the sole expense of ITD upon approval of the agreement. The total monthly energy and maintenance costs for the 23 lights will average approximately $160. V. ALTERNATIVES Council may choose not to approve the agreement; however the City would miss an opportunity to have 23 street lights installed at no cost. ITD will not install the lights in the absence of a maintenance agreement with the City. VI. TIME CONSTRAINTS Council's approval will allow ITD's contractor to begin ordering and installing materials for the street lights. ITD has requested the agreement be completed in a timely manner to avoid delays to this portion of the project. VII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. Cooperative Agreement for Illumination, Ten Mile Road IC Approved for Council Agen . arren Stewart, Engineering Manager Page 2 of 2 Z 6te COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (Mumination/Lighting) CITY OF MERIDIAN PROJECT NAME: TEN MILE RD IC, BOISE PROJECT NUMBER: A009(815) KEY NO. 09815 p�3 g THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of by and between the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION called DEPARTMENT, hereafter called the STATE, and the CITY OF MERID PURPOSE Both Parties mutually agree that it is in the public's interest to construct highway and street lighting on Ten Mile Road and Tom Drive within Ada County. The improvements will be in accordance with the attached sheets entitled Exhibit "A', Federal -Aid Highway Project A009(815). 0Authority for this Agreement is established by Section 40-317 of the Idaho Code. The Parties agree as follows: 1. The CITY will accept from the STATE ownership of all street lighting equipment installed on Ten Mile Road and Tasa Drive in accordance with Exhibit "A", and upon request to energize, assume all operation, and the costs thereof, required to maintain the equipment in continuous service during the hours of darkness and not remove, alter or abandon the lighting equipment without the prior concurrence of the STATE. In the event that the "Average Maintained Foot -Candles" of the lighting system drops below seventy (70) percent of the original installed values, the CITY shall cause the light intensity to be restored to approximately the original values. Any combination of relamping and/or cleaning of fixtures may be used to achieve the necessary desired intensity. 2. The CITY will indemnify, save harmless and. defend regardless of outcome the STATE from expenses of and against suits, actions, claims, or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs, expenses and attorney fees that may be incurred by reason of any act or omission, neglect or misconduct of the CITY in the maintenance of the work. Cooperative Agreement (Illumination) Ten Mile IC Key NO. 09815 RDRegisw. No Page 1 f 3. The STATE will indemnify, save harmless and defend regardless of outcome the CITY from expenses of and against suits, actions, claims, or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs, expenses and attorney fees that may be incurred by reason of any act or omission, neglect or misconduct of the STATE in the original installation of the work. 4. Should any of the street lighting equipment be damaged or destroyed through the wrongful or negligent act of any third party, the CITY will repair or replace the equipment and will make reasonable efforts to identify and recover costs from the responsible party for the cost of such repair or replacement. 5. This Agreement shall become effective on the first date mentioned above and shall remain m full force and effect until amended or replaced upon the mutual consent of the CITY and the STATE. EXECUTION This Agreement is executed for the STATE by its Assistant Chief Engineer (Development); and executed for the CITY by the Mayor, attested to by the City Clerk, with the imprinted corporate Seal of the CITY OF MERIDIAN. APPROVED: AS' 'm AOIUO%. ATTEST: Of �Z :MWuniL 7 9 c Q T 18,E • OQ� ```��� i IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: Assistant hief Engineer (Development) COMMENDED: District Engineer CITY OF MERIDIAN 06 Mayor T de Weerd Cooperative Agreement (IllumInatlon) Ten pule ZC Key No. 09815 Page 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Idaho Transportation Department, hereafter called the STATE, has submitted an Agreement stating obligations of the STATE and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, hereafter called the CITY, for ownership and maintenance of illumination on Ten Mile Road and Tasa Drive; and WHEREAS, the STATE is responsible for obtaining compliance with laws, standards and procedural policies in the development, construction and maintenance of improvements made to the Federal -aid Highway System when there is federal participation in the costs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Agreement for Federal Aid Highway Project A009(815) is hereby approved. 2. That the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the CITY. 3. That duly certified copies of the Resolution shall be furnished to the Idaho Transportation Department. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a Resolution passed at a regular, duly called special (X -out non -applicable term) meeting of the City Council, City of Meridian, held on (Seal) o ; SEAL �r 1S" Cot] -TN( , J6"- 1 '1 - City 1 Cooperative Agreement (Illumination) Ten Mile IC Key No. 09815 Page 3 L,5P*XMWB\NOIIVNIItlYI11\S13345\[S OYo7\71 -M w1 16IL%Ws31ryN311! m GWALO OIOUM/L 9MIElld 9 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. SD REQUEST Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: if CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: See Attached 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. C E IDIAN�� Public IL D A H O Works Department TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Members of the City Council FROM: Denny Cline OC -- DATE: 2/16/10 Mayor Tammy de Weerd CRy Cesndl Memberse Keith Bird Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: 1. Approve a Sewer and Water Main Easement for the City of Meridian, located in Martinel Subdivision, Lot 3, Block 1, by Don and Marie Morgan (husband and wife). This easement provides The City of Meridian access to a new sewer and water main being installed on the North side of the parcel, owned by Don and Marie Morgan. This sewer and water main will be connected to existing facilities in the adjacent Napoli Subdivision and extended to the adjacent property to the east, to provide service for the Diamond View Assisted Living facilities. 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the easement. H. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Tom Barry, Director of Public Works Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager Scott Steckline, Land Development Supervisor Denny Cline, Development Analyst II ;-!-! F, � - 9- �� � Page l of I 489-0372 489-0362 489-0369 489-0363 ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 6 BOISE IDAHO 631Mf1O 0210 PIN DEPUTY Use ed RECORDED -REQUEST OF III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III Meddler CIV 11061946.6 SAN1iTARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this —day of !I , 20LAntwem Don and Marie Moreau (husband and wife the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian Ada County. Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessaryto maintain, service and subsequently 00111120CUD said pipeliaef in time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the ngbt-of-way for an easement for the construction, operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mom over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and waxer mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and additional connection thereto, of water or sanitary sewer mains at the convenience ofthe Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the pasties hereto, that after construction, making repairs, performing other maintenance or making subsequent connection to the water line, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such construction, repairs and maintenance However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would mtm fere with the use of said easement, for the purposes star herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should awl part of the right-of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries ofany public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereofagainst the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed theirsignatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: tj b'ti' �1 Don Morgan STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) Make Morgan On this day of l,,Mxd 2010 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared bon and Marie Morgan, known or identified to me to be the person(s), whose names are subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. yrv40 s NOTARY PU C fOR IDAHO Residing at _ r•-rsC �'�z 1.� Commission Expires: 2 Z e Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, or. 1 ` � Attest *Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk Approved By City Council STATE OF IDAHO ) )ss County of Ada ) y �sr W On this day of- --, 20 12 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instuvment, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year RM above written iiiiii• � • • GA PR i• �NLT�ARY PUB C FOR IDAHO (SEAL) at: Vlur,a , Ifin h o; Commission Expires" Van (d Sanitary Sewer and Wates Main Easement Project: 008051:1 Date: January 14, 2010 Patc: 1 of 1 332 N. Broadmore Way A PL.tmviNa iNc. Nampa, ID 83687 Ph: (208) 442-6300 • Fax: (208) 466-0944 Exhibit "A" 30.110 foot wide Sewer and Water Easement Lot 3 Block ]of Martinet Subdivision This easement is situated on a portion of Lot 3 of Block I of Martinel Subdivision on file in book 66, page 6764 in the Office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho and is more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8 -inch iron pin marking the northeast corner of said Lot 3, said point also being the northeast corner of the SW 1!4 of the SWI /4 of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range I Fast of thu Raise Meridian; thunec along the east boundary of said Lot 3, A) S.00032'1 4"W.. 30.00 feet; thence parallel with the north boundary of said Lot 3, I) N.89°21' 14"W., 746.41 feet to a point on the west boundary of said Lot 3; thence along said west boundary, 2) N.00°55'03"1., 30.00 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 3; thence along the north boundary of said Lot 3. 3) 5.8902VI 4"F., 746.1 feet (of record 745.97 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 22.389 square feet, more or L: Project Files\ C0805 \Survey\LcSalDcscriptionsi30' Water -Sewer L'smt., L.ot 3 Martinei.doc I c 500'34 :5B r Z m Z O O N Y rrq tv N/ SOUTH EAGLE ROAD r A r BQr�r. I , .p Ln ti M � n I O' + •-- I h1 ^i qy3 � f II Z SOUTH EAGLE ROAD BQr�r. I , .p S. PALATING AVE. 00�re� I -:is,, Glp bdb tm O I O' + •-- I r"� O i f II PROJECT No. DIAMOND VIEW ASSISTED LIVING 008051:1 o„r OFF-SITE SEWER & WATER EASEMENT - I SOFE'I EXHIBIT "B"ftwx 13 +vewr`ex� BQr�r. , I I eo, , I I 8� 4y l0 bdb tm O •-- I PROJECT No. DIAMOND VIEW ASSISTED LIVING 008051:1 o„r OFF-SITE SEWER & WATER EASEMENT - I SOFE'I EXHIBIT "B"ftwx 13 +vewr`ex� • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 5E REQUEST Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living (Roger and Teresa Taylor) CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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: See Attached Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. E IDIANt-�- Public IDAHO Works Department TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Members of the City Council FROM: Denny Cline Lt, DATE: 2116/10 Mayor Tammy de Weerd CRy CeanaN Memberse Keith Bird Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement - Diamond View Assisted Living I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: 1. Approve a Sewer and Water Main Easement for the City of Meridian, located in Martinel Subdivision, Lot 2, Block 1, by Roger and Teresa Taylor (husband and wife). This easement provides The City of Meridian access to a new sewer and water main being installed on the North side of the parcel, owned by Roger and Teresa Taylor. This sewer and water main will be connected to existing facilities in the adjacent Napoli Subdivision and extended to the adjacent property to the east, to provide service for the Diamond View Assisted Living facilities. 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the easement. H. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Tom Barry, Director of Public Works Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager Scott Steckline, Land Development Supervisor Denny Cline, Development Analyst II M-01"mlaa Page I of l 489-0372 489-0362 489-0369 489-0363 ADA COUNTY REI CROER J. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 ! 6018E IDAHO eeI0 O 0 10 PM DEPUTY UN ed REMRDED-REQUM OF III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Moddlim CIV 110819465 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this L -""day of . 20 ® between, 10 the parties of the first part, Roger Taylor and Teresa Taylor, husband and wife, hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party ofthe second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantors own that certain real property ("Grantors' Property") legfiy described as: Lot 2, Block 1 of Martinel Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, filed in Book 66 of Plats, at page 6744, Records of Ada County, Idaho. WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer and water main easement across Grantors' Property in the location described in the attached Exhibit A.; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and waxer is to be provided through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee a nonexclusive easement for the operation and mamtenaaceof sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A 8t B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water morns and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all tunes. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT- Page 1 of 4 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT 1S EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. However, Grantors and City of Meridian agree that Grantors may place fences across the area described for this easement, so long the fences have gates of a size and type sufficient to allow vehicle access to the easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such easement, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. (REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT- Page 2 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTORS: .044 STATE OF IDAHO ss County of Ada On this day of 20 bgfore me, the undersigned, a Notary Publj�.!n and for said State,,Personally algeared *_ I c; and known or identified to , me to be the person that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the saine. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ljavebqtmjo set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written:' 7 0 1AP.1 PUBLrIC FOR IDAHO • 'nat: �ssion Expires. -4-.. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT- Page 3 of 4 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Orr 4, Tammy de Weerd, yor Me? �Attest by ycee L. Holman, City Clerk Approved By City Council STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this -Rec4 day ofd% rrh , 201 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and JAYCEE L. HOLMAN. known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. City of Meridian, Idaho Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W 1-2949 ••e•mi&••• Rf +Rg UBLIC R O (SEAL) „r,a ; I c�a�, o ' Commission Expires: _1n" , .Dnt tJ • •, pU�,1 . �. •sense. City of Meridian, Idaho Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement EASMT.S&W 1-2949 Project: C08051:1 Date: January 14, 2010 Page: 1 of 1 332 N. Broadrnore Way Nampa, ID 83697 Ph: (208) 442-6300 • ]tax: (208) 466-0944 Exhibit "A" 30.00 foot wide Sewer and Water Easement Lot 2 Nock 1of Martinel Subdivision This easement is situated on a portion of Lot 2 of Block 1 of Martine] Subdivision on file in book 66, page 6764 in die Office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho and is more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a 5/8 -inch iron pin marking the northeast corner of said Martine] Subdivision, said point also being the northeast corner of the SWIM of the SW IA of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range I East of the Boise Meridian; thence along tine north boundaty of said Martinel Subdivision, A) N.89°21' ] 4"W., 746.21 feet (of record 745.97 feet) to the northeast coiner of said Lot 2, said point swing the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the east boundary of said Lot 2, B) S.00°55'03"W., 30.00 feet; thence parallel with the north boundary of said Lot 2, 1) N.89°2114"W., 385.63 feet; thence, 2) N.00°00'00"E., 30.00 feet to a point on the north boundary of said Lot 2; thence along said north boundary, 3) S.89°21'14"R., 386.11 fe CONTAINING 11,576 square feet, mon L:1 Project Fi les] C08051 %urveyV egalDescriptlons130' Water -Sewer Esmt., Lot 2 Martinel.doc iw) MOW SOUTH EAGiJP ROAD r�. ,p h D- r 0 0 0 f 1.► *i o Tr o C m cn m ornx C3.1 z IU3, ^� z m Z r m z iT1 O c 0 M a Fn z 09 --r z c S z I SOUTH EAGiJP ROAD r�. ,p h E' r 0 0 0 f 1.► o ooQd I SOUTH EAGiJP ROAD r�. ,p � ;."0 DIAMOND VIEW ASSISTED LIVINGI ,m Awam 12. „ UFF SATE SEWER & WATER EASEMENT I — ' - l- L STKET EXHIBIT "B" am=s R.'.3=24SIMAa°�7�°0�""' 1OFr r[eRtmnet %uae ... rnmt enew.x+, S. PALATINO AVE, f 1.► o �0 I � ;."0 DIAMOND VIEW ASSISTED LIVINGI ,m Awam 12. „ UFF SATE SEWER & WATER EASEMENT I — ' - l- L STKET EXHIBIT "B" am=s R.'.3=24SIMAa°�7�°0�""' 1OFr r[eRtmnet %uae ... rnmt enew.x+, MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 10-001 APPLICANT BRS Architects ITEM NO. 5F REQUEST Final Decision and Order for Approval - AP 10-001 Pet Care Clinic by BRS Architects Located at 1151 E. Fairview AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: 4� CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST ) Case No. AP -10-001 TO WAIVE THE 20' X 20' WIDE DRIVEWAY) ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY AND THE ) CONSTRUCTION OF THE MULTI -USE ) PATHWAY ADJACENT TO FAIRVIEW ) AVENUE BOUNDARY APPROVED WITH ) THE PET CARE CLINIC CERTIFICATE OF ) ZONING COMPLANCE (CZC-09-056) ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL FOR ) APPROVAL WENPHI PROPERTIES ) BY: BRS ARCHITECTS (Applicant) ) The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on February 2, 2010, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the approval with conditions of the request to waive two Unified Development Standards required for the Pet Care Clinic Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-09- 056) City Council Review (AP -10-001) and the hearing was opened on the application. Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner, Anna Canning, Planning Director and Steve Siddoway, Parks Director for the Planning Department and the Parks Department, and Scott Stom, BRS Architects, and Phil Larkin on behalf of Wenphi Properties, appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. AP -10-001 does hereby approve the request to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION FOR PET CARE CLINIC; CASE NO. AP -10-001 PAGE 1 OF 3 modify the conditions of approval for the Pet Care Clinic Certificate of Zoning Compliance. FINDINGS OF FACT The approved Certificate of Zoning Compliance required the Applicant to construct a 20' X 20' wide driveway along the western boundary. Further, the Unified Development Code required the construction of a 10 -foot wide multi -use pathway adjacent to Fairview Avenue (northern property boundary). The Applicant's request was to construct the improvements with the futlue extension of Jericho Road and the future widening of Fairview Avenue. It is found that the Applicant's request to City Council is not reasonable granted as requested, however Council has approved the request to modify width of the multi -use pathway and has directed Legal Staff to enter into a signed agreement with the applicant in Case No. AP -10-001 with the following conditions. DECISION AND ORDER The Council ordered that the Applicant's appeal of a Director's decision is approved with conditions. Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 11-5A-6 and based upon the above and foregoing testimony, comments, Findings of Fact which are herein adopted with the following additional conditions and considerations: 1) The applicant shall construct a 6 -foot wide multi -use pathway along Fairview Avenue in lieu of the 7 -foot requirement; 2) The applicant agrees to construct the 20' X 20' foot wide driveway at the time future Jericho Road is extended along the western boundary and close off access to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION FOR PET CARE CLINIC; CASE NO. AP -10-001 PAGE 2 OF 3 Fairview Avenue. If said driveway is not constructed at that time, the applicant shall pay the compensatory amount as outlined in the attached agreement labeled as Exhibit A. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that the City Council does hereby approve the request to construct the 20' X 20' wide driveway at the time future Jericho Road is constructed as described in the agreement attached as Exhibit A and approves the reduction of the multi -use pathway from 7 feet in width to 6 feet in width along Fairview Avenue approved with the Pet Care Clinic Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-09-056). By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2 t� day of -Ma"4-- Feb. ; 2010. r orcr ATTFST: o�r� de Weerd ayee . Holman, City Clem 9 �r1S,•� Copy served upon Applicant, the apt Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney °'��►,s,c�12 ,,,,����� FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION FOR PET CARE CLINIC; CASE NO. AP -10-001 PAGE 3 OF 3 • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 AZ 09-004 APPLICANT Brent & Coleen Goodwin ITEM NO. 5G REQUEST Development Agreement - AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent L Colleen Goodwin Located at 270 North Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. • ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 31 BOISE IDAHO 030 O 02:10 PM DEPUfY Un Bad RECORDED—REQUEST OF III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIloll III I I III Maridlan Bite 110019464 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Shys, LLC, Owner 3. Brent and Coleen Goodwin, Developer THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this Agreement), is made and entered into this day of M Q, .a,, 2010, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the St�`ate of Idaho, hereafter called CITY, and Shys, LLC, 1969 W. Divide Creek Street, Meridian, ID 83646, hereinafter called OWNER and Brent and Coleen Goodwin, 1969 W. Divide Creek Street, Meridian Idaho 83642, hereinafter called DEVELOPER. 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, Owner and Developer are the sole owners, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit "A" for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the Property; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. § 67-6511 A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re -zoning that the Owner and/or Developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject Property; and 1.3 WHEREAS, City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Ordinance 11-5B-3, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re -zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, Developer has submitted an application for re -zoning of the Property described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of C -C (Community Business District) (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, Owner and/or Developer made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 1 OF 11 subject Property will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject Property held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the 23`d day of December, 2009, has approved Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the Findings); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Staff Report requires the Owner and Developer to enter into a development agreement before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 OWNER and DEVELOPER deem it to be in their best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at their urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, City requires the Owner and Developer to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure re -zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances codified in Meridian Unified Development Code, Title 11. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 2 OF 11 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 OWNER: means and refers to Shys, LLC, 1969 W. Divide Creek Street, Meridian, ID 83642, the party that owns said Property and shall include any subsequent owner(s) of the Property. 3.3 DEVELOPER: means and refers to Brent and Coleen Goodwin, 1969 W. Divide Creek Street, Meridian, ID 83642, the party that is developing said Property and shall include any subsequent developer(s) of the Property. 3.4 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s) of Property located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be re -zoned C -C (Community Business District) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under City's Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian Unified Development Code § 11-2B. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Access to the site shall be limited to one full access driveway via N. Linder Road as shown on the site plan; additional access points to Linder Road are prohibited. b. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements shall be provided to the properties to the north (parcel #R3579000020) and south (parcel #R3579000030) for future DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 3 OF 11 interconnectivity and to reduce access points to Linder Road, an arterial street. The easements shall be granted at the time of future construction on the site and/or expansion of the existing parking lot. A copy of said easements shall be submitted to the Planning Department with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. c. A minimum 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon an uncured material default of the Owner and/or Developer or Owner's and/or Developer's heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the City has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 4 OF 11 Linder Road in accordance with UDC 11 -3A -17C prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. d. A minimum of four (4) off-street vehicle parking spaces shall be provided on the site in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5. Additionally, a minimum of one (1) bicycle parking space shall be provided on this site in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3C -5C. e. A 25 -foot wide landscape street buffer is required to be installed along Linder Road in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C. f. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 25 -foot wide buffer is required to be installed adjacent to the residential uses along the north and south property boundaries, in accordance with the standards listed UDC 11 -3B -9C. g. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to the Planning Department for approval of the use to ensure compliance with the provisions of the development agreement contained herein, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. h. After obtaining approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance from the Planning Department, the applicant shall apply for a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department, prior to commencing the operation of the birthing center in the City. i. Outdoor activities conducted on this site shall not create a public noise disturbance between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am, in accordance with Meridian City Code §6-3-6. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon an uncured material default of the Owner and/or Developer or Owner's and/or Developer's heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the City has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE -ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 4 OF 11 I-] Owner and/or Developer consent upon default to the reversal of the zoning designation of the Property subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to -wit: 7.1 That the City provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to Owner and/or Developer and if the Owner and/or Developer fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. DEFAULT: 8.1 In the event Owner and/or Developer, or Owner's and/or Developer's heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the Property or any other person acquiring an interest in the Property, fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the Property, this Agreement may be terminated by the City upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 8.2 A waiver by City of any default by Owner and/or Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of City or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at Owner's and/or Developer's cost, and submit proof of such recording to Owner and/or Developer, prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re -zoning of the Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby, the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 10. ZONING: City shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein. 11. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either City or Owner and/or Developer, or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 5 OF 11 11.1 Subject to Sections 6 and 7 of this Agreement, in the event of an uncured material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that City and Owner and/or Developer shall have thirty (3 0) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non -breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (3 0) day period, if the defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be reasonably necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 11.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either Owner and/or Developer or City is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 12. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code § 11-5-C, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the Owner and/or Developer agrees to provide, if required by the City. 13. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The Owner and/or Developer agree that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the City and Owner and/or Developer has entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the City. 14. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owner and Developer agree to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Property shall be subject to de - annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 15. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt Isrequested, addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 6 OF 11 CITY: DEVELOPER: City Clerk Brent and Coleen Goodwin City of Meridian 1969 W. Divide Creek Street 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 OWNER: Shys, LLC 1969 W. Divide Creek Street Meridian, ID 83642 with copy to: City Attorney City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 15.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 16. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 17. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other parry so failing to perform. 18. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the Owner and/or Developer of the Property, each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 7 OF 11 upon written request of Owner and/or Developer, to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Owner/Developer has fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 19. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 20. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between Owner and/or Developer and City relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between Owner and/or Developer and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to City, to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. 20.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re -zoning of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 21. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. OWNER: SITYS, LLC y: 0� DEVELOPER: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 8 OF l 1 • 11 RE F 7h , Coleen Goodwin CITY OF MERIDIAN r i By: Mayor Tayyy de Weerd ATTEST: ``````� ���►u���t,,,,. ,�'� JayceeW. Holman, City Clerk _ $m r DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 9 OF 11 • STATE OF IDAHO, ) ): ss County of Ada, ) On this 141"6 day of Fe.6r,or .. , 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said 'State, personally appeared ';&=k nk Cgcm dam► n , known or identified to me to be the r..;0e r of SITYS, LLC, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) UP'*Jj.►q.;01 W STATE OF IDAHO, ) ): ss County of Ada, ) 0. otary Public or Idaho Residing at: My Commission spires: ,pjq On this i 4{'`' day of e..6rL%gx 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, perso ally appeared Brent Goodwin, known or identified to me to be the person who signed the agreement and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) ��' .�AJtk g � pUB;.•1G �*�� Ole t�0at►°� Public for Idaho Residing at: 9&mnn 0 Tb My Commission Expires: y DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 10 OF 11 • • r� STATE OF IDAHO, ) ): ss County of Ada, ) On this day day of r 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, persona.ly appeared Coleen Goodwin, known or identified to me to be the person who signed the agreement and acknowledged to me that she executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) 'Y" 0j,0TAft?10 p��1�t ! ®F� STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss 00tary Public tor Idaho Residing at:� s, =p My Commission Expires: y County of Ada ) On this Zday of 2010, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. J . •'�; pTA�'••• +Rsidingat: Pub o • ?L,�1a t 10-ka-ha Commission expires: Jan DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) PAGE 11 OF 11 0 Exhibit A - Legal Description • Exhibit A BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED LLC Parcel Description For Lot 5 Block 1 Hepper Acres Subdivision Lot 5131o* 1 of H%W Acme Subdivision, shim in the Southwest querw of Section 12, T'owoship 3 North, Range 1 WM Boise Metidlan, Ada County County, Idaho, Mone particularly des :[ etd as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of SeWon 12, Thence N000000"W, 802 33 feet along the West line ofthe Southwest quarter of Section 12 to the Southwest corm of Lot 5, the POINT OF WGINNING; Tlreace N0000410"W, 120 00 feet along the west boundary of said Loi 5 to the northwest comer of Lot 5; Thence 388°59'00"8, 356 29 feet along the North boundary of said Lot 5 to the Northeast comer of Lot 5; Thence 3W°0700"W,120.00 feet along the Vag boundary of said Lot 5 to the Southwest comer of sad Lot 5; Thence N88"59Vr W, 355.84 feet along the South boundary of said Lot 5 to the POINI OF BEGINNING Said PM=I A contains 0.98 Acres or 42,719 Square Feet more or less and is subject to all rights of WSYS JUL 28 2009 0AN PUBLIC ,RKS DEPT Tari Ebbn PE PLS 200.883.8477 twWKQnrpqpn have Senders Survey Manager 208.738 8003 yy��,gt41 UGrgval�a �;_ 2121 $. PlOppi Boise Idaho 83705 11 tilk � 6-11 CITY OF MERIDIANE ZIDAnHO C4X FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONSOFLAWAND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.98 of an Acre of Land to the C -C (Community Business) Zoning District, by Brent and Coleen Goodwin. Case No(s). AZ409-004 For the City Council Hearing Date of: December 8, 2009 (Findings on the December 22, 2009 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). Az -09-004 -1- 0 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attache conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description and provisions of the Development Agreement in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Annexation & Zoning request to the C -C district as evidenced by having submitted the legal description and exhibit map, stamped by Earl Eblen and dated July 28, 2009, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. A Development Agreement (DA) is required with the sub act annexation & zoning j approval. The provisions of the DA are as shown in Exhibit B of the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009, incorporated by reference. D. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009. CrrY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ49-004 -2- is B action of the Ci Council at its By City regular meeting hold on the day of bug'i - Led, -.12009. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA COUNCIL MEMBER BRAD HOAGLUN COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED,p��. VOTED VOTED --- c –- G CC. n . (Z- '— Attest: �•��� Jaycee City Cl edt , "' '0�rtS't-� i Copy served upon Applicant;' Attorney. Public Works Department and City By.P Dated: Cl ' Of Ee- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ -04-004 -3- • • STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: December 8, 2009 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner 208-8845533 SUBJECT: AZ -09-004 — The Baby Place C �Ek N�Zv SUNDURY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicants, Brent and Coleen Goodwin, have applied to annex and zone 0.98 of an acre of land from the RI zoning district in Ada County to the C -C (Community Business) zoning district in the City. The applicants are currently operating a birthing center, The Baby Place, on this property and have submitted a site plan showing the location of the existing structure, access driveway to Linder Road, parking, landscaping, and fencing. See Section 10 of the staff'reportfor more information. U. SUMMARY RECOADdENDATION Staff is- commending approval of the proposed annexation and zoning based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Fxbifbit D with the requirement of a Development Agreement that includes the provisions noted in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian P—hunwim & Z=hm Commission heard this Item on September 3 and 17 and November 5, 2009. At the Public hearing on November they moved to recommend approval of the subiect AZ rearrest. a. Summery of Commission Public Hearing. 1. In favor: Jason Kudin, Paul Starr Verlyn Brower ii. In oumdtion: Gary Reimer. Margaret Reimer: Jim Witt iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Jason Kugun: Design West v. Staff oresentl aPPlicatian: Sonya Watters vi. Other staff commeutba on application: None b. Kew Issue(s) of Discussion by Comnihsion: L The proposed hours of oneration of the birthing center: ii. The previous and continued operation of the business without the proper approvals in Ada Corrnty C. Key Commission Channels) to Staff Recommendation: L Modify DA provision #1.2b to include the timing for the �accros easements to be wanted (see Exhibit H). d. Outstanding Issne(s) for City Coundl: i. None Baby Place, 'The AZ PAGE I Flu a :. r 1 441 11 1 y11i 1 : :, 1 i 1 :r1 f XI' I 1 1 1 1 ;1111 1 I f 1 1 � 1 Baby Place, 'The AZ PAGE I III. PROPOSED MOTION Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number AZ -09- 004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 8, 2009 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number AZ -09-004, as presented during the hearing on December 8, 2009, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and yon must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Number AZ4)9-004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS A. Site Address/Location: The site is located at 270 N. Larder Road, in the SW % of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. B. Owner(s): Shys, LLC 1969 W. Divide Creek Street Meridian, ID 83646 C. Applicant Brent and Coleen Goodwin 1969 W. Divide Creek Street Meridian, ID 83646 D. Representative: Jason Kuglin, Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. 12552 W. Executive Drive, Suite B Boise, ID 83713 E. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant's narrative for this information. V. PROCESS FACTS A. The subject application is for annexation and zoning. A public hearing is required before the Baby Place, The AZ PAGE 2 Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5. B. Newspaper notifications published on: August 17, and 31, 2009, October 19, and November 2, 2009 (Commission); November 16, and 30, 2009 (City Council) C. Notices mailed to subject properly owners on: August 13, 2009 and October 8, 2009 (Commission); November 12, 2009 (City Council) D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: August 25, 2009 and October 20, 2009 (Commission); November 27, 2009 (City Council) VL LAND USE A. Existing Land Uses) and Zoning. The Baby Place, a birthing center, is currently in operation on this site, which is zoned R1 in Ada County. B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The character of the adjacent areas to the north and south is residential, while the adjacent areas to the east and west are industrial and vacant industrially zoned land. 1. North: Rural residential property, zoned RI in Ada County 2. East: Vacant industrial property, zoned I -L 3. South: Rural residential property, zoned Rl in Ada County 4. West: Industrial properties, zoned I L C. History of Previous Actions: • This property was previously platted as Lot 5, Hoppers Acre Subdivision. ' This property hooked up to City sewer on March 1, 2006. • The business currently m operation on this site did not receive approval from Ada County and is not an allowed use in the current RI zoning district in the County. Building permits for the recent expansion of the facility were obtained from Ada County; however occupancy has not yet been granted because residential permits were obtained instead of commercial permits which are not consistent with the commercial use of the site. The applicant is requesting amculion into the City in order to legally operate the business. D. Utilities: 1. Public Works: a. Location of sewer. Service is currently provided from N Linder road b. Location of water. The applicant will need to connect to the main in N Linder Road. c. Issues or concerns: None E. Physical Features: 1. CanalsJDitches Irrigation: Staff is unaware of any canals or ditches that may traverse this Pmperty. 2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 3. Flood Plain: This property does not He within a floodplain. Baby Place, The AZ PAGE 3 1] F. Access: Two access points to Linder Road currently exists on this site. Only one access is shown on the site plan. Please see Section Hbelow for more lrfbrmation on access. VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject property is designated as "Mixed Use - Community (MUC)" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Per Chapter VII of the compre�rensive plan, up to 25 acres of non residential uses are permitted within the MUC areas as shown on the Future Land Use Map. In MUC areas that are not Neighborhood Centers such as this, over 25 acres of non-residential uses shall be permitted through the CUP process; up to 200,000 square fea=t of non-residential building area; and residential densities of 3 to 15 units/acre. Sample uses include: All MU N categories, clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks, drive thru facilities, auto service station, and department stores. While the area is not yet fully developed with commercial uses it is anticipated that over time the area will evolve as envisioned in the plan. Staff believes use of the site as a birthing center is consistent with the uses desired in MU -C designated areas in the Comprehensive Plan as it provides a service in the community. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed church use of this property (staff analysis in italics): • When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. Municipal services are available to the subject property and wig be provided in the following manner. Sanitary sewer and water service is available to be extended to the subject property. ➢ The lands will be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department (MRD). D The lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (ASD). The roadways a4jacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACRID). This service will not change. The subject lands are currently serviced by the Joint School District #2. This service will not change. The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee supported, services wig be provided by the Meridian Building Depaimen& the Meridian Public Works Departw=4 the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Deparbnen4 Meridian UdUty Billing Services, and Sanfty Services Company. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets:' (Chapter VII, Goal 1V, Objective D, Action 2, page 114) There are two access points to Linder Roam an arterial sweet, that exist on this site, the site plan depicts only one access point to Linder: Because access to a local street is not available to this site, staff is supportive of the single access point to Linder Road remaining as proposed and recommends access be restricted to only one access point as shown on the site plan. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.) (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5, page 114) A 25 foot wide landscape btoer is required along Linder &a4 an arterial street, per UDC Table 11-2B-3. All landscaping should be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B -7C, Landscape Bufers along Streets Baby Place, The AZ PAGE 4 • • "Require screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties and residential use with transitional zoning." (Chapter VA Goal III, Objective A, Action 6, page 112) The applicant is proposing a C -C zoning district for this site, which staff believes is an appropriate trmrsitional zone to abutting residentially zoned properties within MUC designated areas (the properties to the north and sough are also designated as MUQ Fencing casu around the perimeter of the site. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided on C -C zoned properties as a buffer to residential uses, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B - 9C. "Develop methods such as cross -access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets:" (Chapter V1, Goal II, Objective A. Action 12, page 85) The proposed site plan does not depict cross -access to any of the abutting properties. As a provision of the development agreement std'' is recommending cross-acce&V%gress-egress easements be provided to the properties to the north and south forfuture interconnectivity and to reduce access points on Linder Road, an arterial street "Encourage the development of a continuum of services to meet the health care needs of the citizens of Meridian." (Chapter VI, Goal V, page 89) Su fJ`' believes that the birthing center will contri me to the variety of health care services available to the citizens ofMer Man and surrounding area. VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the eommtuuty in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated - in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2B-2 Hsu the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C -C zoning district. The birthing center is considered a "healthcare or social service" use and is listed as a principal permitted use in the proposed C -C zoning district. C. Dimensional Standards: The site is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11 2B-3 for the proposed C -C zoning district. D. Landscaping•. Street buffer landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C and Table 112B-3; parking lot landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -8C, landscape buffets to adjoining residential uses shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -9C and Table 11-2B-3. E. Off -Street Parking. One off-street parking space is required for every 500 square reef of gross floor area; parking area shall be designed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 5. The gross floor area of the existing structure is 2,400 square feet. Therefore, 4 parking spaces are required; 4 are provided Additionally, one bicycle parking space is required to be provided . for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces, or portion thereog in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3C -5C. Per this standard, 1 bicycle parking space is required to be provided on the site. Baby Place, The AZ PAGE 5 • DL ANALYSIS A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The Applicant is requesting approval to annex and zone 0.98 of an acre of land from the RI zoning district in Ada County to the C -C (Community Business) zoning district in the City. A birthing center currently exists on this site that is proposed to remain. The applicant states that the birthing center is capable of providing care for 2 clients at a time for a maximum of 24 clients daily. The facility is open 3 days a week, Monday thru Wednesday. The applicant has submitted a site plan with the annexation request showing the location of the existing structure. driveway access to Linder Road, parking area, fencing, and landscaping (see Exhibit A.2). Access: There are currently two access driveways to Linder Road from the site. The site plan depicts one driveway aces tolfrom the site via Linder Road, an arterial street. The UDC (11 3A- 3) requires access to be taken from a local street when available; however, access to a load street is not available to this site. For this reason, staff is supportive of allowing the applicant to retain one of the existing accesses to Linder Road as depicted on the site play Cross -Aces: The site plan does not depict to any of the abutting properties. When access to a local street is not available such as in this case, the UDC (11 3A -3A2) regWress cross- accesdingress-egress easements to be provided to adjoining properties for future interconnectivity. Additionally, a goal of the comprehensive plan (page 114) is to develop methods such as cross -access agreements to reduce access points onto arterial strcets. For these reasons, staff is recommending a DA provision that cross-access/ingress-egress easements be provided to the properties directly to the north and south of this site for future interconnectivity. Staff is not requiring cross -access be provided to the property to the east as it is indnstZ; zoned and access to the industrial property is provided from a local street. Parking. Off-street parking is depicted on the site plan and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5; bicycle parking shall also be provided on the site in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 3C -SC and 11 -3C -6G. See Section VL7.E above for detailed tnJbrumdon on parking for this site Sidewalks: A sidewalk is not depicted on the site plan along Linder Road. A minimum 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along Linder Road in accordance with UDC 11 -3A -17C, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy as a provision of the DA for annexation of this property. Landscaping Street buffer landscaping, internal parking lot landscaping, and landscape buffers to adjoining residential uses will be required with development of this site and shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in the applicable sections of UDC 11-3B. • Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 25 -foot wide street buffer is required along Linder Road, an arterial street, as shown on the site plan. • Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 25 -foot wide buffer comprised of, but not limited to, a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover that allows trees to touch at maturity is required along the north and south property boundaries adjacent to adjoining residential uses (UDC 11 -3B -9C). The planting requiremern may be reduced to one tree per 35 linearfeet plus shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover, ifa fence at least 6feet tail is provided Baby Plwc. Mw AZ PAGE 6 Because there is an existing paved driveway to Linder Road along the front portion of the south boundary of the site, there is not sufficient space to construct a landscape buffer in this area; however, a buffer consistent with UDC requirements is proposed along the rear portion of the site. Alternative Compliance, in accord with UDC 11 SB -5, may be requested on the front portion of the site where compliance with the buffer requirements may not be feasible due to existing site conditions. [Note. SWdetermines that an adequate bider, in terms of physical space rLe. driveway) and vertical elements (i.a fencing), exists on the site in accord with the dimensional standards for the C -C district listed in UDC Table 11-28-3. However, because site conditions exist that make it infeasible to install landscaping as required by UDC 11 -3B -9C, alternative compliance is required) Along the north property boundary, there is adequate room for a buffer to be provided; however, the landscaping shown on the plan does not comply with UDC requirements for buffers to adjoining residential uses. Note: The existing structure encroacher approximately 12 feet into the required buffer area. Additional landscaping is required to be installed to result in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of maturity along the full length of the property, or the required landscaping may be reduced to 1 two per 35 linear feet plus shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover #a 6 -foot tall fence is constructed for screening in accord with UDC 11 3B -9C. Fencing. The site plan depicts fencing around the perimeter of the property. There is a 34 foot solid wood fence along the north boundary of the site in the front yard area and an open vision fence in the rear yard area. There is a 6 -foot tall vinyl fence along the cast boundary and a 6 -foot tall solid wood fence along the south boundary. Note. If a reduction in the landscaping requirements listed in UDC 113&9C is requested along the north bmmdoy, a 6 -foot tall closed vision fence will be required. Hours of Operation The birthing center typically operates between the hours of 9 am to 4:30 pm, Monday thru Wednesday. However, when a birth occurs, the hours may be extended accordingly. The UDC does not restrict hours of operation in the C -C district. However, compliance with the City's noise ordinance is required (see Meridian City Code 6-3-6). Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): To ensure compliance with the DA provisions contained in Exhibit B of this report, a CZC application is required to be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Development Agreement: UDC 11 -5B -3D2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA is nay to ensure that this properly is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not negatively impact =why properties. If the Commission or Council feel that additional development agreement provisions are necessary, staff recommends a clear outline of the commitments of the developer being required. Please see Exhibit B for a list of DA provisions applicable to this site. In summary, Staff is supportive of the Applicant's proposal to annex this site with a C -C zoning district with the recommended DA provisions listed in Exhibit B of this report. X FJOUBIrS A. Drawings 1. Zoning Map & Aerial Map 0 Baby Place, The AZ PAGE 7 • • 2. Site Plan (dated 7/24/09) B. Comments/Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Am=ation Legal Description & Exhibit Map D. Rapdred Findings from Unified Development Code Baby Place, The AZ PAGE 8 11 TM I Rk Dar AlIlirmliffimillk SNIP,' NO p i1 � � l � P i •� � � �• E fat at ' J �, :. �.�� ! `.� f .,v r II •�i e+dRt '� i, 5? Ia"�i„ a �.�� -�' �r".r a � �� p ` � v �"" § C � x y^ '� � ) •Pfis , ( FP x`'. � '�' } 1� r �! �,&� � '7C,_#tL �r kE.� 2 1 �' ! dy i Y�'. � �. , I ri: �.� � ' #F� �.. ��' � p�� li � 1 ,yPb I.."9• c r•S S�,.v'. ���(f 'v �� t � �`,C9x x '..+"r �, L_ }� tl it � � ! ! I •� ` "" i +�� Y � i�. tl zj �, c �. j `�• -�� i � fiY€��f" y� "moi, C� t ��. ;.. s'��� "t :moi s MJ3.Is L • • • 2. Site Plan (dated 7/24/09) Fxu'bit B ::::::: rum t =..a } �. um I Page 3 w EXHIBIT B: AGENCY & DEPARTMENT CONDIMS On August 13, 2009, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and Meridian Police Department. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions in the attached Exhibit B. 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The legal description and exhibit map for the proposed rezone submitted with the application (stamped on July 28, 2009, by Earl L Eblen, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian (see Exhibit Q. 1.2 A Development A (DA) will be required as part of the annexation of this property. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. The Applicant shall contact the City Attorney's Office within one year of Council approval to initiate this process. Cunwfly, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the City Attorney's office prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Access to the site shall be limited to one full access driveway via N. Linder Road as shown on the site plan, additional access points to Linder Road are prohibited. b. Crass-access/mgraw-egress easements shall be provided to the properties to the north (parcel #83579000020) and south (parcel #83579000030) for future interconnectivity and to reduce access points to Linder Road, an arterial street. The easements shall be stented at the time of future construction on the site and/or exoanslon of the existing narUm lat A copy of said easements shall be submitted to the Planning Department with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. c. A minimum 5 -foot wide detached sidewalk is required to be constructed along Linder Road in accordance with UDC 11 -3A -17C prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. d. A minimum of four (4) off-street vehicle parking spaces shall be provided on the site in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5. Additionally, a minimum of one (1) bicycle parking space shall be provided on this site in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3C -5C. e. A 25 -foot wide landscape street buffer is required to be installed along Linder Road in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11 -3B -7C. f. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 25 -foot wide buffer is required to be installed adjacent to the residential uses along the north and south property boundaries, in accordance with the standards listed UDC 11 -3B -9C. g. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application to the Planning Department for approval of the use to ensure compliance with the provisions of the development agreement contained herein, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. I After obtaining approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance from the Planning Department, the applicant shall apply for a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department, prior to commencing the operation of the birthing center in the City. i. Outdoor activities conducted on this site shall not create a public noise disturbance between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am, in accordance with Meridian City Code 6-3-6. Exhibit C Page 2 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sewer service to this site is currently provided from a main located in N Linder Road 2.2 Water service to this site will be required by connecting to the existing main located in N Linder Road at the applicant's expense. 2.3 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-83). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. . 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The applicant shall be required to obtain and pass an inspection by a Meridian Fire D%miment r+raentative prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. S. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 SSC did not submit comments on this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 Site Specifle Conditions of Approval This application is for a rezone only. Listed below are some of the site sped is conditions of approval that the District may require when it reviews a future development application. The Dkoict may add additional site spedfic requirements when it reviews a 4mci is redevelopment application. 7,1.1 Construct a 5 -foot wide detached concrete sidewalk located a miniamun of 41 -feet from the centerline of Linder Road abutting the site. 7.12 Construct one driveway between 24 & 30 feet in width looted at the south property line. Pave the driveway its full width and at last 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway. 7.1.3 Close the existing driveway located at the north property line, as proposed. 7.1.4 Provide a cross access agreement for the property to the south. 7.1.5 Enter into a license agreement for any landscaping located within ACRD right-of-way abutting the site along Linder Road. 7.1.6 Other than access specifically approved with a future development application, direct lot access is onto Linder Road will be prohibited Exhibit C Pop 3 0 7.1.7 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. • 7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way. 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibiter from being located within any ACRD roadway or right-of-way. 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Policy. 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in confomnance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applica's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 72.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought, Fxwwt C pav4 C. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED LLC Parcel Description For Lot 5 Block 1 Hepper Acres Subdivision 1,49 31110* 1 of)tagpt AQ= fin, ftm in dm quant of Section IX 'fownhip 3 North, Rage 1 weA Boise Ma7Mbuk Ada County Conray, Naim. Mm pa<t<m*dy d as tbUowm Cominee MS at the Soathviad emw ofS=doa 12„ Thm= NW04VrW. 802 33 he alms dw west Hoeoftlm souftm t quartarof Seadan 12 to the Sowhww carat of Lar L dwPOddT of DBODMIG; Theaoe NOVO4'rW.120 Q0 fx t shag dm washy of said Let S to the oflct 5; Thr m S88°59'00"8„ 3S6 29 fM slag dm North bom7da y ofsdidiot S to the Naatheast emus, of Lot S; Th=N S00°07W'W. t20.W few along dw Bastbomdwy of sdd Lot s to dw =mw ofsdd Let 5; Thom N88°89 M, 333 84 hetatoag On South bcmtdery ofsdd Lot Sin the PONT OF 1C3 War Said PftW A aoutata 0.98 Atm or 42,719 Square Poet== or lms mrd ig SWMMM to all fWW of VAN PUBLIC )RKS DEn Earl M tan PE t'l.$ 208.883.847! D—Saeden 89—Yb-OW 20MOSM > eratM3)WM Q, 2127 S.PhMM OMM 1116100M Exhibit C Page 5 I�4 r i �o w w� r 419 Exhibit D v vat t3Y JUL 26.M "mos — CAA�@m1 awT ��• � � � — � — YQTOIi fY6 mw w lav tog Z - LOT MUM Min woymlal"m - OS1�ilb" Y/ • m a1aRm "ego omm �' GAIG"Im fmtr aw wr • - tam ,n am am vat t3Y JUL 26.M "mos D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Count shall make a fall investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; The Applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from RI in Ada County to C -C. The City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district; specifically the purpose statement; The City Council finds that the proposed map amendment to C -C will provide services for residents in this area of the city, consistent with the purpose statement for the commercial districts. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. e. The annexation bin the best of interest of the City (UDC 11 -SH -1E). The City Council finds that annexation of this property and Subsequent zoning of the site to C -C is consistent with the comprehensive plan future land use map and UDC standards as detailed in this report. Therefore, the City Council finds that the annexation and zoning of this property is in the best interest of the City. Exhibit D MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. SH REQUEST Resolution No. 10 a-- : Adopting Standard Operating Policy No. 6.17, Response to Request for Public Records or Information AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Attached CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 10 — -71 dL. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, HOAGLUN, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF MERIDIAN STANDARD OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL TO ADD A NEW POLICY REGARDING RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS OR INFORMATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have authority over the operations, polices, and procedures for the City of Meridian; WHEREAS, in 2002, the City adopted a Standard Operating Policy and Procedures Manual applicable to all employees of the City of Meridian; and WHEREAS the City Council may amend the Manual from time to time as necessary to incorporate changes as needed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That a new policy shall be added to the City of Meridian Standard Operating Policies and Procedures Manual, Policy no. 6.17: Response to Requests for Public Records or Information, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. That this Resolution, and the Policy added hereunder, shall be in full force and effect on March 3, 2010. 2010. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2nd day of March, APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2nd day of March, 2010. APPROVED: � J 8�T dWeerd ATTEST: Fo �' By: - EAL Jayceaolman, City Clerk 7 o� dgVddllvltllV 111A���� ADOPTION OF SOP NO. 6.17: RESPONSE TO REQUR PUBLIC RECORDS OR INFORMATION PAGE 1 OF 1 10 , R4 as I 1 003 -Y—W-!4AW3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE NO. 6.17 CITY OF MERIDIAN STANDARD OPERATING POLICY AND PROCEDURE NUMBER 6.17 SUBJECT: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS OR INFORMATION PURPOSE: To establish consistent, statutorily -compliant procedures and protocols for employees to follow in replying to a request from a member of the public for a public record or for public information. POLICY: By law, from the date a request for public records or information is received, the City has only three working days to respond to the request. AUTHORITY & RESPONSIBILITY: The following procedure shall apply to all employees in responding to public records requests, in order to ensure compliance with the Idaho Public Records Act; supervisors and department heads shall ensure compliance with this policy within their respective departments. The Clerks' Office is the official custodian of all City records and shall make final decisions regarding the administration and interpretation of this policy. Under the Idaho Public Records Act (Idaho Code sections 9-337 through 9-350), there is a presumption that all public records may be examined and copied by any person. Upon receipt of a request for a public record, whether such request is made in writing, verbally, or by e-mail, the City must respond to the request within three working days. The City may grant the request, deny the request, or notify the Requestor that more time is needed to respond. (Idaho Code section 9-339(1).) Decisions regarding the release of public information, public records, or other information in the custody of a public official are to be made by the City Clerk's Office, the official custodian of all City records (see City of Meridian SOP no. 7.6(I)(Y)). This procedure establishes a timely, consistent, and statutorily compliant process for handling all public records requests received.by the City, whether received by the City Clerk's Office or by any other City department. This policy applies to all City employees and departments, with the exception of the Meridian Fire and Police Departments and their employees, to the extent that these departments have a specific, pre-existing public records disclosure policy in place. I. Intake of Public Records Requests A. Time computation. By law, from the date a request for public records or information is received, the City has only three working days to respond to the request. The three day time limit does not include the date of the receipt of the request, but it does include the last day. Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays on which the City is closed are not included in the three day time limit. (See Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 6(a).) As to requests received after 5:00 p.m., the date of receipt shall be the next working day. B. Written Requests for Public Records. Upon receiving a written request for documents or information, whether by mail, e-mail, fax, or personal delivery, employees shall route the request to the City Clerk's Office by 5:00 p.m. on the same day 'ofits receipt. Though the City must respond to a request submitted to any department and received in any written form, for purposes of clarity and efficiency, the public should be encouraged to submit requests in writing and directly to the City Clerk's Office using the Public Records Request Form, which is available in the City Clerk's Office and online at the City's website. C. Oral Requests for Public Records. Upon receiving an oral request for documents or information, employees may immediately provide such documents or information only if all of these factors are present: • The requested document or information is subject to disclosure under the Idaho Public Records Act. If there is any question as to whether a record is subject to disclosure, employees should inquire with the City Clerk's Office; • Such documents or information are immediately accessible to the employee; • No research or analysis is requested or required; • No more than ten (10) paper copies are provided in response to the oral request. If an oral request for public records does not meet all of the above criteria, the employee receiving the request shall encourage the Requestor to submit a written request directly to the City Clerk's Office, preferably using the Public Records Request Form. H. Processing of Public Records Requests Following receipt of a written request, any and all of the City's communication with the Requestor should come from the City Clerk's Office. Questions, concerns, and/or follow-up communications, whether from the employee referring the Requestor to the City Clerk, or from the Requestor him/herself, should be routed to the City Clerk's Office in order to ensure that there is a consistent, centralized line of communication between the City and the Requestor. A. City Clerk Notifies City Attorney and Department Retaining Records. Upon receipt of a request for public records or information, the City Clerk shall promptly: (1) provide the City Attorney or his designee a copy of the public records request, and (2) request the records from the department responsible for retaining the requested documents or information. The City Clerk will inform such department of the date and time by which it must copy and return the responsive materials to the City Clerk's Office. It is essential for employees to understand that time is of the essence in providing a res on nse to a public records re jest. By law. the City has only three working days from the date the request is received to respond to the request. Qdaho Code section 9-339(1).) Further, unless otherwise expressly directed by the City Clerk's Office or the City Attorney's Office, no employee shall redact, modify, edit, omit, destroy, or censor any document or information that is responsive to the request. Employees may discuss with the City Clerk and/or City Attorney any concerns regarding personal, sensitive, irrelevant, or exempt information known to be contained in any responsive record. B. Department Attempts to Locate Records. Upon receipt of a request from the City Clerk, the department retaining the requested record shall identify which of the following procedures is applicable, and comply accordingly. DEPARTMENT ACTION 1: The department shall promptly reproduce and provide copies of the responsive materials to the City Clerk's Office if: • The department is able to locate, reproduce, and provide copies of the responsive materials to the City Clerk's Office within the designated time period, and • Locating and retrieving the responsive records will require less than one (1) hour of staff time, and • The responsive records are less than one hundred (100) or more pages in length. Clerk's Office action: Upon receipt of the responsive materials from the department, the City Clerk's Office shall seek City Attorney review as set forth below prior to sending the response to the Requestor. DEPARTMENT ACTION Z: The department shall immediately provide an estimate of staff time needed and number of pages that will comprise the response if: • The department is able to locate, reproduce, and provide copies of the responsive materials to the City Clerk's Office within the designated time period, and • Locating and retrieving the responsive records will require one (1) hour or more of staff time, or the responsive records are one hundred (100) or more pages in length. Clerk's Office action: Upon receipt of the estimate from the department, the City Clerk's Office shall prepare a response to the Requestor that: (1) notifies the Requestor of the estimated costs of responding to the request; (2) requires that the Requestor pay the estimated costs prior to location and reproduction of the public records; (3) explains to the Requestor that if actual costs are less than the estimate, the difference will be refunded to Requestor, and that if actual costs are more than the estimate, they will be collected prior to provision of the records to Requestor. The City Clerk's Office shall seek attorney review as set forth below prior to sending the response and estimate to the Requestor. DEPARTMENT ACTION 3: The department shall immediately inform the City Clerk's Office and the City Attorney's Office if: • The department is unable to locate and provide responsive materials to the City Clerk's Office. The department shall specify whether the requested materials, (a) do not exist, (b) cannot be located at all, or (c) exist, but are not in the City's custody. Clerk's Office action: Upon receipt of notice of inability to locate/provide records, the City Clerk's Office shall prepare a response to the Requestor that 1) notifies the Requestor of the denial of the request, (2) specifies the reason and statutory grounds for such denial, and (3) explains to the Requestor the timeline and mechanism to appeal the denial. The City Clerk's Office shall seek attorney review as set forth below prior to sending the response and estimate to the Requestor. DEPARTMENT ACTION 4: The department shall immediately inform the City Clerk's Office if.- The f:The department needs additional time to locate, copy, and provide responsive materials to the City Clerk's Office. The Idaho Public Records Act allows the City to notify the Requestor that additional time is needed to process the request, not to exceed ten (10) working days from the date the request was received. Clerk's Office action: Upon receipt of notice that the department needs more time to locate and provide records, the City Clerk's Office shall, first, prepare a response to the Requestor (a) notifying the Requestor that more time is needed, and (b) specifying the date by which the request will be granted or denied. Next, the Clerk's Office shall recalculate the disclosure deadline and inform the department accordingly. C. City Clerk Seeks City Attorney Review. Before providing the City's response to the Requestor granting the request, requiring payment of estimated costs, denying the request in full or in part, extending the period for response, the City Clerk shall request that the City Attorney or his designee review such response to ensure that no confidential, privileged, or statutorily exempt document or information is included in the responsive materials. Upon such request, the City Attorney or his designee shall provide an opinion regarding whether the information or documents are subject to disclosure under the Idaho Public Records Act. If any responsive record or any portion thereof is exempt from disclosure, the City Attorney or his designee shall redact, or provide an opinion regarding redaction of, the exempt document, information, or portions thereof. Final decisions regarding disclosure of public records shall be made by the City Clerk. D. City Clerk Responds to Requestor. Following completion of the foregoing process, and within the three- or ten-day response period, as applicable, the City Clerk's Office shall do one of the following: 1. Provide all records to the Requestor which are responsive to the request and subject to public disclosure under the Idaho Public Records Act; 2. Notify the Requestor of estimated costs of responding to the request, requiring payment prior to reproduction of the records; 3. Deny the request in full or in part (redaction shall constitute a partial denial), specifying the statutory basis for such denial and describing the availability, time, and manner of appeal; or 4. Inform the Requestor that additional time is needed to respond to the request (not to exceed ten (10) working days from the date the request was received). • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6A REQUEST Planning Dept. - Traffic Impact Analysis and Request for Additional Access Considerations onto Ten Mile and Franklin Roads AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. f�� GJ LM Q h c m 0 0 c 0 +-j m v Q) M V) 4-- O G V) V) Q) 4- O a -J E O C) 4-J O Q O 0 O L .Q) v L� L 106 O v O _0N O E L N Ln C6 C6 � • CQ Ln 4-.+ N E E O U N V) L 0 m O `4- T fQ N 4- U � N O O � N N N N 4-J N [0 ca L (ID Q) -o LL C • Ca 75 4- U hA v v N O N O � N .N . N M � N 6 Q) V) LL • Q. W 4-J U Co U °� J ��� -0Cl ro O Ln L 0.— cn \ cn E a) ago w 0 > � c� No � N .0 .O U E 0-0 � N U N c� o O � co in t/7 U cn S-- N O �' cn O ca a-0ro`n4-J U (1) `n ca U Q U s CSA Q V V 4-J U +- -0-0 _ Q _0 � 4-J (0 . U -0 -0 ro to N Ln .� O •U — u i U N ��, W 4-J CSA CoO Q�� MS • 4— I— a- 0 zT . _ 0 V) tperkph�kYbik�C ��`� L MC'%'P }�°`�"4t�k�>at�,r antg�rlf rYaa"A37°��������r�l3b�Ya�,f$T�bk RttHHCLtiC�l'Ztikih ktHyHk5HH1'RhkHb�k�k�k�k{'CkS.kLHY'tk�kLkl�kiHYi f ���<S�j�"1'�'lf�if�7'^47a��i�'LHf�Q�'C�`:. .v sisF. e. sGm s, £ uC,<... ..., ..., .., ... .�.,..-.. ... .vv: +.<a ..., v..'�..:v ...'...'... ..+.. ... i .s. i a ... ... .« ..s .t. ..., .... c ...v .... .. .. .. . ....s ..... L- 0 O O 4-=r U N O L Q O L C) 0 N c ca 00 O O N L.- 0 O M ,-• m O O O L Q U) U) ^Q^ ►3 C Imo- rJ 0 Ln i 0 r Q o Ll- �a n Vi cri nl --I rY1 L u F C 0 m 0 N. >� rri m 4 r -A ii tai "� Q o a rL t1J 1 'r J :>1 E 0 t U) s_ M C:) sr N 73 :3 U C D �m zV/ ! WJ V V�1 tLoO IA a .0 v .bn � N N U � U•� C - V) U. R D �m zV/ ! WJ V u I til 1 I. OWN 0 wa- 019 r Ogg 0984, 870 016 m E u1 OCY� e a g µ 06Z g 095 086 086 1180 OUI 1460 Ot51 n)MZ 0181 2060 OBClkj I . f en iGS 69 HS L• o c y 0' oc 100 09 OS o 0 p OU 088 O18 1040 010► ^no 029 mon R t 790 062 ON � � 08 006 081 OZ9 800 008 N N PNARrI UndK Rd Od tepui- v 0: O CI m O � g� g CL Ir ^ 13 g Oft "890 0901 Oc t t 0801 0001 1540 1960 Met08gt q b t� S�! C � on Geo oet aeL 062 osL ,r0 1960 oeoz OSzI o OQl p vd am URIr Okiey1 uet Oki "n lrl va esti wet m w L o O 3 fJ fJ y� 6 0 t C — ® �21c( 490' 03 M1 = i U � f v i CD 009 s50 096 099 091 210 } Oct 086 450 006 O1 _ 19 370 £ i ZO gg Q of b $ m ! F e p X CD I 9t 0 Ob9 , '° �' 4s QA s � ' t pN- HB G.iL,c SH 16 2310 SH 18 43,1 tYp 9► wwS 90,y{ O[S1 Aie CtSKC 7EZ16asi o 79t� 019 gjI r CV F O C.1 _r ^ - 0►,g - - 07£Oa, 10 c a't wa- 0 � � k CL (k )% Zn \ Zn |& :i k CL 0 cm cc CL E co k k 2 ƒz § #2 ! ® @ E in— \&\k C, 5 Mr - 22n£5 = < 7k!0\ f m a f ) K■a2.- � u 0 7 �\/{\ If//3/ : ! § C CL 2 = � @ r ƒ @ r r @ § ± g m ! o - i a 3 \ \ 32 / «a =- $cr Us% \ [ mm� © @ 2 CX ■ � � § \ � / k 0 ( � - ± / -.� a;£:■ �� - CL 6 J J < = u } \ } 0 � � k CL (k )% Zn \ Zn |& :i k CL 0 cm cc CL E co k k 2 § § #2 ! ® @ E in— \&\k C, 5 Mr - 22n£5 = < 7k!0\ f m a f ) K■a2.- � u 0 7 �\/{\ If//3/ a M'X1196 "IxN �a M.'441vEL 1 - - - - - -- -- -- — o O J 'p c�i� O O U U�: S_ O U Tj (3) U .2 4-J 4-J w +-+ i U • - .0 Q U }' v v v _0 > v J O > _N — Q ul m > O — i Q) Q) fB (6 U L- QJ — Q N Q 'N C6 0 Q ro do Q) (B C Cn Q. (10 • — m _0 • J m _ N_ ^, J 'cn VJ \ l /� v J O Ate/ W V N c� O E C (n d J N N N V N 00 V Q ry — (Q <Y M.. N @I!A Ual a� o M - � O N C- i U- A q,4.T,"rR�p,}aii4iPifH9W.,�494yj411,M,§1S629t1,4.{t65SMA4M@tf/Ni4,4Fvq}+�j^T?¢„+�yrywv�rC,+r:,n'SSW,`-.�*, v,,ri m, -.j. V) V J O 0 S—. — J -0 ]_ O (n O � O +-J L p L +- 0_g_- U 0 ul O U U V) .0 � U ate--+ bZ Q) U i 4-1 N N v Z3 > QJ —0 C 4-J > N v m > v o V) a) v ca cB U v o o > � r tw v — V)Q — �n -0 > O a v • �, — Ca � • J f0 -0 N I i� U) .- O2i°' J9 v U) U) "- O � > J (n rA N L) a 00 �LL V O O m U) Lij MN @I!N UalLL C CD co C I � c� o � o -a v o U Q) O L U v -C V) }' wo 4-J � *-' aA v U v a _0U Q) U ao a; c cn Q — v v n. a, a> N_ C 2) V! O J d v c � ^ V! LL 0 _ � C m in > J N N � 0 _0 Q N M G to N a M 10 Mile c � m CO MAW LIN RM U V Q1 � cV M 0 o Ql _0 V cuv U N Ln M L C1 v � u rN 00 U N 06 t� Ln v Q v Q Q) � U U V Q a QLn v > U Q >Q "I -_ L O Q CL QJ CL Q) L- E E L +, v -0 `- _0 E L QJ v Q f0 (D f0 L Q) L Q) L Qi Z Q Q Q Im w C1 F— 0 }'N U Q U UO O U to 0) l6 U N G1 d m c O U U i U U �O V) a 04-1 GJ 00 d: 0 \ 1O z blo o c Q Ln i� 00 O 0: 0= c� LL V) v }, U U O }, Q L LL N � \ M F- �1 f� L F- (D N "� _ c 4-j N 0 > u N N O p 0 4-J u Ln E 0 Ln ~ O .O U LO 0-0 4- N � N DC O U O U .� U m O _ E (6 Q O O V) N N ca 00 Q .bA p Q3 QJ Q (� U w N > i � — U p 4-� _0 4-J (1)W �C L N p L —2 u U U'> ON' - > w O Ol E ca � N •� N •� Q N O v N v F— u +-� m> V) O N Ul) U O O Q v) cn v N N ate' U v) U U U Ln U U •N U Q v U L/) Q �� Q c: -4-J Q Q) a) U V U p v) N= U.— Lu U J a�A p - •N > (1)U O L- Up Q) N ate-+ 4-J?) O C N � 4-4-+ O +� • — N N O ca L N N v) w N O � cn N u)L V)+� N N N N ate--+ L +� + • —a) 4-JtZA N a1 p p �� O U C: p U v • c : DC . – — 4-J : Z Ln 7 U ca • � N U a� u � � u a x m � Ch i 10 Mile U U Q � M a M Q M Q N c 3/4 Access 1• 4 IM. O Q) L L U C- Q) a � .v U i U L (� O N E O N � s � Q) O -0 U Ca V) Q Q) E Ln O 4- � O CD �C 4-J +-J W L m Q) U cn N N v U U m L- 0 O O L • � (n Q) Q) U' O N U �- D0) -0 E N 6 U U Q Q) +-+ O _ N O E > z Ln v aJ o +� OLn ca E E, Q) o _0 f� O �: U C >, � v O �..� O N 4-- N D C f� O t�0 - Ln an dJ N O + v E : >- U UQ) N In L U O qA L Q Q) Ln O L U 4- v N Ln O `n c� Ln O �' I N >- E U c:D v C U — N Ul N N Q) v o o E J LL C •cam • • U Q • C6 C6 G C I —r U 0 CL Q) 0 Q) C- u V) 75, -C (3) 4-J Q) v) C- > 4-J > V) C: u0 (1) M L- :3 V) V) Q) 4- 0- 0 4- 4-J V) X0 0 4--J NO ol ro =3 m u 0 0 0 lu -0 0 u V) u V) Q) c 0 Ln C-O Qn) C: (U C- U Lf) (3) 0 LI) (A V) 4-J :3 (1) 0 0 > 4-J u U u Ln I 0 < Q o w (U _0 4-J vi O. V) < aJ 40- I —r Ln Ln U dJ L +-j 'O o?S L f6 s.. V) m L LL O O N ca LL E � O U � c 4-+ .0% co � co .O L N M ,N i 4- 4— LU 4— w O 4—J 0 M O U °C O a� Q) L c�i J cno ._ o '> 1 O 4-J o 4-J ca p E E o< O N o v CB N °� i >E 'V Q N C) -0 O DO Q v +� U � Q) 4-J A� W u Q1 O dN+ O •_J co °U L O � C: o ,Z, v > _0 N ca O L U Ln ._ is C- G C:N O +J -� a-�+ O •— Ln O ao tw a ao O O aj co p G1 .. a -J _v C: v . +, -� 7; 2 kA Ln U- O Q U 0 V a s Ln Ln U dJ L +-j 'O o?S L f6 s.. V) m L LL O O N ca LL E � O U � c 4-+ .0% co � co .O L N M ,N i 4- 4— LU 4— w O 4—J 0 M O U °C O a� Q) L c�i J R- +n .. N R March 9, 2010 William J. Schweitzer Director Ada County Highway District 3775 Adams Street Garden City, ID 83714 Dear Director Schweitzer: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba The City of Meridian is excited about the "fen Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and its potential of becoming a vibrant place to live, work and shop. The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) was an important part of the planning process as we all understand that it is important for the area's road network be designed and built correctly in order for the area to function efficiently as it matures. A vital part of that process is the need for proper access points enabling the area to develop according to the City's plans. To accommodate the development of the area, the City respectfully requests that ACHD staff evaluate the access plan proposed by Brighton Development, as detailed below. Brighton Corporation hired HDR Engineering to complete a focused traffic analysis for 40 acres located on the southeast corner of Franklin and Ten Mile Roads. Gary Inselman and other ACHD and City staff have been actively working with Brighton and HDR on defining the scope and assumptions for the traffic analysis. HDR recently completed the study on how the accesses proposed in a September 21, 2007 letter between ACHD and Brighton Corporation would function at year 2030 volumes. HDR's analysis incorporated many factors including the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan, projected area growth, and the surrounding road network. This traffic analysis and access plan for the area southeast of the Ten Mile/Franklin intersection was presented to the City Council on March 2, 2010. The results from the study showed the need, primarily because of excessive queuing, to signalize the proposed full access on Ten Mile Road located approximately a quarter -mile south of Franklin Road. This access will be located just north of the Kennedy Lateral crossing of Ten Mile Road. The study also concluded that a three-quarter intersection, located 660' south of Franklin Road, would function better than a full access mentioned in the 2007 letter. The right- in/right-out accesses between the quarter -mile signalized full access and the three-quarter access on Ten Mile Road also appears to have no noticeable negative impacts on the traveling public. However, the City requests that ACHD staff evaluate these proposed access points on Ten Mile 0 Road for safety, efficiency and consistency with District policy. M's Officp _TAF: Rip-mA,. .. n...,..•._ — William J. Schweitzer Page 2 Regarding Franklin Road, the study output demonstrates that a three-quarter access located at 660' feat east of Ten Mile Road would function better than a full access. Traffic analysis results also show a need for a full -movement, signalized intersection at approximately the quarter -mile location east of the Ten Mile/Franklin intersection. A right -Wright -out access centered between these two access points at approximately 900' is also proposed. Another right-intright-out access, proposed at 220' east of Ten Mile Road, raised some concern at the City due to potential conflicts with Ten Mile Creek as well as the proximity to the intersection. The City would ask ACRD to evaluate the possibility of relocating this access from off of Franklin Road to be on Ten Mile Road, 330' south of Franklin. In addition, the City would request ACHD to evaluate the three remaining, proposed accesses on Franklin Road located at 660', 900', and quarter -mile locations for safety, efficiency, and consistency with District policy. The City of Meridian desires the area near the Ten Mile Interchange to develop according to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, while maintaining the integrity of the transportation network. The City of Meridian is generally encouraged by Brighton's proposed access points as shown on the attachment, as they seem to not negatively impact the roadway network or the vision of the City's Plans. At the same time, the proposed access points appear to accommodate the land uses envisioned with the plan by allowing more appropriate access locations and types. The City would appreciate an ACHD staff comprehensive evaluation on the proposed access points for concurrence with the HDR traffic analysis and Brighton access plan for this key area of the City. If you or your staff has any questions, please contact Caleb Hood with the City's Planning Department at 884-5533. Thank you for considering this request. cc: Gary Inselman, ACHD David Turnbull, Brighton Corp. Attachment: Brighton Access Proposal 0 Sincerely, Tammy de eerd Mayor • a' z • �— RMO Mv EXHIBIT A FRANKLIN ROAR m { 3!4 ACCESS FULL ACCESS ? ea. a �6• `rte 1 34 ACCESS RO I FULLACCES'S _ r 0 N R MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6B REQUEST Planning Dept. - Airport Rd. - Overland Rd. Alignment Study: Overview of Scope, Timeline and Process of a Transportation Study That Will Evaluate Alternatives for Connectivity Between Meridian (Overland Rd.) and Nampa (Airport Rd.) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. — { k R 4ti. • x n 5 1 a. � I .`�.' ;,�: :-.�m;F�. •cam ''�" -"�` �k a � `�''. LZ T - ik lit r i M c3 V' cti 4 •` pd7�, s '�]A 1� 3 r� Y x,V.—W �` ( t r r X 35 s.' �'t of ', L 7 �? ..d-. -11i�r a. ` .�•e .e .._ m __ J►.' -Ts -.� _ ,{i'; T�'T�� .'°dam a,`F� I�, �� r�. s � '1.. �.,�., 1• i MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 AZ 08-005 APPLICANT Hawkins Companies ITEM NO. 8A REQUEST Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Meridian and Amity AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 VAR 08-008 APPLICANT Hawkins Companies ITEM NO. 8B REQUEST Public Hearing: VAR 08-008 Meridian and Amity AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: CITY PARKS DEPT: `- MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: �(O 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. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 MDA 10-003 APPLICANT City of Meridian Parks & Rec Department ITEM NO. 8C REQUEST Public Hearing - Modification to the Development Agreement to remove the requirement that that public streets be extended Into the site at the north and east property boundaries & waiver from Council to allow the Irrigation ditches within the site to be tiled for Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park - NEC of Fairview & Eagle AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 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. • TE 10-002 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT Kuna Victory, LLC ITEM NO. 80 D REQUEST Public Hearing - 18 -month Time Extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the Final Plat for Emerson Park - 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road 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: Ev Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MFP 09-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT Linder 109 LLC ITEM NO. SE REQUEST MFP 09-004 Southridge Subdivision No. 1 by Linder 109 LLC 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. 11 • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 8F REQUEST Public Hearing: Proposed 2010 Fee Schedule of the Parks and Recreation Department AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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: COMMENTS See Attached Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding the 2010 Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule, including proposed new fees as set forth below. Further information regarding these fees, as well as the entire Parks & Recreation fee schedule, is available at the Parks & Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, (208) 888-3579. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 48 hours prior to the public hearing. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Volleyball resident player fee $10.00 Volleyball non-resident player fee $20.00 Basketball resident player fee $10.00 Basketball non-resident player fee $20.00 Spring Softball resident player fee $10.00 Spring Softball non-resident player fee $20.00 Fall Softball resident player fee $10.00 Fall Softball non-resident player fee $20.00 Girl's Fall Fastpitch Softball resident player fee $10.00 Girl's Fall Fastpitch Softball non-resident 2layer fee $20.00 Dod eball resident player fee $10.00 Dod eball non-resident player fee $20.00 Flag football team fee $375.00 Flag football resident player fee $10.00 Flag football non-resident player fee $20.00 Flag football late fee $50.00 Daily Short Term Concessions Permit $10.00 Annual Short Term Concessions Permit $100.00 Heroes Park shelter rental (1-50 people) $30.00 Heroes Park shelter rental (51-100 people) $45.00 Heroes Park shelter rental 101-150 le $60.00 Heroes Park shelter rental (151-200 people) $75.00 Heroes Park shelter rental 201-250 people) $90.00 Heroes Park shelter rental 251-300 people) $105.00 Christmas Street Faire vendor fee 10' x I0' or analler $25.00 Christmas Street Faire vendor fee (larger than 10' x 10' $50.00 Camp MerldaMoo Winter Edition 7:30 -- 5:30) $65.00 Camp MerldaMoo Winter Edition 9:00 - 3:00 $55.00 Camp MerldaMoo Spring Break 7:30 - 5:30) $84.00 Camp MerldaMoo Spring Break 9:00 - 3:00 $64.00 DATED this 12th day of February, 2010. PUBLISH on February 15, 2010 and February 22, 2010. Vti Gv " 14)`t e, Mao %- * >SEAL -,6' O� Sr is%'~ �O LAITY , �� CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE March 2, 2010 ITEM # 8F PROJECT NUMBER Proposed Fee Schedule of the Parks PROJECT NAME and Recreation Department PLEASE PRINT NAME 2010 CITY OF FOR I AGAINST I NEUTRALI • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. SG REQUEST Resolution No. Ll� "� I'J : 2010 Fee Schedule of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. � U — —113 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, HOAGLUN, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on March 2, 2010, the City Council of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho this 2nd day of March, 2010. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 2nd day of March, 2010. APPROVED: Tammy de erd, Mayor ATTEST: A. aycee Eklan, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE I OF 1 I W'4'v, 4 all un MWI, FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Meridian Parks and Recreation 2010 Fee Schedule - - = Denotes fee changeladdition/removal Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee % Change Volle ball Com etative Men's, Women's, Co-p Team Fee.10 aures..... #ournament ....,,. ::...,... _ :,.....:.......:..., . 2 0 .. 65 0. R2MM$1'8000 ;- e e .. a F -r• N n. R I t PI F ._ ........ ., :.�.Y:.,:..r..,< �S;:-N7A' 2:00 :. New Late Fee $30.00 $30.00 0% Rec aftonal. a :s .:Wamen:s ..Co -Ed ......:...:..:... :.....::.............. Team Eee.::: 1.00:00 - :_Remove .. !..;:� :_ ... •::: ,. � . ..Remove Basketball Men's, Women's, Men's Over 40 Team -Fee. 10. amm 475:00 ' 0% Resldent Pla er:Fee N/A , 1%00 - :Never esident: Pla .er. Fee .....:..:... �...::::..,:: ,... ... .....:. �..,; _ Non,. R =NIA •:..$20';00 ;� �:;:; .:.:; ew Late Fee $50.00 $50.00 0% SDrina Softball Men's, Women's, Co -Ed _ �, .touma e : t - - X00 m n 640. t: 450:00' /o RNeosni-dReens NN1A .:::.....:.::.. ; oo ew ltleInt;PlaFec4 A :; 0� ew Late Fee $50.00 $50.00 00/0 Fall Softball Men's, Women's, Co -Ed - .:.a..<..:...... ..—. ... .. ... , e :... 1. ... ...:..,$410`00— _ .::- ...... .:....:_:... Team..Fee.- 8.. amen .. .....�, .. _ ..,-..,.. __>..:.......... �,.... .. ...:...- ....:.:........ ==�;::Y::> - 220:00 �$ - �>s<�-=�M- :�46. /0 N .....:,! _..;.: Reside.t . ,r:...4........,:_.... .__ .,.,......:....._....,.:..._.. �.., v....�.:....:..u.,.._..:.rr..:............ N/AR-,-. 10:00 °;New Non Resident a er F e $2 '�Neiti ASA Fee if team is not already r istered $12.00 ASA $12.00 00/0 Late Fee $50.00 $50.00 00/0 Softball Tournaments Adult Slow itch Enhy Fee Parks & Rec Hosted $185.00 $185.00 0% Girls Fast itch Enty Fee Parks & Ree Hosted) $350.00 $350.00 0% Field Rental for toumament(per hour $5.00 $5.00 0% Field Prep for tournaments (per hour) $15.00 $15.00 0% Girl's Spring F st itch Softball (U10, U12, U14, U16, U18) Team Fes ASA Fee not included $420.001 $420.00 0% Late Fee(per team $50.001 $50.00 0% MPR 2010 Fee Schedule Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee % Change Girl's Fall FastDitch Softball UiO, U12, U14, U16, U18 Team_Fee. &amesMMOMO 220:00 MMM35% e ? ..e10:00 Restdent1P..la r F er' ^ =N7A . NOW $20:00ewN Late Fee r team $30.00 $30.00 0/ Dod eball Co -Ed, Oen °ea ee= :8 ames,.. ,_#aurhament - 275':00: 1:50:00 :I :YC . ...�... ..,-r .- ..:........:.. .... _...., ..,,..... ...:.:...<.^cx.....,....5 ..fes =MORN*, cy`x.•^'t sident.Pla er Fee.. �..^........ _ ... _ . .._ . , ._ _ _...-, o=9:0:00 - ew �0`00 ewt R t:Pla r Eee.. - :its �Non 2 N/A Late Fee(per team $30.00 $30.00 00/0 ? ...:. J•.....,,^.^ is �y,.- - . la Football . .: .... - e .s •J - - - eam:...:........:..::::...N/A ; .= - 375:00 ew .:> t -- - .- - - eslden Pla er•:Fee�� -' - - - �'.N/A 1000 R t New Nnes a ,.la e..f=ee.:,.:.. ,._:......... .. ... ...:.:'..:..,,.......... ... ..., ',_:.=:: N66 ..R tl nt P r 00. ew .. Late.Fee. .....:......::..:... ` /A 0:00 er team ...:.:,,u:= 'N _ ew MPR 2010 Fee Schedule Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee % Change Shelter Fees: Extra Picnic Tables $3.00 $3.00 0% Alcohol Permit (6 hr. time block) $20.00 $20.00 0% Amus. Equ ip./Lrg Canopies (5 hr lime block per item) $10.00 $10.00 Amplified Sound Permit (per day) $20.00 $20.00 0% Park= se::p Ildbfift Stfdrff $26,200 M�.' Short ss ns N)A UMMMMMOO 9=��Nb Storey Park (Blue & Green Shelter Shelter Rental (1-60 people) $30.001 $30.00 0% Shelter Rental (51-100 people) $45.00 $45.00 0% Shelter Rental (101 -150 Reople) $60.00 $60.00 0% Shelter Rental 151-200 people) $75.00 $75.00 0% Softball Field Rental (per hour) $10.00 $10.00 0% Softball Field Lights (per hour) $15.00 $15.00 0% Volleyball Equipment (5 hr time block blue shelter only) $10.00 $10.00 0% Tully Park Small Shelter Rental (1-50 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Large Shelter Rental (1 -150 people) $60.00 $60.00 0% Large Shelter Rental (151-200 people) $75.001 $75.00 0% Lgge Shelter Rental (201-250 people) $90.001 $90.00 0% LaEge Shelter Rental (251-300 people) $105.00 $105.00 0% Softball Field Rental (per hour) $10.00 $10.00 0% Volleyball Equipment (5 hr time block large shelter only) $10.00 $10.00 0% Multi -Use Fiend Rental (per hour $10.00 $10.00 0% Chateau Park Shelter Rental (1-30 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Multi -Use Field Rental (per hour $10.00 $10.00 0% Settlers Park Shelter Rental (1-50 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Shelter Rental 51-100 people) $45.00 $45.00 0% Shelter Rental (101 -150 people) $60.00 $60.00 0% Shelter Rental 151-200 people) $75.00 $75.00 0% Multi -Use Field Rental (per hour) $10.00 $10.00 0% Baseball/Softball Field Rental (par hour) $10.00 $10.00 0% Heroes Park Sh'dIW-,R' N/A30:00 ew Sh'6It0A6hWII(6.,I-,z. N !A $6 --'QQ .�O NO SffdIf6K.*.-,RIPR2�5-21NM „��'tl;,;,-,*�'ll-�.i-,;�-��;,-�,*-**�ll?.11�.."i:�-�-."I . ShiNt6tfthtal .5,1- SM t" -Y N/A il-i-M-5, ew Multi -Use Field Rental $10.00 $10.001 MPR 2010 Fee Schedule Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee % Change Seasons Park Shelter Rental 1-30 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Multi-Use Field Rental(per hour $10.00 $10.00 0% Gordon Harris Park Shelter Rental 1-50 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Shelter Rental 51-100 people) $45.00 $45.00 0% Multi-Use Field Rental (per hour) $10.00 $10.00 0% Bear Creek Park Shelter Rental 1-50 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Shelter Rental 51-100 eo lee $45.00 $45.00 0% Softball Field Rental(per hour $10.00 $10.00 0% Multi-Use Field Rental (per hour) $10.00 $10.00 0% Champion Park Shelter Rental 1-30 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Multi-Use Field Rental (per hour) $10.00 $10.00 0% Renaissance Park Shelter Rental 1-30 people) $30.00 $30.00 0% Multi-Use Field Rental(per hour $10.00 $10.00 0% Jabil Park Multi-Use Field Rental(per hour $10.00 $10.00 0% Hertia a Middle School Ball Fields Softball Field Rental(per hour $10.00 $10.00 0% ftecial Events Meridian Bam Sour 1 Mile Fun Run $10.00 $10.00 0% 6k/10k Run $20.00 $20.00 0% 1 Mile Fun Run Late Registration $15.00 $15.00 0% 6k/10k Run Late Re istrabon $25.00 $25.00 0% Boise Hawks Family Mi ht $10.00 $10.00 0% GableQME;MavreM itat:Seitiers;Park:� ".' -"' 250:00: :;<: bid` `cocess � Rerriove Presenttn .. .....:.......... 2 000:00d.�ocess -= _ =Remove Meridian,Chrisfrrras_Sfre`et;'Faire < .::..::. . Vendor: Fee.; .1:O.x:10;or smaller :..: N/A $25 00 <;=::,°<: "°' <':'Nevir Vendor Fee lar "eraliaii:1.0'x10' ;::-....::.N/A::..:: :....;'$50"00..... _... _..:..:. ..:....:..:... . New MPR 2010 Fee Schedule Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee % Change Bkk.QW(FUI"I�d4-00:00 emo e $820.Q0 14 Pa R11,11, 41� Remove l $41100 ... .... . . . .... .....Remove MPR 2010 Fee Schedule • • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 9A REQUEST Ordinance No. `'1��-' : AZ 09-004 The Baby Place by Brent and Coleen Goodwin located at 270 N. Linder Rd. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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 properly of the City of Meridian. • 11 AUR WUM T 1=911Mn J. DNvlu myM mu amww"I NO BOISE IDAHO OMID MID PM DEPUTY Uee Bea III IIII10111111111111I11111111III III RECORDED -REQUEST OF i 106�19�463 Meridien CIV CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. IQ - I H yam. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, HOAGLUN, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE (AZ 09-004 THE BABY PLACE) FOR ANNEXATION OF A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED ON LOT 5 OF IIEPPER ACRES SUBDIVISION, SITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM R-1 TO C -C (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FORA WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re- zoning by the owner of said property, to -wit: Shys, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re -zoned from RUT to C -C (Community Business District), in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re -zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of 0 the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. ANNEXATION — THE BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) Page 1 of 3 • • C SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission ofthe State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this Z day ofaw,c,�_ , 2010. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 2' day of , 2010. MAYOR de WEERD ATTEST: JAYCEQ L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ANNEXATION — THE BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) Page 2 of 3 I] STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss: County of Ada ) On this l,J day of �-0.ytk1 , 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY de WEERD and JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. r ARY PUB IC O IDAHO RESIDING AT: 16gna , ldah n MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: JLo� (SEAL) • eil!'" �p •. All • OF �•• ANNEXATION - THE BABY PLACE (AZ 09-004) Page 3 of 3 0 Legal Description • Exhibit A BOUNDARIES UNUMITED LLC Parcel Description For Lot S Block 1 Hopper Acres Subdivision Lot 5 Block 1 ofHMw Acres Subdivision, situate in the Southwest quarter of Swam 12, T'owaft 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Mefldlan, Ada County County, Idaho, Mona fly described as fallow,: Commencing at the Southwest comer of Section 12, Thence N00004W"W, 802 33 feet along the West tine ofthe Soud wast quarter of Sectlon 12 to the Southwast corner of Lot S, the POINT OF BBGMMNG; Thence NOMVW, 00 feat along the west boundary ofseld Lot 5 to the northwest comer oflet 5; Ihence S88°59'00"S, M 29 feet along the North boundary of mid Lot 5 to the Northeast corner ofLot 5; Thence SW*0700"W,120.00 feet along the East b000fty of seld Lot 5 to the Southwest corner of sold Lot 5; Thence N88O59W W, 355.84 feat along the South boundary of said Lot 5 to the POINI OF BEGINMNO Said Parcel A contains 0.98 Acres or 42,719 Square Feet mote or less and is subject to all eights of ways OVAL JUL 2 8 2009 0AN PUBLIC IRKS DEPT Ead Ebten PE PLS 208.883.6477 tMW9M@RPq&21L Dam Senders Survey Manager 206.739 5093 qjQLjWmoo 2121 S. Pbftpi Bobo Idaho 83705 • 4 MT M 29 3"zo LeSand � ..•�•• - 80�WQAM t11� -- —_- -� Una _ Rua 2 - Lot IdIbBFR Alad a - QALCLLAIM Pon mm wr FQtlnp 1/2 00" MAO ' ' MSB, Acted L�Wa+ASivA Alad 6 a! Exhibit B mm A W11. JUL 2S.M WCMK5 Mn a f invited L.L.C. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Presentation by Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and SysTek International LLC Regarding Emission Testing In Ada County AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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. Martinelli, Steve From: Huggins, Fred (Health) [Fred. H uggins@nashville.gov] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:30 AM To: Martinelli, Steve Cc: Holleman, Margaret (Health) Subject: RE: Wisconsin vehicle emissions testing Mr. Martinelli, Systech was awarded the contract for the Nashville/Davidson County, Tennessee centralized vehicle emissions testing program beginning July 1, 2007. Therefore, we have had less than a full year's experience with them. I will answer your questions based on our limited experience and in the order presented. * We have not been completely satisfied with the quality of work provided by Systech. It has been a slow process getting them to deliver on all contractual obligations. As of the date of this response, there are still items which have not been delivered. However, after most of the initial start-up bugs were resolved, the vehicle testing process meets our requirements. Some of the items Systech has not delivered are items promised over and above the RFP requirements: * Prior to and at start-up, several key Systech personnel were active in Nashville. However, since that time, we have repeatedly been told that our needs are on the list and are apparently secondary to others needs as several contractual obligations have not been delivered. -Lothar Geilen -Chris Smith -Judy Harvey -Ellen Tober -Mike Moore *Centralized light duty (<10,501 GVWR) program testing 1975 and newer gasoline and diesel vehicles. 1975 - 1995 gasoline vehicles receive an idle tailpipe test. 1975 - 2001 diesel vehicles receive a curb idle test (opacity). All 1996 and newer gasoline and all 2002 and newer diesel vehicles receive an OBD inspection consisting of a visual bulb check and an onboard computer check. All vehicles receive an anti -tampering inspection including the gas cap and the presence of a catalytic converter. In addition, all 1996 and newer gasoline vehicles receive a pressurized gas cap check. * I cannot fairly answer that question based on our limited experience with Systech. If there are any further questions, or if I can provide additional information, please let me know. Fred Huggins t' Director, Vehicle Inspection Program Metro Public Health Department 311.23rd Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 615-340-5656 --Original Message ----- From: Martinelli, Steve[mailto:steve.martinelli@dot.state.wi.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2006 1:47 PM To: Huggins, Fred (Health) Subject: Wisconsin vehicle emissions testing > The State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation is currently > evaluating proposals for the operation of a vehicle emissions testing > program. One of the proposing companies, SysTech International, has > given your name as a reference. We would appreciate it greatly if you > could answer the following questions: > * Are you satisfied with the quality of work this vendor has provided? > * Are you satisfied with the personnel assigned to your project? What > are the names of the company's primary contacts that you have worked with? > * What is the extent of the services provided? > * Knowing what you know now, would you select this company again? > If possible, we would like responses prior to May 1st. All response > and/or questions can should come to me via e-mail or to the phone > number below. Thank you in advance for your assistance. > > Steve Martinelli > Purchasing, Fleet & Distribution Section Chief Wisconsin Department of > Transportation > 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 751 > P.O. Box 7396 > Madison, WI 53707-7396 > (608) 267-4480 > (608) 267-3609 fax 2 Page 1 of 1 Martinelli, Steve From: Haskins Hobson [haskins.hobson@dnr.mo.gov] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:40 AM To: Martinelli, Steve Subject: Re: Wisconsin vehicle emissions testing Steve, attached is our response. Haskins Hobson, P.E. I/M Team Coordinator Air Pollution Control Program "Martinelli, stove" <steve.martinelii@dot state.wl.us> To cc 04/23/2008 0825 AM Subject Wisconsin vehicle emissions testing The State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation is currently evaluating proposals for the operation of a vehicle emissions testing program. One of the proposing companies, SysTech international, has given your name as a reference. we would appreciate it greatly if you could answer the following questions: « Axe you satisfied with the quality of work this vendor has provided? + Are you satisfied with the personnel assigned to your project? What are the names of the company's primary contacts that you have worked with? + What is the extent of the services provided? + Knowing what you know now, would you select this company again? if possible, we would like responses prior to May let. All response and/or questions can should come to me via e-mail or to the phone number below. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Steve Martinelli Purchasing, Fleet 6 Distribution Section Chief Wisconsin Department of Transportation 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 751 P.O. Box 7396 Madison, WI 53707-7396 (608) 267-4480 (608) 267-3609 fax 5/5120OR May 2, 2008 Steve Martinelli Purchasing, Fleet & Distribution Section Chief Wisconsin Department of Transportation 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 751 P.O. Box 7396 Madison, WI 53707-7396 Dear Mr. Martinelli: This letter is in response to your inquiry of April 23, 2008, concerning the experience of the State of Missouri's "Gateway Vehicle Inspection Program" (GVIP) contract with SysTech International, that was awarded to SysTech International on May 29, 2007. 1. Are you satisfied with the quality of work this vendor has provided? Response: Not presently. The state legislation authorizing the start of Missouri's decentralized vehicle emissions and safety program allowed for a very short timeframe to implement the GVIP. SysTech . International had only three full months from the time the contract was signed to start a new decentralized, OBD and safety vehicle inspection program, complete with inspection equipment, vehicle inspection database, and reporting and audit tools for state oversight. Based upon mutual discussions in August 2007 between SysTech International, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP), it was agreed to delay GVIP implementation thirty (30) days from September 1, 2007, until October 1, 2007 and to phase-in inspection stations equipment deliveries and software deliverables. Even with the extra 30 days allowance, SysTech Internatiohal did not deliver their complete proposal, even after verbally assuring DNR and MSHP that they would have everything delivered by October 1, 2007. As a result of their contractual failures, the Missouri Office of Administration, Division of Purchasing and Materials Management issued a breach of contract letter to SysTech International on January 8, 2008. The breach of contract letter included an attachment containing a list of approximately one hundred (l 00) contractual requirements that SysTech International had failed to implement within the timelines outlined in their contract. SysTech Steve Martinelli Page 2 International is presently working to meet the negotiated timelines resulting from the breach of contract letter. These delays have resulted in the State of Missouri not being able to allow its Acceptance Testing Procedure (ATP) vendor to fulfill its contract of providing primary ATP services by November 30, 2007. As a result, the state has not yet received an independent assessment of the quality of SysTech International's delivered services. 2. Are you satisfied with the personnel assigned to your project? Response: Yes. SysTech International did not provide the Missouri Project Manager they proposed in their bid response, instead electing to hire an individual from the previous vehicle emissions contractor. This individual, while not familiar with SysTech International's software, etc., quickly learned the responsibilities required of the Project Manager and has performed admirably under very difficult conditions. DNR also has a good working relationship with SysTech International's software staff located in Tucson, Arizona. SysTech International provided the Operations Manager they proposed in their bid response; however, that individual resigned a few months after contract implementation. SysTech International then contracted with another individual for that position, who has since resigned. SysTech International's main reason for failing to meet contract timelines stems from the fact they have over -committed their personnel resources in relationship to the contracts they were awarded in 2006 and 2007 (e.g. California, Rhode Island and Nashville, TN). Initially they only had four (4) software engineers employed; now they have ten (10). While these recent hires have helped SysTech International meet the negotiated timelines resulting from the breach of contract letter, they have not accelerated the delivery of any of these items or improved the quality of the items delivered. As an example of spreading their staff too thin, the individual assigned to quality assure the software for Missouri's GVIP and the individual who oversees the software staff, were both sent to Rhode Island for several weeks while SysTech International had outstanding deliverables with the state of Missouri. 3. What is the extent of the services provided? Response: SysTech International provides a full range of inspection services. These services include selling and maintaining vehicle inspection hardware and software to decentralized inspection stations, managing all inspection data on their vehicle inspection Steve Martinelli Page 3 database (VID), providing real time verification of inspection data to the Missouri Department of Revenue's vehicle licensing offices, providing the state oversight staff with audit laptops and software, conducting training for licensed inspectors, and managing the certificates for Missouri Recognized Repair Technicians. At present, there are approximately 720 inspection stations using analyzers and software purchased from SysTech International. These services do not include any direct public information, except for a publicly available web site, www.NCssouriVlP.org. 4. Knowing what you now, would you select this company again? Response: No. SysTech International has not proven to Missouri that they had the personnel resources to meet the tight deadlines required for Missouri's aggressive implementation schedule. Within a four-month time frame, SysTech did provide the bare minimum necessary to begin the GVIP on October 1, 2007. However, based on SysTech International's proposal, DNR and MSHP assumed that SysTech International would implement the GViP with "off-the-shelf' existing SysTech International software and hardware, allowing for SysTech International to meet the extremely tight start-up timelines. This assumption proved to be false. Neither the lane software, VID, inspector training or hardware (analyzers) were ready by the September 1, 2007 contractual deadline. As a result, the start date was pushed back thirty (30) days in an attempt to alleviate the situation. GVIP is also designed to have a real time, paperless vehicle registration system to minimize registration fraud. All emissions and safety inspections were intended to be verified in real time by the DOR license offices via an on-line solution. However, software problems with the VID and hardware and software problems with the analyzers have resulted in DNR. allowing DOR license offices to register vehicles with paper vehicle inspection reports even if the vehicle inspection data cannot be verified on-line. This situation continues to undercut the state's ability to ensure a fraud -free real time vehicle inspection -registration process. If you have any other questions about SysTech International's contract with the state of Missouri, feel free to contact me by mail at P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102 or by phone at (573) 751-4817. Sincerely, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM W. Haskins Hobson, Jr., P.E. I/M Team Coordinator Press Release Gothenburg April 9, 2008 ef!us OOX AR This press release is intended only for non -U.S. and non—Canadian persons, and for persons who are not resident in Australia, New Zeeland, Japan or South Africa This press release may not be distributed or made public, and does not constitute an offer of any securities for sale, in the United States of America or Canada, or to persons resident in Australia, New Zeeland, Japan or South Africa Securities may not be offered or sold in the United States of America or Canada, or sold to persons resident in Australia, New Zeeland, Japan or South Africa, unless they are registered or exempt from registration. Opus has not registered and does not intend to register any securities for sale in the United States ofAmerica or Canada, or for sale to persons resident in Australia, New Zeeland, Japan or South Africa. Any offering of securities to be made in the United States of America or Canada, or to persons resident in Australia, New Zeeland, Japan or South Africa, will be trade by means of a prospectus or other disclosure document that will contain detailed information about Opus and its management, as well as financial statements. The information in this press release speaks only as of April 9, 2008, and Opus does not intend to update any of the information in the press release. Certain statements made in the press release may constitute forward-looking statements with respect to plans, projections and/or future performance of Opus. Actual results, performance or achievements could differ, materially from those expressed or implied by those statements. Forward-looking statements represent the expectations of Opus and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that are subject to change based on factors that are, in many instances, beyond Opus' control. Opus Acquires SysTech in the U.S. Opus Acquires SysTech International in the U.S. By acquiring SysTech International', Opus Prodox AB (publ) ("Opus" and/or the "Company") becomes a competitive supplier of complete systems for environmental and safety testing of vehicles. The acquisition is expected to enhance Opus' possibilities for further international expansion and establishes the Company in the North American market. SysTech International is one of the fastest growing companies in the American vehicle inspection market and reported a turnover of approx. SEK 113 million and an EBITDA margin (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation) of approx. 23 per cent in 2007. SysTech has a contracted order book of approx. USD 79 million (approx. SEK 474 million)3. The acquisition is expected to be completed at the end of April 2008. The Acquisition is an Important Step in Opus' Growth Strategy The acquisition of SysTech is a step further in Opus' strategy for growth and internationalisation. The transaction results in Opus more than doubling its size and turnover and broadens its market presence by also including the North American market. After the acquisition, more than 75 per cent of the Company's net turnover will derive from markets other than the Nordic countries. Increased Growth through Revenue and Product Related Synergies Through the acquisition, Opus gains access to a complete product range for environmental and safety testing of vehicles. SysTech provides leading IT solutions for business control and administration of vehicle testing as well as an extensive experience of modern and profitable business models for vehicle inspection where the supplier takes the entire responsibility, also known as pay -per -test. It is the New GroupY intention to offer this business model, in combination with the New Group's product offering, through its global sales system. CEO's Comments "Opus has a clear growth philosophy based on organic as well as acquisition driven growth. SysTech is an acquisition we have been working on during the last year. We are convinced that the New Group will be the leading player in the world for environmental and safety testing of vehicles. We have cooperated with SvsTech and its owners for marry years, which vouch for a good and effective process now when we intend to offer the combined product range throughout our entire sales system. One of our most exciting areas of growth is "wireless vehicle inspection ", where SvsTech, who also owns the concept's patent, has been our partner throughout the project. After the acquisition Opus will have large opportunities to be world leading in this area in the growing market observed not only in the US. but also in the rest of the world" says - ag us Greko, CEO and -President of Opus. 'The legal form of SysTech International is Limited Liability Company ( LLC), which is approx equivalent to atrading company in Sweden. The acquisition of SysTech International LLC also includes the property comparry TnLen LLC. In this press release SysTech International and/or SysTech mean both SysTech International LLC and TriLen LLC. , Translated to SEK at a USD/SEK rate of 6.761. 'Translated to SEK at a USDISEK rate of 6.000. 4 The New Group refers to Opus Prodox AB (publ) and subsidiaries after the acquisition of SysTech Imematiorml LLC and TriLen LLC. Revised Targets Opus' targets have been revised due to the acquisition: • Opus' target for the next three-year period is to achieve an annual average growth in net turnover of 30-40 per cent, through organic growth and acquisitions • Opus' target for the next three-year period is to achieve an average EBITDA margin (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation) exceeding Z0 per cent • Opus strives to pay dividends to such extent that allows further acquisitions as well as significant organic growth. With regard to the Company's growth ambition, it is the Board of Directors' opinion that no dividends will be proposed/paid over the next three years Profit per Share Increasing in 2008 Opus is acquiring all shares in SysTech for USD 37,749,468 (approx. SEK 226 million)5 6 plus any earn -out payments. Starting from this year it is expected that the acquisition will have a significant positive effect on Opus' profit per share before synergies and amortisation of acquisition related surplus values. Financing Financing of the acquisition will be obtained through: • A share issue targeted at the sellers of SysTech; • A share issue targeted at institutional and professional investors, including the Second AP fund; • A share issue with pre-emption rights for Opus' shareholders; and • Short and long term debt financing. It is estimated that the Rights Issue will take place in May/June, 2008. Decision to List Opus on OMX Small Cap in 2008 Opus has roughly 1,300 shareholders and is listed on First North. Considering the acquisition of SysTech and the increased institutional ownership and the broadened shareholder base in the Company, Opus' Board of Directors has decided to apply for listing on the OMX Nordic Exchange Stockholm AB ("OMX") as soon as possible with the goal of having the Opus share listed on OMX Small Cap during 2008. Background and Reasons for the Acquisition of SysTech Opus Opus is an industrial group within environmental and safety testing of vehicles. The Company's business concept is to develop, produce and sell test equipments and analyzers for the vehicle industry, vehicle inspection and vehicle repair shops in the global market. Activities are carried out through three business areas: Automotive Test Equipments, Fleet Management and Wireless Vehicle Inspection. Th product range includes exhaust rneters, diagnostic equipment, brake testers, w'- eel alignment equipment, electronic driver log systems, fleet management systems and systems for wireless vehicle inspection, so called Remote OBD. During 2007 parts of the Compan• `s mane"souring were trans`erred to a newly built production plant in China. In 2007 Opus reported a turnover of approx. SEK 67 million, a growth of approx. 80 per cent compared to the previous year, an EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation) of SEK 6.0 million, equivalent to an EBITDA margin of 9.1 per cent. Opus sells its products in more than 50 countries, and its target is to establish business activities on 3-4 new markets each year. Prior to the acquisition of SysTech, Opus had approx. 50 employees. The Opus shares are listed on First North since September 2006. Opus' vision is to be world leading in the field of innovative technology for environmental and safety testing of vehicles and to create opportunities for industrial and developing countries to improve their environment through optimal use of the latest and most cost effective technology. The market for Opus' products is primarily driven by new and tightened environmental legislation. Another factor is the increasing number of vehicles that is particularly prominent today in developing countries such as China and India. Competition in the market has historically been European based with mainly German and British companies and for some time also Italian. There is great future potential for growth in developing markets where emission controls have not yet been introduced or are deficient. Over the next five-year period growth is primarily expected to be strong in Asia, the Middle East and South America. In recent years Opus has succeeded in several prestigious projects in these growth regions, e.g. in Mongolia, on the Philippines and in Vietnam. On mature markets in Europe and North 3 Translated to SEK at a USD/SEK rate of 6.000 'Denominated in USD. 2 (2) America growth is primarily driven by replacement investments, a consequence either due to the fact that equipment is approaching the end of its life cycle or that newer technology is demanded. Developments in these countries are moving towards favouring suppliers with a complete set of products. Vehicle inspection is increasingly being put out to contract — a business model that is currently being applied in the U.S. — where the supplier manages the complete operation of the vehicle inspection programme and gets paid per test. Development in mature markets is also moving towards new and more user friendly technology, whereby motorists take a more active role in exchange for increased flexibility of vehicle inspections. Through the acquisition of SysTech, Opus will obtain significant competitive advantages over other players in the market, partly through a more complete product and service mix, and partly through access to the technology which is favoured in the expected market development. SysTech SysTech is at the forefront of product development and technology related to environmental control, and is one of the fastest growing companies in the American vehicle inspection market. SysTech develops and supplies diagnostic equipment, IT solutions and services for vehicle inspection, and its customer base principally comprises American states. SysTech's contracts incorporates everything from delivery of vehicle inspection equipment, IT solutions and networks, servicing and maintenance of vehicle inspection stations to full operation of vehicle inspection programmes. SysTech has a turnover of approx. SEK 113 million 7, an EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation) of approx. SEK 26 million' and has approx. 90 employees. Over the past year SysTech has achieved an organic growth of more than 250 per cent and an EBITDA margin exceeding 20 per cent. SysTech has won seven out of the nine most recent larger procurements of vehicle inspection programmes in the U.S. since 2005, and SysTech's contracted order book totals approx. SEK 474 million", with an average margin exceeding the reported EBITDA margin of approx. 23 per cent for 2007. The acquisition of SysTech International LLC includes the property company TriLen LLC. This company owns six motor vehicle testing properties in Nashville and a further four sites in Tennessee. Value Creation through Good Profitability and State of the Art Technology The deal is primarily based on two components that are considered to be of long term importance for Opus' shareholders. The Company's target is to accelerate its growth and to have a net turnover of at least SEK 500 million by 2012. The acquisition of SysTech is an important step in attaining this target and in Opus becoming a leading global supplier of complete high-tech solutions within vehicle inspection. The industrial rationale for Opus' acquisition of SysTech's operations involves combining Opus' product portfolio with SysTech's products, IT solutions and service offering, thus crying a competitive group on the global market. Opus can thereby offer existing and new customers complete solutions for vehicle inspection from a single supplier, as well as products and technology that are considered to be at the cutting edge of development in the field of environmental and safety testing of vehicles and it can consequently be given the opportunity for more and larger undertakings in forthcoming procurements. It is also assumed that sales will increase through integration of the existing sales networks. For example, Opus' products can be sold in the American market through SysTech's distribution channels. Through this process Opus is expected to take an important step towards attaining its set growth and profitability targets and in the long term create significant value to the Company's shareholders. The acquisition combines two companies with strong positions in two different markets with good profitability. Given the two companies' backgrounds and offerings, there are also major opportunities for exchanges around production and investments. The combination of the two companies creates a more diversified product mix, which therefore also is more suited for meeting the demand from both existing and new customers. Opus and SysTech will jointly further develop SysTech's strong service offering in North America and will also implement this model in the European market, and in the growth markets in which Opus is present. By transferring SysTech's manufacturing to Opus' plant in China significant cost savings are expected to be realised within the New Group. The Acquisition of SysTech Opus is acquiring all shares in SysTech for USD 37,749,468 (approx. SEK 226 million)" plus any earn -out payments. Earn -out payments, capped at a maximum amount of USD 25 million (approx. SEK 150 million)2'3, are payable for all new business generated within a period of 15 years as of the closing day of the acquisition and I Translated into SEK at a USD/SEK rate of 6.761. 'Translated into SEK at a USD/SEK rate of 6.000. v Denominated in USD. 3 (3) which are based on the technology or the business concepts that were developed or planned by SysTech prior to January 1, 2008. For such new business an earn -out payment of a maximum 35 per cent of the net profit related to such business is payable and shall be paid annually at the latest 60 days after the end of the calendar year. A particular earn -out payment of USD 4 million (appox. SEK 25 million) t-2 shall be payable if the state of Wisconsin, at the latest December 31, 2008, allots SysTech a contract with a contract value of at least USD 20 million (approx. SEK 120 million) 1,2 regarding a centralised vehicle inspection programme. The contract is currently still in the process of procurement. The contract is of an estimated value of approx. USD 60 million (approx. SEK 360 million)' 2. If this particular earn -out payment becomes payable, payment is to be made at latest by March 31, 2009. Finally, a particular earn -out payment shall be payable on the sale in the U.S. of systems for wireless vehicle control — Remote OBD — on the number of units sold which, within 15 years as of the closing day of the acquisition, exceed 205,000 units. This earn -out payment amounts to 7.5 per cent of the sales value of the units exceeding the 205,000 units and shall be paid annually at the latest 60 days after the end of the calendar year. Financing The acquisition will be financed by share issues and an increase in bank debt. A number of institutional and professional investors (the "Institutional and Professional Investors"), including the Second AP Fund, have undertaken to subscribe to a total of 21,125,000 shares in Opus in a directed share issue at a price of SEK 2.00 per share, equivalent to a discount of approx. 27 per cent in relation to the volume weighted average price for Opus over the past 20 trading days (March 7, 2008 — April 7, 2008) on First North. This share issue will provide Opus with SEK 42.25 million. For this reason Opus' Board of Directors, subject to approval by the extra general meeting on April 25, 2008, has decided on a share issue of a maximum of 21,125,000 shares with right to subscribe for the Institutional and Professional Investors. Furthermore, the acquisition amount is being financed through a share issue of a total of 20,000,000 shares in Opus with right to subscribe for SysTech's founder Pradeep Tripathi and the CEO Lothar Geilen (the "Sellers"), who together hold all shares in SysTech. The shares are being issued at a price of SEK 3.00 per share, equivalent to an issue amount of SEK 60 million and a premium of approx. 9 per cent in relation to the volume weighted average price for Opus over the past 20 trading days (March 7, 2008 — April 7, 2008) on First North. Payment of shares subscribed for shall be in cash from the Sellers, or by transferring promissory notes. Due to this, Opus' Board of Directors, subject to approval by the extra general meeting on April 25, 2008, has decided on a directed share issue targeted at the Sellers. The Sellers have undertaken not to sell allotted shares in Opus within a period of 6 months from the closing of the acquisition. Moreover, the Sellers have undertaken not to sell shares exceeding 50 per cent of the allotted shares within a period of 12 months from the closing of the acquisition. Subscription of shares in both share issues shall be carried out as soon as possible after the extra general meeting's approval of the share issues. It is furthermore intended that part of the acquisition shall be financed through a share issue of approx. SEK 100 million, with pre-emption rights for Opus' shareholders (the "Rights Issue"). For this reason, Opus' Board of Directors has decided to propose the extra general meeting on April 25, 2008, to authorise the Board of Directors to decide that the Company's share capital shall be increased by a maximum of SEK 1,789,869 to a maximum of SEK 3,896,000 through a share issue with right to subscribe for Opus' shareholders. AB Kommandoran, HWJ Holding ApS, Vision Invest sprl, Fore C Investment sprl and Digital Image SA, who together hold shares equivalent to approx. 59 per cent of the capital and votes in Opus prior to the share issues, have undertaken to vote at the extra general meeting on April 25, 2008, in accordance with the Board of Directors' proposal as above. A separate press release regarding the extra general meeting will be distributed shortly. These shareholders have furthermore undertaken to subscribe shares to a value of SEK 6.0 million by cash payment, and in addition to this subscribe to additional shares cash flow neutrally (i.e. subscription to the extent it can be financed by the sale of subscription rights and/or shares in Opus). The Institutional and Professional Investors, who after the directed share issues will together hold shares equivalent to approx. 20 per cent of the capital and votes in Opus, are positive towards the Rights Issue and have declared their intention to subscribe to their share in the Rights Issue. Translated into SEK at a USD/SEK rate of 6.000. a Denominated in USD. 4 (4) The acquisition will finally be financed by long term debt by SEK 55 million', granted by Nordea. Short term borrowing is furthermore being undertaken to a maximum amount of SEK 76 million, with the intention of the short term debt being amortised by the proceeds from the Rights Issue. The short term debt consists of a bank loan of SEK 30 million, granted by Nordea, and promissory notes of a maximum USD 7,716,135 (approx. SEK 46 million)' , granted by the sellers of SysTech. The promissory notes shall be repaid with the funds from the Rights Issue, however no later than 15 months after the completion of the acquisition. Decision to List Opus on OMX Small Cap in 2008 Opus has roughly 1,300 shareholders and is listed on First North. Considering the acquisition of SysTech and the increased institutional ownership and the broadened shareholder base in the Company, Opus' Board of Directors has decided to apply for listing on the OMX Nordic Exchange Stockholm AB ("OMV) as soon as possible with the goal of having the Opus share listed on OMX Small Cap during 2008. As a result of the share issues the number of outstanding shares in Opus will increase significantly. It is therefore expected that that there will be an improvement in the conditions for regular and liquid trading in the Opus shares. Revised Targets Following the acquisition of SysTech, Opus' organisation has changed with regard to size, growth prospects and profitability. Therefore, the Company's targets have been revised. Growth Opus' target for the next three-year period is to achieve an annual average growth in net turnover of 30-40 per cent, through organic growth and acquisitions Margin Opus' target for the next three year period is to achieve an average EBITDA margin (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation) exceeding 20 per cent Dividend Policy Opus strives to pay dividends to such extent that allows further acquisitions as well as significant organic growth. With regard to the Compartv's growth ambition it is the Board of Directors' opinion that no dividends will be proposed/paid over the next three years Preliminary Timetable The Board of Directors has today decided to summon an extra general meeting on April 25, 2008. Provided that the extra general meeting decides in accordance with the Board of Directors' proposal, and the other fulfilment terms regarding the acquisition are met, subscription in the directed share issues will take place, the purchase price paid and access obtained as soon as possible thereafter; estimated to take place at the end of April, 2008. It is estimated that the Rights Issue will take place during May/June 2008. Presentation of the Deal April 9, 2008 Today, April 9, 2008 at 11.00 am. CET a press conference in Swedish will take place at Nordic Sea Hotel, Vasaplan 4, in Stockholm. " Denominated in USD. 1' Translated into SEK at a USD/SEI{ rate of 6.000. 5 (5) For Further Information: CEO and President Magnus Greko +46 (0) 31 748 34 91 +46 (0) 70 558 45 91 Chairman of the Board G6ran Nordlund +46 (0) 70 433 13 20 Nordea Bank AB (publ) is Opus' financial adviser. Opus' Certified Adviser at First North is Thenberg & Kinde Fondkommission AB. The legal advisers for Opus are Advokatfirman Glimstedi for Sweden and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey for the U. S BDO Nordic AB is the Company's auditor. This press release is also available at %NiNm.opus.se. 6 (6) Pro Forma Financial Statements To illustrate the financial impact of Opus' acquisition of SysTech and the new share issues, historic pro forma financial statements have been prepared. Given that the transaction is not yet closed and that the acquisition structure has not yet been finalised, that all information is not available, that the final acceptance ratio for the Rights Issue is not known, the combined data presented below should be considered purely illustrative. Neither does the information necessarily provide any indication of the combined group's future result. The pro forma financial statements are based on (i) audited annual financial statements of Opus for the financial year 2007 pro forma adjusted for the companies acquired during the year and (ii) audited annual financial statements of SysTech for the financial year 200713 adjusted for major differences in accounting principles with regard to Opus. Opus applies IFRS and pro forma adjustments are therefore accounted for under IFRS. SysTech applies U.S. GAAP and there has been no restatement of accounting principles to IFRS when preparing the pro forma financial statements presented here. After the transaction is completed SysTech's financial statements will be restated to IFRS. As a result of this, future pro forma financial statements may deviate from the pro forma financial statements presented. However, Opus' auditors have carried out a general review of the major differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, and their opinion as of today is that there are no major differences in this instance. It is intended that part of the purchase price shall be financed by a rights issue. The effect of the Rights Issue has been taken into account in the pro forma financial statements below. In the pro forma financial statements, the Rights Issue is assumed to be made at market price per share, which means that no bonus issue aspect affects the pro forma financial statements. No synergies and/or costs for integration of SysTech have been included. Pro Forma Adjustment of Opus' Audited Annual Financial Statements for 2007 for the Acquisitions of EWJ and J&B During 2007 Opus acquired EWJ Teknik A/S in Denmark ("EWJ") and the Swedish company J&B Maskinteknik AB ("J&B"). Only nine and six months respectively of EWJ and J&B have been consolidated in Opus' annual financial statements for 2007, whereby a pro forma adjustment has been made to illustrate the Opus group's financial development and position should the acquisitions have taken place on January 1, 2007. This pro forma has been reviewed by Opus' auditors but has not been audited. EWJ's previous financial year was split, and spanned from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. Consequently only nine months of EWJ's financial statements are consolidated in Opus' annual financial statements for 2007, thus supplements have been implemented linearly, adding to a further 25 per cent in the consolidated financial statement. A standard tax rate of 28 per cent has been applied. J&B's previous financial year was split and spanned from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007. Consequently only six months ofJ&B's financial statements are consolidated in Opus' annual financial statements for 2007, thus a further six months have been added, involving the same amounts as are included in consolidated financial statement. A standard tax rate of 28 per cent has been applied. The consequences on the result of the above pro forma adjustments amounts to SEK 1,056,272, which has increased equity and the current assets respectively for Opus' consolidated financial statements and the cash flow for the year by a corresponding amount. Adjustment of SysTech's Audited Annual Financial Statements for 2007 for Major Differences in Accounting Principles with Regard to Opus SysTech's audited financial statements for 2007 have been adjusted for major differences in accounting principles with regard to Opus. In the pro forma, start up costs for the Rhode Island contract, which have been accounted for in SysTech's annual financial statements for 2007, have instead been activated in intangible assets with regard to the tax effect of a standard tax rate of 40 per cent. This means that the start up costs are linearly written off during the length of the contract which is five years including extension, according to the accounting principle applied by the Opus group. SysTech is furthermore a Limited Liability Company and thus not a tax subject. A standard tax rate of 40 per cent has been applied to the result in SysTech to illustrate the New Group's profit/loss after tax. 13 SysTecNs accounts comprise consolidated annual accounts for SysTech International LLC and TniL n LLC. 7 (7) Comments on the Pro Forma Income Statement The pro forma income statement has been prepared as if the acquisition of SysTech and the new share issues took place on January 1, 2007. Given a purchase price of USD 37,749,468 (approx. SEK 226 million)14 plus estimated transaction costs of SEK 8 million (excluding issue costs), the acquisition of SysTech is believed to result in a surplus value of approx. SEK 212 million. In the pro forma income statement it is assumed that the entire surplus value is allocated to goodwill, which is not subject to annual depreciation. Instead goodwill is subject to impairment tests and the result of those tests determines if part of or all of goodwill should be amortised any given year or not. A purchase price allocation, in which the surplus value is allocated to relevant assets, will be prepared for the prospectus for the Rights Issue. The outcome of this may result in Opus being subject to annual depreciation on all or part of the acquisition related surplus values. As a result of this, future pro forma financial statements may deviate from the pro forma statements presented. The acquisition of SysTech will be financed both with share issues and by bank loans. Approx. SEK 60 million is being financed through an issue of a total of 20,000,000 shares in Opus directed at the sellers of SysTech. Approx. SEK 42 million is being financed through a directed share issue to institutional and professional investors and approx. SEK 100 million through a rights issue, implementation of which is planned for May/June 2008. In the pro forma, an acceptance ratio of 100 per cent has been assumed in the Rights Issue. Opus has secured both short term debt financing totalling a maximum of SEK 76 million, to be amortised with funds from the Rights Issue, and long term financing of SEK 55 million. The pro forma net interest income/expense has been affected by an interest expense of SEK 2.5 million (excluding so called up -front fees) based on an assumed interest rate of 4.6 per cent on the long term debt financing of SEK 55 million. The pro forma tax expense has been estimated based on consideration for where each operation is run. In the pro forma income statement an average exchange rate of 6.761 (USD/SEK) for 2007 has been applied. Comments on the Pro Forma Balance Sheet The pro forma balance sheet has been prepared as if the acquisition of SysTech and the new share issues took place on December 31, 2007. The acquisition of SysTech is expected to result in a surplus value of approx. SEK 212 million that will be allocated to relevant assets. In the pro forma balance sheet it is assumed that the entire surplus value is allocated to goodwill. See further the above heading Comments on the proforma income statement. The acquisition of SysTech will be financed partially by means of long term debt financing of approx. SEK 55 million, thus long term liabilities have been increased by a corresponding amount. In the pro forma balance sheet an exchange rate of 6.468 (USD/SEK) as of December 31, 2007, has been applied. Comments on the Pro Forma Cash Flow Analvsis The pro forma cash flow analysis has been prepared as if the acquisition of SysTech and the share issues took place on January 1, 2007. In the pro forma cash flow analysis an average exchange rate of 6.761 (USD/SEK) for 2007 has been applied. "Translated into SEK at a USD/SEK raze of 6.000. Denominated in USD. Excluding eam-out payments. 8 (8) Pro Forma Income Statement 2007 Opus SysTech January 1 - December 31, 2007 Opus audited SysTech audited Adjustments audited financial audited Adjustments The New T/teNew Group financial Adjustmentjor financial and Group Thousands ofSwedish kronor statement EWJ and J&B statement eliminatlonsrr pro forma Net turnover 66,525 13,830 112,908 - 193,263 -93,751 Cost of goods sold -36,623 -7,078 -50,050 42,526 99,511 Gross profit Other operating expenses 29,902 -24,346 6,752 -59209 62,858 -37,339 - 9,330 -58,786 OPERATING PROFIT (EBIT) 5,556 1,543 25,518 - 40,726 11,434 Net interest incomete 492 -76 -1,221 -2,530 - 17,470 PROFIT/LOSS AFTER FINANCIAL INCOME AND 5,064 1,467 229961 6,800 36,292 EXPENSE Tax on profit/loss for the year -1,393 -411 - 10,260 -12,063 DDAMIr/r ncR MR THR VF.AR 3.671 1,056 22,961 -3,460 24,229 u Start up costs for the Rhode Island contract have been reversed by a net amount of SEK 9.330 million, adjusted for one year's depreciation, and have been activated in the balance sheet. Standard rate tax of 40 per cent on the reversed amount has been recorded in the profit/loss for the year. Interest expense far the loan financing of the acquisition of SysTech is estimated at 4.6 per cent of the longterm loan financing of SEK 55 million, equivalent to SEK 2.530 million Tax has been adjusted for a standard rate tax of 40 per cent on SysTech's prcfitdoss and a standard rate tax of 28 per cent on the increased interest expense and estimated issue costs. V- J7.- natanro.Qhoot 2007 December 31, 2007 'I Given a purchase price of USD 37,749,468 (approx. SEK 226 million), excluding eamout payments, plus transaction costs of an estimated SEK 8 million (excluding issue costs), the acquisition of SysTech is believed to result in a surplus value of appmx. SEK 212 million It has been assumed that the entire surplus value is allocated to goodwill. Stan up costs for the Rhode Island contract have been activated in intangible assets of a net amount of SEK 9.330 million adjusted for one year's depreciation. They are written off linearly during the length of the contract, which is five years including extension, of which four years remain A tax liability equivalent to 40 per cent of the reversed amount has been recorded. The remaining amount has increased the equity in the New Group. Liquid assets have been added with the amount the financing exceeds the purchase price for all shares of SysTech including estimated transaction and share issue costs, after deduction for one year's interest payments. Equity has been adjusted for a standard rate tax of 40 per cent on SysTech's profit/loss and estimated issue expenses of SEK 7 million The tax liability has been adjusted by a corresponding amount. Long term liabilities have been increased by SEK 55 million in loan financing 9 (9) Opus SysTech audited audited Adjustments financial Adjustmentfor flnancial and T/teNew Group Thousands of Swedish kronor statement EWJ and J&B statement euminadonst) proforma Goodwill 11,671 - 212,000 223,671 Intangible assets 6,957 - 380 9,330 16,668 44,996 Property and machinery 2,470 - 42,526 - 504 Shares etc. Trade debtors - 17,047 - - 504 20,350 37,397 Stock 22,466 - 8,805 31,271 Other current assets 3,129 1,056 364 2,470 - 17,470 4,550 23,951 Liquid assets 4,011 - TOTAL ASSETS 67,752 1,056 75,400 238,800 383,008 Equity 41,833 1,056 26,125 173,540 242,555 Lon term liabilities Long 9,844 - 24,574 55,000 89,418 22,268 Trade creditors 8,329 - 13,939 .. .... .... .. - _. Accrued expenses 2 ..,017 ..... ... 7,719 9,735 0 22 Deferred income - 22 388 388 Warranty provision Other current liabilities - 5,730 2,634 10,260 18,623 TOTAL EQUITY AND 67,752 1,056 75,400 2389800 383,008 'I Given a purchase price of USD 37,749,468 (approx. SEK 226 million), excluding eamout payments, plus transaction costs of an estimated SEK 8 million (excluding issue costs), the acquisition of SysTech is believed to result in a surplus value of appmx. SEK 212 million It has been assumed that the entire surplus value is allocated to goodwill. Stan up costs for the Rhode Island contract have been activated in intangible assets of a net amount of SEK 9.330 million adjusted for one year's depreciation. They are written off linearly during the length of the contract, which is five years including extension, of which four years remain A tax liability equivalent to 40 per cent of the reversed amount has been recorded. The remaining amount has increased the equity in the New Group. Liquid assets have been added with the amount the financing exceeds the purchase price for all shares of SysTech including estimated transaction and share issue costs, after deduction for one year's interest payments. Equity has been adjusted for a standard rate tax of 40 per cent on SysTech's profit/loss and estimated issue expenses of SEK 7 million The tax liability has been adjusted by a corresponding amount. Long term liabilities have been increased by SEK 55 million in loan financing 9 (9) r) For adjustments to Profit/loss after financial income and expense, see notes to Proforma income statement 2007. The purchase price, the transaction costs ( including issue expenses) and start up costs for the Rhode Island contract have been included in the cash flow from investing activities. The cash flow from financing activities has been adjusted for all new share issues and new long term loans. A translation difference of SEK -1.061 million arises in the translation of SysTech's financial statements into Swedish kronor opus audited rte• -. audited Adjustments The New January 1 - December 31, 2007 Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis 2007 financial and Group statement EWJ and J&B statements eliminations pro forma Opus SysTech 23.1 EBITDA margin, per cent 9.1 audited audited Adjustments The New 18.8 financial AdJustmentfor fittanclal and Group Thousands of 4wedish kronor statement EWJ and J&B statement eUminadons ) proforma PROFIT/LOSS AFTER FINANCIAL INCOME AND 5,064 1,467 22,961 6,800 36,292 EXPENSE Adjustment for items not included in 1,946 - 1,221 -2,163 5,330 the cash flow -1,156 -411 - -1,567 Tax paid Change in operating capital -18,086 - -7,160 _ -25,246 Cash flow from operating activities -12,233 1,056 17,022 8,963 14,809 Cash flow from investing activities -16,657 - 42,092 -252,990 -311,739 Cash flow after investments -289890 1,056 -25,070 -244,027 -296,930 Cash flow from financing activities 26,339 - 25,129 261,497 17,470 312,964 16,034 Cash flow for the year -2,551 1,056 59 2,415 8,951 Liquid assets at beginning of year 6,535 - -1,061 -1,034 Translation difference 27 1,056 59 17,470 16,034 Cash flow for the year 2,551 .1..... �aoei r) For adjustments to Profit/loss after financial income and expense, see notes to Proforma income statement 2007. The purchase price, the transaction costs ( including issue expenses) and start up costs for the Rhode Island contract have been included in the cash flow from investing activities. The cash flow from financing activities has been adjusted for all new share issues and new long term loans. A translation difference of SEK -1.061 million arises in the translation of SysTech's financial statements into Swedish kronor Financial Debt/equity ratio, times 16.2 Interest cover, times 8.4 _ 63 Equity/assets ratio, per cent 62 Equity - average, thousands of 30,866 230,575 Swedish kronor Number of shares, average 59,569,607 - Number ofshares at year end 64,181,571 139,152,937 Profit per share, Swedish kronor 0.06 - 0.140 90 .... -. _. 1 t It is assumed that the Rights Issue is implemented at the market price per share ( SEK 3.08 per share as of ApTd 7, 2008), which means that no bonus issue aspect has affected the pro fora financial statements. at Before synergies and amortisation of acquisition related surplus values. Based on the number of shares at year end 10 (10) opus audited rte• -. audited Adjustments The New financial Adjustmentfor financial and Group statement EWJ and J&B statements eliminations pro forma Profitability 22.6 23.1 EBITDA margin, per cent 9.1 21.5 _21.1 EBIT margin, per cent 8.4 20.3 18.8 Profit margin, per cent 7.6 10.4 Return oneq tYui, per cent 11.9 - - Financial Debt/equity ratio, times 16.2 Interest cover, times 8.4 _ 63 Equity/assets ratio, per cent 62 Equity - average, thousands of 30,866 230,575 Swedish kronor Number of shares, average 59,569,607 - Number ofshares at year end 64,181,571 139,152,937 Profit per share, Swedish kronor 0.06 - 0.140 90 .... -. _. 1 t It is assumed that the Rights Issue is implemented at the market price per share ( SEK 3.08 per share as of ApTd 7, 2008), which means that no bonus issue aspect has affected the pro fora financial statements. at Before synergies and amortisation of acquisition related surplus values. Based on the number of shares at year end 10 (10) e February 26, 2010 Re: Evaluation of Ada County Emissions Testing Programs Further Plans Our current emission testing program administered by the Air Quality Board, headed by Dennis Turner and a group of Owner/Operators that test vehicles in Ada County. The Owners currently use red, green or yellow vans or have small buildings. These Owners and employees provide an emissions test, according to AQB Rules & Regulations, utilizing a Worldwide Environmental Products Analyzer, which is 100% accurate on OBD II testing. 110 people, or more, call this their job. Emissions technicians help to provide cleaner air. If Ada County Mayors and commissioners sign The Powers of Agreement clause with the DEQ; all power legally goes to the DEQ. The DEQ has chosen "Systech International' to perform the emission testing in Canyon County, for $11.00/per vehicle. If Systech International is appointed by DEQ to test in Ada County, all Owners are removed from testing duties, including the AQB and personnel. The State of Idaho must not let this happen! AQB tried, tested and proven for over 20 years and continues to improve. Quality control is 1 St class. Owners of stations have time and money invested in their business. Employees have jobs and paychecks. If Systech International is approved for Ada County, $3.00/per vehicle goes to the DEQ. Of the $11.00/test, much of the remainder is left with i Systech International, to take out of state. Systech International will systematically remove $1,391,500 from Idaho's Ada County and $698,500 from Idaho's Canyon County. This money leaves the State of Idaho. DEQ and "buy Idaho" are not to be used in the same sentence! This is a tax on Idaho! Our existing program is the "buy Idaho" plan. Don't let closed executive session deals at the DEQ close our 20+ years of a successful program. Demand quality, keep Idaho jobs and BUY IDAHO. Currently, the test proceeds as follows: post cards are mailed to the public by the Air Quality Board. Customers arrive at an emissions testing station and within a few minutes the test is complete. Is there an internal government power struggle between the DEQ and AQB? Who has testing experience? AQB. Was the time frame for DEQ's proposal adequate? No. Was the scoring process properly administered? No. We have determined that we have proof that it was not properly administered. DEQ's four (4) secret agent proposal reviewers have aligned with Sys tech International (an out-of-state corporation), to relieve Air Quality Board, remove station owners of their job and take $1.39M a year from the people of the State of Idaho. This $1.39M is leaving the State of Idaho. The State of Idaho's mission statement is "Buy Idaho" and local level governments' mission statement is "Think Local". With the Emission Testing Program being awarded to an out-of-state corporation, not only is the $1.39M leaving the people's budget, but we must consider the fact that all the lost jobs will increase the number of people applying for r unemployment insurance, medical care insurance, Food stamps and other supplemental benefits provided to UNEMPLOYED people of Idaho...... paid for by the State of Idaho. This would be the result of awarding Ada County Emissions Testing to an out-of-state corporation. TO DEQ'S PLAN TO AWARD THE ADA COUNTY EMISSIONS TESTING PROGRAM TO SYSTECH INTERNAIONAL.... AN OUT-OF- STATE CORPORATION!!! BUY LOCAL, THINK LOCAL. Call your Mayor, commissioners, all elected officials and your neighbor! This letter is being submitted by your Local "O"(zero), as deemed by the DEQ's secret agent reviewers. Respectfully Submitted, Rob Jestadt (208) 861-9182 Terry Moore (208) 888-6600 T797 Owner/Operators Page 1 of 1 Jaycee Holman From: RON STACIE RUNYON [staciedawn@q.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:05 PM To: Jaycee Holman Subject: EMISSION TESTING Regarding emission testing in ada county: As a 44 year Boise City resident I do not agree with changing this service! Not only will you leave 200 familys in the City without incomes, you will also take away our freedom of convenience as well. I do not want to have to call and make a appointment, get my kids out of the car, and wait in a waiting room....... when I can drive up to a "red van", with everyone with me..... even my grandmother who has trouble walking .... and we can all stay in the car while the nice experienced man checks our car in as little as 5 minutes! I see "stinker" as convenience ..... not wincol Im willing to spend a little more money to save a aiot of time! Why not give us a choice for once & do it both ways ..... (Caldwell/Nampa way & the original way). So we can choose how much we want to spend & how we want to spend our time getting OUR cars emmission tested!! Do we really need to support 200 more families? You are NOT creating jobs by doing this, your eliminating them. Nampa/Caldwell has gone so long without emissions..... let them do it the time-consuming way ..... don't change it on us! A Boise City Resident of 44 years and Boise City Business owner of 20 years. 3/2/2010 Page 1 of 2 Jaycee Holman From: Brenda Hanson [brendahanson@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 2:33 PM To: Jaycee Holman Subject: FW: $11.00 emissions tests and a built-in conflict of interest! From: brendahanson@hotmail.com To: ,jholman@meridiancity.org Subject: $11.00 emissions tests and a HUGE conflict of interest!!!!!!!!!!! Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:30:12 -0700 To Whom It May Concern: My husband and I own Idaho Air Inc. an emissions testing business (6 vans) operating in Ada County for 24 years. Yes, we have a vested interest in the outcome of a decision to abandon the current program but we also feel we have a responsibility to our customers to get the whole story out, so that their voices can be heard. The testing program that SysTech is implementing in Canyon County will be performed in automobile repair shops. It was determined years ago that doing so in Ada County was not in the best interest of the public and that practice was eliminated. The opportunity for a conflict of interest was too great and wasn't fair to the vehicle owners. Why would the people of this county want to go back to a situation like that? Obviously, not all business owners are dishonest but it certainly opens the door for impropriety and questions in the mind of the vehicle owner, who may be required to pay out hundreds of dollars for repairs to the mechanic shop that just performed the test. It was determined to not be an appropriate situation to impose on the citizenry then, why is the same situation appropriate now? Our program also offers drive in -and -out convenience and the security of watching the technician while he tests your car. The Canyon County program requires that you get out of your car and go to waiting areas and restrooms. That means only one thing to me, WAITING. Most people if given a choice would rather drive in for a 5 minute test and get back home or back to work. When was the last time you enjoyed time spent in the restroom or waiting area of a automobile repair shop? They guarantee only a 15 minute wait but who will be enforcing that? And how likely is it that a repair shop with two bays and a full schedule of lucrative mechanic jobs will take a car off a lift and move it out to allow someone in for a $4 emissions test. That sounds like time to make an appointment and come back later. I don't know about you but most citizens if given all the information would not want to sacrifice the convenience that our program affords, for a program that is based on a built-in conflict of interest all in the name of saving $9.00 bi-annually. Once the new program is adopted all opportunity for local control will be gone. The DEQ will control future price increases and regulation changes. The 50 small emissions testing businesses will go away like so many others in this nation. And an ever growing government will have even more control of our lives. Sincerely, Brenda Hanson Idaho Air, Inc. 3/2/2010 Page 2 of 2 208-376-8109 208-859-9335 cell brendahanson(ccbhotmail.com Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. 3/2/2010 Page 1 of 1 Jaycee Holman From: Jonathan Layton Donlayton75@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:30 PM To: Jaycee Holman Subject: Idaho dollars What ever happened to this keep Idaho dollars in Idaho? At the first drop of a hat you go with a out of state contractor. Instead of creating jobs in Idaho you will cause the loss of hundreds in a all ready troubled economy. I have read emails on how other states went with Syn Tech and lets just say they are less than pleased. We have had the Air Quality Board 20 years now why change it. It worked to get the polluting cars off the road. I think we should go state wide. Go down town Boise you could find a car from all most every county in Idaho. If not do the whole treasure valley since it is the treasure valley that is in question here. I have done this for ten years now if it were up to me I would change a fue things my self but it would not consist changes this drastic . I would keep it every year. I have had people say there vehicle passed just fine last year and had no idea that there vehicle was having problems in the first place. They would also rather pay the 20.00 for the emission test verses at a shop where most people just fell like they are getting ripped off. Think how much fraud is going to happen with the stations in repair shops with them able to make the repairs on the vehicles that they test in there own shops. You cant tell me or anyone else that it is not going to happen Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. 3/2/2010 Emissions Testing Methods • Vehicles will be tested for appropriate levels of volatile hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon monoxide plus carbon dioxide (CO + CO2). • Two methods will be used to test gasoline -powered vehicles covered under the program: Two -Speed Idle (TSI) and On -Board Diagnostic (OBD). The TSI method samples a vehicle's exhaust to see if it is above or below certain limits, while the OBD system looks for broken or malfunctioning emissions control components. (See attached handout on the OBD system.) The type of test required will depend on the age of the vehicle. • A snap acceleration test using a smoke meter at the end of the exhaust pipe will be used to test diesel vehicles covered under the program. Vehicles Requiring Emissions Testing • Model year 1981-1995 gas -powered vehicles, using the TSI method. • Model year 1996 and newer vehicles more than five years old, using the OBD method. • Model year 1981-1997 diesel -powered vehicles, using the snap acceleration method. • Model year 1998 and newer vehicles more than five years old, using the OBD method. Gas Cap/Fuel System Inspections • The OBD system checks for gas cap leaks on model year 1996 and newer vehicles. Gas caps will be tested for leaks on model year 1995 and older gas -powered vehicles. • Visual inspections of fuel systems will be conducted on all vehicles inspected. Vehicles Exempt from All Testing • Electric or hybrid motor vehicles • Motor vehicles with a model year less than five years old • Motor vehicles with a model year older than 1981 • Classic automobiles as defined by Idaho Code • Motor vehicles with a maximum vehicle gross weight of less than 1,500 pounds • Motor vehicles registered as motor homes as defined by Idaho Code • Motorized farm equipment • Registered motor vehicles engaged solely in the business of agriculture Contractor Through a Request for Proposals (RFP), SysTech International LLC was selected to manage the program. Criteria upon which the contractor was selected included price, convenience, and expertise. An office will be located in the Treasure Valley. For More Information • Contact Pete Wagner or Stephen Coe, DEQ Boise Regional Office, at (208) 373-0550. • Log on to DEQ's Web site at www.deg.idaho.gov/air/prog-issues/emissions testing/treasure valley program.cfm Fact Sheet: RECEIVF-,D Ans Canyon County and Kuna MAR 0 2 2010 u Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Program rn14f n E c -,W gli �IAAt�. Idaho Department m.no Program Start Date CITY CLERKS OFFICE of Environmental June 1, 2010. Motorists will be notified by mail of their testing month. Quality Boise Aegi°nal Testing Locations Office 1445 N. Orchard Twenty testing locations will be located at existing small businesses throughout Canyon Boise, ID 83706 County; two locations will service Kuna. (See attached map.) More than 97% of motorists in (208) 373-0550 Canyon County and Kuna live within five miles of testing locations. Cost of Testing Motorists will pay no more than $11 per vehicle test. Fee will be due at time of testing. Frequency of Testing Vehicles requiring testing must be tested every other year. Emissions Testing Methods • Vehicles will be tested for appropriate levels of volatile hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon monoxide plus carbon dioxide (CO + CO2). • Two methods will be used to test gasoline -powered vehicles covered under the program: Two -Speed Idle (TSI) and On -Board Diagnostic (OBD). The TSI method samples a vehicle's exhaust to see if it is above or below certain limits, while the OBD system looks for broken or malfunctioning emissions control components. (See attached handout on the OBD system.) The type of test required will depend on the age of the vehicle. • A snap acceleration test using a smoke meter at the end of the exhaust pipe will be used to test diesel vehicles covered under the program. Vehicles Requiring Emissions Testing • Model year 1981-1995 gas -powered vehicles, using the TSI method. • Model year 1996 and newer vehicles more than five years old, using the OBD method. • Model year 1981-1997 diesel -powered vehicles, using the snap acceleration method. • Model year 1998 and newer vehicles more than five years old, using the OBD method. Gas Cap/Fuel System Inspections • The OBD system checks for gas cap leaks on model year 1996 and newer vehicles. Gas caps will be tested for leaks on model year 1995 and older gas -powered vehicles. • Visual inspections of fuel systems will be conducted on all vehicles inspected. Vehicles Exempt from All Testing • Electric or hybrid motor vehicles • Motor vehicles with a model year less than five years old • Motor vehicles with a model year older than 1981 • Classic automobiles as defined by Idaho Code • Motor vehicles with a maximum vehicle gross weight of less than 1,500 pounds • Motor vehicles registered as motor homes as defined by Idaho Code • Motorized farm equipment • Registered motor vehicles engaged solely in the business of agriculture Contractor Through a Request for Proposals (RFP), SysTech International LLC was selected to manage the program. Criteria upon which the contractor was selected included price, convenience, and expertise. An office will be located in the Treasure Valley. For More Information • Contact Pete Wagner or Stephen Coe, DEQ Boise Regional Office, at (208) 373-0550. • Log on to DEQ's Web site at www.deg.idaho.gov/air/prog-issues/emissions testing/treasure valley program.cfm June 26, 2009 Toni Hardesty Director Department of Environmental Quality 1410 North Hilton Boise, ID 83706 Dear Director Hardesty: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Brad ticagjurn Charles Rountree David Zarernba I am writing in response to your letter regarding the proposed vehicle inspection and maintenance program for the City of Meridian As noted in your letter Idaho Code Section 39- 116B (3) requires that the City inform the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) about the cities emission controls strategy. After discussion with the City Council, it was detennined that the City intends to enter into a joint exercise of powers ament with DEQ to implement a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. We look forward to working with you on that agreement. I would ask that your staff contact the City Attorney Bill Diary at (208) 898-5506 for discussions regarding a joint powers agreement. Sincerely, Ty de card Mayor - Mayor's Office - 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-888-4433 . Fax 208-8848116 - www.merldiancity.org STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1410 North HIRon • Boise. Idaho 83708 • (208) 373-0502 September 24, 2009 The Honorable Tammy de Weerd City of Meridian 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subjecte: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Idaho Code Section 39-116D Dear Mayor de Weerd: C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director Thank you for your response to my letter dated April 22, 2009 regarding Idaho Code Section 39-116B, entitled Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program. I will be contacting you shortly to discuss the contents of a joint exercise of powers agreement. I look forward to working with you and your staff in establishing a streamlined program that meets the requirements of both the existing Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan and Idaho Code Section 39-116B. In the meantime if you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Toni Hardesty Director TH:ra 01) I I ftftftaftl cyj ( mkMIMI� _. PPS app- — `-- — ■I�1 ;= �! f �; � Of, NDOltlO C nD L I � rll a1 1 0 ■I�1 OL, 0 U) r— O TT� U_ co �--� fn .� .V F- U) 2i CL m O > O O U }, C D U U O �-- w W U) n O Q. O E W C/) cm N O .l- ■ U U U c O 4-0D 0 1.. O a) E O O OO U EL Q 4-0 O O O O O O c C: c O O O U U U Ln5 ' o yu W O = vD Z �3 m (� T p o -o •� � D 41 Oy4 2 O CO M L �+ c o 5 C O V Q 0 If 0 8 d Z a N •Q� O O Vl D wi mEEcc E O L 0'S SCE p cncaca 1-W F -Nd' G C a N O z,.0 = Eas ca p .0 25 o EY c > L O O Y �i c C) +' m a � -6N i -Ci Fa• Z E cc z c N o> c c � o Y m g m w Q m o 10 � � a �k o a C a C O x 7 N O D �O c E LU W o `o C .0 q a� c q V) a )/ E Z Ln5 ' o yu W O = vD Z �3 m (� T p o -o •� � D 41 Oy4 2 O CO M L �+ c o 5 C O V Q 0 If 0 8 d Z a N •Q� O O Vl D wi mEEcc E O L 0'S SCE p cncaca 1-W F -Nd' G C a N O z,.0 = Eas ca p .0 25 o EY c > L O O Y �i c C) +' m a � -6N i -Ci Fa• Z E cc z c N o> c c � o Y m g m w Q m o 10 � � a �k o a co J a LL NLL i `1 O x 7 a E c LU W pD� a ~ C U q a� c q V) 'm � a V O T p c > Jw O N 0 C Z U m c O w Y 4 3N> O 0 >' C L -6- aU a j U W N IO C C 'O N C 7 a >; T a 0 L E N N N o .=. U mZ •� o O c U') U)w E $ 08 o LL, �•+ iQ E E E 0 Fs 0 9- `� L � 5 W J W m d � L O E a )) > > O m s Z Ow )) C N a a LL NLL i `1 a E LU W ID c c Q C �) o a U q a� c q V) 'm � io O J O. 33 O T p C Jw O N E m c O p N 4 3N> c L -6- aU a j U W LU c E Z V m V N N im 10 G C l6 O •� y CO C :� . U)w E $ 08 o 0 t M a / LL NLL i `1 y yNy C � io O J O. 33 O �C L i �o Jw L O > O w. a a j U W V m V psi i 11 I m m A Q N W L WA Q Y 9 O] a W F U O O OI L W 2m 2B E O GIIIIIIIII ,D m � h a o cr 8 i 11 I L L WA W m( 4l m f R O 9 O] a W C1 E W Z O OI L W n mo E O GIIIIIIIII ,D OF ' .o o cr = o m m m v E S m N ~ m a Z tf co U 0 -1--+'0 cu N N •C: AW, C�\ A V/ L- 0 0 cu A — I — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I r I I v 0 o Io � O I N N to I IC I� C I m Io. s a i I� u c m t ` t N > I � I I I I l v Z I 1 I� c ou c la m I� T m is Ic 7 t G I� Q I I i I I I ------------ �. I IE IT � I G c G ¢ I I" v 0 o Io � O I N N to < IC I� C I lu E cc d H H C O cc O f1. O 0 cc 70 u 0 a m < � I c G ¢ I ¢ v 0 o Io I I N N to I s E cc d H H C O cc O f1. O 0 cc 70 u 0 a m r >%1 c i 0 0 M Mai Q U) U) O O m � O O U U O 4-0 O c� O U a cL U = U) .O .O U x a- W O O Lo U L O 0 o � 4 oL' U �o .>' 00 C 0-) c6 ■ w u 9 A, m W, A, u O_ t U O v i LO C U ►=r o Mai U) > MS m U) M 0 E' NCD- C-) � p - L. ml�f M c 5 m rz �) `/) Uco -+-j OU �, +� C6 cm _0 -0 L� O W r O 4i)) 0- 0' �--a cn m -0 0 �i > U 0O M m+ m O (� • V (/) M; cn U) -� A:.+ U (1) M CVOC6 ca � O a)CoU 4-j WO U U) 0 to 0 4"ol (0 I �l I a) O U b b c b mon 3 � w N �o E E L O U 75 E z Z3 'mon c O 6.0 3 3 U a) O U b b c b mon 3 � w c �o a� � U 75 E z Z3 'mon c O 6.0 3 3 U CL O r. O a) O U b b c b mon 3 � w c �o a� � 75 E z Z3 'mon c O 6.0 3 3 U CL O r. O Ln O � b b a� b mon 3 � w c �o a� � 75 E 'mon c O 6.0 3 3 U 03 O O O m E E O � b b J b mon 3 � w N �o 75 E E E O � b b man b mon 3 � w 3 �o O U 03 O m E E O � b b man b mon 3 � w 3 �o b b man b mon 3 � w 3 �o man b mon 3 � w 3 �o man b c 3 b 3 �o b c 0 0 m Mai CI I LLI I 11 0 1I Mai C( u1ji � d ani E Z �o Q a LL Ln 0 \ �r / � uolleallua4lmd uolle:)liddV uolleollue44nV SAnopulM uolldRj:)ap Sd11H L O l 4Z d L.. uolldtiau3 Sd11H >1 �yE O T C a •- Zy" .a c M M C q � u y a � � a Q C F � W CL � O Q) .------. z a 41)) L 0 g O/ C/D �I I E'l �a i a ac o J r v Z � o Z ( � I W° u a a � w (I\ � �N W �I I w � 1 I � I I e �/ ` j a t o o d� m a' � 0 3 0 ) r: r ■r�r 1 co W �CU c0 L Cn 4-0 c0) LL U) U L- 0 CD 00 O (� cm U O > U C c� I C: CI) C0 0 4mm ■ A LL ■ ■ ■ 1-1 O\ L (3) 4.00 �o mvi O LLIJI U 06 O) •� a� O AOMP O S E U L; O .- Q) � CCS • � C� O T— C) N 3 U) r. O 4-+ m -6--+ O E O E O O U� O O O O C -N X 0 W M^, 4-1 fa W E W E O 4--a U) cm ., 0 0 0 ■ ■ 0 0 ■ 0 �I c i i, MC' c i =1 C`• U) rZ O U) CU N ■ CO � U Lr)00 > O ~ > r Lo 00 (� O N N M '!O O N O O E � U w 1M" • • • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 2, 2010 APPLICANT ITEM NO. REQUEST Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1) (t) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY PUBLIC WORKS: 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.