Loading...
2019-06-11 Regular CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AMENDED MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll-Call Attendance X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Treg Bernt X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener (Left at 7:57 PM) X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by April Alford of Ten Mile Christian Church 4. Adoption of Agenda - Adopted 5. Announcements 6. Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 M inutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. 7. Action Items Public Hearings for Land Use Applications follow this process: Once the Public Hearing is opened, City staff will present their report. Following the report, the applicant is allowed up to 15 minutes to present their application. Members of the public are allowed up to 3 minutes each to address council regarding the application. If a person is representing a large group such as a Homeowner's Association, indicated by a show of hands, they may be allowed up to 10 minutes. Following all public testimony, the applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to comments. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be received. The City Council may move to continue the item for additional information or vote to approve or deny the item with or without changes as presented. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items, unless to break a tie vote. A. Appeal of Purchasing Manager's Denial of Protest of 2019 Request for Proposals (MYR-1921-11034) by Perkins Coie on behalf of Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime – Appeal Denied B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gander Creek North and South (H-2019-0013) by Trilogy Development, Inc., Located at the SW corner of N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. – Findings will be placed on June 18, 2019 agenda C. Final Plat for Cherry Blossom (H-2019-0064) by Doug Jayo, Jayo Land Development Company, LLC., Located at 615 W. C herry Ln. – Continued to July 9, 2019 D. Final Plat Modification Continued from May 28, 2019 for Olivetree at Spurwing (H-2019-0055) by Spurwing Limited Partnership, Located at the NE corner of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and N. Ten Mile Rd. - Approved E. Public Hearing for Goff (H-2019-0061) by Garland Goff, Located at 1725 W. Pine St. Ave. - Approved 1. Request: To Modify the Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 111072107, to remove the previous conceptual development plan and associated provisions from the agreement F. Public Hearing for Residential Self-Service Storage Facility (H- 2019-0034) by Engineering Solutions LLP. - Approved 1. Request: A Text Amendment to create a new residential self- storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts G. Public Hearing for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of Meridian Planning Division – Continued to June 25, 2019 1. Request: A Text Amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division 8. Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 19-1829: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 8-1-1, Adding A Definition Of Parklet; Renumbering Meridian City Code Sections 8-1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, And 8-1-6 To Be Sections 8-1-4, 8-1-5, 8-1-6, And 8-1-7, Respectively; Adding A New Section To Meridian City Code, Section 8-1-3, Regar ding Requirements For Parklets; And Providing An Effective Date - Approved B. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; To Provide For An Amendment To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee Schedules; And Providing An Effective Date. – Public Hearing Reopened and Continued to June 18, 2019 C. Ordinance No. 19-1830: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4, Meridian City Code, Known As The Definitions Section Of The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; To Provide For An Amendment To The Definition Of “Dwelling Unit”; Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. - Approved 9. Future Meeting Topics Meeting Adjourned 10:12 pm All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or the public hearing should contact the City Clerk's Office at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council June 11, 2019. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, June 11 , 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Ty Palmer, Genesis Milam, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Warren Stewart, Berle Stokes, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X__ Anne Little Roberts X _ _Joe Borton X__ Ty Palmer X__ Treg Bernt __X___Genesis Milam __X___Lucas Cavener __X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Good evening. I will go ahead and start tonight's meeting. For the record it is Tuesday, June 11th. It's two minutes after 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by April Alford of Ten Mile Christian Church De Weerd: Item 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by April Alford with Ten Mile Christian Church. Is she here with us? Item 4: Adoption of Agenda De Weerd: If not we will move to Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: There are no changes to the agenda. I move that we adopt it as published. Cavener: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 4 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 2 of 79 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Announcements De Weerd: Item 5 under Announcements, we do have a few items coming up with Public Works Week this week. We have the Expo tomorrow at City Hall from 4:00 to 7:00. I hope you all come out and join in the fun. Last year we kind of had a record crowd, so we anticipate with the cooperation of good weather that we will have another good out -- outcome. National Night Out planning meeting begins on the 12th and we also launched this week Playing in the Plaza this Thursday from 5:00 to 8:00 here in the City Hall Plaza. This is what we have been doing over in Kleiner Park. They moved it to downtown and we are hoping that this will be well attended as well. And this year -- or this week at the Spark Light Movie Night is going to be Spider Man and don't forget the Saturday market. Any further announcement? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam. Milam: I went out to Discovery Park this afternoon and had a tour out there. It's pretty amazingly coming along, but we are having the ribbon cutting on Friday, July 26th at 11:00 a.m. and a public grand opening celebration with music, food trucks and free ice cream on Saturday, July 27th from 11:00 to 2:00. De Weerd: Yes. That is going to be very well attended. A lot of people excited for that. Good buzz going on. Thank you. Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) De Weerd: Okay. Any sign-ups under Item 6? Johnson: Madam Mayor, there is only one sign-up, but they indicated they were here for another agenda item, so we will call them at that time. Item 7: Action Items A. Appeal of Purchasing Manager's Denial of Protest of 2019 Request for Proposals (MYR-1921-11034) by Perkins Coie on behalf of Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime De Weerd: Okay. We will move into Item 7, Public Hearings and Action Items. Item 7-A is an appeal of the purchasing manager's denial of a protest of the 2019 request for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 5 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 3 of 79 proposal under MYR 1921-11034 and we did talk to this applicant or person in denial -- in denial. That was really well done. Okay. We have ten minutes for the protester. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Watts is going to start, because this is his topic and sort of layout the groundwork before the presentation of the appellant Lime. De Weerd: Okay. That seems logical. Thank you. Sorry. Hello, Mr. Watts. Watts: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I was just going to reiterate the process that we went through and the timeline that took place and we are here for the protest -- or the appeal to the denial. March 15th we issued an RFP for the vehicle sharing program. We received proposals on April 5th. April 15 all the evaluation materials were sent out to the evaluation committee. When we held an evaluation team meeting on April 24 th, had the discussion with all the evaluators on April 29 , we received the last scores from the evaluation team. May 3rd I sent the evaluation results to the committee confirming the committee's decision. The committee -- the committee, then, confirmed the unanimous selection of Bird Rides, Inc. May 6th Purchasing Department issued a notice of intent to award. We sent that to both respondents. On May 16th we received an official protest -- an official protest from the notice of intent. The protest is based -- or it is a protest of the evaluation or the RFP process itself, along with one of the evaluator scores. May 17th I issued a denial and stated the reasons why in detail and on June 6th we received an appeal from Perkins Coie, which is Lime's attorney with them. If you have any questions for me before they get started, I'm here for anything you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Watts? Okay. So, the basis of this is there is an appeal to your decision and the scope of the protest is -- is really narrow in terms of was there a deficiency in the process. Watts: Correct. De Weerd: Correct? Okay. Thank you. Good evening. We appreciate you being here. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Miller: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Will Miller and I'm with the law firm Perkins Coie, as was said earlier. The address is 1111 West Jefferson in Boise. So, I want to say from the start thank you very much for letting us appear and talk to you. We also really appreciate the fact that you were willing to move this hearing by two weeks, so that we could take a look at the documents that were produced by the city and hats off to Chris and the city's attorney's office , they were very -- they worked with us to get those documents very quickly, so that we could review them and, then, present those to you as part of the supplemental briefing that you received on this matter. So, again, with me -- I kind of skipped by. This is Jonathan Hopkins, who I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 6 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 4 of 79 know you know. He is with Lime and I will have some brief remarks and, then, I will turn it over to Jonathan to address the Council. De Weerd: And you know you have ten minutes; right? Miller: Thank you. So, as you saw in our initial briefing, the reason that we brought this protest was because of a divergent score that -- from our perspective was statistically significant. I mean we are talking about when you throw this score out we are looking at 80.5 was the average out of a hundred that our client scored and we are talking about how this specific score was made, which is what sort of turned us on to this and why we protested. We asked for the continuance and filed another document request for e-mails and we believe that those e-mails clearly showed, you know, that this process was not conducted in a fair and in an impartial manner. I think that's pretty clear from the supplemental materials. I'm happy to -- I'm not going to walk through those e-mails one by one. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about those. One thing that I think is important to keep in mind, as the Council is considering this, is that, you know, the city code -- it doesn't just prohibit conflicts of interest, it prohibits the appearance of conflicts and incompatibility and, you know, Lime would certainly submit that at a minimum -- I mean clearly when you look at these e-mails in conjunction with the scoring as we presented it, this is an appearance of -- of a conflict that resulted in an unfair process to my client Lime. So, in sum, we ask that the City Council take action to award franchise agreements to both. There were only two companies that submitted proposals in this case, that would be in line with the City Council's original guidance was -- which was that it would -- wanted to select up to two qualified vendors. If you find that, you know, it's not within your authority or you can't do that or you decide not to, in the alternate we would ask that you redo the process, you know, without a member of the city attorney staff on the actual evaluation team, so that we can have a fair process and that would be a request in the alternate and with that I will turn it over to Mr. Hopkins. Hopkins: Okay. Thanks, Will. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you again for the opportunity to present to you all today. To be clear, Lime does not take the idea of protesting a city's decision lightly. We will do it very very rarely. But the facts of this case are, in fact, extremely rare. The characteristics of the process were so unjustified that we thought it was important to bring it to this body's attention. These actions , as we see them, effectively subordinated the will of this Council in place of the wholly discretionary recommendations of one city attorney. Every step of this process has been effectively been set up to ensure one outcome, exclusive contract with one company, no matter what Council originally voted for in these chambers. Fortunately, the Council has the opportunity to ensure that the legislative intent, as opposed to the nonbinding preferences of one staff member, are followed here today. As Mr. Miller noted, Council gave clear direction and conveyed Council's intent that there be up to two qualified vendors operating in Meridian should two qualified vendors apply. This was clear in early 2019 when staff briefed a plan to Council to accept the very first two that applied, no qualitative differentiation, simply the first two that did press the button. Ironically, had that approach been in place both Lime and Bird would have been accepted in this city, but we recommended against it, because we thought given Meridian's prior experience it was Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 7 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 5 of 79 important to do qualitative analysis of the vendors involved. We view that as in the best interest of the city and the industry to ensure that there is a good experience with new mobility here. During the evaluation process that we encouraged, that certain actions vary dramatically from what we have seen in any other city -- and we are in over a hundred cities around the globe. Whether those sorts of actions benefited Bird or Lime we have never seen something like this. As I stated, both Bird and Lime are leaders in the industry and broadly recognized as such. We both compete for many of the same cities and both deal with not being selected on occasion. However, it is not my experience that one company -- that our company be deemed unqualified to serve a city. We noticed by looking at other cities submitted during the same time period , Meridian was submitted on April 5th. On April 8th we submitted an RFP in Spokane, Washington. April 9th to Portland, Oregon. And around the same time in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Fundamentally the major contents of these applications are very much the same. In all thr ee cities I mentioned Lime was selected as qualified. In some cases the only qualified vendor. In two of the cases, Minneapolis and Portland, Bird was not selected even though they applied and even though they ran in a pilot the year prior. These, again, were very much similar documents. This surprising inconsistency caused us to look further in the details and that's where certain actions became glaring. When we have two leading scooter companies in the nation it's very strange to have either company given eight points while the other company is given 92. I don't think Bird's ever seen that. I don't think we have ever seen that. It's even more concerning the score that has the last person to provide a score, who helped create the RFP, who wrote the language mandating the RPT exclusive, despite the stated will of this Council and who scored different so dramatically from all the other scores. Furthermore, the scorers spent a ton of time trying to justify this very inconsistent scoring. They use 166 words to Bird, six for Lime. Twenty-four positive citations for Bird, one for Lime. In negative statements 317 negative words for Bird and 12 in all caps and just 55 for Lime -- for Bird. Ultimately and in comparison a representative from the city's police department scored both and gave Lime 89 points and Bird 90, with relatively similar commentary between both. Should the Council want to dig deeper into this we can look at this document , which compares both RFPs -- RFPs thoroughly. If you look at Section E in pros, you can see that Bird is complimented for nearly a dozen things, all of which Lime does and are clearly outlined in the RFP, but Lime is given zero points and Bird is given 20. So, I'm happy to go further through that if people have more questions. We don't know the cause of the actions, but we know the clear outcome is six points. The Council requested two companies in the ordinance that was passed. As the city attorney explained in this statement and the deputy city attorney apologized for in this statement, the legal team wrote an RFP that only one company be selected effectively ignoring the Council's direction. The deputy city attorney, then, stated in one of these statements that she never gave any guidance to the committee that one company could be selected, yet somehow the selection committee nevertheless reported that there -- only one could be selected in their understanding. Then the deputy city attorney reported in this e-mail that the committee's vote was unanimous, but yet in e- mails to Mr. Watts they reported that it was not. So , the same person found wildly divergent -- gave wildly different scores as we have already outlined. So, from an outsider's perspective these facts would make someone think that there was an outcome engineered not to achieve the will of Council from the start and instead assure that the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 8 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 6 of 79 discretionary recommendations from the legal team reign supreme. Normally such evidential bias would be cause for a company to request a re-run of the entire process on the basis of it being corrupted, but in this case there are two qualified vendors applying and an ordinance calling for two qualified vendors. We believe the remedy here is quite simple and straightforward. Select both . Such actions reflect the wisdom of Council's original preference for two vendors where approving -- when approving the original ordinance. The actions were wise for a number of reasons. First, the industry is evolving. We have seen our competitors pull out of other cities, cities larger than Meridian. We have seen competitors cease operations out of the blue by selecting just one vendor the city is putting all its eggs in one basket. Should the industry evolve in a way that adversely affects Meridian, you could have a scooter franchise one day and none the next. Furthermore, the presence of two vendors helps promote quality. We all believe in the power of competition to produce the best results and recognize that monopolies do not always do that. Finally, no party is harmed. The two vendor outcome is as this Council originally stated in these chambers and the program can start on the timeline originally stated. It is for these reasons that we recommend the Council uphold the original intent of the ordinance, provide two vendors to start on time that are both qualified. Thank you. De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, what -- what is -- what is the process at this point? Nary: So, Madam Mayor, the -- if the Council has any questions, obviously, the -- of either the appellant or Mr. Watts or Mrs. Kane is here as well if you have questions. Really, the decision for the Council is as you stated, Madam Mayor, it's either to uphold the denial, which the purchasing manager has already denied this protest based upon the process itself and whether the process was done properly, fairly consistent with our policy or not. If the Council agrees to uphold the protest, then, the only recourse you have under policy is to, then, restart it. So, there is no mechanism in our policy to grant a second contract as they are requesting. So, you would have to restart the process over, go back to the RFP, go back to a committee evaluation process as we did previously. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for the appellant? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Question for Mr. Nary. Can you help me understand why -- or what in policy limits Council's ability to either only accept what the committee recommended or reject it all together? Nary: Certainly. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, so our RFP process tries to mirror the procurement process as well. So , if you recall when we have had procurements -- so, try to think of -- take this proposal out of -- out of the mix and you're going to purchase something, you have a bid for contract to build or purchase something and you have a number of bidders and there is a protest, someone claims that the process was flawed, there was an error in the -- in the proposal, whatever Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 9 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 7 of 79 it may be. If the proposal -- if that's upheld and under state law you, then, reject all proposals and rebid the project. So, Mr. Watson, he created the process for RFPs, follows the same logic that if there is an error in the process, then, you don't simply awarded it to everybody who participated, you start over and redo it. So, we try to follow the same form in the RFPs as we do in other forms of procurement. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nary, so when we were discussing the previous RFP that had to do with the Old City Hall property, Council had the option of rejecting the committee's recommendation for the -- the one proposal to, then, consider and award it to the other if Council would have chosen. Why was it that way with that RFP, but it's different with this? Nary: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, that was a proposal to partner with a separate entity on transferring city property for a certain project. So, again, it's a different -- different type of proposal than what this is. We do proposals of this type often for procuring contracts and /or gaining services. So, that's the policy we have created and we follow every time. That was a completely different type of agreement with MDC is what we were trying to do in that case. Not the same thing. So, it's just two different types. Palmer: Thank you. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Bill, if we were to start the process over what's the timeline that we are looking at until there would actually be scooters on the ground? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Milam, Keith would probably be the better one to answer that. My recollection is when we discussed this previously it's 42 to 49 days, I think, or something like that. So, you would have to -- you have to state that up here, Keith. So, it's on the record. It would be at least three months. Watts: Yeah. I would estimate somewhere between four and seven weeks best case scenario if go through the same process that we did originally, so, it would follow that same timeline that we issued on the first go around, you could have that same timeline on the second one. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 10 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 8 of 79 Cavener: While Mr. Watts is up here I will -- I will inquire a question. Keith, my assumption would be is if Council's direction is to reject the recommendation and begin this process again, that doesn't mean that just the two vendors that previously applied are the only two. Anyone under the sun that would want to respond would have that ability as well; is that correct? Watts: That is correct. We would open it back up to everyone. Cavener: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: One more question for you, Keith. Sorry, buddy. Any -- any inconsistencies or anything problematic that you saw with the selection process? Watts: No. The selection process -- the evaluation team that -- had good discussion all the way through. We did clarify on the one versus two and being a part of that process I know firsthand that the evaluators chose not to evaluate or award to Lime. It wasn't the score. There was other issues in their proposal that was the basis for denial of a contract, that they would have -- we had several evaluators that said, yes, they believed that we could award multiple and they would have awarded had -- had a certain term in their proposal -- or option been available would have been a different case. They -- they did not like the fact that Lime's proposal did not clearly offer a solution to underage riders or have any tool in place to prevent the underage riders. They weren't sufficiently happy with that. That was the basis for the team's denial of a contract to Lime, not the score itself. So, it's up to the evaluation committee for a recommend to Council. They put their scores in, but, then, they also gave a recommendation. That recommendation was to only award to Bird. Bernt: Follow up. Watts: And, then, I guess the -- the RFP does not state that we are going to award a contract to all that qualified, it says what's in the best interest of the City of Meridian. Bernt: Follow up, Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bernt: It seems -- if I'm -- if I remember reading correctly, that Lime -- most of their concerns was with a member of the committee with the low score and the inconsistency in regard to that, not necessarily the RFP that said -- instead of saying up to two, it said exclusive contract and so with that -- with that in mind -- and I know -- and I don't -- I know that I read it, but I don't remember what -- what it was, but taking out -- taking out the low score, who would have the highest average between the two ? Watts: It still would have been Bird and -- not by a lot, but -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 11 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 9 of 79 Bernt: By a couple of points or something like that. Watts: Yeah. It's a much closer gap. The recommendation from your committee members would be the same. It wouldn't be as big of a difference, you would still have four that said, you know, they do not wish to offer a contract instead of five. You would have one that said maybe and you had one that said they probably would. So, that your seven evaluators and as the one versus multiple, Lime also agreed that the RFP did allow that. We have language in it that states that City Council has the ultimate decision to award to more than one vendor and that's in our -- that's a standard boilerplate language that we include in our RFP, which was in this one as well, and Lime did acknowledge that. Bernt: Okay. Thank you, Keith. De Weerd: Other questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Keith, so did you just say that Council does have ultimate authority to award the contract to more than one vendor? Watts: Yeah. Let's see. I didn't bring that -- I think I -- I think I actually typed it in here. What page was that? I want to make sure I'm quoting this right, so we are going to look at the actual RFP. Oh, here it is. It says: The City of Meridian reserves the right to make an award to those highest rank responsive and responsible contractors whose proposal -- so, it does not say City Council specific, so I misstated that. In essence, this would be your evaluation committee reserves the right to make multiple awards. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Watts: Oh. One of the reasons is -- in procurement in general we try to keep the Council or boards out of making procurement decisions, because they can get fuzzy. We like to have it clear going with the procurement team, with the evaluation team, that way it keeps you folks out of favorable decisions or unfavorable decisions, so there is no impropriety or appearance of impropriety when we take the elected officials out of making those awards when it comes to a procurement solicitation. You do have the right to reject them all. You also have the right to reject all proposals and not go back out at all if you choose. That's a third option. But I mean -- in reality. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: And that is the process. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 12 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 10 of 79 Watts: That is the process. Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: I will get back to you, Mr. Palmer. Are there any other questions to any that have not asked? Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. I mean Mr. Borton. Sorry. Borton: No worries. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think this question is probably for Will. In your -- your letter of May 16th -- the first letter amongst the concerns you have raised, you raised an issue which you have not spoken of, but you put it in writing and it's a reference to City Code 1-14-8. Do you recall that? Miller: One second. Let me find the -- okay. I have the document, Council Member Borton. Borton: So, on May 16th you presented to us amongst your concerns an allegation that Mrs. Kane had a financial interest in the outcome of this. You cited a Meridian City Code section that addresses and would prohibit having a financial interest in the outcome. When you wrote that on May 16th at that date did you have any evidence to support that accusation? Miller: Yeah. So, the intent was not to make that allegation. The intent was -- and I think if you read the brief as a whole, Council Member Borton -- Borton: I have read the brief as a whole. Miller: Yeah. Our point was at this point -- and I say that in there expressly -- we don't know what the cause of the bias that we believe happened was . We don't know that. And so, hence, that's why we had a second public records request , so that we could get additional documents to try to uncover what that was. Borton: You cited a code section that prohibits having a financial interest in the outcome as a -- as a basis for your requested appeal. You didn't have any evidence to support it when you made it on May 16th. You had hoped maybe you might find something through the public records request perhaps. Fair to say? Miller: Yes. We did not have any evidence of that at the time. Borton: On May 16th. Miller: Correct. Borton: And as we went through everything in both binders from the public records request, I couldn't find a single page that would substantiate any allegation of 1-14-8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 13 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 11 of 79 concerning Ms. Kane. Not a single document which made even a hint of any financial interest, as that word is defined in city code. Miller: I agree with you. I have seen no evidence of a financial interest that would have affected her scoring. Borton: I appreciate you sharing that. I also -- you -- in that same code section you made reference to a personal interest and personal interest has a specific definition in city code. 1-14-2 defines personal interest. And when you wrote the letter and included that code section on May 16th you didn't have any evidence -- at least as of May 16th that Mrs. Kane had any personal interest at all in the outcome of this; is that correct? Miller: Correct. Council Member Borton, we had no idea what -- can you point me to the page that you're on, please? Borton: Page five of your letter of May 16th. Miller: Thank you. Borton: And it's referencing 1-14-8. Using two prohibited types of conduct, which are defined in 1-14-2. Financial interest and a personal interest. It is a code section that sparks our interest to a very high degree when it's cited, which is the reason for my questions and my concern is there wasn't an evidentiary basis to even site that section on May 16th. This is a pretty damning accusation against another member of our legal community. You, then, perhaps had hoped you might find something to justify that citation through your public records request. I -- going through every single page front and back I saw nothing in -- I take it you would agree with me, having completed your public records request, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record that would support even an implication that Mrs. Kane had a financial interest or a personal interest in the outcome of this RFP process. Miller: So, Council Member Borton, with respect to the first piece that you said, I do agree. I have seen no evidence of a financial interest. Borton: Okay. Miller: We still -- and I would -- I would like to read, just to complete the record, one piece from the page that you're citing which says that although Lime is currently unable to pinpoint the source of this bias. So, in this letter we conceded that we did not know what the source of what we believed was bias in this process. We did not know what that source was. We looked at the public records request. I would submit to the Council we still -- we still don't know what the specific source of that bias was, we just believe that the circumstantial evidence when you look at these e-mails, shows that there was some sort of improper bias. I don't know what the internal motivation was behind that and I don't believe we have ever represented what that is in any of the briefing. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 14 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 12 of 79 Borton: So, would it be fair and perhaps a professional courtesy to at least acknowledge today there is no evidence of a financial interest or personal interest by Mrs. Kane in the outcome of any of this RFP process? Miller: So, I will agree with you, Council Member Borton, that I have seen no evidence of a financial interest. We believe there is some sort of improper interest . Whether that's personal or not, we don't know. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor, I appreciate the latitude here, because personal interest -- what you're saying to me right now is you believe there is evidence that Mrs. Kane has an interest related by blood or marriage or a specific business relationship connected with this RFP. I mean that phrase that you use has a specific definition , which is what gives me great concern. I don't see anything in there for you to say you don't know whether it exists tells me it doesn't exist. That type of conflict doesn't exist unless you can establish it and if you can't establish it, it's shocking to say the least that you would even imply that allegation against Mrs. Kane. I assume -- have you met with her and talked to her? Miller: Council Member Borton, I -- I have not spoken with Mrs. Kane. She's a member of the city attorney's office. I have been working with Mr. Nary, who is also involved in this. Again, you know, tonight I did not want to or intend to walk through -- and there is a time limit as well -- and the e-mails that we got. That -- Borton: Let me cut to the chase. I walked through every single one, every word of every single one. I appreciate the diligence, because what I think it has done, if anything, is, quite frankly, vindicate Mrs. Kane as to that allegation and I want you to confirm that on the record that 1-14-8 does not implicated in this at all and if you disagree I want the page number. Miller: And I agree, Council Member Borton, that I have no -- we have no evidence to say what exactly it was that caused the -- what we believe to be a bias that was injected into this process. I do not know. And we are not making that allegation. We are making -- our claim is based on the fact that this -- this process -- there was clearly -- any reasonable tackler who looks at this is going to see that there clearly was something going on. We don't know what that was, but there was something that injected improper bias, so that Lime was not -- it was not graded in a fair way -- a fair and impartial way. De Weerd: But I guess if I can enter -- and take my meeting back, is you can't prove anything. You can't cite anything. And that is the basis of the questioning from Mr. Borton. Is your citing a deficiency in our process based on something that you can't prove . Miller: And, again -- De Weerd: Just to clarify. Miller: I guess, Your Honor, when you say you can't prove -- we do believe that by a preponderance of the evidence we have shown that there is an impropriety in this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 15 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 13 of 79 process. That the process should not be adopted as it stands. But I agree with Council Member Borton that we are not -- not making any sort of personal allegations as to the reason why this member of the city staff took the actions they did. I don't know that -- the mental piece of that and we are not -- we haven't made any allegations about that. Borton: Just a couple final questions, Madam Mayor, if I may. I didn't see anything that indicated there was any discussions amongst the panel members for their scores . I saw the scores of all the other panel members, each rated Bird higher than Lime in every category amongst all of the other panelists. That fact still remains and I didn't see any of them that called into question all of those scores. Is that fair to say? Miller: That's correct, Council Member Borton. And may I add one thing? Borton: Sure. Miller: So, we agree and we do concede that if this individual -- the city staffer, if her score is removed from this process, we still, on the whole, would have scored lower than Bird. But our point is that in -- in -- consistent with the Council's intent -- and I have watched those meetings and I have read what was passed and I believe, Council Member Borton, it was actually you, I think, that made the motion to get an RFP process that would select up to two and it's certainly within your discretion. We are not here saying that you have to side with Lime and take both, that certainly is not the case. We would just ask that consistent with your original guidance on the topic you would consider it if you get rid of the divergent scores. That's what we were asking. Borton: Understood. And, Madam Mayor, I appreciate that. I -- I would think as a professional courtesy, I would -- I would hope that you would -- if not publicly, privately apologize to Mrs. Kane because of the implication of that citation. I think that is a horrible cite. Probably wasn't your intent, but I think that a terrible citation to -- to lobby without evidence to back it up on the personal and financial gain. As to the -- my read of this, it -- it appeared as though there were divergent scores, but you were also provided 317 words that describe perhaps the basis for some of those concerns. And I get why you don't like the scoring as it was done, but I saw that there was some data provided to at least explain why there was the scoring that was provided. Miller: May I, Council Member Borton? That's correct. And we actually cited that as part of our -- you know, we read it the other way, sort of a justification for the low score and that's why Lime actually created this chart that I attached to my letter, which sort of goes through and shows how with that specific commentary that you were discussing, the justification, if you will, for this individual scoring. We have actually created a chart that shows that specific areas where we had the exact same stuff in the RFP -- and we are not coming back later and saying, oh, no, we really do have this stuff. I mean it's right there in the documents that shows Lime presented the same stuff, but it wasn't given credit in the -- the written feedback. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 16 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 14 of 79 Hopkins: Can I speak to that for one second? Just one example of many -- I mean there is 38 pages to this document that shows some rather similar R FPs. But in Section E of the pros in the 38 page document that you got, Bird was given 20 points. Lime was given zero. And I'm trying to track when we received zero before on -- on anything from any city. And in the pro citations the deputy attorney says -- gives pro for Bird for having photo verification, of proper parking, enforcement incentive plan, vehicle speed caps, remote monitoring, preferred parking and enforcement, geo fenced no ride zones and governed speed limits. Every single one of those is in the Lime proposal, sometimes in more words and pictures than Bird was and Bird gets -- and Lime gets zero pro citations and zero points. There is a clear black and white substantive difference that can be seen in the way that one RFP was treated from the other from somebody who controlled the process to a large degree from start to finish and that is alarming from our point of view, because we have not seen that before in any city in which we operate or any city which we have been denied operations. De Weerd: I will tell you the process is controlled by our purchasing agent -- or manager and -- and certainly -- I would ask Keith if you have any kind of comment to this dialogue, because it is about our process. The -- the appeal is is there a deficiency in our process. Was there something in our process that was not followed that would cause us to have to throw out all responses and do a new RFP. Watts: The short answer to that, Madam Mayor, is no. We did follow our process. I included a set of SOPs that were done in 2016. We follow those to a T. One of the things that's unwritten in our process that we did -- that I followed up on is when I have a score that's different like that, I will go sit down with that evaluator and say are you good with the scores? Are you sure that's what you want to do? And did you cite everything? And Emily went through this, said, yes, she -- she stands by the score. She cited the reasons why. With them I left that score in. The other reason that -- that it didn't concern me that much as being a part of the process I know the results of the entire evaluation committee and I know the decision of the entire committee and even if you threw out Emily's scores, if you chose to do so, it would not change the outcome of this RFP process. The committee as a whole has -- has rated Bird higher. They all selected to award Bird a contract and not Lime, not based on scores only, but, like I said before, a deficiency in their proposal. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Madam Mayor, thank you. Mr. Watts or Mr. Nary, do you have any concern that if this Council were to decide we are going to award contracts to both parties, that if legal action were to be taken against us that -- do you have any concern that -- that a judge would say, well, it says the city, but City Council does not qualify as the city when explained or mentioned countless times that all the authority is given to, quote, the city over and over and over? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, I'm not always comfortable giving you legal advice here, but the answer would be, yes, I would be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 17 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 15 of 79 concerned that a judge is going to say two things. One, Bird's proposal met all the criteria and was the recommendation of the committee. Lime's was not. So, to simply ignore all of that ignores your entire process, not just a piece of it. Secondarily, the -- as Mr. Watts stated, you don't as a Council ever be involved in these decisions and all the time that all of you who have been here has this ever come in front of you for you to change the decision of the committee. The answer would be no, because the committee -- the people making those recommendations or selection are the ones that do that. You can reject the entire proposal, but not bits and pieces. So, I would be concerned if you picked it -- as you're proposing or suggesting that you would have a court have a concern on how you are fairly adjudicating your process. Your process is to reject all bids and start over or award -- or deny the appeal and move forward with the recommendation. That's what your process is. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: If we were to do a new RFP would we be able to include language that says the committee will make a recommendation in which Council will, then, make a final decision? De Weerd: Again, that would be inconsistent with our process. Nary: That's your policy that's already been adopted. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Thank you. Then in that case we definitely -- I feel like we cannot proceed with the committee's recommendation. It clearly -- I mean you read the minutes of the meeting prior to the issuance of the RFP, each councilman that spoke clearly indicated that the language was to include that up to -- or be included and, again, Councilman Borton's motion was also clear -- clearly to that effect. Mrs. Kane is a valued member of our city staff and she's provided years of excellent service to the city and so while I read through, again, also every page front and back of all the information that was provided, I think the -- the most important aspect of this was that -- Council's intention and our instruction was not followed with the RFP that was issued , which was acknowledged by Mrs. Kane in her memo. So, with that we need to -- I feel like we do need to start over if we are not in a position to be able to safely award the contract to both, ensuring that the language is in there that it will be up to two, not exclusive, and that the committee fully understands that, you know, a minimum scoring level may need to be set and if both are -- or if -- if -- if there are multiple proposals that meet a minimum scoring requirement to be considered qualified to serve the city in that capacity, that the top two score getters should be awarded the contract. De Weerd: Well, I would ask if there is any other comment? I know we have one council member that hasn't weighed in. Any comment from Mrs. Little Roberts? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. I mean this -- trying to follow the process and it seems like that has been dealt with in an effective manner. I think that you're reviewing it and there Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 18 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 16 of 79 was a couple things that I was trying to look up really quickly, I apologize, because I was -- I did kind of acquiesce with the way that we said it, but I supported all along that we only select one, at least this first go around, but I did agree with the verbiage that we could do up to two and so I was actually in recommendation that we only start with one for our test run and I think that we have followed the process. So, I would agree that we continue on with the single selection that has gone through the process. Palmer: Thank you. Any other questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor, I don't have any questions. I do have some comments, but I don't have anymore questions for the appellant or staff at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor, thank you. Council, I appreciate everyone's homework and due diligence on this. I think when we started talking about bike share, scooter share, I was the one that was a big cheerleader for it and I have had the opportunity to engage with a couple of vendors before Meridian started talking about this and I still maintain that I think this is a good service to our community, regardless of who we select as vendors. I have been at times very critical of the city's process on this from scooters being pulled off the streets without consulting Council, to how we kind of changed our minds to how we want to build this process and so I can -- I can appreciate the appellant's criticism of the process, but I do take significant exception with -- and I appreciate the very articulate and diplomatic comments of Council Member Borton. I take great exception at the criticism of our employees without any proof. Council Member Palmer put it mildly. Emily Kane is just not just a valued employee for the City of Meridian, she is exceptional and while I have disagreed with her on many occasion, I find her ethics in her approach remarkable. That said, this is a piece that has caused me somewhat concern. I'm not an attorney, but I appreciate having attorneys up here and Council Member Borton, who -- who has a much stronger legal eye -- I look at this from that of a citizen and there are things that I believe an average citizen in our community would look at and say did some -- did some employee or some people that were on the scoring committee think that they were only supposed to pick one when really we wanted two. I think that's very very possible. I -- I don't think that Mrs. Kane did anything intentionally to change the scores or to impact the scores. I just don't think that is in her nature and for the appellant's benefit you don't know this individual like we know this individual and we trust this individual, but I think that if an average citizen were to look at this they would say from the beginning with our process something just -- maybe doesn't add up right and that's definitely how I feel. I appreciate Mr. Nary saying that we can't award contracts to both. Quite frankly I don't think that would be the prudent decision either. If -- if we as a body feel that there was some flaw, deficiency, intentional or unintentional, then, we should begin this process again and I say that devastated, because I have been very vocal in my criticism about how long this process has taken and I hear still weekly from our citizens what's going on with scooters. Scooters are going to be the death of me I swear. But I think that if we -- and, Mayor, you brought up a very valid point. If this body says we don't want to be in the scooter business, I think that is an appropriate conversation for this body as well and I can't believe that I'm Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 19 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 17 of 79 saying that, but I think that that is also something this Council should consider. I don't believe that. I think that we should be providing this service to our citizens. But I believe to begin this new -- if only to cure any appearance of a ny improprieties, intended or not. So, for what it's worth, I'm -- I'm supportive of us beginning this process anew. But I'm open to other suggestions or ideas from this body. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: So many thoughts. So, this has been really tough for me and I have really decided -- going through this process has made me have a little bit of a disdain for the scooter business. However, I think that the process was followed or -- you know, Keith has got up here and testified that the process was followed. The scoring was just one factor which was not the deciding factor on which company was selected. They gave clear reason why Bird was selected, because of the age verification, and I don't see -- I don't see how anything -- any wrongdoing was done by the committee. I -- I felt reading through your documents like you're bullying Emily and it was really hard to get through. When I see things that are taken out of proportion, words misconstrued -- because this has happened to me and I have been a victim of that and I take a big offense to that. That has nothing to do with my decision that -- I have listened to everybody and I feel that the process was followed the way that it was supposed to and, yes, I was the one that was up here saying we could do three. Don't even limit it to two. Maybe three. And it wasn't -- up to two. Not the first two or a minimum of two. It was up to two. The scoring committee, even forget all about the scores, the committee decided to go with one. If we started this process over -- summer's gone, we are getting back into winter. This ends in December. So, I think we could go with -- with the recommendation that the committee gave us and you can apply again in like October, November, whenever we started the process and get -- try to get accepted for next year. It starts again in January. So -- I mean we are really talking about a short period of time and I think that if we just start over, the only losers are our citizens who are looking forward to riding scooters this summer. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Just remind me, Council, if -- I wouldn't get really excited about us just awarding one for the sake of awarding one. We have got a budget amendment before us -- or, sorry, a budget request for us for this budget year to hire additional staff for the clerk's department to help manage this program. I think that funding analysis was built under the assumption that we were going to have two and so what my concern is from a -- from a budget standpoint is is that we are hiring a position based on added workload from a scooter program and not bringing in the funding mechanism to cover that cost. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 20 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 18 of 79 De Weerd: Just to put the staffing in perspective, it -- it had very little to do, if anything, to the scooter program, so just to clarify. Additional comments? If not, we do have an appeal in front of us and I look for your direction. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I will give it the old college try. I move that we -- Mr. Nary, are we granting the appeal or denying the appeal? Okay. Madam Mayor, I move that we grant the appeal to the purchasing manager's denial of protest for Lime. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I'm not supportive of the motion. I -- if -- again, it just goes down to the narrow issue of process. Process being set up. If the committee recommended two, great. If they recommended Lime; great. Bird? Great. It's not something that we review. The scoring supports the recommendation and it would support a recommendation -- excuse me. Not a recommendation. A decision. Which is a key distinction. It's not a recommendation to us for us to decide. The decision has been made. It's a closed completed matter. The issue before us is much more narrow -- is an appeal of that existing decision to see if it was made in error inconsistent with our existing policy. I can't make that finding. Whatever their decision could have been, I think it would have been consistent with our policy, whether it was both or either. So, for that reason I have got to vote against the motion. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Appreciate the comments, Council Member Borton. I guess for me the findings that I was able to find was that it appeared to be there were at least multiple members of that committee that when that process began believe d that they were only selecting one vendor. Just counter to what Council had intended. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, nay; Milam, nay; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, nay; Bernt, nay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 21 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 19 of 79 De Weerd: Okay. The motion fails. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. FOUR NAYS. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Take two, then. Madam Mayor, I move that we deny the appeal of the purchase manager's denial of the protest, the 2019 request from Lime. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny the appeal. Is that correct? Cavener: Correct. Madam Mayor, just a comment. It sounds like this Council wants to move forward, so let's move forward. Council Member Milam put it I think very articulately. The vendors will have another opportunity to apply in six months. Five months. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment? Mr. Clerk. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, next steps. Nary: Madam Mayor, we upheld the process of the contract that was Mr. Watts had indicated awarding it to Bird. So, we can continue with that contract process and complete that and I would assume we would get that within two weeks . Either next week or the following week. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, you will see this back on your agenda. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Just a comment. I think I have -- just from the last three meetings we have talked about this I think this process has shined a pretty bright light that maybe as a city we need to look at other municipalities in the region and look at maybe VRT or another jurisdiction just to manage a regional wide scooter program. I think that that would serve the region in a much better manner and free us up from these challenging decisions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 22 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 20 of 79 De Weerd: That's an excellent idea. So, we will assign our board member to bring that forth to VRT for that discussion. Excellent discussion. Thank you. And thank you for being here. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Sorry. One more. I know we are trying to move things along. I just -- thank you, Lime, for being here and for being flexible, maybe sat through our last meeting where we continued and, then, I made a request for us to move you guys from the earlier meeting to the later meeting so I could be here. Appreciate your -- your patience in accommodating. B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gander Creek North and South (H-2019-0013) by Trilogy Development, Inc., Located at the SW corner of N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item B is Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gander Creek North and South, H-2019-0013, and I will ask for staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The applicant has noted two areas of concern with the conditions of approval noted in the findings. Section eight of the staff report, that staff and legal have determined needs Council's clarification as follows: Condition number A-1-C. This was the condition that Council changed the timing on for construction of the pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of the site adjacent to McCrosson Avenue and McMillan Road. Council changed it to the first phase of development, rather than the earlier part of the second phase of development . Or at the time of substantial completion of the high school consistent with West Ada School District's construction timeline for the high school. The applicant has noted that this condition requires the construction of the walkways along the frontage of those streets with the first phase of development. The prior condition, as I stated, was with the earlier part of the second phase or construction of the high school. The applicant feels that the two conditions are a bit inconsistent regarding timing. It's customary to install the sidewalk, pedestrian walkway on McCrosson as part of the construction project of the street and they believe that Council intended that the sidewalk, pedestrian walkway along McMillan and McCrosson be completed before the Owyhee High School opens, so that students have safe access to the school. They felt that if the time frame required in condition A-1-C matched that of the mid mile collector in A-1-D, that it would be more practical from a construction standpoint and would still ensure that the Council's intent was satisfied and they are requesting that clarification. Staff is recommending that the timing is changed from the first phase back to the earlier part of the second phase or the time of substantial completion of the high school, consistent with the school district's construction timeline for the high school as originally written, since the intent of the requirement is so that the children have safe access to school. Would you like me to go on to the second one, Madam Mayor, or would you -- okay. And, then, condition A-3-B, the condition read: Detail shall be included for phases five, six and nine. The phases containing the lots that abut McDermott and future State Highway 16 that depicts the center line or estimated center line of the future State Highway 16 in relation to the top of the berm and wall, verifying that it's a minimum of 12 feet higher than the elevation of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 23 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 21 of 79 center line of the state highway, as required by UDC 11-3H-4D-2. This condition requires -- this is what the applicant's stated. This condition requires a detail of the 12 foot tall berm wall combination be prepared for phases five, six and nine, to confirm the facility will be a minimum of 12 feet higher than the center line elevation of State Highway 16. The applicant believes that the intent of the Council was for this condition to apply to the adopted ITD at grade plan for State Highway 16 and that they are recommending adding the language to reference the currently approved plan as of the Council hearing date to avoid future confusion in case the IT D plan for State Highway 16 changes. Staff's response to that is that there is no adopted ITD plan at this time for the extension of State Highway 16. The 300 foot wide right of way for State Highway 16 is currently under review as part of the corridor wide design refinements. One of the design refinements fav ors State Highway 16 going over McMillan Road. ITD will be working on design refinements into this summer. The UDC standard for noise abatement along state highways requires the top of the berm or berm and wall combination to be a minimum of ten feet higher than the elevation of the center line of the state highway. Council did raise that to 12 feet. However, there is a provision that allows the director to approve alternative compliance where the applicant has a substitute noise abatement proposal in a ccord with ITD standards and prepared by a qualified sound engineer. Therefore, staff is recommending the condition remain the same and, if necessary, in the future the applicant can apply for alternative compliance to this standard. Staff will stand for any question. And the applicant is here tonight if the Mayor and Council would like to get their input on that. De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any discussion? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I made that motion; right? Allen: I believe you did, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I do my best to make things complicated. Going out with a bang. I'm interested to hear any commentary from the applicant if they are interested in commenting. De Weerd: Well, my recollection is that last -- that last point was the reason why we had two vote against it, saying it is not clear and we should wait until there was clear direction from ITD. Welcome. Taunton: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, my name is Bob Taunton. My address is 2724 South Palmatier Way in Boise and I represent Trilogy Development that was the applicant and, again, we -- we appreciate the approval that we received the previous evening and we are not trying to undo that in any way, but it just seemed when we looked at the conditions that there were a couple of situations that might benefit from some clarification, so the -- and I recall that the Mayor specifically asked me will you do the sidewalks it -- with phase one and I -- I -- and I had a bit of a senior moment, I was thinking Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 24 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 22 of 79 in my mind that, okay, we are already doing, you know, the sidewalk on McCrosson and we are doing the sidewalk for phase one, so we are just filling in on McMillan then and I just -- it slipped my mind that, actually, the collector road was going to be, you know, based on a different time frame, but I think the -- the goal here is to -- is to have the sidewalk and our ten foot pathway -- additional ten foot pathway in place, constructed before the school opens, so that all of the students have an opportunity to have a safe -- safe place and it just -- from a practical standpoint when you're constructing roads , it's just much easier to construct the sidewalk when you're doing the road , as opposed to doing the sidewalk ahead of time and that sort of thing and you -- you don't have to worry about the construction process damaging the sidewalk, which having been a builder, developer for a long time I can assure you that certainly happens. So, that -- that was the situation on that. I'm happy to answer any questions. De Weerd: I think that that one is -- is clearly understood and staff has been able -- do you agree with the -- the recommended language from staff on that? Taunton: Yes, I do. De Weerd: Okay. Taunton: The second point was, you know, we had long discussions about what might be the situation with Highway 16 and currently, you know, there is an adopted plan. It's that at grade plan and how -- how we would handle noise attenuation if -- if the plan changes. It's just too premature to be able to address that until ITD makes their decision perhaps to alter it. So, we -- we just thought that it would make sense that -- that we tied the 12 foot berm -- which is -- is in addition -- berm-wall, which is additional height over the ten feet to the current at grade situation for Highway 16 and, then, in the future when ITT -- ITD makes their change, does their noise study, we will have a better idea of how we at that point could do the noise attenuation. But kind of -- if you had a -- if you had an elevated -- as we discussed at the hearing, if you had an elevated roadway for us to do a 12 foot berm above the elevation of the center line, that may not be -- and our transportation expert indicated the same, that that would not likely be practical. There is probably some different ideas that will have to be put in place to be able to do the noise attenuation, but we don't have those facts today. Anyway, I was -- I was just trying to clarify it, but I wasn't aware that there was an alternative opportunity as staff has mentioned. Knowing that I probably would not have suggested that we revisit that -- that topic. De Weerd: So, you're -- you're good with the recommendation that the condition remain the same and if necessary in the future you can come back and ask for alternative compliance? Taunton: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council? Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 25 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 23 of 79 Taunton: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Bob. And thank you staff. Okay. With that do I have a motion to approve Item B? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I guess the -- Allen: Madam Mayor, excuse me. De Weerd: Yes. Allen: The findings are written as the Council directed staff at the last meeting. So, they do need to be revised if you're -- you're approving it per staff's recommendation tonight. So, they will have to be on a subsequent meeting. De Weerd: Or can they approve it with the language as suggested? Allen: I would defer to Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we prefer you approve them all together correctly, because they, then, become the attachment to the development agreement. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: It sounds like we could put them on next week. Allen: Put them on next week. C. Final Plat for Cherry Blossom (H-2019-0064) by Doug Jayo, Jayo Land Development Company, LLC., Located at 615 W. Cherry Ln. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 7-C is a final plat H-2019-0064. This applicant is requesting continuance and I guess this is in order to address some outstanding issues with the plat. So, the request is continue to July 2nd. Can I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we continue H-2019-0064 to July 2nd. Cavener: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 26 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 24 of 79 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-C to July -- Allen: Madam Mayor, excuse me, I'm sorry. Were you aware that there isn't anything else on the agenda for the 2nd? If you are that's fine. I just wanted to make sure you're aware that this -- De Weerd: No. Allen: -- as of today is the only thing we have on that agenda , so -- excuse my rude interruption, but just wanted to say that. Borton: Could go to the 9th, perhaps, is the other idea . De Weerd: Thank you for pointing that out. So, I had a motion and a second, but certainly I would entertain and withdrawal of that motion or amending it. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If you would take an amendment offer. I'm going to amend the motion and move it to January -- July. July 9th. Not January. July 9th, 2019. De Weerd: Do I have a second? Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-C to July 9th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Final Plat Modification Continued from May 28, 2019 for Olivetree at Spurwing (H-2019-0055) by Spurwing Limited Partnership, Located at the NE corner of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and N. Ten Mile Rd. De Weerd: I guess and direction to staff to notice that there will not be a July 2nd meeting. Okay. Item 7-D is final flat modification, continued from May 28th on H-2019- 0055. We will ask for staff comments. Allen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next application is a final plat modification. This subdivision is zoned R-4 and R-8 and is located north of West Chinden Boulevard and east of North Te n Mile Road. The final plat for this subdivision was approved back in 2008, along with several subsequent time extensions. The subdivision Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 27 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 25 of 79 is currently in the development process. The previously approved landscape plan for this development that's there on the right depicts a four foot tall wrought iron fencing along the rear of building lots adjacent to the golf course. The applicant is requesting approval to remove the fencing and leave the option open to each individual homeowner to construct fencing or not based on their needs. Because the golf course is not common open space for the subdivision, the fencing standards in the UDC, which require the developer to construct fences abutting common open space lots, to distinguish common from private areas, do not apply. However, staff does feel it's necessary for the developer to provide some form of delineation between the privately owned building lots and the golf course, such as berming or landscaping, plantings and/or bark or other means. While staff is amenable to the applicant's request to remove the fencing, staff does recommend the applicant address at the hearing tonight how they plan to delineate private areas from the golf course and, additionally, in 2018, kind of on a separate matter, the City Council approved a modification to the landscape plan to remove a pathway connection to the golf course and bollard lighting along the pedestrian pathway and the addition of an archway or entryway feature and water fountain. The revised landscape plan for those changes also included the following changes: A note stating all wrought iron fencing would be installed by the individual lot owner and builder at the time of development and construction of each individual lot, rather than by the developer with development of the subdivision as required by the UDC and the extension of the six foot tall masonry screen wall along the northern boundary of the subdivision along North Big Cedar Way to within 20 feet of West Balata Court, which violates the maximum height allowed of three feet for closed vision fencing and walls in the required front yard area and creates a safety hazard due to decreased visibility of traffic from the intersection. Because these changes were not specifically requested or approved and because they do not comply with UDC standards, they are not approved and should be reflected correctly on the revised landscape plan submitted for this application. Becky McKay submitted written testimony on this application. She is proposing out-of-bound stakes and have a photo of those that she submitted -- to delineate the private properties from the golf course and agreement to modify the landscape plan to comply with UDC standards to depict wrought iron fencing along the common area on Lot 45 and a modification to the location of the wall, so that it's not within the 20 foot front and side yard areas in proximity to Balata Court. To my understanding from the applicant they have revised the location of that wall. They have brought it back so it complies with UDC standards. Staff has not reviewed the plan to determine that for sure, but the applicant has conveyed to me that it's been done. It was a kind of a safety hazard there at that intersection for visibility of oncoming traffic. So, staff is recommending approval, assuming that the applicant's proposal or staff's alternative for delineation of those private lot lines are approved tonight. Thank you. De Weerd: So, Sonya, in 2018 Council approved the removal of the fencing or that is a request for tonight? Allen: That is a request for tonight. There was a -- De Weerd: When that was put on -- what year was that that it came in? Allen: Originally? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 28 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 26 of 79 De Weerd: Uh-huh. Allen: Back in 2008. So, I am assuming, because I vaguely remember this, you -- yeah. You had Councilman Rountree and Councilman Zaremba both who have backyards up to the golf course and know these property markers are contentious and I think that's why they wanted the fencing there. Allen: I don't disagree, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: So, I just wanted to clarify that. No. They somehow disappear sometimes. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant's representative like to come forward. Good evening. McKay: Good evening. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing the developer of Oliver Tree at Spurwing, Jock Hewitt, on this particular application. Initially they had proposed that there be wrought iron fencing along the lots that backed up to the golf course. Roger and Chris Anderson were concerned about that being mandatory, because I guess the existing Spurwing lots that were previously platted with the golf course, they are not allowed to have any type of fencing a djoining the golf course. So, I guess it has that open expanse and so what Mr. Hewitt is proposing is these white out-of-bound stakes are supplied by the club , they are maintained and installed by the club and that delineates the golf course from the private yards and what he wants to do is replace that condition that is requiring that we have wrought iron fencing adjoin ing the golf course and have it be at the discretion of the lot owner. So , if someone does purchase a lot they do decide to put wrought iron fencing in, they may do it on their own, but it is not required, because that's kind of what the Andersons had asked Mr. Hewitt to do. In looking -- he sent me some pictures. These are out at -- at Spurwing golf course. You can see that some people have delineated it with some -- you know, a small landscape wall or gravels or shrubs. It kind of varies on how they want to handle it. He just wants the options for these homeowners, so that they can make that choice themselves. If they choose not to, those out-of-bound stakes are provided and installed and maintained by the club and he said this is not unusual, that it is -- it's common on golf courses and under the US Golf Association it's recommended and if a ball goes beyond the out-of-bound stake, then, it costs you two strokes, which I don't golf, so I wouldn't know that. Sonya did bring to our attention two deficiencies in the previously approved landscape plan. One was the masonry wall. There was a site vision triangle infraction. We immediately the day she e-mailed me notified the installer of that wall and Mr. Hewitt and told them that that needed to be remedied immediately and so it is my understanding that they have. We sent them information from the staff to make sure that they brought that height into compliance so we did not have any vision problems or cause an accident. So, that has been rectified. And, then, staff -- we do have open space, which under the codes it indicates that you shall fence your private lots from your provided internal open space and Mr. Hewitt has agreed to that condition A-1-B, that he will provide wrought iron Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 29 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 27 of 79 fencing along Lot 45, Block 1, as requested by staff and with that I will be glad to answer any questions. The homes are going up and it looks great out there. De Weerd: This was approved a long time ago. Why wasn't it raised as an issue at that time? This was a contentious application for many of the Spurwing residents to begin with. So, they didn't want the wrought iron fencing and it wasn't necessarily because it was the golf course, but we have fencing that backs up to any -- any development as part of the requirements. Why -- why was that not an issue raised at that time? McKay: Yes, Madam Mayor. Sonya, could you go to the -- the landscape plan? So, the contention was these lots here, these were acre lots, part of the original Spurwing. De Weerd: Oh, I remember that. McKay: And so they -- what they requested is they wanted some type of a masonry sight obscuring wall all along their boundary and we did agree to that and that has been installed. So, the wrought iron that is being discussed this evening is just the wrought iron that adjoins the rear of our lots. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. McKay: Only our lots. So, they did -- we did comply with that condition to provide the wall as part of the screening for the transitioning between the two lot sizes. Yes, ma'am. I'm not getting out of that. De Weerd: Thank you, Becky. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up to testify? Johnson: It was not published as a public hearing. This is a final plat. De Weerd: Oh, this is a final plat. Thank you. Any questions for staff or applicant? Okay. Hearing none, do I have a motion? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we approve the final plat modification for H-2019-0055. Milam: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 30 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 28 of 79 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D. Any discussion by Council? Any -- what -- did your motion -- what is your recommendation on the fencing and the items that are in front of us? Palmer: That they be able to do exactly what they are proposing. De Weerd: Which is? Palmer: Not build the fence and -- all right. How do I need to word this, Sonya? Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, the main -- the main -- the main request for you is whether you agree with the out -of-bound stakes as an appropriate form of delineation between the individual homeowner lots and the golf course. The other fencing -- not to -- not to confuse the issue, but let me explain. So, that is the area that fencing is proposed to be removed in the golf course right here. De Weerd: Oh, not on the other lots. Allen: Yeah. So, two different issues. The ones that -- the one up here is the UDC required fencing to delineate common from private areas and that was shown on the original landscape plan that was approved and the change got slipped in with the last landscape plan -- plan modification last year and it was not the subject of the final plat modification and it was not specif ically approved. So, that was staff's point in pointing it out in the -- in the staff report, that that should not -- and is not part of the previous approval. So, that with this revised landscape plan submitted with this application , they needed to reflect that correctly as was originally approved and the correct location of the wall. The wall was shown on this plan to end right here where my pointer is at. Instead it was extended clear out to Balata Court here. Staff's fine with it extending out to within 20 feet of Balata in this additional area, if that's agreeable to Council. That's how it was constructed. But it did not comply with UDC standards to go clear out to the street. So, really, the only thing -- and those -- those two things are conditions of approval based on the original conditions. The only thing really up for your consideration -- the applicant's in agreement with those things -- is removal of this fencing adjacent to the golf course. The wrought iron fencing, where it was previously approved. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Allen: The only thing, really, is -- what you need to act on is whether you feel that the out- of-bound stakes are appropriate or if you don't some direction for the applicant either to provide the wrought iron fencing or something in lieu of the fencing to establish the boundary. Palmer: Madam Mayor, I'm fine with the stakes, because it's an agreement between private property owners. So, it shouldn't be any concern of ours. De Weerd: So, your motion was to remove the fencing and to -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 31 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 29 of 79 Palmer: Remove the requirement for -- De Weerd: -- to use the markers as the way to delineate. Palmer: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Second agree? Milam: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I will be voting no this evening. I would like to make just a couple comments of why. Number one, I feel like a golfer -- I don't golf a lot, but I have golfed a lot in my past. I feel like there needs to be something there, other than white stakes. Unfortunately, a couple of white stakes doesn't necessarily guarantee , you know, golfers going back and forth on property lines and I don't believe that white stakes actually -- I guess they can delineate between property lines, but not necessarily, especially in this case and so I would like -- I'm not saying that there needs to be wrought iron fence, but there needs to be something more than -- in my opinion there needs to be something more than white stakes. So, I would hope that if -- if -- how this goes tonight in this vote -- if it does come back that there is just a little bit more -- I think that's what staff recommended. I think staff recommended even something more than white stakes as well. So, that's how I will be voting this evening. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And the beauty here is if -- if the future homeowner decides that it's not an efficient way to keep people off the property and they don't want people on their property, they have the option to go ahead and build the fence . If they want to have to be able to have the unobstructed view and don't mind the occasional golfer come in a few inches or feet -- I don't golf, so I don't know. I don't -- I don't think it's our -- our job as councilmen to make sure that there is a better experience for the golfers on a private golf course , but the option is there for the future homeowner to bu ild a fence if they want a better line there or the possibility of the amenity of being able to look right out at the golf course unobstructed. De Weerd: I guess I would just go back to the original discussion and it was a point of contention. We have a city ordinance that requires fencing around developments. It doesn't matter that it's private property to private property, it is in every development case Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 32 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 30 of 79 that we ask a wall. Any delineation -- in fact, if you go back to the plat, why they have that low corner piece in the far right was to eliminate any issue with golfers and -- and with the fencing coming out that far. That is one reason that that looks so odd. But this -- this was consistent with every other development that's required to have p erimeter fencing to -- between private property to private property. This is consistent with that and there should be something better than the temporary property markers -- the white property markers. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: If we want to talk about consistency, I believe that there are many homes that backup to the golf course and the subdivision that don't have fences. De Weerd: They were in the county when they were built, just to be clear. Palmer: Madam Mayor, are they in the city now? De Weerd: I believe so, but we didn't make them put up fencing when they came into the city. Any other comments? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I will be brief. These are -- these are good issues before our Council, because I think it -- it stretches us philosophically. I think Council Member Palmer makes a really strong point, is that this is between two private property owners and does the city need to be involved. But at this point we are involved, we have been involved, and I think one thing that makes the City of Meridian really great is that we give development the opportunity to be creative and bring something different. White stakes doesn't -- doesn't do it for me. So, I think Council Member Bernt hit the nail right on the head. If there is something else that they want to do to improve -- achieve what they are hoping to achieve without doing the fence, I'm all for that. But white stakes just doesn't do it for me, so I will be opposing the motion. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: As an occasional golfer I feel like I need to weigh in, because I would much rather look for white stakes than trying to figure out if it's a berm, a planting or other means that I have no idea what it is to even look for to know if I'm out of bounds, which I on a great occasion am. So, I think as long as we are limited to one type of fencing and not a variety could go up as each owner would select differently, I'm all in favor of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 33 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 31 of 79 homeowners getting to pick if they want to deal with white stakes and an occasional person missing the white stake and -- and taking the next hit out of their yard, that's up to them. De Weerd: Any further comment? Palmer: Madam Mayor, just a question. Did you mean not require -- to not require anything, just -- Little Roberts: No. Require white stakes or they have the opportunity to do the -- Palmer: Okay. Little Roberts: So, one or the other. But as someone who goes out of bounds I am very familiar with the white stakes. Palmer: Got you. Thank you. De Weerd: Any further comment? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, nay; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, nay. De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it. White stakes it is. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. E. Public Hearing for Goff (H-2019-0061) by Garland Goff, Located at 1725 W. Pine St. Ave. 1. Request: To Modify the Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 111072107, to remove the previous conceptual development plan and associated provisions from the agreement De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-E is a public hearing for H-2019-0061. This enters our public hearing process. For anyone who is new to our process, we do have staff that makes a presentation that talks about the application and gives background information. The applicant is the second up to -- and they have 15 minutes to talk about the project details and anything they want to make sure that City Council has information on. The third part of that public test -- or hearing is the public testimony. Each are given three minutes to testify and there is a little timer on the -- the screen that is at the podium, so you will see how much time you have. The applicant , then, has the final comment to answer any questions that were raised during the public testimony and to provide any additional information that City Council asks. The Council will ask any final questions to staff, applicant, or those that provide testimony at that point and I will note that there is a public Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 34 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 32 of 79 document that Council has had the opportunity to review that includes all applicant information, agency comments, public testimony, any minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission and that's all figured into their decisions. So, with that I will open this public hearing and ask for staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of .76 of an acre of land. It's zoned C-N and is located at 1725 West Pine Street. Pine Avenue. Excuse me. A little history on this property. In 2009 an amendment to the future land use map was approved from medium density residential to commercial, as was annexation with the C-N zoning and approval of a development agreement. The previous development plan for this site was for an aquatic center, which fell through. There is currently a single family residential home on the site. The property owner now wishes to sell the property and the prospective buyer does not wish to redevelop the property in the same manner. One consideration is to possibly renovate the existing structure for an office, otherwise, the prospective buyer would like flexibility to explore other options for uses allowed in the C-N district. The existing development agreement prohibits the following uses on the site. Drinking establishments. Fuel sales facilities. Drive-thru establishments and vehicle washing facilities. Staff recommends the provision prohibiting these uses remain. This is a copy of the concept plan and building elevations that are included in the existing development agreement. Staff is amenable to the applicant's request with the following recommended changes to the existing development agreement provisions as noted in Section 6-A of the staff report. One, removal of the requirement for future development to comply with the previous concept plan and inclusion of language referencing the architectural standards manual now in effect for design review. Two, the requirement for submittal of a design review application with the certificate of zoning compliance application. Three, removal of language limiting access to the site to the existing location in favor of language that still limits access to one driveway via Pine Avenue, but allows its relocation if necessary with redevelopment. And, lastly, removal of the requirement for the existing septic system and domestic well to be removed from service as this has already been done and the property is hooked up to city water and sewer services. Written testimony has been received from the applicant. He is in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just one question, Sonya. On -- does the existing DA require cross-access? Allen: I believe it does. Yes, actually, it does. And that's -- that's in your staff report there. If you look at the analysis section. East and west. Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 35 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 33 of 79 Palmer: Okay. Thanks. Allen: It's near the southern end of the property as I recall. De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Goff: Good evening. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Goff: Hello. My name is Garland Goff. 2010 North Mumbarto Avenue in Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Goff: Thank you. Madam Mayor and Council, I have no idea -- De Weerd: Mr. Goff, can you pull the microphone up? Yes. Thank you. Goff: I concur completely with what -- what's been presented by staff. That's what we requested and that's what we would like to have. I don't know if you have any other questions with respect to this property or not. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Goff: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, are there any -- anyone signed up to testify? Johnson: Madam Mayor, no one is signed in to testify. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to provide public testimony? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Morton: My name is Carla Morton. I live at 2743 West Wave Court, which is just about three-fourths of a mile away from this residence on the north side of Pine and I do have a question in regard to safety considerations for high school students along there, as well as for any -- because if it is going to be turned into a business that means there will be a lot more traffic probably during the week day when school is in session . I think that we need to understand that students are not always on their wisest behavior. There is a crosswalk right there to the west just by Tall Pine. I can't remember if it's on the east or west side of Tall Pine, but there is a crosswalk there and I know that students go next store to the Launch Pad for lunch sometimes and also for Christian release time, non -- nondenominational religious Christian released time I think is how it's worded. So, I would like to think about their safety, as well as the fact that I don't believe there is really a turn lane at that point. It begins to start a little bit east of that property and so those are some Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 36 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 34 of 79 considerations that I was wondering if those were going to get addressed by ACHD or what part of the community would be addressing that. De Weerd: Because of the size ACHD has not provided comments. So -- yeah. Good questions. Morton: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Bernt: Good to see you, Carla. De Weerd: Any further comment? Okay. Would the applicant care to respond to some of the questions that were just raised. Or try. If you will just state your name again for the record. Goff: Yeah. My name is Garland Goff. At the time that we had looked at developing the property that was not even a consideration at that time . We had cross-access in the south part of the property. They had since -- since the time that we have owned the property they widen the road, so the property that's for sale consists of just a residential building and the person that's interested in purchasing the property is a CPA. So , he will have -- is considering having a CPA office in there. So , there won't be a tremendous amount of traffic there. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Goff: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Anything further for staff? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-E. Milam: Second. Little Roberts: Second. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a number of seconds to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 37 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 35 of 79 Palmer: I think that's the most support for a motion I will ever have. Madam Mayor? Palmer: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we approve the modification of the development agreement for H -2019- 0061 with staff's conditions, provisions. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I appreciate Carla's information in regard to safety. Obviously, we take safety very seriously, especially when it comes to kiddos and our walkways. Looking at this application, I don't know what -- even with ACHD, what we -- they could do to prevent or modify or mitigate traffic in regard to this development. So , just looking at it -- I could be wrong, but I think it would be pretty tough to do anything different. Fortunately, kiddos -- sometimes are going to -- you know, sometimes they make dumb choices and, hopefully, that they are smart, especially along busy streets, and so I just wanted to just -- just to say that, you know, her comment was -- I heard it and I think it is prudent, I just don't know what ACHD -- ACHD could do to make it different, so -- Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: It's at that point. The students are already crossing to go over there to the Launch Pad and I grew up just off the Pine Street as a -- as a youth and when the school bell rings, there is a mass exodus of students out of all corners out of that area and as a result you have had better signalization that has went in over there at Pine and expansion of Pine to really address some of those things and I don't believe -- I could be wrong -- that there is not going to be a huge influx of students wanting to go to a CPA office after school. Milam: Than an aquatic center. Cavener: More than an aquatic center. De Weerd: Yeah. Little Roberts: I think that we are not creating any undue concern or burden if we were to approve it. So, I'm supportive of it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 38 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 36 of 79 De Weerd: And certainly the previously approved development plan for an aquatic center -- but it generated more foot traffic and car traffic and this has a -- certainly a lesser use. Any other comments? Palmer: Madam Mayor? Bernt: We can combine them both. De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I think -- not to invalidate the point, but I think -- I'm less worried about what the visitors to the CPA office might do to the students than I am what the students might do to the visitors of the CPA office. De Weerd: Okay. Any further -- Palmer: Having been a student at that high school. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F. Public Hearing for Residential Self-Service Storage Facility (H-2019-0034) by Engineering Solutions LLP. 1. Request: A Text Amendment to create a new residential selfstorage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts De Weerd: Item 7-F is a public hearing for H-2019-0034. I will ask for staff comments and open the public hearing. Hi, Bill. Parsons: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. I see we know how to clear out a room this evening with some text -- so, the first text amendment before you this evening is initiated by a private -- by the applicant. It's not a city-initiated text change like you typically see. So, I would inform the Council that this particular item was not vetted in front of our UDC focus group or sent to BCA for any comments. Really, this particular application this evening was predicated on an application that was before you approximately six months ago with the Franklin self -storage facility that was approved in front of the apartment complex. They are just west of Franklin and Ten Mile interchange Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 39 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 37 of 79 -- or intersection next to the church there and I think the -- both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council kind of struggled with how to include the storage facility into the context of an ancillary use and so after that hearing we met with the applicant and we tried to come up with some ideas and some strategies on what we could do to potentially help them along. We talked about the potential of rezoning the property, but we weren't sure on how that rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because this area is part of the Ten Mile specific area plan and so we toyed around with the idea of maybe potentially having them go through a text amendment and we noodled some ideas and this is what's basically before you this evening and so hopefully we have captured what we heard from both our P&Z Commission and City Council as you deliberated on the application approximately six months ago. So , the applicant's proposal this evening includes three parts. The first is a definition. The second is how we are going to handle that land use and how it's going to be entitled on a particular property, which you see here in the table. Whether it be -- their proposal is to allow it in the R-15 and the R-40 zone with a conditional use permit. I would inform the Council that any storage facility within a standalone commercial storage facility is -- currently requires a conditional use permit and the C-C zone -- the C-G zone and it's principally permitted in the I-L zone and so this particular use is almost a hybrid of what we currently have on the books today and this would be not only -- it would be a standalone residential facility, but there would be book ends on it and that's the third part of their proposal where the applicant and staff work together on a compromise for specific use standards for this particular -- this new use that they are proposing as part of the UDC text amendment. I would mention to the Council as well that the current commercial standards have 11 specific use standards associated with them. The items before you this evening has 17. So, we did try to provide a more rigid zoning ordinance and more specific standards to ensure that these are not popping up all over the City of Meridian, that they are really meant to be a standalone storage facility that's in conjunction with a residential use or a high density project and that was the goal and I think that was what we heard from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approximately six months ago. So, the items before you -- because, really, the meat of the zoning text amendment by the applicant is before you on this particular graphic. You can see here that it has to be encouraged or accompanied with a single family and/or multi-family development. That would either be existing or proposed. It doesn't have to necessarily be constructed at that time. We are limiting the size of that particular facility to no more than eight acres in size. That's something that the Planning and Zoning Commission struggled with at their hearing. They -- finding that right balance of five acres or less is where they landed , but they felt comfortable that because this is going through the conditional use process that it would have that ability at their discretion at the public here to say, no, we don't want any more than four acres of storage and the remainder would have to be a residential component or some other land use. The second item is access to this particular facility. If you recall with that Franklin Elevate Storage project, they were taking access from a local street and not a -- not an arterial and that's something that we felt was important as part of this requirement as well. The hours of operation are also restricted further than what's currently allowed in the storage facilities under the specific standards. So , this is 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which is consistent with our L-O zone and C-N zoning district. Again, the other one -- storage of materials are related to a residential use and Item E, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 40 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 38 of 79 Item F, same thing, it would not be a dwelling unit, which is pretty consistent with our other standards. The other item that was added as part of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was to put actually a cap limit or a height limit on the -- the building height and the 35 feet was also consistent with the residential zoning district. Everything would be fully enclosed. Item I, we are limiting -- we are adding -- requiring more landscape buffers as part of this facility, so that it would be integrated in with the residential development. So, you can see here a local road, although code only requires a ten foot landscape buffer, the applicant is proposing to require a 20 foot landscape buffer as part of those storage facilities. The other item for you is a second means of access. This is a fire department requirement. But also consistent with code. Item K would have indoor storage only, so nothing exterior. So, RVs or any of those things, boats, would be in enclosed storage as well. And Item L is probably the one that staff wanted to have the most influence on and that is, you know, typically when you go see storage facilities, commercial ones, they are not -- they are usually mostly metal. They have some architectural elements to them, but primarily building materials are metal as a primary building material or some component of that and we felt if this is going to be truly integrated and part of a residential community, then, it needs to have the look and feel of a residential community and so this is where we have actually tied them to complying with our more stringent traditional neighborhood districts, so we can envision these being built with similar building materials as a surrounding residential neighborhood and that was the intent that the applicant wanted to bring forward to the -- to not only the Planning and Zoning Commission, but also this -- this body as well. Signage will also be restricted. That was something that we talked about. Keep it smaller scale, more pedestrian scale, like our L-O zoning districts as well and, then, one item of discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission was the onsite auctions and that spurred some of the changes that you see in the red text here this evening. One staff made some modifications, because there were some errors -- the code was outdated and we had to align it with our current Title 3, Chapter 4, which is our temporary use standards that the clerk's office deals with, not are -- not the planning code. The other issue that was brought up was the hours of operation for onsite auctions and so the Planning and Zoning Commission landed on daylight hours, which was, in their mind, sunrise and sunset, which can have a difference -- between winter hours and summer hours as we all know and so any temporary use permit application submitted to the clerk's office, the applicant will just have to verify -- submit their -- identify their hours of operation, which I believe they do, and, then, we will verify that through our process through our software what those hours are to make sure that they are consistent with code. Item O is a new provision -- or changes again. Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned about security for these types of facilities and how that would be managed. Some of these facilities have onsite manager, some don't. A lot of times there may be a key card, so someone gets a code, they may punch in their code and they are able to enter and exit the facility. So, they wanted some details on that with the application submitted to and, then, also provide a security plan. So, are they going to have cameras on site? Are they going to have a security company that comes and monitors these 24/7? Those are things that they discussed at the public hearing and so we codified those as part of those recommended changes and, then, PAQ are pretty standard requirements that we currently have in code. So , nothing new, just adding what we already have -- currently have in code. So, in your hearing outline this Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 41 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 39 of 79 evening I did identify those folks that testified at the hearing and also identified key items of public testimony in discussions -- items discussed by the Commission. I didn't know if -- you have that in front of you. I didn't know if you wanted me to go on record and read it all into the record. If you feel satisfied with what you have here I will just conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Becky. McKay: Sorry, you get a double dose tonight. Bernt: I bet your business address is on Rosario Place. McKay: Some nights I forget that. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. You know my address. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. I'm representing Ten Mile Development, Graye Wolfe, in the application that's before you. As Bill indicated, about six months ago we came before this body asking for a rezone of a four acre L-O parcel to R-15 and, then, asking for an accessory use for a mini storage. It was the -- the application, basically, was out of necessity, because of the parking issues that they were having on the site and the determination that when we build garages in the apartments and they are intended to be utilized for cars, they are counted as part of our parking ratio, 70 percent of those garages are used for personal items and recreational vehicles and so forth and, then, they are taking up additional spaces and, then, we end up with residents parking along the public right of ways and causing parking issues. So, my clients decided, you know, we have four acres here, we can do a really nice storage unit facility that will compliment the Silver Oaks Apartments, but, then, as we moved through that process and when we saw their attorneys reviewed the conditions of approval and the restrictions that are in the code, if it is an accessory use they became extremely nervous about moving forward and so if you remember we had a lengthy discussion and -- and everyone said, you know, we think this is a good idea, we would like to see an integration of some of the storage facilities with these larger multi-family projects, but we don't have the ability to do that and if you could get with the staff and look at options, look at alternatives. So, that's what we did and Graye and myself want to thank Bill and Caleb, because they were instrumental in sitting down with us and going through the pros, the cons of, you know, a comp plan amendment, ordinance amendment, you know, what provisions can we utilize to make sure that this is a highly restricted use , because it isn't -- it will be allowed as a conditional use in an R-15 or an R-40 zone. So, it could be denied. And so I took, you know, those provisions that -- or those concerns that Bill and Caleb had and, you know, we -- I wrote up this residential storage facility definition, which basically indicates that it's incidental to a residential property or dwelling units and intended for storing personal property and not used like for business purposes, like you would a standard commercial storage and the one thing that I wanted to make sure is the facility is encouraged to accompany -- or be a component of a single family or a multi- family residential development, along with the conditional use permit and in being a component of -- meaning it needs to be compatible with -- in architecture, in landscaping. When we went to the Commission, the Commission liked the idea. They -- they thought it was, you know, a good idea. Revolutionary idea. But they wanted to make sure that it Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 42 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 40 of 79 wasn't abused, so, they said, you know, we don't want these popping up in every little spot R-15 zone that's out there and so there was a discussion on the size. The size ended up in the final motion at eight acres. There was discussion about capping it at five. As far as my clients are concerned, that is, obviously, at the discretion of the Council. Well, one of the -- one of the commissioners said, well, what if we had an extremely large development, say it was on, you know, 165 acres and they needed eight acres for their -- their storage facility to accompany their development. So, maybe we should leave it at eight. Another said, well, we would, obviously, under a conditional use permit, have the ability to say, you know, you only have a 15 acre site and you want eight acres of storage, I don't think so. That's -- that's just a little over the top here. We don't see that as a component, that's more a standalone. And, then, one of the key things is it could be located along an arterial roadway, but no direct access off of the arterial. Access would have to be taken within -- within the residential project along a collector or a local street and I thought that that -- you know, that's important, because most of those commercial type storage facilities do have direct access to the arterials. We wanted to limit those hours of operation, so they are residential compatible and, then, we did as Bill indicated, we put in landscape buffers that are above and beyond what you would find on a normal storage facility, so that it's -- it's landscaped. That landscaping is consistent with the residential landscaping. We think that, you know, vetting it through the Planning and Zoning Commission and your staff, we have got a good ordinance amendment, one that can be utilized to cut down on the number of trips. I have employees. They have -- they have storage units for personal items. One has a trailer. And they have to drive miles to get to their unit and so, you know, when I discussed this with them, they -- they were like that would be really awesome. I would love to have one in my neighborhood and Bill recommended that provision, that the architectural style must comply with your design guideline standards for the traditional neighborhood, the TN-R zone, so we don't get something that looks commercial, looks industrial, and sticks out and -- we want this to be integrated. We want it to be kind of seamless in that development and -- and be a part and a component. I think what we have before you is -- is really good provisions that will tighten it down and if it -- if a project comes through and the Council or the Commission doesn't believe that the request meets these provisions, they deny it. That's why we asked for a conditional use permit. Councilman Borton made the comment when -- when we came through with the R-15, you know, I -- I don't want you -- you know, to come back and ask for a DA modification. So , how we have handled that is we have held off on signing our development agreement and brought this ordinance amendment through the process and, then, what the staff has recommended is that, then, we file a development agreement modification prior to the development agreement being signed and executed. So, that's how we have handled that, not to create a situation that you have to deal with down the road. So, I will be submitting that this week, because -- because my deadline is June 18th for returning that DA back to your staff attorney. We ask the Council to support this. You know, we are -- we are trying to be creative in our planning and -- and make a better community and I think this is a great step and I hope that a lot of the other large multi-family developments will -- will look at this model and -- and -- and go down the path that we are going and I think Graye wanted to say a couple words in closing. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 43 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 41 of 79 Wolfe: Madam Mayor, Members of City Council, Graye Wolfe. 14 -- Ten Mile Development. 1409 North Main Street in Meridian. We were here six months ago. I just was trying to remember six months ago. It seems like it was like a month and a half ago. We -- we debated in here and you guys nicely kind of coached us through how to make this thing work and we are very appreciative of the staff, the time that we have spent on it. We think what we finally got for -- I mean I have never sat through a three hour debate in a Planning and Zoning meeting, but it was thorough and it was good and I think it's been well thought out, what we have here. I think they uncovered every stone . Our biggest problem was as an accessory use only being able to rent, if you recall, to those people in the development. So, I think with this being said, we are still very excited about renting to the residents, but this also gives it -- for that area a feel that gets done what you guys all wanted in the original planning -- and the original Council meeting -- I think we accomplished that and I think we did it -- and even did more than what I envisioned having it happen, because as things develop in all these different places , I truly believe that in subdivisions or multi-family, this is going to be a nice thing for the City of Meridian to kind of have to be able to use it , because I do believe residents like having their stuff close. So, even though we were the first one to do this, I think it's a great plan. I'm hoping you guys will support it. I don't think we have forgotten anything. We are very very happy with the design. We haven't changed any of that . The landscaping. The look. The architecture. I think it's going to tie in nicely out there and we are very excited about hoping to move forward with this. So, if you have any questions I will answer them. If not, thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Borton, did you have a question? Borton: I do. If I could. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Borton: A question for Becky, actually. McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, yes? Borton: Yes. Thank you for taking the laboring oar from the development community to bring the -- an opportunity for improvement and some flexibility. The one -- and if this was discussed earlier I missed it, but the only concern that -- that jumped out to me was -- and your comment reminded me of it. The example of -- with regards to the eight acres. McKay: Yes. Borton: The example of -- if you have an application that comes in that's 15 acres and they want to do eight acres of self storage , if they complied with everything else, I don't think we could -- we could deny a CUP that's eight acres in a 15 acre development. I just don't think legally we could do it. If -- if for the reason was we wished it was fewer than eight acres. So, the thought was can you capture the same intent by having the acreage Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 44 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 42 of 79 of the facility capped at an X percentage of the overall development size and accomplish the same goal. McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, that was brought up at the Commission. If you could -- you know, if you could capture it that it -- it could only be a certain percentage -- Borton: It seems like that would provide the flexibility for the hundred acre property -- McKay: Correct. Borton: -- and address the concern if it was 15 acres. McKay: Correct. And so -- you know. And, then, some of the other members were convinced that, you know, maybe we should just put a cap on it and like our site is four acres, maybe it should just be five, because the average commercial type storage facility is typically eight to ten or larger. The big ones are larger, but the ones that I have done in Meridian range between eight and ten. So, you know, maybe five is the right number and we are comfortable with that, you know, or -- I don't know if Bill has an idea of, you know, a percentage of the overall project, but no more than eight. I don't know. De Weerd: Yeah. You could do an either/or -- not to exceed. McKay: Not to exceed eight. Borton: And, Madam Mayor, I was just trying to capture that. De Weerd: Yeah. I understand that. Borton: There is a flexibility, but also -- because we can't deny a CUP if the -- if you do it eight acres, I think even if we said, shucks, we wish it was smaller, we are still stuck. So, I think the percentage would be the only way to -- Mr. Nary, correct me if I'm wrong. If you had a 20 acre development and we wish ed it was only four acres, the only way to require that limitation is to have a percentage be the matrix that says how big it can be. Even if you have a cap, you know, a percentage or not to exceed X, you could always go up to the X. So, if that's a concern we need to address -- or at least try and account for. I couldn't think of a solution, other than a percentage, as being the formula that says -- and it might still get you the size you need to be successful, but it's still a formula that goes with the size of the project. De Weerd: Can you give a percentage just as long as it doesn't exceed -- or an acreage, just as long as it doesn't exceed X percent of the development? Borton: Should -- Madam Mayor, like -- the thing that jumped out -- the simple math was, you know, an acreage not to exceed ten percent. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 45 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 43 of 79 De Weerd: Yeah. Borton: The storage facility can't exceed ten percent of the overall -- McKay: Overall -- Borton: -- acreage. McKay: -- acreage. And no more -- what are we -- Graye, what's our -- what's our total acreage? Wolfe: Twenty-three. McKay: Twenty-three. Wolfe: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council -- and you're going down a really good road, but one of the things I think -- because I have owned a couple storage facilities in the past that I have sold -- in fact, the one next to the church on Ten Mile I originally developed. The issue is with this, the larger they are, the more encouraging it is to have people do RV storage and that's -- RV storage takes so much more room. So, if you're limiting it to residential only, all enclosed, the density of the number of units is better, which means I -- in my opinion you don't have to have them be as big and so the ones that are eight, ten, 14 acres, they have outdoor RV covered storage, so lowering the roof to 35 and doing that prevents that. So, I think you can get more density inside a smaller development. With the apartments there is 370 apartment units there. So, the density of the residence, in my opinion, has to be taken into consideration when you're looking at a percentage. You got 370 people living in 23 acres, really; right? And depending upon the density of the building, I think you got to take that into consideration versus a subdivision where you have got houses, you don't need as much percentage for storage; right? So, that -- you got a problem with the density of the number of residents living there. If we did ten percent on this one it would be 2.4 acres, because we have got 24 acres, roughly. So, that would be 2.4 and this one's about 3.8. So, I think you're going down a good road there, but the density of the number of residents versus a residential subdivision, which I personally think a residential subdivision this would be a great amenity to a subdivision , to keep the traffic down, you're going to have to have, in my opinion, less percentage as you would with an apartment complex when you got more density of residents. So, that was what they -- that's what the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think to a certain extent, kind of struggled with on the percentage, because you got to take into consideration the number of people. So, hopefully, that helps a little bit. De Weerd: Maybe it's in percentage to the density, other than the increase. Yeah. Number of units. I don't know. Wolfe: Excuse me. One thing that I remember -- it was a long meeting, but one of the things they had mentioned with this is that they wanted to make sure that the Council -- and I don't know if legally I'm doing this right. Bill -- we were talking about it. But you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 46 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 44 of 79 guys have the ultimate say so on the size in this arena. So, you could say, okay, it's apartments, so we understand it might have to be a little small. My point is that they wanted to preserve you guys having the say so and hear how big that is. So, if someone came in and wanted to take advantage of this , they couldn't. But that's where the eight came in. Eight they thought was a pretty good number that would give you guys the latitude to decide how big you wanted it. Is that -- is that kind of the way it came up in the meeting? McKay: Yeah. I think -- I think they were -- Becky McKay. They were leaving it up to the Council to make that decision, because there were -- there were varying opinions, you know, should it be capped at five? Should it be eight? Should it be seven? I think one of them made a comment -- could we put a provision in there that it would be no more than eight, but of a size and scale consistent with the development that it accompanies, so that you didn't end up with eight acres of houses and eight acres of mini storage, so -- Wolfe: And that -- and that one jumped off the page. I can say, hey, this -- a ten acre subdivision you don't need six acres of storage and you would be able to see what the developer was trying to do and say you don't need that much and if it's not outdoor RV type storage, then, you shouldn't need that big of a site to get -- to accomplish that. Borton: And it might be a problem that would be very remote and, Mr. Nary, if we can cut to the chase, if I'm -- if I'm wrong on that -- I don't think the Council can decide -- can reject it and reduce the size if it is compliant. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I would agree with you. I think it would be problematic if the only basis of a CUP denial was because it met all the standards, but we don't like that it's more than -- or a half or more of the subdivision. But could you reach the same -- it sounds like the eight acres was really a consensus opinion on the appropriate size regardless of the size of the facility. So , if -- if the direction was that it could be no larger than eight acres and no more than four -- and no more than 40 percent of the building -- or the -- or the lot size. So, it is less than half, but still can't exceed eight acres. So, you could build up to eight acres, depending on what size it is, but if it's -- if it's -- whatever 40 percent works out to eight acres, you know, it would have to be that size. So, you're still going to be less than half , but no more than eight acres. Is that kind of where -- it sounds like where the conversation was? That seemed the tipping point for folks was the half. Or more than half. So, if you said that -- and we will have to figure out artfully how to say that, but eight seems like a sweet spot and less than half seems like the concern. Wolfe: That was articulated well. That's right. McKay: We agree with Mr. Nary. Something like, yeah, 40 percent or 30 -- 35 or -- something like that. And no greater than eight. So, you're capping it in two ways. Borton: Does that make sense, my concern on the CUP? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 47 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 45 of 79 McKay: Yes. Yes, sir. Borton: Okay. Council, any other questions on that point? Thanks, Becky. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, any sign-ups? Johnson: Mr. President, no. No sign-ups. Borton: Okay. No sign-ups. Anyone in the audience who might wish to come forward and provide some testimony. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Denise, welcome. LaFever: My name is Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way and as the rest of you know, I have been in these meetings for a long time and I came here to tell you that residents do care about storage and they have opposed storage on multiple times. I'm opposed to a UDC text change to avoid a Comprehensive Plan change. Nampa has a six month freeze on storage facilities right now. Call a spade a spade. This -- this is a commercial -- commercial use into and next to a residential with just a simple CUP process. This impacts all of Meridian. No guarantee that it is incidental and no way for the city to monitor. Eight acres was a big topic of conversation during the P&Z meetings. This deteriorates the public process for elected officials to weigh in on the decision, which we expect you to do. We have a process right now. It's called a rezone. If they want to have that project approved, they just simply rezone it using commercial. I am not opposed to the project that they are asking for at Ten Mile to have that storage. I think it's great. Go ahead and do a comprehensive plan change. Go ahead and do a commercial thing. It makes sense there. That's fine. I am opposed to an absolute across-the-board change when I have sat here and watched residents time and time again have things to say about residential. This is just a commercial use next to residential, which our residents have opposed. So, are there any questions? Borton: Thank you, Denise. Palmer: Mr. President? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Denise, is it more palatable that it's being restricted to R-15s and R-40s and not necessarily R-4 and R-8s? LaFever: Absolutely not. This is across the board. Our residents have opposed it . We have a process to accommodate it. If they would like to go back throu gh and have that storage next to the multi-family, by all means ask for a rezone for commercial. I'm a hundred percent on board with that. Borton: But, Denise, doesn't that get you to the exact same spot? LaFever: But it's not a sweeping, easy to do -- the CUP process it's too easy to go through. It -- it doesn't go through the whole entire City Council process and doesn't allow Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 48 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 46 of 79 the appropriate way for our residents to weigh in and -- and we do expect our City Council Members to act on our behalf. This is at a time that Nampa is going back through and putting a freeze on storage and here we are making it even easier for something I know our residents have set here in these Council meetings and have opposed. So, including -- including Spurwing. I -- that -- all of my neighbors were there talking about the storage next to Spurwing, so -- Borton: Thank you. LaFever: Any other questions? De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Okay. Any -- any other testimony? Becky? McKay: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. Becky McKay. I guess to -- to kind of counter the comments, we are not trying to make it easy. We are trying to make it hard. We are trying to provide provisions where it's highly scrutinized and to go in and rezone to commercial is not appropriate in some areas. That's spot zoning. We had this extensive discussion about the Ten Mile specific area plan and that there is definite need for storage, but yet there is no provisions for any storage and we have multiple multi- family projects in that area that will benefit from this and utilize this. We want to make this process very stringent. This is not to replace commercial storage. This is to create a complimentary storage facility that is accompanying and related to a particular development, not to go into an existing neighborhood and bring in an intrusive storage facility and that's what was trying to go -- happened on Chinden and why there was so much opposition to it. You had an established primarily single family detached neighborhood and, then, they were trying to bring in intrusive storage right on the state highway. This is a different animal. This is a small scale animal and, like I said, you know, it's going to benefit the city. What's happening in Na mpa -- it's all these large, cheap, commercial, tin storage facilities going up, because they don't have architectural standards. They don't have all the landscaping standards and controls that the City of Meridian has and so they are cropping up all over. Aesthetically they are not pleasing and they are sucking up all their industrial land and if you -- if you had read the article, that was the primary concern that they are losing too much industrial land, too much commercial land to mini storage, that they think a higher and better use needs to be looked at, because it's being -- they felt it was being wasted and that's why the moratorium is there. This is not the same animal and I ask the Council to support it, because we think we have -- we have come a long way and we have -- we have -- we have really done a good job and -- and your staff is supportive of it and I think when they see it -- I mean I think other development, especially multi-family, will look at that as a model and go, hey, that is -- that is a good idea and if they can meet all these standards and go through the process and the hurdles we have gone through -- and we still have to come through as a conditional use. So, our -- our path is not ending here. Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 49 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 47 of 79 Cavener: A question. De Weerd: Yeah. Don't run off. Cavener: Don't run off, Becky. I think I have only got one -- maybe a comment from you. My opposition is not to the project, but I think I do have some reservations about the process and I want to applaud you and staff for working really hard to make this arrow as sharp and as efficient and as like perfect as possible, but you talked about that, you know, going for a rezone was kind of spot zoning and I can't help but feel that this process is a little bit like spot zoning and you commented that you think that this would be utilized across our community, but you haven't seen or heard anything about this from anybody else and this feels a little bit like it's a response to the application that you guys had before six months ago. So, help me understand how this UDC text amendment change is really going to benefit our community when we haven't seen these types of requests before. McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, what we are seeing in the development community, as prices escalate the lot sizes are getting smaller. Also we are seeing increasing densities. They are trying to be more cost effective, better utilization of land. All the covenants for all the subdivisions that I have ever done do not allow for any recreational vehicle storage on the lots and I have had maybe two subdivisions in all these years that had RV garages as an option, but there -- but those are higher end. So, the people that may have a jet ski or a motorcycle or just have too much personal goods and all they can afford is a 1,200 square foot house with a two car garage , need storage and so the demand for storage has really gone up dramatically. As , you know, these prices escalate and as development -- when -- you know, when people can go out and buy an acre lot and put your RV right there beside your -- your driveway, you know, we didn't have these issues, but -- but times have changed and I -- I think we are trying to create an option that will be beneficial to the community, because other multi-family developments, instead of having personal goods in those garages , will be able to have this as an option. They can build it, integrate it into the development. You know, we are always -- we are always criticized for single use on projects, you know, diversify. This is diversity and if someone in these apartments has to drive five miles to go to their storage unit and, then, drive back to the apartment, you know, that's ten miles on our public street network and if we can minimize that, because it's right there and promote it -- and that's what Graye is going to do is -- they will get a break if they lease in there. So, it's -- it's intended for that use, but we just don't want to block everyone else out. Cavener: Madam Mayor. I -- I don't disagree with what you shared. To me it's just that the process of doing a UDC text amendment change to accomplish the same result -- I'm just not getting that. I guess I just don't understand why -- how this process benefits our community outside of your specific project. Does that make sense? Am I articulating it the right way? McKay: Well, Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I think -- I don't think you want to see a lot of apartment complexes coming in and asking for comp plan change and rezones for four or five acres or six acres, because they have a problem and they want to have Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 50 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 48 of 79 mini storage. I mean your land use map -- you have your use matrix and so it's impossible -- we -- we can't come in and ask for a commercial zone, nor could somebody else in many many areas that are predominantly residential. That is a spot zoning. So , we are trying to design something that's residential compatible. If I come in and I get this commercial, then, I can come in as a CU and I don't have all these provisions and it may not -- the facility may not look residential compatible, it may not have the same architectural style. People may complain, oh, that's ugly. You know, boy, that detracts from our neighborhood. So, I think, you know, we are -- we are trying to find something in the middle. We see a need. We see the ability to fill that need and still protect the city and still protect the residents and have something that is not of a commercial look. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Becky, I -- I love this for you guys. I'm just not convinced how this looks for everyone else and so remind me of the -- the discussion that we had months ago. I remember the discussion. Did we talk about rezoning that four acres or did we talk about having you come back to us with a -- with a UDC amendment? What was -- what was the direction we gave you guys back -- I just don't remember what we said. McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I think there were -- the -- the Council was kind of kicking the ball around. I think the question was asked staff , does the Ten Mile area specific plan have any provisions for storage? Bernt: Could we rezone it storage? I mean was that the problem is that we just couldn't because of the Ten Mile -- McKay: Ye s. Staff said that that -- you know, to -- if they were to come in for say a commercial zone, then, we would have to get a Comprehensive Plan map amendment in the Ten Mile area specific plan and did we really want -- Bernt: Right. McKay: -- I mean was that really the appropriate route? I think, then, Caleb brought up the fact that, you know, we could look at other avenues, such as an ordinance amendment and I think the direction that you guys gave us was, you know, get with our staff, look at the options, see if there is a solution. If -- if there -- if this is a viable option -- maybe there isn't one, but if you can get with the staff and -- and come up with an idea, you know, we are open -- our ears are open, because we think this -- there is a need for it. It makes sense. We have multiple -- Bernt: For you guys it makes sense. McKay: -- we have three large apartment complexes out there. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 51 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 49 of 79 Bernt: For you guys it make sense. De Weerd: In that particular area. McKay: Area. Bernt: I get that. McKay: Correct. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, if I could just add to the conversation. So, it's just not this project that's pushing this forward. We have a master planned community up north for The Oaks project. As part of that DA they did have mini storage and that's what kind of predicated this eight acre minimum -- or maximum size is because they -- they had a lot set aside for mini storage to be ancillary or to be used with that master plan community. That subdivision has over a thousand homes, potentially, so eight acres will probably be underserved for that particular development. But that's why they included that, because it was a buffer to the interstate and they had that as part of their master plan, but under the current zoning of R-15 into which it's zoned, they would only be allowed to have that ancillary storage for that particular project for those residents. My experience with these commercial storage facilities is we have always done a spot zone for those, because under the current code if you want to have a residential storage facility next to a residential use, you have to do a comp plan change, you have to do a rezone in order to get the zoning in place for this to happen. So, this -- this is just adding -- the intent behind this is, one, to keep it smaller scaled and keep it more integrated, rather than having to tell the applicants when they come through with the standalone commercial industrial storage facility, more than likely we are talking a rezone of the comp plan amendment with them anyways. There is no other mechanism in code to allow that use rather than going through that process or have it as an ancillary use. So, that's why when Caleb -- after we heard you during the public hearing for this particular project , we didn't feel a comp plan amendment for such a small piece of property in the Ten Mile area specific plan was appropriate. We didn't know how we could get the applicant there. We brainstormed this idea and originally when I started this idea out with Becky and Caleb and I, we talked about limiting it to five acres. That -- that really was the intent is let's keep it smaller scaled, because if you get too big and, then, again, it's not -- I mean it's not compatible to the residential area. So, that's why that five acres seemed to be the right number. But Becky came forward with the eight acre minimum -- maximum for the eight acres because of that Coleman project up north and that's where we landed on eight and that's why it was so much -- it was talked about at Planning and Zoning Commission, because what -- where do you strike that balance. For this applicant five acres is going to be fine for them. For Coleman when they come forward, if they want to do something, if this is an eight acres, then, they are going to have to do something -- comp plan amendment or a rezone and move forward in that particular fashion. But I just wanted to give you some context that, yeah, any storage facility typically in my experience has been a comp plan amendment and/or a rezone or a DA mod or something to that effect in order to get that land use in place to serve a residential facility or -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 52 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 50 of 79 De Weerd: Well -- and I think the key to this and what makes it different than the storage facility on Chinden is that wasn't a component of a development, it was something that came in totally new. I don't know. I -- I see what you're trying to do. I -- I think that this kind of service in a higher density area is an amenity that could be considered an amenity that is important to those living in those areas. I understand the conversation, but as part -- if this comes in as part of that residential development, it certainly -- it gives everyone fair notice, they know what's coming in, they know what they are building around. That's a lot better than coming in with a Comprehensive Plan and a rezone request, because that's after the fact and it's usually after people are living there. McKay: Yes, Madam Mayor, that -- that's correct. And, Councilman Bernt, if you're more comfortable with a five acre cap, we are agreeable to that. Bernt: What about a four acre cap? McKay: We are agreeable to a four acre cap. Whatever -- whatever you're comfortable with. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-F. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: This is an awesome opportunity for a fantastic amenity to be built into future projects coming into Meridian. I mean the point that she made of -- I mean try to find a storage unit in this town. You have to pass three or four to get to one that has one available. I mean it's just crazy. And to be able to have the opportunity to have one in your development is -- is huge. I think it would be an extremely popular amenity and we are building it in here with ample restrictions to where -- I mean we -- we have got, for example, those apartments on Meridian Road that have the garages that back up to -- to Meridian Road, I don't perceive this being much more of a bigger footprint or effect on the neighborhood than that single body line of storage structure with all the restrictions that are built into here. I would go one further in all the discussion on the -- the acres and whatnot to do there, to cap it at eight and restrict it to no more than 35 percent of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 53 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 51 of 79 entire development. So, with that I move that we approve the UDC change with everything that's been -- that's proposed here and capping it at eight with restricting it to no more than 35 percent of the entire project. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Can I find out how we came up with 35 percent? Palmer: Madam Mayor. The -- the project that they will be proposing is 23 -- or 17.3 percent of their project and there was talk of being less than half I think maybe 40 percent. I'm just trying to picture, you know, a development as Councilman Borton had talked about maybe you got 20 acres, I think maybe even 40 percent of a 20 acre project might be significant. Actually, probably pretty significant no matter the size of the project. So, I think 35 percent gives an opportunity, depending on -- on the size to where it could still be enough to make it worthwhile doing, while not restricting it too much that in a smaller development -- you know, if you were to do 20 percent in a really small development it wouldn't be worth building, you know, five and a half units. So, the 35 percent would make it -- where hopefully it would be done in a smaller project, but still capping it at eight for the bigger ones anyway, where, then, it would be a much smaller percentage than the 35. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Briefly. The reason I'm supportive of it is the restrictions that the staff has helped craft here that allow it to be successfully integrated into a residential community. I think the TN-R, TN-C design standards are one of the most important components of this that can make it successful and can be integrated. So , it's the right way to get to the right solution, so that's why I'm supportive of it. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. I agree. I think -- I thank you Becky and Graye for taking all that was said and massaging it to the point that we have gotten here, because it seems like the way that we are going is -- I don't know anybody hardly at this point that doesn't have storage and I think to have it easy access to the residential, to look like the -- the apartments is a win-win, because I see people all the time -- I'm between two storage units within a mile of each other and I see people driving back and forth all the time and so I think it helps cut down on traffic, it makes it easier, it does become an amenity and for that reason I will support it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 54 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 52 of 79 De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I just really love our City Council. We wrestle with this, you know, I'm sure, again, through all of our homework we read and probably watch ed the lengthy Planning and Zoning Commission hearing where that body was equally split on this. Again, I don't think we heard anybody tonight that had any issues with the intended outcome of what was before us in terms of that specific application. I just -- I worry about the precedent that we set, so I will continue to oppose this motion, but the tea leaves will probably go another way tonight, but I wanted to commend this body for doing good homework to bring forth your decision on all these issues that we have had before us tonight, including this one. De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Madam Mayor, thank you. I commend, you know, Becky and Graye for coming forth with this. I mean I remember our first discussion was -- was lengthy and it was hard, it was tough. This is a very unique situation. I do believe that we are crafting an ordinance for Graye's development. I -- it scares me to think that we are thinking about adding storage units as possible amenities to future subdivisions and developments . That scares me. I think that that's -- I get that there is a need, but I get there is also a place and in the middle of a residential project isn't ideal and so I would -- I personally would want more discussion, more thought into this, not to the extent that Nampa did by, you know, putting a moratorium on building, you know, storage units per se, but this -- this could have a powerful effect for our community going forward and I'm just not right now in a position where I can -- I just can't wrap my arms around it one hundred percent. You know, eight acres is a lot. Walk right next to a residentia l -- I mean even if we were to, you know, maybe take the -- what is this -- what is this -- what is the -- this applicant's -- what is the zoning that for -- for this -- for this multi-family area, the 23 acres? Is it R-40 or R-15? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the -- they went through the rezone process from L-O to R-15, but that has not been finalized, because they haven't executed their development agreement yet. Becky was saying if this gets approved they are going to ask for an extension of a development agreement modification to sign it, so they can go through the conditional use process once this code gets in effect and try to establish it as -- under these guidelines. Bernt: Madam Mayor. But just the -- just the multi-family part of it, not -- not -- Parsons: It's R-15, sir. De Weerd: Any other discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 55 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 53 of 79 Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, nay; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, nay. De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Item 7-G -- Council, do you want a five minute break? Okay. (Recess: 8:42 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.) G. Public Hearing for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: A Text Amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division De Weerd: Okay. I will call this meeting back to order and we are on 7-G, public hearing for the 2019 UDC Text Amendment, H-2019-0049 and I will open with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The last item on the agenda this evening for land use applications is the 2019 UDC Text Amendment. This is a joint application actually between myself and the Planning Division and our Code Enforcement Department. So, our code amendments have been in process since approximately June of last year. There have been several changes that come forth, so we delayed it a little bit longer in order to get those compiled and if I'm not mistaken, I believe Mr. Everett was in front of you back in February talking about some code changes that you endorsed and asked him to bring forward as part of an application that he needed to take forth -- to bring forward and so rather than submit two separate applications, Rich and I worked together, went ahead and compiled a 17 page table for you with all the proposed code changes that are before you this evening. I would mention to Council that the code enforcement changes that we worked together on are in the light gray highlight on this particular table and, then, all the other items are Planning Division changes. But all of the changes that are part of this table are specifically changes to Title 11 , the zoning ordinance, and I think Rich and Legal will probably come forward with other changes to other titles through a different process. But our code requires that this come through as Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 56 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 54 of 79 a public hearing process. I would also mention -- so, that the -- there is a wide range of code changes. They start in chapter one and they go all the way through to chapter five in multiple and numerous sections. A lot of these are cleanups -- cleanup items, things that we have encountered over the last year since we brought forward the previous text amendment and some of them are new items and I would mention to the Council that at least the Planning Division changes were actually vetted through the BCA and the UDC for their recommendation and Rich's were not, because they followed, again, a different process. He came before you -- you guided him to bring forth some changes to help him and his team do a better job of enforcing our code and that's what brings -- brings us before you this evening. So, I won't go through all the specific items on all 17 pages, because, again, a lot of these are cleanup, but I did want to at least highlight some of the -- the more substantial changes for you this evening. We realize that we are under a Comprehensive Plan map amendment -- or update to our Comprehensive Plan. We feel like these changes don't impair that process at this point. Again, these are cleanups. We basically had these items on the books about a year ago or so and now we have finally gotten to a point that we are actually able to bring them forward to you and take -- get your consideration on them this evening. So, quickly, on this particular one I think a lot of the changes to our definition sections -- probably the biggest one for Planning is adding the definition of linear open space to our definition of open space. Currently in o ur irrigation -- like when we require the tiling or piping -- the piping of canals, we allow -- the Council can grant a waiver to allow those to remain open as long as they are part of a linear open space and we don't really have that defined in the code. So, what does that mean? So, adding that to our definition makes some sense and tying that back to if -- if a water facility is to remain opened and incorporated as part of the development, then, we have some book ends or some parameters on that and we have also added that to our open space requirements and I will touch on that when I get to that particular page of the table. But a lot of these text amendments -- or a lot of these definition changes are based on some of the clarification that our code enforcement team needed. Any questions on this page? I will -- I will try to keep it as informal, so don't feel like you can't interrupt me with any questions as we go through the presentation. I want to make sure I capture all of your -- your comments. I would mention to the Council that the iteration that's before you this evening -- there are some changes that came about as a result of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This project was originally scheduled for the -- the May 2nd hearing. We had some -- some written testimony and some public testimony that necessitated some changes to the code provisions that we were bringing forward and so the Commission actually continued that out for two weeks. We prepared a memo, made those changes, and got them out -- back to our stakeholders for comments and those changes are reflected in this document this evening and that's why we have so -- we have no really outstanding issues for you this evening, because we have already kind of vetted that out and got that cleaned up as part of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing process. So, item number -- the item that you see highlighted here in blue and highlighted in yellow, that was -- we just basically said remove it from the table. It just reverts back to what code is already. One of the developers wanted common driveways to be allowed off of private streets and currently they are restricted in code to do that and so we didn't want to open that up to all developments to take common drives off of private streets, so we really wanted to at least remove it and let code stand the way it is and we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 57 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 55 of 79 will look at that at a later date with maybe take it up with the UDC focus group next year when we come forward with other changes and once we have the comp plan in place. The dimensional standards that you see right now is not explicitly listed . That side load garages are allowed in the R-8. Well, they are allowed, but there is no setbacks called out for those, so this came forward as part of the developm ent community's request to allow different setbacks for side loaded garages. So, we -- we would have, essentially, a ten foot setback for a garage if you had a side load garage. Page number three. This was a request that I recall the Mayor putting forward -- was for shooting ranges in particular. Currently the way the code is written an indoor shooting range is defined as an indoor arts and rec -- arts and recreation entertainment facility and we do have one actually constructed in the Gramercy development and we have had numerous code violations as part of that going into there and so we went back, we heard that, we took that direction, we created -- not only created a definition for this use, but also created specific use standards, so that we could better manage and enforce those types of uses when they go into developments -- gets developed on land. So, right now what we are proposing this evening is that we allow them as a conditional use in the M-E zone and a principally permitted use in the I-L zone. So, we restricted them further than what they currently are allowed, rather than allowing them to go into commercial districts. They are not going to be allowed to -- they are only going to be allowed in, essentially, three zones and I will get into the specific use standards as I get further into my presentation. The other big item on this particular page is restaurant uses and I think our -- our fire marshal was here talking to you about some parking concerns and some access issues with a particular development off of Meridian Road and Overland where we can get a concentration of restaurant uses in our multi-tenant building -- commercial buildings and that creates a parking issue and limited access issues, because people are parking all over the place and so we took that to heart, we went ahead and proposed more stringent specific parking standards for a restaurant use and so if this code is enacted we are actually going to be requiring double the amount of parking for restaurant uses than what we do for other retail or commercial uses and I will explain that again a little bit further as I get into the specific use standard, which is later in my presentation. The biggest item that -- probably the biggest change that was talked about -- or at least from the irrigation district's perspective is they were at the Planning and Zoning Commission and they were concerned that the city was requiring waterways to remain open as part of developments. They were concerned about public safety and they -- to be quite honest, they never even knew that we had this section of code in our ordinance and so we tried to explain to them that there is nothing new here in the code that we are -- that we are trying to do, we have always allowed the Council the ability to waive or -- waive tiling of canals or integrate those as part of a development and so what we have done here -- we have kind of backpedal a little bit on this particular code change with the irrigation based on some feedback that we got from the irrigation district. So, we reverted back to code. But there are some significant changes -- or at least two primary changes that you should be aware of. One is in particular to 2-A here, if you can see my cursor. So, currently the code allows you to grant the waiver of the tiling of the canal. We are basically changing this to align with Chapter 5. There is a table in the UDC that -- that determines the decision making body for certain applications and so right now if it's an annex -- so, in this particular case if there is -- a subdivision comes before you the Council is the decision making body Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 58 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 56 of 79 for the tiling of a canal. If the applicant were to come forward with a commercial development or staff level application and it had an open ditch on it , there would be no mechanism for staff to waive that requirement, it would have -- they would have to appeal staff's condition to you in order to take action on the application. This particular change allows the director to make that call and allow that to be tiled or left open as based -- based on their application submittal, based on them being the decision making body on an administrative application. And, then, Item D is the work that we did with the irrigation district. So, that's the one where -- we are not going to be the -- the hammer for them, but what we are going to do through the pre-application process and through the development process we are going to let them know that any improvements to an irrigation easement or facility is going to require written approval from them. So , that wasn't explicitly in code, but we made it a little bit stronger language for them, so that we can communicate that to applicants as they work with us on land use application s. So, based on the feedback that I received from the irrigation district, they were not entirely content with that language, but they certainly understood that that was a better solution to have this language in here, so we are not having both of our -- what we don't want to do is have competing codes; right? The irrigation district is saying we want the irrigation facility piped and the City Council granting a waiver. We have had those situations where they felt like they have had to allow the -- the ditch to remain, because Council granted a waiver when they really wanted it tiled. So, I told them we would increase our communications, but we want to make it clear to Council that we want to hear from them, that -- or the application submittal. We want to -- we want feedback from them as to tell us whether or not they would support it being tiled or would support the waiver for it to be -- to remain open. Borton: Madam Mayor? One -- one quick question on that point. So, D, does that delegate the final decision to the irrigation entity or does it still remain with us? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Councilman Borton, it does not. No. You guys are the land use authority. All that's saying is that they are going to have to obtain approval for whatever improvements are allowed in that easement . So, if you were to waive it remain -- if you waive the tiling of the canal, then, they would -- my understanding is they would grant it, but, then, any other pathways or landscaping is part of that open space or that waterway being open would still go through them through a license agreement. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Madam Mayor, it just seems like when it says -- requires written approval of the appropriate irrigation entity, implies that the entity has the discretion to deny approval. They have to approve it, means they have a choice to not approve it. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's -- certainly there is prerogative if they want to go down that --. Borton: But what if they say no? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 59 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 57 of 79 Parsons: Well, I think that's -- they feel like they can't at this, because, again, you -- you guys are the land use authority. All they can do is control what happens in their easement. De Weerd: And they -- this is -- this is current practice. Parsons: This is current practice, yeah. De Weerd: We have had -- we have had some developments have to come back, because they haven't had approval by the irrigation district and it's been a condition of their approval and so they have had to come back and modify it, because they could not get that approval. Parsons: Yeah. There may be an extra level of scrutiny there, but I think the key here, Councilman Borton, is that from my -- from my perspective on working on land use applications, is we would appreciate something in writing from the irrigation district as part of the application submittal, so that as you guys take those requests under consideration, you know whether or not the irrigation district is going to support the waiver or not. That's really about -- that's the conversation that needs to happen, so that we are not put in that particular situation. The other item was -- was fencing as well. So, they -- they -- our code allows a wide array of fencing along the irrigation facilities and their -- their preference these days are to have all the fencing along irrigatio n facilities, because a lot of times when they are doing their maintenance they like to spray -- I hate to use the word Roundup, but they like to spray the weeds with Roundup and kill the weeds along their -- their bank ditches and sometimes Roundup will get sprayed in the residents' backyards with the open vision fencing and they have had numerous complaints and so they would -- their preference would be to allow solid fencing along those facilities , but, again, our code allows flexible -- for different fencing styles along those waterways, so I don't think we want to go that route anymore. We will let our code kind of drive what fencing we want to have and, then, we will certainly take those conversations under advisement with your direction when we come through with applications. But we allow either a four foot solid, six foot semiprivate, wrought iron or open vision or four foot with two feet of private fencing on top. So, there is -- there is a whole bunch of fencing that can apply. I think -- again, it's a conversation we need to have with the applicant and they need to share their intent with the irrigation district as to what fencing they want along that waterway. But, again, we are flexible. We can work with the irrigation district, we can work with applicants, based on our current fencing standards. Outdoor lighting. This is one that's coming to you for our code enforcement officers. They have received numerous complaints and, basically, it's -- I think what they are trying to do is just make this more enforceable for them on how to assess light trespass and so that's -- the first slide that I shared with you -- at least the first page you saw a lot of definitions related to lumens, foot candles, light trespass, all of those are a result of this particular change to our outdoor lighting standards. So, I know some of the Council Members may have some questions on this section, so, again, Rich is here if you have any particular questions on this section before we move on. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 60 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 58 of 79 Everett: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. Rich Everett from Code Enforcement. Anybody have any questions about this section we can answer them now before Bill moves on with the others. De Weerd: Rich, would you like to give any background to what the changes are that you're proposing? Everett: Sure. Thank you. So, this is -- this is the changes I brought forward before you in February. Nothing has been amended, but to sum it up, it provides for some units of measure that we can use in the field when assessing light trespass. The current code, the way it's written, is very specific to development and not the end user of the land , essentially. It's written in a way that would provide for limitations as the land is being developed, but once the land is being used by whatever the user is, if it's a residence or it's a -- a business, the wording doesn't allow for us to take -- us being Code Enforcement -- to take any action. Lumens was the chief unit of measurement that's used in the code and that did not allow for us to take a measurement in the field practically. It's a laboratory based measurement. So, the change would be to use foot candles and let us take those measurements in the field. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions on that? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Madam Mayor, thank you. Rich and I had a good chat about this one -- on the issues today. Rich, a question popped up to my mind after -- after we spoke, because I hate to catch you off guard, but the language -- the code text, does that come from like a national best practice organization? Is that something that legal drafts based on the feedback that you have provided, that planning pulled together? Who comes up with the -- the copy, essentially, that -- that we are being asked to approve? Everett: Sure. This -- this is all a product of myself and my team, meeting with Legal, going over the terminology being used, getting them to vet the terminology and make sure it's appropriate for the fit and, then, sitting down with the Planning folks, with Caleb and Bill, and making sure they are in agreement with how it reads and making sure that it's in line with the terminology we are already using or we are replacing and, then, a lot of it was derived from the Dark Sky Council, which is a body that a lot of lighting ordinances are derived from or at least that's the backbone of lighting ordinances across our country. We really strive to make sure that we were using terminology that was used across our country, so it would be very easy for the layperson to understand this code, because that -- that was a struggle that we had with -- or that we have with the current wording is it's very difficult for someone to understand it as we are explaining it to them using our code. Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up. I guess that -- that brings up a question. I think this will probably be for Mr. -- Mr. Nary. For Council, one of the things that Rich shared with Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 61 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 59 of 79 me and I think Planning shared with me as well is that a lot of these changes are based on feedback that we hear from a judge when code enforcement tries to enforce our code and it goes to court and so I guess my question might be for -- for Mr. Nary, have we shared these changes with -- with city prosecutors and do they feel confident in their ability to enforce this or defend our UDC text changes, yet they face a challenge in court. Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, I don't know the answer to your question. Mrs. Kane from my office is someone that normally works with Code Enforcement, so I don't -- I can't tell you whether or not she contacted Boise city or she just took the feedback. I know she does -- does talk to them a lot on these code issues. So, it would be unusual for me to say that she hadn't spoken with them , but I can't tell you for sure that she did. Cavener: Thanks. De Weerd: Anything further? Thank you, Rich. Everett: Okay. Thank you. Parsons: The next couple of slides coincide with the code changes that -- for the lighting to replacing graphics with more modern style graphics. Again, same with -- with this particular slide. Again this page -- probably the more notable one for Planning is the last one at the bottom of the page, landscape buffers to adjoining uses, and this is the particular one where I think this Council over the last few years has seen an increase in City Council waivers or City Council reviews, because CUPs have gone to Planning and Zoning Commission where we have had commercial uses up against residential districts and the only mechanism for them to seek relief to the landscape buffer when you're joined -- when a commercial use adjoins a residential use is to get a Council waiver under the current code and so this is one of those situations where, again, we change it from the City Council decision to the decision making body consistent with that table in Chapter 5 on -- depending on which application goes to which body, so you could technically have an administrative application, which grants the authority to the director to reduce the buffer. If it's a conditional use permit the Planning and Zoning Commission can grant the waiver and if it's an application in which impacts this particular body or this decision -- requires this decision body, then, again, it's still within your purview to -- to act on that waiver. So, again, it's just aligning it more consistently with other sections of the code. And, then, some of the other code enforcement changes here are things that Rich has, again, encountered with court cases that we are just trying to add some stronger language as far as the outdoor storage requirements and the rest of the items are pretty much clean up. Again this is code enforcement. Some parking issues that they are dealing with in residential subdivisions with -- with vehicles. I would mention to the Council that at one time we had entertained potentially looking at our RV parking standards in residential districts, but that was removed from this particular text amendment to maybe look at that at a later date, but at this point right now Code and Planning felt that this was the appropriate first step to address this issue and, then, we can revisit maybe some RV parking in the future if that's something that the Commission and/or Council desires. Next Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 62 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 60 of 79 item is just some cleanup of some -- some parking standards. I think the most notable one to make mention came from our development community and that was particularly when it comes to parking -- or excuse me. Yes. Parking for one or two bedroom unit homes. I think the Council -- as we have gone through this Comprehensive Plan update we all realize that we need to have more affordable component to our community. Things are getting expensive to live here and so this is one suggestion that we took from the applicant or the developer that basically said, you know, we should try to reduce our parking count for two bedroom units, so that we are not requiring every home to have a two car garage and a 20 by 20 parking pad when they are just a smaller home and so we took that to heart and we actually made that change. So, that's probably the biggest change on this one is that we are going to allow reduced parking for a one or two bedroom home now. So we can try to build some more affordability into the community. Next item is a cleanup. Basically just want to clean up our graphics for our sign code. Won't spend a lot of time on that. This is probably the biggest -- another big item of contention that came out of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as we went through the changes was our open space standards and I think this -- this body is pretty familiar with what we have tried to do over the last several years, trying to make this, one, more proportionate, but make it better and more understandable for the community. So , originally, when we came forward these changes were shared with the Council probably a year or so ago on how we could probably increase our open space within our developments and how can we do that. Staff went back to the drawing board and we have -- we have come before you over the years with different proposals , just never landed on how we -- the best way to do it at this point . We realized that it has -- this section has to be revamped in its entirely and we are willing to do that work as part of the UDC focus group as far as stakeholders getting involved , because we do think it's an important piece of our -- our zoning ordinance and it's an important component to our Comprehensive Plan. But it's based on the feedback that we heard from the development community with some of these changes was that it could actually be an impediment to development if we were not -- if we were to allow the open space -- or the landscape buffers to be removed from the open space calcs, because they were fearful that we would just get bare minimum landscaping along the street buffers and no real meaningful or an attractive streetscape -- an attractive street streetscape with these particular changes. So, we heard what the community said. We heard what our planning -- Planning and Zoning Commission said and we felt that it was probably appropriate to black that out, allow the code to remain as is, allow the buffers to continue to count, particularly the arterial street buffers will count 50 percent -- still remain 50 percent of the open space requirement count and, then, the collector streets will count in its entirety. But we did propose some minor cleanup changes -- changes, as I alluded to previously in my presentation, was that definition of linear open space , we added that to one of our qualified open space requirements and had some dimensional standards to that. You can see the words in with was -- was removed and that was a requirement from the Planning and Zoning Commission to strike those two words out of it -- out of here. But, again, this gives the developer the ability to develop that linear open space between residential lots and still count that towards their open space requirements. So, that's one cleanup item. So, there is -- there is a potential to increase open space or at least count open space differently I should say and the other two is what we count for retention facilities. Currently Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 63 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 61 of 79 if those are designed a certain way they can count towards open space , but I think what this body has seen over the years and what the city's encountered is sometimes these end up being just remnant lots left over in the middle of a subdivision that really have no recreational purpose and so we thought we should take a stab at this and at least say that if we are going to allow it to count as open space , that it has to be on a certain size lot and be visible from two sides of the street. So , it's -- it's to and through; right? It's a linear open space now. It becomes usable. You can do more than just a detention facility, but you can actually make it purposeful, rather than just a remnant. So, a remnant common lot in a subdivision. And, then, the other one -- excuse me. The other one was water ponds. When -- a lot of times we are seeing when development needs additional water rights for their property, they are creating these irrigation ponds in their open space. Well, if you're going to do that, then, also we want that developed with at least an amenity. So, it becomes something rather than just water intake and not being used for -- for anything. So, a couple cleanup items. Again, as I mentioned to you, we certainly want to look at this at a later date when we get the comp plan up and running and other sections of the code, probably come back with a larger text amendment later next year. Bernt: Madam Mayor? Hey, Bill. Parsons: Sir. Bernt: For the average citizen what did you just say in regard to open space? Parsons: The average citizen? We basically made very minimal changes to this particular section of code. What we are going to get is street buffers will continue to count towards open space and those open space lots that have a detention pond and /or a water amenity are going to have to up their game and provide mor e open space and more amenities. Essentially what I said. I think -- I think for this body -- for the Council it's important to note that the UDC focus group views this is an important -- something very important to look at and they are all on board to sit down and try to come up with some code solutions or revamp this entire section as well. So , we have got a lot of buy-in on that and we -- we see it -- it's certainly something that we need to look at. On the other item on this particular chart is the variance process. I think this came about as part of that Costco application and so we have determined that in looking at state code, the variance processes laid out in state code, access isn't really part of the requirements of the state code and what our code does require access to state highways to go through the variance process, but based on some of the findings that came out of that Costco, Last Rapids application, we determined that we may be in violation and that we probably need to mimic state law and so we are changing the variance requirements that if you want access to a state highway no longer requires a variance application to be submitted, but it still requires Council approval, so it's no different than when a developer comes before you and asks for an access to an arterial or collector roadway, it's the same thing here, you're going to want to make sure that you have ITD's approval and whether or not they have mitigated those concerns and whether or not you want to grant access to state highways. Moving forward, you won't be seeing anymore variance requests for accesses to state highways, it will be more of a waiver process like it's currently written in the code. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 64 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 62 of 79 And, then, the one item that I touched on previously, too, was the indoor shooting range and so some changes came out of the Planning and Zoning Commission. They wanted some book ends on how to measure those from properties, but I think that the biggest change here is that we are not going to allow them within 300 feet of a residential use, a daycare, education, their school, hospitals, nursing care facilities. So, trying to preserve that quality of life for those particular residents that may be living near these types of facilities. I think that was a -- definitely a good suggestion that came out of this. And, then, the restaurant use as well. There is the parking standard. So, as I mentioned to you, currently the way the code's written any restaurant use only requires one parking stall for 500 gross floor area of commercial space. In this particular instance we are actually going -- going the other way. We are going to add one per 250. So, again, as I mentioned to you earlier, we are going to double that parking requirement and if any tenant space is converted from a retail use to a restaurant use, then, the applicant is going to have to demonstrate what the parking count is for the entire development to ensure that they are still in alignment with our parking standards. It will go through a change of use with the Planning Department as part of that process. It's a hundred and thirty-three dollar application fee for what we call a CZC change of use. They will provide us a parking plan and how they -- they meet these calcs and, then, we can sign off on their TI or deny their request and they can appeal the application to this body if -- if they so choose. But I did want to at least share that with you and let you know that this is one of the proposed changes that came about. If you recall, we also talked about changes to the multi-family standard parking. But, again, we felt like we have a pretty good handle on that right now. So, at this time we haven't brought forth any changes to those standards . We will let that continue to remain as part of what we currently have on the books. I think staff has been communicating that better to our applicants that we want more parking with multi-family at pre-application meetings and, then, at some point we are -- also the Planning and Zoning Commission is also recognizing that there may be more parking needed for that. So, as part of that CUP process they are implementing more stringent standards for parking in multi-family development. So, I think we have got a pretty good handle on that right now. So, we -- we decided not to bring forward any changes to those parking requirements. The other item that I wanted to point out to the Council or -- as well is the change to our code -- if you recall we had -- last year or two we have had several continuances because of the way the P&Z Commission had to get in front of this body within 45 days of their decision and we are making a change now to stretch that out to 70 days, so we don't end up in -- get caught in those strange windows where we have to hear a project just to continue it, so that we are not in violation of our code. So, that was one of the recommended changes that we have -- we have got on the books for you this time, too, to avoid that confusion for our residents, because sometimes they don't understand why applications have to be continued for a certain reason per code. Next is the fees. So, I think we -- we had some feedback from our Legal Department that -- to remove the fee waiver from our code. So, that's the second from the bottom. And, then, as I mentioned to you kind of the previous discussion on the variance process, again, we are removing the access point to state highways from our variance requirements and, then, the last item is just a cleanup noise abatement along state highways , which is allowed through alternative compliance, so we are just adding it to this table to clean it up, make it more consistent. So, with that there were quite a few of the items that were Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 65 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 63 of 79 discussed during the public testimony. Happy to go through those if you would like me to, but you have it in front of you here on the hearing outline. If there is anything you would like me to dive in on, any of those particular issues, I'm happy to do that. I did mention to you that the Commission did make the one change and remove those two words and I would let the Council know that we did -- you should have received an e-mail from Denise LaFever, Sally Reynolds and Susan Karnes regarding this particular application to delay the approval of this until the new comp plan is in place. So, with that I will go ahead and conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. I'm sure Rich is happy to answer any questions as well. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill and Rich. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Did I miss it or is there a different definition between a tiny house versus a tiny mobile house? Everett: So -- and I will answer that, Madam Mayor and Council. We are dealing with an issue with tiny homes and mobile tiny homes. Mobile tiny homes are built upon a chassis, a framework with wheels, that could be pulled behind something and we are including the mobile tiny home into the recreational vehicle definition. So, it will be treated just the same. If that mobile home -- or that mobile tiny home, I'm sorry, can be pulled behind the vehicle, it's going to be treated as a recreational vehicle. We didn't want to create another class of homes that we were going to apply codes to or another class of vehicles that we were going to apply codes to, we decided to bring it right into the recreational vehicle definition and the codes that already applied to those to simplify things. Little Roberts: Thank you. Everett: Sure. De Weerd: Other questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. Everett: Thank you. De Weerd: Thanks, Rich. Thanks, Bill. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk. And we did have a request for Denise to have ten minutes as she represents a neighborhood association we have recognized and so -- Johnson: There were no additional signups. De Weerd: Okay. I will give her ten minutes. Good evening. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 66 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 64 of 79 LaFever: Good evening. Hello. My name is Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way and thank you, Mayor Tammy, for granting me the ten minutes to talk today. De Weerd: You bet. LaFever: I'm going to step through and give you the page numbers and the citations of things that we don't necessarily agree with or have concerns with . Page one, 11 -1A-1. We are concerned right here -- we did talk about in the steering committee having linear open space. I think this is premature and the way that it's written now we run the risk of further deteriorating our open space. So, at this time we are -- we are opposed to this. Also -- and excluding pathways and sidewalks. Borton: All right. I hate to interrupt real quick and stop the -- I just -- for clarity when you said the word steering -- LaFever: Yes. De Weerd: For the Comprehensive Plan. LaFever: Oh, the Comprehensive Plan. Borton: Okay. LaFever: We had talked about having these really cool linear paths along the irrigation ditch. The irrigation company wasn't really happy with that concept. Borton: I just wanted to know what entity or what organization you were ref erencing. LaFever: Yeah. It's a great concept. It's before its time. Mobile tiny homes, 11 -1-A-1, page two, I'm not opposed to those, but I think we really need to be careful about how we integrate those into our community and really look at the open space requirements and the amenity standards for doing that. Table 11-2A-6, concern about the side loaded garages, concern that we have enough space for people to adequately pull in and out of their garage space. We have seen in our neighborhoods where they are there, that it can cause some stress and some livability issues with the way that they are put into the developments page four, 11 -3A-6, we are opposed to changing the Council -- City Council as a decision making body. Page nine, once again, 11 -A-20, the tiny mobile homes, we are not opposed to it, we just want to make sure that we have standards and open space concerns that are built into this. 11 -3B-9C2, landscaping buffers. We are opposed to changing the City Council as the decision making body. Table 11 -- I'm sorry. Page 11 , Table 11 -3C-6. There is some confusion here as far as what happened to -- how does the 55 and older development go into this table. If it's in the actual dwelling duplexes and dwelling, single family, if it was added in there that would be great. If it's down in nursing or residential care, which we hope it's not, then, it needs to stay up there with -- with two plus for the cars, because the 55 and older community are very active and they are a generation that likes to have people over. Page 15, 11 -3G-3B, we are opposed to any Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 67 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 65 of 79 further reductions or deterioration of open space. Particularly we want to see the linear open space at this time removed until some point in time that this can be looked at in its entirety. We are disappointed that the P&Z pulled out the 50 percent buffer credit. We would have liked to have seen that go away. We would like to see open space redone to take into account usable open space, varied by density, also develop a system for credits for higher quality amenities. That's what we would like to see going forward. 11 -3H-3. We are opposed to having this language in here without firming this up saying that it's verifiable financial hardship, not just simply somebody comes and says this is a hardship for me. It needs to be a verifiable hardship that can't be overcome by waiting for the property to develop into the future or other alternative means. That is really important to me. 11-4 -- actually, there is nothing wrong with that one. Sorry. 11-5-4-B -- sorry, Mayor, I'm going to have to say this -- by approving this one that -- the quote that you said one time just echoes in my head. Doing this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I just really feel strongly that -- and a lot of people do that we don't want to turn our state facilities into Eagle Highway and have all of our state facilities like Eagle Highway. We need to be diligent about having commuter and alternative spaces. Look what happened with the vehicle that just had their accident on I-84. We need to have alternate routes and we are continually going away from that. In closing, I would like to say the vision survey results have very -- have been very clear that residents desire a Meridian where open space is valued, set aside and amplified. They want tranquil settings and generous recreational trails and amenities. They oppose cookie cutter neighborhoods and Anywhere USA commercial development with indistinct identities. They are concerned by the tightness of developments. They crave view sheds, honoring our community, agricultural heritage and preserving a sense of our history. The definition of stakeholder needs to shift to the 114 residents that you now serve and with that the UDC needs to shift towards long-term sustainable and livable objectives. Developers' objectives and residents' objectives don't always align and it's important that we start listening to our residents. We believe that our residents want to be heard, especially during the period of developing a new Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we oppose all substantial changes to land use being approved by the director and the -- the use of variances, DA amendments and alternative compliance to change land use that might impact others' properties rights. We ask that these actions be subject to public hearing for two reasons. The public deserves a voice in significant changes. Substantial changes should be decided by our elected officials, the City Council that we trust that you represent the citizens. The action above -- right now we would like -- we believe that several of the proposed UDC revisions are inconsistent with our resident survey results and the vision and intent and spirit of the new comp plan. We, therefore, respectfully request that Council postpone any and all UDC changes that should be driven by the New Comprehensive plan. I rest for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Denise. Council, any questions? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 68 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 66 of 79 Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. Denise, should we request it, is it possible to get that in writing? Your -- what you just went through, those changes and things? I know you had quite a few notes and things, but I was wondering if it's possible to get -- LaFever: Would you like me to type it up and summarize it and send it to you? That's my scratch notes. I would be happy to do that. De Weerd: Well, we will have it in the minutes as well, if that would suffice. LaFever: If you can read my scratch you're welcome to scan it. Little Roberts: Thank you. That would be great. LaFever: Yeah. Would you like my notes? Little Roberts: If you don't mind. De Weerd: Thank you, Chris. LaFever: If you guys haven't noticed, as people talk I -- I change things, I scratch things out, I rewrite things depending on how the meeting is going. So, they are a mess, but you are welcome to them. Little Roberts: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Denise. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony? Mr. Yorgason. Yorgason: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Dave Yorgason. I'm with Building Contractor Association of Southwest Idaho and I noticed on the agenda this was tonight. Also noted other items. Happy to be here. In the spirit of being freaky fast for Council Member Palmer, I will be quick in my comments. You're welcome. I just have a few. First of all, I thank Bill for his comments and the thoroughness of which he's gone through the changes. I just have a few questions. First of all , Item -- I'm not sure -- Number E in reference to irrigation easements, we have had some discussions in the past. I'm not going to specifically say, please, make a change. However, I can see some problems that will arise, specifically with the requirement of having an irrigation easement greater than ten feet having to be in a common lot. When we tie -- as the development happens to go forward and ties into an existing development where there may or may not be an open space we are tying into, therefore, we are now having to have a solid fence we are adjacent to and usually those irrigation lines will run in a rear backyard. I'm very familiar with the Police and Fire's concerns about having common -- common area along the rear -- or between two residential spaces that is not accessible by a street and so I could see some design challenges and, therefore, request in the public hearing format for an easement, which I think that says and so I'm just identifying a potential concern that you will see in the future. Secondly, qualified open Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 69 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 67 of 79 space section, I agree with Denise, there is a lot of work to do through here. I am absolutely a proponent of -- and support of upgraded landscaping buffers for developments and I absolutely believe that if you take it out , you will have the bare minimum. If you don't get credit for it, why would I put extra in? Now, some may still want to do that, like me, but I can tell you there is more who would not want to. So, my encouragement is to follow exactly what staff has recommended, specifically the qualified open space section, meaning there is pretty much no changes and allow the community to work with the -- with the staff, the business community, everybody together to try to find the proper solution there going forward. I could answer further questions if you would like with regard to the public hearing extension or the linear open space question, meaning shrinking it down from 15 to 20 foot. I don't know if you want to discuss that, but the last comment is stormwater detention facility. There is a reference to -- it has to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet to count and that seems -- I don't know if that's an arbitrary number or where that number came from, but I know that if I have an underground seepage bed and not a sand window, I can dress that. And I think a 10,000 square foot area is pretty -- pretty decent -- pretty nice play area, dog parks and all the above and so I just had a question as to where that 20,000 square foot came from. I would stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Any questions from Council? What do you think of the linear areas that include the -- the water body? You did a great development, Woodbridge, that -- isn't -- wasn't that yours? That integrated a lot of that in there. And very well. Yorgason: Madam Mayor, thank you. I can think of one. Settler's Bridge on Locust Grove and McMillan, where we took the Settler's Canal and widened it and a little more with it to make a grass space. It wasn't easy working with the irrigation district, but we found a solution there. Bristol Heights is another development in the adjacent city where we have a massive amount of pathways and there aren't many days -- any day of the year where we do not find someone using those pathways. They are very -- very popular, especially if you have dogs walking, whatever. It's very very popular. In that specific development we did do a 20 foot linear pathway and I will just tell you I think personally it works, but it's tight. My personal preference is 30 feet. That's excluding any canal utilization adjacent to it. If you have a canal, then, maybe 20 foot adjacent to the canal, then, you have, of course, more than 20 feet total. It's just based on my experience of designing developments and, then, afterwards still walking the pathways ten, 20, 25 years later after they are installed and -- I don't know if I answered your question, Madam Mayor, but it's -- it's my hope that as -- as I look to the city in integrating these types of things is that it gets better. You make these amenities more attractive, more usable. Fifty feet is excessive, in my opinion, for a linear pathway to get credit for it. Thirty feet ought to be ample for a linear open space to be given credit. Twenty is what was being proposed by staff and that's okay, I guess, but that's my personal opinion. De Weerd: Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 70 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 68 of 79 De Weerd: Any questions for Dave? Okay. Thank you. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thanks again. De Weerd: Okay. You guys did pretty well if that -- those are the comments to really focus on and -- and certainly -- I'm sure Council would like to digest this and give it some thought. We can bring this back for -- for further discussion. Yes. Hood: Madam Mayor, just maybe to address some of the things that were brought up . I'm not going to go point by point, but I do want to address the parking table, you know, if you could go there for a second and just kind of explain to you -- Bill did -- I think he did a good job of explaining the two bedroom grouping that was one and two bedroom units now. I wanted to address Denise's comment there about age restricted elderly housing. So, you can see that has gone away. What we were running into was -- as she pointed out, 55 doesn't mean dead. They are active still. A lot of times. And a lot of times you have two cars, so -- and we never implied that with this table, but -- but we could see 55 and over, they drive two cars and, in fact, have three cars sometimes and so why would you have a lesser requirement for that. So, really, the intent here is to -- to take out -- it's a single family home. It doesn't matter what your age is, it's still a single family home and, then, down below the nursing and residential care facility is, essentially, what the age restricted is and we just group everybody -- again, if you're a single family duplex, detached, attached townhouse, whatever it is, it doesn't matter age, it's more about function. So, I just wanted to clarify that that is correct, that, no, 55 and over isn't included in nursing and residential care facility. They are included with just standard dwelling. I will also point out we have had some projects come in, though, that are a tweener; right? They are 55 and over, not -- it's not a nursing care facility, but it is geared towards folks that are almost needing some care and they typically do have less of a need for two cars anyways. So, we throw our alternative compliance section and planned unit developments, you can make that pitch to the Council and say I don't need two cars in a garage and two surface cars, I'm really targeting -- and, in fact, indeed, restricting these lots to 75 year olds to 95 year olds or whatever and so there are -- have been some cases where -- and could -- and can still going forward where they are age restricted through alternative compliance, so you could still get there and do a lesser parking amount, but you have to justify that. Just for an example -- and I actually don't remember if they went through this process, but the Cadence product that Brighton is building by Kleiner Park, there you could see if there -- if it's -- there may not be as much of a need for parking there, because you have everything you need within a half mile radius say. So , retirees potentially -- I'm not saying they won't have cars. They probably will. But you could justify having maybe less of a car, because there is bus service that's being talked about. Again, they are targeting 55 and over and you have a lot of the amenities that are in close proximity. So, again, I don't know that we actually did that with that project, but something like that where you could see it's a community that's integrated together where, again, having four car parks per just doesn't make sense. The other thing that I wanted to talk about just for a second -- and I won't get into a lot of it, because -- someone said we -- we scaled back or we have taken some steps back from what was initially proposed for open space and even amenities, but it's been talked about, but I want to -- just to hammer Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 71 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 69 of 79 the point home. We do need to look at that and really figure that out a little bit better. We need to raise the bar on development amenities and open spaces, but we need to do that collectively after the Comprehensive Plan. In the same breath -- I think I just took one. But, essentially, design standards are another thing that we are hearing from the community and I'm not just talking about architectural design standards, although there is some comments on that as well, but just how projects are integrated in design with connectivity, access, a little bit of similar discussion with the storage unit, discussion you guys just had, just fit and form and feel of projects and those design standards . We are getting some of that feedback now through the Comprehensive Plan and I think we will get some more here as we send the draft plan out for public comment and so I just -- nothing in here is talking about site design right now, but that's on our list of things to do. But that isn't under the cleanup umbrella. Those are -- those are heavier lifts. Those are -- we need to do some real outreach. We need to get some real feedback from everybody involved and come up with real lasting, long-term solutions that work for our community. So, that's not here tonight, but it's somewhat intentional, because, again, that is a bigger effort that we think should occur after we get the Comprehensive Plan done and really understand what the community wants to see going forward and even dig some more of that out after the comp plan is adopted and make some additional changes to the UDC. De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Well, Council, we can put this on our future agenda two weeks out. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I appreciate that recommendation and I guess I'm also looking for some direction, either from you or from staff, about what you hope to hear from us at that date certain. Is it, yes, this is great. No, this isn't. Or you want us prepared to go through certain elements that if we have got questions or concerns that we are working through? I just think it's important that we all be on the same page about what the outcome would be of that night, whether that's in two weeks or three weeks or whenever. De Weerd: I think my hope would be that you take the comments you got tonight, you take what staff has put in front of you, along with the changes that have been made from Planning and Zoning and -- and we go through it and talk about each -- Cavener: Piece? De Weerd: Uh-huh. And, then, you give it back to staff to bring back cleaned up and -- and you see how it looks and move forward from there. Cavener: So -- De Weerd: I -- I spoke on behalf of Planning, but -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 72 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 70 of 79 Hood: Madam Mayor, if that's what you would like to see, that's -- I mean I -- that's -- we don't really have any expectations. We are here with the proposal. If there is changes you want to see to that before two weeks , I would take those comments now. We can -- you know, I don't -- I don't want to assume anything, but we can give you a cleaned up version assuming no changes from what -- what you see tonight. I'm not saying that's the right thing, but you could at least see it so there is not so much red and blues and yellows and stuff, so it's really -- it's clean and you could work from that to make changes. We are -- whatever you would like and anything from -- make the -- if you have a couple of tweaks tonight to approve it this evening. I don't know. We don't really have any necessarily expectation. We will do whatever you want, so -- Borton: Madam Mayor? Borton: Mr. Borton. Borton: If this were to get continued two weeks it would come back at that time as written, the recommendation for approval as it is in front of us. If there is questions between now and, then, any of us can reach out individually to members of the public, the development community, to our staff, to gather information that resolves any concerns and questions. We can act in two weeks, at least potentially, on what stands now before us is a recommended for approval. So, we have got time to digest it and it can -- we can get questions answered before the 25th or at least some background info that helps any of us. Makes it more effective. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was looking at your future agendas and right now on the 25th you have one project set for public hearing, Three Corners Ranch, was a fairly lengthy hearing at Planning and Zoning. July 2nd you continued Cherry Blossom tonight to that date. De Weerd: No, we didn't. Nary: Oh, I'm sorry. De Weerd: We actually canceled the July 2nd -- Nary: So, I apologize. So, yeah, so those are -- De Weerd: Yes. Nary: That's what -- you have got one on there at the moment. De Weerd: Yeah. Because there was nothing on it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 73 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 71 of 79 Nary: Okay. De Weerd: So, we want -- we want to put -- put that on the -- I think everyone nodded. You must have been out of the room. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Before we make a motion, I guess question for -- for Caleb or Bill. I know there was some discussion at Planning and Zoning. We heard a little bit about it from the public tonight -- about pressing pause on this until we have an approved comp plan. It's clear there is pieces in here that you're saying you want to go back and look at after. So , why -- why the desire to approve this now, as opposed to later? Hood: I will take that one and -- and I'm not -- some of these are more significant than clean-ups. There is some real changes here. Quite frankly they could wait. But after the comp plan these -- they will probably be the same changes. I don't see anything in here that conflicts with what we have heard or where the comp plan is going to -- at least in my opinion that warrants holding off on these, because I don't -- even if we did have something and we are like, oh, shoot. Well, we could change it again in six months if we need to. So, I just don't see the benefit in -- in pushing pause on them, because there are quite a few clean-up things in here that I do think help. For example, at the holidays, if you get a developer that's on vacation and you cancel a meeting or t wo, the 45 day window that -- that's in there that we have talked about and -- and Bill mentioned, you know, we have had to schedule it for a date, because we have 45 in our ordinance, that flexibility to push it out to when a developer can be present and you can actually move forward with a hearing goes away, just as an example of one thing in here that I would say makes sense to move it forward, so we can do business. There are quite a few in there that are -- that are of that -- in that realm. Cavener: Thank you, Caleb. I think I agree with you. I -- I think there are some that -- I guess me personally I feel much more comfortable doing some now and some later. I don't know where the rest of Council sits and I don't know if you guys have talked about these are the clean-up things, these are the pressing things that we need to be looking at right now versus what are the things from -- from staff's perspective that could wait. I don't -- I have got my list, but I also know that oftentimes my list doesn't match with yours and I don't want to make an assumption about what might be something more pressing or something that's less. Hood: So, Madam Mayor, you don't need to convince me, you need a majority of Council; right? And we will do whatever. I mean this is -- this is feedback we have heard if your list is the prevailing list, we will take some and we will leave some. None of these am I going to really fight for, because, again, they are cleanup. I think it helps us build a community we are trying to build more efficiently, but if you want to press pause on them -- I don't have all of them in my head, but there is very very few, if any, of these -- and I'm Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 74 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 72 of 79 going to say, boy, we really need to do this sooner rather than later, except for maybe the one I -- I pointed out. Cavener: Sure. Hood: The variance one, you know, it's -- that's another one where we have gotten some legal advice that maybe it's better to clean that up and just as a quick aside we submitted the application today to clean up the variance findings. So, we will be coming back before you here in a couple months to get that cleaned up as well. But to do business -- just because the comp plan is going on, there is just some business that the city needs to move forward with and so, again, just to answer -- I'm fine if you want to pull out half of these or whatever, because you think they are premature in the comp plan. That's fine. De Weerd: No. I appreciate your comments. This is something that is addressed now and if -- as the Comprehensive Plan is approved and you look at the meatier things that something needs to be tweaked, there is that opportunity to do that then. We can't keep kicking the can down the road. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? Palmer: Madam Mayor? Okay. De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I think your suggestion earlier that we come back and go through it solves both things. What do we need to address? What needs -- we -- what does Rich need now to function. The definition of tiny house versus tiny mobile house. Change the dates, then, say pause on the ones that aren't urgent and will be impacted. I think that solves both. Get it done and wait. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I think you hit kind of the nail right on the head, too, and I think it's important for us to know -- it's not like we started the Comprehensive Plan process and Bill said, oh, hey, maybe I should work on this. Like I mean this is a long project and I want to thank both Bill and Caleb for bringing this to us and I think I agree with Council Member Little Roberts. I went through it and the Mayor's suggesting to go through it piece by piece and if there is things that pop up that nobody has any issues or concerns and we are hearing from staff or legal or code enforcement let's move on this , great, we can talk about that. If there is others that might then -- but, Madam Mayor, one other piece if I may. And I don't know how to best address this and I have talked with Bill about it and I -- and I talked with Rich about it. You know, I have had some real concerns about our code related to people storing their own property in their driveway and -- and Bill referenced that was something that was discussed and, then, removed and I think that is a piece that we as a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 75 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 73 of 79 Council need to -- need to address. Nobody can explain to me the life safety issues and why we tell people you can't park your boat in your driveway, but you can park it on the street for three days and, you know, some of the direction that I received is let's have code enforcement come and talk about it. They did. At that time I said this is something I wanted to have addressed. I expected that it was going to be through this process. At one point it was discussed and removed. I just -- and, Madam Mayor, to your point -- don't want to keep kicking the can down the road. I feel like the can keeps getting kicked down the road -- likely unintentionally, but this is something that I keep hearing from our constituents about and I think that it's important for us as a Council to say, hey, this is something that we think is important and we support or there is an opportunity for us to change and so I'm not saying that needs to happen in two weeks , but I'm hoping that by two weeks someone, whether it's code enforcement or planning or executive branch, can give me some understanding about what that roadmap looks like or when we are going to have the opportunity to address that particular issue. De Weerd: I don't care when we address it. Rich, yeah, come on up. I -- I would love to get it resolved, too. Everett: Madam Mayor and Council and Councilman Cavener, the recreational vehicle storage, utility vehicles and things that we spoke about earlier today, you -- Councilman Cavener, you had asked me what is the foundation? What is the historical foundation of why we prohibit this. Is it a life safety issue? And the answer to that is, no, it's not a life safety issue. Through talking to previous supervisors of the Code Enforcement Unit , through talking with legal staff, the historical foundation for that conclusion was a land use issue, just specific to -- it's a residential home, it's used for that purpose, and it was to prevent the street yard -- that required street yard for being used to store excessive vehicles and that's the only answer I can give you and that's through many, many inquiries. That's the only answer that I can give you that I believe is factual. There is opinions. But that's the factual basis of that. De Weerd: But I think it would be easier for you, Rich, and your team if -- to get an idea of what Council thinks about all of it and so it's -- that kind of ranks up there in some of the more contentious calls we get. Everett: Yes, ma'am, it does and I -- Councilman Cavener and I spoke this morning and my recommendation to him was that it would be an executive movement forward on -- if that was to be amended or changed, so code enforcement can remain impartial where we do take enforcement action with that code, because it is a contentious issue and I don't want there to be a perception that we are now enforcing our code, you know, for the community to see that. I was part of that change. The changes that my folks and I brought forward to you were specific in remaining impartial and just making things more practical and more easily understandable by the community and enforced. If there is a sweeping change to something that my folks and I are charged with enforcing, I prefer that I don't make a recommendation to that change and I'm not part of that process. I just receive my direction from this body and move forward and carry out the city's business. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 76 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 74 of 79 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I guess I think it's important that -- I go back and forth on that particular issue, but it's one that -- when I started getting questions from constituents about it was hard to kind of follow the bouncing ball as to why and I just think that we have an opportunity as the six of us to say the why, whether we keep it as is, make small modifications, or remove it, that we as a body have an opportunity to weigh in so that our citizens understand at least the rationale behind that. De Weerd: It's an overdue conversation and certainly we can talk -- I don't think it needs to be in this, but let's -- you can eat if you would like. Yeah. But I think maybe we can talk about it on Friday and see what the agenda is. We can start the conversation. Cavener: Great. De Weerd: Okay. Very good. Thank you, Rich. Everett: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Bernt: One -- one last comment. De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I apologize. I know we -- the one thing that I'm excited to -- to look at and to hear from is -- is the building community in regard to the open space. Every -- almost every single development that we -- I say almost. A lot of the development that we -- that we talk about -- and there is always a concern about open space and so I would hope that staff and the building community and maybe some citizens can get together and come up with a -- with a feasible option. Just upping it a little bit in my opinion isn't -- isn't -- we can do better than that. But I want it to make sense for the development community. I want it to make sense for the city. You know, there -- there has to be some negotiation, there has to be some of it answered than just we are just going to up it a little bit. So, that's just something that I'm -- I'm excited to look at and talk about. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion to continue this? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we continue Item G to June 25th. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 77 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 75 of 79 De Weerd: Do I have a second? Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a second. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-G to June 25th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Ordinances A. Ordinance No. 19-1829: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 8-1-1, Adding A Definition Of Parklet; Renumbering Meridian City Code Sections 8-1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, And 8-1-6 To Be Sections 8-1-4, 8-1-5, 8-1-6, And 8-1-7, Respectively; Adding A New Section To Meridian City Code, Section 8-1-3, Regarding Requirements For Parklets; And Providing An Effective Date De Weerd: Ordinance 8-A is 19-1829. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is an ordinance amending Meridian City Code Section 8-1-1, adding a definition of parklet; renumbering Meridian Code Sections 8 -1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, and 8-1-6 to be Sections 8-1-4 through 8-1-7 respectively; adding a new section to the Meridian City Code, Section 8-1-3, regarding requirements for parklets; and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anyone who would like to hear the title re-read or the ordinance in its entirety? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I wanted neither, but, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just want to put on the record you requested last week that we amend the ordinance as was previously presented. So, it has been amended as you requested. So, there is a provision now that if there is a -- I'm going to make sure I use the right language. There is a public health and safety concern, then, the revocation would be immediate, but if there is a correction that can be done or anything less than that , then, there will be a notice, a time for correction and an opportunity for them to have a hearing before the Council for revocation occurs. So, that was inserted at your direction. I just wanted to make sure you saw that. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council? Yes? We are on A, so -- okay. Mr. -- oh, so do I have -- Mrs. Little Roberts. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 78 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 76 of 79 Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 19-1829, with suspension of rules. Borton: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10 -- 8-A. If there is no discussion, Mr. -- Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Palmer: After like -- it's a cute, really cool idea, but I really struggled with it, because in a time where MDC is looking at renting space and spending a bunch of money on improvements to get additional parking, all the -- the parking drama surrounding this building, the mystery meets definitions of what is going to qualify as parking spaces for the project going across the street, to contemplate allowing spaces to be taken for fun little ideas like this just seems completely unreasonable to me , so I got to vote no on it. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. B. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; To Provide For An Amendment To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee Schedules; And Providing An Effective Date. De Weerd: Item 8-B is the third reading of Ordinance 19-1827. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is Ordinance No. 19-1827: An ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(e)(2), Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; to provide for an amendment to the Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation impact fee schedules; and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. This is the third reading, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 79 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 77 of 79 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Council, I don't know where you stand on this. I know that we all received some correspondence from some citizens who felt that the date that we had posted on our -- not on where our agendas are, but where we post public hearings, that at one point there was a different date. I think they had requested the opportunity to be able to speak , but we had already closed the public hearing. So , we, obviously, can't take any public testimony tonight. Where we see this -- if it's passed to be implemented in October, while I think it's important to have ample time for staff to be able to do their due diligence and there is certainly an element of responsibility of our citizens for something like this, I would be supportive of reopening the public hearing, continuing it for an additional week, allowing any public that feels the need to testify that would claim to, but were unable that opportunity before we render a decision. I'm happy to make a motion , but I wanted to at least bring that out first for conversation and if there is nobody that's waving their hands I will be happy to make a motion. Madam Mayor. And, Mr. Nary, make sure I do this correctly. I move that we reopen the public hearing on Item 8-B, Ordinance No. 19-1827 and, then, to continue this item to next Tuesday, June the 18th. Palmer: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any comments? All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Ordinance No. 19-1830: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4, Meridian City Code, Known As The Definitions Section Of The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; To Provide For An Amendment To The Definition Of Dwelling Unit”; Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. De Weerd: Ordinance 19-1830, under 8-C. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title. Johnson: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to clarify with Mr. Nary -- are we proceeding with this without the other passed? Nary: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of Council. This p articular code creates a definition for the term dwelling unit. So , this isn't the same as the impact ordinance, it's affected by the impact fee ordinance, but it really just creates a term, because part of the requested change was how we counted multi-family. So, this definition can go forward tonight. It doesn't require three readings. You can move forward. It has the waiver of the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 80 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 78 of 79 reading rules. It has no effect on the impact fee ordinance, it just creates a definition. So, you can move forward tonight. If you want to wait you can, but you don't need to. De Weerd: Okay. Johnson: This is Ordinance No. 19-1830. An ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4, Meridian City Code, known as the definitions section of the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; to provide for an amendment to the definition of dwelling unit; providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. Yes. Come on up. Okay. There is someone who would like to hear it right in its entirety. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Opening that now. Okay. An ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4, Meridian City Code, known as the definitions section of the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; to provide for an amendment to the definition of dwelling unit; providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Whereas, recent amendments to the City of Meridian development impact fee schedule adopted by Ordinance No. 19-1827 require a clarification of the definition of dwelling units to include individual units within a multi-family structure. Be it ordained by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho: Section 1. The foregoing recital is hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as a finding of the City Council. Section 2. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4 of the Meridian City Code is amended as follows: 10-7-4: Definitions: Dwelling Unit: A building or a portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling units. A dwelling unit includes a mobile home, a manufactured home, a modular building, and individual units in a multi - family building. Section 3. That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4, remain unchanged. Section 4: That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half, plus one, of the members of the full Council, the rule requiring two separate readings by title and one reading in full be -- one reading, 4-B, and the same is hereby dispensed with and, accordingly, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard this read in its entirety. What -- what is your pleasure? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Ordinance 19-1830 with suspension of rules. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 81 of 348 Meridian City Council June 11, 2019 Page 79 of 79 Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Okay. We are at Item No. 9. Any items to consider under this item? Okay. would entertain a motion to adjourn. Borton: Move we adjourn. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:12 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) � 5 /19 MAYO A MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED ATTE PQo pru RUG`Sr- r 'm 0 �... of C RI SON -CITY CLE EIIDAN&- iDANO Z� SEALS' 2��R of the TRC15\1 GlitA Coun61 K qu,lar Wn. Cj��E IDIZ IAN*,-----DAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 5 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Announcements Meeting Notes: EIDIANI AHO ?- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 6 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. ']'his time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting Meeting Notes: 6/11/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/11/2019 Hearing Type: Public Forum Active: *-* Signature Name Discussion Topic Sign In Date/Time Graye Wolfe Item F on agenda. Self storage facility 6/11/2019 5:53:10 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=250 1/1 EIDIANC-- DAHJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Appeal of Purchasing Manager's Denial of Protest of 2019 Request for Proposals (MYR-1921-11034) By Perkins Coie on behalf of Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime. Meeting Notes: Aepcc, I Qel) e J 5-1 T pc.l o,e, �J o V`�e I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: 15 Title of I tem - Appeal of P urchasing M anager's Denial of Protest of 2019 Request for Proposals (M Y R-1921-11034) by P erkins C oie on behalf of Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a L ime C ouncil Notes: Moved to Work Session via J oe B orton/Bill Nary AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S upplemental Appeal L etter Cover Memo 6/6/2019 E xhibits Received 06-06-2019 E xhibit 6/6/2019 Notice of Appeal and Request to Move Hearing Date Cover Memo 5/22/2019 P rotest L etter Cover Memo 5/22/2019 E xhibit A - R F P E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit B - L ime R F P Response E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit C - Samantha E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit D - J osh E varts E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit E - B ritton Davis E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit F - Scott C olaianni E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit G - Caleb Hood E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit H - Mike Barton E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit I - Emily Kane E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit J - 2019-02-05 Meeting Transcript E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit K - 2019-02-19 Meeting Transcript E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit L - Email Communication E xhibit 5/22/2019 E xhibit M - B ird P roposal E xhibit 5/22/2019 L egal D epartment Response to A ppeal Cover Memo 6/7/2019 K ane Response to Miller L etter Cover Memo 6/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 4 of 602 Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/11/2019 - 12:09 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 5 of 602 Title: Formal Request for Proposals SOP #: 000 Departments All City of Meridian Reference / Divisions Departments Original 5/30/11 Revision 2/26/2016 Date: Dates: Review Keith Watts, Kathy Wanner, Kyle Radek, Brent Blake, Clint Worthington Committee: Purpose The Purchasing Division's mission is to provide procurement services to all City of Meridian departments and to obtain the maximum value of the publics' funds. This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) establishes the cooperative process between the Purchasing Division and all departments throughout the City of Meridian for the Formal Request for Proposal Process. General . The Purchasing Manager is responsible for the purchase of goods and services, including contract creation and issuance. • Purchasing Staff are authorized to create and issue formal Request for Proposals (RFP). • The Formal RFP Process is used for procurements of solutions and services. • The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for providing all necessary plans and specifications and other information, including a proposers list, to the Purchasing Division for use in creating the RFP. • The PM is responsible for providing the Purchasing Division with all specification/plan sets required for distribution to proposers. Procedure 1. A Case Management Ticket (Case Ticket) is submitted by the requesting department. A completed RFP Request Checklist including all deliverables required must be submitted with the Case Ticket along with a completed Purchase Requisition. 2. Purchasing Staff confirm the funds are available in the requested accounts. If funds are not available Purchasing Staff will notify the PM and place the project on hold until proof of funding or department -head authorization is provided. 3. Purchasing Staff assemble the RFP. If a third party has been contracted to provide specifications, third party MUST work directly with Purchasing Staff to produce the RFP/spec book AND third party may not participate in the solution as a proposer. Formal RFP's are required to be open for a minimum of 14 days. It is recommended that they remain open for a minimum of 21 days. 4. The PM is responsible for developing the evaluation criteria. Purchasing Department SOP - 800 Page 1 of 2 Purchasing Staff will assist upon request 5. Purchasing Staff finalize the RFP and forwards to the PM for final review. Upon PM approval Purchasing Staff will release per the following: o Purchasing Staff assembles the advertisement for RFP and sends to appropriate agencies and publications for advertisement and will also post the RFP on the City's Purchasing website. Purchasing Staff will send the RFP to all vendors recommended by the PM. Purchasing Staff schedules, attends, documents and conducts the pre -proposal meeting. PM must attend the pre -proposal meeting. It is recommended that the design consultant attend if applicable. Purchasing Staff works with the PM to create any necessary addendums and obtain their review and approval prior to issuance. Purchasing Staff follows the Evaluation and Award of RFP SOP. Related Evaluation and Award of RFP #900 Sops: Purc asing Manager Z ®ate Purchasing Department SOP - 800 Page 2 of 2 Title: Evaluation and Award of RFP's SOP #: 900 Departments All City of Meridian Reference: / Divisions Departments Original 5/30/11 Revision 2/26/2016 Date: Dates: Review Keith Watts, Kathy Wanner, Kyle Radek, Brent Blake, Clint Worthington Committee: Purpose The Purchasing Division's mission is to provide procurement services to all City of Meridian departments and to obtain maximum value for public funds. This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) establishes the cooperative process between the Purchasing Division and all departments throughout the City of Meridian for evaluation and award of Request for Proposals (RFP's). General • The Purchasing Manager is responsible for the purchase of goods and services, including contract creation and issuance. • Purchasing Staff are responsible for receiving all proposals and compilation of proposal evaluations. • The Purchasing Manager is authorized to approve awards and sign contracts up to $25,000. • Contracts above $25,000 must be signed by both the Purchasing Manager and the Mayor. • RFP Awards above $50,000 must be approved by City Council and the resulting contracts must be signed by both the Purchasing Manager and the Mayor. • The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for obtaining Council Liaison signature for Purchase Requisitions over $25,000 that are not approved by City Council vote. Procedure 1. The PM recruits the evaluation committee and notifies Purchasing Staff of the members. 2. Purchasing Staff shall create the evaluation sheets utilizing the evaluation criteria included in the RFP. 3. Upon the due date and receipt of proposals, Purchasing Staff review proposals for responsiveness. 4. Purchasing Staff shall schedule and organize the first evaluation committee meeting. At this meeting Purchasing Staff reviews the evaluation process (listed below) with the committee. During the initial evaluation meeting Purchasing Staff directs the committee to evaluate each responsive Purchasing Department SOP - 900 Page 1 of 3 proposal using only the criteria provided in the solicitation. The PM shall lead the committee and schedule all future meetings and coordinate between the committee and the Purchasing Manager. Purchasing Staff will be available for any questions and/or meetings during this period. When the committee has concluded their evaluations, the individual members shall send their final evaluations directly to the Purchasing Staff assigned to the project. 5. Purchasing Staff compiles all evaluation materials to determine the winning submittal and notifies the PM and committee members. 6. Upon concurrence of the PM, Purchasing Staff will post the results on the website and issue a Notice of Intent to Award. 7. The PM shall begin negotiations to finalize the scope of services and fee schedule with the top rated proposer. The Purchasing Manager will be available for questions and/or meetings during the negotiations. When complete, the PM shall forward the Scope and Fee Schedule to Purchasing via the Case Ticket. 8. Purchasing Staff shall draft a Contract and a Conditional Notice of Award (CNA) and send to the successful proposer requesting signatures and Certificates of Insurance. 9. Upon receipt of the signed Contract and the required insurance certificates, Purchasing Staff will verify that they meet the City's minimum requirements and if so will notify the PM that the Contract is ready for the appropriate Department signature. Once the Contract is signed by the Department the Purchasing Manager will sign and proceed per the following: A. If Under $25,000: The Purchasing Manager will issue a PO and attach to the Case Ticket. B. If between $25,000 and less than $50,000 Purchasing Staff will forward to the Mayor for signature. Upon receipt of an executed contract Purchasing Staff will create the PO and attach to the Case Ticket along with the executed contract. The PM is responsible for forwarding the documents to the vendor and any NTP's to Purchasing. Purchasing Department SOP - 900 Page 2 of 3 Related sops: /` /.- Pur asing Manager C. If $50,000 and greater: Purchasing Staff will submit a Council Agenda Memo along with the signed Contract to the Clerk's Office via Agenda Manager, for the next available Consent Agenda. Purchasing Staff shall update the Case Ticket to notify the PM of the status of the Contract. The PM is encouraged to attend the Council Meeting to answer any questions that may come up. If the award is deemed to be out of the ordinary by the Purchasing Manager, the award will be submitted for a Department Report by the Purchasing Manager. D. Upon approval by Council and signature by the Mayor, the Clerk's Office will notify the Project Manager and Purchasing Manager that the Contract has been fully executed and attach an electronic copy for use. E. Purchasing Staff will create a PO and attach the executed Contract and PO to the Case Ticket stating all requirements have been met and releasing the Project Manager to issue the Notice -To -Proceed (NTP). F. PM issues Notice to Proceed to Contractor and sends a copy to Purchasing. PM is also responsible for forwarding the executed Contract to Contractor. Date Purchasing Department SOP - 900 Page 3 of 3 144613404.1 William K. Miller WMiller@perkinscoie.com June 6, 2019 Chris Johnson City Clerk City of Meridian 33. E. Broadway Ave., Suite 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Supplemental Brief in Support of Petition and Appeal 2019 Request for Proposals, Project No. MYR-1921-11034 Dear Mr. Johnson: Based on the City Council’s decision to postpone the hearing date of Lime’s appeal regarding Request for Proposals, Project No. MYR-1921-11034 (the “RFP”), Lime has had the opportunity to thoroughly review the available public record (including recently produced emails in response to Lime’s public records request) and submits this supplemental brief in support of its appeal. As described below, it is now apparent that Ms. Kane harbored an unfair bias against Lime, which she improperly interjected into the RFP evaluation process. A. Ms. Kane, Who Was Heavily Involved in Developing the RFP Process, Supported the Selection of a Single Vendor (i.e., Bird) All Along As the Council knows, Emily Kane (Deputy City Attorney) drafted the underlying e-scooter Ordinance (No. 19-1818) and RFP. Exhibit A at 6; Exhibit B. It is also no secret that, as part of her work on that project, Ms. Kane supported (and recommended to the City Council) an RFP process which would result in the selection of a single vendor. Exhibit C. What is now clear, however, is that Ms. Kane harbored an unfair bias for Bird over Lime from the very beginning. Exhibit D; Exhibit E (Ms. Kane to another City Employee on January 17, 2019: “Bird says that Lime doesn’t do what they say and then gain an unfair advantage over Bird/competitors because they have the fun scooters . . .”); Exhibit F (Keith Watts cautioning Ms. Kane that her RFP questions “must not be intended to elimination competition or single out a single vendor.”).1 At the City Council meeting on February 26, 2019, however, several City Councilmembers openly expressed concerns with Ms. Kane’s recommendation to select a single vendor: 1 In fact, Bird’s proposal highlights the fact that it met with the City Attorney’s office prior to submitting its proposal as part of this RFP. See Lime’s protest letter, dated May 16, 2019, Ex. at 36. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 6 of 602 Chris Johnson June 6, 2019 Page 2 144613404.1 • Councilmember Cavaner: “I guess I will just remind this body that it was like a year ago that we were asked to provide a single vendor opportunity and the Council said, no, no, we don't want to do that, we want to − we want to open it up. We want to provide opportunity.” Exhibit A at 8. • Councilmember Palmer: “I couldn't agree more. I think it's inappropriate for us to limit competition.” Id. at 9. • Councilmember Milam: “I tend to agree with that particular aspect. I think that competition makes companies better and when . . . there is a monopoly they can kind of just do whatever they want and the customer service is generally not as good. . . . I have always said more than two.” Id. Ultimately, the City Council declined to proceed with an RFP process that would select only a single vendor as recommended by Ms. Kane. Id. at 14 (Councilmember Borton: “I hereby move that we utilize an RFP process as laid out and recommended unanimously by the committee for the selection of up to two vendors.”). B. Ms. Kane Inserts Herself into the Evaluation Committee and Tanks Lime’s Score Despite being the attorney who drafted both the Ordinance and RFP, Ms. Kane actively sought a spot on the evaluation committee. Exhibit G at 2 (Ms. Kane to Mr. Watts: “Do you have the panel meeting set up yet? Do you need any assistance with determining who should be on the panel and/or getting that on people’s calendars?”); id. at 1 (Mr. Watts to Ms. Kane: “I have all the evaluation documents ready for the eval team. Please let me know who will be on the team.”). Perhaps not surprisingly, Ms. Kane was selected for the committee. Exhibit H (Bill Nary to Ms. Kane: “Lucky” [as part of meme]). On April 24, 2019, the evaluation committee met and “reviewed and discussed the proposals and the various attributes of each of the providers.” Exhibit I. Afterward, Ms. Kane requested an extension and submitted her (completely one-sided) grading sheet on April 29, 2019, the last member of the committee to do so. Exhibit J.2 As explained in Lime’s original protest letter, dated May 16, 2019 (the “Protest), this divergent scoring significantly lowered Lime’s overall score. Protest at 4. See also Exhibit I at 6 (Mr. Nary: “The Council's direction was up to two and partly because if you recall the conversation was kind of dependent on scoring, you know, you could have one that scored really well, one not so much and there was some confusion or 2 Interestingly, when Mr. Watts emailed Lime’s final score to the City Council he claimed it was 69.71. Based on Lime’s calculations, even with Ms. Kane’s divergent score, Lime scored above 70. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 7 of 602 Chris Johnson June 6, 2019 Page 3 144613404.1 misunderstanding about that for some folks.”). The following day, April 30, 2019, Mr. Watts notified the Mayor’s Chief of Staff that “Bird will be the selected vendor.” Exhibit K. Then, strangely, three days later, on May 3, 2019, Mr. Watts emailed the committee to “confirm” its recommendation. Exhibit L (Mr. Watts: “I am confirming that the team is recommending awarding to one vendor only and that vendor is Bird.). When one committee member responded that he “didn’t think we had an option for multiple [vendors],” Mr. Watts replied: “Legal confirmed the RFP only allowed one [vendor].” Id. (emphasis added). Five days later, on May 8, 2019, Mr. Watts sent a follow up email to the committee: “I’ve had a few questions come up regarding the one or two vendors and I’m not sure we ever officially landed on one or the other.” Exhibit M (emphasis added). The same evaluator as before responded: “I evaluated and scored the proposals independent of each other, not against each other. I’m open to considering two vendors.” Id. (emphasis added). Another evaluator replied: “I evaluated based on the fact I was told only one could be selected. If it was an option I would have done both.” Exhibit N (emphasis added). Yet another evaluator responded: “I evaluated the proposals as if one vendor would be chosen.” Exhibit O. The implication of this feedback is clear: Someone from “Legal” (presumably Ms. Kane) must have instructed committee members to select a single vendor.3 3 Notably, the timeline described above is different from what has been previously reported to the City Council. Exhibit I at 5 (“May 3rd purchasing sent the results back to the committee confirming the committee's decision. The recommendation from the committee was for one single vendor, which was Bird to be the -- selected as the provider for this franchise.”). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 8 of 602 Chris Johnson June 6, 2019 Page 4 144613404.1 C. Ms. Kane Is Involved in Lime’s Subsequent Petition and Public Records Request After being informed that Lime had filed a public records request and might file a petition, rather than recuse herself from any further involvement in the process, Ms. Kane doubled down and continued to try to influence the outcome of this process. See, e.g., Exhibits P, Q, and R. On May 10, Ms. Kane wrote to Mr. Watts and Mr. Nary that they had “circled the wagons and put together a gameplan[,]” which detailed how the City would handle Lime’s public records request and (presumptive) “denial” of its protest. Exhibit S. Most incredibly, in that email, Ms. Kane outlines exactly how Mr. Watt should spin the RFP process to the City Council. Id. (Ms. Kane: “Keith will present a timeline of the RFP process [to the City Council], the interpretation that the review panel had discretion to select two vendors, the unanimous recommendation of the panel to select one vendor, and some reasons supporting the recommendation.”). Afterward, Ms. Kane continued to be involved behind the scenes with Lime’s public records request and the timeline for dealing with its forthcoming petition. See Exhibits T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z.4 All the while, Ms. Kane continued to push forward, negotiating to finalize the contract with Bird. Exhibit BB; Exhibit CC. On May 14, 2019, Mr. Nary sent two memes to Ms. Kane, apparently in reference to the “exclusive” franchise agreement which had been successfully awarded to Bird. Exhibit DD (“You keep using that word ‘exclusive’ - I do not think it means what you think it means”); id. (“We have an exclusive - It’s gonna be huge”). Ms. Kane responded with an emoticon. Id. D. When Ms. Kane’s Score Is Disregarded, It Is Apparent that Lime Is a Qualified Vendor Ms. Kane’s divergent scoring was supported by one-sided written feedback. See Protest at 4 (“In the written ‘comments’ section of her grading sheet, Ms. Kane dedicated 317 words to describing ‘cons’ associated with Lime’s proposal, while dedicating just five words to ‘pros.’”). To assist the City Council with its review of this appeal, Lime has prepared a comprehensive chart which compares Ms. Kane’s written feedback with the text of the two proposals. See Exhibit EE. As demonstrated by Exhibit EE, time and time again, Ms. Kane only gave credit to Bird for features and/or functionalities that were described in the proposals of both companies. When Ms. Kane’s one-sided feedback is disregarded and Lime’s proposal is fairly analyzed, it quickly becomes apparent that Lime is fully qualified. 4 Ms. Kane was also involved in responding to requests for information from City Councilmembers about the RFP process. Exhibit AA. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 9 of 602 Chris Johnson June 6, 2019 Page 5 144613404.1 E. Conclusion Based on the available evidence, Lime believes that, dissatisfied with the City Council’s decision to pursue an RFP process that would select “up to two vendors,” Ms. Kane took it upon herself to ensure that only one vendor would be selected: Bird. Regardless of her internal motivation for doing so, one thing is apparent: The RFP process was not fair and unbiased as required by state law and municipal code. As such (and because they are both qualified), Lime requests that both Bird and Lime be awarded franchise agreements. In the alternate, Lime respectfully requests that the RFP process be conducted again in a fair and impartial manner. Please contact me with questions or concerns. Very truly yours, William Miller WKM:lkb Enclosures Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 10 of 602 63 E jD!IA CITYCOUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll -Call Attendance X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Treg Bernt X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by Michael Pearson of 7th Day Adventist Church 4. Adoption of Agenda Adopted as amended 5. Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayormay also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. 6. Consent Agenda [Action Item] Approved A. Approve Minutes of February 12, 2019 City Council Workshop Meeting B. Mountain View High School Addition -Water Main Easement C. Final Plat for Sky Mesa Commons Subdivision No. 2 (H-2019-0012) by Jon Breckon, Breckon Land Design, Located at 5689 S. Montague Way D. Development Agreement Summertown (H-2017-0142) with the Estate of Ruby E. Ward located at 745 W. Ustick Road in the NE 114 of Section 1, Township 3N., Range 1W (Parcel#S120112113) E. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to L2 Excavation, LLC. EXHIBIT AMeridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 11 of 602 for "Sewer Line Point Repairs" for a Not -To -Exceed amount of 221,206.00 F. Approval of Bid and Award of Contract to Weidner Fire for the Fire Station Diesel Exhaust Removal System" Project for a Not- To- Exceed Amount of $187,569.04. G. AP Invoices for Payment 2127119 - $1,297,104.13 7. Items Moved From The Consent Agenda [Action Item] 190 8. Community Items/Presentations A. Parks and Recreation Commission Annual Report 197 B. Transportation Commission Annual Report 9. Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public Hearing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned City planner. Following Staffs report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they are allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the public's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. The City Council may move to continue the item for additional information or vote to approve or deny the item with or without changes as presented. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items, unless to break a tie vote. 202 A. Resolution No. 19-2130: A Resolution Appointing Michael Venard as Youth Commissioner to the Meridian Transportation Commission. Approved 207 B. Resolution No. 19-2131: A Resolution Appointing Lynn Smith to Seat 1, Bonnie Griffith to Seat 4, Leslie Mauldin to Seat 5 and Maria Tzompa to Seat 6 of the Meridian Arts Commission. 217 Approved C. Resolution No. 19-2132: A Resolution Appointing Treg Bernt To Seat 6 On the Board Of The Meridian Development Corporation. Approved 220 D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Cope Collision (H- 2019- 0002) by Mussell Construction, Inc., Located at 1724 E, Franklin Rd. Approved 236 E. Public Hearing Continued from February 19, 2019 for Proposed Vehicle Sharing Program Ordinance RFP process of up to two vendors adopted; ordinance tabled until further noticeMeridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 12 of 602 Ordinance No. 19-1809: An Ordinance Adding A New Chapter, Chapter 6, To Title 3, Meridian City Code, Regarding Vehicle Sharing Programs; Amending Meridian City Code Section 4-2-2, Regarding Party Responsible For Nuisance; Adding A New Section, Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, To Title 7, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, Regarding Electric Power -Assisted Bicycles And Scooters; Adding A New Subsection, Subsection 7-1-9(F), To Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, Regarding Prohibited Parking; Adopting A Savings Clause; And Providing An Effective Date. 251 F. Continued from February 19, 2019: Resolution No. 19-2128: A Resolution Adopting New Fees Related To Vehicle Sharing Programs; Authorizing The City Clerk's Office To Collect Such Fees; And Providing An Effective Date Tabled until further notice 10. Department Reports A. Public Safety Quarterly Report Vacated from agenda 256 B. Community Development: Update on Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) Open Sidewalk Projects Funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 270 C. Community Development: 2019 Roadway, Intersection and Community Program Priorities 281 D. Welcome to Meridian Entryway Sign Program Discussion E. Parks and Recreation Department: Fuller Park Ball Field 288 Naming Request [Action Item] Approved 204 F. Public Works: Budget Amendment for FY2019 In The Amount of 41,825 for Water Field Services Supervisor [Action Item] Approved 11. Ordinances [Action Items] A. Ordinance No. 19-1811: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City 311 Code Section 7-2-9(B), Regarding Community Service Officers' Enforcement Of Provisions Related To Parking In Spaces Designated For Persons With Disability; Meridian City Code Section 7-2-10(A), Regarding Community Service Officers' Enforcement Authority For Parking Tickets And Procedures; Adopting A Savings Clause; And Providing An Effective Date. Approved 316 B. Ordinance No. 19-1812: An Ordinance (H-2017-0142— Summertown) For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In The NW'/4 of The NE 114 of Section 1, 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 ToMeridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 13 of 602 The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Meridian As Requested By The City Of Meridian; Establishing And Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of 15.13 Acres Of Land From RUT To TN -R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning 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 For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. Approved 12. Future Meeting Topics Adjourned at 8:48pm 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 Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 14 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 14 of 58 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the staff report does reflect today's date, so that is the most current one. It says findings on February 26, 2019. Bernt: Oh, yes. Up at the top. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? I think I had a -- Borton: Madam Mayor, yes, you're going to get one. De Weerd: I need a motion. Borton: I almost muddied it up. I would move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Cope Collision, H-2019-0002, as reflected in the staff report of -- of February 26. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact dated February 26th. Is there any discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing Continued from February 19, 2019 for Proposed Vehicle Sharing Program Ordinance 1. Ordinance No. 19-1809: An Ordinance Adding A New Chapter, Chapter 6, To Title 3, Meridian City Code, Regarding Vehicle Sharing Programs; Amending Meridian City Code Section 4-2-2, Regarding Party Responsible For Nuisance; Adding A New Section, Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, To Title 7, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, Regarding Electric Power-Assisted Bicycles And Scooters; Adding A New Subsection, Subsection 7-1-9(F ), To Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, Regarding Prohibited Parking; Adopting A Savings Clause; And Providing An Effective Date. De Weerd: Item 9-E is a public hearing continued from last week to have staff bring back the process they recommend in moving forward on a vehicle sharing program ordinance. Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 20 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 15 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 15 of 58 Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. You have a memo in your packet from Ms. Kane, who has been the one that has drafted the ordinances and such. We had a discussion with the staff and the -- and the question was posed to the staff committee was to bring a recommendation to you based on the discussion that you had over the last number of weeks on what we would recommend the city do and provide you the options moving forward. After a lot of discussion amongst the committee, the recommendation is to do a single vendor RFP for a variety of reasons. Some of the concerns were, essentially, the -- the -- the race to filing the application was key in the current ordinance and the way it's crafted. That was a concern that was expressed by a number of members of the Council that you really don't know who you are going to get. We had a concern that's been expressed a lot of times about the outreach and the -- the the public type of communication that's going to be done by whoever the vendor or vendors are, again, with a -- with a race to submit the application on time. We don't even know who that person is. There is an application deadline, there is a three week period in which the background is done to determine if they have met all the qualifications of the application and, then, an award is done and there is a 30 day rollout. So, there really is not a tremendous amount of opportunity to do that. With the RFP process you get to set the parameters of what you consider to be the most critical things that you as a -- as an entity, as a city wants to see in this type of ride share program. Whatever the key concerns or the key issues can be -- and Ms. Kane has included a few of those in an example, but you get to set the stage. We have weighted criteria. We have a committee that selects the -- the -- the eventual successor or the -- or the eventual -- excuse me, the eventual franchisee based on the weighted criteria. So, the difference between the two, one of -- the application process simply puts on the vendor the -- at best the requirement to tell us what they are going to do and after the fact, whether they do it or not, may be critical on whether revocation or renewal would be allowed. On the other side, the -- and the problem is is there is no weighting to it. So, I will take an easy example. If one of the concerns of this Council is how is the public outreach going to be done. In an application process they could simply say we are going to put it on Facebook. That's all they have to do. There is no -- there is no weighting or specific requirement necessarily on applications. In RFPs you can put weight to it, put specifics, put deta il or give greater weight or credit to those that provide it, so that you have -- if that's a concern, that's a way to get at it. Now, again, you have RFPs that people commit to doing a lot of things and don't perform. You have applications that people don't commit to doing a lot of things and perform very well. So, I recognize that both sides have -- have issues or concerns. We have a lot of success in RFPs. We do a lot of them. We read a lot of them. We have a lot of staff that -- that reads them on a variety of different topics. There was a concern that was expressed that sometimes in the RFP process people say a lot of flowery things that don't necessarily mean it. I don't disagree that that can occur, but you are looking for concrete detail specifics when you are looking at RFPs. That's how you -- that's how you score them, that's how you rate them. Mr. Watts, our purchasing manager, you know, was in the discussion and said, you know, for example, there was a discussion of -- by some members of the Council about references. Many -- many vendors can give you a reference. What -- what Mr. Watts does -- what we normally do in a lot of these RFPs is we don't seek references, we seek where do they do business. We, then, go do the background. We go look at who -- where they have done business and how successful Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 21 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 16 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 16 of 58 they have been, because it's easy to get people to tell you how well they have done, it's a lot harder to go find people that don't tell you that and so his view is that's -- that's incumbent on us as the raters to do that. So, there are ways that we can get to that. Is it perfect? No. But from all the concerns that have been expressed, that's what the committee tried to weigh and say if that's what -- if that's the desire of this Council, a way to get what you want is -- is that method. You will have more likely success in getting that and one of the concerns that was discussed is, again, the -- this is the second shot at it and there was a concern by the committee members that doing it again, if we aren't successful, it's going to be a very difficult issue with the public, that we maybe did it wrong a second time or we didn't really do it as well as we could have a second time . Again, there is no perfect system. We certainly have had some occasions in the RFP process that we haven't necessarily picked the best vendor for some reasons and we have been able to address it better here. Again, when you're talking about revocation and trying to capture poor business practices, poor response times, poor reaction for the public, I think especially with two vendors, you're going to have a lot of people trying to report complaints that we will have a hard time discerning was it a green one, was it a blue one, was it a red one, was it a yellow -- it's just going to be very difficult to address it in the licensing criteria. So, that's the recommendation of the committee. I can answer any other questions you may have from Ms. Kane's memo or any other questions that you have. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Not so much a question. I appreciate all that -- that background and detail. The last week's discussion I missed, but I watched the video and kind of got caught up on the discussion amongst our crew on this particularissue and -- and got a betterunderstanding of what the committee has been doing and the pros and the cons and the trade -offs that Mr. Nary describes, that there is not necessarily a perfect process, but it seems to me that this RFP process that's being recommended makes the most sense . I think the pros outweigh the cons. I like the schedule, quite frankly. It looks like it's about -- by the end of May there is a selection and a vendor potentially ready to go. I don't see it -- it's not a process that replaces an ordinance. Quite frankly, an ordinance is still going to go forward and still be passed probably that same day. It would just be modified to accommodate the selection process occurring through the RFP, as opposed through -- through code and I -- I agree with Mr. Nary's observations on what's the most effective way to -- to properly select somebody. So, in light of the fact that this is a little unique, you know, allowing individuals to ride these scooters on sidewalks where pedestrians are designed to be and it makes the most sense to use the best selection process. So, I will be supporting what's proposed by the committee, going with an RFP, having this 90 day timeline constrain that process and, then, having legal facilitate the ordinance necessary to be ready for approval at the time that somebody is selected. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 22 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 17 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 17 of 58 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Question maybe for Mr. Nary. That change from two qualified vendors to one single operator, can you share with us the thought process behind the committee in bringing that change? Nary: Certainly. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener. So, in the -- in the discussion on the licensing side, in talking to the varieties of vendors that are out there, there is a -- there is a number that on their business model seems to make the most sense on trying to operate a rideshare program and they would opt for a single vendor as well. They would prefer to have the exclusive franchise. Cavener: Sure. Nary: And it was trying to balance that desire of getting this out and doing this in a licensing setup. But when -- when it was returned back to the committee for at least a recommendation, again, if you're looking for the best selection, then, one, to see how does this work, how will it work here, our footprint for the use of these types of vehicles is different than other communities and sothe -- we did discuss whether two could work and and it can. I mean that's certainly not -- it doesn't have to be. But, again, if you want to see how does it work, what works the best, does this really work in our -- our environment here, again, having a single vendor for contacts, response times, issues, problems, concerns, again, we are trying to avoid that it wasn't our company, it was the other one, and trying to sift through that, if you have one vendor that you can deal wi th primarily you can, hopefully, alleviate a lot of the communication, rollout, responses of not having to coordinate between two. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any other comments? Thoughts? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Let me -- just a comment and a refresher for Council -- and I appreciate the great work of the committee and I appreciate the comments from Mr. Nary and whether the Council wants to head down an RFP or a license or not, just to get it resolved, to me I'm supportive of whatever direction the Council wants to go. But I guess I will just remind this body that it was like a year ago that we were asked to provide a single vendor opportunity and the Council said, no, no, we don't want to do that, we want to -- we want to open it up. We want to provide opportunity. We didn't want to do a pilot with one company and the piece about the license that I really appreciate is it was allowing the free market to really determine who are the best qualified vendors. It's not who won the RFP, it is that when somebody operates really good, it makes the others that aren't operating really good really have a spotlight shine on them and so I -- I appreciate that process. I'm Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 23 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 18 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 18 of 58 not real excited about awarding an RFP to a single vendor. I think that if you do want to head down the RFP I think we should be awarding it to two at a minimum , which was kind of, again, in line with where we said we wanted to go as a body and I think that late in the process to change it from two to one causes me pause and so, again, I'm supportive of where we would want to go as a body, but if we do want to have scooters in Meridian I think that we need to try to have at least more than one, so that our citizens have options and we can really see how these companies can truly operate, for what it's worth. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I couldn't agree more. I think it's inappropriate for us to limit competition. I think it's pure lunacy to eliminate competition. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I tend to agree with that particular aspect. I think that competition makes companies better and when -- when there is a monopoly they can kind of just do whatever they want and the customer service is generally not as good. So, I think -- I -- well, I have always said more than two. So, I think at least two and I don't know if we try to start with one and, then, add another one, though that doesn't seem fair to either. I like that. My question for, Bill, though, is can that timeline be shortened up? Is that the fastest it can be done? Because the end of May is, you know, a good two months into the season. Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Milam, in trying to -- in trying to count the time periods and looking at the normal RFP of any ones we normally do -- and Mr. Watts is the one who does this, so he's kind of the expert and nine to 12 weeks was the minimum. So, this is a little bit less than 12, a little bit more than nine. So, it's really kind of in that window of time period . But when you look at advertisement, giving the ample time to provide it, ample time to review it, ample time to negotiate a contract -- because what happens in the RFP process is that you will provide as part of the package what your intention is in a contract, but there still may be some negotiation that may occur during that. So, anyway, trying to put all of those timelines and trying -- again, you -- everything sounds ideal and, then, someone's out of town and their lawyer lives in another state and they have to read it and so the 90 days was ambitious , to be -- to be honest. So, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't want to commit to something less than that. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Sorry. I also -- Mr. Watts is so efficient, he's downright magical, but to, then, add something like this on top of his already busy workload and expect it to be done Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 24 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 19 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 19 of 58 sooner I think would probably put at risk his great reputation and work product. So, I think that the timeline that has already been put out is fairly aggressive. I like Council Member Milam, am like let's get it going and how can we get them out as soon as possible and I don't think that an RFP process is designed to be speedy, it's designed to be thoughtful. Madam Mayor. Sorry. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Cavener: And just something else for -- for Council to consider and not for tonight, but for the future -- and I -- as we have been going through this process I have been wondering is should Meridian even be in the scooter business. Should -- is that even a role that we need to have? Is it more appropriate for our local transit authority to be the one that's operating this program? In my mind almost to -- to the Park's commission's comments earlier about looking at our pathways as a region , I think when we look at transit, like scooters, we need to be looking at it as a region. It's quite possible the city of Boise in another couple of months could have three different scooter programs and if we move forward with an RFP with a single source, we would have one and they could all be different scooter companies. I don'tthink that's good forethought for aregion and so while I think that we can move forward on our path, whatever it is for now, I would hope that we as a body -- maybe the Transportation Commission, Planning Department, could look at maybe navigating towards a more regional model that has VRT or somebody else that -- that looks at this. We are not -- the City of Meridian isn't going to be generating any revenue from the scooter programs. In fact, our dollars are designed to offset the costs that we are going to occur -- or incur from -- from this program and I would rather have those costs better absorbed by an agency that is focused on transit to be more in line with what they are designed to do, regardless of what some individuals might think of the agency. De Weerd: I think the problem that poses is the VRT doesn't have enforcement capabilities and -- and that -- that is where the city does come in with the public right of ways, the sidewalks, the parking on public property and those kind of things and I think in many regards ACHD has brought that up on a couple of different issues of why our collaboration with them is so essential, because we are the enforcement piece to that. So, I think that is why it kind of fell under the umbrella of the city. Cavener: And, Madam Mayor, I don't disagree, except for that I think that we could have one agency manage it and we could still handle the enforcement on our end through our own local ordinances. Again, that is within our purview. De Weerd: Okay. Other -- Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 25 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 20 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 20 of 58 Borton: So, I was just going to interject. It's somewhat -- I don't disagree with either of you, it's like an eight -- eight year old worrying about where he's going to college. Have no idea. We will see. You know, see how this thing goes one bite at a time. Mr. Nary, if if a motion was made to follow the RFP path, a 90 day window, would it be possible to or preferable to have two vendors that would be selected through that process or structure it so up to two vendors, to ensure that they still have to meet the elements of the RFP? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean either one. I mean the secondary option that the committee did discuss was an RFP with two vendors and , again, ideally one -- yet, hopefully, what all of you collectively want, but having two is certainly not a deal killer or a detriment. I mean it certainly could be done. So, that's -- that certainly is an option. That's not a concern. Borton: Madam Mayor. But to the question of is it phrased an RFP for up to two vendors or two vendors will be picked. Nary: I would suggest, Mr. Borton, up to two, because what we would do is set a -- set a criteria with sort of a high score and what you didn't want would -- I mean not to sound -- try to make it simple, but you wouldn't want a vendor who scores 90 and number two scores 50 and we are obligated to pick two. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I'm going to make a motion -- De Weerd: We still have an open public hearing. Was it to close the public hearing? Borton: No. I was going to -- to move really to see if there is anyone here who would like to -- De Weerd: Well, if you will just allow me to ask, it won't take a motion. Okay. Borton: Certainly. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony? The gentleman in the back. I didn't know, Mr. Borton, you were getting so formal these days. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Sengenberger. My name is Sean Sengenberger. I live in Boise. I just want to add some comments. I realize that I'm not a resident of Meridian. De Weerd: We accept all testimony. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 26 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 21 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 21 of 58 Sengenberger: I'm involved in the scooters from a charger point of view and watching the companies as they interact with each other and with the customers, I feel that you definitely want to have the companies competing with each other. If you don't have that competition, they have no incentive to improve what they are doing. Boise will have a third scooter company -- I think that was mentioned here. There was actually a press release they were going to launch this week, but the weather may have -- or maybe there was some legal loopholes. I don't know. That's beside the point. But, yeah, they are coming. The third company will be there. But I follow what these companies have been doing, not just the ones operating here, but other companies that we haven't even seen in Idaho -- in other states and there are communities where there is almost no licensing and you get every little mom and p a scooter operation opening up that they can, if they can figureout how to do it, and you have got the ones that are verystrict on the regulations and the biggest complaints are coming out of the cities that are so restrictive the customers can't find a scooter. There aren't enough scooters in those towns. The city of San Francisco has limited each of their licensees to 250 scooters. That's the same number Boise has been operating on. San Francisco's huge. People can't find them. They are not getting utilized by the people who need them as a transportation alternative. I'm not saying to open up the number here to be a big huge number, because Meridian is, obviously, smaller than Boise, smaller than San Francisco or any other big cities that I'm talking about, but if there isn't a high enough density of scooters, then, the project's going to fail in the sense of not meeting the needs of people as a transportation . It will just be a recreational thing. It will be something, oh, there is a scooter, let's go for a ride. It's not going to be -- I can count on parking here where there is plenty of parking and riding to work every day, because there is no guarantee of a scooter. And, then, the other thing you need to consider, I believe, is what to do when scooters that are not licensed in your jurisdiction up here, because it's going to happen. If you license two companies and somebody rides one from Boise out here or brings one in a car out here and, then, rides it and, then, leaves it, how do you address that? That's something I think Boise is overlooking, too, because you could license a company they have there or maybe Garden City will down the road, one of the other towns around here and , hopefully, eventually, everybody can be on the same track as to how to deal with those kinds of situations. But it should just be something that's considered -- not necessarily today, not necessarily in your first ordinance, but to have it in mind that eventually you will want to write something in that -- that addresses how to deal with those things. De Weerd: Thank you, Sean. Sengenberger: Could I add one quick thing? De Weerd: Okay. If you will keep it quick. Your three minutes is up. Sengenberger: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Many of the people who charge scooters as a contractor are economically disadvantaged. They do this in their homes. In some communities it's come up that neighbors start complaining that they are not licensed to do this. It might be something to look at is deciding how you want to deal with that issue. Personally I don't think it should require a license, but that should be in the code. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 27 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 22 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 22 of 58 De Weerd: Thank you. Sengenberger: All right. Thanks. Kendall: Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Good evening. Kendall: Good evening. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Kendall: Yes. Aaron Kendall. Idaho operations manager for Lime at 2230 South Cole in Boise, Idaho. I just want to say to start out that I couldn't agree more than competition is the right way to go. I think for those of us that want to stick around and be successful to bring out the best in us, so I think having more than one vendor provider in this process will -- will be ultimately a win for the City of Meridian. We also want to acknowledge that we do support the process to implement an RFP and to select a vendor or vendors capable -- most capable of collaborating with the entirety of the Meridian community. We acknowledge the importance of a well-managed rollout of this program in partnership with the city. To that end we have already conducted outreach to local businesses, as well as law enforcement. We have reached out to The Village of Meridian, as well as Lindsey in the Meridian Downtown Business Association. We actually met with Lindsey earlier today to discuss some of her team members concerns and that went really well. We have also sat down with local law enforcement to talk about education and outreach opportunities via their social platforms, as well as doing some onsite education events with the officers themselves. So, we are looking forward to that. We hope to have future meetings scheduled with city clerk's office, local chamber members, as well as Scentsy and more as those are in the works as we speak. Whatever company is selected inthe RFPprocess will be most equipped to serve the city if they have strong collaborative relationships with local businesses, civic leaders and staff. We hope that the Council will pass this legislation soon and help our fast growing city be even more prepared for the growth that is occurring all around us. We thank you for your time and your commitment to getting this done on behalf of the citizens of Meridian. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Aaron. Any questions? Thank you. Is there any other testimony? We have a couple of committee members. Any additional commentfrom Robert or Chief? Okay. Mr. Borton? Borton: Madam Mayor, I would move that we close the public hearing on Ordinance 19- 1809. Milam: Second. Little Roberts: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 28 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 23 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 23 of 58 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close to public hearing on Item 9-E. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would -- I'm moving that -- De Weerd: You're moving. Cavener: You're moving? Borton: Mr. Palmer. I hereby move that we utilize an RFP process as laid out and recommended unanimously by the committee for the selection of up to two vendors. For that process to be completed within the proposed 90 day window from today for a selection within those 90 days and that the ordinance 19 - 1809 be tabled for now, perhaps probably brought back maybe at the April workshop as it gets amended to account for this RFP process. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to move forward with the recommendation from the committee on the RFP process and following the timeline described within and to table the ordinance 19-1809 until April. Any discussion? Nary: Madam Mayor? Sorry. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: The motion was 90 days from today. If you look at the memo it's 90 days from day one and day one is finalizing the RFP specification and criteria and I don't know that we have all of that today. I don't -- Mr. Watts felt that could be done within approximately a week. So, I think we can do it fairly quickly, but I'm concerned if it's 90 days from today and we don't have that finalized, we won't have -- issue an RFP in 14 days. De Weerd: Do 97 days. Nary: Ninety-seven days would probably better. As soon as it's finalized. I anticipated a week, so -- Borton: Madam Mayor, the motion maker isn't set on 90 days. I think the intent is -- is now in that -- about 90 days. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 29 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 24 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 24 of 58 Nary: Okay. Borton: There may be an opportunity to compress some time frame and the response window, but, nonetheless, to get it done and -- and, Madam Mayor, for -- for brief discussion on it, I think the discussion amongst this Council and some of the pivoting is going to lead to a better product and it's -- Councilman Milam said it very succinctly and well when I watched the video of trying to do it right versus doing it right now. So , I give credit to the ability to pause and reflect and try and do it right and to listen to the -- to the wise counsel of the committee and the good work of Ms. Kane in particular to try and set this up in a way that will be most successful . The comments here today support that. I know our law enforcement has supported it and the public isn't necessarily from the information we have gathered through surveys, knocking down the door to try and have this implemented yesterday. Though we get the impression that the public is supportive of what we are doing now, too. So, I think come Memorial weekend we will all be pleased having gone down this path. So, I appreciate everyone's flexibility to try and do it right. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other comments? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Am I the only one whose door is being knocked down? After every single -- actually, everyWednesday morning I get half a dozen texts, usually from different people, saying did you get it done last night? Are scooters coming back? Milam: It's the age. De Weerd: Well, you have the opportunity tonight to get it done and start moving them forward. Palmer: Madam Mayor. And to -- De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: -- explain why I'm going to vote no, I -- I can't bring myself to -- to vote to move forward regulation on a business like this, so while I'm going to participate in trying to make sure that we pick the right ones, but when we get to that point I can't -- I can't support the regulation of this industry. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: The ayes have it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 30 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 25 of 602 Meridian City Council February 26, 2019 Page 25 of 58 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. F. Continued from February 19, 2019: Resolution No. 19-2128: A Resolution Adopting New Fees Related To Vehicle Sharing Programs; Authorizing The City Clerk’s Office To Collect Such Fees; And Providing An Effective Date De Weerd: Item 8 -- or 9-F, would that be continued toApril as well? Okay. I would need a motion to continue this resolution. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. I move that we continue Resolution 19-2128 to the workshop April 9th. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9-F to April 9th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: To the previous motion that was -- the ordinance itself was being continued. We said April. Do we need to say April 9th as well at least? So, we have an agenda date that it will be checked in on? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess -- I apologize I missed April 9th. I didn't -- I didn't hear April. So, the -- the ordinance itself will be different, because it does require an ordinance for a franchise, but it may be different than the existing ordinance. So, you really can just simply table it, because we would renotice it and we would put it back -- same thing with the resolution. If in -- in the processes of the RFP the fee would be different and, therefore, you could withdraw this resolution and we will bring another one when -- related to the RFP. So, we can actually withdraw both of them at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we were just kidding on the motion before. Borton: Take it back. De Weerd: I guess -- so, Council, to backup, the Resolution 19-1809 and Resolution 19- 2128, if I could have a motion to table those. Borton: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 12, 2019 – Page 31 of 480Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 26 of 602 23 9 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Mo n d a y , M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 3 7 P M To : Sc o t t C o l a i a n n i Su b j e c t : RE : V E S P O R F P D r a f t We u s e d h i s u s u a l R F P t e m p l a t e a n d p u t i n a l o t o f t h a t r e a l l y e a r l y d r a f t R F P . S o b a s i c a l l y , t o a n s w e r y o u r q u e s t i o n … I d i d . A t l e a s t t h e c r i t e r i a a n d s u b m i s s i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s . Fr o m : S c o t t C o l a i a n n i < s c o l a i a n n i @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 3 6 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : V E S P O R F P D r a f t If I c o u l d s e n d y o u a c o n f u s e d e m o j i f a c e I w o u l d … … … … … … … wh o g a v e K e i t h t h e v e r b i a g e f o r t h e R F P ? Li e u t e n a n t S c o t t C o l a i a n n i Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n Me r i d i a n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t 14 0 1 E . W a t e r t o w e r S t . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 -84 6 -73 2 3 | F a x : 2 0 8 - 8 4 6 - 7 3 7 2 27 7 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Tu e s d a y , F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 1 6 A M To : Bi l l N a r y Su b j e c t : FW : S c o o t e r R F P FY I . Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 1 7 P M To : L u k e C a v e n e r < l c a v e n e r @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : S c o o t e r R F P Ye s , t ho s e a r e t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . On F e b 2 5 , 2 0 1 9 , a t 4 : 4 5 P M , L u k e C a v e n e r < lc a v e n e r @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : So r r y , s o s i n g l e o p e r a t o r = R F P , l i c e n s e = t w o o p e r a t o r s ? Se n t f r o m m y i P h o n e On F e b 2 5 , 2 0 1 9 , a t 4 : 3 7 P M , E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi , L u k e . U n d e r t h e q u a s i - l i c e n s e m o d e l ( t h e p r o p o s e d o r d i n a n c e t h a t h a s b e e n b e f o r e C o u n c i l ) , w e w o u l d r e c o m m e n d t w o f r a n c h i s e e s . F r o m w h a t w e u n d e r s t a n d , i n a c o m m u n i t y t h e s i z e o f M e r i d i a n , t h e ma r k e t c a n b e a r t w o o p e r a t o r s - w i t h t w o , t h e n u m b e r s p e n c i l f o r t h e o p e r a t o r s , w h i l e p r o v i d i n g t h e o p t i m a l n u m b e r o f s c o o t e r s t o u s e r s i n M e r i d i a n . Un d e r t h e R F P m o d e l , w e w o u l d r e c o m m e n d a n e x c l u s i v e f r a n c h i s e . T h i s a l l o w s t h e c i t y t o s e l e c t t h e r i g h t o p e r a t o r f o r o u r c o m m u n i t y , b a s e d o n c u s t o m i z e d c r i t e r i a , t r a c k r e c o r d , f i t w i t h t h e p u b l i c ’ s n e e d s a n d in t e r e s t s , e t c . T h e r e a r e m a n y w a y s t o i m p l e m e n t a p r o g r a m l i k e t h i s , b u t t h e R F P m o d e l , w i t h a n e x c l u s i v e f r a n c h i s e e , i s t h e m e t h o d t h a t t h e c o m m i t t e e w o u l d r e c o m m e n d o v e r a l l . Ho p e t h i s h e l p s , g l a d t o f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i f y o u w o u l d l i k e . T h a n k s ! Em i l y On F e b 2 5 , 2 0 1 9 , a t 1 2 : 1 5 P M , L u k e C a v e n e r < lc a v e n e r @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi E m i l y ! Th a n k s f o r y o u r c o n t i n u e d e f f o r t s o n t h e s c o o t e r i s s u e . T h e n e w l y m e m o s e e m s t o r e f e r e n c e a e x c l u s i v e f r a n c h i s e e o r o p e r a t o r . I ’ m w o n d e r i n g i f t h e u p d a t e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i s t o n o w s e l e c t a si n g l e a w a r d e e o r i f t h e p a s t d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t w o v e n d o r s i s s t i l l t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . Th a n k s f o r t h e i n p u t . LC Se n t f r o m m y i P h o n e EX H I B I T C Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 2 8 o f 6 0 2 50 6 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Fr i d a y , J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 1 : 2 4 P M To : Ar t h u r O r t e g o n Cc : Ro b e r t S i m i s o n ; J a s o n K r e i z e n b e c k Su b j e c t : RE : M e s s a g e f r o m A r t h u r O r t e g o n So u n d s g o o d . T h a n k y o u . Em i l y Fr o m : A r t h u r O r t e g o n < a r t h u r . o r t e g o n @ b i r d . c o > Se n t : F r i d a y , J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 1 : 2 2 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < r s i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; J a s o n K r e i z e n b e c k < j a s o n k r e i z e n b e c k @ l o b b y i d a h o . c o m > Su b j e c t : R e : M e s s a g e f r o m A r t h u r O r t e g o n Em i l y : Le t ' s s h o o t f o r M o n d a y a t 1 1 a m M S T ? I ' l l s e n d a n i n v i t e u p o n c o n f i r m a t i o n . Th a n k s ! Ar t h u r O r t e g o n On F r i , J a n 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 1 : 5 7 A M E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi , A r t h u r . I w o u l d b e g l a d t o c h a t . I a m p l a n n i n g t o l e a v e t h e o f f i c e t o d a y a t 2 p . m . , b u t i f s o m e t i m e i n t h e n e x t 3 0 m i n u t e s w o r k s f o r y o u , p l e a s e g i v e m e a c a l l . M y n u m b e r i s b e l o w . O t h e r w i s e , I a m c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e a n y d a y n e x t w e e k b e t w e e n 1 0 a . m . an d n o o n o r 2 a n d 5 p . m . , e x c e p t T u e s d a y a f t e r n o o n i s o u t . T h a n k s . Em i l y Em i l y K a n e | D e p u t y C i t y A t t o r n e y Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 6 Bu i l t f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g EX H I B I T D Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 2 9 o f 6 0 2 50 7 Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o I d a h o l a w w i t h r e g a r d t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w Fr o m : A r t h u r O r t e g o n < ar t h u r . o r t e g o n @ b i r d . c o > Se n t : F r i d a y , J a n u a r y 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 1 2 : 2 9 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < rs i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; J a s o n K r e i z e n b e c k < ja s o n k r e i z e n b e c k @ l o b b y i d a h o . c o m > Su b j e c t : M e s s a g e f r o m A r t h u r O r t e g o n Em i l y : I s p o k e w i t h R o b e r t t h i s m o r n i n g a n d w a s w o n d e r i n g i f y o u w o u l d h a v e a c h a n c e t o j u m p o n a q u i c k c a l l t o d a y t o t a l k t h r o u g h a f e w i s s u e s a n d a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s y o u m a y h a v e a s y o u d r a f t t h e c o m m e n t s f r o m t h i s w e e k ' s c o u n c i l me e t i n g . Le t m e k n o w i f y o u a r e a m e n a b l e , a n d i f s o , t h e b e s t w a y t o g e t s o m e t h i n g s c h e d u l e d . Th a n k s ! Ar t h u r O r t e g o n -- Ar t h u r O r t e g o n Ma n a g e r , G o v e r n m e n t P a r t n e r s h i p s ( W e s t e r n U . S . ) Bi r d ar t h u r . o r t e g o n @ b i r d . c o Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 8 8 8 - 4 4 3 3 ww w . m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 0 o f 6 0 2 50 8 Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , i n r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . -- Ar t h u r O r t e g o n Ma n a g e r , G o v e r n m e n t P a r t n e r s h i p s ( W e s t e r n U . S . ) Bi r d ar t h u r . o r t e g o n @ b i r d . c o Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 1 o f 6 0 2 41 0 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Th u r s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 1 6 P M To : Mi k e B a r t o n Su b j e c t : RE : A l c o h o l P e r m i t f o r C o u n c i l a g e n d a Lu c k y y o u . I a s k e d C . J a y t o p u t i t o n u n d e r c o m m u n i t y r e p o r t s s o h o p e f u l l y t h e M a y o r a n d J o e w i l l l e a v e i t t h e r e a n d w e w o n ’ t h a v e t o s i t t h r o u g h t h e h e a r i n g s f i r s t . ( F i n g e r s c r o s s e d ! ) Fr o m : M i k e B a r t o n < m b a r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : T h u r s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 1 4 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : A l c o h o l P e r m i t f o r C o u n c i l a g e n d a So u n d s g o o d . T h e M a y o r w a n t s s o m e o n e f r o m p a r k s t o c o m m e nt a b o u t t h e n e e d t o h a v e G e o S p e e d c o n t r o l i n p a r k s . A n d , s i n c e I ’ m s c h e d u l e d t o b e a t C o u n c i l n e x t w e e k i t w i l l b e m e . ( s h o r t s t r a w ) Mi k e B a r t o n | P a r k s S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 . 8 8 8 . 3 5 7 9 | F a x : 2 0 8 . 8 9 8 . 5 5 0 1 Me r i di a n P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n : Q u a l i t y . C o m m u n i t y . F u n . A l l e- m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e Se n t : T h u r s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 4 2 A M To : M i k e B a r t o n < mb a r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : A l c o h o l P e r m i t f o r C o u n c i l a g e n d a I a m g o i n g b a c k n e x t T u e s d a y f o r a n o t h e r d i s c u s s i o n / u p d a t e b e f o r e t h e f i n a l v e r s i o n i s b e f o r e C o u n c i l . I t s h o u l d b e a p e r f e c t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r y o u t o p u t i n a w o r d . A s s u m i n g y o u r s u c c e s s , a t s o m e p o i n t a f t e r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n w e s h o u l d h a v e a p a t r o l o f f i c e r se e i f t h e y c a n m e a s u r e s p e e d s i n p a r k s t o m a k e s u r e a l l o p e r a t o r s a r e f o l l o w i n g t h e r u l e s . A s y o u h e a r d , B i r d s a y s t h a t L i m e d o e s n ’ t d o w h a t t h e y s a y a n d t h e n g a i n a n u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e o v e r B i r d / c o m p e t i t o r s b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e t h e f u n s c o o t e r s … i f w e t a k e me a s u r e s t o a c t u a l l y e n f o r c e , i t m a y h e a d o f f t h e “ r a c e t o t h e b o t t o m ” t h a t t h e B i r d r e p w a s r e f e r r i n g t o . Fr o m : M i k e B a r t o n < mb a r t on @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 1 4 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F w d : A l c o h o l P e r m i t f o r C o u n c i l a g e n d a Hi E m i l y , a n y i d e a w h e n t h e f i n a l s c o o t e r o r d i n a n c e w i l l b e g o i n g t o c o u n c i l ? Se n t f r o m m y V e r i z o n , S a m s u n g G a l a x y s m a r t p h o n e -- - --- - - O r i g i n a l m e s s a g e - - - - - - - - EX H I B I T E Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 2 o f 6 0 2 41 1 Fr o m : S t e v e S i d d o w a y < ss i d d o w a y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Da t e : 1 / 1 6 / 1 9 5 : 0 7 P M ( G M T - 0 7 : 0 0 ) To : C o l i n M o s s < cm o s s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, M i k e B a r t o n < mb a r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : A l c o h o l P e r m i t f o r C o u n c i l a g e n d a On a n o t h e r n o t e r e l a t e d t o C o u n c i l , d o e s a n y o n e k n o w w h e n t h e S c o o t e r O r d i n a n c e w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d a t C o u n c i l ? M a y o r w a n t s u s t o t e s t i f y a b o u t t h e n e e d t o r e d u c e t h e s p e e d s i n p a r k s . St e ve S i d d o w a y | P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n D i r e c t o r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 . 8 8 8 . 3 5 7 9 | F a x : 2 0 8 . 8 9 8 . 5 5 0 1 Me ri d i a n P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n : Q u a l i t y . C o m m u n i t y . F u n . Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m: C o l i n M o s s Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 0 6 P M To : M i k e B a r t o n < mb a r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : S t e v e S i d d o w a y < ss i d d o w a y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : A l c o h o l P e r m i t f o r C o u n c i l a g e n d a He y M i k e , So a l c o h o l p e r m i t s w e n t f i n e a t C o u n c i l y e s t e r d a y . A l l i n s u p p o r t w i t h n o q u e s t i o n s . W h e n I s u b m i t t e d t h e i t e m f o r t h e a g e n d a , t h o u g h , I a p p a r e n t l y s u b m i t t e d a v e r s i o n t h a t s t i l l s a i d “ d r a f t ” a t t h e t o p s o C l e r k ’ s a d d e d i t t o t h e a g e n d a a s a d e pa r t m e n t r e p o r t , n o t a n a c t i o n i t e m , w h i c h I i n t e n d e d i t t o b e . A n y w a y , I ’ m s u b m i t t i n g i t a g a i n f o r n e x t w e e k . I d o n ’ t t h i n k t h e y ’ l l e v e n a s k a n y o n e t o s a y a n y t h i n g , b u t j u s t a h e a d s u p . L e t m e k n o w i f y o u w a n t m o r e d e t a i l s . T h a n k s . Co li n M o s s | R e c r e a t i o n M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 8 8 8 - 3 5 7 9 | F a x : 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 1 Me ri d i a n P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n : Q u a l i t y . C o m m u n i t y . F u n . Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 3 o f 6 0 2 22 1 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Th u r s d a y , M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 5 2 A M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Su b j e c t : RE : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Hi , K e i t h . T h a n k y o u ! T h e o n l y c o n t a c t i n f o I h a v e i s f o r B i r d – ar t h u r . or t e g o n @ b i r d . c o . I b e l i e v e t h a t R o b e r t h a s s o m e o t h e r s . W a n t m e t o a s k h i m ? Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : T h u r s d a y , M a r c h 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 2 1 A M To : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Th a n ks E m i l y . I w i l l g e t i t o n t h e w e b s i t e t o d a y . D o y ou h a v e c o n t a c t s f o r m e t o s e n d i t t o d i r e c t l y ? Ke i t h W a t t s | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w .op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e@ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 6 : 1 5 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Hi , K e i t h . T o m y k n o w l e d g e , t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e n o t d e s i g n e d t o e l i m i n a t e o r s i n g l e o u t a n y p o t e n t i a l v e n d o r s . T h e o b j e c t i v e i s t o l i m i t t h e p o o l t o e x p e r i e n c e d v e n d o r s w i t h s a f e , r e m o t e l y c o n t r o l l e d e q u i p m e n t . I d i d r e n a m e t h a t p a r t “ e l i g i b i l i t y qu e s ti o n n a i r e ” a n d i t d o e s s a y t h a t t h e y h a v e t o s a y y e s i n o r d e r t o b e e l i g i b l e . I f t h e r e s t l o o k s O K t o y o u , t h i s i s r e a d y t o g o o u t . T h a n k y o u ! Em i l y Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t ts @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 2 2 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Hi E mi l y , I w o u l d c a l l t h i s a “ R e q u i r e m e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ” a n d s t a t e t h a t i n o r d e r f o r t h e p r o p o s a l t o b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e p r o p o s e r m u s t a n s w e r y e s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s . I w a n t t o c a u t i o n a g a i n t h a t t h e s e q u e s t i o n s m u s t n o t b e in t e n d e d t o e l i m i n a t e c o m p e t i t i o n o r s i n g l e o u t a s i n g l e v e n d o r . I f t h a t i s t h e c a s e I w o u l d n o t i n c l u d e i t i n a n R F P . T h e s e i t e m s c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e p r o p o s a l r a t i n g p r o c e s s a s p a r t o f a n e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r y o r a s e p a r a t e o n e . Ke i t h W a t t s | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 EX H I B I T F Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 4 o f 6 0 2 22 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w. o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e < e ka n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 3 0 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } No p r o b l e m – h o w a b o u t t h i s ? ( S e e y e l l o w h i g h l i g h t s . ) Fr om : K e i t h W a t t s < kw at t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 4 3 A M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Hi E m i l y , w e ’ v e g o n e t h r o u g h o u r R F P ’ s a n d c o u l d n o t f in d o n e . I t h o u g h t w e h a d . I w i l l l o o k a t t h e R F P a g a i n t o d a y a n d s e e w h e r e i t ’ s b e s t f i t i s a n d t r y t o g i v e a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . Ke i t h W a t t s | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w. o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e < e ka n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a r c h 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 1 9 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Go o d m o r n i n g . J u s t c h e c k i n g i n o n t h i s – w i l l y o u p l e a s e s e n d m e o n e o f y o u r R F P s w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ? T h a n k s ! Em il y Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e Se n t : M o n d a y , M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 1 : 3 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; R o b e r t S i m i s o n < rs i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Hi , K e i t h . I j u s t t a l k e d t o R o b e r t . W i l l y o u p l e a s e s e n d m e a n R F P t e m p l a t e w i t h a q u e s t i o n n a i r e ? I t h i n k w e d o w a n t t o i n c o r p o r a t e t w o p a s s / f a i l q u e s t i o n s . T h a n k y o u ! Em il y Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 5 o f 6 0 2 22 3 Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < kw at t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 2 8 A M To : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < rs i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } H i R o b e r t , w e c a n a d d i n f o r m a t i o n l i k e t h a t . T y p i c a l l y t h e P u r p o s e s t a t e m e n t o n p a g e 3 i s m o r e b r o a d a n d t h e n w e a t t a c h a S c o p e o f W o r k w i t h a l i t t l e m o r e d e t a i l a n d a n y r e q u i r e m e n t s l i k e y o u h a v e s t a t e d . I f w e h a v e s o m e p a s s f a i l qu e s t i o n s w e s h o u l d a l s o a d d a Q u e s t i o n n a i r e w h i c h w o u l d s t a t e a n s w e r i n g n o t o a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g w o u l d b e o r c o u l d b e g r o u n d s f o r r e j e c t i o n o f p r o p o s a l . B u t t o d o s o y o u n e e d t o m a k e s u r e t h e r e a r e v e n d o r s o u t t h e r e t h a t c a n an s w e r y e s t o y o u r q u e s t i o n s . P l e a s e d o n o t t a i l o r t h i s t o o n e v e n d o r o r w e m i g h t h a v e a p r o t e s t . I f t h a t i s t h e c a s e t h e n j u s t a d d i t t o y o u r e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a . Ke i t h W a t t s | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w. o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < rs im i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 7 : 2 5 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Ke i t h , Wh er e w o u l d y o u r e c o m m e n d / s u g g e s t w e h a v e a “ m i n i m u m q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ” s e c t i o n f o r r e p l y i n g t o t h e R F P . I t e m s s u c h a s “ c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t e s i n a m i n i m u m o f 2 5 c i t i e s ” o r h a s “ f a c i l i t a t e d 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 s u c c e s s f u l e - s c o o t e r r i d e s ” , “ d e p l o y e d e - s c o o t e r s h a v e t h e ab i l i t y t o b e r e g u l a t e d b y a n e x t e r n a l a p p l i c a t i o n r e l a t e d t o s p e e d a n d g e o f e n c e d l o c a t i o n s ” o r i s t h i s n o t a n o p t i o n i n t h e R F P p r o c e s s . Ro b e r t S i m i s o n | C h i e f o f S t a f f Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | M a y o r ’ s O f f i c e Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr om : p u r c h t i c k e t Se nt : F r i d a y , M a r c h 0 8 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 1 6 A M To : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < rs i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } -- -- r e p l y a b o v e t h i s l i n e - - Ke it h W a t t s w r o t e : Hi E m i l y , I h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o p u t t h i s i n o u r s t a n d a r d R F P f o r m a t . P l e a s e r e v i e w a n d m o d i f y a s y o u s e e f i t . T h e Y e l l o w h i g h l i g h t e d a r e a s a r e o p t i o n s f o r y o u t o l o o k a t . P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w w h e n i t h a s b e e n f o r m a t t e d . T h a n k s . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 6 o f 6 0 2 22 4 Su b j e c t : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) De s c r i p t i o n : B u i l d R F P f r o m E m i l y ' s d r a f t . Pl e a s e r e p l y t o t h i s e m a i l o r c l i c k t h e l i n k t o a d d n o t e s . I n te r n a l ; Ex t e r n a l Pu r c h a s i n g / S e r v i c e s ( G e n e r a l ) | D e p a r t m e n t R e v i e w | C r i t i c a l p r i o r i t y Ow n e r : E m i l y K a n e | A s s i g n e d : K e i t h W a t t s | 3 / 7 / 2 0 1 9 1 : 1 4 : 2 9 P M Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 7 o f 6 0 2 19 2 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Fr i d a y , A p r i l 5 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 3 3 A M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Cc : Ro b e r t S i m i s o n Su b j e c t : FW : E - s c o o t e r n e x t s t e p s Hi , K e i t h . T h a n k y o u . R o b e r t i s g o i n g t o w o r k w i t h y o u o n r e s o l v i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n . L e t m e k n o w i f I c a n a s s i s t e i t h e r o f y o u . T h a n k s ! Em i l y Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , A p r i l 5 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 1 1 A M To : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : E - s c o o t e r n e x t s t e p s Hi E m i l y , I h a v e a l l t h e e v a l u a t i o n d o c u m e n t s r e a d y f o r t h e e v a l t e a m . P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w w h o w i l l b e o n t h e t e a m . T h a n k s . Ke i t h W a t t s | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s Se n t : M o n d a y , A p r i l 1 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 1 5 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : E - s c o o t e r n e x t s t e p s Hi E m i l y , s o r r y I m i s s e d t h e m e e t i n g b u t I h a d a d o c t o r ’ s a p p o i n t m e n t d o w n t o w n . I f y o u h a v e a l i s t I w i l l s e t u p t h e m e e t i n g . M y o n l y a d v i c e i s t o n o t h a v e a n y e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s o n t h e p a n e l . Our first meeting should be Monday afternoon if t h a t w o r k s f o r e v e r y o n e . Ke i t h W a t t s | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . EX H I B I T G Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 8 o f 6 0 2 19 3 Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e < e ka n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , A p r i l 1 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 5 9 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : E - s c o o t e r n e x t s t e p s Hi , K e i t h . W e w e r e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e s h a r e d v e h i c l e ( e - s c o o t e r ) R F P a t t h e S t r e e t s c a p e a n d C o m m u n i t y C h a r a c t e r m e e t i n g t o d a y . T h e p r o p o s a l s a r e d u e F r i d a y , a n d t h e n t h e r e v i e w p a n e l i s t o c o n v e n e a n d m a k e a d e c i s i o n b y A p r i l 1 8 . D o y o u h a v e t h e p a n e l me e t i n g s e t u p y e t ? D o y o u n e e d a n y a s s i s t a n c e w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g w h o s h o u l d b e o n t h e p a n e l a n d / o r g e t t i n g t h a t o n p e o p l e ’ s c a l e n d a r s ? T h a n k s ! Em i l y Em i l y K a n e | D e p u t y C i t y A t t o r n e y Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 6 Bu il t f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o I d a h o l a w w i t h r e g a r d t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 3 9 o f 6 0 2 17 9 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Bi l l N a r y Se n t : Tu e s d a y , A p r i l 9 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 2 7 A M To : Em i l y K a n e Su b j e c t : RE : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : T u e s d a y , A p r i l 9 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 2 4 A M To : B i l l N a r y < b n a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } FY I ! Fr o m : p u r c h t i c k e t < pu r c h ti c k e t @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : T u e s d a y , A p r i l 9 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 1 0 A M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } -- -- r e p l y a b o v e t h i s l i n e - - Ro b e rt S i m i s o n w r o t e : He r e i s t h e R F P C o m m i t t e e : Sc o t t C o l l i a n i Mi k e B a r t o n Em i l y K a n e Ca l e b H o o d EX H I B I T H Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 4 0 o f 6 0 2 18 0 Jo s h E v a r t s – J o s h e v a r t s @ g m a i l . c o m Sa m a n t h a M i t c h e l l – s a m a n t h a @ b l a c k m o r . b i z Br i t t o n D a v i s - - b r i t t o n . d a v i s @ o u t l o o k . c o m Ro b e r t S i m i s o n | C h i e f o f S t a f f Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | M a y o r ’ s O f f i c e Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , i n r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr om : p u r c h t i c k e t < pu rc h t i c k e t @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , A p r i l 0 5 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 3 1 P M To : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < rs i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s 4/ 5 / 2 0 1 9 4 : 3 1 : 1 6 P M 2 p r o p s a l s w e r e r e c e i v e d , B i r d & L i m e . B o t h a p p e a r t o b e r e s p o n s i v e . N e x t s t e p i s g e t t i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n t e a m t o g e t h e r a s s o o n a s y o u h a v e a l l p a r t i e s n o t i f i e d . Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s 4/ 5 / 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 5 8 : 2 4 A M I s p o k e w i t h R o b e r t t o d a y . H e w i l l p u t a l i s t t o g e t h e r f o r m e . I t w i l l m o s t l i k e l y c o n s i s t o f 3 e m p l o y e e s a n d 3 f r o m t h e p u b l i c a s w e l l . Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s 4/ 5 / 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 1 5 : 2 6 A M Al l e v a l u a t i o n d o c u m e n t s h a v e b e e n p r e p a r e d . P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w w h o w i l l b e o n t h e e v a l u a t i o n t e a m a n d I w i l l f o r w a r d t h e d o c s a n d s e n d o u t a n i n v i c e f o r t h e i n i t i a l m e e t i n g . T h a n k s . Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s 3/ 1 5 / 2 0 1 9 9 : 1 2 : 5 3 P M Th e R F P h a s b e e n e m a i l e d t o t h e v e n d o r s p r o v i d e d b y C . J a y a n d u p l o a d e d t o t h e C i t y ' s w e b s i t e . Su b j e c t : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) De s c r i p t i o n : B u i l d R F P f r o m E m i l y ' s d r a f t . Pl e a s e r e p l y t o t h i s e m a i l o r c l i c k t h e l i n k t o a d d n o t e s . In te r n a l ; Ex t e r n a l Pu r c h a s i n g / S e r v i c e s ( G e n e r a l ) | S o l i c i t a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n | C r i t i c a l p r i o r i t y Ow n e r : E m i l y K a n e | A s s i g n e d : K e i t h W a t t s | 3 / 7 / 2 0 1 9 1 : 1 4 : 2 9 P M Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 4 1 o f 6 0 2 C ITY C OUNCI L W ORKSH OP MEETI NG AGENDA C ity Council Chambers 33 E ast B roadway Avenue M er idian, Idaho Tuesday, M ay 14, 2019 at 3:00 PM 1.Roll-Call Attendance X Anne Little Roberts X J oe Borton X Ty P almer X Treg Bernt (Left at 4:15) X Genesis Milam X L uke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2.P ledge of Allegiance 3.Adoption of Agenda – Adopted as Noted 4.Announcements 5.P roclamation A. Neurofibromatosis (NF ) Awar eness M onth 6.Consent Agenda – Approved as Amended (Item 6 -I moved to 8-A) A. O aks Nor th S ubdivision No. 2 S anitary S ewer & Water M ain E asement #A B. O aks Nor th S ubdivision No. 2 S anitary Sewer & Water M ain E asement #B C. O aks Nor th S ubdivision No. 2 Sanitary Sewer & Water M ain E asement #C D. O aks Nor th S ubdivision No. 2 Sanitary Sewer & Water M ain E asement #D E. D evelopment Agreement for Smith Rezone (H-2018-0097) with Team C onstruction (Owner ) and Scott Smith (Developer ) located at 1321 & 1323 N. M ain St. F. Temporary License Agreement between Retail West and the City of M eridian for Placement of a Sign for Public Works Week G. Approval of Awar d of RFQ and agreement to Eurofins Eaton Analytical, LLC for “Annual Non-M icro Water Testing” for a total 5- year agreement Not-To-Exceed amount of $247,333.30. EXHIBIT IMeridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 42 of 602 H. Approval Construction Contract to Idaho M aterials & Construction for the “Eagle Road Repairs” project for a Not-To-Exceed amount of $69,983.00. I. M eridian Fire Department: T he Compliance Engine, Contract Change – Removed from Consent. Becomes Item 8 -A J. AP Invoices for Payment 05/08/19 - $1,051,154.13 K. AP Invoices for Payment 05/15/19 - $729,122.41 7. Community Items/Presentations A. Ada County Assessor AnnualAssessment Briefing 8. Items M oved From the Consent Agenda A. M eridian F ire Department: T he Compliance Engine, Contract Change – Continued to May 21, 2019 9. Department Reports A. Parks and Recreation: Annual Department Report B. Parks and Recreation Department: FY2019 Budget Amendment - Charlie Rountree Field Improvements - Fuller Park for a Not-to- Exceed Amount of $58,500 (Action Item) - Approved C. Finance Department: Quarterly Update D. Vehicle Sharing (E - Scooter) Progr am Update E. Public Works: Environmental Program Plan Update F. Public Works: Design Standards Update (Action Item) – Tabled to May 21, 2019 G. Public Works: Budget Amendment for FY 2019 in the Amount of 57,750 for Wastewater Sewer Line and M anhole Repair [Action Item) - Approved 10. Ordinances [Action Items] A. Ordinance No. 19-1825: An Ordinance (H-2018-0097 – Smith Rezone) F or T he Re-Zone Of A Parcel Of L and Being A Portion Of T he Block 3 Of F.A. Nourse’s T hird Addition, As Filed For Recor d In T he Office Of T he Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho In Book 6 Of Plats At Page 289 Lying In T he NW ¼ Of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise M eridian, City Of M eridian, Ada County Idaho; Establishing And Determining T he L and Use Zoning Classification F rom C -C (Community Business) Zoning District To O -T (Old Town) Zoning District In T he M eridian City Code; Providing T hat Copies Of T his Ordinance Shall Be Filed With T he Ada County Assessor, T he Ada County Recor der, And T he Idaho State Tax Commission, As Required By Law; And Providing For A Summary Of T he Ordinance; And Providing For A Waiver Of T he Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. - Approved 11. Future M eeting TopicsMeridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 43 of 602 12. E xecutive S ession per Idaho State Code 74-206 (1)(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal r amifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated, and (j)To consider labor contr act matters authorized under section 74-206A (1)(a) and (b), Idaho Code Into Executive Session: 5:45 PM Out of Executive Session: 6:08 PM Meeting Adjourned at 6:08 PM All mater ials presented at public meetings shall bec ome pr operty of the C ity of Meridian. Any one desir ing accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please c ontac t the City Clerk's Offic e at888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 44 of 602 Meridian City Council Workshop May 14, 2019 Page 29 of 50 interest is high. Market values are going up. We are building our budget to this , we are building our capital plans to this and we are building our staffing models to this. So, with this -- you know, what is next? We have seen the city grow tremendously over the last 15 years. You guys know what you are approving for the future. We are planning everything we can based on what you are approving , guys. Both projects in the south and the Te n Mile are going to be huge impacts for us. I know Jeff in Public Works, they are working hard to make sure you get -- they have the water system there, the public safety systems there. My request to you and the rest of the city and the department decision makers is make sure we plan accordingly. Let's make sure we set up -- the next decision makers up for success and that is my ultimate desire -- or that's my goal is to make sure we not only do what we are doing today right, but also the next Mayor, the next Council Members. We want to make sure we set them up for success, like we have done for the last 15 years and that's just my request to all of us. So, with that, yeah, we have been growing, we continue to grow. Common theme here is growing, guys, and we need to consider, to discuss, collaborate, have sound and thorough meetings about everything we are doing, because we are going to continue to grow and we have a lot on our plate and with that I stand for any questions and I echo what Mr. Smith said from Ada county today, it's busy out there, guys, and we are doing everything we can to meet your citizens' needs, I can promise you that. And just remember that the employees are working hard. That's -- I can -- I can tell you from the -- from our Finance Department, everybody is working hard to make sure that the citizens get what they want and with that I stand for any questions. D. Vehicle Sharing (E-Scooter) Program Update De Weerd: And I think every director can tell you the verysame. Council, any questions? Thank you, Todd. Okay. Item 9-D is our vehicle sharing e-scooter program update and I will turn this over to Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I can start. You may have some specific questions about the process and Keith Watts is here, he can answer that. This is really just a project update of the process and where we are. There was an RFP that was issued on March 15th. A committee was formed with Scott Colaianni from police, Mike Barton from Parks, Emily Kane from my office, Caleb Hood from Planning, Josh Evarts from the citizens. Samantha Mitchell, who I don't recall specifically what her interest was, and Britain Davis, who I believe is part of MYAC. I think. De Weerd: Yes. Nary: So, we had -- so, we had a mixture of both city staff , as well as citizens that expressed interest in this particular area. They issued the RFP on March 15th. It was, then -- there were two proposals that were submitted. One from Bird. One from Lime. OnApril 15th the materials were sent for evaluation to the committee. They had a scoring criteria based on a variety of different things that were contained within the RFP of what the city was looking for in a proposal. That was then -- the evaluation team met on April 24th. They reviewed and discussed the proposals and the various attributes of each of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 45 of 602 Meridian City Council Workshop May 14, 2019 Page 30 of 50 the providers. The evaluators, then, released to finalize their evaluations and do their scoring and return them to the purchasing manager. They received the scores from the committee on April 29th. May 3rd purchasing sent the results back to the committee confirming the committee's decision. The recommendation from the committee was for one single vendor, which was Bird to be the -- selected as the provider for this franchise. May 6th the notice of intent was issued to Bird. Notice was given to Lime that they were not selected. We have had a number of inquiries, both from Council, as well as public -- public primarily Lime in regards to the information, the scoring and the RFPs and things like that, which we have responded to and provided them all the information they have requested. There is an opportunity -- to help me clarify a little bit from a process standpoint. When you do an RFP, if there is questions or concerns or misunderstandings or a lack of clarity or whatever that may be in the -- in the RFP, there is an opportunity you have up front before it is -- before it is released for -- within the timeframe to comply, there is an opportunity to get clarification and we had that happen both in -- in bids for -- for Public Works projects, as well as RFPs. So, we get questions and most times -- and Mr. Watts can be more specific if you have a question -- if we get a question, almost always the response goes back to all the providers. So , that way every -- figuring if one person has a question, they probably all have the same question , so we always provide clarification to anyone who asks and anyone who is -- who has participated. In this case there weren't any, so there was no concern -- or at least no one expressed to the city that bid -- the RFP was unclear or the desire -- what the city wanted was unclear. So, the process followed its normal course. When it's completed there is also an opportunity to protest the award. Now, the protest is not of the awardee, the protest is of the process to select the awardee. So, again, there is an opportunity if someone has an issue. It's a little bit more -- it's a little bit more difficult -- and most of them -- again, if you are looking at a Public Works project and -- and I will echo something that Mr. Watts has said to us a number of times -- lots of people say they are going to protest. All the time. Lots of people tell me they are going to file a tort claim. All the time. It doesn't necessarily mean they are going to, it doesn't necessarily mean it has merit. But that's not an uncommon response from an unsuccessful bidder, whether it's a project or whether it's an RFP. So, we try to work with them and try to figure out what their concerns are, but, you know, in the RFP, the process is what a protest would be regarding. Not who was selected, but how the process occurred. So, if there is a flaw or an error or something to that point, then, that could go back to Mr. Watts for evaluation and determination and whether that is something that could be handled at the administrative staff level or is that something that would rise to a Council level decision. At this juncture we don't have any of that. So, it really was a -- today was simply to tell you where we were . We have -- we have a contract that is being discussed between Bird and the city to meet the requirements within the RFP and we haven't reached a final decision on that -- on that contract at this point, but it has been communicated to them and there is some back and forth that's occurring on that. That's all I have on the process. And, again, Mr. Watts is here if you have specific questions about any piece of the process. Again, I wasn't on the committee, so I wasn't involved with that, so -- questions? De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 46 of 602 Meridian City Council Workshop May 14, 2019 Page 31 of 50 Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I have a question and I don't know if it's the right time or not and I don't know who to ask it to, but I know that one of the pieces that Council had discussed with going with two operators was the amount of revenue required to kind of offset the cost of managing this program. Now, we have cut that amount in half. So, is there -- is the -- will there be discussion in the negotiations, then, to increase the amount that we are going to ask from the operator to offset the costs? I just want to make sure that we are not asking taxpayers to subsidize our scooter program, because we only selected one vendor, instead of two. And I don't know if there is a monetary consequence that we want -- Nary: And maybe Mr. Watts can answer that better. I think what -- when I spoke with Mrs. Kane today of the amount, I think the amount that we had settled on and -- and, frankly, I apologize, I don't recall if this is the amount from the prior discussions or whether the committee discussed it, but I think approximately from June 1 to December 31st, which is the period of this contract, it's approximately 14,000 dollars. So, I don't know if that's -- and, again, we are sort of guesstimating a little bit on what resources of the city are necessary and how that's going to be accomplished and what -- what subsidy -- subsidizing is done, if any, but that -- the direction was -- in regards to the selection, the Council's direction was up to two and partly because if you recall the conversation was kind of dependent on scoring, you know, you could have one that scored really well, one not so much and there was some confusion or misunderstanding about that for some folks. So, we had -- Mr. Watts spoke directly with the committee members and asked them specifically if they -- when they selected one, did they believe they could only select one or did they only want to choose one. Two of the members said they didn't understand that they could select more than one and they didn't care. The other -- all the other five members of the committee said, no, we weren't -- we didn't necessarily know whether we could or not, that doesn't matter, we really only thought the Bird proposal was the appropriate choice for the city. So, it wasn't a decision where they felt like they were restricted or anything, they felt that that was the proper and appropriate vendor to select and they didn't feel that two were appropriate. So, I don't know if that answers your first part of your question, but that -- that was what they were looking at was simply the -- the particular program and the cost for that. Cavener: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: A question I guess for Mr. Nary. Where do we go, then, from here? Nary: So, what happens now is the -- again, we will have that, hopefully, fairly soon. We will have the contract back with you -- again there is some -- typical of most of these, there is generally a little bit of negotiation on some terms or conditions. Again, there is a sample that's provided as part of the RFP, so we hope to have that done within the next Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 47 of 602 Meridian City Council Workshop May 14, 2019 Page 32 of 50 week or two at the most. I don't know if Keith has a target in mind. I think a week or two is the norm. So, that you have that back in front of you for approval or not. And I do have before Keith starts, Mrs. Kane did advise me here that they -- they still use the same 25,000 dollar franchise fee number. If you recall the earlier discussion was to prorate it based on when it would be awarded. So, that 25,000 dollar fee, then, if we go from June to December, ends up being 14,000. Watts: And just for clarification, we are anticipating having the contract ready for the 28th of this month. De Weerd: And that contract would state when this -- the rollout would be. Watts: Correct. And I believe in the contract -- I believe it is the first week of June is anticipated. I would have to look through it again. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's the first week of June and it will run through December 31st of this year. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any other questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Not a question, just want to express kind of some frustration over how the process kind of went here. The last time that Council had a discussion prior to the RFP being published, the discussion surrounded the point, but, then, Councilman Borton articulated very clearly in his motion that it was to be up to two. That motion that was voted unanimously on was ignored. In the opening paragraph of the RFP under purpose it spoke of a -- an exclusive contract being awarded to the chosen proposer and we explained that away by saying aren't we lucky that all but one of the board was ignorant of -- of this major point that was in the opening paragraph under purpose of the RFP. So, luckily, they made a decision based on not realizing that was right there . Whether other companies might have looked at the RFP or read that opening paragraph and said, well, we haven't been involved in -- in the process in Meridian, there is two that have been heavily involved in it, we are not going to bother. I don't know if anybody else looked at it, but that's what was in there and that's what was published. I mean I don't have a problem with the decision of one. That was the point of up to two, but I'm just kind of frustrated that the language wasn't changed even after we clearly asked that it be changed. Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, I guess I would disagree that the Council's direction was ignored. I don't think exclusive -- again, it's a public process. If there was a person like you're -- like you're suggesting that didn't understand whether or not they would be eligible or be considered, well, that's when they are supposed to ask. There is no way for us to know ever that someone reads it and interprets it in a way that was not intended. So, I don't know how to ever answer that question on any RFP. But there always is an opportunity to ask. There are other vendors Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 48 of 602 Meridian City Council Workshop May 14, 2019 Page 33 of 50 in the marketplace. We know that. Whether they choose to or not -- for whatever reason they choose to or not is not something we can control. So, I don't believe it was ignored. I don't know if exclusive was -- it wasn't a concern to the two that submitted. They didn't have an issue on whether that was one or two or exclusive to Meridian's method of operations or method of -- of -- of what we desired as a community. I don't know what they interpreted that to mean, because they didn't ask. But they certainly submitted without it being of a concern to them to submit. So, I -- I just -- I respectfully disagree. I don't think anything was ignored. I think the Council -- the committee all felt subsequently that was notan issue to them, they selected the vendor theyfelt was the most appropriate. They didn't feel like two vendors were appropriate for a majority of the group. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And that's fine. Really it just comes back down to the point of the entire discussion surrounded that it was to be up to two. The motion clearly specified that and the RFP clearly said an exclusive contract would be awarded. Completely opposite of the entire discussion and specific motion that was made. Whether anybody didn't catch that in potentially wanting to submit a proposal or in submitting a proposal or in being on the committee, I think it's -- it's sad that it wasn't realized, that it's concerning that we are using that as the explanation to explain it away that it didn't really matter, because they didn't really realize it was in there, but the fact that that's the action Council tried to take and that -- that's not what was put in there, because that's not what was wanted. De Weerd: Any other questions or comments from Council? You know, certainly it was an oversight. I -- and I think a number of the -- the company's interested in -- in perhaps doing it was following the discussion and -- and Council's direction and decision. Certainly if this Council feels that it needs to go back out we can do that. You can disqualify any responding proposals and -- and put it out again and see if -- if additional responses are are made. So, I -- I understand your concern and -- and certainly there -- there are options at this point. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Maybe I guess along that this note, has this been the process that we are going to repeat on an equal basis? I was in Boise this morning and I see that there is a third operator now that's open -- or operating called Spin. Should they or any of the other companies that want to engage, is that, then, on an annual process with the same RFP committee following the same process moving forward in -- where do we go from here in terms of our program? Watts: Well, I can -- I can address this year's program is just a one year deal. So, this is taking us through December 31st. If the City Council wishes to do this again next year, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 49 of 602 Meridian City Council Workshop May 14, 2019 Page 34 of 50 we would most likely issue another RFP and see if we have additional vendors interested and do the same process. I mean -- Cavener: Okay. Madam Mayor, just maybe a comment then. I think I mentioned this in our previous meeting. It may be advantageous for us as a city to work towards maybe partnering with VRT in looking at a regional scooter program, so we don't have to deal with these challenges. We can provide a more cohesive program that's region wide. I know some of us have our own opinions on VRT, but this is transit and if we have a more regionalized system we can I think free ourselves from some of these challenges for what it's worth. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I think that's an interesting idea. I -- I don't know with the enforcement aspect of it if they could do that. But it's certainly something that could be looked into. Yes, Mrs. Milam. Milam: I would just like to recommend that if we do go through this and accept this proposal, that there is something more definite on the books that some -- an RFP should go out in November or December of this year. This is an annual contract, so the contract would need to begin January 1st. So, a decision would actually need to be made the end of this year. So, I just want to make sure that that's, you know, out there and in the -- in the plans. Watts: Sure. That can be something that can be set up in advance and to be honest , I would assume that Council will want to hear the feedback and how this first year goes to decide whether or not you want to do this again for another year. Milam: Right. We just don't want to wait until next year, that -- it's a shorter window, so -- Watts: Sure. Milam: -- have to have that before like November and let's see how it went through December and into the fall. De Weerd: I think that's a great idea and maybe have a report back to Council the beginning of September, because you would have to put it out again and you want to talk process, you want to bring back any data that we have been able to gain from the first several months of use and see how that goes , so that you are prepared going into the next calendar year. Watts: Correct. And I would also recommend if this is something that -- that works out and is favorable to the city, that Council would possibly suggest a multi-year agreement if this is something that looks like it's going to be sustainable within our city, then, I think a -- and at least an option for multi years on -- on the agreement would be feasible, so we Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 50 of 602 Meridian City Council Workshop May 14, 2019 Page 35 of 50 are not doingthis every year. We don't like to do it everysingle year for recurring services, so if we can set this up on a multi-year contract that would be preferable. Milam: And Madam Mayor? And I agree, you know, or at least a renewal option. Watts: Yes. Milam: Right? The only caveat would be that we did allow up to two. So, if we have one vendor we need -- and you wanted to have a renewal withthat vendor, because they have been performing wonderfully. They can have a renewal and , then, you can still put an RFP out for a possible second vendor and either pick one or not. If we have two vendors who are both wonderful vendors and we don't have any problems , then, I don't see a problem with having a renewal option, but since we did say it's up to two, we -- I think we should at least allow for the option of two. Watts: Yeah. I would recommend that as well. Milam: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. This was just an update and it will be brought back it sounds like the last -- Watts: Yeah. In two weeks we expect to have a contract before you. De Weerd: Okay. Watts: Thank you. E. Public Works: Environmental Program Plan Update De Weerd: Thank you, Keith. Item 9-E is under our Public Works Department with our environmental program plan update. You all received the environmental plan in -- via your box, as well as an e-mail follow up. So, I will turn this over Dave. Miles: Good afternoon, Council Members and Mayor. Thanks for your time. Respecting the time we will be brief. Jason and I are going to run through the plan, the environmental programs plan at a high level, but we did want to make sure that we have the conversation today and get your feedback and direction, because we do find it not only an exciting topic, but one that values input from you all, as well as the community. So, with that I will jump right in. For some of you this may be new and we can appreciate that and, in fact, I don't know if a prior version has been presented to Council before, but there is a prior version from 2015 that the Public Works Department had as well. So, our plan is a working plan, highlighting current state analysis, which focuses on ongoing responsibilities, driven by regulatory rules, as well as actions that improve our business needs and operations. The plan also frames long term goals and initiatives, some of which are low hanging fruit, which we can accomplish today and we have been doing, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 51 of 602 16 5 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Mo n d a y , A p r i l 2 9 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 4 5 A M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Su b j e c t : Ve h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R a t i n g S h e e t s At t a c h m e n t s : Li m e I n d i v i d u a l R a t i n g S h e e t - V e h i c l e S h a r i n g . x l s x ; B i r d I n d i v i d u a l R a t i n g S h e e t - V e h i c l e S h a r i n g . x l s x Sp e n t s o m e t i m e o n t h i s o v e r t h e w e e k e n d . T h a n k s f o r t h e e x t e n d e d d e a d l i n e ! Em i ly Em i l y K a n e | D e p u t y C i t y A t t o r n e y Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 6 Bu i lt f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o I d a h o l a w w i t h r e g a r d t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w EX H I B I T J Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 5 2 o f 6 0 2 15 6 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : pu r c h t i c k e t Se n t : Fr i d a y , M a y 3 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 2 6 P M To : Em i l y K a n e Su b j e c t : RE : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } -- r e p l y a b o v e t h i s l i n e - - Ke i t h W a t t s w r o t e : Se n t f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s t o t h e g r o u p a n d c o n f i r m i n g t h e i r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , I w i l l s e n d t h e N o t i c e o f I n t e n t a s s o o n a s I h e a r c o n f i r m a t i o n . Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s 4/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 9 5 : 1 8 : 1 9 P M No t i c e o f I n t e n t w i l l b e g o i n g o u t i n t h e m o r n i n g . B i r d w i l l b e t h e s e l e c t e d v e n d o r . Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s 4/ 1 6 / 2 0 1 9 4 : 5 0 : 5 0 P M Ro b e r t , a l l d o c u m e n t s h a v e b e e n s e n t t o t h e e v a l u a t o r s a n d o u r f i r s t m e e t i n g i s s c h e d u l e d f o r W e d n e s d a y A p r i l 2 4 t h . Fr o m : Ro b e r t S i m i s o n 4/ 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 0 9 : 5 9 A M He r e i s t h e R F P C o m m i t t e e : Sc o t t C o l l i a n i Mi k e B a r t o n Em i l y K a n e Ca l e b H o o d Jo s h E v a r t s – J o s h e v a r t s @ g m a i l . c o m Sa m a n t h a M i t c h e l l – s a m a n t h a @ b l a c k m o r . b i z Br i t t o n D a v i s - - b r i t t o n . d a v i s @ o u t l o o k . c o m Ro b e r t S i m i s o n | C h i e f o f S t a f f Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | M a y o r ’ s O f f i c e Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : p u r c h t i c k e t < p u r c h t i c k e t @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , A p r i l 0 5 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 3 1 P M To : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < r s i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) { 2 9 4 2 9 } Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s 4/ 5 / 2 0 1 9 4 : 3 1 : 1 6 P M EX H I B I T K Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 5 3 o f 6 0 2 15 7 2 p r o p s a l s w e r e r e c e i v e d , B i r d & L i m e . B o t h a p p e a r t o b e r e s p o n s i v e . N e x t s t e p i s g e t t i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n t e a m t o g e t h e r a s s o o n a s y o u h a v e a l l p a r t i e s n o t i f i e d . Su b j e c t : R F P f o r R i d e S h a r e ( S c o o t e r s ) De s c r i p t i o n : B u i l d R F P f r o m E m i l y ' s d r a f t . Pl e a s e r e p l y t o t h i s e m a i l o r c l i c k t h e l i n k t o a d d n o t e s . I n te r n a l ; Ex t e r n a l Pu r c h a s i n g / S e r v i c e s ( G e n e r a l ) | S o l i c i t a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n | C r i t i c a l p r i o r i t y Ow n e r : E m i l y K a n e | A s s i g n e d : K e i t h W a t t s | 3 / 7 / 2 0 1 9 1 : 1 4 : 2 9 P M Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 5 4 o f 6 0 2 15 1 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s Se n t : Fr i d a y , M a y 3 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 5 1 P M To : Ca l e b H o o d Su b j e c t : RE : F i n a l R F P S c o r i n g - V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m Th a n k s C a l e b . R o b e r t d i d n o t s e e i t t h a t w a y b u t L e g a l c o n f i r m e d t h e R F P o n l y a l l o w e d o n e . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : C a l e b H o o d < c h o o d @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 3 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 4 9 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : F i n a l R F P S c o r i n g - V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m Co n f i r m e d – B i r d – o n e v e n d o r ( I d i d n ’ t t h i n k w e h a d a n o p t i o n f o r m u l t i p l e . ) Ca l e b Ge t In v o l v e d i n t h e N e w C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n ww w . m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g / c o m p p l a n Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a tt s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 3 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 2 5 P M To : S c o t t C o l a i a n n i < sc o l a i a n n i @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; M i k e B a r t o n < mb a r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; C a l e b H o o d < ch o o d @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; Joshevarts@gmail.com ; samantha@blackmor.biz ; Britton Davis <br i t t o n . d a v i s @ o u t l o o k . c o m > Cc : R o b e r t S i m i s o n < rs i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F i n a l R F P S c o r i n g - V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m EX H I B I T L Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 5 5 o f 6 0 2 15 2 Go o d a f t e r n o o n e v e r y o n e . I ’ v e a t t a c h e d t h e f i n a l s c o r i n g f o r t h e R F P . R o b e r t h a s g i v e n h i s a p p r o v a l t o p r o c e e d w i t h a w a r d i n g w i t h t h e E v a l u a t i o n T e a m s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . I a m c o n f i r m i n g t h a t t h e t e a m i s r e c o m m e n d i n g a w a r d i n g t o on e v e n d o r o n l y a n d t h a t v e n d o r i s B i r d . P l e a s e r e s p o n d w i t h y o u r c o n f i r m a t i o n . T h a n k s f o r a l l y o u r h a r d w o r k ! Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w. o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 5 6 o f 6 0 2 13 8 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Ca l e b H o o d Se n t : We d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 1 : 1 8 P M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Su b j e c t : RE : M e r i d i a n V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P I e v a l u a t e d a n d s c o r e d t h e p r o p o s a l s i n d e p e n d e n t o f e a c h o t h e r , n o t a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r . I ’ m o p e n t o c o n s i d e r i n g t w o v e n d o r s . Ca l e b Ge t In v o l v e d i n t h e N e w C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n ww w . m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g / c o m p p l a n Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 1 2 : 4 8 P M To : S c o t t C o l a i a n n i < s c o l a i a n n i @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; M i k e B a r t o n < m b a r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; C a l e b H o o d < c h o o d @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; J o s h E v a r t s < j o s h e v a r t s @ g m a i l . c o m > ; B r i t t o n D a v i s <b r i t t o n . d a v i s @ o u t l o o k . c o m > ; S a m a n t h a M i c h e l l < s a m a n t h a @ b l a c k m o r . b i z > Su b j e c t : M e r i d i a n V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n a l l , I ’ v e h a d a f e w q u e s t i o n s c o m e u p r e g a r d i n g t h e o n e o r t w o v e n d o r s a n d I ’ m n o t s u r e w e e v e r o f f i c i a l l y l a n d e d o n o n e o r t h e o t h e r . W i t h t h a t i n m i n d , I h a v e o n e f i n a l q u e s t i o n ( h o p e f u l l y ) . Di d yo u e v a l u a t e w i t h t h e i d e a t h a t o n l y o n e v e n d o r w a s a v a i l a b l e a n d i f s o , i f y o u c o u l d p i c k b o t h w o u l d a w a r d t o L i m e e v e n t h o u g h t h e y d i d n o t h a v e a w a y t o k e e p t h e u n d e r a g e r i d e r s f r o m u s i n g t h e i r s c o o t e r s . P l e a s e l e t m e kn o w . T h a n k s a g a i n . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . EX H I B I T M Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 5 7 o f 6 0 2 13 5 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Sc o t t C o l a i a n n i Se n t : We d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 1 : 4 0 P M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Su b j e c t : RE : M e r i d i a n V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P I e v a l u a t e d b a s e d o n t h e f a c t I w a s t o l d o n l y o n e c o u l d b e s e l e c t e d . I f i t w a s a n o p t i o n I w o u l d h a v e d o n e b o t h . Li e u t e n a n t S c o t t C o l a i a n n i Co m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n Me r i d i a n P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t 14 0 1 E . W a t e r t o w e r S t . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 -84 6 -73 2 3 | F a x : 2 0 8 - 8 4 6 - 7 3 7 2 13 2 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Mi k e B a r t o n Se n t : We d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 1 2 P M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Su b j e c t : RE : M e r i d i a n V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P I e v a l u a t e d t h e p r o p o s a l s a s i f o n e v e n d o r w o u l d b e c h o s e n . T h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n w o u l d d e p e n d o n h o w b a d w e w a n t s c o o t e r s i n M e r i d i a n . Mi k e B a r t o n | P a r k s S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 . 8 8 8 . 3 5 7 9 | F a x : 2 0 8 . 8 9 8 . 5 5 0 1 Me r i di a n P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n : Q u a l i t y . C o m m u n i t y . F u n . Al l e- m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 0 8 , 2 0 1 9 1 2 : 4 8 P M To : S c o t t C o l a i a n n i < s c o l a i a n n i @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; M i k e B a r t o n < m b a r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; C a l e b H o o d < c h o o d @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; J o s h E v a r t s < j o s h e v a r t s @ g m a i l . c o m > ; B r i t t o n D a v i s <b r i t t o n . d a v i s @ o u t l o o k . c o m > ; S a m a n t h a M i c h e l l < s a m a n t h a @ b l a c k m o r . b i z > Su b j e c t : M e r i d i a n V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n a l l , I ’ v e h a d a f e w q u e s t i o n s c o m e u p r e g a r d i n g t h e o n e o r t w o v e n d o r s a n d I ’ m n o t s u r e w e e v e r o f f i c i a l l y l a n d e d o n o n e o r t h e o t h e r . W i t h t h a t i n m i n d , I h a v e o n e f i n a l q u e s t i o n ( h o p e f u l l y ) . Di d yo u e v a l u a t e w i t h t h e i d e a t h a t o n l y o n e v e n d o r w a s a v a i l a b l e a n d i f s o , i f y o u c o u l d p i c k b o t h w o u l d a w a r d t o L i m e e v e n t h o u g h t h e y d i d n o t h a v e a w a y t o k e e p t h e u n d e r a g e r i d e r s f r o m u s i n g t h e i r s c o o t e r s . P l e a s e l e t m e kn o w . T h a n k s a g a i n . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . EX H I B I T O Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 5 9 o f 6 0 2 14 5 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Mo n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 5 9 P M To : An d r e a P o g u e ; B i l l N a r y Su b j e c t : FW : N e w P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 # r e c e i v e Ke i t h a n d I c h a t t e d a b o u t t h i s r e q u e s t t h i s m o r n i n g . H e i s g o i n g t o p r o v i d e t h e c o m m e n t s t h e r a t e r s m a d e r e g a r d i n g L i m e ’ s p r o p o s a l . Fr o m : C h r i s J o h n s o n < c j o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 5 8 P M To : P R R < P R R S y s t e m @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; A n d r e a P o g u e < a p o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : F i n a n c e < F i n a n c e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : N e w P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 # r e c e i v e RF P P R R R e q u e s t Re q u e s t D a t e / T i m e : 5 / 6 / 2 0 1 9 2 : 5 6 : 5 5 P M PU B L I C R E C O R D R E Q U E S T E D B Y : Na m e : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s Ad d r e s s : Ph o n e : 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 E- M a i l : jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Pl e a s e r e v i e w t h e i n c l u d e d P R R a n d a d v i s e i f t h e c i t y m a i n t a i n s t h e s e r e c o r d s . T h e d a t e d u e i s 5 / 9 / 2 0 1 9 . T h a n k y o u ! PU B L I C R E C O R D R E Q U E S T E D : Qu e s t i o n s : 1 . Is t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2 . U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u pl e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? T h a n k y o u . Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : | 2 0 8 - 8 8 8 - 4 4 3 3 Bu i l t f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t to t h e I d a h o l a w , i n r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . EX H I B I T P Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 0 o f 6 0 2 12 6 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : An d r e a P o g u e Se n t : Th u r s d a y , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 5 0 P M To : Em i l y K a n e Cc : Bi l l N a r y Su b j e c t : FW : M e r i d i a n R F P ( s c o o t e r s ) Hi E m i l y , Ke i t h j u s t c a l l e d w a n t i n g t o p r o v i d e t h e f o l l o w i n g c o m m e n t s t o L e g a l ( i n r e d ) r e : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s ’ ( L y m e ’ s ) q u e s t i o n s f r o m M o n d a y , M a y 6 : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? Ke i t h i s s t i l l n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h B i r d a n d i t i s n ’ t h i s p r a ctice to give out more information until Council takes ac t i o n ; a n d t h e n h e i s n ’ t s u r e w h a t w e w o u l d g i v e o u t . K e i t h s a i d i f H o p k i n s p r o c e e d s w i t h a p r o t e s t , i t w o u l d b e t h e f i r s t o n e s o h e w i l l n e e d L e g a l ’ s a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e s s . H o p k i n s h a s f i v e d a y s f r o m d a t e t h e N o t i c e o f I n t e n t w a s s e n t ou t ( y e s t e r d a y ) t o f i l e t h e p r o t e s t ( M a y M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 ) . 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Ch r i s c r e a t e d P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . D u e d a t e i s n o w M a y 1 4 a c c o r d ing to Chris in his email to Hopkins today. He w o u l d l i k e t o f o l l o w u p w i t h y o u t o m o r r o w t o d i s c u s s p l a n o f a c t i o n . L e t m e k n o w h o w I c a n h e l p . Th a n ks . An d r e a Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : T h u r s d a y , M a y 0 9 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 2 0 P M To : A n d r e a P o g u e < a p o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : M e r i d i a n R F P Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o hn s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : T h u r s d a y , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 7 : 5 6 A M To : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Cc : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P EX H I B I T Q Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 1 o f 6 0 2 12 7 Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e u p d a t e d y o u r r e q u e s t i n o u r s y s t e m . W h i l e I d o n ’ t e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e a d e l a y , a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n d o e s r e s e t t h e c l o c k . Y o u s h o u l d e x p e c t a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n e n d o f b u s i n e s s o n M a y 1 4 . Ch r i s Fr o m : Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s < j o na t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go od a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o y o u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n b u s i n e s s d a y s t o p r o v i d e a re s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 2 o f 6 0 2 12 8 Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 3 o f 6 0 2 12 9 To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 4 o f 6 0 2 13 0 —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 5 o f 6 0 2 12 0 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s Se n t : Fr i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 4 A M To : Em i l y K a n e ; A n d r e a P o g u e Su b j e c t : FW : M e r i d i a n R F P FY I Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 4 A M To : ' J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s ' < j o n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > ; C h r i s J o h n s o n < c j o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < a s h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P Hi J on a t h a n , y o u w i l l h a v e 3 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e y o u r e c e iv e y o u r r e s p o n s e f r o m y o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n at h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 0 A M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Fo l l ow i n g u p , K e i t h . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d u e d a t e f o r a n y p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . EX H I B I T R Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 6 o f 6 0 2 12 1 On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 8 : 5 4 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , p l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g a p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 6 : 5 6 A M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e u p d a t e d y o u r r e q u e s t i n o u r s y s t e m . W h i l e I d o n ’ t e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e a d e l a y , a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n d o e s r e s e t t h e c l o c k . Y o u s h o u l d e x p e c t a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n e n d o f b u s i n e s s o n M a y 1 4 . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 7 o f 6 0 2 12 2 Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o yo u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n b u s i n e s s d a y s t o p r o v i d e a re s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 8 o f 6 0 2 12 3 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 6 9 o f 6 0 2 12 4 Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 0 o f 6 0 2 12 5 Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 1 o f 6 0 2 10 8 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Fr i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 0 8 P M To : Ke i t h W a t t s ; B i l l N a r y Cc : An d r e a P o g u e Su b j e c t : RE : M e r i d i a n R F P We c i r c l e d t h e w a g o n s a n d p u t t o g e t h e r a g a m e p l a n : 1. PR R : K e i t h i s g o i n g t o p r o v i d e r e s p o n s i v e r e c o r d s t o C h r i s i n t i m e f o r t h o s e r e c o r d s t o b e r e l e a s e d t o d a y . 2. Pr o t e s t d e a d l i n e : O n c e t h e r e c o r d s a r e r e l e a s e d , K e i t h i s g o i n g t o c o n f i r m w i t h L i m e t h a t t h e i r d e a d l i n e t o f i l e a p r o t e s t i s M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , a t 5 p m . I f a p r o t e s t i s r e c e i v e d , K e i t h w i l l e v a l u a t e i t , i s s u e a d e c i s i o n , a n d ( i f i t i s a d e n i a l ) n o t i f y t h e p r otestor of t h e i r r i g h t t o a p p e a l t o C o u n c i l , i n w r i t i n g , b y n o o n o n T h u r s d a y , M a y 1 6 , t o b e h e a r d b y C o u n c i l o n T u e s d a y , M a y 2 1 . 3. Ma y 1 4 p r e s e n t a t i o n t o C o u n c i l : K e i t h w i l l p r e s e n t a t i m e l i n e o f t h e R F P p r o c e s s , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t t h e r e v i e w p a n e l h a d d i s c r e t i o n t o s e l e c t t w o v e n d o r s , t h e u n a n i m o u s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e p a n e l t o s e l e c t o n e v e n d o r , a n d s o m e r e a s o n s su p p o r t i n g t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . I f a p r o t e s t i s p e n d i n g , h e w i l l d e s c r i b e t h a t t i m e l i n e a n d p r o c e s s . H e w i l l a d v i s e C o u n c i l t h a t t h e n e x t s t e p i s t h a t a p r o p o s e d c o n t r a c t w i t h B i r d w i l l b e o n t h e M a y 2 1 a g e n d a f o r C o u n c i l r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l . ( I f ne c e s s a r y , t h e y w o u l d h e a r t h e p r o t e s t , t h e n c o n s i d e r t h e c o n t r a c t f o r a p p r o v a l . A t t h a t p o i n t , C o u n c i l c a n e i t h e r a p p r o v e o r r e j e c t t h e c o n t r a c t . ) Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 6 A M To : B i l l N a r y < b n a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A n d r e a P o g u e < a p o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P Wi l l E m i l y b e p r e s e n t i n g a n u p d a t e a t C o u n c i l ? I c a n b e t h e r e f o r a n y p r o c e s s q u e s t i o n s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : B i l l N a r y < bn a r y @m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 4 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A n d r e a P o g u e < ap o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P I’ l l l e t E m i l y o r A n d r e a d e c i d e On M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 , a t 1 1 : 1 2 A M , K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : EX H I B I T S Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 2 o f 6 0 2 10 9 Do w e n e e d t o a s k f o r a n e x t e n s i o n o n t h e P R R t h e n ? Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 <i m a g e 0 0 4 . p n g > Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : B i l l N a r y < b na r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 5 6 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A n d r e a P o g u e < ap o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P Ok . L e t ’ s s e e w h a t h a p p e n s o n T u e s d a y . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k wa t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 0 7 A M To : B i l l N a r y < bn a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A n d r e a P o g u e < ap o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P In a b i d s i t u a t i o n y e s . T h i s i s a n e v a l u a t e d a w a r d . In m y o p i n i o n , w i t h o u t s e e i n g t h e e v a l u a t o r s c o m m e n t s / n o t e s h o w w o u l d a p r o p o s e r k n o w i f t h e i r p r o p o s a l w a s e v a l u a t e d f a i r l y . I d o n ’ t k n o w w h a t y o u w o u l d pr o t e s t . W e c a n d i s c u s s o u r n o t i c i n g p r o c e s s t o a u t o m a t i c a l l y i n c l u d e a l l e v a l u a t o r s c o m m e n t s . I a l s o b e l i e v e a n R F P i s a v e r y d i f f i c u l t d o c u m e n t t o p r o t e s t i n g e n e r a l a s i t i s a n e v a l u a t e d a w a r d a n d i s s u b j e c t t o e a c h in d i v i d u a l s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d o c u m e n t s s u b m i t t e d b y t h e v e n d o r s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 <i m a g e 0 0 5 . j p g > Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : Bi l l N a r y < b na r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A n d r e a P o g u e < ap o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : M e r i d i a n R F P Ke it h ; Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 3 o f 6 0 2 11 0 Th i s d o e s n ’ t m a k e s e n s e . S h o u l d n ’ t a n y p r o t e s t b e b a s ed u p o n w h e n t h e y w e r e n o t i f i e d t h e y w e r e u n s u c c e s s f u l . A P R R s h o u l d n ’ t h a v e a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h a t . Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s < k wa t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 4 A M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; A n d r e a P o g u e < ap o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : M e r i d i a n R F P FY I Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 <i m a g e 0 0 6 . j p g > Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 4 A M To : ' J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s ' < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P Hi J o n a t h a n , y o u w i l l h a v e 3 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e y o u r e c e i v e y o u r r e s p o n s e f r o m y o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 <i m a g e 0 0 6 . j p g > Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s < j on a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 0 A M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Fo ll o w i n g u p , K e i t h . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d u e d a t e f o r a n y p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 8 : 5 4 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 4 o f 6 0 2 11 1 Ke i t h , p l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g a p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 6 : 5 6 A M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e u p d a t e d y o u r r e q u e s t i n o u r s y s t e m . W h i l e I d o n ’ t e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e a d e l a y , a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n d o e s r e s e t t h e c l o c k . Y o u s h o u l d e x p e c t a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n e n d o f b u s i n e s s o n M a y 1 4 . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 5 o f 6 0 2 11 2 I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o y o u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n b u s i n e s s da y s t o p r o v i d e a r e s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 6 o f 6 0 2 11 3 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 <i m a g e 0 0 7 . p n g > Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 7 o f 6 0 2 11 4 Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 8 o f 6 0 2 11 5 -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 7 9 o f 6 0 2 10 5 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s Se n t : Fr i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 1 8 P M To : Em i l y K a n e ; C h r i s J o h n s o n ; A n d r e a P o g u e Su b j e c t : RE : P R R D o c s Hi E m i l y , a f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e P R R I d e c i d e d t h a t m y s p r e a d s h e e t w a s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e i r r e q u e s t . T h i s i s n o t p a r t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s o f t h e E v a l u a t i o n C o m m i t t e e , s o I a s k e d C h r i s t o s e n d o n l y t h e 1 4 i n d i v i d u a l e v a l u a t i o n s h e e t s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 0 9 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; C h r i s J o h n s o n < c j o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; A n d r e a P o g u e < a p o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : P R R D o c s I h a v e r e v i e w e d a n d t h e s e a r e s u b j e c t t o r e l e a s e . K e i t h , p l e a s e p r o v i d e t h e s e d o c u m e n t s d i r e c t l y t o t h e r e q u e s t o r s i n c e t h e C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e i s c l o s e d f o r t h e w e e k e n d . T h e P R R i s a t t a c h e d . T h a n k y o u ! Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t ts @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 0 5 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; A n d r e a P o g u e < ap o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : P R R D o c s He r e i s w h a t I h a v e i n P u r c h a s i n g . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . EX H I B I T T Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 8 0 o f 6 0 2 94 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Ch r i s J o h n s o n Se n t : Sa t u r d a y , M a y 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 5 A M To : Em i l y K a n e ; A n d r e a P o g u e Su b j e c t : Fw d : M e r i d i a n R F P At t a c h m e n t s : im a g e 0 0 1 . p n g ; i m a g e 0 0 2 . p n g ; i m a g e 0 0 2 . p n g It c o n t i n u e s . . . Be g i n f o r w a r d e d m e s s a g e : Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Da t e : M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 8 : 0 7 : 0 1 P M M D T To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >, " M i l l e r , W i l l i a m K . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) " < WM i l l e r @ p e r k i n s c o i e . c o m >, " c c : G a b r i e l S c h e e r " < ga b r i e l @ l i . m e >, " J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s " < jonathan.hopkins@li.me >, Katie Stevens <ka t i e . s t e v e n s @ l i . m e > Su b j e c t : Re : M e r i d i a n R F P Ad d i t i o n a l l y K e i t h & C h r i s , Af t e r f u r t h e r r e v i e w o f t h e m a t e r i a l s j u s t d i s t r i b u t e d , r e c o g n i z e d w e r e c e i v e d t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t in p a r t . W e r e c e i v e d a l l g r a d i n g r u b r i c s , b u t w e d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e R F P s f o r q u a l i t a t i v e c o m p a r i s o n . W e a r e a w a r e t h a t th e c i t y s t i l l h a s t i m e , u n d e r p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e r u l e s , t o p r o v i d e t h e R F P s . W e a r e j u s t w r i t i n g t o n o t e a n d a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e p r o t e s t e x t e n s i o n c l o c k ( 3 d a y s ) h a s n o t y e t s t a r t e d t i c k i n g a s w e h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d a l l t h e ma t e r i a l s r e q u e s t e d a s o f 5 . 1 0 . 1 9 . -- J o n a t h a n —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On F r i, M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 5 : 4 2 P M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , c o n f i r m i n g y o u m e a n 3 bu s i n e s s d a y s , s o i f w e a r e t o p r o t e s t t h e p r o t e s t i s d u e W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 . I s t h i s c o r r e c t ? Th a n k y o u , —J o n a t h a n On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 7 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Yo u ’ r e w e l c o m e J o n a t h a n . EX H I B I T U Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 8 1 o f 6 0 2 95 Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 96 97 Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o y o u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n bu s i n e s s d a y s t o p r o v i d e a r e s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 8 4 o f 6 0 2 98 Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 99 in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 8 6 o f 6 0 2 10 0 Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 8 7 o f 6 0 2 10 7 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s Se n t : Fr i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 0 5 P M To : Ch r i s J o h n s o n ; A n d r e a P o g u e ; E m i l y K a n e Su b j e c t : PR R D o c s At t a c h m e n t s : Bi r d - B D . p d f ; B i r d - C H . p d f ; B i r d - E K . p d f ; B i r d - J E . p d f ; B i r d - M B . p d f ; B i r d - S C . p d f ; B i r d - S M . p d f ; L i m e - B D . p d f ; L i m e - C H . p d f ; L i m e - E K . p d f ; L i m e - J E . p d f ; L i m e - M B . p d f ; L i m e - S C . p d f ; L i m e - S M . p d f ; R F Q C o m m i t t e e R a t i n g Sh e e t - V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m . p d f He r e i s w h a t I h a v e i n P u r c h a s i n g . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . EX H I B I T V Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 8 8 o f 6 0 2 63 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Mo n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 0 6 A M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Su b j e c t : FW : M e r i d i a n R F P As d i s c u s s e d , j u s t c o n f i r m i n g t h a t y o u i n t e n d t o r e s p o n d t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l r e c o r d s ( a s s u m i n g t h e y m e a n p r o p o s a l s , n o t “ R F P s ” ) a r e e n r o u t e a n d t h e p r o t e s t p e r i o d w i l l r u n u n t i l n o o n o n W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 2 5 A M To : B i l l N a r y < b n a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; A n d r e a P o g u e < a p o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : M e r i d i a n R F P An d th i s o n e c a m e l a t e r F r i d a y n i g h t . I h a v e n o t r e s p o n d ed t o e i t h e r a t t h i s p o i n t . P r o t e s t p e r i o d s a r e a l w a y s c a l e n d a r d a y s f o r t h e P u r c h a s i n g D e p a r t m e n t . T y p i c a l l y w e h a v e n o t r e l e a s e d c o m p e t i t o r s p r o p o s a l s u n t i l n e g o t i a t i o n s w e r e co m p l e t e d . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n at h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 0 7 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; M i l l e r , W i l l i a m K . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < WM i l l e r @ p e r k i n s c o i e . c o m >; c c : G a b r i e l S c h e e r < ga b r i e l @ l i . m e >; J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e >; Katie Stevens <katie.stevens@li.me > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ad d i ti o n a l l y K e i t h & C h r i s , Af t e r f u r t h e r r e v i e w o f t h e m a t e r i a l s j u s t d i s t r i b u t e d , r e c o g n i z e d w e r e c e i v e d t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t in p a r t . W e r e c e i v e d a l l g r a d i n g r u b r i c s , b u t w e d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e R F P s f o r q u a l i t a t i v e c o m p a r i s o n . W e a r e a w a r e t h a t the city still has ti m e , u n d e r p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e r u l e s , t o p r o v i d e t h e R F P s . W e a r e j u s t w r i t i n g t o n o t e a n d a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e p r o t e s t e x t e n s i o n c l o c k ( 3 d a y s ) h a s n o t y e t s t a r t e d t i c k i n g a s w e h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d a l l t h e m a t e r i a l s r e q u e s t e d a s o f 5 . 1 0 . 1 9 . -- J o n a t h a n —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . EX H I B I T W Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 8 9 o f 6 0 2 64 On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 5 : 4 2 P M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , c o n f i r m i n g y o u m e a n 3 bu s i n e s s d a y s , s o i f w e a r e t o p r o t e s t t h e p r o t e s t i s d u e W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 . I s t h i s c o r r e c t ? Th a n k y o u , —J o n a t h a n On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 7 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Yo u ’ r e w e l c o m e J o n a t h a n . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 5 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ok t h a n k y o u , K e i t h . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 0 o f 6 0 2 65 On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 3 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , y o u w i l l h a v e 3 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e y o u r e c e i v e y o u r r e s p o n s e f r o m y o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 0 A M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Fo l l o w i n g u p , K e i t h . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d u e d a t e f o r a n y p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 8 : 5 4 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , p l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g a p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 1 o f 6 0 2 66 On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 6 : 5 6 A M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e u p d a t e d y o u r r e q u e s t i n o u r s y s t e m . W h i l e I d o n ’ t e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e a d e l a y , a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n d o e s r e s e t t h e c l o c k . Y o u s h o u l d e x p e c t a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n e n d o f b u s i n e s s o n M a y 1 4 . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 2 o f 6 0 2 67 I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o y o u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n b u s i n e s s d a y s t o pr o v i d e a r e s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 3 o f 6 0 2 68 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 4 o f 6 0 2 69 Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 5 o f 6 0 2 70 -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 6 o f 6 0 2 54 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Mo n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 1 A M To : Ke i t h W a t t s Su b j e c t : RE : M e r i d i a n R F P OK , t h a t s o u n d s f i n e . C h r i s j u s t p r o v i d e d t h e p r o p o s a l s . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 1 A M To : E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P Th r e e d a y s f r o m n o w w o u l d b e n o o n T h u r s d a y . W e d n e s d a y o r T h u r s d a y , r e a l l y d o e s n o t m a k e a n y d i f f e r e n c e t o m e a n d s t i l l l e a v e s u s t i m e t o s c h e d u l e a n e x e c s e s s i o n f o r t h e 2 1 st . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w .op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 9 A M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : M e r i d i a n R F P Ho w sh o u l d w e r e s p o n d ? Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n at h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 8 A M EX H I B I T X Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 7 o f 6 0 2 55 To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; M a l m e n , E r i k a E . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < EM a l m e n @ p e r k i n s c o i e . c o m >; M i l l e r , W i l l i a m K . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < WMiller@perkinscoie.com > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ke it h , t h a t i s c o r r e c t . W e r e q u e s t e d t h e B i r d R F P a s w e l l b u t h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d i t . A s s u m e o n c e w e r e c e i v e i t t h e c l o c k w i l l s t a r t t i c k i n g 3 w o r k i n g d a y s . On M o n , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 1 4 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Go o d m o r n i n g J o h n a t h a n , I a m a s s u m i n g y o u a r e r e q u e s t i n g B i r d ’ s p r o p o s a l w h e n y o u r e q u e s t e d t h e R F P ’ s . I f s o I h a v e s e n t i t t o t h e C l e r k ’ s o f f i c e . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h a t i s y o u r r e q u e s t s o t h a t t h e C l e r k c a n r e l e a s e t h o s e d o c u m e n t s . You ar e c o r r e c t o n t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e , i t i s d u e n o l a t e r t h a n N o o n o n W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 th . T h a n k s J o n a t h a n , Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 6 : 4 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ke i t h , c o n f i r m i n g y o u m e a n 3 bu s i n e s s d a y s , s o i f w e a r e t o p r o t e s t t h e p r o t e s t i s d u e W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 . I s t h i s c o r r e c t ? Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 8 o f 6 0 2 56 Th a n k y o u , —J o n a t h a n On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 7 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Yo u ’ r e w e l c o m e J o n a t h a n . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 5 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ok t h a n k y o u , K e i t h . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 9 9 o f 6 0 2 57 On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 3 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , y o u w i l l h a v e 3 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e y o u r e c e i v e y o u r r e s p o n s e f r o m y o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 0 A M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Fo l l o w i n g u p , K e i t h . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d u e d a t e f o r a n y p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 8 : 5 4 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , p l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g a p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 0 o f 6 0 2 58 On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 6 : 5 6 A M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e u p d a t e d y o u r r e q u e s t i n o u r s y s t e m . W h i l e I d o n ’ t e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e a d e l a y , a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n d o e s r e s e t t h e c l o c k . Y o u s h o u l d e x p e c t a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n e n d o f b u s i n e s s o n M a y 1 4 . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 1 o f 6 0 2 59 I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o y o u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n b u s i n e s s d a y s t o pr o v i d e a r e s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 2 o f 6 0 2 60 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 3 o f 6 0 2 61 Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 4 o f 6 0 2 62 -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 5 o f 6 0 2 45 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Ke i t h W a t t s Se n t : Mo n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 3 A M To : Em i l y K a n e Su b j e c t : FW : M e r i d i a n R F P Th i s i s w h a t I s e n t . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 3 A M To : ' J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s ' < j o n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < a s h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e > ; C h r i s J o h n s o n < c j o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; M a l m e n , E r i k a E . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < E M a l m e n @ p e r k i n s c o i e . c o m > ; M i l l e r , W i l l i a m K . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < W M i l l e r @ p e r k i n s c o i e . c o m > Su b j e c t : R E : M e r i d i a n R F P Hi J on a t h a n , y o u a r e c o r r e c t . T h e d u e d a t e f o r a p r o t e s t w i l l b e n o o n T h u r s d a y , M a y 1 6 th . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . op p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n at h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 8 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; M a l m e n , E r i k a E . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < EM a l m e n @ p e r k i n s c o i e . c o m >; M i l l e r , W i l l i a m K . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < WMiller@perkinscoie.com > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ke i t h, t h a t i s c o r r e c t . W e r e q u e s t e d t h e B i r d R F P a s w e l l b u t h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d i t . A s s u m e o n c e w e r e c e i v e i t t h e c l o c k w i l l s t a r t t i c k i n g 3 w o r k i n g d a y s . EX H I B I T Y Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 6 o f 6 0 2 46 On M o n , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 1 4 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Go o d m o r n i n g J o h n a t h a n , I a m a s s u m i n g y o u a r e r e q u e s t i n g B i r d ’ s p r o p o s a l w h e n y o u r e q u e s t e d t h e R F P ’ s . I f s o I h a v e s e n t i t t o t h e C l e r k ’ s o f f i c e . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h a t i s y o u r r e q u e s t s o t h a t t h e C l e r k c a n r e l e a s e t h o s e d o c u m e n t s . You ar e c o r r e c t o n t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e , i t i s d u e n o l a t e r t h a n N o o n o n W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 th . T h a n k s J o n a t h a n , Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 6 : 4 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ke i t h , c o n f i r m i n g y o u m e a n 3 bu s i n e s s d a y s , s o i f w e a r e t o p r o t e s t t h e p r o t e s t i s d u e W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 . I s t h i s c o r r e c t ? Th a n k y o u , —J o n a t h a n Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 7 o f 6 0 2 47 On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 7 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Yo u ’ r e w e l c o m e J o n a t h a n . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 5 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ok t h a n k y o u , K e i t h . On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 3 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , y o u w i l l h a v e 3 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e y o u r e c e i v e y o u r r e s p o n s e f r o m y o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 8 o f 6 0 2 48 Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 0 A M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Fo l l o w i n g u p , K e i t h . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d u e d a t e f o r a n y p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 8 : 5 4 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , p l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g a p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 6 : 5 6 A M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e u p d a t e d y o u r r e q u e s t i n o u r s y s t e m . W h i l e I d o n ’ t e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e a d e l a y , a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n d o e s r e s e t t h e c l o c k . Y o u s h o u l d e x p e c t a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n e n d o f b u s i n e s s o n M a y 1 4 . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 0 9 o f 6 0 2 49 Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o y o u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n b u s i n e s s d a y s t o pr o v i d e a r e s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 0 o f 6 0 2 50 Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 1 o f 6 0 2 51 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 2 o f 6 0 2 52 On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 3 o f 6 0 2 53 Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 4 o f 6 0 2 27 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Mo n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 5 1 A M To : Bi l l N a r y ; A n d r e a P o g u e Su b j e c t : RE : M e r i d i a n R F P Up d a t e , s i n c e t h e r e i s a n o t h e r t h r e a d g o i n g o n t h i s t o p i c . T h e p r o t e s t / a p p e a l , i f a n y , w o u l d s t a y t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e s e l e c t e d v e n d o r . S o i f t h e r e i s a p r o t e s t , a n d t h e n a n a p p e a l , t h e a g r e e m e n t a n d t h e a p p e a l w o u l d b e o n a l a t e r a g e n d a (l i k el y M a y 2 8 ) . Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 4 A M To : B i l l N a r y < b n a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; A n d r e a P o g u e < a p o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : M e r i d i a n R F P I t a l k e d t o K e i t h a g a i n a b o u t w h y w e b e l i e v e t h a t p r o p o s a l s a r e e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e . U n l i k e r e l e a s i n g b i d s , r e l e a s i n g p r o p o s a l s r e a l l y d o e s n o t u n d e r m i n e o u r a b i l i t y t o n e g o t i a t e a c o n t r a c t . N o n - d i s c l o s u r e o f b i d i n f o r m a t i o n i s d e f e n s i b l e a s a t r a d e se c r e t. N o n - d i s c l o s u r e o f p r o p o s a l s i s n o t . S o s t a r t i n g n o w , a n d f r o m n o w o n , w e a r e g o i n g t o r e l e a s e p r o p o s a l s i n r e s p o n s e t o P R R s f o r t h o s e d o c u m e n t s . Th e P R R f r o m L i m e d i d r e q u e s t p r o p o s a l s , s o C h r i s w i l l r e l e a s e t h o s e m o m e n t a r i l y , a n d K e i t h e x t e n d e d t h e p r o t e s t p e r i o d t o n o o n o n T h u r s d a y , M a y 1 6 . I f a p r o t e s t i s r e c e i v e d , K e i t h w i l l m a k e h i s d e c i s i o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t e i t t o L i m e , a n d i f n e c e s s a r y , L i m e wi l l h a v e u n t i l 2 : 0 0 p . m . o n T h u r s d a y , M a y 1 6 t o a p p e a l K e i t h ’ s d e c i s i o n , i f t h e y w a n t t o b e h e a r d b y C i t y C o u n c i l o n M a y 2 1 . Ke i t h s a i d t h a t h e i s p l a n n i n g t o a t t e n d t h e C i t y C o u n c i l m e e t i n g t o m o r r o w , b u t t h a t h e w o u l d d e f e r t o y o u t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e R F P m a t c h e s t h e m o t i o n ( y e s ) , a n d h e w o u l d a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r a n y d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n m o t i o n a n d R F P wo u l d b e g r o u n d s f o r a p p e a l o f t h e R F P ( n o ) . Gi v e n o u r u p d a t e d a n a l y s i s o n r e l e a s e o f p r o p o s a l s , B i l l , d o y o u s t i l l w a n t t o b e t h e o n e t o r e s p o n d t o C i t y C o u n c i l , o r i s i t O K f o r K e i t h t o s e n d t h o s e d o c u m e n t s t o t h e m ? Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 0 6 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : M e r i d i a n R F P As d i s c u s s e d , j u s t c o n f i r m i n g t h a t y o u i n t e n d t o r e s p o n d t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l r e c o r d s ( a s s u m i n g t h e y m e a n p r o p o s a l s , n o t “ R F P s ” ) a r e e n r o u t e a n d t h e p r o t e s t p e r i o d w i l l r u n u n t i l n o o n o n W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 . Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t ts @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 2 5 A M To : B i l l N a r y < bn a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; A n d r e a P o g u e < ap o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : M e r i d i a n R F P An d th i s o n e c a m e l a t e r F r i d a y n i g h t . I h a v e n o t r e s p o n d ed t o e i t h e r a t t h i s p o i n t . P r o t e s t p e r i o d s a r e a l w a y s c a l e n d a r d a y s f o r t h e P u r c h a s i n g D e p a r t m e n t . T y p i c a l l y w e h a v e n o t r e l e a s e d c o m p e t i t o r s p r o p o s a l s u n t i l n e g o t i a t i o n s w e r e co m p l e t e d . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y of M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e Fi n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! EX H I B I T Z Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 5 o f 6 0 2 28 ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s < j on a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 0 7 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; M i l l e r , W i l l i a m K . ( P e r k i n s C o i e ) < WM i l l e r @ p e r k i n s c o i e . c o m >; c c : G a b r i e l S c h e e r < ga b r i e l @ l i . m e >; J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e >; Katie Stevens <katie.stevens@li.me > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ad di t i o n a l l y K e i t h & C h r i s , Af t e r f u r t h e r r e v i e w o f t h e m a t e r i a l s j u s t d i s t r i b u t e d , r e c o g n i z e d w e r e c e i v e d t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t in p a r t . W e r e c e i v e d a l l g r a d i n g r u b r i c s , b u t w e d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e R F P s f o r q u a l i t a t i v e c o m p a r i s o n . We are aware that the city still has ti m e , u n d e r p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e r u l e s , t o p r o v i d e t h e R F P s . W e a r e j u s t w r i t i n g t o n o t e a n d a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e p r o t e s t e x t e n s i o n c l o c k ( 3 d a y s ) h a s n o t y e t s t a r t e d t i c k i n g a s w e h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d a l l t h e m a t e r i a l s r e q u e s t e d a s o f 5 . 1 0 . 1 9 . -- J o n a t h a n —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 5 : 4 2 P M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , c o n f i r m i n g y o u m e a n 3 bu s i n e s s d a y s , s o i f w e a r e t o p r o t e s t t h e p r o t e s t i s d u e W e d n e s d a y , M a y 1 5 . I s t h i s c o r r e c t ? Th a n k y o u , —J o n a t h a n On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 7 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Yo u ’ r e w e l c o m e J o n a t h a n . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 6 o f 6 0 2 29 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 5 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Ok t h a n k y o u , K e i t h . On F r i , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 7 : 3 3 A M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , y o u w i l l h a v e 3 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e y o u r e c e i v e y o u r r e s p o n s e f r o m y o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 7 o f 6 0 2 30 Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 0 A M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Fo l l o w i n g u p , K e i t h . P l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d u e d a t e f o r a n y p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 8 : 5 4 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , p l e a s e c o n f i r m t h e d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g a p r o t e s t . T h a n k y o u . On T h u , M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 a t 6 : 5 6 A M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e u p d a t e d y o u r r e q u e s t i n o u r s y s t e m . W h i l e I d o n ’ t e x p e c t t h e r e t o b e a d e l a y , a n y m o d i f i c a t i o n d o e s r e s e t t h e c l o c k . Y o u s h o u l d e x p e c t a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n e n d o f b u s i n e s s o n M a y 1 4 . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , M a y 8 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 5 2 P M To : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : A s h l e y S c o t t < as h l e y . s c o t t @ l i . m e >; K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Go o d a f t e r n o o n : I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n o n o u r p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , t h a t m i g h t n o t b e n e c e s s a r y b u t w a n t e d t o c l a r i f y : Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 8 o f 6 0 2 31 1. W i t h o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e R F P s , w e a r e a l s o r e q u e s t i n g a l l g r a d i n g m a t e r i a l s f r o m t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e . 2. K e i t h , c o u l d y o u c l a r i f y t h e d a t e a n d t i m e o f t h e d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n y p r o t e s t ? 3. I f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e n o t p r o v i d e d p r i o r t o t h e d e a d l i n e , c a n w e r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e p r o t e s t d e a d l i n e i f w e s o d e s i r e ? Th a n k y o u f o r a l l b e i n g s o h e l p f u l a n d a n s w e r i n g o u r q u e s t i o n s , —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 2 : 0 5 P M C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Jo n a t h a n , I h a v e a l r e a d y e n t e r e d i n t h e r e q u e s t . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e a n i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e n o l a t e r t h a n 5 p m M D T o n M a y 9 . T h e r e s p o n s e m a y b e r e c o r d s r e s p o n s i v e t o y o u r r e q u e s t , o r m a y s t a t e t h e n e e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s u p t o t e n b u s i n e s s d a y s t o pr o v i d e a r e s p o n s e , o r p r o v i d e a r e a s o n t h e y c a n n o t r e s p o n d . F o r y o u r r e c o r d s , t h e r e q u e s t i s P R R 1 9 - 2 5 9 8 . Y o u w i l l r e c e i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e v i a e m a i l o n c e r e c o r d s a r e g a t h e r e d / r e v i e w e d . Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s . Ch r i s Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 2 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : C h r i s J o h n s o n < cj o h n s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Th a n k s K e i t h . Ch r i s , c o u l d y o u l e t u s k n o w t h e t i m e l i n e f o r c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e r e q u e s t , o n c e y o u k n o w i t ? Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 1 9 o f 6 0 2 32 Th a n k y o u b o t h ! —J o n a t h a n On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 : 5 2 P M K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > w r o t e : Hi J o n a t h a n , I a m f o r w a r d i n g t h i s t o o u r C i t y C l e r k f o r p r o c e s s i n g . Hi C h r i s , p l e a s e c r e a t e a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t f o r J o n a t h a n f o r t h i s e m a i l . T h a n k s C h r i s . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . Fr o m : J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 1 1 A M To : K e i t h W a t t s < kw a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R e : M e r i d i a n R F P Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 0 o f 6 0 2 33 So r r y . I n a d v e r t e n t s e n d . Qu e s t i o n s : 1. I s t h e r e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e c i t y c a n p r o v i d e a s t o g e n e r a l l y w h y B i r d w a s s c o r e d h i g h e r t h a n L i m e i n a l l o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s ? 2. U n d e r M e r i d i a n a n d I d a h o l a w s , a r e p r o p o s a l s a m a t t e r o f p u b l i c r e c o r d ? I f s o , c a n y o u p l e a s e r e l e a s e t h o s e f o r r e v i e w ? Th a n k y o u . —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . On M o n , M a y 6 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 8 A M J o n a t h a n H o p k i n s < jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e > w r o t e : Ke i t h , Th a n k s f o r u p d a t i n g u s o n t h e M e r i d i a n s c o o t e r R F P r e s u l t s . Qu e s t i o n s : Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 1 o f 6 0 2 34 —Jo n a t h a n Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N o r t h w e s t Jo n a t h a n . H o p k i n s @ l i . m e Yo u r r i d e a n y t i m e . -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e -- Jo n a t h a n H o p k i n s Di r e c t o r , S t r a t e g i c D e v e l o p m e n t — N W jo n a t h a n . h o p k i n s @ l i . m e Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 2 o f 6 0 2 72 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Mo n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 9 : 3 9 A M To : Ke i t h W a t t s ; B i l l N a r y ; A n d r e a P o g u e Cc : To d d L a v o i e ; R o b e r t S i m i s o n Su b j e c t : RE : V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P Bi l l w i l l r e s p o n d t o t h i s t h r e a d l a t e r t o d a y . -- - - -O r i g i n a l M e s s a g e - - - - - Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 2 3 A M To : B i l l N a r y < b n a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; E m i l y K a n e < e k a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; A n d r e a P o g u e < a p o g u e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : T o d d L a v o i e < t l a v o i e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > ; R o b e r t S i m i s o n < r s i m i s o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F W : V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P Ju s t a n F Y I o f m o r e r e q u e s t s Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , in r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . -- - - - O r i g i n a l M e s s a g e - - - - - Fr o m : K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : M o n d a y , M a y 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 7 : 2 2 A M To : T y P a l m e r < t y p a l m e r @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P Go o d m o r n i n g T y . I w i l l s e n d t h o s e o u t a s s o o n a s I g e t I t o t h e o f f i c e . Ke i t h __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fr o m : T y P a l m e r Se n t : F r i d a y , M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 5 : 4 3 P M To : K e i t h W a t t s Cc : M a y o r a n d C i t y C o u n c i l ; B i l l N a r y Su b j e c t : R e : V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m R F P Ca n w e g e t a c o p y o f t h e p r o p o s a l s t h a t w e r e s u b m i t t e d , p l e a s e . EX H I B I T A A Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 3 o f 6 0 2 73 Th a n k y o u , Ty P a l m e r | C i t y C o u n c i l , S e a t 3 Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ca l l / T e x t : 2 0 8 . 9 5 4 . 6 4 3 2 | F a x : 2 0 8 . 8 9 8 . 5 5 0 1 [c i d : i m a g e 0 0 1 . g i f @ 0 1 D 3 5 9 2 C . 9 D 6 D 1 0 8 0 ] < h t t p : / / w w w . m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g / > On M a y 9 , 2 0 1 9 , a t 3 : 2 5 P M , K e i t h W a t t s < k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g < m a i l t o : k w a t t s @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > > w r o t e : Go o d a f a t e r n o o n C o u n c i l M e m b e r s . A f t e r s e e i n g s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s c o m e t h r o u g h r e g a r d i n g t h e v e h i c l e s h a r i n g R F P I w o u l d l i k e t o o u t l i n e t h e C i t y s t a n d a r d R F P e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t w a s f o l l o w e d . · T h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e w a s p r o v i d e d a l l m a t e r i a l s 1 0 d a y s p r i o r t o o u r e v a l u a t i o n m e e t i n g . · A l l e v a l u a t o r s a t t e n d e d t h e m e e t i n g a n d d i s c u s s i o n w a s h e l d . · T h e r e w a s d i s c u s s i o n o n w h e t h e r w e c o u l d a w a r d t o b o t h p r o p o s e r s o r j u s t o n e . A d e f i n i t i v e d i r e c t i o n w a s n o t p r o v i d e d a t t h i s m e e t i n g a n d d i s c u s s i o n c o n t i n u e d w i t h e v a l u a t o r s e x p r e s s i n g t h e g o o d a n d b a d o f e a c h p r o p o s a l . · T h e r e w a s t h o r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n o n L i m e ’ s l a c k o f s a f e g u a r d s i n p l a c e t o r e s t r i c t u n d e r a g e r i d e r s f r o m u s i n g t h e i r s c o o t e r s . · T h e e v a l u a t o r s e m a i l e d m e t h e i r f i n a l s c o r e s . T h e r e s u l t s a r e l i s t e d b e l o w o B i r d 8 7 . 8 5 o L i m e 6 9 . 7 1 · T h e C o m m i t t e e v o t e d t o a w a r d t o o n e v e n d o r , B i r d . · W i t h s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s c o m i n g i n r e g a r d i n g t h e n u m b e r o f v e n d o r s a l l o w e d I s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n b a c k o u t t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n c o m m i t t e e : o D i d y o u e v a l u a t e w i t h t h e i d e a t h a t o n l y o n e v e n d o r w a s a v a i l a b l e a n d i f s o , i f y o u c o u l d p i c k b o t h w o u l d a w a r d t o L i m e e v e n t h o u g h t h e y d i d n o t h a v e a w a y t o k e e p t h e u n d e r a g e r i d e r s f r o m u s i n g t h e i r s c o o t e r s . P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w . T h a n k s a g a i n . · T h e r e s u l t s a r e a s f o l l o w s : o T w o e v a l u a t o r s c o m p l e t e d t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n s w i t h t h e i n t e n t t h a t t h e R F P o n l y a l l o w e d o n e v e n d o r . T h e y w o u l d e n t e r t a i n b o t h v e n d o r s i f a l l o w e d . o O n e e v a l u a t o r c o m p l e t e d t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n w i t h t h e i n t e n t t h a t t h e R F P o n l y a l l o w e d o n e v e n d o r b u t w o u l d o n l y r e c o m m e n d B i r d r e g a r d l e s s i f t h e r e w a s a n o p t i o n f o r t w o . . o F o u r s i m p l y e v a l u a t e d b o t h p r o p o s a l s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d w o u l d o n l y r e c o m m e n d B i r d e v e n w h e n t h e o p t i o n w a s b o t h v e n d o r s . § E n d r e s u l t , f i v e o f t h e s e v e n e v a l u a t o r s w o u l d o n l y r e c o m m e n d B i r d r e g a r d l e s s i f t h e R F P a l l o w s b o t h . Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 4 o f 6 0 2 74 I w o u l d l i k e t o s t a t e t h a t I h a v e n o o p i n i o n e i t h e r w a y , I d i d n o t w r i t e t h e s c o p e o f t h e R F P a n d s i m p l y m a n a g e d t h e s o l i c i t a t i o n a n d e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s , i n w h i c h I b e l i e v e w a s f a i r . T h e e v a l u a t i o n t e a m h a d v e r y t h o r o u g h a n d t h o u g h t f u l d i s c u s s i o n . I w a s v e r y im p r e s s e d w i t h t h e d e p t h t h e e v a l u a t o r s d o v e i n t o t h e p r o p o s a l s . I h a v e a t t a c h e d a c o p y o f t h e s o l i c i t a t i o n f o r y o u r u s e a s w e l l . Ke i t h W a t t s , C P P B | P u r c h a s i n g M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | F i n a n c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 4 8 9 - 0 4 1 7 <i m a g e 0 0 2 . p n g > < h t t p : / / w w w . m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g / > Th e F i n a n c e D e p a r t m e n t – W h e r e E v e r y o n e C O U N T S ! ww w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g < h t t p : / / w w w . o p p o r t u n i t y m e r i d i a n . o r g / > Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e I d a h o l a w , i n r e g a r d s t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w . <R F P - V e h i c l e S h a r i n g P r o g r a m . p d f > Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 5 o f 6 0 2 16 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Tu e s d a y , M a y 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 4 2 A M To : Ca l e b H o o d ; C a m e r o n A r i a l ; K e i t h W a t t s ; B i l l N a r y ; S c o t t C o l a i a n n i ; J e f f L a v e y ; R o b e r t S i m i s o n ; N a n c y R a d f o r d ; C h r i s J o h n s o n ; S t e v e S i d d o w a y ; M i k e B a r t o n Su b j e c t : Fr a n c h i s e A g r e e m e n t w i t h B i r d At t a c h m e n t s : 5- 1 3 - 1 9 D r a f t F r a n c h i s e A g r e e m e n t . d o c x Hi . H e r e i s t h e d r a f t a g r e e m e n t I a m p l a n n i n g t o s e n d t o B i r d a t 1 2 : 3 0 p . m . P l e a s e t a k e o n e l a s t l o o k i f y o u c a n . T h a n k s ! Em i l y Em i l y K a n e | D e p u t y C i t y A t t o r n e y Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 6 Bu i l t f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o I d a h o l a w w i t h r e g a r d t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w EX H I B I T B B Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 6 o f 6 0 2 13 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Em i l y K a n e Se n t : Tu e s d a y , M a y 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 1 2 : 5 2 P M To : Ke i t h W a t t s ; B i l l N a r y Su b j e c t : FW : P r o p o s e d F r a n c h i s e A g r e e m e n t - M e r i d i a n At t a c h m e n t s : 5- 1 4 - 1 9 D r a f t F r a n c h i s e A g r e e m e n t . d o c x FY I – n e g o t i a t i o n s h a v e b e g u n . H e r e i s t h e f i n a l d r a f t t h a t I s e n t t o B r i d ( w i t h o u t t h e a t t a c h m e n t ) f o r y o u r r e f e r e n c e . Fr o m : E m i l y K a n e Se n t : T u e s d a y , M a y 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 1 2 : 5 0 P M To : ' A r t h u r O r t e g o n ' < a r t h u r . o r t e g o n @ b i r d . c o > Su b j e c t : P r o p o s e d F r a n c h i s e A g r e e m e n t - M e r i d i a n Hi , A r t h u r . W e h a v e p r e p a r e d a p r o p o s e d f r a n c h i s e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e C i t y o f M e r i d i a n a n d B i r d f o r y o u r r e v i e w . B e c a u s e B i r d ’ s p r o p o s a l i s a n e x h i b i t t o t h e a g r e e m e n t , t h e d o c u m e n t w a s t o o b i g t o s e n d a s a n e - m a i l a t t a c h m e n t s o I s a v e d i t o n o u r FT P s i t e . Y o u c a n a c c e s s i t h e r e : ft p : / / 2 0 9 . 1 4 1 . 1 2 7 . 3 6 He r e a r e t h e c r e d e n t i a l s y o u w i l l n e e d : Us e r : f t p u s e r Pa s s w o r d : 8 j U L p c * 5 W # g * It i s i n a f o l d e r c a l l e d “ B i r d F r a n c h i s e A g r e e m e n t ” ; t h e r e i s o n l y o n e d o c u m e n t i n t h e f o l d e r , c a l l e d “ 5 - 1 4 - 1 9 B i r d F r a n c h i s e A g r e e m e n t . p d f . ” Pl e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y i s s u e s a c c e s s i n g t h e p r o p o s e d d r a f t a n d I w i l l g e t i t t o y o u a n o t h e r w a y . O t h e r w i s e , p l e a s e r e v i e w t h i s p r o p o s e d a g r e e m e n t a n d c o n t a c t m e w i t h a n y q u e s t i o n s , c o n c e r n s , o r p r o p o s e d e d i t s . W h e n B i r d i s r e a d y t o m o v e o n to t h e n e x t s t e p , p l e a s e h a v e B i r d ’ s C E O s i g n o n b e h a l f o f B i r d a n d r e t u r n t h e s i g n e d a g r e e m e n t t o m e ( v i a e - m a i l i s f i n e ) . A s i t s t a t e s i n t h e a g r e e m e n t i t s e l f , p l e a s e k e e p i n m i n d t h a t e v e n a f t e r B i r d ’ s C E O s i g n s , t h e t e r m s o f t h i s a g r e e m e n t w i l l n o t b e f i n a l o r bi n d i n g u n t i l C i t y C o u n c i l r e v i e w s i t a n d a u t h o r i z e s t h e M a y o r ’ s s i g n a t u r e . Th a n k y o u a n d l o o k i n g f o r w a r d t o h e a r i n g f r o m y o u . Em i l y Em i l y K a n e | D e p u t y C i t y A t t o r n e y Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 6 Bu i l t f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g Al l e - m a i l m e s s a g e s s e n t t o o r r e c e i v e d b y C i t y o f M e r i d i a n e - m a i l a c c o u n t s a r e s u b j e c t t o I d a h o l a w w i t h r e g a r d t o b o t h r e l e a s e a n d r e t e n t i o n , a n d m a y b e r e l e a s e d u p o n r e q u e s t , u n l e s s e x e m p t f r o m d i s c l o s u r e b y l a w EX H I B I T C C Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 7 o f 6 0 2 8 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : Bi l l N a r y Se n t : Tu e s d a y , M a y 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 5 9 P M To : Em i l y K a n e Su b j e c t : RE : F r a n c h i s e f e e Bi l l N a r y | C i t y A t t o r n e y & R i s k M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : | 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 6 Bu i l t f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g 9 Fr o m : B i l l N a r y < bn a r y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Se n t : T u e s d a y , M a y 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 4 : 5 8 P M To : E m i l y K a n e < ek a n e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : R E : F r a n c h i s e f e e Bi l l N a r y | C i t y A t t o r n e y & R i s k M a n a g e r Ci t y o f M e r i d i a n | C i t y A t t o r n e y ’ s O f f i c e 33 E . B r o a d w a y A v e . , M e r i d i a n , I d a h o 8 3 6 4 2 Ph o n e : | 2 0 8 - 8 9 8 - 5 5 0 6 Bu il t f o r B u s i n e s s , D e s i g n e d f o r L i v i n g PROS a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobiIity transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian (Points: BIRD 18, LIME 4) PRO BIRD COMMENT REBUTTAL BIRD EXAMPLE LIME EXAMPLE DL required to verify age (pp3, 25) + duplicate prevention (p29); Lime does this in some cities; city preference customer support options (p12); Nearly identical options. Lime’s section is actually more robust. Only Bird got credit. EXHIBIT EEMeridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 130 of 602 safety-related feedback (p14); Both provide the same user feedback options. In addition to the reporting channels above, available to users and community members, safety responders detailed below. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 131 of 602 Required safety video (p'16). Both vendors provide videos. Both require safety training before trip. Only Bird got credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 132 of 602 b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic. (Points: BIRD 18, LIME 2) Customized in-app features and communications (pp3,10); Both companies do this. Only Bird got credit. Lime displayed the local rules section in the app that is customized based upon local authorities preferred messaging. off streets at night/6am daily deployment (pp3, 25); Both companies do this. Lime also makes vehicles unavailable overnight where cities feel appropriate. Only Bird got credit. customized safety banners (p16); Both companies do this. Only Bird got credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 133 of 602 move from private property on request (p33) Both companies do this. Only Bird got credit. “Establish feasible solutions” includes removing vehicles promptly, as well as creating no parking zones when needed. Key was proactive outreach and not limiting our actions to just removing vehicles. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 134 of 602 c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of Micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience (BIRD 20, LIME 2) Quality control (p9); Both companies have quality control programs. Lime’s section is perhaps more robust. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 135 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 136 of 602 sees City "as a partner with whom we will work together to implement innovations and make our services as high functioning and equitable as possibly, NOT AS A REGULATOR OR AN ADDITIONAL HAND TO OVERSEE OUR OPERATIONS' (p22); Neither company view the city as a regulator to oversee operations. The Lime response provides more details on how many cities choose to collaborate in partnership. Lime received no credit. acknowledges importance of establishing relationships before and during program (p33); Lime has met more extensively with the business community than Bird (explicitly stated) and extensively with government - yet received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 137 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 138 of 602 customized dashboard (p26); Both companies offer highly similar tools. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 139 of 602 customer complaint plan (p22) Bird is awarded multiple times for customer complaint plan, which uses identical tools to Lime. Lime received no credit for a more robust outline of complaint solutions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 140 of 602 d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values (BIRD 16, LIME 0) Proposal reflects understanding of Meridian City Code (p16); Unclear what this is referring to, as both RFPs reflect similar language. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 141 of 602 Good media roll-out plan (p21); Both companies provide similar plans. Lime received no credit. ride credits to incentivize rider understanding of rules (p31). Note: ride credits are gamification. Lime later rebuked for gamification. Lime also similarly partners. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 142 of 602 e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location (BIRD 20, LIME 0) Photo verification of proper parking (p4) Both companies offer this universally. In fact, Lime’s section was more robust. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 143 of 602 enforcement and incentive plan (p34); Both companies offer this. In fact, Lime’s section was more robust. Lime received no credit. vehicle speed caps (p10); Both companies offer this universally. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 144 of 602 remote monitoring (p10); Both companies offer this universally. Lime’s section was far more robust on this topic. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 145 of 602 Preferred parking and enforcement (pp11, 16, 'l 8); Both companies offer this. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 146 of 602 geofencing and no-riding zones (p19); Both companies offer this. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 147 of 602 governed speed limits (p25) Both companies offer this universally. Bird receives duplicative credit for this. Lime received no credit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 148 of 602 CONS a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobiIity transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian (Points: BIRD 18, LIME 4) ANTI LIME COMMENT REBUTTAL BIRD EXAMPLE LIME EXAMPLE Proposer states it will minimize effort required by City (p30) but proposes to outsource enforcement to City (p30); Lime’s enforcement section simply recommended that enforcement approach not be inconsistent with bicycles. All of the sections at right highlight how Lime leads to promote proper riding behavior, using similar tools to Bird. This was used to eliminate points from Lime but not Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 149 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 150 of 602 no drivers license or age ID verification (p43); Lime does do this when requested. Some cities request we DO NOT use Driver’s License verification. "gamifying the mobility share experience" does not seem targeted for adults seeking micromobility transportation options (p24). This statement is not valid. Gamification is used across the country in training adults in Corporate America, in adult education settings and others. This non-expert opinion was used to eliminate points but not from Bird, The tools noted in this section by Bird are essentially identical levers as those used by Lime in both RFPs. Bird received praise while Lime was ridiculed for it. This paragraph also highlights enforcement provisions that the evaluator claims do not exist in the first Con comment in this section (delegating all enforcement to the city). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 151 of 602 which also uses gamification. deployment plan lacks details, noncommittal, "draft approach" (p12); The “draft approach” language is included because we partner with the city and welcome their input should they wish to provide it, enabling us to help solve heretofore unknown challenges in collaboration with the city. Bird’s language also welcomes city input. Bird received credit; Lime received negative comments. Refers to "local knowledge" (p12) but does not say whose knowledge; Our Operations Manager, Aaron Kindall, is from Meridian, as identified earlier in the proposal. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 152 of 602 Bird used identical language but no points reduction. lots of "typical" (eg p11); Typically is a synonym for “normally.” We are describing our normal behavior. Typical, Adjective: normal, average, ordinary, standard, regular, routine, run-of-the-mill, stock, orthodox, conventional, predictable, unsurprising…. little commitment/plan (p30); Lime and Bird are essentially describing the same behavior. The Evaluator assesses Lime’s intent differently and deducts points. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 153 of 602 b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic. (Points: BIRD 18, LIME 2) Communication of rules to riders is a "pending improvement" (p23); Evaluator deducts points for describing efforts that NO company has yet rolled out as they are all in development. Bird does not provide such advance insight and does not receive deductions. NO COMMENT ON FUTURE INITIATIVES FOR SIDEWALK RIDING OR PARKING Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 154 of 602 methods of communication not specified; references "new methods," "variety of tools and technologies," "reducing trip hazards," "ensuring access," "targeted messaging," "product features," with no specifics as to plan for who/what/when/how (p23) Lime does not reveal methods of product innovations that are in development. Yet the evaluator deducts for providing insight into R&D efforts. Lime’s response also identifies communication methods. NO COMMENT ON FUTURE INITIATIVES FOR SIDEWALK RIDING OR PARKING Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 155 of 602 c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of Micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience (BIRD 20, LIME 2) No customer service plan described for Meridian; Lime provides a clear customer service plan for Meridian, which is potentially more extensive than Bird’s. Lime received deductions; Bird did not. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 156 of 602 little analysis of impact on citizens - communication is focused on preventing complaints (p13); Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 157 of 602 no description of competence/successes in other cities; no description of customer service plans in other cities; successes/lessons learned section does not demonstrate competence (or lessons learned), just general statements of presence/implementation. Lime described successes and lessons learned that are a culmination of our experience across 100 cities. We did not feel isolating the lesson to one city was required. Additional city contacts elsewhere provided as requested should the city seek to confirm our operations approach. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 158 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 159 of 602 d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values (BIRD 16, LIME 0) Proposed program is inconsistent with City Code in critical respects, e.g. overnight operations (p12), Lime picks up scooters overnight, as Bird does. Lime can also disable all scooters overnight at the request of the City. Bird given points, but none for Lime. no riding on sidewalks (pp21, 23); Bird made similar mentions as we both recommend limiting sidewalk riding, but received points. No description of customer service, accountability, respect; public outreach vague - mentions "community stakeholders," "press," "tools and technologies," "promoted targeted messaging," "implementing product features," "proper marketing and communications channels," with no specifics as to plan for who/what/when/how (p44). Lime demonstrates outreach already conducted (and more extensive than Bird), as well as deference and respect for the local community. Lime’s customer service program is similar to Bird. For press or social media marketing, we did not feel it necessary to identify every media outlet in the Treasure Valley or tactical details about how Facebook sponsored communications are executed. EXCELLENCE through close partnership, and outreach to community stakeholders before the RFP was even published (The Village, Blue Cross, Scentsy, the downtown business association, and MPD) CUSTOMER SERVICE, RESPECT: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 160 of 602 ACCOUNTABILITY TO SOLVING PROBLEMS: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 161 of 602 e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location (BIRD 20, LIME 0) future (not present) capability to tell riders where to park (p22) Our parking capabilities as briefed in the RFP are current, not future, capabilities. Lifting the curtain on future technologies earned Lime a deduction but none for Bird. Compare to Bird’s description of their in-development scooter. This reference is to a new generation of scooter that offers direct, on-board messaging to riders to inform parking and riding choices. No other vendor offers this technology and Lime has it in a trial run. The answer to RFP park IV.C.2 should have been NO; wonders if "geofenced station areas" will be required - unclear what that is referencing and vague plan for addressing whatever it is; Community preferences differ. We allow the civic leadership to have input before determining what is best for Meridian. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 162 of 602 establishing speed limit zones is in "trial status" (p49); Speed zones are a new approach, and has been in use for months, not years. It is therefore still developing, and we are not going to oversell the city on its outcomes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 163 of 602 transmitters not used for parking either so unclear what responsibility proposer intends to take for establishing, communicating, or enforcing parking rules (p50) Transmitters are not the only method to determine parking. Geofence, rider communications and photo parking confirmation described in RFP. How executed and enforcement tools are clearly indicated. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 164 of 602 even deployment plan is unclear as proposer refers to "hubs," "hotspots," "deployment locations," "deployment zones," without definition or explanation (pp12, 28). We provide multiple instances of demonstrating what Lime deployment locations look like on the ground. Bird describes nests as “groups of scooters” or “small groupings of fully charged and recently-inspected vehicles” Examples of deployment locations from RFP Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 165 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 166 of 602 144464450.1 William K. Miller WMiller@perkinscoie.com May 21,2019 Chris Johnson City Clerk City of Meridian 33. E. Broadway Ave., Suite 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re:Notice of Appeal and Request to Move Hearing Date 2019 Request For Proposals, Project No. MYR-1921-11034 Dear Mr. Johnson: My firm represents Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime (“Lime”) with respect to Request for Proposals, Project No. MYR-1921-11034 (the “RFP”) issued by the City of Meridian (the “City”). On May 16, 2019, Lime submitted a protest letter to the City challenging the outcome of the RFP (the “Protest Letter”). On May 17, 2019, the City issued a written denial of that request (the “City’s Denial”). A.Notice of Appeal Lime hereby appeals the City’s Denial to the City Council and incorporates the Protest Letter, and the information and positions taken therein, as part of its appeal. Lime will submit additional materials and briefing, if any,in support of its appeal to the City by 12:00 p.m., May 23, 2019; provided that, Lime reserves the right to submit supplemental materials and briefing after that date based on documents it receives in response to its pending public records request (PRR 19-2855)(see below). B.Request to Move Hearing Date On May 16,2019, Lime submitted a public records request in support of its protest which seeks emails and other documents related to the RFP; in particular, Lime seeks emails between members of the evaluation committee related to the RFP process. The City recently informed Lime that it will provide a response to this request by May 31, 2019. The City’s Denial states that an appeal of the City’s Denial will be heard by the City Council at its meeting on May 28, 2019, which is three days before Lime is to receive a response to its public records request. As a result, Lime respectfully requests that the hearing date for its appeal be moved to June 4, 2019, which is the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Granting this request for a short, one-week continuance will not prejudice the City or the other Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 167 of 602 Chris Johnson May 21, 2019 Page 2 144464450.1 vendor in this process, Bird Rides Inc. (“Bird”),and is necessary to ensure that Lime receives adequate due process as with respect to its protest and appeal. Please contact me with questions or concerns. Very truly yours, William Miller Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 168 of 602 144414160.2 William K. Miller WMiller@perkinscoie.com May 16, 2019 Keith Watts Purchasing Department City of Meridian 33. E. Broadway Ave., Suite 106 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: 2019 Request For Proposals, Project No. MYR-1921-11034 Vehicle Sharing Program Dear Mr. Watts: On behalf of Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime (“Lime”), an applicant with respect to Request for Proposals, Project No. MYR-1921-11034 (the “RFP”) issued by the City of Meridian (the “City”), the undersigned protests and respectfully requests review of the City’s Notice of Intent to Award, dated May 6, 2019. This request, filed prior to 12:00 p.m. on May 16, 2019, is timely. See Exhibit L (email exchange with City extending deadline to May 16, 2019). A. Summary The City recently issued an RFP for vendors who are interested in participating in an e-scooter pilot program in Meridian. Other than Lime, the only other respondent to the RFP was Bird Rides Inc. (“Bird”), one of Lime’s main competitors in the e-scooter-sharing industry. After reviewing the parties’ proposals, the City selected Bird instead of Lime as the sole successful respondent. Based on our review of documents associated with the RFP process, it is apparent that one of the seven evaluators, Emily Kane (a Meridian Deputy City Attorney), harbored an unfair bias against Lime, which resulted in her awarding Lime just eight points out of 100. This substantially lowered Lime’s score. Notably, Ms. Kane (who is also believed to have assisted with drafting the RFP itself) filled out her grading sheet three days after all other graders. If Ms. Kane’s wildly divergent score is disregarded, Lime would have received an average score of 80.5 points from the other six evaluators. Lime has filed a public records request for (among other things) email communications by city employees related to this RFP, including communications by Ms. Kane, so that it can uncover the impetus behind Ms. Kane’s incongruent scoring. But setting her motives aside, one thing is certain: Ms. Kane’s scoring, which significantly and adversely effected Lime’s final score, is completely unsupported by the record and has no rational basis in fact. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 169 of 602 Keith Watts May 16, 2019 Page 2 144414160.2 To be clear, Lime is not seeking to prevent the City from entering into a franchise agreement with Bird. Rather, Lime requests that Ms. Kane’s unsupported scores be disregarded so that the City can also award a franchise agreement to Lime, in addition to Bird, in accordance with City of Meridian Ordinance No. 19-1818, the language of the RFP, and the City Council’s intent to select two vendors. B. Background on RFP Scoring Process 1. The RFP On March 15, 2019, the City issued the RFP, which sought proposals to establish a pilot program in Meridian under which the successful respondent would provide dockless, shared e-scooters for public use. See Exhibit A. Proposals were due by April 5, 2019, a deadline with which Lime complied. Although the RFP referenced an “exclusive” franchise agreement, the RFP clearly contemplated that the City could award franchise agreements to more than one respondent: The City of Meridian reserves the right to make an award to that/those highest ranked responsive and responsible contractor(s) whose Proposal(s) is/are most responsive to the needs of the City. Id. at 5. In fact, an award of multiple franchises is consistent with the City of Meridian Ordinance No. 19-1818 and the City Council’s intent that the City accept up to two vendors as part of this pilot program. See infra ¶ B(7). 2. Lime Met All Eligibility Requirements In order to be eligible for selection, respondents needed to meet certain enumerated criteria related to their experience in other markets, scooter hardware, and app technology. Specifically, the City required that: A. Respondent operates vehicle sharing programs in at least twenty cities and/or has provided 1,000,000 rides to date; B. Respondent deploys shared vehicles which are (1) labeled with current contact information, (2) able to stand upright when parked, and (3) in good repair; and C. Respondent connects an app to all deployed vehicles which (1) explains the method by which riders can report safety or maintenance issues, (2) informs riders of the location of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 170 of 602 Keith Watts May 16, 2019 Page 3 144414160.2 designated parking areas, (3) is capable of being remotely disabled, and (4) is capable of being located and controlled remotely, by geofencing or other remote technology. Id. at 12. As part of its proposal, Lime certified that it met all of the aforementioned eligibility criteria. 3. Lime’s Proposal Addressed All Other Required Topics The RFP required that all proposals include written narratives addressing fifteen topics (and various subtopics), which are listed on pages seven and eight of the RFP. On April 5, 2019, Lime timely submitted its proposal to the City, which comprehensively responded to the RFP’s requirements, detailing (among other things): • Lime’s experience operating a shared electric scooter service in more than 100 cities; • Lime’s proposed scooter sharing program, including its plan for a calculated, gradual deployment based on its experience deploying similar programs in other cities; • Lime’s cutting-edge, dockless scooter technology, including its parking and safety features; • Lime’s nationwide education and training initiatives; and • Lime’s community and law enforcement engagement. Exhibit B. Lime has recently relied on similarly written proposals to obtain approval to operate in various other mid-size cities like Meridian, including Omaha, Nebraska; Spokane, Washington; and Santa Monica, California. 4. Bird’s Proposal Was Likely Similar to Its Recent Proposals in Other Markets Where Lime Has Been the Successful Bidder Only one other company, Bird, submitted a proposal in response to the RFP. Bird’s proposal was likely similar to the proposals it had submitted in other cities where it competes with Lime. On several recent occasions, Lime’s proposals have outscored Bird’s proposals in other markets. One recent example is the application for e-scooter permits in Portland, which was due April 9, 2019, just two business days after proposals to Meridian’s RFP were due. In Portland, Lime received the permit but Bird did not, based on what were likely similar applications. Lime also won a request for proposal process in Spokane with an application that was due on April 8, 2019, one business day after the Meridian RFP was due. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 171 of 602 Keith Watts May 16, 2019 Page 4 144414160.2 Bird’s proposal to this RFP is also similar in many ways to the proposal submitted by Lime. Compare Exhibit A at 6 (“Our service is available in more than 100 cities in 20 countries on 5 continents.”) with Exhibit M at 5 (“[Bird] operate[s] in over 100 universities and cities across the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.”). 5. The Results of Meridian’s Selection Panel To evaluate the proposals submitted in response to this RFP, the City convened a selection panel consisting of seven individuals. According to the RFP’s “Proposed Schedule” (see Exhibit A at 9), the panel was to convene on April 18, 2019. It appears that three evaluators were employed by the City and four were citizens of Meridian. Evaluators used a grading sheet with five selection categories, each of which had a maximum value of 20 points. The scores for each category were tallied up for a total score for each respondent equal to 100 points. Based on our review of the grading sheets (attached as Exhibits C-I), Bird and Lime scored closely in every category with six of the seven evaluators, resulting in similar total point scores for each of those six evaluators. The table below shows a summary of those scores. GRADER NAME OCCUPATION DATE COMPLETED BIRD LIME Samantha [Unknown] Unknown Undated 78 75 Josh Evarts Meridian Developer Undated 90 74 Britton Davis Owner, Branches Artisan April 21, 2019 90 83 Scott Colaianni Meridian Police Department April 24, 2019 90 89 Caleb Hood Meridian Planning Department April 26, 2019 90 86 Mike Barton Minister, Meridian Presbyterian April 26, 2019 91 76 Emily Kane Meridian Deputy City Attorney April 29, 2019 92 8 Inexplicably, however, Ms. Kane, who submitted her grading three days after everyone else, awarded Lime a total score of just eight points. An analysis of Ms. Kane’s actual grading sheet is even more confounding. In the written “comments” section of her grading sheet, Ms. Kane dedicated 317 words to describing “cons” associated with Lime’s proposal, while dedicating just five words to “pros.” See Exhibit I. The other evaluators included almost no negative feedback for Lime in their comments sections, let alone the kind of consistent, negative feedback offered by Ms. Kane. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 172 of 602 Keith Watts May 16, 2019 Page 5 144414160.2 6. Ms. Kane’s Grading Sheet Indicates Clear Bias and Should Be Disregarded Chapter 14 of the Meridian City Code establishes the standards for ethics in local government, including municipal contracting. Chapter 14 expressly incorporates the Idaho Transparent and Ethical Government Act. See Meridian City Code § 1-14-7; I.C. §§ 74-401-06. These standards of conduct are not just concerned with actual conflicts of interest, but also conduct which creates “the appearance of conflict or incompatibility.” Meridian City Code § 1-14-6 (emphasis added). Specifically, with respect to contracting, Meridian City Code states that City employees “shall not participate directly by means of deliberation, approval or disapproval, or recommendation, in . . . the award of any contracts with the City, except as permitted under the City’s ordinances and under the laws of the State, where to his or her knowledge there is a financial interest, or personal interest other than that possessed by the public generally.” Meridian City Code § 1-14-8. It is apparent from the data that Ms. Kane harbored an improper interest in the outcome of this process. Although Lime is currently unable to pinpoint the source of that bias, on May 16, 2019, it filed a public records request seeking: All written documents, including electronically transmitted communications, relating in any manner to the 2019 Request For Proposals, Project No. MYR- 1921-11034 (the “RFP”), including but not limited to all communications between members of the evaluation committee (including, but not limited, to Emily Kane), city staff, and/or members of the City Council regarding the RFP, scooters, Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a/ Lime (“Lime”), Lime’s participation in the RFP process, Bird, and Bird’s participation in the RFP process. Lime is confident that this request will produce communications which will shed light on the circumstances surrounding Ms. Kane’s belated participation in the scoring process and the reason behind her clear bias against Lime. Further, although the RFP states that it was prepared by you (Keith Watts), Lime has been informed that Ms. Kane assisted with drafting the RFP, which will likely be confirmed by the City’s compliance with Lime’s public records request. If Ms. Kane assisted with drafting this RFP, that makes her divergent scoring even more concerning and problematic. 7. If Ms. Kane’s Score Is Disregarded, Lime Should Also Be Awarded a Franchise Agreement City of Meridian Ordinance No. 19-1818 creates a “non-exclusive Vehicle Sharing Program franchise for the operation of Vehicle Sharing Programs on Franchised Premises.” Ord. No. 19- 1818 § 8-3-2 (A) (emphasis added). It is clear from discussions by the City and City Council Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 173 of 602 Keith Watts May 16, 2019 Page 6 144414160.2 Members during City Council meetings that the City intended to select up to 2 qualified vendors. See Exhibit J at 9 (Councilor Milam: “I think if there are four companies we should have a better system for looking at them and picking the two that are going to be the best…”); id. at 2 (City Attorney William Nary: “[F]or the record purpose, for the folks in the audience who are watching, what you have in front of you tonight is a proposal to create a franchise program in the city that will be limited under this iteration to two franchisees.”); Exhibit K. Once Ms. Kane’s score is disregarded, it is beyond dispute that Lime is qualified to be awarded a franchise agreement, as demonstrated its qualifications outlined in its proposal, scope of operations in over 100 cities, and selection in other highly-selective RFP/permit processes in other jurisdictions during a comparable time period. C. Conclusion It is axiomatic that all public contracting in Idaho should be fair and unbiased. Here, it is apparent that one of the RFP evaluators was unfairly biased against Lime. As a result, Lime requests that Ms. Kane’s score be disregarded and that, based on its new score, Lime be awarded a franchise agreement with the City on substantially the same terms as Bird since its proposal met all of the City’s requirements and (setting aside Ms. Kane’s grading) scored highly with the selection panel. If the City is willing to grant Lime a franchise agreement, the reason for its Public Records Act request is moot, and Lime will therefore withdraw that request. Please contact me with questions or concerns. Very truly yours, William Miller Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 174 of 602 E IDIAN PURCHASING DEPARTMENT 33 East Broadway Ave., Ste 106 lVleridian, lD 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0416 Fax: (208) 887-4813 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROJECT NO. MYR-1 921-11034 CONTRACT SPECI FICATIONS FOR: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM PROPOSALS IMUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.l\4. APRIL 5, 2019 DELIVER To: CITY OF MERIDIAN, PURCHASING DEPARTIVENT 33 EAST BROADWAY AVENUE, STE 106 MERIDIAN, ID 83642 Prepared by: KEITH WATTS NAME AND ADDRESS OF VENDOR SUBTVIITTING PROPOSAL NATVE DDRESS: DATE Email: IDAHO Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 175 of 602 PART REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CITY OF MERIDIAN Meridian, ldaho 83642 PROJECT # MYR-1 921-11 034 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGtr t. ll. il1. IV V. Cover Sheet. Table of Contents..... Notice Calling for Proposals lnstructions to Respondents Proposal Form. Questionnaire . Sample Agreement... ... ... ... 1 2 3 6 10 12 13 2of20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 176 of 602 PART I NOTICE CALLING FOR PROPOSALS PURPOSE The City of Meridian seeks proposals to establish a pilot Vehicle Sharing Program to provide dockless, shared e-scooters for public use on public streets and sidewalks in the City of Meridian; paved, ground-level surfaces on property owned by the City of Meridian (excluding the Water Department and the Wastewater Reuse Facility); and pathways enumerated in the City of Meridian Pathways Master Plan (collectively, "franchised premises"). The successful Respondent will be offered an exclusive franchise agreement governing the terms and conditions of the program's operation in Meridian. !n entering into the franchise agreement, the City seeks to facilitate micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian while also protecting and enhancing the safety of the several users of streets and sidewalks in our community, including pedestrians, vehicular traffic, and shared vehicle riders. Following execution of the franchise agreement, the successful Respondent shall remit to the City Clerk a nonrefundable franchise fee in the amount of $25,000.00 annually. Half shall be due within three (3) business days of execution of the franchise agreement, and the other half shall be due on or before July 1 of each year. For new franchisees only, the franchise fee due and owing shall be a prorated amount, less $2,084.00 for each whole month of the calendar year that has passed prior to issuance of the franchise. Franchise fees remitted to the City may be invested in costs that may be incurred by the City in relation to Vehicle Sharing Programs, or in needed infrastructure to support Vehicle Sharing Programs including, but not limited to, signage, pathway improvements, pathway maintenance, and pathway repair. PRESENTATIONS Those respondents which are determined to be best qualified to undertake the services required under this Request for Proposals may be invited to make a presentation to the City. Further information may be provided to the prospective respondents after the initial selection. ELIGIBILITY ln order to be eligible for selection, Respondent must be able to answer "yes" to all questions listed in PART lV - ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE. City may request verification of answers. BASIS FOR SELECTION ln evaluating eligible applications, the following factors will be considered: Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to [Vleridian (20 points); 3of20 a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 177 of 602 b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on tt/eridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic (20 points); c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience (20 points); d. Consistency of proposed program with Clty policy, CARE values, and community values (20 points); and e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location (20 points). History from the current and previous projects and customers of the respondent may be used to evaluate some of the criteria. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to make an award on the basis of suitability to purpose or superior quality, or any other criteria the City believes to be in the best interest of the City. After the City has identified the proposal with the best value for the City, the City shall have the right to negotiate with the respondent over the final terms and conditions of the contract. These negotiations may include bargaining. The primary objective of the negotiations is to maximize the City's ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals. lf an agreement cannot be reached, the negotiation will be terminated and similar negotiations will occur with the second ranked respondent. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Mistakes must be corrected and the correction inserted; correction must be initialed in ink by the person signing the Proposal. The City reserves the right to waive any informalities or minor irregularities in connection with the Proposals received. All provisions of the City code are applicable to any Proposal submitted or contract awarded pursuant thereto. Within thirty (30) days after the Proposal opening, a contract may be awarded by the City to the lowest responsive and responsible Respondent, subject to the right of the City to reject all Proposals, as it may deem proper in its absolute discretion. The time for awarding a contract may be extended at the sole discretion of the City if required to evaluate Proposals or for such other purposes as the City may determine, unless the Respondent objects to such extension in writing with his Proposal. The City of Meridian does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, age, physical handicap, ownership by women or minorities or sexual orientation. 4of20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 178 of 602 EXAMINATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Respondents shall carefully examine the specifications, and satisfy themselves as to their sufficiency, and shall not at any time after submission of the Proposal, dispute such specifications and the directions explaining or interpreting them. The City of Meridian reserves the right to make an award to thaUthose highest ranked responsive and responsible contractors (s) whose Proposal (s) is/are most responsive to the needs of the City. PURCHASE AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS A copy of the Notice lnviting Proposals, General Conditions and lnstructions to Respondents, Special Conditions, Additional Terms and Conditions, Specifications, Plans and / or Drawings, Proposal's Submittal, and any other related documents will remain on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent. lt is understood that these documents will form the basis of the purchase agreement upon award of the contract. All materials or services supplied by the Contractor shall be in conformance with all the specifications contained herein and shall be in compliance with any applicable Local, State, and Federal Laws and regulations. CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager 33 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 106 Meridian, lD 83642 (208)888-4433 Fax (208) 887-4813 kwatts@meridian citv.orq Any and all explanations desired by a respondent regarding the meaning or interpretation of this Request for Proposals or any part thereof must be requested in writing and directed to the person named as the Purchasing Representative and in accordance with section 1 "EXPLANATIONS TO RESPONDENTS". Violation(s) may be caused for rejection of the proposal. Dated: 3- ts -tq CITY OF MERIDIAN Keith atts,asing Manager 5of20 AWARD Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 179 of 602 PART II INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS 1. EXPLANATIONS TO RESPONDENTS There are twenty (20) total pages in this Request for Proposals. lt is the respondent's responsibility to ensure that all pages are included. lf any pages are missing, immediately request a copy of the missing page (s) by e-mailing your request to Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager at kwatts@meridiancitv.orq , RFP Project # MYR- 1921-11034. Any explanation desired by a respondent regarding the meaning or interpretation of the Request for Proposals, or any part thereof, must be requested in writing (via e-mail) and with sufficient time allowed for a reply to reach respondent before the submission of their proposal. Any interpretation made will be in the form of an addendum to the Request for Proposals, issued by the Purchasing Agent, and will be furnished to all prospective respondents of record. Oral explanations or instructions given before proposal opening will not be binding. 2. CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE WORK Before submitting a proposal, each respondent must (1) examine the Request for Proposals documents thoroughly, (2\ visit the site to familiarize himself/herself with local conditions that may, in any manner, affect cost, progress or performance of the work, (3) familiarize himself/herself with Federal, State and Local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that may, in any manner, affect cost, progress or performance of the work; and (4) study and carefully correlate respondent's observations with the Request for Proposals. Failure to do so will not relieve respondent from responsibility for estimating properly the difficulty or cost of successfully performing the work. The City will assume no responsibility for any understanding or representations concerning conditions made by any of it's officers or agents prior to the execution of the contract, unless included in the Request for Proposals, or any addendum. 3. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS One (1) original, two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy (USB Drive) of the respondent's proposal will be received by the City until 4:00 p.m., [VlT on the due date stated above at the office of the Purchasing Agent, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Ste. 106, [Vleridian, ldaho 83642. The envelope must be sealed and the outside of the envelope must bear the notation: PROJECT # MYR-1 921 -11034 VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM APRIL 5, 2019 4:00 P.M. The Proposal must contain the following information: a. Completed proposal form submitted on PART lll - PROPOSAL FORM 6of20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 180 of 602 b. Completed questionnaire submitted on PART lV - QUESTIONNAIRE c. Written narrative to include each and all of the following 1) Description of respondent's experience with shared vehicle programs, including how long the respondent has been engaged in this business, experiences in other venues, including under other similar contracts awarded to it, and work completed of similar type and magnitude. 2) A description of the proposed program, including which shared vehicles are to be offered for hire or use, and the number of shared vehicles to be deployed (both as planned initially and as projected when program is fully developed), hours of operation, deployment locations, fleet balancing approach, and proposed program start date. 3) Specifications of shared vehicles to be used in the program, including maximum speeds, identification with current franchisee contact information; method by which customers can notify local agent to report safety or maintenance issues; and whether able to: stand upright when parked, inform riders of the location of designated parking areas, be remotely disabled or controlled, condition and safety features to protect the safety of riders, pedestrians, motor vehicles, and property. 4) Plan for addressing public safety and other issues and incidents related to the shared vehicles' operation and/or parking, including response time, approach to shared vehicles improperly or inconveniently parked. 5) Proposed role of City staff in program management, including fielding complaints or suggestions, enforcement of rider rules, and encountering or removing shared vehicles improperly or inconveniently parked. 6) Conditions of operation that will protect the public health, safety, and welfare and mitigate effects of the program on vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or property. 7) Plan and capabilities for sharing vehicle and ridership data with City to inform and support public safety and transportation planning efforts, including anonymized trip records for each shared vehicle deployed within [Vleridian (e.9., trip start date, time, and location, duration; distance; trip end date, time, and location). 8) Rider rules, regulations, and terms of use, including whether the following conditions will be recommended or required for riders: minimum age, helmet use, licensed driver. 9) Plan for public outreach and education prior to and during franchise term, including plan to contact l\Ieridian business, school, and residential communities. 10)Plan for outreach and communication with fi/eridian Police Department regarding public safety issues prior to and during franchise term. 7 of20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 181 of 602 11)Plan for outreach and communication with transportation authorities and pathway easement property owners regarding program's use of infrastructure prior to and during franchise term. 12)Plan, including currently available technology, to remotely regulate or control shared vehicle speeds and locations, particularly in City parks, pathways, and facilities. 13)Plan for locations and approach to installation of transmitters, if any, to identify parking locations to shared vehicles. 14)Description of successes and lessons learned in other communities in which the Respondent has operated vehicle sharing program(s). 1S)Contact information for up to five (5) references from other communities in which the Respondent has operated vehicle sharing program(s). 4. LATE PROPOSALS AND MODIFICATIONS Proposals and modifications thereof received after the exact time of closing of proposals listed on the cover of this solicitation will not be considered. 5. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS Unless otherwise specified, proposals may be withdrawn by written request received from respondent prior to the time set for closing of proposals. 6. INTENT OF THE CITY The objective of this Request for Proposals is to provide sufficient information to enable qualified respondents to submit written proposals. This Request for Proposals is not a contractual offer or commitment to purchase services. Contents of this Request for Proposals and respondent's proposal will be used for establishment of final contractual obligation. lt is to be understood that this Request for Proposals and the Respondent's proposal may be attached or included by reference in an agreement between the City and successful Respondent. 7. REQUIRED INSURANCE lnsurance requirements are listed in PART V - SAMPLE AGREEMENT 8. TERM The successful respondent shall be required to (a) sign a City contract (b) commence work under the contract within ten (10) calendar days after the date the successful respondent receives the Notice to Proceed, (c) perform the work diligently, and (d) complete the work by the completion date negotiated. 8of20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 182 of 602 9. PUBLIC RECORDS The City of t\Ieridian is a public agency. All documents in its possession are public records. Proposals are public records and, except as noted below, will be available for inspection and copying by any person. lf any Respondent claims any material to be exempt from disclosure under the ldaho Public Records Law, the Respondent will expressly agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claim or suit arising from the City's refusal to disclose any such material. No such claim of exemption will be valid or effective without such express agreement. The City will take reasonable efforts to protect any information marked "confidential" by the Respondent, to the extent permitted by the ldaho Public Records Law. Confidential information must be submitted in a separate envelope, sealed and marked "Confidential lnformation" and will be returned to the Respondent upon request after the award of the contract. lt is understood, however, that the City will have no liability for disclosure of such information. Any proprietary or othenvise sensitive information contained in or with any Proposal is subject to potential disclosure. 12: PROPOSED SCHEDULE March 13,2019 RFP issued April 5, 2019 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL: All applications must be received by 4:00 p.m. (MST). By April 18,2019 Selection panel convenes and selects one eligible proposal By April 19, 2019 By May 2,2019 Selected Respondent notified; franchise agreement offered Franch ise negotiations complete; prospective franch isee m ust retu rn signed agreement by 12:00 p.m. (IVST). May 7, 2019 Execution of franchise agreement. 9of20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 183 of 602 PART III PROPOSAL FORM ln response to the Request for Proposals, the undersigned respondent hereby proposes to furnish labor, material, travel, professional services, permits, supervision, equipment and all related expenses, and to perform all work necessary and required to complete the following project in strict accordance with the terms of this Request for Proposals and the final contract for: PROJECT # MYR-1 921-11 034 VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM Respondent certifies that he/she has examined and is fully familiar with all of the provision of the Request for proposals and any addendum thereto; that he/she is submitting a proposal in strict accordance with the lnstructions to Respondents; and that he/she has carefully reviewed the accuracy of all materials submitted in response to this proposal. Respondent certifies that he/she has examined the proposal documents thoroughly, studied and carefully correlated respondent's observations with the proposal documents, and all other matters which can in any way affect the work or the cost thereof. Respondent agrees that this proposal constitutes a firm offer to the City which cannot be withdrawn by the respondent for sixty (60) calendar days from the date of actual opening of proposals. lf awarded the contract, respondent agrees to execute and deliver to the City within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of City's Conditional Notice of Award, the applicable Contract form, franchise fee, and insurance certificates. RESPONDENT'S BUS]NESS NAME: By: (signature in ink) Date: Agent: Title: 10 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 184 of 602 RESPON DENT'S LOCAL ADDRESS/PHONE/ E-[/AI L (PH) (E-t\4AlL) RES PON DENT'S CORPORATE AD DRESS/PH ON E/ E-IVIAI L (PH) (E-ruArL) NAIUE/ADDRESS OF REGISTERED AGENT IN IDAHO DECLARATION: The undersigned declares: that he/she holds the position indicating below as a corporate officer or the owner or a partner in the business entity submitting this Proposal; that the undersigned is informed of all relevant facts surrounding the preparation and submission of this Proposal, that the undersigned knows and represents and warrants to the City of tVleridian that this Proposal is prepared and submitted without collusion with any other person, business entity, or corporation with any interest in this Proposal. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct BY TITLE ADDRESS DATE 11 of 20 RESPONDENT: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 185 of 602 PART IV ELIGI BI LITY QU ESTIONNAI RE Respondent must answer "yes" or "no" to each of the following questions. Circle the correct answer. A. Does Respondent operate vehicle sharing programs in at least twenty (20) cities, and/or has Respondent provided 1,000,000 rides to date (in aggregate)? YES NO B. Will Respondent deploy shared vehicles which meet each and all of the following physical specifications? 1. Labeled with current contact information for the franchisee. 2. Able to stand upright when parked. 3. ln good repair so as not to interfere with or degrade public facilities, operations, systems, or equipment or to present an imminent or foreseeable threat to the safety of riders or the public. YES NO C. Will Respondent connect an app to all shared vehicles deployed which meets al! of the following specifications? 1. Explains the method by which riders can notify the local agent of the franchisee to report safety or maintenance issues. 2. lnforms riders of the location of designated parking areas. 3. Capable of being remotely disabled. 4. Capable of being located and controlled remotely, by geofencing or other remote technology. YES NO 12 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 186 of 602 PART V SAMPLE AGREEMENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MERIDIAN AND FRANCHISEE FOR OPERATION OF SHARED VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM ON CITY PROPERTY This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MERIDIAN AND FRANCHISEE FOR OPERATION OF SHARED VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM ON CITY PROPERTY ("Agreement") is made entered into this _ day of 20r9 ("Effective Date"), by and between Franchisee, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of State, ("Franchisee"), and the City of Meridian, Idaho, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Idaho ("City"). 1. Statement of Purpose The City of Meridian has established, by ordinance, a Vehicle Sharing Program Franchise for the operation of Vehicle Sharing Programs on Franchised Premises. This Franchise is granted pursuant to the procedures and subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth in City's request for proposals for Project no. MYR- 1921 - I 1034, and Franchisee's response thereto, attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Proposal"). In consideration fbr City's grant of this franchise, City shall not operate a Vehicle Sharing Program in Meridian. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish terms and conditions governing Franchisee's use of Franchised Premises for its Vehicle Sharing Program. 2. Definitions The definitions codified at Meridian City Code section 8-3-1 shall apply to the terms used in this Agreement, as shall the following definitions: A. BEACON: A Bluetooth transmitter, placed by Franchisee, which broadcasts parking locations to nearby Shared Vehicles. B. ELECTRIC POWER-ASSISTED BICYCLE or E-BIKE: A vehicle that has two (2) or three (3) tandem wheels, has no floorboard, and is propelled either by human power or with the assistance of an electric motor. E-bikes are consumer products, as defined by l5 U.S.C. section 2085, rather than motor vehicles as defined by Idaho Code section 49- 123(lxh). C. ELECTRIC POWER-ASSISTED SCOOTER or E-SCOOTER: A vehicle that has two (2) or three (3) tandem wheels, has a f'loorboard designed to be stood upon when riding, and is propelled either by human power or with the assistance of an electric motor. E-scooters are consumer products, as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 2085, rather than motor vehicles as defined by Idaho Code section a9-123(l)(h). D. GEOFENCE: A virtual boundary around a geographical area monitored by a global positioning system or radio frequency identitlcation technology, which triggers a response from a shared vehicle when it enters or learres the geofenced area. Such response may 13 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 187 of 602 include, but shall not be limited to, decreased maximum speed or inoperability E. FRANCHISEE or VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM FRANCHISEE: A person who owns, manages, operates, or acts on behalf of a Vehicle Sharing Program. F. PROGRAM or VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM: The offer for hire or use, by self-service, of one or more shared vehicles. G. RESTRICTED AREA: Any location where shared vehicles may not be parked. H. RIDER: A person riding or using a shared vehicle I. SHARED VEHICLE: An e-bike, e-scooter, bicycle, or other vehicle offbred by a Vehicle Sharing Program Franchisee for hire or use by self-service 3. Franchise granted. City, for and in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement and agreed to be kept and performed by Franchisee, does hereby provide to Franchisee a license to allow riders to use vehicles as part of Franchisee's Vehicle Sharing Program on Franchised Premises, to be defined as: a. Paved, ground-level surfaces on property owned by the City of Meridian, excluding the Water Department and the Wastewater Reuse Facility; b. Pathways enumerated in the City of Meridian Pathways Master Plan, to the extent City is duly authorized to convey such license under the various instruments establishing such pathways; and c. The downtown streetscape within the City Core, as such terms are defined in Title 8, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, to the extent City is authorized by the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD") under the Master License Agreement.fbr Regulalion and Maintenance o.f Sidewalk Facilities in the Meridian City Core entered into by City and ACHD on August 7, 2012. Franchisee shall not use Franchised Premises for any other purpose without the express written consent of City. 4. Term This Agreement shall be effective on the Effective Date first written above, and shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on DATE, unless earlier terminated by the method set forth herein. 5. City Commitments a. City Contact. City shall provide to Franchisee the name, e-mail address, and telephone number of specific City personnel ("City Contact") who shall serve as the liaison between City and Franchisee fbr administrative matters (e.g., if n shared vehicle needs to be moved or removed from Franchised Premises, etc.). Communication between Franchisee and City regarding administrative matters shall occur via e-mail or telephone between City Contact and Franchisee Contact. 14 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 188 of 602 b. Right of entry. City and City's contractors, employees, agents, and invitees, shall be authorized to, at all times, to inspect City's property and personal property located thereon, for the purposes of inspection for compliance with the terms of this Agreement. c. No support. City shall not provide support, monitoring, or administration services related to Franchisee's use and occupancy of Franchised Premises and/or Franchisee's personal property thereon. 6. FranchiseeCommitments a. Type and number of shared vehicles. (1) Initial deployment. By date, Franchisee shall deploy in Meridian no fewer than one hundred (100) e-scooters, and no more than number e-scooters to be used as shared vehicles. All shared vehicles shall meet the specifications of those described in Franchisee' s Proposal. (2) Increase. Every number days, Franchisee may request authorization from City to increase the number of shared vehicles offered under its Vehicle Sharing Program, by increment, up to a maximum of number shared vehicles. Franchisee Contact shall make its request for authority to increase the number of shared vehicles offered under its Vehicle Sharing Program in writing to City Contact, which request shall include a description of which and how many additional shared vehicles are to be offered for hire or use, the plan for addressing public safety issues related to the additional shared vehicles' operation and/or parking, and Franchisee's certification that all shared vehicles previously offered by Franchisee in Meridian were used, on average, at least three times per day in the previous month, with data verifying same. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of a complete application, the City Contact shall either authorize or deny the requested increase. The City Contact shall deny a request from Franchisee for an increase in the maximum number of shared vehicles offered under a Vehicle Sharing Program Franchisee Franchise where: (a) Data does not reflect that all shared vehicles offered by Franchisee under the previous version of the Vehicle Sharing Program franchise were used, on average, at least three times per day in the previous thirty (30) days. (b) The Franchisee has violated a term or condition of this Agreement or of law, or (c) The operation of the Program and/or any component thereof has varied materially from the description submitted with the Proposal. b. Franchise fee. Following execution of the tianchise agreement, the successful Respondent shall remit to the City Clerk a nonrefundable fianchise fee in the amount of $Amount. $Amount shall be due within three (3) business days of execution of this Agreement, and $Amount shall be due on or befbre July 1,2019. c. Franchisee Contact. Franchisee shall provide to City the name, e-mail address, and telephone number of specific Franchisee personnel ("Franchisee Contact") who shall serve as the liaison between City and Franchisee for administrative matters (e. g., rf an shared vehicle needs to be moved or removed fiom Franchised Premises, etc.). Communication between Franchisee and City regarding administrative matters shall occur via e-mail or telephone between City Contact and Franchisee Contact. 15 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 189 of 602 d. Beacons. [If Franchisee installs Beaconsl Franchisee shall provide to City an electronic interface that allows City to view and suggest locations of Beacons. Franchisee shall not install a Beacon without the permission of the owner of the real and/or personal property on which the Beacon is installed. e. Timely response; removal by City. Franchisee shall respond to any request to move, remove, or redistribute shared vehicles; reports of incomectly parked shared vehicles; or reports of unsafe/inoperable shared vehicles by relocating, re-parking, or removing the shared vehicle(s) at issue within two (2) hours of receiving notice. Franchisee shall comply within twenty-four (24) hours with City's order to remove all shared vehicles due to denial or revocation of an application for a Vehicle Sharing Program Franchisee Franchise, expiration of the franchise term, or tailure to timely remit all or any portion of the franchise fee or any portion thereof. In the event a shared vehicle is not relocated, re- parked, or removed within the tirnefiame specified herein; if any shared vehicle is parked in one location for more than seventy-two (72) hours without moving; or in exigent circumstances, such shared vehicle may be removed by City and taken to a City facility for storage at the expense of the Franchisee. City rnay charge Franchisee $250 per shared vehicle removed and stored by City. f. Good repair. Franchisee shall be solely responsible for monitoring shared vehicles to ensure that they are in good repair and that their use does not interfere with or degrade City's facilities, operations, systems, or equiprnent or present an imminent or foreseeable threat to the public health and safety. g. Quarterly data reports. To infbrm and support public safety and transportation planning efforts, Franchisee shall provide to the City, in the form and manner requested by City Contact, a quarterly report of anonymized trip records for each shared vehicle deployed within Meridian, to include, but not be limited to, the following data: trip start date, time, and location; duration; distance; and trip end date, time, and location. h. Hours of operation. Franchisee shall rerrove all shared vehicles from use, whether physically or by geofencing, between 1 l:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Franchisee understands and acknowledges that parks are closed every day between dusk (30 minutes after sunset) and dawn (30 minutes before sunrise), and may be closed by order of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Director. l.Shared vehicle specifications. Franchisees shall ensure that each shared vehicle used under a Vehicle Sharing Program is: 4. Labeled with current contact information for the franchisee and explains the method by which customers can notity the local agent of the franchisee to report safety or maintenance issues. 5. Able to stand upright when parked. 6. Capable of informing riders of the location of designated parking areas. 7. Capable of being remotely disabled. 8. Capable of being located and controlled rernotely, by geofencing or other remote technology. 9. In good repair so as not to interf-ere with or degrade public facilities, operations, systems, or equipment or to present an imminent or fbreseeable threat to the safety of riders or the public. 16 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 190 of 602 j. Rider information. Vehicle Sharing Program Franchisees shall inform riders of all regulations regarding the proper use and parking ofshared vehicles. Franchisee shall provide a mechanism by which riders may provide feedback to Franchisee, including feedback regarding parking areas or damaged shared vehicles. k. Parking shared vehicles on Franchised Premises. Franchisee acknowledges, understands, and agrees to comply with the provisions of Meridian City Code regarding parking of shared vehicles, including. without limitation, the requirement that shared vehicles be parked in a manner that leaves clear at least five feet (5') of the useable area of pathways and sidewalks. Franchisee shall park shared vehicles only in designated parking areas. In City parks, the designated parking area for shared vehicles shall be next to bicycle racks, unless otherwise indicated by a Beacon. l. Shared vehicles in City parks. Use of shared vehicles in City parks shall be subject to the following. (l) Franchisee shall establish geofences to prohibit shared vehicle use in or on the following areas: a. Playgrounds in regional parks; b. Special use parks; c. Tennis courts; and d. Storey Bark Park. (2) Franchisees shall use verifiable technology to ensure that in parks, riders shall not use a shared vehicle in excess of eight miles per hour. (3) Franchisee shall instruct and require riders to park shared vehicles upright, next to a public bicycle rack or at a parking location identified by a Beacon. (4) Franchisees deploying shared vehicles in parks shall park such shared vehicles upright, at a public bicycle rack or at a parking location identified by a Beacon. m. Public park. The parties hereto expressly acknowledge that the Franchised Premises are public spaces, the management and scl-reduling of which shall at all times be within the sole purview of City. City shall have the right to allow the use of Franchised Premises, and close all or any portion of Franchised Premises, for any and all purposes and under any and all conditions. At all times, Franchisee shall be on an equal footing with the general public regarding its use of Franchised Premises. Franchisee shall exercise any license granted by this Agreement only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and in accordance with any and all applicable laws and City policies. n. Public places. Franchisee acknowledges that the management and scheduling of parks, pathways, streets, and sidewalks shall at all times be within the sole purview of City and/or, where applicable, the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD") or Idaho Transportation Department ("ITD"). City shall have the right to condition or the use of, andlor close all or any porlion of its property, fbr any and all purposes and under any and all conditions. At all times, Franchisee sliall be on an equal fboting with the general public regarding its use of public propefiy. Franchisee shall exercise any right granted by its franchise only in accordance with the terms of this Chapter: with any and all applicable laws; and with City, ACHD, and ITD policies. 17 of20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 191 of 602 o. Outreach. Prior to parking or using shared vehicles on the Franchised Premises, Franchisee will prepare for City's review and input a marketing and targeted community outreach plan to: a) Describe and promote the Vehicle Sharing Program; b) Educate the public regarding use of shared vehicles, including in parks and on pathways; and c) Inform the public about advisory safety measures and applicable regulations. 7. General provisions a. Limitations. A franchise issued pursuant to this Agreement is only valid for program operation within the public right-of-way within the city of Meridian. Franchisee must obtain permission to use or allow shared vehicles on property other than the public right- of-way, including property owned by private parties and public entities. Private property owners and government entities may restrict or prohibit the use of shared vehicles and/or the conduct of a Vehicle Sharing Program on their properly. b. Risks acknowledged; as-is condition. Franchisee acknowledges that its use of Franchised Premises carries risks, some of which are unknown, and accepts any and all such risks. Franchisee acknowledges that Franchisee has inspected the licensed areas and does hereby accept same as being in good and satisfactory order, condition, and repair. It is understood and agreed that City makes no warranty or promise as to the condition, safety, usefulness or habitability of Franchised Premises, and Franchisee accepts same on an "as is" basis, both as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and throughout the term of this Agreement and all related activities. c. Restoration or repair. Franchisee shall be responsible for all costs of restoration or repair of the Licensed Areas necessitated by darnage caused by Franchisee's use under this Agreement. d. No agency. It is understood and agreed that Franchisee is not, and shall not be considered, an agent of City in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever in Franchisee's use and occupancy of the Licensed Areas. Indemnification. Franchisee specifically indernnifies City and holds City harmless from any loss, liability, claim, judgment, or action tbr damages or injury to Franchisee, to Franchisee's personal property or equipment, and to Franchisee's employees, agents, guests or invitees arising out of or resulting trom the condition of Franchised Premises or any lack of maintenance or repair thereon and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees. Franchisee further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any loss, liability, claim or action liom damages or injuries to persons or property in any way arising out of or resr.rlting tiom the use and occupancy of Franchised Premises by Franchisee or by Franchisee's agents, employees, guests or business invitees and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees. If any claim, suit or action is filed against City fbr any loss or claim described in this paragraph, Franchisee, at City's option, shall defend City and assume all costs, including attorney's fees, associated with the defense or resolution thereof, or indemnify City for all such costs and fees incurred by city in the def'ense or resolution thereof. e 18 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 192 of 602 f. Insurance. Within two (2) working days of the Efl-ective Date of this Agreement, Franchisee shall submit to City proof of an insurance policy, issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in Idalio, protecting Franchisee and all of Franchisee's employees and/or agents from all clairns fbr damages to property and bodily injury, including death, which may arise from operations under or in connection with the Vehicle Sharing Program. Such insurance shall name the City as additional insured, and shall provide that the policy shall not terminate or be canceled prior to the expiration date without thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City. Such insurance shall afford minimum limits of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per person bodily injury, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per occurrence bodily injury, and five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per occurrence property damage. g. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement for convenience or for cause. Termination shall be effective five (5) calendar days following mailing of written notice. Franchisee agrees that upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Franchisee shall remove all of its personal property from Franchised Premises and surrender same to City in the same good condition as received, reasonable wear and tear, act of God, act of nature, or damage by weather excepted. Franchisee agrees to surrender possession and occupancy of the Licensed Areas peaceably at the termination of this Agreement and any renewal or extension thereof. Franchisee shall be responsible for all costs of restoration or repair of the Licensed Areas necessitated by darnage caused by Franchisee's use under this Agreement. h. Notices. Communication between the Franchisee Contact and the City Contact regarding day-to-day matters shall occur via e-rnail or telephone. All other notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when personally served, or mailed by U.S. mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be addressed as follows: FRANCHISEE: Meridian: Company Name City of'Meridian Attn: Name, Title Attn: City Contact Address 33 E. Broadway Avenue Address Meridian ID 83642 i. No waiver. City's waiver on one or more occasion of any breach or default of any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or a diff-erent term, covenant or condition, nor shall such waiver operate to prejudice, waive, or affect any right or remedy City may have under this Agreement with respect to such subsequent default or breach by Franchisee. j No assignment. Franchisee shall not assign, sublet, or transf-er its rights under this Agreement, or any portion thereof, without the express written consent of City. k. Independent contractor. In all matters perlaining to this Agreement, Franchisee shall be acting as an independent contractor. and neitl-rer Franchisee nor any officer, employee, contractor, or agent of Franchisee shall be deemed an employee of City. Franchisee shall have no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in City. The 19 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 193 of 602 selection and designation of the personnel of City in the performance of this agreement shall be made by City. l. Compliance with laws. In performing the scope of services required hereunder, City and Franchisee shall comply with all applicable laws. ordinances, and codes of Federal, State, and local governments. m. Attorney Fees. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailir-rg party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorneys' 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. n. Entire agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements. leases, or understandings, oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. o. Applicable law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. p. Approval required. This Agreemer-rt shall not become effective or binding until approved by both Organizer and by Meridian City Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties shall cause this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers to be effective as of the day and year first above written. Franchisee: COMPANY NAME: Name Title CITY OF MERIDIAN:Attest: BY: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor C..lay Coles, City Clerk 20 of 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 194 of 602         Vehicle Sharing Program    Proposal for Project MYR-1921-11034  CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO  Neutron Holdings, Inc. DBA Lime  ;                           Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 195 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM                    TABLE OF CONTENTS    1. Experience 6  2. Description of Proposed Program 1​0  3. Vehicle Specifications 1​4  4. Safety Related to Parking & Operations 2​3  5. Partnership with the City 30  6. Safety Related to Traffic, Pedestrians & Property 3​2  7. Data Sharing 39  8. Rider Rules 4​3  9. Public Outreach & Education 4​4  10. Police Engagement 4​7  11. Pathway Easements & Engagement 4​8  12. Special Speed Zones 4​9  13. Parking Location Identification 50  14. Success & Lessons Learned 51  15. References 52       2 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 196 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Neutron Holdings, Inc.  dba Lime  85 2nd St., First Floor  San Francisco, CA 94105  April 5, 2019    ATTN: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager   City of Meridian  33 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 106  Meridian, ID 83642     Lime is pleased to submit an application to operate shared electric scooter services as a  means of alternative transportation to residents and visitors of Meridian. We look forward  to developing a collaborative partnership with the City and build on a foundation of  safety, sustainability, proactive problem-solving, and responsiveness.   Our experience, scale, and operational expertise will ensure a successful pilot program,  helping the City of Meridian diversify its mobility options, continue to adapt to rapid  growth, and connect people to transit. ​Serving Boise since late 2018​, we view this as the  next step in building a long-term, sustainable partnership within the Treasure Valley.  The enclosed application details our strategy to deploy a shared electric scooter fleet in  Meridian. Lime intends to work with the City staff, Meridian Police Department, local  businesses stakeholders and the community to tailor the deployment plan prior to the  proposed Spring 2019 launch.  Project Understanding, Goals, and Objectives  Lime has been the company most present in the community and engaged with City  staff well before the issuance of this RFP. ​We have met with leadership of large  employers like ​Scentsy​, and ​Blue Cross,​ and major landmarks like ​The Village​. We have  engaged, and gained the support of the ​Meridian Downtown Business Association​—a  critical stakeholder and beneficiary of shared electric scooters. We believe our  engagement with City staff and the ​Meridian Police Department​ has been constructive  and beneficial to the evolution of Meridian’s mobility system. This focus on partnership  with local government, businesses, and community members ensures we deliver the  most thoughtful, responsive, and well-integrated program to the residents and visitors of  Meridian.     3 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 197 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  At Lime, our mission is to provide on-demand first- and last-mile transportation solutions  that help people seamlessly move throughout the community to meet their daily needs.  We understand the City’s interest to provide a diverse array of sustainable mobility  options that will help people experience Meridian without the need for a car. We also  recognize the importance of a well-planned, smooth, and collaborative launch, leaving  community members overwhelmingly satisfied and appreciative of the new  transportation tools made available to them.  While Lime seeks to connect people to reliable, safe, and active mobility, our mission in  Meridian is much broader. Our plan for Meridian positions the city to better handle  growth in visitors and residents alike, encourages patronage of local businesses, and  helps major employers like Scentsy get their employees around in this fast-growing city.  The Lime-S will serve as a tool to advance sustainable mobility, connecting the people of  Meridian to an ever more prosperous community.  With our hardware, software, and community affairs expertise, Lime is uniquely suited to  deliver these objectives. Whether connecting to new residential developments, helping  visitors explore downtown, or delivering more patrons to The Village, we envision  incorporating Lime-S－our electric scooter product－into the daily travel routines of  people throughout Meridian and beyond.   A Proven Track Record  Lime is the most qualified company to serve Meridian based both on breadth of  experience and local knowledge. ​As the world’s largest dockless scooter sharing  company, we have developed the most sophisticated scooter sharing operation on the  market. We take great pride in our relentless focus on the safety and quality of our  scooters as well as our commitment to industry-leading operations. Meanwhile, our  continued engagement in the community with business leaders and community  organizations will help us be the most aware, engaged, and responsive company serving  in the City.  At no cost to Meridian, we are ready and able to offer a convenient and easy-to-use  mobility system that is an efficient, healthy, and affordable way to get around town. This  includes providing discounted, unbanked, and non-smartphone access to low-income  individuals through our Lime Access program. This proposal outlines the suggested  parameters of this scooter pilot program.   Thank you for the opportunity to let us serve Meridian, in partnership with the  community. We look forward to answering any questions, and eagerly await the     4 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 198 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  opportunity to provide transportation solutions that will benefit residents and visitors  alike.    Warmly,    Jessie Lucci  Regional General Manager    People authorized to represent Lime:    Jessie Lucci  Regional General Manager   P: 847.868.4463   jessie.lucci@li.me     Jonathan Hopkins (Primary Contact)  Director, Strategic Development   p. 360.957.5468   jonathan.hopkins@li.me        5 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 199 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  1. Experience  1.A. History  Meridian, like cities worldwide, faces significant challenges related to rapid growth. In  Meridian this includes strains in the transportation system, challenges with  downtown parking, very limited access to public transit and obstacles to serving  residents and visitors throughout the city and at all income levels. After two years of  service in the United States, we will employ our deep experience to address these  challenges locally, as well as across the region. In addition, we have invested in staff  and community partnerships in Meridian and across Idaho, contributing to civic life  and the local economy.    Lime, a U.S.-based company, founded in January 2017 and headquartered in San  Francisco, California, provides a network of 100% carbon-free, shared scooters to help  address the transportation challenges cities face, without the need for public  subsidies or charitable support.   ●Our service is available in more than 100 cities in 20 countries on 5 continents.  We have over 10 million users who have taken over 34 million rides.     6 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 200 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  ●Lime was originally founded as a bikeshare company, and our dockless fleet  initially included standard bikes (Lime-B), electric bikes (Lime-E). Due to  demonstrated strong customer preference for scooters, our scooter fleets are  growing around the world. We also launched a car-sharing pilot program in  Seattle in 2018.  ●Lime is a member of several national associations, including; People For Bikes,  the Association for Commuter Transportation, Transportation for America,  Road to Zero, the Consumer Technology Association, and collaborate with  efforts at NACTO.  ●Lime has served Boise and Boise State University since October 2018 in a  successful launch, leading Boise City Council to explore tripling the number of  scooters allowed in the city.  Our Impact   The transformative power of Lime scooters in a community has resulted in very  positive impacts. Forty percent of Lime users completed a work or school commute  on their most recent trip, and 64% nationwide used scooters to connect to public  transit in the past month.  Through our Lime Access program, we serve riders at all income levels. Lime Access  provides half-price rides for low-income eligible riders, cash payment, and  smartphone-free access.        7 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 201 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Our Community Investment   Lime works hard to serve the community through affordable mobility, community  engagement, and economic investment. Below are several examples of previous and  ongoing efforts:   ●Engaged regularly with residents in every market by sponsoring free  community events and making presentations to transportation, safety, and  climate stakeholders and other community groups.   ●Launched and running “Respect The Ride,” Lime’s road safety and education  campaign, which includes providing over a quarter of a million free helmets  and investing over $3 million in rider safety efforts. In just the first week, 15,000  riders signed the pledge every day.  ●Through Lime Hero, we enable thousands of dollars in donations from our  riders to local non-profits around the country to multiply our impact in the  community.  1.B. Experience in Other Venues  By working collaboratively with municipal partners, Lime has quickly become the  national leader in dockless mobility. It is through our close partnership with cities,  careful focus on operations, and commitment to high quality scooters that we have  had such success around the country and are now operating in more than 100  locations. In some cases, our pilot programs have already been extended by  unanimous vote of city councils (e.g., Greensboro, NC). In many of our programs, Lime  was chosen as a sole operator of a program.   The references below capture our experience operating shared electric scooter  programs in cities of similar size and scope to Meridian.        8 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 202 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM    PROGRAM TITLE AND DESCRIPTION  CONTACT INFORMATION  Tulsa, Oklahoma Scooter Share Permit  Lime worked hand-in-hand with Tulsa City staff to  develop and advance a dock-free mobility permit  structure. Lime began service to Tulsa in October and  operates a fleet of 400 scooters.    Nick Doctor   Chief of Community Development &  Policy  City of Tulsa, Office of the Mayor  175 East 2nd Street, Suite 1500  Tulsa, OK 74103  918-633-5303  ndoctor@cityoftulsa.org  Lubbock, TX Scooter Share Permit  Lime was awarded a contract to be the exclusive scooter  share provider at the Texas Tech University. We also  worked closely with the City of Lubbock to develop and  implement a dock-free mobility permit. Lime currently  operates more than 1,000 scooters in Lubbock and Texas  Tech.       Craig Cotton  Transportation Demand Manager   Texas Tech University   Box 43161  Lubbock, Texas 79409  806.834.5040   craig.cotton@ttu.edu    W. Jarrett Atkinson  City Manager  City of Lubbock  806-775-2016 (v)  City of Tacoma, WA Scooter Share Permit  In 2018, Lime worked with the City of Tacoma to develop  a 60-day pilot to launch 250 vehicles. Lime now operates  500 scooters at no cost to the City. The 60-day pilot has  been extended to one year as the city develops  permanent regulations. We pay the City a fee of $14.22  per scooter per year to assist with program  management and enforcement. Lime Hero, Lime’s  donation module, sponsors Downtown on the Go,  Downtown Tacoma’s Transportation Management  Association. After the recent departure of Bird from the  market, Lime is now the only provider in Tacoma.   Kurtis Kingsolver  Public Works Department  City of Tacoma  747 Market Street  Tacoma, WA 98402  253.591.5380  kkingsol@ci.tacoma.wa.us     Boise, ID Scooter Share Permit  Lime launched 250 scooters in Boise in October 2018  under a city permit. Since the launch, university  students, visitors and downtown workers have used the  scooters extensively. As a result, city council has directed  staff to propose a program to double the number of  scooters per company in the city in 2019.   Craig Croner  Administrative Services Manager   City of Boise  150 North Capitol Boulevard  Boise, Idaho 83702  208.972.8150   ccroner@cityofboise.org     9 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 203 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  2. Description of Proposed Program  2.A. Types of Vehicles  Lime proposes a scooter-only program for Meridian, based upon strong consumer  preference for these devices. We believe this will enable a long-term sustainable  program. Vehicle specifications can be found in Section 3.  2.B. Deployment Plan  A successful deployment starts before the first scooter hits the street. Lime’s local  operations manager begins ongoing engagement with major local stakeholders at  this time. ​As we gear up for launch, we will proactively inform and offer briefing  opportunities to the Meridian Chamber of Commerce, Meridian Downtown  Business Association, merchants, leadership at The Village ​and other community  groups​.​ We will also offer collaborative engagement and social media education  opportunities in partnership with the Meridian Police Department and other  respected leaders and institutions that help shape community norms.  Lime plans to introduce 100 scooters on the launch day. ​Lime will continue to  increase the number of scooters based upon demonstrated escalation in ridership  and scooter utilization rates. Typically, if scooters are achieving more than three rides  per day, we will increase the fleet to accommodate the growing demand. As scooters  are added, the fleet is able to effectively serve an increasing proportion of the city.  Additionally, our algorithms are able to detect higher demand locations and trip  patterns in order to achieve increasingly effective deployment locations.  This gradual approach to deployment allows our team to work with adjacent  businesses and neighborhoods, respond to and accommodate concerns, and  achieve a very effective and welcome rollout as mobility options grow to new  areas of the city.  Our initial assessment is that the Meridian market will support between 250 to 400  scooters in the first year, which would achieve distribution across the entire city and  beyond simply serving the major business districts. Due to subtle variations in the  urban form, trip needs and user preferences, the exact number of vehicles needed is  difficult to perfectly predict without testing. Therefore, we believe the best measure  of appropriate fleet size is based upon number of trips per vehicle per day (TVD). If  properly-deployed scooters are achieving more than 3 TVD, that would indicate the     10 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 204 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  need to expand the fleet due to demand. A very low TVD is an indicator that the fleet  may need to be reduced (this often occurs during bad weather or when the  temperature is consistently below 40°F).  As the most experienced operator of shared dockless mobility services in the U.S.,  Lime fully appreciates the necessity of having a fully-developed operations team and  plan in place. That is why everywhere we operate we maintain a fully outfitted  warehouse within the metro area, and we hire full-time local operations staff to help  with maintaining, deploying and rebalancing Lime vehicles. ​Aaron Kindall​, who leads  our Boise team and has maintained relationships with the Meridian community,  brings operational expertise and deep community knowledge to this RFP. He will  maintain ongoing dialogue with the City to achieve a seamless launch.  2.C. Hours of Operation  Lime operations staff are typically on duty 24 hours. Our “juicing” (charging)  operations typically result in scooters having highest availability from 7am to 9pm.  Juicers collect scooters for recharging after 7pm and deploy them before 7am each  morning. During the overnight hours, a lower volume of charged scooters will remain  available in the highest-demand areas. Our operations staff augments juicer activity  to ensure proper supply and equitable distribution of scooters.  2.D. Deployment Locations  Our draft initial deployment plan is illustrated in the map above left. Prior to launch,  we will continue to refine this plan through engagement with City staff, community  groups and the business community. Vehicles will be typically deployed each  morning in organized groupings of approximately four vehicles, parked similar to the  photos above right, presenting a clean and orderly feel.      11 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 205 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  This deployment plan is our draft approach for launch. Business preferences will  shape some deployment locations. Some businesses may ask for deployments (Lime  Hubs) adjacent to their businesses, while we will respect other businesses’  preferences for non-adjacent locations. Additionally, ridership data will cause the  morning deployment patterns to evolve so that users have the most convenient  access to these new mobility options.  2.E. Fleet Balancing Approach  Our operations team actively manages our scooter fleet, rebalances scooters, and  responds to any support calls as part of our standard operations. Fleet balancing is  achieved in the following ways:   ●The Daily Patrol Team:​ ​Daily patrol teams typically begin the day by deploying  scooters to Lime hotspots. Throughout the day, additional teams will conduct  full sweeps of the service area. They will re-park any misplaced scooters, fix any  scooters that need repair, or bring damaged scooters back to the warehouse  for repair. The teams will also wipe down scooters as they go.   ●Local Brand Ambassadors:​ ​In addition to leveraging the Lime Marketing Team,  we hire part-time Brand Ambassadors to help educate, promote and integrate  into the local community.  ●Lime Juicers: ​Our operational efforts will be supported by our team of “Lime  Juicers.” Juicers are members of the community who pick up scooters when  they reach low levels of battery, recharge the scooters and then redeploy them  later that day or the following morning. Being a Lime Juicer allows local  residents to earn additional cash in their extra time, putting money back into  the local community. Since our launch in Boise in October 2018, nearly 200  community members have served as juicers and earned a total of $44,000  (most of which goes to our 89 most active juicers). The majority of Boise’s  active juicers earn an average of approximately $150/month from participating  - providing additional spending money to some and helping others make ends  meet. We expect residents of Meridian to participate and achieve similar  benefits.  Due to our approach to fleet management, locations of most scooters are reset  throughout the city each morning based upon evolving demand patterns and  community input. The deployment locations are determined through algorithms that  respond to high ridership areas, combined with local knowledge of locations where     12 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 206 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  the scooters will most seamlessly integrate into the urban fabric. This daily  deployment approach of most scooters helps lower the number of citizen complaints.  2.F. Proposed Start Date  Lime is prepared to launch scooters ​as early as 3-5 days after the franchise  agreement is finalized​. Should franchise agreement negotiations be complete by  May 2, 2019, then Lime will be prepared to launch with a minimum of 100 scooters on  May 7, 2019. Preparation for launch will include ongoing outreach to staff, businesses  and collaboration with the Meridian Police Department.            13 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 207 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  3. Vehicle Specifications  3.A. Lime-S Gen 2.5 and Gen 3  Our dockless mobility fleet is a first- and last-mile solution that will help enable more  transit use and reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. Our GPS-enabled technology  allows riders to locate and unlock our entire s​hared electric scooter ​fleet using our  mobile app and then simply lock the e-scooter in any commonly accepted parking spot.  Lime may initially offer up to two versions of its Lime-S scooter product for Meridian’s  customers—Lime-S Gen 2.5 and Gen 3. Lime’s recently-announced Lime-S Gen 3  scooter features bigger wheels, improved suspension, aluminum framing, dual-wheel  braking, a 2.8” digital display, and a host of other features that make it the safest,  most sustainable shared scooter available on the market. This model is currently  being piloted in several markets and will be available in 2019. An image of Lime-S Gen  3’s specifications and features is displayed below, along with more information about  both scooter models..        14 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 208 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Safety Features & State/Federal Standards  Lime’s design and specs are in continual iteration based on user feedback and  testing to create the best riding experience. Lime-S is UN 38.3 and FCC compliant. All  of our certificates for Lime-S 2.5 and 3.0 can be found in this ​Google Drive folder​.   Vandalism/Theft Resistance  Lime’s scooter hardware and operations provide various features to address potential  vandalism and prevent theft. ​Our approach to preventing and minimizing the impact  of vandalism is multifaceted. Scooters are “touched” on a daily basis, undergoing a  4-point inspection, including removal of vandalism. In addition, Lime’s local operation  teams are notified of scooter cleaning and vandalism repair needs through the  following mechanisms:  ●In-app functionality allows customers to indicate when a scooter has been  vandalized and a report is sent to Lime’s operation team;  ●A rider calls or emails our customer service center informing us that a scooter  is vandalized and in need of repair or cleaning; or  ●As our team retrieves scooters each night, the team identifies maintenance  issues that require attention.  When somebody tries to move a scooter while it is locked, the scooter will start  beeping and will apply a braking force to the rear wheel. In the unlikely event that a  scooter is stolen, GPS hardware located on the scooter can help operations staff or  law enforcement authorities retrieve the mobility device.  Weight, Materials & Design Features  The table below lists the specifications of the Lime-S Gen 2.5 and Lime-S Gen 3.0, the  two versions of our scooter that we currently deploy.        15 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 209 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Lime-S Vehicle Specification Table   Lime-S 2.5 Lime-S GEN 3  SIDE VIEW PHOTO OF  DEVICE     DRIVETRAIN Motor directly embedded  within front wheel.  Motor directly embedded  within rear wheel.  LENGTH 1020 mm 1165 mm  MOTOR 300 Watts 300 Watts  HEIGHT 1310 mm 1205 mm  PEDALS N/A N/A  BACK LIGHT  Turns on when scooter is  unlocked. Gets brighter when  brakes are applied.  Turns on when scooter is  unlocked. Gets brighter when  brakes are applied.  BRAKES  ● Electrical regenerative  brake on rear wheel.  ● Mechanical drum brake on  front wheel.  ● Step brake on rear wheel.  ● Electrical regenerative  brake on rear wheel.  ● Mechanical drum brake on  front wheel.  FRONT LIGHT Always on at full strength  when scooter is in a trip.  Always on at full strength  when scooter is in a trip.  WHEELS / TIRES 8 inch solid (not inflated) tires 10 inch solid (not inflated)  tires  ADJUSTABLE SEATPOST N/A N/A     16 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 210 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Lime-S Vehicle Specification Table   Lime-S 2.5 Lime-S GEN 3  BELL  Mounted on the handlebar  next to the brake, the user  operates the bell by pulling  down and releasing a button.  Mounted on the handlebar  next to the brake, the user  operates the bell by pulling  down and releasing a button.  BELLS, WARNING  MECHANISM  Scooter beeps and turns on  electrical brake if moved while  locked.  Scooter beeps and turns on  electrical brake if moved  while locked.  POWER 9.6 Ah @ 42 V Battery 15.9 Ah @ 42 V Battery  FRAME Aluminum Aluminum  BASKET N/A N/A  REAR HUB N/A N/A  FENDERS Fixed fenders for both front  and rear wheel.  Fixed fender on front wheel.  Step brake fender on rear  wheel.            17 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 211 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Descriptions and Images of Information Affixed to Devices   Description Image  TRADE DRESS AND DECAL  PLACEMENT  Lime’s trade dress is  features prominently in  multiple locations on the  scooter, including the  front of the stem.    CONTACT INFORMATION Motor directly embedded  within front wheel.  Motor directly embedded  within rear wheel.  RIDER EDUCATION  INFORMATION  ● Park properly (ie.by the  curbside)  ● DO NOT ride on  sidewalk or block traffic  ● 18+years old to ride for  safety  ● Helmet is required  ● Email us at  support@li.me  ● Call/Text  1-888-LIME-345               18 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 212 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Descriptions and Images of Information Affixed to Devices   Description Image  DEVICE ID  Lime’s device IDs are  located in two places: on  the side of the scooter  stem, and on top of the  scooter stem below the  QR code.                                    19 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 213 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Descriptions and Images of Information Affixed to Devices   Description Image  DEVICE LOCKING MECHANISM  & ANTI-THEFT DEVICES  The locking system  includes three parts:   ● The chip in the center  control unit that receives  the lock/unlock  commands  ● The motor controller  board in the base  section  ● The motor at the back  of the scooter where it  applies the braking    When rider tries to move  the scooter while it is  locked, the scooter will  start beeping and will  apply a braking force to  the rear wheel.         20 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 214 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Descriptions and Images of Information Affixed to Devices   Description Image  24-HOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE  CONTACT INFORMATION  Lime’s 24-hour customer  service contact  information is located on  the top end of the scooter  stem facing the rider.      LOCALIZED SAFETY INFORMATION  Lime has “NO RIDING ON  SIDEWALKS” in 48-point  font at the baseboard of  the scooter.       21 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 215 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  3.B. Critical Staff-Requested Information  ●Maximum Powered Speed:​ 15 mph  ●Unit Identification:​ Company contact labeling identified on the previous page.  ●Customer Service contact: ​888-LIME-345 or support@li.me. Local operations.  manager contact will be provided to key City staff and business associations.  ●Parking Dynamics: ​Scooters store vertically with a kick-stand.  ●Parking Information: ​Currently, parking and no-parking zones—when  identified in collaboration with City staff—are identified within the Lime app.  While Lime continues to innovate with respect to parking messaging to shape  user behavior, the Gen 3 Scooter has the capability to display messages to  riders warning of possible improper parking locations in the future.   ●Remote Lock-Down: ​All Lime scooters can be disabled centrally. This can be  executed in the case of a weather event or other in extremis circumstance.  ●Safety Features: ​In addition to scooter specifications illustrated above,  additional safety information is outlined in Section 6.        22 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 216 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  4. Safety Related to Parking & Operations  4.A. Technological Innovations  As noted throughout this proposal, Lime is continually innovating around all aspects  of our service: hardware, software, operations, and public engagement. We are eager  to work with the City of Meridian to address specific concerns or opportunities  present in this community, and will continue to leverage our global presence to  improve locally.   Lime’s recent launch of the Gen 3 scooter is a direct result of customer and City  partner feedback that we have been into our continual improvement processes.  Examples of pending improvements that are currently being tested in other markets  include new approaches to parking guidance, new technologies for identifying and  curbing sidewalk riding, and new methods for engaging people who are not  following local rules.   4.B. Parking & Safety  Lime is committed to utilizing a variety of tools and technologies we have developed  over the course of our deep experience operating scooter share systems to ensure  our riders are safe and compliant with applicable laws. These efforts improve safety  for all users of the public right of way by reducing tripping hazards and ensuring  access for people with disabilities. Our efforts include continuously developing and  promoting targeted messaging focused on appropriate riding and parking behavior,  implementing product features that accomplish similar goals, and having an active  on-the-ground presence to reinforce these efforts.  Notification Systems and Rider Incentives  We will work tirelessly to comply with all parking requirements outlined in the RFP  document. Should geofenced station areas be required, we will work with the City to  support the identification of appropriate locations, as well as implementation and  management of such stations.   We have developed a number of mechanisms to incentivize and disincentivize  parking behavior. Many of our efforts have paid off, with over 69.76% of users in  Portland, for example, reporting their awareness of local rules related to parking and     23 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 217 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  appropriate riding as a direct result of in-app (49.72%) or on-vehicle (20.04%)  education.   Lime is continually enhancing the role technology plays in proper parking, including  gamifying the mobility share experience so that customers will be incentivized to ride  and park responsibly, or disincentivized for bad behavior - like fines and fees, or the  inability to end a ride with improper parking.   Examples of Lime approaches to parking include the following:  ●Preferred Parking Zones:​ ​Lime seeks to collaborate with local jurisdictions  such as the City of Meridian to identify preferred parking locations as well as  locations that are to be considered inappropriate for parking. Having identified  preferred parking zones, we can designate preferred parking zones within our  app’s map view. These zones show up as blue zones so riders can easily  navigate to these preferred parking areas. We have included screenshots of  this functionality, as well as an in-app notification after a rider completes a trip  within such a parking area, below.  ●No Parking Zones:​ ​Within the same map view, we can designate zones “no  parking zones” where riders are not permitted to park. These zones show up as  red zones so riders can easily avoid these no-parking areas. When riding into  these areas, we display a clear warning message informing riders that they  may be issued a fine if they park in this zone. Often times, we will implement  additional messaging through the app to educate users of the areas where  they are not allowed to park.  ●Photo Verification:​ ​ Before riders are able to end a trip, we require them to take  a photo of the parked vehicle. We launched a “Parked or Not” feature in July  2018 as another mechanism to remind users of how to properly park and to  incentivize them to park properly. Parked or Not is a game in which Lime riders  look at randomized photos and anonymously select whether or not the scooter  in that photo has been parked properly. Using the information collected  through these ratings, we are able to:  ○Identify riders who park incorrectly, provide feedback on their parking  and offer additional resources to help them properly park a scooter;  ○Encourage engaged riders to take an active role in educating fellow  riders in their communities; and  ○Use statistical models to provide real-time feedback and develop  machine learning to enhance the accuracy of future ratings.       24 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 218 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM               25 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 219 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM    Image: screenshots of Lime parking areas (in blue) from Austin, TX; image of app  after parking scooter in preferred parking area from Austin, TX.  Some cities have identified preferred parking locations and have painted parking  boxes, often with decals overlaid on top of those boxes (examples below). Each  personal vehicle parking space converted to a corral is estimated to accommodate  10+ scooters. As desired, we are eager to work with Meridian to identify & designate  similar areas, and can provide scooter stencil templates, if useful.       Images: Parking decal and parking boxes in Austin, TX; parking box in San Diego, CA     Finally, Lime has found great success engaging with the local business community to  develop “host” relationships with businesses who are eager to have parking located     26 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 220 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  outside their venue. We look forward to building on the lessons we’ve learned doing  this in over 100 other cities.   4.C. Safety Enhanced Through Preventative Maintenance   Over the last two years, Lime has optimized our maintenance and operations model,  and we continue to make adjustments based on rider and City partner feedback. This  has led to an ethos of operational excellence unique to Lime.  Our approach to maintenance, cleaning, and repair of scooters is multifaceted.  Scooters are “touched” on a daily basis. Lime’s location operation team are notified of  scooter maintenance needs through the following mechanisms:  ●In-app functionality allows customers to indicate when a scooter is having a  maintenance issue and a report is sent to Lime’s operation team;  ●A rider calls or emails our customer service center informing us that a scooter  is in need of maintenance support; or  ●As our team retrieves scooters each night, the team identifies maintenance  issues that require attention.  Preventative Maintenance  Lime has also established additional operational guardrails to ensure maintenance,  cleaning, and repair occurs in a timely fashion.  First, we automatically put scooters with two low-star trip ratings into maintenance  mode. The scooter is flagged for our operations team to take a closer look at that  particular scooter and try and identify the reason for receiving low ratings. An in-app  report from a user also automatically puts that scooter into maintenance mode. Our  field patrol teams and juicers also ensure that each time they touch a scooter it is in  proper working condition through a seven point check system.   Second, all scooters are cleaned and undergo basic maintenance before each  deployment. We work to keep scooters in operable condition and replace parts as  needed. This ensures that the lifespan of a scooter is extended for as long as possible.  Lime operations staff also check the fleet approximately every 60-90 rides and  perform required maintenance. Maintenance is completed by our staff at our  warehouse. The operations field staff check the fleet by sampling the fleet at random  and entering that feedback into our operator app.  Operations App     27 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 221 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  In addition to the on-the-ground operations team described previously, the Lime  Operations App encompasses a host of features to ensure proper operational  efficiency on a daily basis. All operations staff are properly trained with all of the  in-app tools in order to maintain our fleet of scooters in good repair.   Through the app, our Operations team has access to the specifications, status, and  location of all scooters in Meridian. The Operations team receives alerts when a  scooter has a reduced charge, or when it is horizontal and may need to be re-parked.  Lime is the only operator to have an automatic alert sent to the operations team  when a scooter has tipped over.​ Lime continues to make improvements to this  application to ensure our Operations team has the best tools to ensure parking  compliance.  Scooters flagged for retrieval will be assigned a maintenance task in the operations  app for completion by the operations team. These include, but not limited to, the  following criteria:  ●Any device knocked over   ●Any device reported as damaged or broken  ●Any device with low battery level  ●Any device left out of the service area  The operations app also assists with deployment and distribution. Deployment zones  are indicated in the app, including the following information:  ●Address of deployment   ●Number of scooters needed at the locations   ●Picture instructions of how to properly park scooters without impeding  pedestrian traffic  4-point inspection  Our operators must fulfill a 4-point inspection on each vehicle to meet good repair.  The maintenance checklist includes:  1.Safety  a.Brakes  b.Lights  c.Wheels  d.Structural integrity  2.Functionality     28 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 222 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  a.Lock/unlock  b.Ring (audible sound aiding users to find scooter)  c.Visible in app  3.Communications  a.Online  b.GPS  c.IMEA in system  4.Appearance  a.Clean  b.Branding  4.D. Responding to Complaints  Lime supports a 24/7 global rider and community support center, including language  support in over 20 languages. Our Support headquarters is based out of our San  Francisco headquarters. Support is available through the app and also by email,  phone, or text message at 888.546.3345 (888.LIME.345). The easiest way to reach our  Support team is directly through our app, which also includes an extensive Help Desk  section for easy answers to common questions on the go.   Locally, Lime will hire a Rapid Response team to address customer complaints. This  team is typically available for 12 hours each day on weekdays and weekends. Their job  is to respond to all customer complaints within 2 hours and help manage, remove  and re-park scooters in question. In addition, they proactively monitor the system to  identify any issues that may arise.  We pride ourselves on fast and friendly service for every aspect of a rider’s journey  journey from setting up a rider’s wallet and billing to completing a trip. Our team's  first priority is safety and our special Emergency Response Team (within our Support  Operations), works 24/7 to manage our incoming contacts as well as to monitor social  media to alert our entire field and local operations to any urgent issue in any market.  In addition to our ERT team we offer a full Safety Claims team to handle any incidents  from lost personal items, up to and including property or injury incidents.  When damaged scooters are reported to our customer service team, a customer  service agent puts the scooter in maintenance mode to prevent another user from  riding it. The issue is then dispatched to our local operations team, who inspects it  and either fixes it onsite or brings the scooter back to the local warehouse.      29 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 223 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  5. Partnership with the City  At Lime, our goal is to establish a strong partnership with the City of Meridian to  improve mobility within existing City resource constraints. Lime seeks to minimize  the amount of effort required by City staff to facilitate transformative mobility options  for the city.  5.A. Program Management  Cities typically appoint a program manager who serves as a point of contact for the  franchisee. Upon selection and agreement on terms, Lime’s local operations team  typically participates in a kickoff meeting with City staff to share information about  system launch and plan ongoing collaboration. In some cities, a cadence of  engagement is established for bi-weekly, monthly, or quarterly meetings. Typically  the amount of engagement needed decreases as the program becomes established.   5.B. Complaints & Suggestions  Lime recommends that residents, business owners, and Lime customers share issues  by phone at 888-LIME-345 or by email to ​support@li.me​. Lime’s response procedure  is outlined above in Section 4.D.  Cities will occasionally receive complaints directly, in which case they can be  forwarded by email to Lime’s Operations Manager for Meridian, whose direct contact  information will be provided to the appropriate City staff. General comments and  concerns are also often relayed during collaboration meetings between the City’s  program manager and Lime’s Operations Manager.  5.C. Enforcement  Lime utilizes tools outlined in Section 4 to educate users and encourage user  behavior in accordance with City Code. Jurisdiction’s approach to enforcement is  typically a local decision that is often consistent with how the jurisdiction would  handle enforcement for bicycle riders.  5.D. Relocating Vehicles     30 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 224 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Lime’s operations team is able to respond to complaints of misplaced vehicles usually  within 2 hours and never more than 4 hours between the hours of 8am and 8pm.  Occasionally, City staff may choose to relocate a mis-parked scooter. Lime  recommends that City staff—should they choose to intervene—simply move a vehicle  as opposed to impounding vehicles. Because the vehicles are easily relocated, this  best preserves limited City resources. Lime can reimburse for the City’s effort in the  event City staff moves a vehicle.          31 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 225 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  6. Safety Related to Traffic, Pedestrians &  Property  Lime has operated for longer and in more cities than any other dockless mobility  company, enabling us to develop some of the most advanced approaches to safety.  Our regional communications team, local operations staff, and community affairs  manager will work with the City to maximize rider communications related to safe  operation of scooters in compliance with local code.  6.A. Public Safety Education and Training  Lime offers a variety of education and training methods for our riders. First, our in-app  education is mandatory for any first-time users of Lime to review, and is available at  any time for riders to access. These modules cover topics such as where to ride a  scooter (in a bike lane or on the side of the street; not on the sidewalk), how to park a  scooter (e.g. next to a bike rack, or along the furniture zone of the sidewalk away from  pedestrian flow), and safety reminders (e.g. wearing a helmet, not riding limited  access highways or freeways). In addition to our in-app education, we offer in-person  training opportunities at public events and through Lime Brand Ambassadors. By  having Lime staff available and recognizable in the community, we create organic  opportunities for riders and non-riders alike to ask questions and learn about the  service. See Section 6.B. for further examples of in-app and online education  materials.  We also provide additional in-app notifications and user nudges to further educate  riders. See Section 4. Program Operations (under Parking Notification Systems and  Rider Incentives) for more details.  Respect The Ride Campaign  As part of our continued  commitment to public safety  and education, Lime is investing  over $3 million to help empower  people across the world to ride  responsibly. The ​Respect The  Ride​ ​campaign utilizes a  multi-pronged approach to rider     32 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 226 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  education, equipping our community with the resources necessary to make each trip  a safe and enjoyable experience. ​More details about our Respect The Ride campaign  can be found online at ​https://www.li.me/respect-the-ride​.  After the first week, more than 75,000 people had signed the ​Respect The Ride  pledge​, expressing a united commitment to safe streets, accessible sidewalks and  responsible riding. With 15,000 pledges per day we know just how strongly this issue  resonates with every member of the community, both riders and non-riders alike. The  first 25,000 respondents who signed the pledge received a free Lime helmet as part  of the company’s $3 million investment mentioned above.    Another 225,000 helmets will be distributed free of charge across Lime’s global  markets in the months since Respect the Ride launched, and we are committed to  giving away helmets at local and community events. Our long-term goal in engaging  riders with Respect The Ride is to help set the global standard for responsible  micro-mobility usage, and create a community of riding much like the biking  community has accomplished. The multi-pronged campaign includes local  advertising, a series of new product safety features and the industry’s first Education  and Safety Summit.  Riders who commit to the pledge are agreeing to:  ●Ride responsibly at all times  ●Wear a helmet while riding  ●Abide by all traffic laws and speed limits  ●Ride only within designated areas such as streets and bike lanes  ●Park properly out of the way of pedestrian walkways, service ramps and metro  stops  ●Be aware of automobiles, pedestrians and fellow riders  Helmet Distribution  Lime distributes helmets at select events. In the recent Respect the Ride campaign,  we asked for riders to sign a pledge of good behavior while using Lime, in exchange  for a free helmet. On a more regular, ongoing basis, we will distribute helmets at  launch, as well as in an ongoing basis at community events such as street fairs,  farmers’ markets, and at designated pop-up events.   6.B. Mitigating Traffic, Pedestrian & Property Effects     33 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 227 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Users all receive educational messaging in order to encourage safe riding around  pedestrians and traffic, and to encourage parking and scooter use that does not  negatively affect private property.  Below are screenshots of our in-app messaging:  1.Riders are encouraged to wear helmets  2.Riders must obey all traffic laws  3.Proper parking procedures  4.Operating an electric scooter on the sidewalk is prohibited  5.Mechanism(s) for customers to notify operator of safety or maintenance issues    Screenshots illustrating how to ride and where a helmet, and where to ride and park with care.    Screenshots illustrating a reminder on locking up after the ride and rules and regulations.     34 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 228 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM    Screenshots illustrating directions for how to report any issues and educational materials.         35 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 229 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  Screenshots from our Website         36 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 230 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM        37 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 231 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM         38 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 232 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  7. Data Sharing    7.A. Lime Provides Data in MDS Standard  Lime is proud to support the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) standard in sharing  data with cities. MDS is a data standard proposed by the Los Angeles Department of  Transportation that has since then been widely adopted and implemented in Europe  (Vienna, Warsaw, Marseille, etc.) and North America (Detroit, Seattle, Minneapolis,  Providence, Arlington, Alexandria, Charlottesville, etc.). It is also used for data analysis  by such city partners as Remix, Populus, and Ride Report.  MDS will offer cities real-time, always updated access to the following sets of data.  ●Trips:​ ​Including the entire trip route in GeoJSON format  ●Vehicle List:​ ​By status, including details on why a vehicle is unavailable  ●GBFS:​ ​An older format that lists all available vehicles in an easily consumed  fashion  MDS is a very rich format, allowing the City access to deep and accurate data in real  time. Using MDS allows continuous data monitoring and compliance, and the data     39 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 233 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  that is being shown in MDS is the same that powers all of our applications, meaning it  is the most accurate representation of Lime vehicles and trips available.     The trips data in particular is returned in GeoJSON format, which is a widely accepted  data standard that is usable in nearly all GIS tools. Furthermore, as an ever-evolving  and maintained standard, you would get the advantage of best practices  recommended by cities like yours to improve how data is shared and consumed.     Additionally, Lime will provide access to a real-time data insights dashboard (sample  screenshot provided below), which offers high-level aggregate data in an easily  digestible format. We will work closely with city staff to make the information useful  and relevant for applications like compliance and city planning.   7.B. Dashboard for City Staff  The images below represent the typical real-time dashboard City staff get access to  as a part of Lime’s programmatic support to cities. Access is continuous and the  numbers are delivered in real time.       40 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 234 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM    7.C. Heat Maps for Transportation Planners  Aiding transportation planners to respond to evolving demands on the  transportation network, Lime provides a heatmap tool within the dashboard so City  staff can identify areas of high utilization. This can inform future investments without  the expensive expenditure of limited funding on consultants reports (see screenshot  below).       41 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 235 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  7.B. Trip Start and End Points  Lime can provide anonymized start and end point data in latitude/longitude format,  per the MDS standard.  7.C. Annual Survey  Lime is prepared to assist the City with the design and distribution of an annual user  survey, from which can be gathered general demographic data, user preferences and  user behaviors.   Lime can group trips in heat maps based upon zone of origin and destination, such as  for the purpose of determining travel paths for users accessing a major transit hub.  This approach can assume trip purpose, but not ascertain it.  7.D. Free Tools for Transportation Planners  Lime-provided data can be leveraged to assist City transportation planners at no cost  to the city.          42 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 236 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  8. Rider Rules  8.A. Rider Terms of Use  Lime’s user agreement can be found here: https://www.li.me/user-agreement  8.B. Minimum Age  The minimum age authorized by Lime on scooters is 18. Lime users acknowledge this  requirement in the user agreement.   8.C. Helmet Use  Lime strongly encourages the use of helmets, reinforced by in-app messagings. In  our terms of service, users agree to comply with local helmet laws.   8.D. Licensing  Lime does not require users to present a drivers’ license in order to use Lime. Instead,  users renting via the app possess a cell phone and a credit card.            43 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 237 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  9. Public Outreach & Education  9.A. General Strategy  Dockless scooter share is cutting-edge technology, and Lime works hard to educate  customers and residents on proper usage and parking. Before we launch, we focus  on working with community stakeholders and press to educate new Lime users on  the benefits as well as the operational responsibilities of dockless scooter sharing.  This effort has already started, as our operations staff has already met one or  more times with the Meridian Police Department, Scentsy, Blue Cross, The  Village, and the Meridian Downtown Business Association and spoken to local  media.   Lime’s public education and outreach continues throughout the duration of the  pre-launch, launch, and ongoing operations periods. We will continue to  engage and provide informational sessions to key institutions such as the  Meridian Downtown Business Association, the Meridian Chamber of Commerce  and vendors at the Village. We will also reach out to new groups to educate on  scooters, which also provides new avenues to hear about areas where we can  contribute to better solutions.   Lime is committed to utilizing a variety of tools and technologies we have developed  over the course of our deep experience operating scooter share systems to ensure  our riders are safe and compliant with applicable laws. This includes continuously  developing and promoting targeted messaging focused on appropriate riding and  parking behavior, implementing product features that accomplish similar goals, and  having an active on-the-ground presence to reinforce these efforts.   9.B. Traditional and Social Media  Given the excitement that surround launch of service in a city, we are able to  capitalize on traditional media attention to remind the community of norms and laws  relating to riding scooters, as well as how they can contact customer service to  remedy issues such as misparked vehicles. ​Our Marketing, Communications, and  Public Relations team is well-versed in working within the Treasure Valley ​and  already have connections with the proper marketing and communications channels.   The excitement similarly means that social media efforts by our team garner public  attention as well. ​Lime communicates to riders through the following platforms:     44 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 238 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  ●Lime website (​www.li.me​),   ●Lime Facebook page (​https://www.facebook.com/limebike/​),   ●Lime Twitter (​https://twitter.com/limebike​),   ●Lime Instagram (​https://www.instagram.com/limebike/?hl=en​), and   ●The Lime blog (​https://www.li.me/blog​)  Lime’s website provides redundant functionality in addition to what is offered in the  app environment. This includes regular company updates of new app content, safety  videos and educational materials for our riders and partnering stakeholders, press kits  for local media and much more. Lime is also the only company to invest significant  resources into creating a dedicated Lime safety ​webpage​ and ​video series​ and have  already partnered with KC Streetcar on a ​scooter safety video​. We frequently share  these to current and prospective riders via social media, email campaigns and other  web-based channels.  Our Message  The messages Lime shares via all channels revolve  around safety, proper use, and the advancement of  urban and civic life. Messaging also includes helmet  promotion, highlighting great scooter uses such as  connection to transit, and how to use scooters  properly consistent with local laws. These helpful  reminders aid public understanding on where the  vehicles should be parked and ridden as well as  other important norms.  9.C. Stakeholder Collaboration  By building strong partnerships and building effective lines of communication, our  team will be responsive to community interests and build a system the community  values. In order to provide for a seamless launch that meets or exceeds community  expectations, our team will engage the following organizations:        45 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 239 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM    BUSINESS STAKEHOLDERS SCHOOL STAKEHOLDERS RESIDENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS  ►​ ​Meridian Downtown Business  Association  ►​ Meridian Chamber of  Commerce  ►​ Scentsy  ►​ Blue Cross  ►​ The Village  ►​ Meridian Crossroads  Note: Because scooters are not  authorized for users under 18,  Lime staff will communicate  through school district leadership  to administrators at area High  Schools about scooter rules, and  provide a contact in case of any  concerns.  ►​ Verasso Village  ►​ Regency at River Valley  ►​ The Fields  ►​ High Point on Overland  ►​ Central Park Commons  * Organizations listed in ​bold​ have already been the subject of ongoing collaboration.          46 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 240 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  10. Police Engagement  10.A. Ongoing Engagement  Lime has already been in regular contact with the Meridian Police Department  (MPD). We have established the building blocks of an effective relationship to share  concerns and solutions to achieve a smooth launch. MPD will have a direct contact  with our Operations Manager to deal with issues as they arise.     Engagement events with the Los Angeles Police Department  10.B. Community Engagement Opportunities with MPD  In preparation for launch, our team will bring scooters to multiple shifts of police  deployments to showcase how they operate, let officers ride them, and build a  dialogue around encouraging positive use. This dialogue will showcase the  company’s role in shaping user behavior and tools at our disposal to aid officer’s work.  Additionally, this positive relationship will help Lime and officers together spot  emerging trends so we can continue to positively shape user behavior in Meridian.  A positive, collaborative relationship with the MPD enables proactive efforts to shape  community norms relating to scooter use. ​Given MPD’s creative use of social media  and effective leadership on matters of public concern, the Meridian scooter  launch presents an opportunity for officers to be part of the storytelling effort.  We look forward to creatively presenting scooter best practices to the public in  partnership with the MPD should the department be interested.      47 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 241 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  11. Pathway Easements & Engagement  11.A. Transportation Officials  Prior to launch and ongoing after launch, Lime Operations staff will work with City of  Meridian transportation officials as well as officials of the Ada County Highway District  to ensure a common understanding of e-scooter operations and pathways to resolve  any issues should they develop.  11.B. Private Property & Easement Property Owners  Lime proposes to initially introduce Lime-S throughout Old Town, the downtown  core, and The Village, and to expand from there as demand dictates. In some cases,  these involve major privately-owned spaces accessed by the public. We will  proactively engage with private property owners in this service area to understand  their needs and establish feasible solutions when available. We will also learn if they  have an interest in hosting dedicated scooter parking on-site or prefer to abstain.  Hosting scooter parking can be a terrific way to align the e-scooter program with the  objectives of private property owners in the area, providing a boost to business  revenue or residential access. In fact, after learning more about the e-scooter  program, property owners often choose to participate in Lime’s Juicer program as a  means to generate discretionary income.            48 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 242 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  12. Special Speed Zones  12.A. Technology  Lime continues to experiment with ways to effectively control speed in zones of  special concern within cities. We have the ability to establish speed limit zones, which  are in trial status in areas that have specific speed limitations. This is usually  determined in conjunction with the local municipality. ​Scooters will automatically  slow down to the designated speed limit when the user rides into a speed limit  zone. ​The effectiveness and user experience of these tools continues to evolve and  may be available for use in select areas of Meridian.   12.B. Recommendations  Lime recommends the City and Lime jointly evaluate the need and appropriateness  of these still-evolving tools on a case-by-case basis in select areas of major concern  during the term of the franchise agreement.            49 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 243 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  13. Parking Location Identification  13.A. Transmitters  Lime does not use transmitters or transponders to identify preferred parking areas.  This is not required to establish preferred parking areas.   13.B. Other Parking Indicators for Users   A number of cities have chosen to institute physical pavement markings in high-use  areas to help users identify appropriate parking areas. In some cases, these physical  markers can also be reflected digitally in the app (see Section 4.B. for examples).              50 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 244 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  14. Successes & Lessons Learned  14.A. Limes (Successes)  Characteristics of our most successful deployments include:  ●Flexible scooter caps allowing for increases in vehicles as demand grows (and  similarly reduces during seasons demand decreases)  ●Generally consistent rules and access between adjacent cities, universities, and  other jurisdictions  ●Efforts by jurisdictions and Lime to provide physical visual parking cues that  correspond to indicators in the app.  ●In our research, over 30% of users would have used a car or ride-hailing had  all-electric, spatially-efficient scooters not been available.  ●In Portland, 85% of scooter riders said they would recommend it to a friend,  and 62% of residents viewed scooters favorably.  ●In Auckland, businesses are ecstatic about scooters because they perceive  shared scooters as causing an increase in sales for downtown merchants.  14.B. Lessons  ●Lime’s LimeAccess program provides low-income residents access to scooter  transportation at half price. We have learned that working with local partners is  critical to raising awareness of this program and growing numbers of  participants.  ●Scooter users prefer protected bike lanes, unprotected bike lanes, and bike  paths over using scooters on sidewalks or the open road, citing safety as the  main reason.            51 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 245 of 602   CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO​ /​ VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM  15. References  Lime references and contact information can be found in Section 1.B. of this  submission.                52 ​/ 52    Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 246 of 602 City of Meridian INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 PROPOSER:________ Bird ______________________________________________________________ Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 16 b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 16 c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 14 d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 16 e. Respondent’s ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 16 TOTAL: 100 78 Rated by:______ Samantha ________________________________________Date:_________________________ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 247 of 602 City of Meridian INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 PROPOSER:____ Lime __________________________________________________________________ Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 16 b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 14 c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 15 d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 16 e. Respondent’s ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 14 TOTAL: 100 75 Rated by:___ Samantha _________________________________________Date:_________________________ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 248 of 602 City of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET PROPOSE Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective m icromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 18 b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 18 c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 17 d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 18 e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 19 TOTAL 100 90 Rated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 249 of 602 City of Meridian INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 PROPOSER:____ Lime __________________________________________________________________ Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 16 b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 14 c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 16 d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 14 e. Respondent’s ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 14 TOTAL: 100 74 Rated by:___ Josh Evarts _________________________________________Date:_________________________ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 250 of 602 City of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 PROPOSER:_Bi INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective m icromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 16 They can easily grow from the small amount starting. They balance the scooters. They have enhanced fleets of employees to enable the transportation. b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 18 They have shown thorough research into Meridian and the way the citizens use the city. They can utilize incentives to help Meridian further its goals. c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 19 They have experience in natural disasters as well as all across the US and other countries. d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 18 Their mission follows the values. They provide daily inspection to each vehicle. e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 19 They can regulate speed based on location, they require a valid license and therefore they execute on their 18 years age policy. They can disable all remotely. They showed valid practice in Hurricane Florence. They can prevent rides from ending r rnfil rrahinla ic narlzad nnrran{lrr TOTAL 100 90 Rated by:_Britton Date:_4t21t2019_ 20 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 251 of 602 City of Meridian INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 PROPOSER:__________________Lime_______________________________________ Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 16 Lime has a large breadth of experience. It is just one option-scooters. They have a gradual approach. They have a full team to deploy them. b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 18 They will enable scooters in the areas of most use and will work with groups to integrate the scooters smoothly. They do not require licenses nor helmets. They enable good parking habits. c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 19 Great experience across the country. d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 16 They do have customer service 24/7 hotline, as well as rapid response available during day hours and they respond within 2 hours. e. Respondent’s ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 14 They can disable all devices remotely but no mention is made to speed. They require age of 18, but they do not need a valid license. TOTAL: 100 83 Rated by:_____Britton Davis_________ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 252 of 602 City of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-1 1 034 6,,J INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET PROPOSER: Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective m icromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 t{6ro/ Eo/-r*'.. b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 /7 E l/./ *2, y'*Z ,'//1 z Cu:/2,'- ,A/ C,/f Z{ ,/t,/r"^ 2.. ,4- -T z/.-to/rz^ c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 /{ f /o,a// o{ ,/,*,/ ,4 hr*,y'e/ //a- Oa l, t /d/ ,/eV/Vme-./ Vz)-.j, .fucl ,/' af.r/.4 -y'zlzz, /t/Q2 //*n 72*n ,.Ltrrzrz. ,9a, .A d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 /6 n/a/ nrUL ,t)icuoel e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 t7 -T frlt du &l^,-/ Tlc /h72"/ n/at /7 Gaac/ TOTAL:100 70 Rated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 253 of 602 Gity of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-1'1034 ltu INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET PROPOSER: Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective m icromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 t{ 6""o/ E*7to,pav b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 $ 7 2,r/oc/ fur, 2,/ tTzra c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 t1 //r"/ Tle /r/o,y' /- fl, /4, t /or/ /ev/7,n,^/ 7vl-t-r. d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 t6 //t/ /*/, 7/rs/u,,./ e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 t//eh,/ t/at Gzo/ TOTAL 100 61 Rated / Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 254 of 602 Gity of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 b.,a INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET PROPOSER Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 tor0 5^l i> a l;J+(e a* ellu\Q^ce . pa Lo\(e,r^5; g,, (r' t:-1h* ,bt\ tx"; h b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 rOto learn iee'ng luohlxl or,.A l;l'q 'fi't 'r re1;s\^|run l"/.'r"1"q f t1n Wo,4't r,ral vhv ch e7+di r*' 'a ';11 sff^l on n*.tr\.;Oi \\ ' 1 c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 l?fi"ptencrs sea M lur] d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 tb [ 9rls-\r,,n 1'", v 'P to'\ta, A b. ,{ ,1 b\ e Jb N-21' ,JJrn r s vuclo5 L^A o,.l"*9. ("u/ groflost ) {qr1 e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 r{Q ro t ,// <1, 1.*^ ru.l[ N .)' +vq *. T<rh^o(,JJ 6n-\ *[^*1 + ,oo rl'-t "Pta-c\/\^S t[V^ptC TOTAL:100 qD +l okL DO 7bRated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 255 of 602 City of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET PROPOSER \rn2 Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 l6 }.}o coAco,^5 .r:\\ *1,,e)- Prou.+{- 1?^r 5e r/v I c c . +?ab ; (:11 o b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 t1 Br11es'l A,;1p,r^.e l! 5c< i) ia +.1' *c1ts\rz']vn ?roL(ss.. /o,,.r(er n +or \,s9,^.-/ ea.s). il is 4qr A,rr.of 5 *Lo otc(+55, A{p,* c lX ic +^c \.' fu p\r1^z^* lrogasa[ . AU; t.rr+l.;a,- -ttv vo\t-o^v *l'* or .f7[ic(zl 'i local,' c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 tt" |,J o [o{ ccryg ,/"\,'.t11{. to ^^?eJ^^-c P(o?reJ . -D*C-, r et'flzX.rn cL ' a".d. Sor,lrta p\o,^: 5o"^d! qa,od(o-d. ' io^[. wt.( "+;. cd""rlm&1 lipper 0 t,li {q b^* t'1^ut- vr.lrcS d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 1o U 'n^r1 .r n d..v shJ Vvrr,\t v. ^ ev. o^/ 'noel y , 0.k s k/\ t T e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 t8 lo.ln nd\r,{ .{ See tt5 ^o + ,r#+\- "AW b*lkU4t^k TOTAL:100 86 KL(,o ZLRated by: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 256 of 602 City of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-I921-11034 / INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET lLt) rl u, a*-'^J Q-zo't] Max Points Asslgned Poinls Comments a. Abill$ of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility tran sportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 1.fi rh Wt- &A*,[o -'fu6* {1uayr.r-rkfi{ 1 P,,adui+rqa & b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, riller, and pedestrian safetf effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 rd 4*e b "q&Alc c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility prog ramming, including orstomer service plans and experience 20 1{oS* d. Gonsistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 2A r1 9? e. Respondent's abillty to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of deviees as to speed and location 2A t4 o? TOTAL:100 tt Rated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 257 of 602 City of Meridian Name Of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET Max Points Asslgned Poinls Commenls a. Abili$ of Respondent and proposed program to facilitiate safe, balanced, effective micromobility tran sportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 W tio pw tDr.,sn a^a* ?s&.rulPtl drT q*Pw ih,rFtP Doir'J k..*P?r\ b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian buslnesses: and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 \1. *tur,g, l$, *ala &v d,JoeL A*1L {l',;ohoo pttu,Lb c. Damonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobili$ programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 w Frn+I l7rtf )\i &t; -* Di! JW*)' I &0".rg*trtrw d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and comrnunity values 20 4 OP e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devlces as to speed and location 20 Y6 t^OY TOTAL:100 1b Rated Il,ro tu,J -v6-t\ D- rJ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 258 of 602 Gity of Meridian Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET PROPOSER:_BlR n Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective m icromobi I ity tra nsportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 18 Pros: DL required to verify age (pp3, 25) + duplicate prevention (p29); customer support options (p12); safety-related feedback (p14); required safety video (p'16). Cons: No tip detection (p18) b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 18 Pros: Customized in-app features and communications (pp3,10); off streets at nighU6am daily deployment (pp3, 25); customized safety banners (p16); move from private property on request (p33) c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 20 Pros: Quality control (p9); sees City "as a partner with whom we will work together to implement innovations and make our services as high- functioning and equitable as possibly, NOT AS A REGULATOR OR AN ADDITIONAL HAND TO OVERSEE OUR OPERATIONS' (p22); acknowledges importance of establishing relationships before and during program (p33); customized dashboard (p26); customer complaint plan (p22) d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 16 Pros: Proposal reflects understanding of Meridian City Code (p16); good media roll-out plan (p21); ride credits to incentivize rider understanding of rules (p31 ). Cons: weak organization outreach, generalized/incorrect references to local stakeholders (p32); no description of customer service, accountability, respect; implies that riding on sidewalks is not allowed, though MCC allows/requires on some streets (p4); vendor told City Council and staff that they use beacons but proposal reflects that they don't cunently (p34) e. Respondent's ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 20 Pros: Photo verification of proper parking (p4) + enforcement and incentive plan (p34); vehicle speed caps (p10); remote monitoring (p10); preferred parking and enforcement (pp1 1 , 16, 'l 8); geofencing and no-riding zones (p19); governed speed limits (p25) TOTAL:100 92 Rated by:_Emily Kane I-\afa .__:4t29119- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 259 of 602 City of Meridian INDIVIDUAL PROPOSER SUMMARY SHEET Name of RFP: VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAM RFP NO: MYR-1921-11034 PROPOSER:__LIME____________________________________________________________________ Max Points Assigned Points Comments a. Ability of Respondent and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian 20 4 Cons: Proposer states it will minimize effort required by City (p30) but proposes to outsource enforcement to City (p30); deployment plan lacks details, noncommittal, "draft approach" (p12); refers to "local knowledge" (p12) but does not say whose knowledge; lots of "typical" (eg p11); little commitment/plan (p30); no drivers license or age ID verification (p43); "gamifying the mobility share experience" does not seem targeted for adults seeking micromobility transportation options (p24). b. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic 20 2 Pros: Acknowledges limited public transport, parking (p6). Cons: Communication of rules to riders is a "pending improvement" (p23); methods of communication not specified; references "new methods," "variety of tools and technologies," "reducing trip hazards," "ensuring access," "targeted messaging," "product features," with no specifics as to plan for who/what/when/how (p23). c. Demonstrated competence in the implementation of micromobility programming, including customer service plans and experience 20 2 Cons: No customer service plan described for Meridian; little analysis of impact on citizens - communication is focused on preventing complaints (p13); no description of competence/successes in other cities; no description of customer service plans in other cities; successes/lessons learned section does not demonstrate competence (or lessons learned), just general statements of presence/implementation. d. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, CARE values, and community values 20 0 Cons: Proposed program is inconsistent with City Code in critical respects, e.g. overnight operations (p12), no riding on sidewalks (pp21, 23); no description of customer service, accountability, respect; public outreach vague - mentions "community stakeholders," "press," "tools and technologies," "promoted targeted messaging," "implementing product features," "proper marketing and communications channels," with no specifics as to plan for who/what/when/how (p44). e. Respondent’s ability to regulate, and demonstrated practice of remotely regulating, rider use of devices as to speed and location 20 0 Cons: future (not present) capability to tell riders where to park (p22) - the answer to RFP park IV.C.2 should have been NO; wonders if "geofenced station areas" will be required - unclear what that is referencing and vague plan for addressing whatever it is; establishing speed limit zones is in "trial status" (p49); transmitters not used for parking either so unclear what responsibility proposer intends to take for establishing, communicating, or enforcing parking rules (p50) - even deployment plan is unclear as proposer refers to "hubs," "hotspots," "deployment locations," "deployment zones," without definition or explanation (pp12, 28). TOTAL: 100 8 Rated by:__Emily Kane______________________________________________________Date:__4/29/19_______________________ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 260 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 9 of 53 De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Item 9-B. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: From the review of 9-B, this is Mr. Perison's letter. It seems to mirror some of the -- the substantive issues raised in the 9-A request for reconsideration. Some of the same concerns. I echo what I said in the previous application. Same applies here as far as where my position was on the original application . Nonetheless, it could benefit us and all parties to go the same route with this one. So, I will make a motion and we can discuss after if there is discussion, but I would move that we grant the request for reconsideration on Item 9-B as well with the same directive, for it to be remanded for findings of fact, conclusions of law consistent with existing record in a more complete, succinct manner, inclusive of the DA that legal counsel has referenced just moments ago. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Public Hearing for Proposed Vehicle Sharing Program Ordinance and Associated Proposed Fees 1. First Reading of Ordinance No. 19-1809: An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter, Chapter 6, To Title 3, Meridian City Code, Regarding Vehicle Sharing Programs; Amending Meridian City Code Section 4-2-2, Regarding Party Responsible For Nuisance; Adding A New Section, Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, To Title 7, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, Regarding Electric Power-Assisted Bicycles And Scooters; Adding A New Subsection, Subsection 7-1-9(F ), To Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, Regarding Prohibited Parking; Adopting A Savings Clause; And Providing An Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 16 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 261 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 10 of 53 Effective Date. De Weerd: Okay. Item 9-C is a public hearing for the first reading of Ordinance 19-1809. Mr. Clerk, will you read this ordinance by title. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 19-1809: An Ordinance adding a new chapter, Chapter 6, to Title 3, Meridian City Code, regarding vehicle sharing programs; amending Meridian City Code Section 4-2-2, regarding party responsible for nuisance; adding a new section, Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, to Title 7, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, regarding electric power-assisted bicycles and scooters; adding a new subsection, Subsection 7-1-9(F), to Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, regarding prohibited parking; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have -- I have opened this public hearing and heard the first reading. Mr. Clerk, do we have any signed up to provide comments? Coles: Madam Mayor, it looks like we have one. Randy Rutland. De Weerd: Yes. Come on down. Sorry, you're not a contestant on The Price is Right, but it just -- Rutland: That's too bad. Thank you. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Rutland: My name is Randy Rutland. Address is 12063 West Rock Hampton Street in Boise, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Rutland: My reason for coming this evening was to get a little bit more information on Meridian's take on the ride sharing program with the scooters and which companies plan to come to Meridian, if it's the same as what the city of Boise does, because I do have comments on both companies that are currently with Boise. So, that's my question is just will it be the Lime company, as well as the Bird scooter company. De Weerd: Thank you. And, Mr. Nary, do we have a presentation on this? Nary: Madam Mayor, I mean I certainly can -- for the record purpose, for the folks in the audience who are watching, what you have in front of you tonight is a proposal to create a franchise program in the city that will be limited under this iteration to two franchisees. So, we don't have a franchisee -- as this gentleman questioned, we don't have any franchisees yet. So, this is to establish that program to be able to operate within the City of Meridian. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 17 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 262 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 11 of 53 Rutland: Okay. De Weerd: So, those details can be found as they are contained in the ordinance. We will -- I suppose -- I think we will have three readings and so this is just the first reading, so it would introduce it to the public. You have an opportunity to review the ordinance and ask any questions that you have regarding the ordinance , but it -- it would be as -- as Mr. Nary indicated. We don't pick who the e-scooter companies would be. It would be on a fair, even basis. So, first two in are the first two that -- that offer the service in the City of Meridian. Is that correct, Mr. Nary? Nary: Yes, ma'am. Rutland: I see. All right. I think that answered my question. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Sir, you mentioned you had some comments specific to the two companies that we had experience with? Rutland: I do. I -- I actually -- I'm considered an independent contractor with both of them and I have pros and cons for both companies. Obviously, the pros would be the -- the fact that it takes away some of the traffic, parking issues that the city may encounter. Pollution. An affordable, cheap ride to get, you know, maybe your first or last mile of your trip where ever you plan to go. Some of the cons are, though, that their customer service is very poor in my opinion. I have been working with them for the last few months, since since they have established in Boise in late November -- or, I'm sorry, late October and whether there is a decision to be made or it's already been made and whether or not you bring on these scooter companies, you know, hopefully, there is some talk about -- and I have read the stipulations that are required by them. However, there is zero talk about what it does for the community as an independent contractor and what they have to go through in order to succeed with their profits. So, basically, it's really a customer service thing. Their -- their technology is -- they claim to be a billion dollar company each one of them and yet their technology is -- is poor at best as far as their app and the way you use their system. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Additional question for you, Mr. Rutland. As an independent contractor can you share with us what type of direction you receive from the two companies that you contract with about where to place the scooters? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 18 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 263 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 12 of 53 Rutland: Yes. It's -- it's on their app, so -- it's on their -- when you use your phone it will tell you exactly where the scooter is to be deployed. Now, with both companies it's before 7:00 a.m. and there is many times where there is -- this morning, for an example, I went to deploy a couple of Bird scooters and it told me to scan a regular Bird. I didn't know what that meant. So, I asked them. Now, unfortunately, the only correspondence you can have with them is through e-mail. There is nobody you can talk to on the phone. So, you really have to wait for them to reply back to you and my question literally was: Would you like me to scan a woodpecker? A crow? What would you like me to scan? Certainly I was being funny, because it's kind of frustrating. I work downtown at the courthouse in Boise and I mean it's just frustrating when you're trying to do what they ask of you, but, yet, there is multiple, multiple glitches with their app. Cavener: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for joining us. Rutland: All right. Thank you so much. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide comment on -- on this item? Okay. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I would. So, only in like the last hour was the -- the point was brought up to me that there is more than two -- I didn't even know -- companies out there and that it's literally the first two that can submit fast enough and so when I read through the ordinance I wasn't really -- had that in mind, so I wasn't really looking for, you know, performance requirements, so I don't know if they are in there or not, but my concern with that would be if -- if there are multiple ones that are interested, if there is more than two, do we have built into the ordinance any kind of -- they have to have so many deployed by a certain date or anything like -- time frame? Because my concern would be that if -- if that doesn't happen somebody could just kind of buy up the franchise and wait until they are ready, whether it's six months or a year down the road or I'm going to -- if I owned one -- I don't know if you could get away with it, but I would imagine I would probably want to just set up another entity and take them both and, then, just not do the other one and, then, you would -- instantly would have exclusivity, so -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Excuse me, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer. Yes, that's exactly correct. So, there are -- there are two it contemplated. The minimum is a hundred and the maximum is 350. So, once they can have the total amount and what the city contemplated under its ordinance currently is 700. There are means to up those, but, yeah, there is exactly the scenario you're talking about certainly could occur if they Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 19 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 264 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 13 of 53 file the application timely and pay the fees, it is based on first in time. So, you know, from a -- from a standpoint when we were exploring this since last year -- originally -- and I think what they experienced in the city of Boise and what we experienced here is at the time we had these discussions there were only two vendors that expressed any interest and that -- and Boise originally didn't cap the number of vendors, they just capped the minimum and the maximums and the maximum total and not the vendors themselves. But, again, they looked at it with it being probably two. Now, you're correct, we have had increase from other vendors that are interested and this could create that problem where it really is just the first in the door. That's the nature of the licensing. We talked before about franchising and going through a different route on the selection process. That would be different than what's before for you right now. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I think Council Member Palmer brings up I think a fair concern, but I do believe our ordinance gives the city some teeth that if a vendor isn't performing, that they could be removed and I would take somebody who had the license and is not deploying it in an appropriate or timely manner noncompliant and we could, essentially, remove their license and award it to the next in line. So, I think there is some -- there is a carrot and a stick to have our operators operate appropriately within Meridian. De Weerd: Did that answer your question, Mr. Palmer? Palmer: Madam Mayor, yeah. Oops. Sorry, Dean. I usually try to be perfect with that. But that -- yeah, if that satisfies that issue -- and I don't know if anyone would attempt this I know this -- but the fat gut, capitalist -- free market, unapologetic capitalist in me, thinking these things through -- the other thing that I would ponder on if I were in that position is could I buy both of them and, then, paint them a different color, but still be the same entity, using the same app, or if -- and, then, you would still have both of them. I don't know if anyone would go to that effort in Meridian to make that happen , but we are still early in this process and I would rather not regulate them, but, obviously, we are going to and so I want to make sure that we are giving and -- making sure that there is an opportunity to actually have competition. Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of Council, to answer your question, Council Member Palmer, so what's required in the application is notice -- notice to us when you are going to begin. So, it doesn't have a start date requirement. So, it doesn't require you begin within 30 days or 60 days or whatever. They simply have to tell us when they are going to start. So, again, if you would like us to change that we can change that. But that's currently the way it is, is they simply notify us when that start date is, so apologize that Council Member Cavener is out of the room, but -- so it wouldn't be a violation if they told us the start date was 90 days from now or 120 days from now and they didn't -- as long as they stayed within the time period they said. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 20 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 265 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 14 of 53 Milam: A year? Nary: Well, the current -- the -- sorry. The question was could it be a year. This license period expires December 31st of this year, so -- and, then, they are subject to renewal. Palmer: Madam Mayor? When we get to the renewal can whoever has the franchise just be the renewal or do they have to reapply at 8:00 a.m. on the day after their expiration? Nary: I'm looking at the -- Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, so the renewal section, basically, the -- I don't -- the way I read it -- and I wasn't on the committee and maybe Mr. Coles would know better, but it doesn't read that there is a preference to the current vendor. So, it says December 15th is when the renewal period begins and the renew it -- it says renewing franchisees may request authorization to deploy the number of shared vehicles authorized in the previous year, but that doesn't give them a preference of start. And I may be mistaken, maybe it's somewhere else and I'm just not seeing it, but in the renewal provision there is no -- there is no preference for existing vendors. Coles: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- De Weerd: Mr. Coles. Coles: -- Council Member Palmer, so I think that it's the other way around, I believe. The renewal does actually give preference to the current franchisees , because they can apply for renewal on December 15th, I believe. However, an initial franchise -- Nary: Oh, I see. Coles: -- cannot be applied for until January 2nd. So, an initial one is a franchisee that doesn't currently have the franchise agreement . They can apply January 2nd. The current franchisees can apply for renewal December 15th. Nary: I see. Okay. Palmer: Madam Mayor? Nary: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Sorry to dive so deep into this, but I want to get it right. So, if -- if somebody were to get the first one, could they say I -- we plan on starting in 450 days and, then, go a year without deploying, just so that they have locked down the position and, then, do the renewal, because they were the first one in and, then, deploy later in the second year? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 21 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 266 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 15 of 53 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, no, I don't think we would accept an application that the start date exceeds the current period of the license. I don't think that we would allow that. Palmer: Works for me. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: It brings up a good point. That's the type of clarity that would be helpful for the applicant to know, whether it's part of -- you know, in addition to the initial application for a franchise that, you know, makes them aware of the fact that whatever they pick as their initial start date must be something -- no later than the end of the current term that you're applying for or 90 days from your application or something that gives them that understanding that should they want to invest in this program here there is a date by which they have to launch, so they can make a decision. De Weerd: So, this is just the first reading, so as -- as we continue to accept comments if you find these things and you want to change it, that -- that's the beauty of the three readings, that you have opportunity to -- to gain further information and -- and look at some of these technicalities or opportunities, depending on how you want to say it. Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, since I recently learned, I think like everyone else did, that there are more that are interested than just the two we are familiar with, just maybe some food for thought and discussion at a later time, would we consider maybe doing an RFP or something, having them be a little more competitive than just if you're first in the door you're automatically in and, then, potentially struggling if they are not meeting our criteria? Maybe we need to just think about that. De Weerd: That is, indeed, another approach and -- and one that you could ask for letters of reference and how they -- their technology works or their experiences in -- in other communities or -- it would open up for additional discussion as to what those criteria would be. Mr. Nary, anything you want to add? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I think -- certainly that's -- that's an option. Again, that's not what's in front of you and we can certainly suspend this if that's the direction you wish to go and move forward with an RFP process, because the benefit is -- as we have previously discussed, you can set the criteria that's most important to you on how this is done, how it's operated, hours of operation, where it's -- I mean can be used. How it needs to be used. Have selection criteria that's weighted for those things, so that you have a way to discern the difference between number one and number whatever and -- and, again, if you want a cap of numbers of individual scooters per franchisee, cap on the total amount in the city, whatever -- whatever your preference. I mean certainly those can be done in our fee. It's a little more difficult than the licensing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 22 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 267 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 16 of 53 one, other than having the -- not having a cap on the number of franchisees and that's what the city of Boise chose to do. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: The UD, I guess, of the less regulation or this version is that you have competition that's created just purely by who wants to get in the market and who gets there first and my concern with an RFP version is, then, we get to where government is picking who is going to be there, who is going to be allowed to do that business in town, and if -- you know, if one sucks and the other one doesn't, the free market will take care of it and people will ride one and not the other. If they suck equally, then, either they will ride them or they won't, but ideally whoever wants in can get in if they are the first two and try to be better than the other, instead of having us just pick who is going to do the most favors for the city. Not that -- I don't think any of you guys, but I'm worried about future councils that I don't know and trust. De Weerd: Okay. Any -- anything further on this? We -- oh, yes. Chief. Lavey: Madam Mayor, Counsel, I just want to point out that using Councilman Palmer's analogy of a business sucking, you just need to realize that not using the ridership or the ridership is only one part of the suck -- is if it's a bad company it's going to create lots of manpower for us and so we want to make sure that we have reliable companies in there. I support the RFP process, but I also support the free market. If we are going to do the free market, then, we need to make sure that we have rules in place that allow us to revoke these people when they do suck, because my experience with a few of the companies have not been great. But I will tell you that there is currently four companies that I'm aware of. Three of those companies are looking -- well, two of those companies are in Boise. An additional is looking at Boise and there is a fourth one in the wings. So, there is four floating around there that could come to Meridian. So, just want to point out that not riding them is only one part of the equation . If they got bad business practices, then, they are going to create a lot of workload on our part. So, just making sure that whatever ordinance we come up with has a mechanism that we can revoke them if they are poor performers. So, we either judge them before or we judge them after, but if they are a bad company we don't want them doing business in the city. And since it was a long walk to get here, I'm not going to leave until I make sure there is no questions. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Chief, since you walked all the way up here in pain, I just want to wonder -- I'm wondering if any of those companies are purple? Are any of them purple? Lavey: Any of them are purple? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 23 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 268 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 17 of 53 Milam: That's the most important thing. Lavey: Just because you have a purple sweater on right now, is that why, or is there some other reason? Milam: I just -- De Weerd: There is a color to a tot lot. Milam: My favorite color. Lavey: I do know that -- I do know the colors of two that I will not mention. I do not know the colors of the other two. Milam: I'm just kidding. Madam Mayor, I agree with -- with what the chief is saying and I I would -- I think maybe first come first serve isn't the best route to take on this. I think if there are four companies we should have a better system for looking at them and picking the two that are going to be the best -- or at least that we think are going to be the best companies and -- and what happens if you get three at the same time or all four -- or all at the time. So, I think that needs to be looked at real carefully. Coles: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I think Mr. Clerk has been looking at that. Would you like to comment? Coles: Absolutely. And to the chief's point, just so the Council is aware, my office has been actually in communication five total companies. So, the limited communication -- five. I'm not aware of the colors however. Sorry, Council Member Milam. In terms of the first in, our Enterprise software that we use to track intake and issuance of licenses is what we will use to track when we receive applications, so it won't be at our front counter, it will actually be through our Enterprise software, which will date and time stamp and I'm told it has the ability to go down even to the millisecond in terms of time stamping. So , we know who the actual first -- first in is or the first two in. Then from that we will be looking at completeness of applications. So, if five total companies submit, it's the first two that have submitted -- that have a complete application without our office having to go back to say you have missed a step or you have missed three steps. So, we want to make sure that the application is complete and that we are lessening the manpower on our staff to walk people through the process, because that takes time to answer questions and walk through the process. So, that's what we have been looking at in terms of the first in in determining who those first two are. De Weerd: And you can't be early, because you aren't qualified. Mr. Nary, is there a hybrid model you could look at to -- to maybe find that middle ground between the two concerns -- one if they are qualified and they meet certain criteria and, then, two, that they would have a submission date and still allow the free market to choose them once they are qualified. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 24 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 269 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 18 of 53 Nary: So, Madam Mayor, we have had a committee working on this for quite a while and I know they have explored all of those options. So, under the licensing one -- I mean this is -- this is the standard model -- model for licensing any type of activity. So, I guess the concern I have -- and when we were talking about deficient business practices, those really aren't something we normally regulate in a license circumstance. So, here in the ordinance, if you look at it, really, the only basis for revocation is they are not operating as they told us they would, whatever -- whatever they tell us how they are going to operate, so where they locate them, how they located, when they put them out, take them back, all of that. They violate the law or they have lied on their application or they don't pay the fee. That's it. So, I -- I have a sense from everybody talking what you think of as bad business practice is more than those things and that's the problem. In the licensing circumstance it's very difficult to manage preference and so that's why the conversation was over an RFP where you could set out their criteria that you want it to be and pick your successful vendor based upon that. So, there are -- there are just two distinct ways of doing it, but the cap on the number creates that race to the -- to the clerk's office that maybe not -- may not be the best way to do it. But the only way to really change that is to, then, not have a cap on the number. You can -- what Boise did was they put no cap on the number, they put a requirement of a minimum and a maximum and maximum total in the city. And, like I said, at the time I think -- and Mr. Coles can confirm, but I think they are considering new caps because of more vendors, because they did the same thing, they just capped the total number in the city and that allowed more than one vendor to participate or it could have allowed two or three, but you had them -- each one picked up their full load up front and so it absorbed the entire cap by two vendors to start. That's why they are looking at more. Lavey: Boise -- Boise is capped at three companies currently. Nary: Three? Okay. But I think it's capped based on the numbers. Lavey: They have a -- they have a number which is 750, not to exceed that -- Nary: Right. Lavey: -- and, then, they have a cap of three vendors currently. Nary: Right. But -- I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I don't think it says there is only three allowed in the city. Lavey: Yes, it -- Nary: Oh, it does? Okay. Lavey: It says only three vendors currently, yes, in their ordinance. De Weerd: And I guess the committee really focused on -- if we are going to do this we want to do it right and the race to be the first to submit, I don't know if that necessarily will Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 25 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 270 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 19 of 53 give you the most qualified to -- to try and do this right, because I will tell you we had a lot of complaints after the first rollout and if the comments and the -- the phone calls that we have received are any indication, we don't really have a large percentage of our citizens that are supportive of this program to begin with. Kicking it off wrong I think would not be a good way to start a program -- to see how it would work, because I think as we heard earlier, there are advantages of being an alternate transportation form of low emission and an inexpensive way to -- to have alternative transportation. So, you would want to do it right. I don't know, it's -- it's certainly your decision. Lavey: Madam Mayor, Council, just to comment on that and I echo with what you said. I wasn't real supportive of this because of the experience we had the first time, but I have really tried to come around and give that benefit to the -- to the city and to the companies that we did have experience with. I will tell you that there is one company that is still very, very disappointing, even after I reached out to them and they said they heard me . Well, they have now forgotten me and we still have not met. So , I am really, really concerned if we go forward this way with first in -- first come first serve, because they haven't proven their reliability and -- and, frankly, with what Mr. Nary said about we are limited in how we can revoke, I'm concerned we are going to have a nightmare all over again. So, I think we need to slow down and we need to not rush this. But that's one person's opinion, so I realized the vote rests with you, just, please, proceed cautiously, because that trust has not been earned yet in some of those companies. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: A couple thoughts. Appreciate the comments from the chief. As one who has worked on RFPs in the past, everyone who works on an RFP works really really hard to make sure your organization looks as best as possible when you submit something and so I have been on the side where we have selected our piece for organizations and they haven't performed to the level that they had indicated and promised they would. I think that -- what I'm hearing from the chief, which I think maybe worth some further exploration is strengthening our case or our basis for revocation if a -- if a licensee isn't performing. I think that's more appropriate than entering into an RFP process. Again, I don't know if there are other provisions that the committee that worked on this discussed. Perhaps that's something that we could hear feedback from the committee before a final vote. I am not one that gets really excited about an RFP process for this, just because I think it's it's a formalized sales pitch from businesses and , you know, we -- as -- as I hear from the chief it sounds like we have got one operator in the valley right now that has been forthright and has met with the police department, one who is not -- and, then, it sounds like three that are kind of an unknown. So, I think the Mayor's correct, let's try and get this correct, but I think that we can achieve what maybe sounds like some additional Council Members want to see without necessarily having to invent an RFP process, go through a scoring and, again, scores are driven by a small group of people -- did they have breakfast that morning? Is the -- using favorite words? I mean there is just so many variables that I don't get really excited about an RFP process. So, if we can avoid it I'm Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 26 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 271 of 602 Meridian City Council February 5, 2019 Page 20 of 53 supportive of that, but let's -- let's take some of the feedback from the chief and feedback from you as Council, if there is additional teeth that you want to add to give the city greater strength to remove a licensee if they are not performing and I would support that. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the chief? Lavey: I can limp back up here if you have them. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: What run -- what run were you on? Lavey: What was that? Cavener: What run were you on? Lavey: It was Nugget. De Weerd: It's the bunny hill. Lavey: On the back side. Yes. Chair six. Before we got to 16 inches of powder. Cavener: Glad you're okay. De Weerd: Yeah. Cavener: Appreciate you being here. Lavey: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Okay. Anything further? Otherwise, we will put this on the next week's calendar. Okay. Okay. Very good. D. Public Hearing Continued from January 2, 2019 for Warrick Subdivision (H-2018-0115) by Schultz Development, Located at 2445 E. Amity Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 36.22 acres of land with an R -4 19.94 acres) and R -8 (16.28 acres) zoning districts; and 2. Request: a Preliminary Plat consisting of 125 building lots and 19 common lots on 36.22 acres of land Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda February 19, 2019 – Page 27 of 476Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 272 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 6 of 84 De Weerd: Okay. Item 7 is -- thank you, Mr. Cavener, for doing that. Okay. Item No. 7 is our Consent Agenda. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move we approve our Consent Agenda as published, for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Items Moved From The Consent Agenda [Action Item] De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 9: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Proposed Vehicle Sharing Program Ordinance Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19-1809: An Ordinance Adding A New Chapter, Chapter 6, To Title 3, Meridian City Code, Regarding Vehicle Sharing Programs; Amending Meridian City Code Section 4-2-2, Regarding Party Responsible For Nuisance; Adding A New Section, Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, To Title 7, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, Regarding Electric Power-Assisted Bicycles And Scooters; Adding A New Subsection, Subsection 7-1-9(F), To Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, Regarding Prohibited Parking; Adopting A Savings Clause; And Providing An Effective Date. De Weerd: So, we will move into the Action Items. Our first public hearing up is on the Item 9-A, the public hearing for proposed vehicle sharing program ordinance. I thought I would -- first we might have some new folks in the audience here wanting to provide testimony. During the public hearing process for ordinances we will read the -- the ordinance by title only and, then, open it up for public comment. You have three minutes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 15 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 273 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 7 of 84 to provide your thoughts and comments and, then, Council, this is the third reading, they will decide if they want to make any changes to the ordinance and move it forward or if they do make changes, then, it will go through the reading process at their discretion. For those who are here for land use process I will explain that when we get to the land use section. So, with that, I will go ahead and ask our city clerk to, please, read Ordinance 19-1809 by title. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 19-1809, an Ordinance adding a new chapter, Chapter 6, to Title 3, Meridian City Code, regarding vehicle sharing programs; amending Meridian City Code Section 4-2-2, regarding party responsible for nuisance; adding a new section, Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, to Title 7, Chapter 1, Meridian City Code, regarding electric power-assisted bicycles and scooters; adding a new subsection, Subsection 7-1-9(F), to Meridian City Code Section 7-1-9, regarding prohibited parking; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. De Weerd: This is the third reading and we are taking public hearing on the ordinance that is in front of Council. Mr. Nary, can you give a brief overview of where we are and the intent of the ordinance. Nary: Yes. Again, thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So, the ordinance that's been proposed has been on your agenda for the last couple of weeks. Basically it creates an operator system for our licensee to request the ability to operate this business within the city. They have a minimum number of vehicles they have to provide as part of that service, as well as a maximum number as well. Again, it's an application process for a licensee. The maximum is two licensees currently and the ordinance maximum of 700 scooters that can be deployed by each licensee -- or, excuse me, total amount of 700 to 350 per licensee with a minimum of a hundred. The other portion that you have in front of you for review on this program is related to the regulations for operating these vehicles or operating the scooters, how they can be used, where they can be used. There is one issue I do need to raise for the Council to consider in -- in the drafting of it there -- we discovered today there is a discrepancy between the licensee portion and the operation portion and what that is is in the discussions by the committee there was a discussion on whether or not to park these vehicles on private property where a written permission would need to be provided or be secured prior parking and the committee felt that that was a difficult thing to enforce and made a decision not to require it. So , in the operator section is not in there that that is required, but in the parking provision it is and so it got overlooked in the drafting and so my recommendation would be to pick either one. There is certainly pros and cons on both sides on whether to require written permission to or to not and -- and the committee had made a decision not to require it, but it does need to be cleaned up prior to publication for a final ordinance, that it either needs to be required or not, that it can't be -- it can't conflict. So, if there is other questions I can answer those. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 16 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 274 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 8 of 84 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Couple questions. First for Mr. Nary. I know Emily is not here, but that piece about written permission for private property, how do other municipalities across the country handle that? What was the discussion from the committee about that? Nary: Mr. Coles was a part of the committee, so he could probably answer that. I will tell you from the practical standpoint right now when you're looking at a vehicle -- so, not this type of vehicle, but other vehicles, there are parking lots and things that are open to the public and there are places to park vehicles and such and I don't know if that was the gist of it, but that's really how it is handled for private vehicles in general is that -- it depends on the -- and they could sign it, they can post it. If they want to post no scooters on their property they can. So, they have the ability to enforce that themselves if they wish. The difficulty is -- on the enforcement end is -- and, again, thinking of it in relation to vehicles the operator of the vehicle never gets the parking ticket, it always goes to the vehicle itself. So, I don't know if the concern from the committee was trying to address that from the operator standpoint, from the -- the franchisee's standpoint, so -- and that may have been -- and, again, Mr. Coles can help with that, but it's certainly not undoable. I mean it and I can give you one common example. If you rent a vehicle from a commercial vehicle rental, Alamo, Hertz, whatever, they do -- almost every one of them will now tell you if you get a citation in this vehicle or charge , like a parking ticket or a toll bill or something like that and don't report it or take care of it, when it comes back to them they will charge your credit card for it. So, there are means that the -- that the -- the property or the -- the owner of the scooter can address this issue as well if they wish. But that's up to them. But, again, Mr. Coles could probably help with more of that. But that's the general way of enforcement. De Weerd: Mr. Coles. Coles: Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, I don't think I can really add much more to that. I don't recall specifically this piece of the conversation . We have had many conversations about this, other than I know it was -- and enforcement was the biggest issue here, how is the city going to handle enforcement of that, especially on private property. But the specifics down that -- that road I do not recall this conversation. Cavener: Madam Mayor, I guess an additional question. I learned today that -- it looks like Kaycee for the Mayor's office put out a poll asking the public for their feedback. I'm just curious the methodology around that poll, when that was pushed out, who that was pushed out to and scientific validity behind it and just put in our packet for consideration. Who the right person is to talk to about that. De Weerd: It was just a question that was put out on NextDoor to get a sense of, one, does the public know that this was up as an item for discussion in front of Council and since we did get comments that people didn't know about it, it was to -- to say, hey, what are your thoughts, yes, no, don't know. So, there is nothing scientific. Just another way Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 17 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 275 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 9 of 84 to -- to get public sentiments and to let the public know that this was an item for discussion in front of Council. Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Cavener: Do we know how long the poll was up for and who was able to access it or see it? De Weerd: Yeah. Everyone on NextDoor. It was sent out like we put out all our communications on NextDoor. Cavener: Sorry, Madam Mayor. Do we know -- De Weerd: I don't know how long. No. Cavener: Thank you. Coles: Madam Mayor, -- I can -- I believe I can answer that. De Weerd: Mr. Coles. Coles: Thank you. It was put out Friday at some time. I don't know the exact time of day on Friday, but it was put out on Friday. Cavener: Thank you. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I believe over 800 people replied to it, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Anything further at this point? Okay. Mr. Coles, I would ask if you could read the names of those that have signed up. Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We do have a few sign-ups this evening. Russell Spearman is the first on the list to address the Council. De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Spearman: It's Russell Spearman. 411 West Claire Court, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 18 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 276 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 10 of 84 Spearman: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Russ Spearman and I'm a 39 year resident of the City of Meridian. I'm also on the board of directors for the Brain Injury Alliance of Idaho, a 501(c)(3) that promotes awareness, understanding and prevention of brain injury based on the express needs of individuals with a brain injury in their families. Since 2000 I have served as the program director for Idaho's traumatic brain injury program for the state of Idaho through Idaho State University's Meridian campus. My comments today are specific to the ordinance 19 -1809. I'd like to begin by saying companies like Bird, Lime, Scoot or Spin offer smartphone applications allowing users to search for a scooter nearby, tap to run it, and they are free to ride away, but they don't require and enforce helmets and representatives from emergency departments across the nation express concern throughout this past summer. Electric scooters have an average top speed of 15 miles per hour, significantly faster than the six miles per hour cruising speed of a bicycle. They are also less than half the size and in many cities downtown neighborhoods ill equipped to navigate the -- the terrain, storm grates, broken sidewalks, potholes and traffic. Injuries suffered in electric scooter accidents can be devastating, especially without a helmet. Traumatic brain injuries are devastating to the individual, his or her family members and loved ones, coworkers in the community. Ashanti Jordan has not woken up since the day six weeks ago when she hopped on a green and black scooter and took off onto a downtown Fort Lauderdale street . A car hit her as she rode for the -- rode the for rent scooter. The initial police investigation says she ran a stop sign and was struck by an oncoming Toyota Corolla, sending her flying about 25 feet. Today she lies in a vegetative state in a hospital with a fractured skull, a severe brain injury and multiple broken ribs. Doctors also had to remove a portion of her skull. Her family's currently suing Lime, because the Lime application indicates that riders must ride in the street, but the local policy in our city is to ride on the sidewalk. This discrepancy, along with people neglecting to wear helmets, has led to accidents such as this one. The Lime app states that riders must wear a helmet, but not all riders, including the woman in this accident, abide by that rule. Closer to home, just this past fall we had the man in the dinosaur costume who fell off the e-scooter and struck a woman in a Boise crosswalk. There has been at least one death in Dallas, Texas, as a result of e-scooters. As has already been alluded to, the poll conducted by the Meridian Mayor's office shows that out of 850 Meridian residents only 37 percent supported the operation of e-scooters in Meridian, while 56 percent oppose their operation. In the January 2019 edition of the Journal of American -- from the American Medical Association, they looked at injuries associated with standing electric scooter use from two separate hospital emergency rooms. They found that the most common injury were falls at 80.2 percent, collision with an object at 11 percent, being hit by motor vehicle or object at 8.8 percent. Only ten individuals or 4.4 percent of all riders were wearing a helmet. I would like to end my comments by saying that the Brain Injury Alliance of Idaho is not opposed to the use of e-scooters or e-bikes, but believes that the ordinance before the City Council does not include the safeguards and protections that should be afforded to all residents of Meridian. Some of the recommendations we would like to suggest are the following: I think we would all agree that the rollout last spring of the use of e-scooters was premature on too large a scale and it did not include protections for both the rider, as well as the community. We would recommend piloting by downsizing the number of riders to 50, consider limiting to a particular geographic area within the city limits, collect additional data and make Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 19 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 277 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 11 of 84 adjustments based on use and feedback. Another recommendation would be to consider the use of a helmet similar to the echo helmet. That's a new helmet that's out. It's a unique honeycomb structure that absorbs impact by spreading the blow evenly around the head in the case of a crash when riding and it should be a requirement and forced in the ordinance. We would also like to -- like to recommend that consideration be given for including a minimum age requirement for the use of e-scooters in the ordinance. We would like to recommend 18 years of age for use of an e-scooter. We also recognize that there exists an inability to monitor those that are using an e-scooter. Lastly, we would like to just say that given the population growth and desire to improve the city's infrastructure, we also recommend moving forward with a time limited work group or advisory group involving all interested -- interested stakeholders that would assist city leaders in coming up with a plan, thereby mitigating undue harm on riders, as well as citizens of this great community. I would like to leave you with this quote from the executive director of the Brain Injury Association of America. When you hit a pothole on a bicycle -- when you hit a pothole on a bicycle with a 26 inch wheel, you may have an issue . When you hit a pothole on any scooter with a six inch wheel you are going to have an issue no matter the age or size of the rider. Meridian city leaders must protect their communities by demanding e-scooter companies offer protective equipment, especially helmets for all riders. Members of the Meridian City Council, thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I stand open for questions, if that's appropriate. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? We appreciate you joining us. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Sir? I do have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Spearman, thank you for being here. I appreciate having someone with a unique subject matter expertise coming to provide some testimony tonight. A couple questions that will help -- kind of help me. Are you aware of what, if any, laws exist in Meridian or in Idaho that require helmets of any kind, whether it's off a scooter share, personal bike -- again, I look back when I was in elementary school and high school, I never used a helmet on a bike. Now I do all the time. I never wore a helmet when I was skiing because, apparently, I wasn't crazy and now I wear my helmet all the time. I'm just trying to understand if those have happened by -- by people modifying their habits or if that is a result of -- of law. And you may be the best qualified person to provide some of that expertise. Spearman: To my knowledge there is no helmet law in the state of Idaho as it relates to bicycles or motorcycles for that matter. There wasn't when we moved back in 1998 when the state underwent Medicaid modernization and Governor Kempthorne tried to move forward with -- with some legislation at that time, but it didn't -- it didn't go anywhere. That's not to say that, you know, at the municipal or the -- or the city level that -- that helmet use, you know, couldn't be prescribed. I think -- I think from an enforcement standpoint clearly that's -- that's an issue. I will say that -- you know, I read -- I read this morning in the state of California for an individual 18 years of age on an electric scooter Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 20 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 278 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 12 of 84 without a helmet, they can get fined 500 dollars. Pretty -- pretty steep. It is California. But if it was -- if there was a fine commensurate, you know with the -- with -- with the City of Meridian that might be a deterrent and to your point, I never -- I never wore a helmet growing up as a kid, but, boy, my -- my children sure do and whether they are -- whether they are skiing at Bogus or -- or on their bicycle. Cavener: Madam Mayor. We drove up to Bogus two weeks ago and realized that I didn't have my helmet and so we drove an hour back down to grab the helmet and an hour back. So, it's -- it's habit forming and it's good. Madam Mayor, a couple other questions. Your -- your comment about an age in the audience I think is really intriguing and I'm just curious from your perspective should that pertain only to those who use these kind of rental services? I think because I have been researching scooter shares, my Google ad and my social media ads are just inundated with -- by -- by e-scooters and -- and don't -- don't rent one, just own one and so I guess from your perspective should an age for an ordinance only pertain to someone who is going to be using this mobile device to check one out or should we be setting an age restriction for anybody who wants to use an electric scooter or nonelectric scooter or a bike? As someone who really represents brain injury, I'm really interested in -- to kind of what you think are some of the best practices for us as a city to -- to consider. Spearman: I had a difficult time -- I had a difficult time coming up with the age. You know, I began with -- with 14 to 16 years of age and, then, I found that in looking at, you know, what some of the other ordinances look like out there, that 18, you know seemed reasonable. That's the -- you know, it's the legal emancipated age and, you know, for most states. I surmise -- I can't specifically tell you that this is a fact, but I surmise that when -- when we had the roll out here in Meridian that they were -- that there were many people under -- under 18 years of age that were -- that were using those scooters and maybe as young as ten and 12 years -- years of age. At least they looked that young. And I think there may have been a lot of -- you know, a lot of work in getting the information out to the community, but I don't -- I don't suspect -- I don't believe that the community was ready. I know -- I'm president of my homeowner's association and I can tell you that we were not prepared for -- to see e-scooters on sidewalks. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Mr. Spearman, I'm -- I'm on the City Council and I wasn't prepared for it when -- when they deployed. So, I think that's one of the reasons why we as a Council are taking this so seriously. Madam Mayor, one more question if I may. Your your comment about a pilot, smaller scooters in a certain geographic area, and you -- your -- the word used to -- to gain data and feedback, what -- what data and feedback would you hope to attain from -- from a smaller pilot from your perspective that would be beneficial, either to move you either in favor or in opposition? Because, essentially, I think you're kind of neutral. Spearman: I think -- I think the City Council has -- has the ability to be able to draw some geo -- geographic boundaries around -- around the city without -- without being discriminatory in any way and can limit the number of scooters that may not be palatable to the franchisee, but they will -- they will recoup their money eventually and to start small, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 21 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 279 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 13 of 84 you know, in a locale. I just think it makes good sense, because I think there is a lot that we don't know as it relates to e-scooters. It's not just the City of Meridian, it's -- it's -- you know, Boise is struggling with this issue as well. So -- so, my question would be why not why not go slow? Why not move into this incrementally. Cavener: Madam Mayor. Help me, though, because I think that if -- if we -- let's say we were to do a smaller geographic area for the intent of gaining data , we as a Council or the Mayor or city go to these operators and say this is data that we need and I guess I'm struggling to find out what are the -- what are those things -- what are those data points that a city would want to see to help -- and for someone who works in brain injury would want to be aware of to help better form your opinion. Spearman: The biggest issue would be what's the age of the rider. What's the terrain that they are riding on. Are they riding on sidewalks? Are they riding on -- on -- on paved roads? You know, are they -- are they wearing a helmet? You know, the -- I mentioned the age. Injury. You know, would be -- have they -- you know, have they sustained an injury. I mean, obviously, on the enforcement side it's going to fall to the franchisee to some extent, but I think it's also going to fall to our -- our law enforcement folks and -- I don't know if that answers the question or not. Cavener: I appreciate it. I really do. Appreciate you being here tonight and I appreciate your testimony greatly. Spearman: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions? Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Not a question, just -- the only helmet law that I'm aware -- as I'm looking for nods or shakes -- is that on motorcycles if you're riding or driving a motorcycle and you're under 18 that you're required to have one. I don't know that we have any other helmet laws in Idaho. Yes, that was confirmed. Spearman: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Coles: Next is Brian Leslie. De Weerd: Good evening and thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 22 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 280 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 14 of 84 Leslie: Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. My name is Brian Leslie. I'm at 4647 North Tipton, Meridian. 83646. De Weerd: Thank you. Leslie: So, as Councilman Cavener probably already knows, I'm a member of the Transportation Commission with Meridian. I'm also a member of the bicycle advisory committee for ACHD. I'm not here on behalf of either of those today. I'm just here as a private citizen. I'm an advocate of alternative transportation models, helping people get around other than in cars. So, first I want to thank the Council for being open and receptive to the e-scooters and e-bikes. They are a low cost, nonpolluting, congestion reducing typically options that frequently replace motor vehicle trips and I don't know if anybody saw, but Portland had a four month pilot program and they released a study that was very detailed and they found that about 35 to 40 percent of scooter rides replaced vehicle trips. So, Boise's had the program I think since mid October and by and large it's been pretty good. There was the one incident with some guy in a dinosaur suit riding on a sidewalk and he hit somebody, but by and large has been a pretty successful operation. I do want to say, though, that some of these operators have made mistakes in other cities when they have rolled out and it wasn't exactly smooth here in Meridian either. I think the the operators need to be more proactive when they enter these communities with educating users on how to ride them, how to park them, you know, what -- where to ride, where not to ride and they have that capability to custom tailor their instructions to a particular community and I think they really also need to have more enforcement on their own part for where people are parking these scooters, because every time somebody has to park these they have to take a picture of it, so they have a record of what it looks like and if it's in the middle of the street, you know -- and up to this point in time it seems like they really haven't taken any action against their users. So, my question on the ordinance is -- it appears that it's only for vehicle sharing, e-scooters and e-bike. You don't have to answer now, I just want to throw it out there, but are personal e-scooters and personal e- bikes included -- I'm seeing heads -- they are not included in this. Okay. So, I have concern about -- concerns about that, because if personal e-scooters and e-bikes are not included in this ordinance, if this ordinance is adopted as is, the rules for personal devices are going to be different than these vehicle sharing devices, which is a bad idea. People are -- they need to be the same; right? An e-bike is an e-bike whether it's a vehicle sharing or your own personal one. On Section 3-6-3D I was curious why there is an hours of operation limit, 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. ban. They have headlights. They have tail lights. So, I was just curious why they have that in there. It also said the scooters need to be physically removed -- oh. Said the scooters need to be removed, but it -- does that mean if it's physically removed or -- from the public domain or just inactivated for riders to ride them? Section 3-6-3E2. It's -- it's a good -- a good idea in principle, particularly for those people with vision and mobility limitations, but it says you can't block us -- the sidewalk has to stay five feet clear and it seems, just from my walking around the city, do we have any sidewalks that are more than five feet wide? I think most of our sidewalks are pretty narrow. De Weerd: Yes, we do. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 23 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 281 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 15 of 84 Leslie: Do we? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Leslie: We have a few, but like in my -- my subdivision -- De Weerd: We would love to see more, but -- Leslie: Right. So, if the sidewalks are less than five feet I'm assuming they can't put them on the sidewalk, they would have to put them on private property. De Weerd: And, Brian, if you can start wrapping up your remarks. Leslie: Okay. De Weerd: Your three minutes were up two minutes ago. Leslie: Oh, man. I'm sorry. I guess Boise's program is working pretty well. I think we should probably emulate their -- their regs that they enabled. So, really, my biggest concern is Section 7-1-9-2. If you eliminate A, B and C and just tell people ride on the sidewalk if you can and you don't feel safe in the street, it's working for Boise fine and that's pretty much all I had. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Council, any questions? Cavener: Madam Mayor? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Brian, you said it could replace vehicle trips and I'm curious in Meridian where we don't have other forms of transportation -- because most of what I have experienced are people is getting off a bus and, then, getting a scooter and going to work or things like that where they have been either going to walk or use another form, but where we don't have much other transportation to connect to, what kind of trips are you imagining them replacing in Meridian? Leslie: I would imagine Lime has a lot of that data to show where people are -- are riding them. I would venture to guess it's closer to the core -- to the downtown core. Eagle Road. But I -- yeah, you're right, we don't have much public transportation here. So, it's probably going to be from their home -- Little Roberts: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 24 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 282 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 16 of 84 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Commissioner Leslie, I appreciate you being here. Brian Leslie. There was a the previous testimony talked a lot about helmets and I'm just curious for someone who does a lot of work for bicyclists and bicyclists' rights and working with the highway district, what's your opinion on should the City Council be requiring operators to have helmets? Should we be looking as a city to require helmets amongst all riders, whether it be electric scooters or bicycles? I'm curious if you have any insight on that you would be willing to share. Leslie: Unequivocally, absolutely no mandatory helmet laws. Mandatory helmet laws reduce ridership. That has been proven everywhere it's been enacted and they don't keep you safe. When you get -- the vast majority of bicycle injuries or when a car hits a bicycle and 4,000 pounds hitting you, a little foam hat is not going to save you. Helmets were designed for low impact, low speed, kind of injuries and those are few and far between. Cavener: Thank you. Leslie: Infrastructure is the best thing. Cavener: Thank you, sir. De Weerd: Off street lanes that bicyclists and e-scooters can travel safely; right? Leslie: Yeah. That would be great. De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you. Leslie: Thank you. Coles: Next is Jonathan Hopkins. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Hopkins: Jonathan Hopkins. Bell Street in Seattle, Washington. So, good evening, Mayor de Weerd and Council. We wanted -- I'm Jonathan Hopkins, the regional government relations manager for -- for Lime and you may know my colleague Megan, who is here. She's met with some of you and also colleague Aaron , who is coaching a son's basketball game tonight, so I decided to come on over and stand in for them here tonight. I definitely want to thank everybody for the opportunity to speak today and thanks for your work to bring new mobility options to Meridian that the community we have seen is eager to use. We are also eager to continue to collaborate with the city, local businesses, local civic organizations to help bring a coordinated seamless scooter launch to the city. In fact, we have learned from our experiences early in this history and you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 25 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 283 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 17 of 84 were part of that history about how important that good community engagement is and because of that, that's -- those lessons have been applied in other cities. We build really close relationships with the community and we are doing that currently in Boise. In fact, we just came from meetings with the city of Boise earlier today. Their staff is busy working on rules to double the size of the scooter fleet in their city at the direction of council, because of council's satisfaction with how that -- that program has gone in the city of Boise. Also, you know, Lime takes safety very very seriously. We want our customers to remain our customers and to remain healthy good citizens in their communities . Our outreach encourages use of helmets and other safety best practices and we are eager to collaborate with organizations that are focused on safety. Specifically we launched a three million dollar campaign that we called Respect The Ride in the fall, which focuses on both education outreach, such as asking users to take a pledge to ride safely, distributions of tens of thousands of helmets and we even have developed new scooters that we are -- we are testing now that have two inch larger wheel bases, front shocks, much more stable to improve safety. In fact, we do know from cities that have collected data on safety -- namely Salt Lake City and Portland. The Multnomah County Health Department, Portland, and the city of Salt Lake's -- the city's DOT -- both say there is no indication that injuries and accidents from scooters are significantl y different than those affecting pedestrians or bicycle riders. We are a strong supporter this measure, noting the committee's original intent that private property owners be able to keep scooters off their property, but the written intent -- written approval not be required. We definitely thank Meridian for your leadership on this, to help bring new mobility options to further -- to greater parts of the Treasure Valley. So, thank you for your time tonight. De Weerd: Thank you. Hopkins: We are always happy to answer any questions that you have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Just to get a little bit of perspective -- you mentioned Portland. So, can you give us an example of how many scooters you have deployed there . I know we are talking a much larger city, but -- Hopkins: Portland had a total of 2,000 scooters initially, but their DOT believes that -- their DOT says a lot more could be put on the streets -- like thousands and thousands more to meet the demand of the city. Milam: Because the city limits of Portland it's -- okay. And, Madam Mayor, follow up. How many accidents that -- that come back to you, are you aware of? And maybe that you probably need more parameters. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 26 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 284 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 18 of 84 Hopkins: Yeah. I don't have specific data on accidents from Portland that Lime collected. The best information we have is from the Multnomah County Health Department, that the general takeaway is that there were fewer accidents during that period than there were on bikes and -- but there is certainly a learning curve and as -- even as people started using scooters more the number of accidents went down. So, it's just like getting on a bike for the first time, people should do it at low speed and figure it out. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Thank you. Thank you for coming. Hopkins: It's a pleasure to be here. Bernt: Yeah. Remind me what the minimum age is for Lime. Hopkins: For us we require people to be 18 years of age. Bernt: And remind -- Madam Mayor, follow up. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bernt: Mr. Nary, what is -- I don't remember what our ordinance is saying -- do we have a minimum age in our -- I don't remember seeing that. Nary: I don't believe so. Can I add one more thing, Councilman Bernt. And not specifically that question, but it was brought up that the ordinances before you only apply to the leasing companies. The operation ones, 7-1-9 and 7-2-2 apply to all scooters, not just ones that are rented. The other parts regarding the licensing only apply to those companies. But the operational ones are to everyone. But there isn't an age limit. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: Mr. Hopkins, how many -- so, more people earn a -- an income from Uber than from any other company in the world, because of their -- their platform and their ability for pretty much anybody to take advantage of the earning opportunity there. How many people locally are earning an income off of Lime's juicer service? Hopkins: In the Treasure Valley it's hundreds. Palmer: Hundreds? Any idea how many hundreds, roughly? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 27 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 285 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 19 of 84 Hopkins: We have over 20 staff. They are full-time staff in Boise. That number will increase should Meridian allow scooter service here and those employees can come from throughout the region. Additionally, there is juicers -- I mean our company is named Lime, so everything has to be metaphorically correct. So , the juicers are recharges for the scooters and those people come from throughout the community. It has -- it has an equity impact, in fact. It's five to 20 dollars per scooter that you recharge. It's pretty easy to do. People of all ages and abilities can go do that sort of thing and earn money on their own time and it helps take care of the community, they help deploy them in the morning, based on guidance they get through an app showing where the proper deployment zones are. Palmer: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Hopkins, I guess I have a question in terms of this ordinance holds the operators accountable to the driver's behavior. How does the company hold driver's behavior accountable? Hopkins: Madam Mayor, I think that's something as we continue to innovate and evaluate best practices it improves safety and helps bring proper norms to communities. We are definitely exploring like what sort of options work from just notifying riders if they have been noticed, you know, doing something to violate the rules or leaving the scooter in a place that it shouldn't have been left. But there is -- I think we will see continued evolution or exploration of like what tools work best and companies like this love to beta test and test, okay, is the behavior better through one type of activity than another. Much more than -- anything more aggressive than that is just something that sometimes communities discuss with us. De Weerd: So, you could have repeat behavior from one user that -- that is ongoing, there is no way that you have to block their usage or anything like that ? Hopkins: We are definitely able to do that, should we decide to. With good cause. De Weerd: Because certainly the first four days of the rollout showed a lot of bad behavior and they weren't 18. I know you require the helmet. I -- I also know not very many people walk the streets of Meridian with a helmet in their hand looking for something to ride. So, that one's difficult, but if you require these different things that you have a credit card, you're 18, you have a helmet, how do you enforce that? Hopkins: If there is reports of something with a certain user's account, that's something we can deal with and continue to talk to the city about. Beyond that -- there is certainly certain norms that have to develop, like people have to have a chance to use these sorts of things, just like we have certain norms with biking, certain norms with cars, those things have been developed over decades and the way we get to that is both by having a community that has expectations. What we found is on these scooters it's not just 19 year olds and 20 year olds riding it, but it's the broad swath of the community and when we have the whole community out there, there is a self policing aspect of that over time, as well as the communication that we have with local city government, with the police Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 28 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 286 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 20 of 84 department, to try and tweak things where necessary to help the proper best norms develop to help people both have mobility and safety at the same time. De Weerd: So, in the ordinance it also contemplates -- I guess I am more sensitive to how the first rollout impacted public perception and, you know, the committee came and made a recommendation to roll this out a little bit with greater caution, using one operator to -- to understand how the ordinance works and work out any bugs before we open it up to everyone. The way we have it being proposed tonight is that it's kind of first in gets to the first two in are the two operators we move forward with. What do you think of that approach and would you suggest a different type of rollout? Hopkins: Madam Mayor, I think it's important to work to bring the best quality operators that have demonstrated a willingness to work with the community and, you know, produce best practices of that sort of partnership. I don't know if -- like the first two to, you know, essentially digitally dropped their name in the hat is necessarily the pathway to get there. It's our strong belief that in a competitive marketplace there should be just some sort of method to select the most qualified providers. If it's the first two that arrive, there is -- there are other cities that have picked less qualified providers and have had negative experiences with that, both from the quality of the hardware, as well as just the quality of the interaction with that organization and when -- when we risk taking less qualified providers, we actually risk just re-experiencing the experience that the community had here earlier when all the -- when the whole marketplace was younger; right? Well, there is certain companies that have gained experience over the past nearly two years and there are others that have not. Our lessons at Lime are to work with your staff, to work with political leaders, and not just stop there, to work with business associations, civic organizations to try and educate on what are the norms, how can we roll this out , where, what are your concerns, maybe there is something we can do about that. Those -- those sorts of things and that's why we have staff that's here present in the community to do that sort of work, because we find it absolutely important. We believe like the best, most mobile cities will have really strong partnership between organizations that are private and organizations that are public, like yourselves. De Weerd: I think you have raised a good point. I know a comment earlier was a race to the bottom and certainly you -- you want to give this an opportunity, like Mr. Leslie said, to -- to shine and to show that it is a viable alternative transportation option, but what we can't afford is another failure and, you know, I -- I was interested to hear your -- your comments on that. Hopkins: Thanks, Madam Mayor. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: In your testimony you talked about lessons learned, which was music to my ears. I think there is a lot of lessons you guys have learned. You touched on engaging Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 29 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 287 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 21 of 84 with other local stakeholders to better improve rollout. So, I'm curious what type of outreach and connections have you made with local stakeholders in Meridian to ensure , should you be one of the companies to roll out, that things go much smoother than they were when -- when you first rolled out? Hopkins: Largely to date our stakeholder engagement has included the police department, some members of Council, but during those meetings there -- a main point of that effort was to identify who else can we talk to -- to chambers of commerce, like we were just in Boise speaking to the downtown association, to -- and to the universities and colleges in the area. So, our intent is to do the same in this case. There is time between the time that this passes and the time that a vendor is selected and goes out onto the road; right? And so our intent is to use that time to work with local business associations and local civic organizations. Cavener: Madam Mayor? So, what I'm hearing is today, outside of talking to the police department and some select city council members, that public engagement has not happened on Lime's behalf. Hopkins: The actual engagement hasn't happened. The plan has already begun. Cavener: Thank you. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Robert. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. Jonathan, it seems that we keep covering experiences in larger cities, Boise and larger. Have you rolled out in a city -- a community that's more Meridian size and how has that worked? Hopkins: Earlier this year we launched 500 bicycles in Bellevue. So, slightly different. It's bicycles. But it still is shared mobility. Bellevue, I believe, is about 134,000 people. About the same distance from Seattle as Meridian is from Boise. I do think it's commensurate. Similarly, it's -- and this might be more Boise size, but we did scooters and bikes in Tacoma, Washington, which is 30,000 fewer people in Boise. But -- yeah. So -- and both of those have been strong successes. So, that -- so, something I wanted to clear up from a question that you had earlier about connections to transit. It's true that about 20 percent of our rides are connect -- people connecting directly to transit and that's music to our ears. It's people reducing congestion and reducing greenhouse emissions, but also 30 percent of riders are going to buy something at a store or market. Another 30 percent are commuting directly using the scooter to either work, school, or appointments. So, that's the data that we have from nationwide on that point. De Weerd: Thank you. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 30 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 288 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 22 of 84 De Weerd: Uh-huh. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. Jonathan, I know that the rollout was very short lived, but do you have any data from it regarding what the rides were and if there was a particular area that was popular? Hopkins: We can provide that information. I know the scooters were getting about three rides a day, if I remember right, or more during the time we were there, which we consider good. We do have heat maps that can show where these are, so we can provide that. I just don't happen to have it with me. De Weerd: Thank you. Hopkins: Thank you. Coles: There were no other sign-ups, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this? Lavey: Madam Mayor, Council, just had a couple words I would like to say. De Weerd: Thanks, chief. Lavey: As you know I wasn't supportive of the scooters at first, but if it's what our community wants, then, we are willing to take a look at it and bring them forward. But I have to tell you today that what I have heard from the public is concerning to me and no matter which direction you go -- if you go with the helmet laws, that's concerning to me, because the only one that can enforce that is law enforcement and we do not want to take on that task. So, if Council is going to put that in an ordinance , then, we just as soon -- let's not have scooters at all. Likewise, if we are going to change the ordinances that applies to every single person, whether they are lessee of equipment or whether it's a privately owned equipment -- again, that is a resource that we do not have and if we have any interest in doing that, then, we need to stay out of the scooter business. It also has already been talked about somewhat today and I brought it up on the first time and I think I need to bring it up one more time. Not that it's going to do any good, but I need to bring it up one more time -- is I'm really concerned about the race to the start and we are going to get the two fastest people, not the two best people, and I expressed an our RFQ before and I will express an RFQ now. Let's weed out the bad, instead of accepting them and have to get rid of them out of our city. We are not going to get the best, we are going to get who is first and that's concerning to me. I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Milam: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 31 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 289 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 23 of 84 De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Chief, other than the four days that we had the scooters -- the rental scooters, are e-scooters -- has it been something that has been an issue for the police department -- like privately owned scooters or not really? Lavey: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, have they been an issue? Potentially. I know we have crashes every once in a while. We -- we do get them hit by cars every once in a while, but not often. I think what created the issue for us is it was something new. It was something on every corner. It was something nobody knew that was coming and they were playing. My guess is if we would have approached it differently we might have had a little different result and if we allow them to stay here longer than four days, some of that would have softened out, too, because they were neat, they were new, let's play. The age thing -- it's really hard to -- it's really hard to control. You can say what you want to say and that protects you liability wise, but it's -- it's hard to enforce, because all it takes is mommy and daddy's credit card and the smartphone they have in their pocket and it doesn't matter how old they are, they are good to go. So, it hasn't been a major problem, but this is just like anything else, whether it's a bicycle, whether it's a scooter, whether it's roller skates or whether its skateboards, yeah, there are issues but to what extent -- not a lot. Milam: Madam Mayor? And I don't know that age really has anything to do with it. I mean kids know that they are going to get hurt. My ten year old owns an e-scooter and is very responsible with it. He doesn't speed or go crazy. He rides on the sidewalk and he rides kind of slow. So, you know, I get when you're renting something you maybe get a little wild and try different things. I think more than age, even though it is a restriction on there that -- that doesn't get followed, having some kind of action come back to the rider for misbehavior I think would be the best bet and maybe figuring that out, but -- Lavey: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, I don't disagree with you. The only problem is the only way they are going to get that report is if law enforcement generates that report and that's -- that's -- that's concerning to me is we have other more importan t things to do in this city than to chase down every violator of a scooter. So, if the burden is going to fall on us, then, they need to stay out of our city. And, then, I will also say that a lot of our irresponsible drivers weren't necessarily under th e age of 18. De Weerd: And I think in renting a car we don't set the age limit on how old you have to be to rent a car, that's something for the -- the rental companies do. Certainly I don't think you care how old they are, they just need to have a driver's license; right? Lavey: Madam Mayor, that's -- that's correct and we are not going to know unless something bad happens and it -- likewise, if they set up these -- these age restrictions, we are not going to -- we are not going to enforce that. I just share that with you to -- to let you know that it may sound good that we are putting it in an ordinance, but if nobody's enforcing it, then, why do we put it in an ordinance. So, that's really kind of why age was left out before. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 32 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 290 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 24 of 84 De Weerd: Any further questions? Thank you. Lavey: Thanks. De Weerd: Any other testimony? Okay. Council, in front of you you do have the ordinances as written. If any changes are desired certainly we would have to -- to change it, bring it back and -- well, I will just turn this over to your discussion. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: The more I have thought about this and talk to people, I do have some -- some issues that I -- things that I would like to see changed within the ordinance. First of all, the first come, first serve I think is a terrible idea. I said that last week and I'm saying it a little louder today. We should put out an RFQ, RFP, whatever it is, and make sure that we have the best company or companies, depending -- rather than just the first ones. I still think we should have geo fencing around playgrounds and, hopefully, that will just discourage ridership around playgrounds, so that we don't have two and three year olds getting run over by a little bit -- some older kids playing around on the e-scooters. I don't think there should be a minimum or maximum deployment time, because I don't think that whoever we get an agreement with is going to sit on their laurels and going to do nothing, I think they have got money on the table that's burning -- it's already being spent, so I don't think that they are going to lollygag around. So, I don't think that we need to put that in there. And I don't think -- yeah. And, then, get rid of the written permission for private property. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Question for Council Member Milam. If you would yield to a question; right? Your comment about timing, I didn't -- that didn't quite connect with me. You don't want to establish a minimum time that they have to be out by? Milam: Sorry. Yeah. So, there is no -- like -- I'm trying to think of how it -- how it was phrased. It was -- Councilman Palmer brought this up that it would be -- it would have to deploy so many within a certain amount of time. De Weerd: And certainly if you did it through an RFP or RFQ process, that could be one of the things is what is the timeframe you would deploy the program. Milam: Right. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 33 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 291 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 25 of 84 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: And that -- I guess that was the clarification was not the time that those scooters would be brought out each day -- Milam: Right. Cavener: -- but the timing after a licensee is granted before they would actually deploy in the community. Milam: Yes. Cavener: Does that make sense? Milam: Sorry for the -- Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And the reason -- two reasons I was really concerned about that is, one, I didn't want a company who wasn't ready to just buy the spot and, then, sit on it and, then, have the right to be the one to renew it and also I didn't want one entity who is in the business to be able to just form another business and lock them both up and be the sole provider of the service, eliminating competition. So, requiring that they be deployed with -- you know, within whatever time frame -- anytime frame was good enough for me. So, that's why I wanted it added, so that it would have to happen, rather than just sitting on the franchise. And while I'm talking, if I can keep going I guess, because I'm a politician and I only have ten months left, I'm going to keep talking. When it comes -- when it comes to something -- De Weerd: You know, every minute you talk means another taxpayer home is paying for you to pontificate. Palmer: And I would love to shorten these meetings with less -- well, we will not get into that. We don't need to fight today. When it comes to a lot of concerns about the chaos so, I -- I teach a Sunday school class of nine year olds. We have got -- one of the kids in my class, because of some health issues, doesn't really have the opportunity to get out in the public a whole lot and -- but was still wanting to get back and participate in our Sunday school class. So, we had an iPad with FaceTimed in so they would be able to join the class and you take an iPad with FaceTime with a friend of theirs they haven't seen in a while and stick in the middle of a room full of nine year olds, there is going to be some chaos for a while. So, after we got through the novelty of there being an iPad with a kid on it on a chair next to them -- so that was over, we were able to have a very effective use of what the intent was there. When we -- when the scooters were deployed in Meridian and nobody knew it was happening and, then, all of a sudden they were there, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 34 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 292 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 26 of 84 we had 100,000 nine year olds out there trying to figure out what they could do with these things and, like the chief has said, it wasn't people -- just people under 18, it was people like myself and Councilman Cavener riding down the sidewalk on Franklin, heading down to Ten Mile, without helmets, figuring out how these things worked and what we could do with them and so I think that -- as the point was brought up after the hundred thousand nine year olds we have in our town have a chance to get out and ride them and realize, okay, these are cool, now, how can I use it as a tool instead of a toy, that we will be able to realize the intent and the idea behind it and I think as was -- as was mentioned that there is hundreds of juicers out there earning an income that there is this major employment opportunity that we are choosing to wait now months so that -- just that we can figure out some regulations on it. We get super excited when, you know, a business wants to expand here that we are like how can we give you some money from tax dollars, so that we can get you to expand or -- or come to Meridian or expand your business in Meridian, when we have got a business from out of state right now that's wanting to provide income instantly to as many people as want to sign up and go do it , there is just so many pluses to this that I feel that it's appropriate to put some level of responsibility on people. In today's world I know that that's a really scary thing and say, okay, if you -- if you're going to break the rules that -- that maybe Lime or anybody else might set up and allow your kids to do this, that you know what they are doing and you pay a little bit of attention and if it's going to be your card that's going to be going on it, that you're ultimately responsible for what your kid's going to do and if you're an adult making the decision to ride these things, if there is a pothole, you need to be able to make the decision of whether you're going to wear a helmet, because the pothole might cause a bad day for you or not, but personal responsibility, business opportunity coming to town, jobs -- I mean let's just get this thing done. De Weerd: Any other questions or comments? Lavey: Madam Mayor. I just recalled something that you guys were discussing or I think Councilman Cavener was addressing the private property -- granting permission on private property -- one of you were. I was on the committee, too, and I think it was kind of a carryover from when the MOU -- in the MOU it said grant permission, private property, and I think it kind of got carried over in the ordinance. I don't have an express opinion on whether it should -- should or should not be in here, I will just let you know, though, that a really kooky criminal trespass law was passed last year with the legislature and it talks about written permission -- if you do not have written permission from the owner, you're automatically committing a trespass. So, I would suggest that we have legal review that to make sure that we are in compliance with that, because it is a really awkward criminal trespassing law that was just -- was just passed this last year. So, perhaps we are required to have that in there and they know that there has been some private property owners that have expressed some -- some concern of what they are going to do if they show up on our property and it's -- it's one thing if it's actual private property and it's another thing if it's actual private property that's doing public business and so that creates confusion as -- as well. So, they can set up their own rules, but, then, they would have to enforce those rules, too. But that's -- those are some thoughts that came to my mind when that was originally brought up. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 35 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 293 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 27 of 84 De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I agree that we need to do -- go the route of an RFQ or RFP, something. I do not think that just first come first serve is the way to go , because even though we put some sideboards on there that, you know, the chief could say this isn't working and in this company needs to go away. I think that would be a whole lot more difficult than to just do the process right to start with and make a selection based on criteria and so that's probably my biggest issue with this right now. That and I think we do need to take a hard look at geo fencing certain areas. We were just in San Diego and I was amazed how tight they could get the geo fencing to the point that you could park on one side of the street light and not on the other. I mean you really can do some th ings with geo fencing from what I saw to -- to help them not end up in areas where the police have to deal with them. But for the point for us I would definitely say we need to go with an RFQ. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Question maybe for Council Member Milam or Roberts. I'm not opposed to an RFQ. I guess my question for both of you is what are those qualifications that you would be looking for from a vendor? If we are wanting to raise the threshold, great, but what what is that? Because I think that it's important if this is the direction we are going to go and we are going to ask staff to now put together an RFP, we have got to provide some real clear ring the bell sideboards about what we are looking for in an RFQ. So, I guess that would be my question for each of you is what is it that you would be looking for. De Weerd: Well, I would ask -- I know that was a recommendation from the committee with the RFP or RFQ process. Was that part of your discussions? Coles: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. It was, but it didn't go very far, because at the direction of Council it wasn't asked for us to explore that. So, I know one of the -- the elements that we were looking for as a committee was whether or not the company had a history of being good actors within the city or could we obtain letters of recommendation from community partners where said company was deployed and operating was one of the things that we discussed , but we didn't go down that road very far, because, again, it hadn't been Council's desire for us to explore that to this point. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I guess to answer your question, I think that we need to work with our -- our departments and -- and, you know, other city leaders and the -- and the committee that's already been working on this and figure that out. I don't think that's something that we need to decide tonight at this Council meeting. I think deciding to go with an RFQ is Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 36 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 294 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 28 of 84 something we decide and, then, we get the right people in the right room and get it put together. De Weerd: And you can set a time that you would want those -- those elements back and I would imagine -- I know Mr. Hopkins had mentioned equipment. Mrs. Little Roberts mentioned the geo fencing and how tight they could get those kind of things . I would imagine those would be some of the elements to that to have a demonstrated ability to do certain things. Cavener: And, Madam Mayor, that may be -- I think that we -- if we are expecting that that is going to remove one or two or three or four different vendors from being able to participate, I don't think that is the appropriate expectation . I think that all the vendors that are out there can do geo fencing. All the vendors that are out there can demonstrate the equipment and -- and, again, my comments a couple weeks ago when we talked about this is anyone who is worth a lick can make themselves look really great in an RFP. Everyone can make themselves look really great on paper and if you have ever hired somebody you have got a stack of resumes, you say, wow, this candidate is going to be great and they show up for the interview and you're like why are we interviewing them -- because they look great on paper and I think that when you're a -- an organization that has millions and billions of dollars invested, you're going to make yourself look really great on paper and so I guess I'm not opposed to it, I just want to have a better sense of the confidence that we are going to get and if it's just to prevent whoever is the first to dial, you know -- it's like -- it's like a radio contest, the first to be caller nine is the one who gets to -- to have a license, I get that piece. So, let's -- let's build a better solution for that, because I don't necessarily think the RFP is going to get us there. I think the chief's got some more comments. De Weerd: And I guess at this point it's who can push the send button the fastest and I'm not sure that that's the right method. Chief . Lavey: Madam Chair, Councilman Cavener -- and -- and I don't disagree with you at all on -- on the RFP, but I guess it goes back and validates, then, maybe some of the other suggestions. A pilot program. A temporary program. And, then, the actual program. The one thing that I do believe that we have done is we have put some teeth in this ordinance that if you're a problem we -- we can revoke your -- your enterprise, your license, but I think it's set up for one year and I don't want to go through chaos for one year and, then, look at -- the license runs for a year. Yeah. So, making sure that we have some sort of of clause in there that we can revoke prior to that one year renewal coming up may alleviate the problem with -- with the RFQ. The other thing is -- and I know that this is probably going to be a shock, but we -- we really kind of oppose geo fencing, because why are you going to geo fence one device when you're not geo fencing all the other potentially dangerous devices out there in our parks. The bicycles. To private scooters. The -- the skateboards. You're not controlling any of them , so why would you control one person or one item. So, I understand that's what the Parks Department wanted, but it's a false sense of security. You're only dealing with a few and so we -- we -- we don't look at geo fencing favorably. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 37 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 295 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 29 of 84 Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Chief, I guess to that regard, the -- the thought behind that is that, first of all, the way that people acted with the e-scooters when they were deployed, if they would have when it's a rental they treat it a little differently than they treat their own. They are less responsible and, you know, maybe go a little faster, be a little bit more reckless, because they don't care. It's just like renting a car, like, oh, I could run RPMs up a little higher, because I don't really care if this car lasts forever. So, it's more about the -- the actions and the attitude of people renting something, as opposed to owning it and also just the sheer volume that will be out there. So, it's not a problem now and so probably by having that in there it's not going to change what's already happening. So, if it's not a problem now it won't be a problem, but by deploying hundreds of scooters into the hands of inexperienced kids who don't care about them, we may end up with a problem. Lavey: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, then why are we only protecting the parks? What about the sidewalks? What about the parking lot? What about the schools? What about the neighborhoods? What about the cul-de-sacs? You have that same behavior going on that won't be protected under the geo fencing, yet the parks are. Why just the parks? Milam: I'm not talking about the whole park, I'm only talking about the playground where you have little tiny children playing. So, a two year old is standing in the middle of the roadway and here comes some stupid kid that's going 15 miles an hour on a scooter and the little two year old gets plowed over. I'm only talking about very small areas on the larger playgrounds, just right there to protect the little tiny kids. That's all. Lavey: Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, I will just explain to you that the problems that we had in the parks were not always near the playgrounds. So, just don't get the false sense of security that if you -- if you ban them around the playgrounds you have taken care of the problem, because we had the scooter races down the middle of the street in Kleiner Park, we had them on the walkways of the parks that weren't anywhere near the playgrounds and so just know that it's only covering one part of the potential problem. Milam: Sure. Lavey: And you can do it, I'm just saying that we are getting this false sense of security and that this problem still exists. Far too often that's what keeps me employed. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: So, let's go back and remember how this all got started. We weren't regulating them. We still don't have the law regulating them. We had a company interested in doing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 38 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 296 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 30 of 84 business here. They came to us and said, hey, we want to be a partner, want to work together, what do you want to do. So, we said let's do an MOU. They did it and some of their customers -- again in the -- because we only had a couple days, it was just -- we were a little shocked -- or created a little bit of a shocking situation. De Weerd: Not just a little bit. Palmer: We said, okay, never mind, please stop and they did. Let's find a different way. So, we got people together to figure out this. Here we are with this. And now we are wanting to say, you know, throw it away, let's -- let's go with an RFP. You know, what if we get that and we still don't have the ones that we want, so what if it all means the same two that are -- that are -- that have been the most interested. I mean last time we did do an RFP, obviously, it was a different situation, but we had dozens of people who would express interest in participating. We had two applicants. We have only had two ever show up to our meetings. Sure, there is more out there, but I mean we are not -- we can always -- we can change things down the road as we keep learning, that's why we got to the point that we are at, but this is more of a commitment, but it will give us the data that we need to see if more than two days is enough time for something like -- again, the novelty to wear off, things to normalize and see how people use them and make some adjustments down the road if we need to. Or we can just keep saying, no, don't come to town, don't help make more money, don't help people avoid having to drive for shorter distances. I would be just as happy to -- to deny it if that meant we are, then, out of the business and going to let the free market do its thing, but that's, obviously, not going to happen. So, if it takes a little bit of regulations to be able to allow business to do it, then, so be it. Let's do this and get the data we need to , then, make adjustments, rather than trying to solve every possible problem before knowing what they all are. De Weerd: Well, the bottom line to the responsibility of this Council and the policies that you set are -- are outlined in that ordinance seeks to protect and enhance the safety of the streets and sidewalks, pedestrians, cars and shared vehicles to facilitate transportation options -- and I'm paraphrasing. Three. To establish clarity and regulations for operators, users and citizens for their safety and to balance oversight and staff time. So, what you do is important and I think, too, that, number one -- and we have always talked about this. Number one, responsibility for the city is to provide a safe city, a safe atmosphere. If it takes a few extra steps to make sure that you're going to roll out a program that can be successful and that can prove itself and the data, then, do it right the first time. We didn't do it right the first time. We have an opportunity to rebuild the trust and to make a program that offers an alternative successful in the citizens' minds and opinions and that's equally important. So, any extra thought that goes into this is doing your job and I think that all of you take that responsibility seriously. I -- I'm not saying that you're not, but we would like to see that this is done well. Lavey: Madam Mayor, I will just point out, I guess, is we are not opposed to going forward the way it is, but we just want to make sure that there is some revocation and process that we don't have to wait 365 days to take care of the problem, because we are going to know, after it normalizes, what -- what the problems are. So, you know, the decision Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 39 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 297 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 31 of 84 ultimately rests with you. We do have to -- we have done everything that we can without looking into a crystal ball and finding out what's going to happen in future and so now we have set the community expectations, we have set the expectations on the vendors, at least two that expressed interest, now we have to wait see what they are going to do, but I don't want to wait for 365 days before we decide that we are going to renew or not renew the license in case it goes bad again. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Chief, I appreciate your comments. I really do. If there is anyone that knows and as -- you know, I don't think there is anyone out there has a greater concern about this process more than you and your team. So, I take your -- your guidance, your advice very seriously, but given the fact of the safety issue and what we are talking about this evening, is there -- is there one thing that -- that we are missing in regard to safety that we can be including in this -- in this ordinance? Are we missing something, in your opinion? Lavey: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I don't believe you're missing something. There is -- there is just the one thing that we all want that we can't control and that is proper human behavior, proper responsibility and that is out of our control. If we could sit there and tell every single person to do this and do it right, then , you wouldn't need us and so, really, that's -- that's the concern is -- is how do you ensure people are taking that first personal responsibility -- that responsibility for their kids and doing what's right. We have tried to write an ordinance that would involve very little of staff time for both the police department, code enforcement, for C.Jay's office, the clerk's office, the Mayor's office, but we would be naive to think that we are not going to get complaints, we aren't going to get calls. We are. But we are doing our best to try to minimize those. But the things that are going to still create issues for us we can't control and that's the personal responsibility of each individual person that gets on that device. But that's -- same thing goes for anybody who is on a bicycle or anybody that's on a private scooter, it's the same thing and so I see all the dilemmas here and we can do the what if's, what if's, what if's and -- and I guess we are to the point where either we push forward on it or we don't do it. It -- it's pretty much that simple. I just want to make sure , though, that we don't feel that we are going to burden ourselves for a long period of time if this becomes another nightmare, because it won't be just one company this time , it will be two. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: And I was just reading a little bit from the ordinance under the revocation, it says: In addition to any and all applicable civil or criminal penalties, the city clerk or designee may revoke a City of Meridian vehicle sharing program operator franchise where -- and, then, under the sixth item it says the chief of police communicates to the city clerk a written finding that the franchisee has demonstrated a pattern of actions or practices that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 40 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 298 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 32 of 84 present or could foreseeably present a threat to public health, comma, safety, comma, or welfare as such finding may be substantiated by complaint received by city and/or government agency, responses by city employees or agents or incidents involving shared vehicles and/or other evidence or information. So, from that we have the revocation ability when -- like you said, we can't control what the customers are going to end up doing, just like someone's driving a car, whether they rented it, bought it, any situation, we are going to have problems with people driving cars, bicycles, scooters, these -- walking. Any situation where it's going to run into these issues, but we have the ability to revoke it if the franchisee -- if the person providing it is the cause of the problem. So , with that I move that we close the public hearing on Item 9-A. Milam: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I move that we approve ordinance number 19-1809 and adjust the parking language to match the intent of the committee with regard to the private -- private property and the parking situation. Does that cover what you need or do you need me to explain break it out better? Nary: If I could just ask Council Member Palmer -- are you referring to 7-2-2 subsection f)(6)(7) and delete the word written? Palmer: Correct. Yes. Nary: That's what I thought you said. Palmer: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 41 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 299 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 33 of 84 Cavener: I guess I don't know which way we are going to go. I have really wrestled with this issue, way more than I thought I would have been a year ago. I went from being I think probably the biggest proponent and cheerleader for scooters in Meridian to being frustrated with the way things were rolled out and I have heard from a lot of our citizens, some who were in favor, many who aren't. The Mayor's survey shows there is a lot of folks that aren't supportive of that and I have wondered is it because of the poor roll out of the experience. Is it they are against scooters or are they against the way it was rolled out. I don't know. I don't have time to talk to 800 people. But I'm sure some of them are frustrated with the way things were rolled out. So, I have went back and forth about do we say no to scooters because the way one company rolled things out initially? And I don't think that I'm there. You know, when we began this process we heard loud and clear from the chief, who wasn't necessarily there, he was opposed to it and now I don't think he's going to be a cheerleader, but what I really appreciate and applaud is his critical feedback to us and making sure that as chief of police, the person who is most in charge of the health and safety of our community, that if he feels there is a concern, we have got real teeth to make a change and, you know, if -- if this body wants to go forth with an RFP I will support that as well. I don't think that it's necessary, quite frankly, but I -- if that's the way this group wants to go I support it, but as there is a motion before us, I'm supportive of that one as well and believe that if the rollout is bad, if companies are not good actors, that the chief or the city will have the authority to remove them or replace them with someone else. We talked about this at the very beginning, carrot and the stick. We have got some fairly large sticks that if a company isn't operating they are not going to be in business anymore. It's a privilege to be here and we expect that those that want to be licensees are going to really embrace that privilege that we are providing them. So, I'm supportive of it. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: I believe the chief may have went over his three minute time slot earlier. Cavener: Three or four times. Bernt: All kidding aside, I -- you know, I'm in the same boat as Mr. Cavener in this. I have waffled, I have flipped back and forth, I have -- I have been -- I have talked to people -- certainly not 800 people, but I have talked to people. I have looked at different comments online, social media, and, honestly, most of those -- most of those comments have been negative. I really agree with what the Mayor said earlier in regard to we -- whether it's land use that we talk about or whether it's scooters in -- in -- in regard to this particular ordinance, we have one chance to get it right and I would be in favor of just maybe throwing this back to the committee just to just discuss the roll out, because it seems like that is the common concern that the members of his body have , just to make sure that they have dotted every I and crossed every T that maybe they have -- maybe they didn't quite discuss that issue enough, because it's not -- they didn't receive that directive from us, but I would -- I wouldn't be opposed to just having them discuss this, you know, one Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 42 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 300 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 34 of 84 more time just to make sure that this is the right rollout and -- and we are doing it in the proper fashion, in the most prudent way. I think we are covered in regard to relocation. Yo u know, if there is someone out there that's a bad actor, I believe that we have enough teeth in this ordinance to be able to take care of them and to get rid of the bad actor. And, furthermore, if -- if -- you know, if we have to make, you know, some amendments to this ordinance in the future because of , you know, different problems that we have experienced through recommendations from our good chief and his good team , then, maybe we can have those discussions at a later date. But my concern is with the rollout, making sure that we are getting the right people involved. I get the free market aspect of that Mr. Palmer pushes and I respect that a lot , but -- so, without talking more and more and more, those are my -- those are my -- those are my thoughts. De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. I still think the best way to go is an RFQ or an RFP and so with this I won't support this motion and I think one of the reasons is we saw, I believe, five different types of scooters with five different types of software, so they were definitely not all created equal and maybe they have the type of software they could use , but they weren't using it and so I think we really could put some good sideboards on what is required for the operator to require filling out to the -- that's got the maximum information on the rider, so this could be used -- you know, just more data at this point I think is good. Plus it puts more sideboards on if they need to revoke a rider. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Yeah. I'm -- I have already said it, but I just think it's really important that we get this done right, instead of right now and pushing this through is just getting it done right now and I am in favor of the -- the e-scooters, I just don't think that first come, first serve is doing it right. So -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any other comment? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Thank Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, nay; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, nay; Bernt, nay. De Weerd: Okay. The motion did not pass. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Council, certainly we could send this back to the committee as -- as was mentioned and if you have specific items that you would want them to bring back to help frame the discussion in terms of -- if you were to approach this through an RFP or RFQ process what would be the criteria and -- in rating that and/or, second, as Mr. Bernt had mentioned, any additional thoughts on how to roll it out so you do have a successful Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 43 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 301 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 35 of 84 rollout. I don't think there is any question among the Council members that this is not a program that is interested in having the opportunity to see how it does offer an alternative transportation option to citizens to get from point A to point B , but how can we minimize the -- the negative experience. Milam: Madam Mayor? Maybe it's a good idea for Councilman to -- I'm looking at you. To be part of the committee to kind of help and give that insight. I think for me one of the most important things is history and service and -- and relationships with cities and, you know, I know that's hard to put on paper and it's going to include references and -- and it's going to include a little bit of time for us looking into other experiences that -- that other cities have had with a particular supplier. So, I think that -- and, then, I want to make sure that we don't make our requirements so stringent that it's picking somebody before they even start. I want to make sure that it's broad enough that all of the companies that are out there that are interested would qualify to be part of the process and those are the main things. But it may be somebody getting -- getting one of us on the committee can get that -- the other thing is I want to make sure that it doesn't -- spring is coming, so time is of the essence, so I say we don't get -- don't push this through, but it is important to get this done. De Weerd: Okay. Fortunately, you're not a member of the public, because we closed the public hearing. Lavey: I know. Madam Chair, I was just going to say that to defer to counsel -- to legal counsel, because if a Council member is on there, then, you lose your vote probably to here. So, you might want to rethink that. De Weerd: No, I think -- I think in the ordinance realm and certainly land use, but not in in policymaking. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that wouldn't preclude that. This is a legislative action. So, having one Council member to be a member would not prevent them from voting on it later. Lavey: And, then, the other thing is is that there is legal statutes on RFPs, RFQs that dictates time limits or time. So, it's going to -- if you do that route it's going to drag out, because you have to post it, it has to be legally posted, and it will be well past spring if you're going to do that, because you have to come up with the criteria, then , you have to post it, then, you have to have your team and it has to be evaluated -- De Weerd: We can ask the clerk on what kind of a timeline that that potentially could -- Lavey: So, it's going to push it out way into spring. De Weerd: Mr. Coles. Lavey: Just thought I would let you know that. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 44 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 302 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 36 of 84 Coles: I don't have the RFQ and RFP timelines memorized, since we don't issue very many of them. I think it's at least 30 days, if I am not mistaken, but I would have to consult the statute on that. Lavey: So, the staff time to actually -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, for a majority of these types that we were doing -- and from what I have heard in the Council's discussion, you weren't looking necessarily for an exclusive franchise, but simply set reasonable criteria of what you as a City Council would want any franchisee to meet and having -- and I guess -- I guess the value -- and maybe -- maybe we haven't made it as clear from the committee standpoint the value is some of the issues and concerns that you all have raised at least can be evaluated from the company's perspective of what they would be willing to do and, then, hold them to that. Right now in a licensing situation they simply could tell us this is what we will do, which is fairly minimal, and so the RFP gives you some of that ability. But you are looking at at least 60 days before you would award that. So, there is some timing and, again, the franchisee also has requirements, too, and I, like Mr. Coles, I can't remember the -- the amount of time, but I would -- I would say you're looking at a 60 day window, but we are in the middle of February, so that's the middle of April. So, I mean if you think May 1 we may have this awarded, that's certainly not an unrealistic expectation. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: And I'm not saying that I'm in support of an RFQ process or -- I just want -- I just would like the committee just to talk -- just to talk about -- have a meeting where they could just maybe deliberate on this. I don't know if this is the right setting for us up here to deliberate on whether or not an RFQ process is -- is warranted or not, it's just -- make sure -- but make sure that -- that -- that -- that they have -- that they are making the right recommendation to us to -- to -- on why or why not in an RFQ or even the -- what's in the existing ordinance is what is -- what is recommended. De Weerd: So, Council, maybe what I would suggest is that we can have a committee meet and bring this back next week and what the options could be and what any timelines would be that are associated with that. So , then, you have a clear path forward, regardless of which path you take. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I think to that point I think continuing this a week that, Madam Mayor, if you are willing to have staff get together that's on this committee one last time to review and provide their feedback to us again, that's fine. I just -- I would remind our Council we are here to act, we are here to render decisions and that's -- deliberation is part of the making Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 45 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 303 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 37 of 84 of sausage that we do up here and sometimes it is a little clumsy, but that's -- that's what we are hired by the public to do is to render those decisions. So, I will support continuing Item 9-A, public hearing on the proposed vehicle sharing program , to next Tuesday for a don't need to continue the reading part, we just need to continue the public hearing; is that correct, Madam Mayor, Mr. Clerk? De Weerd: The public hearing is closed, but, yeah, to continue the Council discussion for Ordinance 19-1809 and if you need to -- I would -- I would recommend actually opening the public hearing, so that you can post it as such. Cavener: Madam Mayor, that's exactly I think where I was heading. So, move we reopen the public hearing for Item 9-A, for 19-1809. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing for Item 9-A. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Madam Mayor, I move we continue Item 9-A, the public hearing for proposed vehicle sharing ordinance number 19-1809 to next Tuesday. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue this item. If we could also at least make the one cleanup that our City Council -- our city attorney has recommended, so you have a cleaned up ordinance in front of you as well. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I would like to ask the committee to not only just give us our options, but -- I know you said to stop talking about it, the RFP, because that was -- you were getting the impression that we didn't want that -- go that direction. I would like to -- hopefully you guys have had time to -- we can look at that and, then, advise us if that is the way that you think it should go. If the committee, who has been working on this for a long time, just says we don't think RFP is the way to go, then, I might be open to that, but I want -- I would like to get advisory from the committee that's been working on this. De Weerd: Okay. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 46 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 304 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 38 of 84 Cavener: Along -- along those lines, what would the question -- what would we be looking for in an RFP that we could not already address in our proposal? To me that's -- what are we -- what are we as the Council gaining by going through the RFP process? What's the most important reason why we would want to look at going through that? What are we going to benefit? De Weerd: Okay. Coles: And Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Coles: If I may ask a question, especially of Council Member Bernt. You had brought up the idea of the committee getting together and talking specifically about the rollout and what that might look like, hoping to get perhaps maybe a little bit more direction of your thoughts and ideas on that, so when the committee does come back we are going to meet, we will come back and we can say this is our recommendation on the rollout and what it should look like based on your -- De Weerd: Council, can we get into that detail -- let me first call for the question, that you vote on the motion to continue this, and, then, we will add any specifics on what you would like to see brought back. Okay? So, the motion is to continue Item 9-A until next week. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: And any further clarity, Mr. Bernt? Bernt: I just -- I would just like the committee to get together and just talk about the pros and cons of a rollout, whether it's RFP -- the RFP process versus what's been proposed in -- in -- in the existing ordinance that we just voted on and so just have that discussion , maybe brainstorm, you know -- you know, again, positive, negative, what makes sense, what makes sense to the community, what makes sense -- you know. And just in that selection process -- I don't know if I necessarily have, you know, something , you know, that -- in particular I would want to be discussed in that -- in that meeting, but just to make sure that, you know -- that whether it is the RFP or -- or the existing ordinance, that we get it right, that it's the right one and it's what you guys feel comfortable with. Lavey: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I would just say that in speaking -- I'm on the on the committee as well -- is I do believe the company was ready and they brought this forward and so they wouldn't have brought it forward if they didn't think they were ready and so maybe we are -- or me created some of the confusion. So, we will take it as a pause and say are we good to go or should there be something different based upon what you're saying. But the committee wouldn't have brought this forward if they weren't ready to roll out. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 47 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 305 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 39 of 84 Bernt: Madam Mayor. I was under the impression that you -- didn't you say, Mr. Clerk, earlier that -- that you didn't discuss this very long, because you thought you did receive that direction from us and it wasn't maybe a point of interest? De Weerd: Yes. Coles: Yes. That was specific to the RFP process. Correct. The committee, again, went through several different options based on the direction of Council, put together this ordinance with what we believe was the direction from Council and we were ready to implement and move forward with the ordinance as in front of you, but specific to the RFP, we didn't go down that road all the way, because it wasn't directed from Council. Bernt: Madam Mayor, follow up. So, maybe -- so, maybe that's the discussion that needs to take place. Does the RFP make sense, yes or no. And if -- and if -- and if it does and, then, maybe we go from there and have , you know, future discussions in regard to that RFP process, but -- and if you guys get together and feel like, amongst your body, that it just doesn't make sense and that you're comfortable and you feel like going forward, that the existing rollout is what's already in the ordinance and we will go from there. I mean at the end of the day it's a week, you know, and I understand, Mr. Palmer's approach is just let's get it done and, you know, my approach is different, I want to make sure that we get it right. I want to make sure that this is -- and if we have to wait a week, then, I don't I don't see what -- you know, what the harm is in that. De Weerd: Well, we already are waiting a week, because it's been continued. So, if you -- Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: -- have any other ideas, can you, please -- Coles: E-mail. De Weerd: -- e-mail Mr. Clerk and give him any additional thoughts, because we need to move on. We have people that are sitting here waiting for other agenda items and so -- Palmer: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. Palmer: I just want to say that I'm having flashbacks to other times when I have tried really hard to wait one more week or tried to adjust things to make the right decision that were millions of dollars it affects that we needed to get done right away. De Weerd: Okay. I'm moving on. Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 48 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 306 of 602 Meridian City Council February 21, 2019 Page 40 of 84 B. Resolution No. 19-2128: A Resolution Adopting New Fees ` Related To Vehicle Sharing Programs; Authorizing The City Clerk’s Office To Collect Such Fees; And Providing An Effective Date Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Cavener: I would move that we continue Item 9-B, Resolution 19-2128, which is related to fees to the vehicle sharing program. De Weerd: Okay. Item 9-B is Resolution 19-2128 and I have a motion. Do I have a second? Bernt: Second. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have several seconds. I wish I could get them back again. Any discussion ? Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call role. Roll call: Borton, absent; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt, yea. De Weerd: Thank you for your attempt to be efficient. I appreciate that. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing for Villasport (H-2019-0011) by Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Located the SW Corner of E. Ustick Rd. and N. Eagle Rd. 1. Request: Council Review of application H-2018-0121 and the Planning and Zoning Commission's requirements related to conditions of approval: a. UDC 11-4-3-2A .1, which requires all outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed to maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet from any abutting residential district; b. UDC 11-3A -13, which requires outdoor speaker systems associated with the use to be located a minimum of 100 feet from all residential districts; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 5, 2019 – Page 49 of 487Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 307 of 602 From:Jonathan Hopkins To:Keith Watts Cc:Ashley Scott; Chris Johnson; Malmen, Erika E. (BOI); Miller, William (BOI) Subject:Re: Meridian RFP Date:Monday, May 13, 2019 11:23:58 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png Thank you very much, Keith. Much appreciated. On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:22 AM Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> wrote: Hi Jonathan, you are correct. The due date for a protest will be noon Thursday, May 16th. Keith Watts, CPPB | Purchasing Manager City of Meridian | Finance 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0417 The Finance Department – Where Everyone COUNTS! www.opportunitymeridian.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:18 AM To: Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Cc: Ashley Scott <ashley.scott@li.me>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org>; Malmen, Erika E. (Perkins Coie) <EMalmen@perkinscoie.com>; Miller, William K. (Perkins Coie) <WMiller@perkinscoie.com> Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 308 of 602 Subject: Re: Meridian RFP Keith, that is correct. We requested the Bird RFP as well but have not received it. Assume once we receive it the clock will start ticking 3 working days. On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> wrote: Good morning Johnathan, I am assuming you are requesting Bird’s proposal when you requested the RFP’s. If so I have sent it to the Clerk’s office. Please confirm that is your request so that the Clerk can release those documents. You are correct on the protest deadline, it is due no later than Noon on Wednesday, May 15th. Thanks Jonathan, Keith Watts, CPPB | Purchasing Manager City of Meridian | Finance 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0417 The Finance Department – Where Everyone COUNTS! www.opportunitymeridian.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 6:42 PM To: Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 309 of 602 Cc: Ashley Scott <ashley.scott@li.me>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: Re: Meridian RFP Keith, confirming you mean 3 business days, so if we are to protest the protest is due Wednesday, May 15. Is this correct? Thank you, —Jonathan On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:37 AM Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> wrote: You’re welcome Jonathan. Keith Watts, CPPB | Purchasing Manager City of Meridian | Finance 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0417 The Finance Department – Where Everyone COUNTS! www.opportunitymeridian.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 310 of 602 Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 8:35 AM To: Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Cc: Ashley Scott <ashley.scott@li.me>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: Re: Meridian RFP Ok thank you, Keith. On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:33 AM Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> wrote: Hi Jonathan, you will have 3 days from the date you receive your response from your public records request. Keith Watts, CPPB | Purchasing Manager City of Meridian | Finance 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0417 The Finance Department – Where Everyone COUNTS! www.opportunitymeridian.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 8:30 AM To: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Cc: Ashley Scott <ashley.scott@li.me>; Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 311 of 602 Subject: Re: Meridian RFP Following up, Keith. Please confirm the due date for any protest. Thank you. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:54 AM Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> wrote: Keith, please confirm the deadline for submitting a protest. Thank you. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:56 AM Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> wrote: Jonathan, I have updated your request in our system. While I don’t expect there to be a delay, any modification does reset the clock. You should expect an initial response no later than end of business on May 14. Chris From: Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 9:52 PM To: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Cc: Ashley Scott <ashley.scott@li.me>; Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Subject: Re: Meridian RFP Good afternoon: I wanted to provide a clarification on our public records request, that might not be necessary but wanted to clarify: 1. With our request for the RFPs, we are also requesting all grading materials from the evaluation committee. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 312 of 602 2. Keith, could you clarify the date and time of the deadline for filing any protest? 3. If the public records are not provided prior to the deadline, can we request an extension of the protest deadline if we so desire? Thank you for all being so helpful and answering our questions, —Jonathan On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:05 PM Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> wrote: Jonathan, I have already entered in the request. You will receive an initial response no later than 5pm MDT on May 9. The response may be records responsive to your request, or may state the need for an extension. The City has up to ten business days to provide a response, or provide a reason they cannot respond. For your records, the request is PRR 19-2598. You will receive correspondence via email once records are gathered/reviewed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Chris From: Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 3:02 PM To: Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Cc: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Subject: Re: Meridian RFP Thanks Keith. Chris, could you let us know the timeline for completion of the request, once Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 313 of 602 you know it? Thank you both! —Jonathan On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:52 PM Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I am forwarding this to our City Clerk for processing. Hi Chris, please create a public records request for Jonathan for this email. Thanks Chris. Keith Watts, CPPB | Purchasing Manager City of Meridian | Finance 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0417 The Finance Department – Where Everyone COUNTS! www.opportunitymeridian.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 314 of 602 From: Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 11:11 AM To: Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Subject: Re: Meridian RFP Sorry. Inadvertent send. Questions: 1. Is there more information the city can provide as to generally why Bird was scored higher than Lime in all of the categories? 2. Under Meridian and Idaho laws, are proposals a matter of public record? If so, can you please release those for review? Thank you. —Jonathan Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—Northwest Jonathan.Hopkins@li.me Your ride anytime. On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:08 AM Jonathan Hopkins <jonathan.hopkins@li.me> wrote: Keith, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 315 of 602 Thanks for updating us on the Meridian scooter RFP results. Questions: —Jonathan Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—Northwest Jonathan.Hopkins@li.me Your ride anytime. -- Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—NW jonathan.hopkins@li.me -- Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—NW jonathan.hopkins@li.me -- Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—NW jonathan.hopkins@li.me -- Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—NW jonathan.hopkins@li.me -- Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—NW jonathan.hopkins@li.me -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 316 of 602 Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—NW jonathan.hopkins@li.me -- Jonathan Hopkins Director, Strategic Development—NW jonathan.hopkins@li.me Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 317 of 602 City of Meridian Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 318 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 319 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 320 of 602 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 321 of 602 Ending a Ride At the end of the trip, Bird’s customized in-app messaging notifies riders to park Birds out of public pathways and at bike racks, near public transit stops, or in corrals, where available. Riders lock their vehicle and end the ride using the app. At the end of every ride, riders are instructed to take a photo of their Bird to “verify proper parking.” The prompt also reminds riders of proper parking etiquette. The photos are collected as a way to verify proper parking. This enables us to track parking behavior and identify and follow up with riders who may need additional education on safe parking behavior. Repeat offenders can have their accounts suspended and, in some cases, terminated. Beginning a Ride Through the Bird smartphone app, riders can see the closest Bird on a map, walk to it and unlock it, and begin a ride. Riders will be instructed to wear a helmet and to not ride on sidewalks. Safety reminders are also included on labels that are placed on each Bird. After putting on a helmet, riders are instructed to push the vehicle forward a few times with their feet to engage the motor. Chargers Bird will employ a network of Chargers from Meridian who are independent contractors responsible for helping set up and maintain vehicles in the community. Working in close coordination with Bird, Chargers access the “Operator Mode” of the Bird app to identify where to place nests (small groupings of fully charged and recently-inspected vehicles) in the morning. Chargers also use the operator mode of the application to identify where to pick up Birds to bring them in for inspection and charging.   Similar to riders, all Chargers are required to photograph the nests they’ve set up. The photographs are reviewed and approved by our operations team. If the operations team receives a photo of a nest that does not meet our requirements, that Charger is given feedback and issued a warning. Birds are picked up regularly for charging and any necessary repairs by Chargers. This helps keep riders safe and Birds in good condition. Bird Watchers As described more fully in Section 2 (above), upon receiving a report through Bird Support or Community Mode, Bird Watchers can be dispatched to correct any issues, including poor parking, rebalancing, and more. Bird is dedicated to the regular maintenance and improvement of our fleet. Over the last year and a half of operating experience, we’ve evolved our vehicle designs to be safer, more reliable, and consistent for our riders. Bird performs a daily inspection on each vehicle every day through our comprehensive program of Chargers, Bird Watchers, and Mechanics (all described in Section 2 above). All Bird repairs are performed by Bird employees in-house. When a Bird is in need of repair, the Bird app hides damaged vehicles from riders on the map and disallows a rider trip to start until a trained Mechanic has inspected and repaired the vehicle. This ensures vehicles needing maintenance or repair are not used until the problems have been addressed. When a vehicle is marked as inoperable or damaged, our team will locate and either provide on-the-spot maintenance, or remove that vehicle from the road to be repaired. Damaged Birds are replaced immediately by fully-operational Birds so that our overall fleet size remains static. Regular maintenance and repairs are performed by our team of Meridian-based employees throughout the day. Should a vehicle have more significant repair needs, we remove it from the fleet to be repaired. Birds are not returned to the road until they complete our comprehensive quality assurance inspection. We have a variety of touch points for maintenance as detailed below.   Pre-launch Preventative Maintenance Bird’s maintenance program begins before a Bird reaches the road,. During the value added production process where Bird’s technology is added to vehicles, each Bird undergoes a 14 point quality assurance inspection and that is signed off by the engineering team members performing the assembly as well as the inspection managers. Then, each Bird is submitted to hands- on validation testing with respect to braking, steering, and throttle control. These steps ensure Bird scooters are deployed at their maximum level of performance and service. Mechanic Training and Function Bird has a rigorous training program for Mechanics. To be eligible to become a Bird Mechanic, a baseline level of vehicle repair knowledge must first be demonstrated. Bird then trains each of its Mechanics in the various functions and capabilities of each of its scooter models and the variety of repair needs that may surface in its functional life. In addition, Bird has developed specialization teams to focus on certain vehicle components like Bird’s on-board computer brain, handlebar fixtures, and disc brake repair. When a vehicle is delivered to a service center, it is inbounded by our trained team of Mechanics, inspected, triaged, and tagged. Birds then move through the multi-tiered logistic warehouse repair flow, receiving service from Mechanics who specialize in specific repair points until the Bird has passed all quality assurance protocols. Vehicles Beyond Repair If a vehicle requires significant repairs, it will be sent to our vehicle facility near Meridian for inspection. Our team of technicians and engineers will thoroughly inspect the vehicle and repair it if possible. Should the vehicle no longer be safe for use, it is broken down into its component parts. Reusable parts are tested and verified for function and safety and then reused on other vehicles requiring repairs. 4) Plan for addressing public safety and other issues and incidents related to the shared vehicles' operation and/or parking, including response time, approach to shared vehicles improperly or inconveniently parked. 
 Parking Strategy We share a collective responsibility to keep our neighborhoods safe and clean. For Bird, this means keeping our sidewalks clear. While we have already taken many steps in other markets to ensure compliance with local and state laws related to parking, riding, and roadway safety, we are continuously developing more effective enforcement, messaging tools, and strategies, including better incentives and disincentives to encourage good parking behavior. We will treat Meridian with the same care, attention, and respect. We understand the need to respond quickly to any issues or complaints. The following is an overview of strategies that we have implemented, or are working towards implementing, to ensure that Birds are always parked in a responsible, legal, and compliant way that does not disrupt the community. Education In-App and Online Education Bird is committed to educating riders and the community about safety rules and regulations at the time of sign-up and before every ride. Information provided on each Bird will inform riders of how to operate the device safely. In-app messaging will instruct riders on responsible riding and parking practices. •Obey all applicable vehicle code requirements. •Strongly encourage the use of helmets.•Park and ride in appropriate locations. Bird explicitly instructs riders on the proper way to park scooters (such as in the furniture zone, not blocking driveways, entrances, access ramps, etc.) in the Bird app, on our website, and through outbound communications (email, push, and in-app notifications). The Bird app features a comprehensive, animated safety video that all Bird riders are required to watch and engage with when they first open the application. The video is always accessible in the app and in the safety section of the Bird website. In the animated video, riders are shown how to ride and park vehicles in a responsible, legal, and compliant way. This includes showing riders that they are required to park out of the pedestrian right-of-way and not to block access to ramps, driveways, doorways, and more. The video relies on clear images, in addition to written language, to be as universally accessible as possible. We can also implement Meridian-specific educational safety banners that riders see at the top of their mobile screen before each ride begins, and again while they are ending their ride and parking. We look forward to continuing to work with Meridian to customize this messaging in order to provide the most relevant safety messages and rules of the road. As noted in other sections, riders are required to submit end-of-ride photos that allow us to monitor parking behavior and adjust our online education efforts based on the feedback. ! NO SIDEWALKS TIPPED OVER BIRD ALERT ID:XDHVG B,.ES/E-B,.ES 81 S&22TE5S 37 as many injuri es reported on scooters 5ESU/TS 1/2,1-U5,ES 96,50 &A//S 5E&E,VE' ,1 4 021T+S 19 &A//S )52 0 E-S&22T E5 ,1-U5,ES /,)E-T+5EATE1,1 * &A //S 0 A UST,1, TE;AS E-scooters are as safe as bicycles According to data collected by the Austin Emergency Medical Services and a subsequent analysis by Austin Public Health, 37 scooter injuries were reported among approximately one million scooter rides during a five-month period. This compares to 81 reported bicycle injuries over the same period. Four months of EMS records show few e-scooter related injuries. See https://mailchi.mp/kcmo.org/few-injuries-related-to-electric-scooters See http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=307564 2 3 By The 1umbers .A1SAS &,T<, 0,SS2U5, )our months of E0S records show less than five e-scooter injuries per month A manual review of nearly 100,000 EMS records logged between July 2018 through October 2018 shows only 19 accidents involving electric scooters, according to the Kansas City Fire Department. Case Study: Portland, Oregon ,n January, 2019, the Portland %ureau of Transportation P%OT released its much anticipated 2018 E-Scooter Findings 5eport. P%OT concluded that shared e-s cooters are just as safe as ot her modes of transportation 34% With 34 percent of Portland scooter riders stating they replaced car trips with e-scooter trips, an increase in e-scooter use has the potential to contribute to a reduction in serious injuries and fatalities. Ot her Ney safety related findings from the study include•S idewalN riding was more than x less prevalent on streets with protected biNe lanes. •After more than 700,000 trips, there were only 2 reports of pedestrian injury and no indication that either one was severe. ,n recognition of the strong linN between driving and overall crash risN, the study highlighted the potential of increased e-scooter ridership to maNe streets safer for everyone After reviewing emergency department and urgent care clinic data, we found that e-scooters have risks similar to other parts of the transportation system. We did not find a disproportionate risk that would discourage the city from allowing a scooter ride-share pilot. --Portland Environmental Health Director Jae Douglas, Ph.D. “ ” 7) Plan and capabilities for sharing vehicle and ridership data with City to inform and support public safety and transportation planning efforts, including anonymized trip records for each shared vehicle deployed within Meridian (e.g. trip start date, time, and location, duration; distance; trip end date, time, and location). We support the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) API, which includes a tokenized feed of detailed trip data such as trip route, duration, and distance, in addition to battery level and vehicle ID. We also host an open General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) availability feed, which can allow the City and third parties to access information on all currently available vehicles. We also support city-specific data-sharing dashboards, which include: •Real-time aggregated, anonymized data. •Ridership heat maps with ride start-and-end information. •Rider frequency. •Contact information for a dedicated Government Relations representative.•Real-time maps of all Birds and all active rides in the City. SERVING UCLA Data Dashboard & Tech Support Premium dashboard with white glove tech support, which will: ●Track all Bird vehicles and trips ●Calculate transition from car trips to Bird trips for compliance with C02 emissions reduction commitments ●Plan transit integration with popular Bird traffic routes ●Help improve multimodal infrastructure planning ●Plan Bird parking locations based on flight patterns ●Help determine how Bird ridership is deterring intracampus Rideshare trips The Bird API allows you to access in-depth data on Bird operations in your city. Built to the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) standard, developed by the LADOT, our application program interface (API) can provide you with a wide range of information on vehicle availability, trips, and status changes. To streamline the process of pulling real time data, you should ping Bird’s API endpoints every 2-3 minutes, pulling only the data for that time window.  This will also improve performance of any applications updating based on MDS data. When pulling large amounts of historical data, allow your system to properly ingest, process, load and store data by limiting your queries to one month periods and not making more than one call every five seconds. Make smaller, more frequent calls Space out large requests TYPES OF INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE API BEST PRACTICES HOW TO GET STARTED 1.Login at the provided [yourcity].open.bird.co landing page using your city email address. 
 (Let your Bird contact know if you need access). 2.Click on your username in the upper right hand corner and select ‘settings’ from the drop down menu. 3.To enable collaboration with other cities and identify where Bird can complement your mobility menu 4.Use this token to make an API request. For example, let’s say you want to get availability information. 
 You send a GET to https://mds.bird.co/availability. As the headers you’ll send: Because MDS request require an authentication header you can not use a web browser. You will need to use a different method, such as a command line interface or API development environment. If you’re integrating data into a 3rd party tool,
 that partner will often have helpful sample code
 for how to integrate into their platform. Don’t access the API through a web browser Leverage partners for sample code if needed TRIP INFORMATION Trip length including both duration
 and distance Start & end time timestamp for when trips and events happen Route including lat/log at ride
 start and end and regular observed points on route Cost including both standard
 and actual cost Vehicle information Vehicle status such as available, reserved, unavailable, and removed Events that change status including service period, rider usage, maintenance, and battery level Event location shared as a GeoJSON
 with latitude and
 longitude coordinates Vehicle ID unique vehicle
 identification number also visible on the vehicle $ Getting started with your Bird MDS API !27 8) Rider rules, regulations, and terms of use, including whether the following conditions will be recommended or required for riders: minimum age, helmet use, licensed driver. Rider Rules Bird explicitly instructs riders on rules of the road through the Bird app, on our website, and through outbound communications (email, push, and in-app notifications). This includes the proper way to ride and park scooters (such as in the furniture zone, not blocking driveways, entrances, access ramps, etc.). Additionally, the Bird app features a comprehensive, animated safety video that all Bird riders are required to watch and engage with when they first open the application. The video is always accessible in the app and in the safety section of the Bird website. In the animated video, riders are shown how to ride and park vehicles in a responsible, legal, and compliant way. This includes showing riders that they are required to park out of the pedestrian right-of-way and not to block access to ramps, driveways, doorways, and more. The video relies on clear images, in addition to written language, to be as universally accessible as possible. We can also implement Meridian-specific educational safety banners that riders see at the top of their mobile screen before each ride begins, and again while they are ending their ride and parking. We look forward to continuing to work with Meridian to customize this messaging in order to provide the most relevant safety messages and rules of the road. 9) Plan for public outreach and education prior to and during franchise term, including plan to contact Meridian business, school, and residential communities. Education In-App and Online Education Bird is committed to educating riders and the community about safety rules and regulations at the time of sign-up and before every ride. Information provided on Bird scooters will inform riders on how to operate the device safely, including the following safety precautions as well as best riding and parking practices: •Obey all applicable vehicle code requirements •Strongly encourage the use of helmets •Park in appropriate locations •Financial penalties for violation of any of the above As mentioned previously, Bird explicitly instructs riders on the proper way to park e-scooters (such as in the furniture zone, not blocking driveways, entrances, access ramps, etc.) in the Bird app, on our website, and through outbound communications (email, push, and in-app notifications). The Bird app features a comprehensive, animated safety video that all Bird riders are required to watch and engage with when they first open the application. The video is always accessible in the app and in the safety section of the Bird website. In the animated video, riders are shown how to ride and park vehicles in a responsible, legal, and compliant way. This includes showing riders that they are required to park out of the pedestrian right-of-way and not to block access to ramps, driveways, doorways, and more. The video relies on clear images, in addition to written language, to be as universally accessible as possible. We can also implement Meridian-specific educational safety banners that riders see at the top of their mobile screen before each ride begins, and again while they are ending their ride and parking. We look forward to continuing to work with Meridian to customize this messaging in order to provide the most relevant safety messages and rules of the road. As noted in other sections, riders are required to submit end-of-ride photos that allow us to monitor parking behavior and adjust our online education efforts based on the feedback. San Antonio, Texas Bird began operating in San Antonio in June 2018, and the City passed a 6-month dockless pilot program i n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8 . T h e rules set out in the pilot program ensure safe and equitable service by enforcing a minimum rider age of 16 (Bird requires all riders to be 18 or over), making bike lanes and/or streets the primary areas where riders should use Bird, and not setting a limit on the number of vehicles Bird can operate across San Antonio. Bird follows a strict utilization operational model, meaning that we will only add more Birds to a given market if there is an average of 2 rides per vehicle per day. This ensures we are meeting, but not exceeding, rider demand. After months of thoughtful deliberation, the City of San Antonio decided that the best way to ensure that it’s residents will have access to this accessible, sustainable transportation option was by allowing Bird to responsibly allocate vehicles based on utilization - as opposed to implementing a “top down” cap that is inflexible and doesn’t take account of ridership patterns, seasonality, etc. Memphis, Tennessee In June 2018, the City of Memphis invited Bird to help them tackle their transportation challenges . After a series of meetings with City Staff, the parties agreed to an Interim Operating Agreement, which enables Bird to follow the utilization cap fleet management model, placing no cap on Bird’s fleet sizes. Memphis has since emerged as a pioneer in the dockless mobility movement and is the first City to implement designated Bird parking spots. We continue to have a great working relationship with the City of Memphis and look forward to continuing to grow Bird’s fleet to achieve our shared mobility goals. Dallas, Texas Dallas City Council announced a dockless vehicle ordinance in June 2018, the same month in which Bird began operating in the City. Over the last six months, we have formed close relations with the Dallas Department of Transportation (DOT), in large part because their dockless vehicle regulations prioritize both safety and innovation. These regulations state that e-scooters should be ridden in bike lanes whenever available, and should be parked out of the public right-of-way - two guidelines that Bird communicates to all riders prior to their first ride through an in-app tutorial. Dallas also does not limit the number of vehicles Bird operates in Dallas. Similar to San Antonio, this allows Bird to expand our fleet according to utilization and ultimately provide a more accessible and equitable service for all. Indianapolis, Indiana Bird worked closely with Indianapolis through the Summer of 2017 on developing a regulatory framework that permitted 1,500 vehicles for the first 30 days of operations, with the ability to scale up to 6,000 vehicles. This fleet size enabled Bird to provide a more equitable service to the community by scaling beyond areas of the City with the highest concentration. This also enabled residents to consistently rely on Bird for their daily transportation needs as they navigate to/from the city as well as within it. However, while having an adequate fleet size is necessary for providing an equitable and reliable service, Bird recommends utilization caps - as this allows supply to scale with demand, and not oversaturate or undersupply markets. As metropolitan populations increase and more cars are added to already congested streets - traffic tightens, parking difficulties escalate, infrastructure lags behind, commute times increase, and air and noise pollution threaten the climate and our quality of life. Now is the perfect time for cities to invest in sustainable, people-centric transportation solutions, and Bird looks forward to partnering with cities as they ideate and create regulations for dockless mobility services in their community. Hurricane Florence Case Study Background In September of 2018, Hurricane Florence, a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 130 mph, hit the Southeast region of the United States. This tragic event primarily affected the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia—including the following cities Bird operates in: Charlotte, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Richmond, Virginia Beach, and Norfolk. This was the first weather event of its kind to occur since Bird began its operations in the Southeast region. In order to adequately prepare Hurricane Florence, Bird—in partnership with city officials—took a number of actions to prepare for the storm. The following is an overview of how Bird prepared and executed its operational plan during Hurricane Florence. The Execution Prior to Florence reaching U.S. soil, Bird mobilized our network of on-the-ground employees and trained chargers to prepare
 for the storm, alerting them of the actions that needed to take place. The most intensive, and important, action that needed to take place was removing vehicles from the road in a timely manner, prior to the beginning of the storm. Bird immediately cleared the map of all Birds to prohibit usage, and within days, the team had successfully removed thousands of Birds in Charlotte, Raleigh, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Richmond, Virginia Beach, and Norfolk. Throughout the storm, Bird’s operations team continued monitoring the incoming storm
 and provided real-time status updates to our employees, city partners, chargers, and riders to promote transparency and ensure safety. Once the storm had passed, Bird worked closely with local municipalities to determine when it was safe for Birds to return to city streets. Prior to resuming service and enabling rides, all Birds were thoroughly inspected for any damages, and only those deemed safe
 to ride were returned to streets. Raleigh Charlotte Greensboro Winston-Salem Richmond Norfolk Virginia Beach APPENDIX A: TERMS OF SERVICE APPENDIX B: RENTAL AGREEMENT Thank you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 382 of 602 June 7, 2019 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Bill Nary, City Attorney RE: RFP Project No. MYR-1921-11034; Lime Appeal This Appeal is set for hearing before the City Council on Tuesday, June 11, 2019. The options before Council upon hearing the appeal are: 1. Deny the appeal by Lime and uphold the award to Bird; or 2. Reject all proposals and start over The basis for the appeal is that the RFP process awarding the Vehicle Sharing Program franchise agreement to Bird and not Lime was improperly and unfairly conducted allegedly due to the bias of one individual City staff member, Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney. Lime is asking City Council to find for the Appellant and either award both Bird and Lime a franchise agreement or order that the RFP process be conducted anew. Awarding Lime a franchise agreement in spite of the committee’s recommendation would clearly be of concern to Bird and would then create an unfair process. This Memorandum seeks to offer City Council some salient points to consider in response to the Appellant’s supplemental brief in support of its petition and appeal that was submitted on June 6, 2019. First, the language of the RFP contains guiding language for your consideration as follows: Part 1: Notice Calling for Proposals  Purpose: “… The successful Respondent will be offered an exclusive franchise agreement governing the terms and conditions of the program’s operation in Meridian….” (emphasis added) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 383 of 602 2  Basis for Selection: “… the City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to make an award on the basis of suitability to purpose or superior quality, or any other criteria the City believes to be in the best interest of the City.” (emphasis added)  General Terms and Conditions: “…Within thirty (30) days after the Proposal opening, a contract may be awarded by the City to the lowest responsive and responsible Respondent, subject to the right of the City to reject all Proposals, as it may deem proper in its absolute authority.” (emphasis added)  Examination of Contract Documents: “Respondents shall carefully examine the specification, and satisfy themselves as to their sufficiency, and shall not at any time after submission of the Proposal, dispute such specifications and the directions explaining or interpreting them.” (emphasis added)  Award: “The City of Meridian reserves the right to make an award to that/those highest ranked responsive and responsible contractors (s) whose Proposal (s) is/are most responsive to the needs of the City.” (emphasis added)  City’s Representative: “…Any and all explanations desired by a respondent regarding the meaning or interpretation of this Request for Proposals or any part thereof must be requested in writing and directed to the person named as the Purchasing Representative and in accordance with section 1 “EXPLANATIONS TO RESPONDENTS…” Part 2: Instructions to Respondents  Explanations to Respondents: “…Any explanation desired by a respondent regarding the meaning or interpretation of the Request for Proposals, or any part thereof, must be requested in writing (via e-mail) and with sufficient time allowed for a reply to reach respondent before the submission of their proposal.”… “Oral explanations or instructions given before proposal opening will not be binding.” (emphasis added)  Conditions Affecting the Work: “…The City will assume no responsibility for any understanding or representations concerning conditions made by any of it’s officers or agents prior to the execution of the contract, unless included in the Request for Proposals, or any addendum.” (emphasis added)  Proposed Schedule: “… By April 18, 2019 Selection panel convenes and selects one eligible proposal…” In summary, the RFP clearly set forth that the RFP would be awarded on the basis of suitability to purpose or superior quality and as the City may deem proper in its absolute authority. Though it is recognized that the RFP contained sections that on one hand spoke to the potential for multiple awards (Part 1: Award) and on the other hand spoke to the selection of one eligible proposal (Part 1: Purpose; Part 2: Proposed Schedule), the fact remains that the time for questioning the meaning or interpretation of the RFP by respondents expired upon submission of proposals. The Appellant untimely raised the present concerns after the award was made to Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 384 of 602 3 That, combined with the Appellant’s having been engaged and involved throughout the entirety of the public process related to the Vehicle Sharing Program project and yet never once having raised any concerns about Ms. Kane, should raise doubt on their claim now that Lime was not awarded a franchise because the RFP process was unfair and tainted somehow by the alleged bias of Ms. Kane. In fact, the low scores given by Ms. Kane on Lime’s Proposal don’t prove anything on their own and there is an absence of corroborating support for their bias theory. On the other hand, there is support for the Council to find the award to Bird occurred through fair process given that when surveyed by Keith Watts, five of the seven evaluators told him they would only recommend Bird regardless if the RFP allowed both. So, even if Emily Kane’s scores are disregarded, the result would be the same. The evaluation committee recommended only one vendor. Secondly, unlike what has been asserted by the Appellant that somehow Ms. Kane because of an alleged bias against Lime intentionally inserted herself throughout the Vehicle Sharing Program project, nothing could be further from the truth. I assigned Ms. Kane as lead counsel from the outset of the project, from the ordinance licensing phase through the RFP with the full intention and expectation that she would provide continued legal support throughout the entirety of the project. This is typical of how I run my office as it is of great benefit and efficiency to the City and its taxpayers to have dedicated legal counsel on a complex multi-phased project such as this one. This was in agreement with the Mayor’s Office as well. Third, unlike what has been suggested by the Appellant, Ms. Kane, was assigned to serve on the RFP evaluation committee by the Mayor’s office; again not an unusual decision given that she was assigned lead counsel. Fourth, as City Attorney and supervisor of Deputy Attorney Kane, for more than a decade, it is my opinion that she comported herself with her usual legal prowess, ethical, and professional decorum in this matter no different from how she approaches all of her work assignments. Finally, given the Appellant’s personal attack and accusations towards Ms. Kane in the appeal, she has requested and I have authorized her to speak separately on her own behalf. The letter she prepared is added separately as part of the record. In conclusion, it is my opinion that no error in the process of this RFP occurred. The score of any individual evaluator whether it be higher than the other evaluators or lower does not invalidate the process that the City follows. Mr. Watts, the City’s Purchasing Manager, is a known statewide expert on the procurement process, and it is his expertise on this RFP process that we can rely upon as the City as being fair, even handed, and reasonable. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 385 of 602 City Attorney’s Office  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite #306  Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-898-5506  www.meridiancity.org June 7, 2019 Dear Mayor De Weerd and Members of City Council, As you are aware, since October 2018, I have been a member and a leader of the working group tasked with recommending to City Council the best way to establish a shared vehicle (e-scooter) program in Meridian. This working group has also included, at various points in the process, Stacy Arnold, Mike Barton, Scott Colaianni, C.Jay Coles, Richard Everett, Caleb Hood, Bill Nary, Nancy Radford, Dave Tiede, Robert Simison, and Kim Warren. On May 16, 2019, and again on June 6, 2019, an attorney named William Miller, working on behalf of Lime, submitted letters to this Council containing unsubstantiated, groundless attacks on my professional and personal reputation, under the guise of alleging that I had a bias against Lime, and that this alleged bias presented an infirmity in the RFP process. Mr. Miller is wrong as to both of these allegations. In particular, Mr. Miller’s contention that I was biased against Lime is wholly false. He has unfairly impugned my honesty and integrity by mischaracterizing my words and actions to fit his agenda, by taking information out of context in order to misrepresent the facts to this Council, and by scrambling the timeline in order to distort the context of my and others’ communications. Mr. Miller’s representations have directly attacked my character and defamed my work as an attorney and as a public servant. These representations are irresponsible and unethical and should be disregarded by this Council. I did not have any bias, either against Lime, or favoring Bird, and the documents Mr. Miller presents do not support this claim. Rather than continue to allow my reputation to be publicly assaulted, I will now respond in turn to each allegation made by Mr. Miller in his June 6, 2019 letter. Mr. Miller’s “exhibits” do not demonstrate a bias on my part against Lime, nor do they provide information that was unknown or unavailable to any member of City Council at any time. These documents provide a glimpse into the everyday communications that are required to complete a task like the institution of a shared vehicle program in our community. For example, in Mr. Miller’s Exhibit B, I answer a question from a colleague regarding the draft RFP. Exhibit C is a conversation that occurred in the context of the ongoing discussion with City Council about options regarding whether to proceed with an RFP or licensing regulatory method. The information I provided to Council Member Cavener in this e-mail message I also provided to the entire Council via memorandum (see attached, page 7) provided prior to your meeting on February 26, 2019, and then on the public record at that meeting. These messages can be taken at face value; they are evidence of workaday communications between myself and my colleagues. Page 1Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 386 of 602 City Attorney’s Office  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite #306  Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-898-5506  www.meridiancity.org Exhibit D, and Footnote 1 on page 1 of Mr. Miller’s June 6, 2019 letter, confirm that in taking the lead on the e-scooter project, the other working group members and I did work with Bird, one of the two companies who had expressed an interest in operating in Meridian. I and other staff members did seek to learn more about their industry and craft an ordinance that would facilitate the vendors’ respective programs as well as address the public safety and other considerations of the City. Mr. Miller fails to mention that prior to submitting its proposal, Lime also met with myself and other working group members, in person or via telephone, on January 24, 2018, September 28, 2018, November 14, 2018, December 20, 2018, and January 7, 2019, and exchanged e-mail messages over the course of several months (see attached, pages 8–15). These are just examples of the conversations known to me; I am aware that there are many other examples of communications between the vendors and staff prior to the RFP process. As Lime representative Aaron Kendall told City Council on February 26, 2019, “Whatever company is selected in the RFP process will be most equipped to serve the city if they have strong collaborative relationships with local businesses, civic leaders and staff.” Further, Lime’s proposal states, “ Lime has been the company most . . . engaged with City staff well before the issuance of this RFP.” Mr. Miller characterizes Bird’s communications with me and other City staff as evidence of bias, while his client, Lime, characterizes the same communications as collaborating and engaging. Mr. Miller’s omission of half of the story is disingenuous and unfair to me and to all City staff members who have invested many hours in communicating with both Lime and Bird. As you can see in Mr. Miller’s Exhibit E, I did paraphrase testimony the Bird representative provided to City Council at your meeting on January 8, 2019. I mentioned it to the Parks Superintendent in the context of addressing the Parks and Recreation Department’s primary concern regarding the e-scooters, i.e., speed of the e-scooters in parks. This reference to a public discussion does not demonstrate a bias on my part against Lime. Mr. Miller’s Exhibit F is a conversation regarding the questionnaire portion of the RFP, of which, as City Council is aware, I was the lead drafter, with the input of City Council members and other members of the working group. Purchasing Manager Keith Watts did caution me, as he did others involved in the drafting process, that such a questionnaire could not be crafted with the express purpose of eliminating or selecting a single vendor. As I responded to him then, there was no such underlying purpose, either by me or, to my knowledge, by my colleagues. This exchange does not demonstrate bias or improper behavior; it demonstrates Mr. Watts’s careful adherence to ethical standards in the RFP drafting process. Mr. Miller does not even allege that the standards Mr. Watts mentioned were breached, so it is not clear why he cites to this exchange as evidence of my alleged bias. Mr. Miller next cites to City Council members’ discussion at its February 26, 2019 meeting, charactering your comments as “openly express[ing] concerns” with my recommendation (June 6, 2019 Miller Letter, p. 1). It is inaccurate and dishonest for Mr. Miller to characterize this discussion as City Council members expressing concern with my integrity. This discussion Page 2Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 387 of 602 City Attorney’s Office  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite #306  Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-898-5506  www.meridiancity.org reflects City Council members stating their opinions regarding how to proceed with the matter before them. This is a routine exchange between the Council and a member of City staff. For Mr. Miller to impute any other motive to that conversation in service of his argument is inappropriate. Mr. Miller states that I “actively sought a spot on the evaluation committee.” (June 6, 2019 Miller Letter, p. 2.) This is completely untrue. I was appointed to this committee by the Mayor’s Office. Exhibit G does not support Mr. Miller’s statement, though he says it does. It is a message I sent to Mr. Watts to keep the RFP process moving forward, following a request from the Mayor’s Office that I follow up with Mr. Watts (note that I copied Chief of Staff Robert Simison on my response). Exhibit H contains my supervisor’s sympathetic comment on my growing workload with the addition of this responsibility, intended to build morale through humor, a common office practice. There can be no reason for Mr. Miller to present this to City Council as evidence of my “inserting” myself into the evaluation committee. Indeed, it can have no purpose other than to attempt to embarrass or burden me and my colleagues. Much has been made of the fact that I turned in my score sheet to Mr. Watts on April 29, 2019, and was the last of the panel to do so. How this is, or could be, evidence of bias has yet to be explained. My scoresheet was indeed “one-sided” (June 6, 2019 Miller Letter, p. 2) because I was the sole author of this document. A scoresheet is not a dialogue between the rater and the vendor. I stand by my score of Lime’s proposal. It is based not on bias, but solely on the information presented in Lime’s proposal itself. I am prepared to defend my score and comments, should Council request further explanation. The RFP evaluation panel met on April 24, 2019, and at that meeting there was a discussion of the word “exclusive” as it was used in the RFP. At that meeting, I did express my opinion that “exclusive” implied the selection of one vendor, but as I recall, the panel members did not reach consensus on that question, and ultimately regarded it as moot, because of the panel members who had reviewed the proposals and completed their score sheets by April 24, the majority stated that they would not recommend Lime be awarded a franchise agreement because Lime’s proposal states that Lime does not verify the age of its riders. I had not thoroughly reviewed the proposals when that meeting occurred, and for that reason I listened, but did not actively participate in the substantive discussion regarding the proposals. Yet Mr. Miller states that I “must have instructed committee members to select a single vendor.” This is both inaccurate and unsubstantiated. True, it is clear now that in drafting the RFP, I either misinterpreted or added confusion to City Council’s direction by using the word “exclusive” in the RFP, or allowing it to be used in the final draft. True, as set forth above, I did voice my opinion regarding how best to interpret the word in the context of reviewing the proposals. To the extent that these actions mistook City Council’s intent and created confusion, I am accountable for those errors and outcomes. I will endeavor in the future to follow up with City Council to confirm its direction, rather than attempt to determine its direction by reading the verbatim minutes. But Mr. Miller’s false statements of material fact to this body, declaring what I “must have” done, describing my role as providing instruction, and insinuating that my actions were motivated by a desire to harm Lime, are unfair both to me and to the City’s RFP process. Page 3Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 388 of 602 City Attorney’s Office  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite #306  Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-898-5506  www.meridiancity.org Regardless of the veracity of Mr. Miller’s allegation that I “must have instructed committee members to select a single vendor,” my actions could not have created a defect in the RFP process itself. If Lime had taken issue with the word “exclusive” as used in the RFP, the process outlined in the RFP dictates that that concern was waived upon submission of the proposal. Further, Mr. Miller himself states that “Although the RFP referenced an “exclusive” franchise agreement, the RFP clearly contemplated that the City could award franchise agreements to more than one respondent[.]” (May 16, 2019 Miller Letter, p. 2; see also pp. 5–6.) Clearly, then, to Lime, the use of the word “exclusive” did not create an issue at all, let alone an infirmity in the RFP process. Mr. Miller raises it again solely in an effort to damage my credibility before this body; it has no other relevance to Lime’s protest. Footnote 3 (June 6, 2019 Miller Letter, page 3) states that the timeline “is different from what has been previously reported to the City Council.” This is perplexing, because Mr. Miller’s stated timeline, and that presented by Mr. Nary to City Council at its May 14, 2019 meeting, are identical. This is, again, a groundless attempt to embarrass or burden me and my colleagues. Mr. Miller states that “after being informed that Lime had filed a public records request and might file a petition,” [sic] I “doubled down and continued to try to influence the outcome of this process.” (June 6, 2019 Miller Letter, p. 4.) I am one of the primary attorneys who reviews public records requests in the Meridian City Attorney’s Office. When public records request number 19-2598 was filed, on May 6, 2019, I had not been informed that Lime “might” file a protest. This is a baseless and untrue statement by Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller cites his Exhibit Q as evidence of what he says I knew on May 6, but this is an exchange that happened on May 9 (regarding a secondary public records request, which was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Andrea Pogue), at which point I still had not been informed that Lime “might” file a protest. I was simply doing my job. Mr. Miller’s characterization of this work as “doubling down,” or exerting influence over the outcome of a then-nonexistent protest, is nonsensical. Certainly, a protest by a vendor who is not selected is always a possibility, but as the protest process and the public records request process are two separate processes, there is no conceivable way for me to use the public records request process to influence the outcome of the RFP protest process, particularly a public records request response that predates a protest by ten (10) days, and particularly where I could not have foreseen that I myself would be the focus of the protest. As to PRR no. 19-2598, as my colleagues and I often do in the process of assisting the Clerk’s Office with preparing a response to a public records request, I did discuss with the staff in custody of the record, in this case Mr. Watts, which records were subject to release in response to the request. My advice, and the ultimate decision, was that none of the records requested were exempt from disclosure, and the requestor was entitled to receive all of them, and the City Clerk’s Office did provide all of them. Likewise, all responsive records were provided in response to the follow-up request, filed on May 8. It is unclear how my limited involvement with that response could have prejudiced Lime or Mr. Miller in any way, again over a week preceding the May 16 protest, which I later learned was targeting me, particularly given that all requested records were provided. Page 4Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 389 of 602 City Attorney’s Office  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite #306  Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-898-5506  www.meridiancity.org Mr. Miller’s Exhibit S is a summary of my verbal conversations with Ms. Pogue and Mr. Watts regarding the various processes that were pending as of May 10, to answer Mr. Watts’s question and bring Mr. Nary up to speed. It contains nothing unusual or untoward, and this advice was provided in the course and scope of my duties, again several days before I became aware that Lime would hire Mr. Miller to allege that I had a bias against his client. Exhibit T shows that Mr. Watts provided the responsive records, and as I was the only attorney still in City Hall after 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 10, 2019, the day on which the City was statutorily required to respond to the request, I signed off on the release of all records. This process is mandated by our City’s standard operating procedures for public records requests (City SOP no. 6.17) and again, I was simply doing my job. Mr. Miller does not explain how this activity does, or possibly could, demonstrate bias of any sort. This was a ministerial action I completed in the course and scope of my duties, well before the submission of Lime’s protest. Exhibits U through AA also depict my completion of everyday tasks. Mr. Miller’s office did file a third public records request, PRR no. 19-2855, at 8:15 a.m. on May 16, hours prior to Mr. Miller’s submission of Lime’s protest (at 11:38 a.m.; forwarded to me at 12:09 p.m.). Because I was clearly the subject of that public records request, I forwarded it to the other attorneys in my office and advised them that I would not be handling the request. (See attached, pages 16–17.) Mr. Miller’s Exhibits BB and CC present yet another example of an everyday function of my position with the City. Mr. Watts asked me to prepare the proposed contract with the selected bidder, which I did. As part of that task, I forwarded a draft of the agreement to the working group, as is evident in Exhibit BB, and when it was complete, I forwarded the final agreement to Bird for review on May 14, 2019, two (2) days prior to Lime’s submittal of its protest. None of this is evidence of bias or inappropriate behavior, only fulfillment of my responsibilities as a deputy city attorney. In both of his letters, Mr. Miller counts the words in my “pros” and “cons,” which is a profoundly bizarre metric for evaluating potential bias against Lime. My evaluation was based on the information presented in four corners of Lime’s proposal, and nothing that Mr. Miller has presented indicates otherwise. The assertion that I could not have formed an opinion regarding Lime’s proposal itself is degrading. In Mr. Miller’s May 16, 2019 letter, he also accuses me of having a conflict of interest, and of participating in the negotiation of a contract in which I have a financial or personal interest. I have absolutely no financial or personal interest in Bird, Lime, or any shared vehicle company. For Mr. Miller to accuse me of this very serious charge, without any truth or evidence to support it, is a malicious attack on my reputation, credibility, and livelihood. Mr. Miller’s letters reflect little factual truth and certainly do not stand for his premise that I desired or brought about this outcome for Lime. To the extent that Mr. Miller’s letters impugn my honesty, virtue, and reputation, they should be disregarded by this body, as I have acted with integrity and professionalism throughout this project. I am disappointed that a fellow member of my profession would choose this defamatory approach over the civility and collegiality typically Page 5Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 390 of 602 City Attorney’s Office  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite #306  Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-898-5506  www.meridiancity.org shared by members of the Idaho bar. I am hopeful that this Council will see in the e-mail messages, and in the entire body of facts, my and my coworkers’ dedication to customer service, accountability, and respect, notwithstanding this groundless personal attack by Lime’s representative. Finally, I would like to point out that this is not the first time Lime has deployed this strategy. The City of San Francisco denied Lime a permit to operate its e-scooter program there, and Lime not only appealed its denial, but sought a judicial order halting the program entirely. Lime alleged to both tribunals that the entire process was unfair, and that specific members of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the permitting authority that made the decision, were biased against Lime. In San Francisco’s process, as in Meridian’s, Lime scored lower than its competitors in a public evaluation process, and the denial was based on specific, identified criteria. Nonetheless, Lime argued that its denial was due to bias. (See attached, pages 18–27.) In closing, I encourage this Council to see this protest for what it is: a dishonest, groundless attack on a longstanding public servant’s credibility, a desperate effort to gain that to which Lime feels entitled, and a distraction from a soundly executed RFP process. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding this letter, Mr. Miller’s letters, or my role in any aspect of this process. Sincerely, Emily Kane Deputy City Attorney Page 6Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 391 of 602 City Attorney’s Office  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite #306  Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-898-5506  www.meridiancity.org MEMORANDUM February 22, 2019 TO: Meridian City Council Mayor Tammy de Weerd FROM: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Meridian City Attorney’s Office RE: Vehicle Sharing Program Recommendation At its meeting on February 19, 2019, City Council directed the staff committee that has been exploring vehicle sharing programs to provide recommendations regarding: 1) the best method of implementing a vehicle sharing program(s) in Meridian, 2) potential selection criteria and 3) a projected timeline if the City were to issue a request for proposals (“RFP”). Staff committee recommendation: The unanimous consensus of the committee is that the best method of implementing a vehicle sharing program in Meridian would be for the City to issue an RFP and select an exclusive franchisee to operate such a program. This method would allow the City to select an operator on the basis of stated criteria; work with the operator to customize a vehicle sharing program that meets the specific needs of the Meridian community; and establish a single point of contact for public outreach, problem-solving, and program improvement. Potential selection criteria: Proposals submitted in response to an RFP would be evaluated by a panel comprised of citizens and staff members. For illustrative purposes, in evaluating eligible applications, the following factors could be considered: 1. Completion of and adherence to the RFQ; 2. Ability of operator and proposed program to facilitate safe, balanced, effective micromobility transportation options for residents of and visitors to Meridian; 3. Appropriateness of proposed program for Meridian community, particularly as to traffic, rider, and pedestrian safety; effect on Meridian businesses; and reduction of vehicular traffic; 4. Proposed communications, public outreach/education, and customer service plans and experience; and 5. Consistency of proposed program with City policy, City core values (customer service, accountability, respect, excellence), and community values. RFP timeline (approximate): Day 1 Finalize RFP specifications and criteria. Day 14 Issue RFP. Day 45 Deadline for submission of proposals. Day 55 Selection panel convenes and selects one eligible proposal. Day 60 Selected proposer notified; franchise agreement offered. Day 70 Franchise negotiations complete. Day 90 Execution of franchise agreement. Page 7Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 392 of 602 1 Emily Kane From:Emily Kane Sent:Monday, January 7, 2019 4:42 PM To:'Megan O. Colford'; Gabriel Scheer; Isaac Gross; Aaron Kindall Cc:rsimison@meridiancity.org Subject:City of Meridian Ordinance - Updated draft Attachments:1-7-19 Draft VESPO Ordinance.pdf.html; 1-8-19 Agenda.pdf.html Hi, all. Thanks for your time and comments today. Here is an updated draft of the ordinance that I will be presenting to City Council tomorrow. As I mentioned on the phone, under this version, the concept of having a license and an agreement would go away, and operators would only need a franchise from the Clerk’s Office. Essential provisions of the former draft agreement have been incorporated into this draft ordinance. Though generally the substance remains the same, we have also incorporated a number of other edits and tweaks over the last two weeks, so please review one more time. The meeting starts at 3:00 p.m. and this discussion is item 8.B. Please contact me or Robert if you have any questions or concerns between now and the City Council meeting tomorrow. Thank you again. Emily Emily Kane| Deputy City Attorney City of Meridian | City Attorney’s Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-898-5506 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to Idaho law with regard to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law Page 8Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 393 of 602 1 Emily Kane From:Emily Kane Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 11:39 AM To:'Megan O. Colford' Cc:Robert Simison; Gabriel Scheer; Isaac Gross; Aaron Kindall Subject:RE: City of Meridian Ordinance - Updated draft Attachments:1-18-19 Draft VESPO Ordinance.pdf.html Hi, all. Thanks again for your comments and input. Here is an updated draft of the ordinance that I will be presenting to City Council next Tuesday, January 22. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. and this discussion is near the top of the agenda this time. Please contact me or Robert if you have any questions or concerns between now and the City Council meeting on Tuesday. Have a good weekend. Emily Emily Kane| Deputy City Attorney City of Meridian | City Attorney’s Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-898-5506 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to Idaho law with regard to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law From: Megan O. Colford <megan@li.me> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 9:48 AM To: Emily Kane <ekane@meridiancity.org> Cc: Robert Simison <rsimison@meridiancity.org>; Gabriel Scheer <gabriel@li.me>; Isaac Gross <isaac.gross@li.me>; Aaron Kindall <aaron.kindall@limebike.com> Subject: Re: City of Meridian Ordinance - Updated draft Hi Emily and Robert, The only comments we'd like to share at this time on this draft of the ordinance is around the pricing structure and the use of "Beacons." We have mentioned this to you before, but we'll reiterate that in order for us to be able to operate in Meridian, the pricing structure will need to make sense for our business. In the options you provided in the draft, the per ride fees are most tenable for us and also tie most closely to performance and use of our scooters in Meridian. In general, we believe fees should be a cost-recovery element for the City to account for any costs that go into maintaining the program, so we believe there should also be an analysis and grounding for whatever the fees are determined to be. Secondly, because the use of Beacons does not currently apply to all operators in the space, we would ask that any reference to beacons be removed, or that you add "if applicable" to the language. We look forward to seeing the next draft of the ordinance, and will work to get you comments on that as quickly as we can once we receive it. Thanks! Megan Page 9Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 394 of 602 2 On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:28 PM Megan O. Colford <megan@li.me> wrote: Hi Emily, Thanks for the update. Our policy counsel is reviewing the draft today, so I hope to have comments for you as soon as possible. Thanks again for all your work on this! Megan On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:24 PM Emily Kane <ekane@meridiancity.org> wrote: I would like to finalize the draft 5 p.m. today, but if you want to provide written comments by 8 a.m. tomorrow, I will try to incorporate them. I will need to be ready to submit the draft for inclusion on the January 22 City Council agenda by Thursday at noon. The format at the City Council meeting on January 22 is another discussion of the updated draft incorporating City Council’s comments from January 8. If they are ready to move forward, the ordinance may be on the February 5 agenda for a first reading, depending on how City Council directs us to proceed from there. Thanks. Emily Emily Kane| Deputy City Attorney City of Meridian | City Attorney’s Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-898-5506 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to Idaho law with regard to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law From: Robert Simison <rsimison@meridiancity.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:50 PM To: Megan O. Colford <megan@li.me> Cc: Emily Kane <ekane@meridiancity.org>; Gabriel Scheer <gabriel@li.me>; Isaac Gross <isaac.gross@li.me>; Aaron Kindall <aaron.kindall@limebike.com> Subject: RE: City of Meridian Ordinance - Updated draft Page 10Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 395 of 602 3 Megan, Yes, if you have comments we will take them. The plan is to go back to City Council next Tuesday the 22nd with an updated draft. I know Emily hopes to share the draft – possibly tomorrow. I will let her weigh in on any specifics. Robert Simison | Chief of Staff City of Meridian | Mayor’s Office All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Megan O. Colford [mailto:megan@li.me] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 3:25 PM To: Robert Simison <rsimison@meridiancity.org> Cc: Emily Kane <ekane@meridiancity.org>; Gabriel Scheer <gabriel@li.me>; Isaac Gross <isaac.gross@li.me>; Aaron Kindall <aaron.kindall@limebike.com> Subject: Re: City of Meridian Ordinance - Updated draft Hi Robert and Emily, I realize we have not sent you our written comments on the last draft, and I expect you have been working on a new draft since our last email. Are you able to share an updated timeline with us, specifically when we should expect the next draft, and when Council will next hear about this topic? Thanks so much! Megan On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:30 AM Robert Simison <rsimison@meridiancity.org> wrote: Megan, Page 11Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 396 of 602 4 If you have comments from the last draft we sent that you referenced in our phone call on Monday, please send those as soon as possible. We can review those in context to the City Council feedback and go from there. Robert Simison | Chief of Staff City of Meridian | Mayor’s Office All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: Megan O. Colford [mailto:megan@li.me] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 7:16 PM To: Emily Kane <ekane@meridiancity.org>; Robert Simison <rsimison@meridiancity.org> Cc: Gabriel Scheer <gabriel@li.me>; Isaac Gross <isaac.gross@li.me>; Aaron Kindall <aaron.kindall@limebike.com> Subject: Re: City of Meridian Ordinance - Updated draft Hi Emily and Robert, We wanted to follow up to tonight's meeting to apologize for not being present. Aaron was actually in the meeting for the first part and prepared to participate, but he unfortunately had to leave unexpectedly before our item. We deeply regret not being able to speak on behalf of Lime, and we hope our absence will not impact what has been a wonderful collaboration with you thus far. If you would like to discuss any of Council's feedback, please let us know. We are also happy to provide further comments on the current draft, or we can wait until you have put together the next draft for review. Please let us know what is best for you, and thank you again for all your work on this. Warmly, Megan On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:42 PM Emily Kane <ekane@meridiancity.org> wrote: Page 12Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 397 of 602 5 Hi, all. Thanks for your time and comments today. Here is an updated draft of the ordinance that I will be presenting to City Council tomorrow. As I mentioned on the phone, under this version, the concept of having a license and an agreement would go away, and operators would only need a franchise from the Clerk’s Office. Essential provisions of the former draft agreement have been incorporated into this draft ordinance. Though generally the substance remains the same, we have also incorporated a number of other edits and tweaks over the last two weeks, so please review one more time. The meeting starts at 3:00 p.m. and this discussion is item 8.B. Please contact me or Robert if you have any questions or concerns between now and the City Council meeting tomorrow. Thank you again. Emily Emily Kane| Deputy City Attorney City of Meridian | City Attorney’s Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-898-5506 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to Idaho law with regard to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-4433 www.meridiancity.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Page 13Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 398 of 602 6 -- Megan O. Colford Community Engagement 208-608-3667 Your ride anytime. We are hiring! -- Megan O. Colford Community Engagement 208-608-3667 Your ride anytime. We are hiring! -- Megan O. Colford Community Engagement 208-608-3667 Your ride anytime. We are hiring! -- Megan O. Colford Community Engagement 208-608-3667 Your ride anytime. We are hiring! Page 14Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 399 of 602 1 Emily Kane From:Keith Watts Sent:Friday, March 15, 2019 8:39 PM To:tstrand@razorusa.com; frankspeek@spin.pm; wesley@thegotchagroup.com; megan@li.me; arthur.ortegon@bird.co; jonathan.hopkins@li.me; aaron.kindall@li.me Cc:Emily Kane; Robert Simison Subject:City of Meridian RFP - Vehicle Ride Sharing Program Attachments:RFP - Vehicle Sharing Program.pdf Good evening, the City of Meridian has issued the attached RFP for a vehicle ride sharing program. The RFP has also been uploaded to the City’s website. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Keith Watts | Purchasing Manager City of Meridian | Finance 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-489-0417 The Finance Department – Where Everyone COUNTS! www.opportunitymeridian.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Page 15Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 400 of 602 1 Emily Kane From:Emily Kane Sent:Thursday, May 16, 2019 10:12 AM To:Bill Nary; Andrea Pogue; Ted Baird Subject:FW: New PRR 19-2855 #receive Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged FYI. I don’t think I should handle this one. From: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 10:10 AM To: PRR <PRRSystem@meridiancity.org>; Emily Kane <ekane@meridiancity.org>; Andrea Pogue <apogue@meridiancity.org>; Keith Watts <kwatts@meridiancity.org> Cc: Dave Tiede <dtiede@meridiancity.org>; Eli Daniel <edaniel@meridiancity.org>; Jamie Beehn <jbeehn@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: New PRR 19-2855 #receive Copying IT From: PRR <PRRSystem@meridiancity.org> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 10:08 AM To: ClerksRecordRequest <ClerksRecordRequest@meridiancity.org> Cc: PRR <PRRSystem@meridiancity.org>; Dwain Nell <dnell@meridiancity.org>; Dwain Nell <dnell@meridiancity.org> Subject: New PRR 19-2855 #receive Request Date/Time: 5/16/2019 10:08:15 AM PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTED BY: Name: Kim Sampo Address: 1111 W. Jefferson St. Suite 500 Boise ID 83702 Phone: 2083877522 E-Mail: ksampo@perkinscoie.com Please review the included PRR and advise if the city maintains these records. The date due is 5/21/2019.Thank you! PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTED: This is a public records request made pursuant to Idaho Code section 9-338. We respectfully request: All written documents, including electronically transmitted communications, relating in any manner to the 2019 Request For Proposals, Project No. MYR-1921-11034 (the “RFP”), including but not limited to all communications between members of the evaluation committee (including, but not limited, to Emily Kane), city staff, and/or members of the city council regarding the RFP, scooters, Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a/ Lime Page 16Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 401 of 602 2 (“Lime”), Lime’s participation in the RFP process, Bird, and Bird’s participation in the RFP process. The date range for this request is January 1, 2019 to present. City of Meridian | City Clerk’s Office 33 E.Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: | 208 - 888 - 4433 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e - mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e - mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Page 17Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 402 of 602 Page 18Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 403 of 602 Page 19Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 404 of 602 Page 20Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 405 of 602 Page 21Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 406 of 602 4 Page 22Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 407 of 602 4 Page 23Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 408 of 602 4 Page 24Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 409 of 602 Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE 4 Page 25Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 410 of 602 https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/12/sf-judge-denies-limes-request-to-block-electric-scooter- deployment/?renderMode=ie11 1 SF judge denies Lime’s request to block electric scooter deployment Megan Rose Dickey@meganrosedickey / 8 months ago A judge today denied Lime’s request for a temporary restraining order that would block Skip and Scoot from deploying their electric scooters in San Francisco on Monday. This means San Franciscans will be able to use electric scooter services again first thing next week. Following the SFMTA’s decision to grant Skip and Scoot electric scooter permits, Lime sent an appeal requesting the agency reevaluate its application. At the time, the SFMTA said it was “confident” it picked the right companies. Just yesterday, Lime said it believed “that it has no choice but to seek emergency relief in the court” and take legal action. “We’re pleased the court denied Lime’s request for a temporary restraining order,” John Cote, communications director for City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement to TechCrunch. “The bottom line is the judge said he would not stop the permits from being issued on Monday. The SFMTA’s permit program has been both fair and transparent. Lime just didn’t like the outcome. The reality is that Lime’s application fell notably short of its competitors. That’s why it didn’t get a permit. San Franciscans deserve scooter services that are safe, equitable and accountable, which is exactly what this pilot program was designed to do.” Page 26Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 411 of 602 https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/12/sf-judge-denies-limes-request-to-block-electric-scooter- deployment/?renderMode=ie11 2 What to expect from the return of electric scooters in SF While Lime didn’t quite get what it wanted, Lime says it still sees this as a victory. In a statement to TechCrunch, Lime Head of Communications Jack S. Song said: The Honorable Harold E. Kahn voiced serious concerns about the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency’s (SFMTA) permit process and ordered expedited discovery into the SFMTA’s selection process. In a rare move, the Judge ordered five key SFMTA officials and staff — including Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin himself — to testify next week. There will be another public hearing on this issue before Judge Kahn in mid-November, where the SFMTA will be required to answer to the people of San Francisco, and explain exactly what happened in the SFMTA’s biased selection process. We look forward to having our preliminary injunction request heard in the coming days — to ensure that the people of San Francisco receive a transparent, fair and equitable process that best serves the entire City and County. Our decision to file this lawsuit was not about preventing other operators from going forward; it was about exposing the biased and flawed process of the SFMTA, standing up for the rule of law, and serving Lime’s hometown. Page 27Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 412 of 602 EIDIANDAHO ,*-- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 B Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0013 Item Title: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gander Creek North and South By Trilogy Development Inc., Located at the SW Corner of N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Meeting Notes: Con4tr,ueJ +o Sure 19 ZOIC S I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - F indings of F act, C onclusions of L aw for Gander Creek North and S outh (H- 2019-0013) by Trilogy Development, Inc., L ocated at the S W corner of N. M cD ermott Rd. and W. M cM illan Rd. C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Memo to Council Cover Memo 6/6/2019 S taff E mail Memo Cover Memo 6/6/2019 F indings Findings/Orders 6/6/2019 E xhibit A E xhibit 6/6/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/6/2019 - 4:13 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 413 of 602 June 6, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner CC: City Clerk, Bill Nary RE: Gander Creek – AZ, PP (H-2019-0013) This project was approved by City Council on May 28th and Findings are scheduled for Council’s consideration on June 11th. The Applicant has noted two areas of concern with the conditions of approval noted in Section VIII of the Staff Report that Staff & Legal have determined need Council’s clarification, as follows: (The Applicant’s comments are in italic text; Staff’s comments are in blue regular text)  Condition #A.1.c: “The Developer shall construct pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of the site adjacent to N. McCrosson Ave. and W. McMillan Rd. with the first earlier part of the second phase of development or at the time of substantial completion of the high school, consistent with West Ada School District’s construction timeline for the high school, for safe access to the school site to the south for children walking to school.” This condition requires the construction of pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of W. McMillan Rd. and the future N. McCrosson Ave., the north-south collector, with the first phase of development. The prior condition A.1.b. requires the construction of N. McCrosson Ave. with the earlier part of Phase 2 or at the time of substantial completion of the high school. The two conditions are a bit inconsistent regarding timing. It would be customary to install the sidewalk/pedestrian pathway on N. McCrosson Ave. as part of that construction project. We believe the Council intended that the sidewalk/pedestrian pathway along W. McMillan Rd. and N. Mc Crosson Ave. be completed before the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 414 of 602 2 Owyhee High School opens so that students have safe access to school. If the time frame required in Condition A.1.c matched that of the mid-mile collector in A.1.b. it would be more practical from a construction standpoint and would still ensure that the City Council's intent was satisfied. We would request this clarification. Staff recommends the timing is changed from the first phase back to “the earlier part of the second phase or at the time of substantial completion of the high school consistent with WASD’s construction timeline for the high school” as originally written since the intent of the requirement is so that children have safe access to the school.  Condition #A.3.b.: “A detail shall be included for Phases 5, 6 and 9 (i.e. the phases containing the lots that abut McDermott Rd./future SH-16) that depicts the centerline (or estimated centerline) of the future SH-16 in relation to the top of the berm/wall verifying it’s a minimum of 1012 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway as required by UDC 11-3H-4D.2.” This condition requires a detail of the 12-foot berm/wall combination to be prepared for Phases 5, 6, and 9 to confirm the facility will be a minimum of 12 feet higher than the centerline elevation of SH-16. We believe the intent of the Council was for this condition to apply to the adopted ITD at-grade plan for SH-16. We would recommend adding language to reference the currently approved plan as of the Council hearing date to avoid future confusion in case the ITD plan for SH-16 changes. There is no adopted ITD plan at this time for the extension of SH-16. The 300’ wide ROW for SH-16 is currently under review as part of the corridor-wide design refinements; one of the design refinements favors SH-16 going over McMillan Rd. ITD will be working on design refinements into the summer. The UDC standard for noise abatement along state highways requires the top of the berm or berm & wall combination to be a minimum of 10’ higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway. However, there is a provision that allows the Director to approve alternative compliance where the Applicant has a substitute noise abatement proposal in accord with ITD standards and prepared by a qualified sound engineer. Therefore, Staff recommends the condition remain the same and if necessary in the future, the Applicant can apply for alternative compliance to this standard. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 415 of 602 1 Chris Johnson From:Sonya Allen Sent:Thursday, June 6, 2019 4:07 PM To:Charlene Way; Chris Johnson Cc:Bob Taunton (bobtaunton@tauntongroup.com); Shawn Brownlee (shawn@trilogyidaho.com); Bill Parsons; Bill Nary Subject:Gander Creek - AZ, PP H-2019-0013 FFCL for June 11th Council Mtg Attachments:Gander Creek - AZ, PP H-2019-0013 FFCL Exhibit A.pdf; Gander Creek - AZ, PP, PP H-2019-0013 FFCL.pdf Attached are the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the annexation & zoning and preliminary plat for Gander Creek Subdivision. These documents are scheduled to be on the Council agenda for June 11 th . Staff is requesting these Findings be placed on the regular agenda for Council’s clarification of the following items noted by the Applicant: 1. Planning Division Condition A.1.c: This condition requires the construction of pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of W. McMillan Rd. and the future N. McCrossan Ave., the north-south collector, with the first phase of development. The prior condition A.1.b. requires the construction of N. McCrossan Ave. with the earlier part of Phase 2 or at the time of substantial completion of the high school. The two conditions are a bit inconsistent regarding timing. It would be customary to install the sidewalk/pedestrian pathway on N. McCrossan Ave. as part of that construction project. We believe the Council intende d that the sidewalk/pedestrian pathway along W. McMillan Rd. and N. Mc Crossan Ave. be completed before the Owyhee High School opens so that students have safe access to school. If the time frame required in Condition A.1.c matched that of the mid-mile collector in A.1.b. it would be more practical from a construction standpoint and would still ensure that the City Council's intent was satisfied. We would request this clarification. 2. Planning Division Condition A.3.b.: This condition requires a detail of the 12-foot berm/wall combination to be prepared for Phases 5,6, and 9 to confirm the facility will be a minimum of 12 feet higher than the centerline elevation of SH-16. We believe the intent of the Council was for this condition to apply to the adopted ITD at-grade plan for SH-16. We would recommend adding language to reference the currently approved plan as of the Council hearing date to avoid future confusion in case the ITD plan for SH-16 changes. Thanks, Sonya Allen | Associate Planner City of Meridian | Community Development Dept. 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 | Fax: 208-489-0578 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 416 of 602 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER FILE NO(S). H-2019-0013 - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Annexation and Zoning of 125.68 acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District; Preliminary Plat Consisting of 156 Building Lots and 29 Common Lots on 51.46 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District for Gander Creek North Subdivision; and Preliminary Plat Consisting of 245 Building Lots and 36 Common Lots on 65.64 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District for Gander Creek South Subdivision, by Trilogy Development, Inc. Case No(s). H-2019-0013 For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 28, 2019 (Findings on June 11, 2019) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 28, 2019, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 28, 2019, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 28, 2019, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 28, 2019, 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 April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 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. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 417 of 602 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER FILE NO(S). H-2019-0013 - 2 - Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 28, 2019, 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 request for annexation and zoning is hereby approved with the requirement of a Development Agreement; and the request for two (2) preliminary plat applications are hereby approved per the provisions in the Staff Report for the hearing date of May 28, 2019, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer’s signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat (UDC 11-6B-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two (2) years, may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval (UDC 11-6B-7B). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer’s signature on the final plat not to exceed two (2) years. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again (UDC 11- 6B-7C). Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 418 of 602 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER FILE NO(S). H-2019-0013 - 3 - accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six (6) months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six (6) month approval period. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 28, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 419 of 602 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER FILE NO(S). H-2019-0013 - 4 - By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ___________ day of ________________, 2019. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED_______ COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT LUKE CAVENER VOTED_______ COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE LITTLE ROBERTS VOTED_______ COUNCIL MEMBER TY PALMER VOTED_______ COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED_______ COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED_______ MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED_______ (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Tammy de Weerd Attest: _______________________________ Chris Johnson Interim City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By:__________________________________ Dated:________________________ City Clerk’s Office Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 420 of 602 EXHIBIT A Page 1 HEARING DATE: May 28, 2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0013 Gander Creek North & South LOCATION: Southwest corner of N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd., in the NE ¼ of Section 32, T.4N., R.1W. (Parcel No’s.: S0432110450; S0432110100; S0432110565; S0432141800; S0432110500) NOTE: This development application was submitted and went to the Planning & Zoning Commission under one preliminary plat application. During Staff’s review of the application for the staff report it was noted that the subject property is bisected by the Five Mile Creek which is owned by the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and not the adjacent land owner as is typical. Because the Irrigation District does not wish for their land to be part of the subdivision, the subject property is required to be included in two (2) separate preliminary plats. Since the Commission hearing, the Applicant has submitted an updated application and plans to bifurcate the proposed subdivision as required. Staff has updated the staff report accordingly. The number and configuration of building lots and common lots have not changed. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning of 125.68 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and two (2) preliminary plats consisting of a total of 401 building lots, and 55 65 common lots and 5 other lots on 117.10 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Gander Creek Subdivision. STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 421 of 602 Page 2 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Acreage 117.10 Future Land Use Designation MDR (3 to 8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) SFR Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-8 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 401 building/55 common/5 other lots Phasing plan (# of phases) 9 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) 401 SFR units (detached) Density (gross & net) 3.42 gross/4.15 net Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) 12.55 acres (13%) Amenities 10’ wide multi-use pathway, internal pathways, a swimming pool, (2) children’s play structures, (2) picnic shelters, ½ basketball court Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) The Five Mile Creek bisects the northern & southern portions of this development and is owned by the Irrigation District Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: December 17, 2018; 5 attendees History (previous approvals) In 2015, an application for annexation & zoning and preliminary plat was denied on the northern portion of this site due to Council’s Finding that it was not in the best interest of the City to annex the property at that time. (Copperbrook Sub. H-2015-0029) Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 4 miles  Fire Response Time 7:00 minutes under ideal conditions  Resource Reliability 77% from Fire Station #5 – does not meet the targeted goal of 85% or greater  Risk Identification 2 – Current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project (see comments in Section VII.C  Accessibility Project meets all required access, road widths and turnarounds; project will be limited to 30 building lots until secondary access is available Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 422 of 602 Page 3  Special/resource needs An aerial device is not required  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 8.5 miles  Police Response Time 5-7 minutes  Calls for Service NA (site is currently in Ada County)  Accessibility No issues with the proposed access  Specialty/resource needs No additional resources are needed at this time; the PD already services the area to the east Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services +/- 340 Ft.  Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s See application information  WRRF Declining Balance 13.59  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns This development is subject to paying reimbursement fees for The Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Agreement, and the West Ada School District Reimbursement Agreement for Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades (currently under development) pursuant to meridian city code section 8-6-5 Water  Distance to Water Services +/- 500 Ft.  Pressure Zone 1  Estimated Project Water ERU’s See application information  Water Quality This development will require significant off-site utility improvements to connect to existing water system mainlines. In the early phases of this development, water demand will be low, and resident time of water in the system may be several days. This will make it difficult to maintain residual chlorine levels. This problem will decrease as homes are built and demand increases. This can also be mitigated by requiring looping of the water mains to allow water to move through the development to areas of higher demand, and by system flushing.  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts/Concerns Each phase must be modeled at final plat to ensure adequate fire flow. Water must be supplied from at least two mains for all phases of the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 423 of 602 Page 4 C. Project Maps III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Trilogy Development, Inc. – 9839 W. Cable Car St. #101, Boise, ID 83709 B. Owner: Union Square, LLC/RWK Investments, LLC/Heartland Townhomes Property Management, LLC – 9839 W. Cable Car St., Ste. 101 Boise, ID 83709 Kenneth P. Goldbach & Melynda A. Maxwell – 4455 N. McDermott Rd., Meridian, ID 83646 Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 424 of 602 Page 5 C. Representative: Bob Taunton, Taunton Group, LLC – 2724 S. Palmatier Way, Boise, ID 83716 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/15/2019 5/10/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 3/12/2019 5/7/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 3/21/2019 5/17/2019 Nextdoor posting 3/12/2019 5/7/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION & ZONING The Applicant requests annexation and zoning of 125.68 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district for the development of 401 single-family detached residential homes. Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for this property is Medium Density Residential (MDR). The MDR (Medium Density Residential) designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre. Single-family residential detached homes at a gross density of 4.15 units/acre (or 3.42 units/acre including the future right- of-way easement for SH-16 and the land reserved for a fire station and service center) are proposed to develop on this site consistent with the MDR designation. Transportation: The Master Street Map (MSM) depicts a planned north/south residential collector street along the western boundary of this site at the half mile between N. McDermott & N. Star Rd. as proposed on the plat consistent with the MSM. Note: With approval of the school site to the south (i.e. Owyhee High School and future elementary school), the Developer committed to construct the collector street from McMillan Rd. to the north boundary of the school site (i.e. the subject property’s south boundary) to be substatially complete prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the High School anticipated to open in the Fall of 2021. This access is needed in order to provide the school with two (2) points of public street access as required by the Fire and Police Departments. The Applicant and West Ada School District plan to enter into a binding agreement for such improvements upon annexation of the subject property. State Highway 16 is planned to extend in the future from W. Chinden Blvd. to the south to I-84 across the eastern portion of this site within a 300’ wide easement west of N. McDermott Rd. An overpass is conceptually planned on W. McMillan Rd. over the future SH-16. The future right-of-way and slope easements needed for these improvements are depicted on the plat included in Section VII.B although the design of these improvements are still in process and are not yet finalized. ITD has programmed funding for preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition on SH-16 between I-84 and SH-20/26/Chinden Blvd. (FY2019-2023 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Key Number 208158); however, construction is unfunded. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 425 of 602 Page 6 Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): Goals, Objectives, & Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) Only one housing type, single-family detached homes, is proposed within this development; however, there are a mix of 5 different lot sizes proposed (i.e. 38’ wide rear load, 40’, 50’, 60’ and 70’+); Staff is unaware if the homes will be owner occupied or rental units.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development is not currently in close proximity to any employment or shopping centers; however, a large medical campus including medical offices, a hospital, surgical center and emergency room, and other office uses are planned a mile to the north near the SH-16/Chinden intersection. The proposed development will provide housing options for this area and the adjacent mixed use designated land.  “Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K) The proposed plat depicts a north/south collector street along the west boundary of this site consistent with the MSM.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) An open space exhibit is included in Section VII.E that complies with the minimum UDC standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D) Only one access is proposed via W. McMillan Rd., an arterial street; two accesses are proposed via the collector street; Staff is of the opinon the proposed accesses are appropriate for this development.  “Work with ACHD, COMPASS, and VRT on bringing public transportation to and through Meridian.” (3.03.04H) VRT’s long-term plan (ValleyConnect 2.0) does not include any service in this area.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) Pedestrian pathways are depicted on the landscape plan throughout the development. A segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system is planned along the Five Mile Creek which bisects this site (east/west) that will assist in providing connectivity between developments and to the school site to the south.  “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J) The Applicant has been working with ITD to plan for the future extension of SH-16 across the eastern portion of this site.  “Develop alternative modes of transportation through pedestrian improvements, bicycle lanes, off-street pathways, and transit-oriented development as appropriate.” (3.03.03D) Pedestrian walkways are proposed internally throughout the development and a segement of the City’s multi-use pathway system is proposed off-street along the Five Mile Creek. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 426 of 602 Page 7 Zoning: Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-8 zoning district and proposed development and density is generally consistent with the MDR FLUM designation for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the south and east and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. Although the proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property, it is located at the far west periphery of the City; annexation of this property would further the sprawl in this area. A previous development (i.e. Copperbrook Subdivision) was denied on this site in 2015 based on Council’s decision that it was not in the best interest of the City to annex the property at that time based on comments from the public hearings. Reasons for denial discussed at the hearing were that they wanted the City to develop from the inside out, rather than the outside in; and concern that stretching City services out west of McDermott would take away services to existing residents and open up another square mile for development. Since that time, the property directly to the south was annexed for the development of a high school. A lot for a fire station is proposed with this development which would assist is providing services for this development as well as the surrounding area. For this reason and because the City Council approved the annexation of the school property to the south, staff is supportive of the proposed annexation. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat for Gander Creek North consists of 401 156 building lots, 55 and 29 common lots on 51.46 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; and the proposed preliminary plat for Gander Creek South consists of 245 building lots and 5 36 common lots on 65.64 other lots consisting of (4) lots reserved for ITD for future right-of-way (ROW) for the construction of SH-16 and (1) lot reserved for the City for construction of a future fire station and service center on 117.10 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. The minimum lot size for the development is 4,000 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 6,002 s.f. Five (5) different sizes of lots are proposed (i.e. 4K, 5K, 6K, 7K, and 8K square feet) for the development of traditional front-loaded lots and rear-loaded alley lots. A lot size rendering is included in Section VII.D that demonstrates the variety of lots proposed within the development. Note: It came to the attention of Staff after scheduling this application for hearing that NMID actually owns the land on which the the Five Mile Creek is located that bisects this property instead of only having an easement which is typical. Prior to the City Council hearing, the Applicant should revise the preliminary plat (and associated plans and documents) to break the plat into two (2) separate preliminary plats north and south of the Five Mile Creek, obtain approval of new subdivision names from the Ada County Surveyor’s office, and submit additional application fees ($2,264). Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in 9 phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.B. The first phase is in the northern portion of the development and will include a 2.11 acre park with a playground, picnic shelter and pathway at the entry of the development off McMillan Rd. The second phase is in the southern portion of the development and includes a 2.73 acre park with a playground, picnic shelter and pathways off N. McCrosson Ave. Because Gander Creek North and South will be developed as one project, Staff recommends a provision is included in the DA that allows the project to develop under one phasing plan as shown in Exhibit B in Section VIII. Outparcel: There is a 0.43 of an acre out-parcel that contains a residence at the northeast boundary of the site. Staff has verified it is an “original parcel of record” as defined by UDC 11-1A-1. As such, it’s not required to be included in the proposed subdivision but will create an enclave. The Applicant stated in their narrative that they have spoken to the property owners and they declined to sell their property or be included in the subject Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 427 of 602 Page 8 annexation and preliminary plat application; they also do not wish to have a sidewalk on their property along McMillan Rd. Existing Structures: There are four existing homes and accessory structures on this site. The two existing homes on Parcel #S0432110100 and #S0432110500 within the future ROW area for SH-16 are now owned by the Developer and are being leased back to the previous owners until such time as right-of-way acquisition occurs for SH-16 and/or the construction of SH-16 commences; the other two existing homes outside of the ROW will be removed with development. These homes should not be expanded or enlarged. Existing homes that are proposed to remain are required to hook up to city water and sewer service within sixty (60) days after date of official notice from the City to do so; provided, that such services are within three hundred feet (300’) of any property line of the building to be served as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. The Applicant requests a waiver of this requirement as ITD right-of-way acquisition is about to commence and the homes will either be removed upon acquisition of ROW or with construction of SH-16. Existing Easements: There is an existing ingress/egress easement (Inst. #98106235) for W. Lazy Diamond C Lane and an Idaho Power easement (Inst. #8958920) noted on the plat that should be relinquished and/or vacated (as applicable) prior to signature on the final plat for the phase in which they are located. The Applicant should submit copies of easement relinquishment(s) and/or proof of vacation of the easement(s) with the final plat application as applicable. Fire Station: A 3.84 acre lot is designated at the southwest corner of the site for a City fire station and equipment service facility. The transfer to the Fire Dept. will be a combination donation and purchase transaction to take place at the time of recording the final plat that includes the lot. A condtional use permit is required for a fire station (i.e. public/quasi-public use) in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2; compliance with the associated specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30, Public or Quasi-Public Use is required. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2) The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district. Lots 15 and 16, Block 4 (S); and Lots 38 and 40, Block 2 (S) should be revised to reflect a minimum 30- foot wide street frontage; and Lot 12, Block 6 (S) should be a minimum of 40-feet wide measured as a chord measurement. Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (11-6C-3): Compliance with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 is required, which includes streets (including alleys), easements and block face. The proposed plat appears to be in compliance with these standards except for a couple of blocks that exceed the maximum length of 750’ without an intersecting street or alley as follows:  The face of Block 2 that fronts on W. Mill Creek Dr. and abuts the south side of the Five Mile Creek (790’+/-); and,  The face of Block 2 and Block 7 that fronts on W. Redwood Creek Dr. that abuts the north side of the McFadden Drain/Five Mile Creek along the project’s south boundary (800’+/- and 763’+/-, respectively). The UDC allows for City Council to approve block faces up to 1,200’ in length where block design is constrained by site conditions that include an abutting arterial street or highway, and a large waterway and/or a large irrigation facility, which is the case in all three of these cases. Staff recommends Council approval the block face of these 3 blocks as proposed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 428 of 602 Page 9 North Arroyo Creek Ave. and N. Carmel Creek Ave. on the northern portion of the site are proposed as 28’ public streets, which require sidewalks to be provided on each side of the street per UDC 11-3A-17. If sidewalks aren’t desired, these streets should be constructed as alleys; signage should be provided at each end of the alleys for addressing purposes. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): One (1) full access is proposed via W. McMillan Rd., an arterial street, at the project’s north boundary and two (2) full accesses are proposed via N. McCrosson Ave., the proposed collector street, at the project’s west boundary. A secondary emergency access is proposed following the sewer alignment from McDermott Rd. and the future W. Deer Creek Dr. Direct lot access via N. McCrosson Ave., W. McMillan Rd., N. McDermott Rd./future SH-16 is prohibited, except for Lot 2, Block 7 which is planned for a fire station and should have direct access via N. McCrosson Ave. A crossing is proposed over the Five Mile Creek at the ¼ mile between N. McDermott Rd. and N. McCrosson Ave. A stub street, N. Glassford Way, is proposed to the south for future extension and interconnectivity with the school site (Owyhee High School). Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit [i.e. 1-bedroom requires 2 per unit with at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad; 2-, 3-, and 4-bedroom units require 4 per unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad(s); and 5+ bedroom units require 6 spaces per unit with at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6]. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with landscaping on either side of the pathway(s) per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Internal pedestrian walkways are proposed throughout the development linking the neighborhood to the common areas and amenities. A 10-foot wide segment of the City’s multi-use pathway is proposed along the west boundary of the site within the street buffer along N. McCrosson Ave. from the south boundary of the site to the north boundary of the Five Mile, continuing to the east along the north side of the creek to N. Glassford Ave. and then to the north through the site to McMillan Rd. for access to the future overpass over SH-16. The Park’s Dept. recommends the pathway continues from Glassford to the east boundary of the site consistent with the Pathways Master Plan. Prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature, a public access easement should be submitted for the multi-use pathway; coordinate the details with Kim Warren, Park’s Department (208-888-3579). No landscaping is depicted adjacent to the multi-use pathway along the creek; minimum 5-foot wide landscape strips are required to be provided along each side of the pathway landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C – if NMID will not allow any or all of the landscaping on their property, a common lot should be provided on the subject property to accommodate the pathway and associated landscaping as needed. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required within the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The proposed plan depicts sidewalks in accord with UDC standards, except for along N. McDermott Rd. where a minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is required; the plans should be revised accordingly. Although the sidewalk will eventually be torn out when SH-16 is extended, it will likely be many years before this occurs as the project is currently unfunded and right-of-way has not yet been acquired for the extension. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E and 11- 3B-7C. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 429 of 602 Page 10 Six-foot wide parkways are proposed on the portion of the development north of the Five Mile Creek; root barriers that are a minimum of 18 inches below subgrade adjacent to the sidewalk and a 24 inches below subgrade adjacent to the curb extending 2 inches above grade are required. Trees within the parkway are restricted to Class II trees. If 8-foot wide parkways are provided, root barriers are not required. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide buffer is required along W. McMillan, an arterial street; a 20-foot wide buffer is required along N. McCrosson Ave., a collector street; and a 35-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to N. McDermott Rd./ future SH-16, an entryway corridor as proposed. The street buffer landscaping depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.C far exceeds UDC standards. Note: Because the ultimate plan is for a state highway to be constructed along the project’s east boundary and an appropriate street buffer is proposed for the highway, staff does not recommend an additional buffer is required along McDermott Rd. as it would just need to be removed when the highway is constructed. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10% (or 9.65 acres) of the overall developed site is required to be provided for qualified open space based on 96.54 acres (excluding the ITD easement for SH-16 and the 3.84 acre parcel reserved for the City to construct a future fire station and service center) per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted for the north and south portions of the development as shown in Section VII.E that depicts 6.23 acres (or 12.11%) of qualified open space in the north portion and 14.01 6.89 acres (or 12 10.5%) of qualified open space for the south portion.; however, Staff has determined based on the qualifications for open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B, some of the areas counted do not qualify while others that do qualify aren’t counted. Staff has requested the Applicant revise the exhibit accordingly but has not yet received a revised plan in order to determine consistency with UDC standards, although it appears adequate qualified open space is proposed. All stormwater detention facilities counted toward qualified open space are required to be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of five (5) qualified site amenities are required to be provided for the development based on 117.10 acres of land per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Amenities are proposed as follows: a swimming pool with a playground, picnic shelter and ½ basketball court in the 2.11 acre park at the entry to the development from McMillan Rd. in the northern portion of the development; another playground and picnic shelter in the 2.64 acre park at the entry of the development from McCrosson Ave. in the southern portion of the development; a picnic shelter in the 0.97 acre park also in the southern portion of the development; a long segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system along the west boundary of the southern portion of the development running along the north side of the Five Mile Creek to N. Glassford Way and north to McMillan Rd.; and many internal pedestrian pathways in excess of UDC standards. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): All ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses lying on the subject property are required to be piped or otherwise covered unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space in which case they may remain open as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. The Five Mile Creek is located off-site between the north and south portions of this development on land owned by NMID; the Irrigation District’s easement is a minimum of 100 feet (50 feet from centerline each direction). The creek should be protected during construction as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B.1. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 430 of 602 Page 11 The Noble Lateral is piped and runs along the east boundary of the site within a 30-foot wide easement. The McFadden Drain (shown on City maps as the Five Mile Creek) runs along the south boundary of this site on the adjacent property within an 85-foot wide easement (50’ left and 35’ right facing downstream). All irrigation easements for the Five Mile Creek, McFadden Drain and/or other facilities that encroach on this site should be depicted on the plat. If the easement is wider than 10 feet it’s required to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless otherwise modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. Any encroachments within NMID’s easements will require a License Agreement. Floodplain: Many of the building lots adjacent to the Five Mile creek lie within the floodplain (i.e. FEMA Flood Zone A). A floodplain development permit is required to be obtained from the City Public Work’s Department prior to development occurring within the floodplain. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7, 11-3H-4D): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7 and 11-3H-4D. Fencing is proposed on the landscape plan as follows: 5-foot tall wrought iron fencing is proposed along the rear of building lots adjacent to the Five Mile Creek and the McFadden Drain; 4-foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to internal common areas not visible from a public street and pathways; and a 6-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter of the development and adjacent to common areas that are visible from a public street. A 4-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall concrete wall on top is proposed along the east boundary of the site adjacent to N. McDermott Rd./future SH-16 as noise abatement for residential properties from the future state highway as required by UDC 11-3H-4D (see exhibit in Section VII.C). An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat applications for Phases 5 and 9 (i.e. the phases containing lots that abut McDermott Rd./future SH-16) that depicts the centerline (or estimated centerline) of the future SH-16 to ensure the top of the berm/wall combination is a minimum of 10 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway as required. A 6-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along the rear of building lots abutting the street buffer along future SH-16 which will create a 15-foot wide corridor hidden between two fences/walls that may create CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) safety issues and possibly maintenance issues for landscaping between the two fences. Staff recommends the 6-foot tall closed vision fence is removed and a use easement recorded across the back side of the berm along McDermott/SH-16 benefitting adjacent building lots with allowance for side yard fences to be constructed to the wall on top of the berm; or, an open vision, 4-foot tall closed vision, or 4-foot tall closed vision with 2 foot open vision fencing on top could be constructed for visibility of the common area between the fence and wall on top of the berm. Staff recommends fencing (chain-link or wrought iron) is constructed on the south side of the multi-use pathway along the Five Mile Creek for public safety that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-6C. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 431 of 602 Page 12 Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Contours should be depicted on the plat for all storm drainage facilities that demonstrate compliance with UDC 11-3B-11C [i.e. slopes are required to be less than or equal to three to one (3:1) (horizontal:vertical) for accessibility and maintenance]. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family detached structures as shown in Section VII.G. A variety of 1- and 2-story homes are proposed with a combination of front and rear entry garages in an assortment of building materials. Because the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face W. McMillan Rd., an arterial street; N. McDermott Rd./future SH-16, an arterial street/future state highway and entryway corridor; and N. McCrosson Ave., a collector street, will be highly visible, Staff recommends they incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop- outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation & Zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and Preliminary Plat per the conditions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on April 4 and 18, 2019. At the public hearing on April 18th, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Bob Taunton, Taunton Group; David Bailey, Bailey Engineering; Kevin Amar, Biltmore Company; Sonia Daleiden, Kittleson and Associates b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Joe Yochum, West Ada School District; David McKinney d. Written testimony: Shawn Brownlee e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Mark Niemeyer, Fire Chief; Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Adequacy of proposed berm and wall as a buffer along the east boundary of the subdivision adjacent to future SH-16 – belief that additional buffering should be required; b. Provision of additional pathways and wider sidewalks to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians – in favor of extension of the multi-use pathway along the north side of the creek to McDermott Rd. for connection with the pathway in the Oaks Subdivision to the east – would like to see more of a direct pedestrian connection from internal pathways along Glassford to the school site to the south through Block 4. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The extension of the multi-use pathway along the Five Mile Creek east of N. Glassford Way to McDermott Rd.; Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 432 of 602 Page 13 b. The ability of the Fire Dept. to adequately service the proposed development within desired response times until construction of another fire station occurs; c. In favor of the mix of lot sizes proposed; d. Concern pertaining to adequacy of parking for the swimming pool 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Modification to conditions #A.1b and #A.1c in Section VIII in regard to the timing for construction of N. McCrosson Ave. and the pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of the site along McCrosson Ave. and McMillan Rd. from the first phase of development to the earlier part of the second phase or at the time of substantial completion of the high school consistent with the WASD’s construction timeline for the high school with submittal of a letter of intent to that effect from WASD. b. The Commission was supportive of the Applicant’s request for Council approval of a waiver to hook up to City water and sewer services for the home(s) located within the future SH-16 right-of-way. c. Add a micro-path connection through Block 4 in the southern portion of the development for a more direct pedestrian connection to the school site to the south (reflected on the revised plans); d. Add a requirement for the provision of a minimum of 6 parking spaces at the swimming pool area (see condition #A.1l in Section VIII); e. Recommendation for the Applicant to work with the Park’s Dept. to determine multi-use pathway requirements consistent with the Pathways Master Plan, specifically along the creek; (The Park’s Dept. amended their conditions to not require a pathway along the north side of the creek east of Glassford Way to McDermott Rd – deleted condition #A.3g in Section VIII.) f. Allowance for the sidewalk along N. McDermott Rd. to be constructed with the last phase of development (see condition #A.2i in Section VIII); g. Modify the sound attenuation wall along the east boundary adjacent to future SH-16 to reflect a 12-foot tall berm (see condition #A.3j). 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. The plan for McMillan Rd.crossing SH-16 may shift from an overpass to SH-16 going over McMillan Rd. This scenario would likely result in a lesser amount of right-of-way needed along McMillan Rd. which might enable the out-parcel to possibly redevelop in the future with buildable lots. In this scenario an access to a local street should be provided with this development to that parcel as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3; this could be accomplished by the provision of a common driveway through Lot 36, Block 9. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on May 28, 2019. At the public hearing, the Council moved to approve the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Bob Taunton, Taunton Group; Sonia Daleiden, Kittleson and Associates; Kevin Amar, Biltmore Company b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Joe Yochum, West Ada School District; Denise LaFever d. Written testimony: Bob Taunton, Taunton Group e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Joe Bongiorno 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Appreciation of the joint effort with the school district for the extension of the mid-mile collector street for the high school. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by City Council: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 433 of 602 Page 14 a. The provision of a sidewalk along the entire frontage of the site on McMillan Rd. and McCrosson Ave. with the first phase of development; b. The height of the berm and/or berm/wall combination for noise abatement along the future SH-16; c. Potential enrollment impacts on area schools from the proposed development. 4. City Council change(s) to Commission recommendation: a. Change condition #A.1c in Section VIII to reflect construction ofhte sidewalk along McMillan Rd. and McCrosson Ave. with the first phase of development as agreed upon by the Applicant; b. City Council approved a waiver to MCC 9-4-1 and 9-4-8 to not require the existing home on Parcel #S0432110100 to hook up to City water and sewer services (see condition #A.1g in Section VIII). c. Modify condition #A.1h to remove the existing home on Parcel #S0432110500 from the requirement/waiver to hook up to City water and sewer services; d. Modify conditions #A.1i and #A.3j to require a 6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall on top of the berm for noise abatement along the east boundary of the subidivisons adjacent to future SH-16; e. Modification to #A.2h change the street name from W. Mill Creek Dr. to W. Plateau Creek St. and note that City Council approved a waiver to UDC 11-6C-3F to exceed the maximum block length in the areas noted; f. Modify condition #A.3b to reflect a 12-foot tall berm/wall instead of a 6-foot tall berm/wall; and, g. Include a requirement for local street access to be provided to the out-parcel along McMillan Rd. in Gander Creek North in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 (see condition #A.2k in Section VIII). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 434 of 602 Page 15 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 435 of 602 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 436 of 602 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 437 of 602 Page 18 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 438 of 602 Page 19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 439 of 602 Page 20 B. Preliminary Plats (date: 2/12/2019 05/13/2019) & Phasing Plan (dated: 5/21/2019) REVISED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 440 of 602 Page 21 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 441 of 602 Page 22 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 442 of 602 Page 23 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 443 of 602 Page 24 C. Landscape Plan (date: 2/14/2019 5/10/2019) REVISED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 444 of 602 Page 25 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 445 of 602 Page 26 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 446 of 602 Page 27 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 447 of 602 Page 28 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 448 of 602 Page 29 D. Lot Size Rendering (dated: 2/14/19) - REVISED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 449 of 602 Page 30 E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit (dated: 2/12/19 5/13/19) REVISED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 450 of 602 Page 31 F. Parks and Pathways - REVISED Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 451 of 602 Page 32 G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives (dated: 1/10/19) Tresidio: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 452 of 602 Page 33 Biltmore Elevations: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 453 of 602 Page 34 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 454 of 602 Page 35 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Prior to the City Council hearing, the Applicant shall revise the preliminary plat (and associated plans and documents) to break the plat into two (2) separate preliminary plats north and south of the Five Mile Creek, obtain approval of new subdivision names from the Ada County Surveyor’s office, and submit additional application fees ($2,264). Done A revised qualified open space exhibit shall also be submitted prior to the City Council hearing that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, 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. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plats and phasing plan, landscape plans and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained in the staff report. The two (2) preliminary plats shall be allowed to develop as one project in accord with the phasing plan for the overall development. b. The Developer shall construct a mid-mile collector street (N. McCrosson Ave.) from W. McMillan Rd. to the north boundary of the school property to the south (approximately 1,970’+/-) with the first earlier part of the second phase of development or at the time of substantial completion of the high school, consistent with the West Ada School District’s construction timeline for the high school. The Developer shall submit a letter of intent from the school district outlining their timeline for construction of the high school with submittal of the first final plat application. c. The Developer shall construct pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of the site adjacent to N. McCrosson Ave. and W. McMillan Rd. with the first earlier part of the second phase of development or at the time of substantial completion of the high school, consistent with West Ada School District’s construction timeline for the high school, for safe access to the school site to the south for children walking to school. d. The Developer shall continue to coordinate with the Idaho Transportation Department as development occurs to ensure adequate area is provided for the future construction of SH-16, the overpass on McMillan Rd. over future SH-16, and other associated improvements. e. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed on this site as required by the Park’s Department in accord with the Pathways Master Plan with landscaping along either side of the pathway as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. f. The Five Mile creek, which lies on land owned by Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District between the north and south portions of this development, shall be protected during construction. g. City Council approved a waiver to MCC 9-4-1 and 9-4-8 to not require Tthe existing homes located within the future right-of-way area for SH-16 along the east boundary of the site on Parcel No. S0432110100 and S0432110500 shall to hook up to city water and sewer service within sixty (60) days after date of official notice from the City to do so; provided, that such services are within three hundred feet (300’) of any property line of the building to be served as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4- 8 unless otherwise waived by City Council. At such time, as municipal services are provided, the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 455 of 602 Page 36 property shall be disconnected from private systems. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement as ITD right-of-way acquisition is about to commence. h. The existing homes located within the future right-of-way area for SH-16 along the east boundary of the site on Parcel No. S0432110100 and S0432110500 shall not be expanded or enlarged. i. The Developer shall provide noise abatement along the east boundary of the site adjacent to future SH- 16 in the form of a 6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall on top of the berm as required by City Council at the hearing on May 28, 2019 in accord with set forth in UDC 11-3H-4D for residential uses adjoining state highways. j. The rear and/or sides of structures that face W. McMillan Rd., an arterial street; N. McDermott Rd./future SH-16, an arterial street/future state highway and entryway corridor; and N. McCrosson Ave., a collector street, shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. k. The Developer shall coordinate with the Meridian Fire Department on a combination donation and purchase transaction for Lot 2, Block 7 for the development of a future fire station and equipment service facility. The transfer to the Fire Department shall take place with recordation of the final plat phase that includes Lot 2, Block 7. A conditional use permit is required for a fire station (i.e. public/quasi-public use) in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2; compliance with the associated specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30, Public or Quasi-Public Use is required. l. The parking lot for the swimming pool shall contain a minimum of six (6) parking spaces. 2. The preliminary plats for Gander Creek North (N) and Gander Creek South (S) included in Section VII.B, shall be revised as follows (as applicable): a. Include a note stating direct lot access via N. McCrosson Ave., W. McMillan Rd., N. McDermott Rd./future SH-16 is prohibited, except for Lot 2, Block 7 which is planned for a fire station and shall have direct access via N. McCrosson Ave. b. On the 57-foot wide typical street section detail on Sheet PP-2, depict root barriers for the 6-foot wide parkways that are a minimum of 18 inches below subgrade adjacent to the sidewalk and a 24 inches below subgrade adjacent to the curb extending 2 inches above grade. c. Depict a typical street section detail for the 20-foot wide alleys. Done d. Depict contours for all storm drainage facilities that demonstrate compliance with UDC 11-3B-11C [i.e. slopes are required to be less than or equal to three to one (3:1) (horizontal:vertical) for accessibility and maintenance]. e. Depict irrigation easements for the Five Mile Creek, McFadden Drain (shown on City maps as the Five Mile Creek), and any and all other facilities that encroach on this site. If the easement is wider than 10 feet it shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of 20 feet wide and outside of a fenced area, unless otherwise modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. f. N. Arroyo Creek Ave. and N. Carmel Creek Ave. shall be alleys instead of 28’ public streets and shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. Done g. Lots 15 and 16 and 17, Block 4 (S); and Lots 38 and 40, Block 2 (S) should be revised to reflect a minimum 30-foot wide street frontage; and Lot 12, Block 6 (S) should be a minimum of 40-feet wide measured as a chord measurement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 456 of 602 Page 37 h. The face of Block 2 that fronts on W. Mill Creek Dr.W. Plateau Creek St., east of N. Glassford Way, abutting the south side of the Five Mile Creek (790’+/-); and, the face of Blocks 2 and 7 that fronts on W. Redwood Creek Dr. that abut the north side of the McFadden Drain/Five Mile Creek along the project’s south boundary (800’+/- and 763’+/-, respectively) exceed the maximum block length of 750’ without an intersecting street or alley per UDC 11-6C-3F; revise accordingly unless otherwise approved by City Council City Council approved a waiver to this standard for the aforementioned block faces as requested. The UDC allows for City Council to approve block faces up to 1,200’ in length where block design is constrained by site conditions that include an abutting arterial street or highway, and a large waterway and/or a large irrigation facility, which is the situation in all three of these cases. Staff recommends Council approve the block faces as proposed. i. A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is required along N. McDermott Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17 to be constructed with the last phase of development. j. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer on Lot 2, Block 7 along N. McCrosson Avenue in a common lot in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2a; k. Depict local street access to the out-parcel (Parcel #S0432110050) on W. McMillan Rd. as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised as follows: a. The “Ninemile” creek and associated easement should be named “Five Mile” creek (Gander Creek South). b. A detail shall be included for Phases 5, 6 and 9 (i.e. the phases containing the lots that abut McDermott Rd./future SH-16) that depicts the centerline (or estimated centerline) of the future SH-16 in relation to the top of the berm/wall verifying it’s a minimum of 1012 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway as required by UDC 11-3H-4D.2. c. Minimum 5-foot wide landscape strips are required to be provided along each side of the multi-use pathway in Gander Creek North landscaped as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C; if NMID will not allow landscaping on their property, a common lot should be provided on the subject property to accommodate the pathway and/or associated landscaping as necessary. d. Class II trees shall be planted within 6-foot wide parkways along with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. e. Depict fencing (chain-link or wrought iron) on the south side of the multi-use pathway along the Five Mile Creek in Gander Creek North for public safety that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-6C. f. The 6-foot tall closed vision fence along the east boundary of the subdivision adjacent to N. McDermott Rd./future SH-16 shall be removed and either a use easement recorded across the back side of the berm along McDermott/SH-16 benefitting adjacent building lots with allowance for side yard fences to be constructed to the wall on top of the berm; or, an open vision, 4-foot tall closed vision, or 4-foot tall closed vision with 2 foot open vision fencing on top could be constructed for visibility of the common area between the fence and wall on top of the berm. g. Extend the multi-use pathway along the north side of the Five Mile Creek from N. Glassford Way to the east boundary of the site consistent with the Pathways Master Plan. The Park’s Dept. amended this condition. h. Depict a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along N. McDermott Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 457 of 602 Page 38 i. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer on Lot 2, Block 7 along N. McCrosson Avenue in a common lot in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2a, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. j. Modify the detail for the berm along the east boundary of the site adjacent to future SH-16 to reflect a 126-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall on top of the berm. 4. The existing ingress/egress easement (Inst. #98106235) for W. Lazy Diamond C Lane and an Idaho Power easement (Inst. #8958920) noted on the Gander Creek South plat and any other easements that are no longer needed shall be relinquished and/or vacated, as applicable, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer on the phase in which they are located. The Applicant shall submit copies of the easement relinquishment(s) and/or proof of vacation of the easement(s) with the final plat application as applicable. 5. All stormwater detention facilities counted toward qualified open space are required to be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. 6. A floodplain development permit is required to be obtained from the Public Work’s Department prior to any and all development within the floodplain. 7. All existing structures are required to be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat for the phase of development in which they are located. 8. Submit a detail of the children’s play equipment and picnic shelters with the final plat application. 9. Install signage at each end of the alleys (currently depicted as N. Arroyo Creek Ave. and N. Carmel Creek Ave.) for addressing purposes for lots that front on mews. 10. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-use pathway in Gander Creek North; coordinate the details of the easement with Kim Warren, Park’s Department. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 1.2 The water system as proposed does not connect to the City's distribution system. A water main connection will not be made to the east on McMillan Road, east of N. Glassford Avenue, due to the planned SH-16 grade separation. A 12-inch water main connection will need to be made parallel with the sanitary sewer mainline, to the proposed 12-inch water main to be constructed by the Owyhee High School project in McDermott Rd. An 8-inch water main connection will need to be made to the south on the proposed Glassford Way to the proposed 12-inch main to be constructed by the Owyhee High School project. 12-inch water main needs to be constructed along the entire west boundary on McCrosson Ave across Five Mile Creek and connecting to the proposed water main to the south to be built be Owyhee High School Project. An 8 inch flush line needs to be constructed at the crossing of Five Mile Creek at McCrosson Ave. Phasing as proposed will require significant off-site improvements to connect water. Each phase must be modeled at final plat to ensure adequate fire flow. Water must be supplied from at least two mains for all phases of the development. 1.3 The west property boundary is also the sanitary sewer trunkshed boundary, therefore this development does not need to stub sewer to the west. Remove sewer main stub in W Quintal Street. The following sewer manholes have less than 3' of cover: SSMH A16 and F5-7. The southern portion of subdivision has multiple sewer design flaws. Sewer mains in Mill Creek Drive, Brandy Creek Ave, Buffalo Creek Drive and Battle Creek Avenue all dead end and do not connect east to the mainline in McDermott Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 458 of 602 Page 39 Road. Sewer in N Magical Creek Way dead ends and does not connect to the rest of the system as well. There are no sewer mains to service Block 2, lots 3-5 and Block 4, lots 2-3. 1.4 This development is subject to paying reimbursement fees for The Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Agreement, and the West Ada School District Reimbursement Agreement for Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades (currently under development) pursuant to meridian city code section 8-6-5 1.5 The March 7, 2019 Geo-Tech Report, prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC, submitted with this application highlights several site conditions (including but not limited to soil types, ground water, and construction methods) that will make development of this property and construction of homes somewhat challenging. The developer shall bear the responsibility of ensuring that all the requirements, including compaction of backfill material, foundation drains around homes, and on-site infiltration pits are conveyed to the home builders, and that they are closely adhered to. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub- grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). 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. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 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- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 459 of 602 Page 40 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. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C- 3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 460 of 602 Page 41 Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164180/Page1.aspx D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/163880/Page1.aspx E. PARK’S DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=164267&page=1& http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/167815/Page1.aspx F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/163825/Page1.aspx G. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT Plans must be submitted to Settler’s Irrigation District for comment and review prior to construction. H. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/162580/Page1.aspx I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/161961/Page1.aspx J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/162390/Page1.aspx K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/168244/Page1.aspx L. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164142/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full 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: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 461 of 602 Page 42 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The City Council finds the proposal to annex and develop the subject 117.10 acre property with R-8 zoning is consistent with the associated FLUM designation of MDR for this property. (See section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The City Council finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential district in that it will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential and school uses in the area. 4. 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. The City Council finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) The City Council finds the proposed plats are generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; The City Council finds the proposed plats are in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The City Council finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 462 of 602 Page 43 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 463 of 602 EIDIAN,*-- �J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 C Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0064 Item Title: Final Plat for Cherry Blossom By Doug Jayo, Jayo Lane Development Company, LLC. Located at 615 W. Cherry Ln. Meeting Notes: Owl\nued +"3 J 0I y 9,2015 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F inal P lat for C herry B lossom (H-2019-0064) by Doug J ayo, J ayo L and D evelopment C ompany, L L C ., L ocated at 615 W. C herry L n. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials Applicant has requested a continuance to J uly 2 C ouncil Notes: RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/7/2019 - 10:49 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 464 of 602 EIDIAN,?-- �J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 D Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0055 Item Title: Final Plat Modification Continued from May 28, 2019 for Olivetree at Spurwing By Spurwing Limited Partnership, Located at the NE Corner of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. Ten Mile Rd. Meeting Notes: N 0,- fib, Lc I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - F inal P lat M odification Continued from M ay 28, 2019 for O livetree at Spurwing (H-2019-0055) by S purwing L imited P artnership, L ocated at the NE corner of W. Chinden B lvd./S H 20-26 and N. Ten M ile Rd. C lick Here for A pplication Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 6/6/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/6/2019 - 3:19 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 465 of 602 Page 1 HEARING DATE: June 11, 2019 Continued from: 5/28/2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0055 Olivetree at Spurwing LOCATION: North of W. Chinden Blvd./SH-20/26 and east of N. Ten Mile Rd., in the SW ¼ of Section 23, T.4N., R.1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the landscape plan approved with the final plat application to remove the wrought iron fencing adjacent to the golf course. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Spurwing Limited Partnership – 1406 N. Main Street, Ste. 205, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Same as Applicant C. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, LLP – 1029 N. Rosario Street, Ste. 100, Meridian, ID 83642 III. STAFF ANALYSIS The landscape plan approved for this development with the final plat (FP-08-004) application in 2008 depicts 4-foot tall wrought iron fencing along the rear of building lots adjacent to the golf course. The Applicant requests approval to remove the fencing and has submitted a revised landscape plan STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 466 of 602 Page 2 depicting the proposed change, included in Section V as Exhibit C. The Developer wishes to leave the option open to each individual homeowner to construct fencing or not based on their needs. Because the golf course is not common open space for the subdivision, the fencing standards in UDC 11-3A-7A.7, which require the Developer to construct fences abutting common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas, do not apply. However, Staff does feel it is necessary for the Developer to provide some form of delineation between the privately owned building lots and the golf course such as berming, landscaping (i.e. plantings and/or bark) or other means. While Staff is amenable to the Applicant’s request to remove the fencing, Staff recommends the Applicant address at the hearing how they plan to delineate private areas from the golf course. Additionally, in 2018, the City Council approved a modification to the landscape plan (H-2018-0021) to remove the pathway connection to the golf course planned between Lots 7 and 9, Block 1 and the requirement for bollard lighting along the pedestrian pathway; and the addition of an archway/entryway feature and water fountain. The revised landscape plan also included the following changes: 1) a note stating all wrought iron fencing would be installed by the individual lot owner/builder at the time of development/construction of each individual lot rather than by the developer with development of the subdivision; and 2) the extension of the masonry screen wall along the northern boundary of the subdivision along N. Big Cedar Way to W. Balata Ct. Because these changes were not specifically requested or approved and because they do not comply with the UDC standards listed below, they are not approved.  UDC 11-3A-7A.7a requires the developer to construct fences abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas; and,  UDC 11-3A-7C.2 limits the maximum fence height in the required front yard, including the front and side yard property lines, to 3 feet for a closed vision fence and 4 feet for an open vision fence. Therefore, Staff recommends the landscape plan is revised accordingly as noted in Section VI.A.1. IV. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed modification to the landscape plan approved with the final plat with the conditions in Section VI of this report. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 467 of 602 Page 3 V. EXHIBITS A. Recorded Plat Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 468 of 602 Page 4 B. Approved Landscape Plan (dated: 4/11/08) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 469 of 602 Page 5 C. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 2/28/19) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 470 of 602 Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 471 of 602 Page 7 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 472 of 602 Page 8 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 473 of 602 Page 9 VI. CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. The landscape plan included in Section V.C shall be revised as follows: a. The Developer shall provide some form of delineation between the privately owned building lots and the golf course such as berming, landscaping (i.e. plantings and/or bark) or other means as determined at the City Council meeting. b. Depict 4-foot tall wrought iron fencing adjacent to the common area on Lot 45, Block 1 as required by UDC 11-3A-7A.7a; remove the note stating, “Note: All wrought iron fencing to be installed by the individual lot owner/builder at the time of development/construction of each individual lot.” c. Depict the location of the 6-foot tall screen wall outside of the front yard area of Lot 5, Block 1, Spurwing Subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-7C.2. The maximum fence height in the required front yard, including the front & side yard property lines, is 3 feet for a closed vision fence; the required setback for a wall greater than 3 feet is a minimum of 15 feet measured from back of sidewalk. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 474 of 602 EIDIAI,+-- J CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: City Council Meeting June 11, 2019 Approved Landscape Plan golf courseFencing proposed to be removed Applicant Proposed Out-of-Bound Stakes Item #7E: Goff –Development Agreement Modification Existing Conceptual Development Plan & Elevations included in Development Agreement 11 -1A-1: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: Add new term: STORAGE FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL: Any real property designed and used for renting or leasing individual storage spaces incidental to residential property or dwelling units, to which the occupants thereof have access for storing or removing personal property. 11-4-3-TBD: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL A. The facility is encouraged to accompany or be a component of a single-family or multi-family residential development with a conditional use permit within an R-15 or R-40 zone. B. The size of the storage facility shall be less than 8 acres. C. The location of the facility may be located along an arterial roadway as a buffer to a residential development, but shall not take direct access from an arterial. Access to the facility shall be from a internal collector or local street only. D. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o’clock (6:00) a.m. to ten o’clock (10:00) p.m. E. The use shall be limited to individual storage compartments which shall be used for residential related personal property including vehicles. F. Storage units shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a residential storage facility is specifically prohibited. G. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’). The maximum height of the buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. H. The storage facility shall be fully enclosed and screened from public view. I. A minimum twenty-foot (20’) wide landscape buffer shall be provided along a collector or local road and a twenty-five-foot (25’) wide buffer adjacent to residential development or an arterial and thirty-five-foot (35’) adjoining an entryway corridor. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C and 11-3B-9C of this title. J. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes approved by the Meridian Fire Department. K. No outside storage area shall be allowed. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. L. Buildings shall be designed Design the building facades to express complement the architectural character of the residential area. The building design shall comply with the Traditional Neighborhood District (TND) design standards set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. M. Any parking lot associated with the leasing office shall comply with the standards in Section 11-3C-5, “Parking Standards for All Other Uses Not Specified,” of this title. Signage for the facility shall comply with Section 11-3D-8BC, “Residential Signs in Residential Districts,” of this title. N. On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Title 3, Article EChapter 4, “Outdoor Sales and Temporary Uses Requirements.,” of this title. The hours of the on-site auctions shall be limited to daylight hours (sunrise and sunset) and specified on the temporary use permit application submitted to the Clerk’s office. O. On-site management or contact information for on-call management shall be provided for the storage facility. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-16, “Self-Service Uses,” of this title shall also apply. The application materials shall include a security plan for the proposed facility. P. No storage of fuel or hazardous materials shall be allowed. (Ord 13-1555, 5-14-2013) Q. The site shall not be used as a “vehicle wrecking or junk yard” as herein defined in Section 11-1A-1. Changes to Agenda:  Item #7C: Cherry Blossom – FP (H-2019-0064): Applicant requests continuance to July 2, 2019 in order to address some outstanding issues with the plat. Item #7B: Gander Creek North & South (H-2019-0013) – City Council Clarification of Findings The Applicant has noted two areas of concern with the conditions of approval noted in Section VIII of the Staff Report that Staff & Legal have determined need Council’s clarification, as follows: (The Applicant’s comments are in italic text; Staff’s comments are in blue regular text)  Condition #A.1.c: “The Developer shall construct pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of the site adjacent to N. McCrosson Ave. and W. McMillan Rd. with the first earlier part of the second phase of development or at the time of substantial completion of the high school, consistent with West Ada School District’s construction timeline for the high school, for safe access to the school site to the south for children walking to school.” This condition requires the construction of pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of W. McMillan Rd. and the future N. McCrosson Ave., the north-south collector, with the first phase of development. The prior condition A.1.b. requires the construction of N. McCrosson Ave. with the earlier part of Phase 2 or at the time of substantial completion of the high school. The two conditions are a bit inconsistent regarding timing. It would be customary to install the sidewalk/pedestrian pathway on N. McCrosson Ave. as part of that construction project. We believe the Council intended that the sidewalk/pedestrian pathway along W. McMillan Rd. and N. Mc Crosson Ave. be completed before the Owyhee High School opens so that students have safe access to school. If the time frame required in Condition A.1.c matched that of the mid-mile collector in A.1.b. it would be more practical from a construction standpoint and would still ensure that the City Council's intent was satisfied. We would request this clarification. Staff recommends the timing is changed from the first phase back to “the earlier part of the second phase or at the time of substantial completion of the high school consistent with WASD’s construction timeline for the high school” as originally written since the intent of the requirement is so that children have safe access to the school.  Condition #A.3.b.: “A detail shall be included for Phases 5, 6 and 9 (i.e. the phases containing the lots that abut McDermott Rd./future SH-16) that depicts the centerline (or estimated centerline) of the future SH-16 in relation to the top of the berm/wall verifying it’s a minimum of 1012 feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway as required by UDC 11-3H-4D.2.” This condition requires a detail of the 12-foot berm/wall combination to be prepared for Phases 5, 6, and 9 to confirm the facility will be a minimum of 12 feet higher than the centerline elevation of SH-16. We believe the intent of the Council was for this condition to apply to the adopted ITD at-grade plan for SH-16. We would recommend adding language to reference the currently approved plan as of the Council hearing date to avoid future confusion in case the ITD plan for SH-16 changes. There is no adopted ITD plan at this time for the extension of SH-16. The 300’ wide ROW for SH-16 is currently under review as part of the corridor-wide design refinements; one of the design refinements favors SH-16 going over McMillan Rd. ITD will be working on design refinements into the summer. The UDC standard for noise abatement along state highways requires the top of the berm or berm & wall combination to be a minimum of 10’ higher than the elevation at the centerline of the state highway. However, there is a provision that allows the Director to approve alternative compliance where the Applicant has a substitute noise abatement proposal in accord with ITD standards and prepared by a qualified sound engineer. Therefore, Staff recommends the condition remain the same and if necessary in the future, the Applicant can apply for alternative compliance to this standard. Item #7D: Olivetree at Spurwing (H-2019-0055) Application(s):  Final plat modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This subdivision is zoned R-4 & R-8 and is located north of W. Chinden Blvd. & east of N. Ten Mile Rd. History: The final plat for this subdivision was approved in 2008 along with several subsequent time extensions; the subdivision is currently in the development process. Summary of Request: The previously approved landscape plan for this development depicts 4’ tall wrought iron fencing along the rear of building lots adjacent to the golf course. The Applicant requests approval to remove the fencing and leave the option open to each individual homeowner to construct fencing or not based on their needs. Because the golf course is not common open space for the subdivision, the fencing standards in UDC 11-3A-7A.7, which require the Developer to construct fences abutting common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas, do not apply. However, Staff does feel it is necessary for the Developer to provide some form of delineation between the privately owned building lots and the golf course such as berming, landscaping (i.e. plantings and/or bark) or other means. While Staff is amenable to the Applicant’s request to remove the fencing, Staff recommends the Applicant address at the hearing tonight how they plan to delineate private areas from the golf course. Additionally, in 2018, the City Council approved a modification to the landscape plan to remove a pathway connection to the golf course & bollard lighting along the pedestrian pathway; and the addition of an archway/entryway feature and water fountain. The revised landscape plan for those changes also included the following changes: 1) a note stating all wrought iron fencing would be installed by the individual lot owner/builder at the time of development/construction of each individual lot rather than by the developer with development of the subdivision as required by the UDC; and 2) the extension of the 6’ tall masonry screen wall along the northern boundary of the subdivision along N. Big Cedar Way to within 20’ of W. Balata Ct., which violates the maximum height allowed (i.e. 3’) for closed vision fences/walls in the required front yard area and creates a safety hazard due to decreased visibility of traffic from the intersection. Because these changes were not specifically requested or approved and because they do not comply with UDC standards, they are not approved and should be reflected correctly on a revised landscape plan. Written Testimony: Becky McKay (proposes out-of-bound stakes to delineate the private properties from the golf course; and agreement to modify the landscape plan to comply with UDC standards to depict wrought iron fencing along the common area on Lot 45 and the modification to the location of the wall so that it’s not within the 20’ front/side yard area in proximity to Balata Ct.) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0055, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 11, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0055, as presented during the hearing on June 11, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0055 to the hearing date of _______ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7E: Goff - MDA (H-2019-0061) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.76 of an acre of land, is zoned C-N and is located at 1725 W. Pine St. History: In 2009, an amendment to the FLUM from MDR to Commercial and annexation with C-N zoning was approved with a DA. Summary of Request: The previous development plan for this site was for an aquatics center, which fell through. There is currently a SFR home on the site. The property owner now wishes to sell the property and the prospective buyer does not wish to redevelop the property in the same manner. One consideration is to possibly renovate the existing structure for an office; otherwise, the prospective buyer would like flexibility to explore other options for uses allowed in the C-N district. The existing DA prohibits the following uses on the site: drinking establishments, fuel sales facilities, drive-thru establishments, and vehicle washing facilities. Staff recommends the provision prohibiting these uses remain. Staff is amenable to the Applicant’s request with the following recommended changes to the existing DA provisions as noted in Section VI.A of the staff report: 1) removal of the requirement for future development to comply with the previous conceptual development plan and inclusion of language referencing the Architectural Standards Manual now in effect for design review; 2) the requirement for submittal of a Design Review application with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application; 3) removal of language limiting access to the site to the existing location in favor of language that still limits access to one driveway via Pine Avenue but allows its relocation if necessary with redevelopment; and, 4) removal of the requirement for the existing septic system and domestic well to be remov ed from service as this has already been done and the property is hooked up to City water and sewer services. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0061, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 11, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0061, as presented during the hearing on June 11, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0061 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7F: Residential Self-Service Storage Facility (H-2019-0034) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for a UDC Text Amendment to allow for a Residential Storage Facility within R-15 and R-40 zones with a conditional use permit. A definition of a residential storage facility has been provided along with provisions under the Specific Use Standards of the UDC. The intent of the proposed code change is to create a third type of storage facility that is smaller and integrated into residential neighborhoods, setting standards for landscaping and architectural requirements that provide compatibility and a complementary use to existing and proposed neighborhoods. The current UDC provisions allow for self-service and outside storage facilities within the residential zones only as an accessory use to a principally permitted use. If it is proposed to be a stand-alone commercial storage facility it requires procurement of a CUP in the C-C and C-G zones but is a principally permitted use in the I-L zoning district. Therefore, any storage facility approved under the accessory use provision is restricted to providing storage service only for the residents associated with the primary residential use. The applicant believes this creates a problem for the storage facility management to screen and police their potential lessors. If someone vacates the residence or apartment within the principally permitted development but continues to lease a storage unit , this creates an issue. The other concern is that high vacancy rates at a facility cannot be remedied with allowing renters from outside the development. From a business perspective, this creates a situation that could be detrimental to the cash flow and success of an accessory storage facility. These were the primary concerns discussed with the recently approved project known as Elevate Storage which has necessitated the requested text amendment. The only avenue to remediate this situation under the current UDC is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property. Commission Recommendation: Approval at the May 2, 2019 hearing 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Becky McKay and Grey Wolfe b. In opposition: Denise LaFever c. Commenting: Denise LaFever d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood, Chris Johnson and Andrea Pogue 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Moving forward with a code change before the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Garages in multi-family developments being used for storage rather than vehicle parking. Ancillary storage to a residential use vs. a stand-alone commercial storage facility. Prioritizing rental storage units to rent to the residences of a multi-family complex prior to renting units to customers outside of an associated residential project. Hours of operation. Limiting the building heights. Noticing requirements for UDC Text Amendments. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Limiting auction hours for the storage facilities. Limiting the heights of the storage buildings to 35 feet and allowing a care-taker unit. Vetting the storage facility change with the UDC Focus Group. Limiting the number of storage units being rented to the public. Limiting the size of a residential storage facility. Parking ratios for multi-family developments. City process (administrative level or hearing level) for establishing storage facilities in the residential, commercial and industrial districts. Security for the storage facility. Losing prime residential infill property to residential storage facilities. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. b. c. d. Commission imposed a maximum height limit of 35 feet. Commission restricted the on-site auctions to occur during daylight hours. Commission required on-site management or on-call management to regulate the facilities. Commission required the applicant submit a security plan with the application submittal. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0034, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 11, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0034, as presented during the hearing on June 11, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0034 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7G: 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Summary of Request: In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5, the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code (UDC). For purposes of this application, both the Planning Division and the Code Enforcement Division have work closely to compile a host of changes and combine them into a joint application. The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections and the addition of new provisions that pertain to the following chapters:  Chapter 1: Notification of violations and definitions;  Chapter 2: Residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables;  Chapter 3: Ditches, laterals, canals and drainage courses, outdoor lighting, outdoor storage, traveling sleeping quarters, landscape standards, parking standards, qualified open space and variance processing;  Chapter 4: Specific use standards for educational institutions, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant;  Chapter 5: Public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance;  And other miscellaneous sections to improve the administration of the code. Staff has highlighted the requested Code Enforcement changes in light gray to delineate their recommended changes. These recommendations are made in hopes of eliminating confusion for the public, addressing common issues, eliminating loopholes and making the existing codes enforceable. The changes being proposed by the Code Enforcement Division were not shared with the UDC Focus Group or the BCA as they do not directly impact development per se. These changes were vetted separately with City Council and fully endorsed. Staff has shared the proposed Planning Division changes with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA. Commentary has been provided for each of the respective code changes that are proposed and additional revisions were made as a result of the comments received during the Commission hearing. Commission Recommendation: Approval at the May 16, 2019 hearing 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Will Patterson, Greg Curtis, Becky McKay, Jeanette Johnson, Jon Wardle, Jim Conger and Denise LaFever d. Written testimony: Jon Wardle, Becky McKay and Bryce Farris e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. g. Proposed text changes to UDC 11-3A-6; impact on delivery of water, public safety, fencing waterways and improvements requiring irrigation district and /drainage entity authority. Parking standards for age-restricted developments. Common driveways taking access from private streets. Removing street buffers from counting towards the required 10% percent common open space for development. Broader update to the common open space and amenity requirements. Useable open space and setbacks between homes. Removing state highway access form the variance process. Inviting stakeholders to participate in code changes and part of the UDC Focus Group. Allowing another decision-making body (Commission or Director) grant a waiver to reduce the 25-foot landscape buffer when commercial and/or industrial properties abut a residential use. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. b. c. d. e. f. Location of mobile tiny homes and requirements to establish the use in an R-40 zone. Specify indoor shooting ranges to be measured from property line to property line or from structure to structure. Removal of the fee waivers from the ordinance impact economic development incentives. More comprehensive solution to the common open space and amenity requirements. Parking standards for age-restricted developments. Parking standards for restaurants. g. h. Rational for establishing specific use standards for an indoor shooting range. Requirements for determining light trespass on adjacent properties. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. UDC 11-3G(B)1.e. – Commission removed the words in width. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Denise LaFever, Sally Reynolds, and Susan Karnes (joint email) – Delay approval of the text amendment until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0049, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 11, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0049, as presented during the hearing on June 11, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0049 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) EIDIAN?- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 E Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0061 Item Title: Public Hearing for Goff By Garland Goff, Located at 1725 W. Pine St 1. Request: To Modify the Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument No, 111072107, to remove the previous conceptual development plan and associated provisions from the agreement. Meeting Notes: r✓ I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Goff (H-2019-0061) by Garland Goff, L ocated at 1725 W. Pine St. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 6/6/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/6/2019 - 3:17 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 475 of 602 6/11/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/11/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-E Project Name: Goff Project No.: H-2019-0061 Active: � There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=247 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 6/11/2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0061 Goff LOCATION: 1725 W. Pine St. (NE ¼ of Section 11, T.3N., R.1W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a modification to the existing Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 111072107, to remove the previous conceptual development plan and associated provisions from the agreement. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Garland R. Goff – 2010 N. Mumbarto Ave., Boise, ID 83713 B. Owner: Virtual Keystrokes, LLC – 2010 N. Mumbarto Ave., Boise, ID 83713 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 5/24/2019 Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet 5/21/2019 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 476 of 602 Page 2 Posted on Next Door 5/21/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted 5/31/2019 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The previous development plan for this site was for an aquatics center (see Section VI.B). This plan fell through and the site was never redeveloped. The property owner now wishes to sell the property and the prospective buyer does not wish to redevelop the property in the same manner. One consideration is to possibly renovate the existing structure for an office; otherwise, the prospective buyer would like flexibility to explore other options for uses allowed in the C-N district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3. The existing Development Agreement (DA) prohibits the following uses on the site: drinking establishments, fuel sales facilities, drive-thru establishments, and vehicle washing facilities. Staff recommends the provision prohibiting these uses remain. Staff is amenable to the Applicant’s request with the following recommended changes to the existing DA provisions (see Section VI.A): 1) removal of the requirement for future development to comply with the previous conceptual development plan and inclusion of language referencing the Architectural Standards Manual now in effect for design review; 2) the requirement for submittal of a Design Review application with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application; 3) removal of language limiting access to the site to the existing location in favor of language that still limits access to one driveway via Pine Avenue but allows its relocation if necessary with redevelopment; and, 4) removal of the requirement for the existing septic system and domestic well to be removed from service as this has already been done and the property is hooked up to City water and sewer services. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA per the provisions in Section VI.A. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 477 of 602 Page 3 VI. EXHIBITS A. Development Agreement Provisions Note: The existing provisions are noted in normal text; Staff’s recommended additional/revised provisions are noted in underline/strike-out format; Staff’s comments are noted in italic text and are not to be included in the final document. 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. CONDITIONS COVERING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.3 and A.4 of the Staff Report and design standards currently in effect at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application the Architectural Standards Manual and UDC 11-3A-19. 2. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Department for the change in use and any new construction proposed on this site. 3. Direct aAccess to W. Pine is restricted to one (1) access driveway prohibited except for the existing access shown on the conceptual development plan approved with this application. Cross-access shall be provided to the property to the west (parcel #S1211417515) and the property to the east (parcel # S1211417415) at the southwest boundary of the site for future interconnectivity. A recorded copy of the cross-access agreement(s) shall be provided with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the change in use of this site. 4. 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, within 6 months after the date of annexation ordinance approval. 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. This has already been done; the property is hooked up to City services. 5. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8, within 6 months after the date of annexation ordinance approval. Contact Central District Health for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 478 of 602 Page 4 abandonment procedures and inspections. (208) 375-5211. This has already been done; the property is hooked up to City services. 6. All uses contained in UDC Table 11-2B-2 for the C-N District are allowed on this site EXCEPT for drinking establishments, fuel sales facilities, drive- thru establishments, and vehicle washing facilities, which are prohibited. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 479 of 602 Page 5 B. Existing Conceptual Development Plan & Elevations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 480 of 602 Page 6 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 481 of 602 EIDIAN�+- DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 F Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0034 Item Title: Public Hearing for Residential Self -Storage Facility By Engineering Solutions, LLP 1. Request: To Modify the Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument No. 111072107, to remove the previous conceptual development plan and associated provisions from the agreement. Meeting Notes: �✓ APPROVPII: N0- lL� I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.F. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Residential Self-Service Storage F acility (H-2019-0034) by Engineering S olutions L L P. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 6/7/2019 Minutes from Planning and Z oning Commission Hearing B ackup Material 6/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/7/2019 - 9:53 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 482 of 602 6/11/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/11/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-F Project Name: Residential Self -Storage Facility Project No.: H-2019-0034 Active: Signature City -State- I Wish To Address For Against Neutral Sign In Date/Time Name Zip Testify 1409 N. Main St. 6/11/2019 Graye Wolfe y X Meridian 5:54:01 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=248 1/1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: June 11, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0034 Residential Self-service Storage Facility Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to create a new residential self-service storage use that includes a definition; specific use standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Ten Mile Development, LLC 1409 N. Main Street, Suite #109 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Representative: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions, LLP 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite #100 Meridian, ID 83642 III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: April 19, 2019 (Commission); May 24, 2019 (City Council) B. PSA distributed: April 16, 2019 (Commission); May 20, 2019 (City Council) C. Next door posting: April 16, 2019 (Commission); May 21, 2019 (City Council) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 483 of 602 Page 2 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant has applied for a UDC Text Amendment to allow for a Residential Storage Facility within R-15 and R-40 zones with a conditional use permit. A definition of a residential storage facility has been provided along with provisions under the Specific Use Standards of the UDC. The current UDC provisions allow for self-service and outside storage facilities within the residential zones only as an accessory use to a principally permitted use. If it is proposed to be a stand-alone commercial storage facility it requires procurement of a CUP in the C-C and C-G zones but is a principally permitted use in the I-L zoning district. Therefore, any storage facility approved under the accessory use provision is restricted to providing storage service only for the residents associated with the primary residential use. The applicant believes this creates a problem for the storage facility management to screen and police their potential lessors. If someone vacates the residence or apartment within the principally permitted development but continues to lease a storage unit, this creates an issue. The other concern is that high vacancy rates at a facility cannot be remedied with allowing renters from outside the development. From a business perspective, this creates a situation that could be detrimental to the cash flow and success of an accessory storage facility. These were the primary concerns discussed with the recently approved project known as Elevate Storage which has necessitated the requested text amendment. The only avenue to remediate this situation under the current UDC is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property. The intent of the proposed code change is to create a third type of storage facility that is smaller and integrated into residential neighborhoods, setting standards for landscaping and architectural requirements that provide compatibility and a complementary use to existing or proposed neighborhoods. The proposed UDC Text Amendment provides a new residential storage facility category within Table 11-2A-2 providing for the use as conditional within the R-15 and R-40 zones. The application of the Ordinance Amendment would be appropriate within areas that are designated for residential uses in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan encourages a wide range of uses in close proximity to one another to reduce the number of trips on the arterials and to provide more sustainable development. The proposed UDC text amendment will alleviate some of the limitations of the Ordinance. To ensure compatibility and integration with adjacent residential uses, the residential storage areas should be totally surrounded by a solid masonry wall with architectural features to provide articulation and break up the expanse of wall. Great care should be taken to create an architectural focal point. Extensive landscaping should be provided around the exterior and along arterial frontage. The residential storage facilities will be beneficial to existing and future residents, providing for the storage of personal items, recreational vehicles and extra vehicles. Signage would meet the requirements outlined in the UDC for signage within a residential zone. Hours of operation would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which would minimize the impact on the adjoining residential development. Per the Comprehensive Plan, City staff is responsible for keeping the UDC current with local trends. Below are multiple policies to support the applicant’s request.  Implement design criteria to set quality standards City-wide (2.01.02B). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 484 of 602 Page 3  Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of this plan (7.01.01A).  Promote area beautification and community identity through building and site design, signs, and landscaping (2.01.04G).  Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate growth trends (3.01.01D).  Cluster new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement adjoining residential areas (3.06.02B). In general, staff is supportive of the proposed text changes. In the Exhibit Section below, Staff has inserted the applicant’s requested modifications and associated support documents. V. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, applicant and staff recommended modifications (red font) in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Commission: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 2, 2019. At the public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject UDC text amendment request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Becky McKay and Grey Wolfe b. In opposition: Denise LaFever c. Commenting: Denise LaFever d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood, Chris Johnson and Andrea Pogue 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Moving forward with a code change before the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Garages in multi-family developments being used for storage rather than vehicle parking. Ancillary storage to a residential use vs. a stand-alone commercial storage facility. Prioritizing rental storage units to rent to the residences of a multi-family complex prior to renting units to customers outside of an associated residential project. Hours of operation. Limiting the building heights. Noticing requirements for UDC Text Amendments. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Limiting auction hours for the storage facilities. Limiting the heights of the storage buildings to 35 feet and allowing a care-taker unit. Vetting the storage facility change with the UDC Focus Group. Limiting the number of storage units being rented to the public. Limiting the size of a residential storage facility. Parking ratios for multi-family developments. City process (administrative level or hearing level) for establishing storage facilities in the residential, commercial and industrial districts. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 485 of 602 Page 4 h. i. Security for the storage facility. Losing prime residential infill property to residential storage facilities. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. b. c. d. Commission imposed a maximum height limit of 35 feet. Commission restricted the on-site auctions to occur during daylight hours. Commission required on-site management or on-call management to regulate the facilities. Commission required the applicant submit a security plan with the application submittal. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 486 of 602 Page 5 VI. EXHIBITS A. Applicant’s Proposed UDC Text Amendment Changes 11-1A-1: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS: Add new term: STORAGE FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL: Any real property designed and used for renting or leasing individual storage spaces incidental to residential property or dwelling units, to which the occupants thereof have access for storing or removing personal property. 11-4-3-TBD: SELF-SERVICE STORAGE FACILITY, RESIDENTIAL A. The facility is encouraged to accompany or be a component of a single-family or multi-family residential development with a conditional use permit within an R-15 or R-40 zone. B. The size of the storage facility shall be less than 8 acres. C. The location of the facility may be located along an arterial roadway as a buffer to a residential development, but shall not take direct access from an arterial. Access to the facility shall be from a internal collector or local street only. D. The hours of operation shall be limited to six o’clock (6:00) a.m. to ten o’clock (10:00) p.m. E. The use shall be limited to individual storage compartments which shall be used for residential related personal property including vehicles. F. Storage units shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a residential storage facility is specifically prohibited. G. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’). The maximum height of the buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. H. The storage facility shall be fully enclosed and screened from public view. I. A minimum twenty-foot (20’) wide landscape buffer shall be provided along a collector or local road and a twenty-five-foot (25’) wide buffer adjacent to residential development or an arterial and thirty-five-foot (35’) adjoining an entryway corridor. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C and 11-3B-9C of this title. Table 11-2A-2 ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Storage facility, residential - - - C C Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 487 of 602 Page 6 J. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes approved by the Meridian Fire Department. K. No outside storage area shall be allowed. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. L. Buildings shall be designed Design the building facades to express complement the architectural character of the residential area. The building design shall comply with the Traditional Neighborhood District (TND) design standards set forth in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. M. Any parking lot associated with the leasing office shall comply with the standards in Section 11- 3C-5, “Parking Standards for All Other Uses Not Specified,” of this title. Signage for the facility shall comply with Section 11-3D-8BC, “Residential Signs in Residential Districts,” of this title. N. On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Title 3, Article EChapter 4, “Outdoor Sales and Temporary Uses Requirements.,” of this title. The hours of the on-site auctions shall be limited to daylight hours (sunrise and sunset) and specified on the temporary use permit application submitted to the Clerk’s office. O. On-site management or contact information for on-call management shall be provided for the storage facility. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-16, “Self- Service Uses,” of this title shall also apply. The application materials shall include a security plan for the proposed facility. P. No storage of fuel or hazardous materials shall be allowed. (Ord 13-1555, 5-14-2013) Q. The site shall not be used as a “vehicle wrecking or junk yard” as herein defined in Section 11- 1A-1. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 488 of 602 Page 7 VII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 489 of 602 EIDIANDAHOC CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 G Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0049 Item Title: Public Hearing for 2019 UCD Text Amendment By City of Meridian Planning Division 1. Request: A Text Amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi -family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections, by City of Meridian Planning Division Meeting Notes: L-IA�ucd -Io Sure zs zvi� I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.G. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for 2019 UD C Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by City of M eridian P lanning Division C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 6/7/2019 Revisions Table B ackup Material 6/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/7/2019 - 3:12 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 535 of 602 6/11/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/11/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-G Project Name: UDC Text Amendment Project No.: H-2019-0049 Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm Detai Is?id=249 1/1 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: June 11, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2019-0034 2019 UDC Text Amendment PROPERTY LOCATION: City wide I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a text amendment to update certain sections of the UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific use standards for educational institution, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite #102 Meridian, ID 83642 B. Representative/Contact: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor Phone: (208) 489-0571 bparsons@meridiancity.org III. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: April 19, 2019 (Commission); May 24, 2019 (City Council) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 536 of 602 Page 2 B. PSA distributed: April 16, 2019 (Commission); May 20, 2019 (City Council) C. Next door posting: April 16, 2019 (Commission); May 21, 2019 (City Council) IV. STAFF ANALYSIS In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5, the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code (UDC). For purposes of this application, both the Planning Division and the Code Enforcement Division have work closely to compile a host of changes and combine them into one application. The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections and the addition of new provisions that pertain to the following:  Chapter 1: Notification of violations and definitions;  Chapter 2: Residential dimensional standards and allowed use tables;  Chapter 3: Ditches, laterals, canals and drainage courses, outdoor lighting, outdoor storage, traveling sleeping quarters, landscape standards, parking standards, qualified open space and variance processing;  Chapter 4: Specific use standards for educational institutions, indoor shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant;  Chapter 5: Public hearing, fees, variances and alternative compliance;  And other miscellaneous sections to improve the administration of the code. All of the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are attached as separate exhibits. Commentary has been provided for each of the respective code changes and new additions that are proposed. Staff has highlighted the requested Code Enforcement changes in light gray to delineate their recommended changes. These recommendations are made in hopes of eliminating confusion for the public, addressing common issues, eliminating loopholes and making the existing codes enforceable. The changes being proposed by the Code Enforcement Division were not shared with the UDC Focus Group or the BCA as they do not directly impact development per se. These changes were vetted separately with City Council and fully endorsed. Staff has shared the proposed Planning’s Division changes with the UDC Focus Group and the BCA. Several members of the UDC Focus Group have expressed concerns with the open space changes (specifically removal of the street buffers from counting towards qualified open space) and believe they should be deferred until the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. At this time staff has not modified the document based on earlier conversations. Further, staff has not received any other recommendations to modify the current proposal. A separate memo prepared by staff was sent to the BCA addressing some of these concerns. The Commission should determine if it is in the City’s best interest to delay amending the open space standards until the Plan is adopted. In addition, the both NMID and SID shared their concerns with the City encouraging waterways to remain open and integrated with developments. Primary concerns were safety and maintenance. After discussing the issues with them, staff has modified UDC 11-3A-6 to include a requirement that the applicant execute a license agreement for the irrigation districts if a waterway is to remain open and public safety can be adequately addressed. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 537 of 602 Page 3 Overall most of the proposed changes are supported by our Community partners. In summary, staff believes the changes proposed with this application will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. V. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV, modifications in Section VI and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VII. Commission: The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on May 2, and 16, 2019. At the May 16th public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject UDC text amendment request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Will Patterson, Greg Curtis, Becky McKay, Jeanette Johnson, Jon Wardle, Jim Conger and Denise LaFever d. Written testimony: Jon Wardle, Becky McKay and Bryce Farris e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. g. Proposed text changes to UDC 11-3A-6; impact on delivery of water, public safety, fencing waterways and improvements requiring irrigation district and /drainage entity authority. Parking standards for age-restricted developments. Common driveways taking access from private streets. Removing street buffers from counting towards the required 10% percent common open space for development. Broader update to the common open space and amenity requirements. Useable open space and setbacks between homes. Removing state highway access form the variance process. Inviting stakeholders to participate in code changes and part of the UDC Focus Group. Allowing another decision-making body (Commission or Director) grant a waiver to reduce the 25-foot landscape buffer when commercial and/or industrial properties abut a residential use. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Location of mobile tiny homes and requirements to establish the use in an R-40 zone. Specify indoor shooting ranges to be measured from property line to property line or from structure to structure. Removal of the fee waivers from the ordinance impact economic development incentives. More comprehensive solution to the common open space and amenity requirements. Parking standards for age-restricted developments. Parking standards for restaurants. Rational for establishing specific use standards for an indoor shooting range. Requirements for determining light trespass on adjacent properties. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. UDC 11-3G(B)1.e. – Commission removed the words in width. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 538 of 602 Page 4 VI. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved in Section VI above. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s) when making this finding. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 539 of 602 05/13/2019 1 Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question/Revisions Potential Fix 11-1-11 Code enforcement Recggently a UDC violation case went to a court trial. The prosecutor, defense council and judge all pointed out the UDC does not specifically outline the methods of service when serving a UDC violator notice of a violation. The MCC does outline this process in 4-2-3 (C) 1, 2 and 3. B. Investigation: 1. The code enforcement officer shall investigate any structure or use which he or she reasonably believes does not comply with the stand ards and requirements of this title. 2. If, after investigation, it is determined that the standards or requirements of this title have been violated, a code enforcement officer shall serve a notice of violation upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation sha ll state separately each standard or requirement violated; shall state what corrective action, if any, is necessary to comply with the standards or requirements; and shall set a reasonable time for compliance. The notice shall state that any further violation may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 3. The notice shall be served upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition addressed to the last known a ddress of such person. If no address is known, then notice may be made by publication in the newspape r of record for the City of Meridian. The Code Enforcement Officer will record all efforts made to effect service in person or by mail as part of their investigative report . (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10- 2007). Methods of service shall be by any of the following: a. Personal service upon such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property; or b. Regular mail to such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property, at the address shown on the last ava ilable assessment roll, or as otherwise known; or c. Posting such notice and order at a conspicuous place on the property and publishing one notice in the official newspaper o f the City that the property has been posted in accordance with this chapter and ordering the owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property to remedy the violation by the given date. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of accessory use, residential. ACCESSORY USE, RESIDENTIAL: A use or activity on a residential property that is secondary to the principal use. 11-1A-1 Definition Separate the personal and professional definition. They are separate uses in the allowed use tables in Chapter 2. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty and healthcare services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultan ts; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies. The term does not include healthcare and social service. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: See definition of personal and professional services. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; compute graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; fitness trainers; and title companies general offices. The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of foot-candle. FOOT-CANDLE: A standard unit of measurement used to identify the intensity of light. A unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of one candela at a distance of one foot. This is the SAE/Imperial unit of measurement whereas Lux is the Metric unit of measurement. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of an indoor shooting range. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A controlled area of activity, specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not include arts, entertainment and recreation facilities. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of light trespass. LIGHT TRESPASS: Light emitting from one property that crosses the property line of another property in excess of 0.1 foot -candle as measured at a height of 60 inches above grade in a plane at any angle of inclination. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of lumen. LUMEN: A lighting industry standard unit of measurement used to measure the total quantity of visible light emitted by a source. 11-1A-1 Definition Modify definition of open space to include linear open space. OPEN SPACE: An area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The area may include, along with the natural environmental features, linear open spaces, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. This term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures for habitation. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of personal property. PERSONAL PROPERTY: Any property that is not real property. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 540 of 602 05/13/2019 2 11-1A-1 Recreational vehicle Add the term mobile tiny homes to the definition. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle or portable structure primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping, and travel use. The term shall include, but not be limited to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel trailer, truck camper, fold down camping trailer, park trailer, mobile tiny homes and travel trailer. 11-2A-3(B)(3) Minimum street frontages Ensure common driveways provide access to an abutting public street. Remove from table. 3. Properties taking access from a common driveways do not require street frontage, but said common driveway shall connect to an abutting public street. Table 11-2A-6 Dimensional standards of the R-8 District Developer requested that the UDC specifically call-out setbacks for side loaded garages in the R-8 district. R-8 Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 4,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback1 to garage (in feet): Local 20 Collector 25 Alley 5 Street setback1 to living area and/or side loaded garage (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 Alley 5 Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer2 (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40 Restaurant1 - - - - A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 541 of 602 05/13/2019 3 Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the commercial districts. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Hotel and motel1 P/C P/C P/C - C P Indoor Shooting Range1 - - - - C - Industry, information1 P P P C P P Table 11-2B-2 Allowed uses in the commercial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards; specifically different parking standards. Use C-N C-C C-G L-O M-E H-E Restaurant1 P P P C A A Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Adding indoor shooting range to allowed use table in the industrial districts. Use I-L I-H Fuel sales facility, truck stop1 C C Indoor Shooting Range1 P C Industry, heavy1 - P/C Table 11-2C-2 Allowed uses in the industrial districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use I-L I-H Restaurant1 A A Table 11-2D-2 Allowed uses in the traditional neighborhood districts Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific use standards. Use O-T TN-C TN-R Restaurant1 P P - 11-2B-3(A)(4) Standards Clean-up item. Re-numbering this standard as it does not pertain to a dimensional standard. 4B. Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L-O and C-N Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G Districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C-G Districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 542 of 602 05/13/2019 4 11-3A-6 Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Amend this section of code to reference the definition of a water amenity in chapter 1 and grant the decision-making body on the application the authority to waive the tiling of irrigation facilities. Add new language as testified at the public hearing. Some text was added based on feedback from NMID. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, the following standards shall apply. B. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection C1 of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space, as defined in UDC 11-1A-1, and any necessary approvals which may be required from an irrigation or drainage entity are obtained . See also subsection C2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The city councildecision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved and any necessary approvals which may be required from an irrigation or drainage entity are obtained a license agreement is executed with the Irrigation District . b. The city council may also waive this requirement for large capacity facilities. C. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to bo th the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11-gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain. D. Easements: In residential districts, irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. Improvements related to piping, fencing or any encroachment as outlined in sections A, B, and C of this section requires written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity. E. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or d rainage district, piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream properties. Easements: In residential districts, irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. F. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district, piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream properties. G. Natural Drainage Courses: All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of maintenance of the channel. Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant's property and which serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 543 of 602 05/13/2019 5 11-3A-11 Outdoor lighting The current code does not adequately address light trespass. We are seeing advancements in lighting technology. These advancements are making lighting retrofits cost effective and common. With the retrofits come brighter lights. Code Enforcement is seeing an increase in light trespass complaints. Through a recent investigation, City Attorney staff and Code Enforcement learned light trespass is not enforceable with the language in our current code. The code allows for an exemption of all light fixtures below 1,800 lumens (equal to an average 120 watt incandescent bulb). One of these fixtures may not be a problem but the current wording of the code allows for an indefinite number of these unregulated fixtures to be installed in a single lighting project. The exemption allows said light fixtures to be configured in any way regardless how they impact an abutting property. A Lumen is a unit of measure routinely used by light fixture manufacturers and only practically measured in a laboratory environment. Lumen ratings are practical when used in the code for planning and development purposes but lumen measurements cannot be practically obtained in the field. This creates a huge obstacle for Code Enforcement when investigating light trespass complaints. The standard unit of measure for field-work in the United States is the foot-candle. Foot-candle measurements are easily obtainable from readily available instrumentation. The foot-candle must be referenced in the code to make light trespass enforceable. Lumens in the code should only be used when referencing fixture specifications as it applies to planning. Foot-candles should be used in the code to govern light trespass once the fixture is installed. Currently, when a permitted fixture is installed in a way that causes light trespass Code Enforcement cannot take any action. Holiday lighting is currently allowed for 40 days and is exempt from regulation. Which 40 days are not identified and such would require a daily inspection and documentation to prove/enforce. The exemption allows holiday lighting to be the source of light trespass and limit the enjoyment of abutting properties. We have seen exceptionally bright and flashing lights that illuminate a majority of an abutting property. The change would eliminate the 40 day period and have holiday lighting comply with light trespass standards. A. The following types of lighting are exempt from the regulations of this section: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of less than one thousand eight hundred (1800) lumens unless said fixture is the source of light trespass in violation of subsection C (3) of this chapter or is configured in a manner that impairs the vision of drivers and /or pedestrians in violation of subsection B (6) of this chapter. (Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 2. All outdoor lighting produced by the direct combustion of natural gas or other fossil fuels such as kerosene lanterns or g as lamps. 3. Temporary hHoliday lighting used for forty (40) days or less per year that is not in violation of this section. 4. Vehicular lights and all temporary emergency lighting needed for fire protection, police protection, and/or other emergenc y services. 5. All hazard warning lights required by federal or state regulatory agencies. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 6. Lighting when used to light a governmental flag in accordance with 4 USC 6(a); and provided, that the fixture used does no t create light trespass in violation of this section. 7. Street lights and historical lights installed and configured to the appropriate specification for the application as determined by the Community Development Director or his/her appointee. B. The installation, use, or display of any of the following types of lighting and/or illumination shall be prohibited: 1. Mercury vapor lamp fixture and/or lamp. 2. Laser source light or any similar high intensity light. 3. Lighting that changes colors, revolves, or moves, including searchlights shall be prohibited in all districts, except wher e approved for temporary uses under a valid, current city of Meridian temporary use permit. 4. Lighting, including strings of lights, on commercial or private tower structures that exceed the district height limit, ex cept as required by regulations of the federal aviation administration (FAA). 5. Strobing, revolving, or flashing lights. 6. Light or illumination with such brilliance or so positioned as to blind or dazzle impair the vision of drivers and/or pedestrians. 7. Low pressure sodium lighting. (Ord. 09-1436, 12-15-2009, eff. 1-1-2010) C. Standards: 1. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall have an opaque top to prevent uplighting; the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield. See figure 1 of this section. 2. Light fixtures with a maximum output of one thousand eight hundred (1,800) lumens or more shall be placed such that the ef fective zone of light (as documented by the photometric test report) shall not trespass on abutting residential properties. See figure 2 of this section. (Ord. 11- 1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) 3. Floodlight fixtures shall be located in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on abut ting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go off within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five de grees (45°) down from vertical. All light emitting from any parcel shall not cause the light level along any property line abutting a residential use to exce ed 0.1 foot-candle. Light readings shall be measured at a height of 60 inches above grade and in a plane at any angle of inclination. Any light exceeding 0.1 foot- candle, when documented in the above manner, and extending onto an abutting residential use constitutes light trespass. 4. Floodlight fixtures shall be located positioned in such a manner as to prevent direct glare into a street and to minimize impact on prevent light trespass on abutting properties. a. Floodlight fixtures shall be set to go on only when triggered by activity on the property (sensor activated) and to go of f within five (5) minutes after activation has ceased. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 544 of 602 05/13/2019 6 b. Floodlight fixtures shall be installed so that they do not tilt up more than forty five degrees (45°) down from vertical. 5. Uplighting shall only be allowed in cases where the fixture and any light it emits are shielded from the sky by a roof overhang or similar structural shield. 56. In residential districts, the height of a freestanding light fixture on private property shall not exceed six feet (6'). St reetlamps are exempt from this height restriction. 67. Light fixtures mounted on a wall may extend to the full height of the structure, but no farther. 78. Electrical feeds to outdoor light fixtures shall be underground, not overhead. 89. If an owner or applicant desires to obtain an alternative compliance from the provisions of this section, the procedure shall be in accord with chapter 5, "Administration", of this title. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005; amd. Ord. 11-1482, 4-26-2011, eff. 5-2-2011) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 545 of 602 05/13/2019 7 11-3A-11 Figure 1 Replace existing figure with new one Figure 1 EXAMPLES OF FULL CUTOFF SHIELDS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 546 of 602 05/13/2019 8 Figure 2 Replace existing figure with new one FIGURE 2 LIGHT TRESPASS OLD/REPLACE WITH NEW FIGURE BELOW NEW FIGURE Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 547 of 602 05/13/2019 9 11-3A-14(A) and (C) Outdoor storage as an accessory use An outdoor storage investigation recently went to a jury trial. During the trial it was made apparent that our current outdoor storage language does not include “personal property.” This became an issue when defense counsel asked the investigating officer to explain how the items referenced fit the current language in the code. The current language easily applies to commercial properties but not residential properties. 11-3A-14: OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE: Accessory outdoor storage shall be allowed for an approved use subject to the following standards: A. All outdoor storage of material, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be conducted in an orderly manner. It shall be unlawful to conduct outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies in a manner that: 1. Creates a public nuisance, visual blight, or acoustic impacts by reason of condition, duration, and/or volume. 2. Blocks, impedes or overlaps any sidewalk and/or vehicular traffic. 3. Causes the site to be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. B. For properties in commercial and/or traditional districts, outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are full y contained and screened from view of adjacent properties, the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height o f six feet (6'). Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary str ucture. C. For properties in residential districts, all materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies, shall only be stored in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. No outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be allowed in the required street yard, except as follows: On corner properties, such materials may be stored in the street side yard where such area is screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height; see section 11-3A-7 of this article for fencing regulations in street side yards. 11-3A-14(D)(2) Outdoor storage as an accessory use Clean-up to provide clarification to this section of code. 2. For properties that adjoin the railway corridor, in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor st orage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be screened from the interior edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (100') from the edge of right of way parallel to the railway corridor. 11-3A-20 Travelling sleeping quarters The current title and the definition are inconsistent. The title reads in part “…Sleeping Quarters” and the definition reads in part “…living quarters.” The tiny house movement is growing in popularity and we are seeing them in Meridian. Mobile tiny houses are not currently defined in our code. As their popularity increases, we are fielding more inquiries about Meridian’s stance on them. 11-3A-20: TRAVELLING SLEEPINGLIVING QUARTERS: No motor vehicle or trailer including, but not limited to, travel trailers, fifth wheels, recreational vehicles, mobile tiny houses and/or motor coaches, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters except within an approved recreational vehicle park. No recreational equipment, including, but not limited to, tents, tepees, yurts, and/or huts, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters. 11-3B-5(A)(1) Standards and installation Update this section of code to reflect the newly adopted tree publication guide for the Treasure Valley. A. Approved Tree Species: 1. The publication titled "Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide For Streets And Landscapes Throughout Idaho" by the urban forestry unit of the Boise parks and recreation department (latest edition) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species. The publication categorizes the trees by size as class I, class II, or class III trees. 11-3B-9(C)(2) Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Add flexibility to this section code so applicants don’t have to submit City Council Review application to reduce the landscape buffers when commercial and industrial uses abut a residential use. Example of this is when a conditional use permit is before Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission doesn’t have the authority to waive the buffer except through the City Council Review process. 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise modified by the decision making body set forth in UDC Table 11-5A-2 city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum buffer size. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the pr operty line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 548 of 602 05/13/2019 10 11-3C-4(A)(2) Parking standards for single- family detached, townhomes, secondary, duplex and single- family attached dwellings The amendment would cause the UDC to read more in line with the similar ISC 49-456. The UDC as it currently reads allows a vehicle to display any currently registered license plate even if the license plate is registered to another vehicle. Code Enforcement Officers have experienced this occurring when trying to get property owners to come into compliance. The front license plate of currently registered vehicle is often placed on the public view portion the unregistered vehicle. 2. Types Of Vehicles; Location Of Parking: Only automobiles and motorcycles displaying license plates and assigned to the vehicle with current registration may be parked in the required street yard. All other vehicles, including, but not limited to, vehicles without c urrent registration, vehicles without license plates, recreational vehicles, personal recreational items, boats, trailers and/or other vehicles shall only be parked in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 549 of 602 05/13/2019 11 Table 11-3C-6 Required parking spaces for residential use Modify parking standards to make it clear what parking standards apply to nursing care facilities and age restricted housing. Request of the UDC Focus Group members, they requested that 1 and 2 bedroom units have the same parking requirements. Use And Form Number Of Bedrooms (Per Unit) Required Parking Spaces1 Age restricted elderly housing (attached or detached) 1 0.5 per bed 2+ 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, duplex and dwelling, single-family (detached, attached, townhouse) 1/2 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 2/3/4 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 5+ 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad2 Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, fourplex, apartments, etc.) 1 1.5 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ 3 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered carport or garage Dwelling, secondary 1 As set forth above for single-family dwellings as determined by the total number of bedrooms on the property Nursing and Residential Care Facility 1 0.5 per bed Vertically integrated residential4 1 1 per dwelling unit 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 550 of 602 05/13/2019 12 11-3D-8(A)(14)(f) Sign requirements Include a new figure to the sign ordinance since there is a new interchange in the Ten Mile area. f. Properties within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way and propert ies adjoining the Interstate 84 interchanges, as depicted on figures 1, and/or 2 and/or 3 of this section are subject to the following standards: (1) Such freestanding signs shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, signs which may be permitted by the district provisi ons set forth in subsections B through H of this section. (2) Freestanding signs within six hundred sixty feet (660') of the Interstate 84 freeway right of way are prohibited in residential districts. (3) The maximum background area of any sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. (4) The maximum height of any sign shall not exceed forty feet (40'). (5) Properties exceeding seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage may be allowed an additional height allowance and background area allowance. Such sign shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height nor shall such sign exceed three hundred (30 0) square feet of background area. Only one such sign shall be allowed per seven hundred fifty feet (750') of linear freeway frontage. 11-3D-8 Figure 1 Replace and add new Interchange figures. Figure 1 I-84/Meridian Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 551 of 602 05/13/2019 13 Figure 2 Figure 2 I-84/Eagle Road Interchange (Replace existing Exhibit) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 552 of 602 05/13/2019 14 Figure 3 Figure 3 I-84/Ten Mile Interchange (New exhibit) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 553 of 602 05/13/2019 15 11-3G-3(B) Qualified open space Modify the open space standards to ensure the City is getting consolidated usable open space with residential developments. Once the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted, this section of code will be reviewed in its entirety. B. Qualified Open Space: The following may qualify to meet the common open space requirements: 1. Active Or Passive In Intended Use: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the development, including, but not limited to: a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area; b. Community garden; c. Ponds or water features; or d. Plaza.; or e. Linear open space area that is at least 20 feet and up to 50 feet in width, has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in subsection 11-3G-3E of this chapter. 2. Additions To Public Park: Additions to a public park or other public open space area. 3. Landscape Buffer as Open Space Full Area of Buffer: The full area of the landscape buffer along collector and arterial streets may count toward the required common open space if developed with a 10-foot wide segment of the City’s pathway system, and where the pathway provides a direct route to an adjacent passive or active open space noted in B1 and B2 above. 4. Percentage Of Buffer: Fifty percent (50%) of the landscape buffer along arterial streets may count toward the required common open space. 5. Parkways Along Collector And Local Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the common open space requirement: a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11-3A-17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be exclu ded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the parkway. 6. Parkways Along Arterials: Parkways along arterial streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward the co mmon open space requirement: a. The parkway is a minimum of ten feet (10') in width measured between edge of sidewalk and back of curb. Where ACHD is anticipating future widening of the street, the width of the buffer shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as anticipated by AC HD; and (1) The parkway is planted with street trees and other materials in accord with subsection 11-3B-7C, "Standards", of this chapter; or (2) The parkway contains planter beds which meet the following requirements: A) Lawn areas account for no more than fifty percent (50%) of parkway. (B) Massed shrubs which at maturity provide vertical relief between minimum of one foot (1') and maximum of three feet (3') in he ight, cover at least twenty five percent (25%) of parkway area during growing season. Shrubs must be planted as a continuous edge or in a distinct repeating pattern to create vertical visual break between roadway and pedestrian areas (C) Planter beds must meet mulching and vegetation coverage requirements listed under subsections 11-3B-5H and N of this chapter. 67. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-3B-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count towards the qualified open space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 78. Open Water Ponds: Aesthetically designed open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11-3G-3C. All ponds with a permanent water level shall meet the following standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water. b. The pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 554 of 602 05/13/2019 16 11-3H-3 Variance process Legal has determined that variance may not be required for Council to approve an access to State highways per State Statue. This modification to the UDC is being requested by the City Attorney’s office. Added this language based on feedback from the public hearing. 11-3H-3: PROCESS: Staff shall review all development applications for compliance with these standards. The City Council decision making body may consider and approve apply modifications to the standards of this article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. 11-4-3-14 Education Institution Add specific criteria for parking. I. In all commercial and residential districts, education institutions shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-27(B)(1) Site Design Recently, there have been some conflicts between the setbacks in the UDC and the building code. This change is needed to make it clear that the IBC has different ways of governing building separation on a property. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. 11-4 Indoor Shooting Range The City has approved one such facility in the Gramercy development. This has caused issues for code enforcement and other sections of city code. This use is currently defined as an indoor rec facility. Added this language based on feedback from the public hearing. 11-4-3-47: INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A. No indoor shooting range shall be allowed within three hundred feet (300’), measured from property line to property line, of a residential use or district, daycare center, education institution, hospital, library or nursing or residential care facility. B. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, retail, equipment rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. The application shall include a sound study prepared by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the impact of noise on adjoining uses. Any adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks, buffers, sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11-4 Restaurant Add specific uses standards for a restaurant, specifically to address parking. 11-4-3-48: RESTAURANT A. Parking: 1. At a minimum, one parking space shall be provided for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title. 11-5A-6(G)(5) Public hearing Extend the time period when the Commission has to forward its recommendation to Council. Need to make more consistent with this section of code. 5. The decision making body (see section 11-5A-2, table 11-5A-2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all information to make a decision or seventy (70) days from the last meeting where the application is considered if additional information is not needed . For applications where the commission is acting as a recommending body, the commission shall forward its recomme ndation to the council within seventy forty five (4570) days. 11-5A-8(B) Fees Remove the request for fee waiver from code. 11-5A-8: FEES: In the application of fees for the review of permit applications, the following rules shall apply: A. Basis For Calculation: For any requested public hearing involving more than one classification of a petition or application, the filing fee shall be calculated on the basis of the cumulative fee for the individual application(s). B. Waiver Of Fee: Notwithstanding any of the preceding fee schedules, the city council shall have the authority to waive in whole or in part any application fee when such a fee would present a hardship. An applicant for a hardship waiver must present the request in writ ing to the city council, outlining the degree of such hardship. C. Fees Not Refundable: Fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition o r application is withdrawn at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of its scheduled public hearing, and then only after order by the city council. 11-5B-4(B) Variances Remove the access to state highways section from the applicability section based on recommendation from Legal. State statutes do not specify access to state highways as part of a variance process; may be in violation. A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for modification from the bulk and placement requi rements of this title. B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with respect to lot size, width, and depth; front, side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions of this title affecting the size and shape of a structure or the placement upon properties; and the placement and/or number of access points to state highways. If a means of alternative compliance is available, it should be exhausted before applying for a variance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 555 of 602 05/13/2019 17 Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Clean-up item to include noise abatement standards in UDC 11-3H- 4(D) are eligible for alternative compliance. B. Applicability: 1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05 -1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) TABLE 11-5B-5 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE Permit Section Common driveway 11-6C-3 Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G Fence requirements 11-3A-7 Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3 Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3 Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5 Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E Landscape requirements 11-3B Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8 Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3 Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11 Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3 Noise abatement standards 11-3H-4D Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5 Parking requirements 11-3C-6 Private street standards 11-3F-4 Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5 Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 556 of 602 From: Denise LaFever <dlafever3@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 3:42 PM To: Denise LaFever Subject: FW: UDC revisions and Impact Fees From: Susan Karnes <susankarnes@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 1:50 PM To: Mayor Tammy de Weerd <tdeweerd@meridiancity.org>; Joe Borton <jborton@meridiancity.org>; Treg Bernt <tbernt@meridiancity.org>; alittleroberts@meridiancity.org; Genesis Milam <gmilam@meridiancity.org>; Luke Cavener <Icavener@meridiancity.org>; typalmer@meridiancity.org j}J' Cc: TheSneakyPug <sneakypug@gmail.com>; Denise LaFe "d-Ia#ever-3@gmaiI.cor-n- Subject: UDC revisions and Impact F ' s Good afternoon, \1 ()5 tt As Meridian)attenXision ent memb omprehensive an s ring commit ee, we ha privileged to Survey events, to discuss resi nt input, and to hear suggestions from a wide array of busines s and government entities ab t the vision for Meridian. We value our primary task to consider, incorpo te, and ultimately help ecide how stakeholders' feedback will drive te�new ti Comprehensive Plan and sha our commun' s next 10 to 20 years. new take our responsibility tor resent residents very seriously. Therefore, feel compelled to spe under current consi� ion by the City Council: the UDC Revisions terests as defined by the MyMeridian Vision S rvey ak' a united voice about two important items �-0 proposed UDC revisions and impact fees. vo—� c.-' Vision Survey results have been very clear: Sft4ee#►&We3-rdesire a Meridian where open space is valued, set aside and amplified. They want tranquil settings and generous recreational trails and amenities. They oppose "cookie cutter" neighborhoods and "Anywhere USA" commercial developments with inti dentities They crave view sheds, honoring our community's agricultural heritage and preserving asense of our proud history. ory '61 S Open S ce + V(A _ G The proposed UDC revisions do not increase open space; in fact, they suggest a trendd Pet oratte7x�� a� oh, of the most hi hly prized elements among Vision Survey results. Wtzdo NAT support -i J --C6 t��C �— p�tfi s quaMfi -open space; such pathway s do NOT tranqui ree tional_ ts, n_or d a ghbor- they-si y � Ii es's ---r-y buff --a --convenient mess I s. W enco age Co ncil, in spon a to the City's own r ident survey, to amp i y our e spaces nd rds. As r rese tatives o ents, we cannot support any deterioration th LI or QUANTI our open space. We also strongly encourage Council to more clearly and strictly define what qualifies as usable space. w Setbacks Thel,proposed UDC r��isFc�aa�pr�. might backs-.- lie oan su ort ti�s6appropriate high den ity distric stron be e ity's-re-si ent-s-a+�daying— astakeh r-c-'ide di nsional standards. We further believe the UDC needs slope, grading and drainage ordi a ces before we aggravate issues we know to exist. Vis, on end DA endments We believe that our residents want to be heard --especially during this period of developing a new Comp Plan. Therefore, we oppose all substantive changes to land use being approved by the Director, and they ssee of variances, DA amendments and alternative compliance to change land use that might impact � r poperty rights. We ask that these actions be subject to public hearings for two reasons: A) The public deserves a voice in significant changes; and B) Substantive changes should be decided by our elected officials, the City Council. Action Requested We believe several of the proposed UDC revisions are inconsistent with our stakeholder survey results and the vision, intent and spirit of the new Comp Plan. We therefore respectfully request that Council postpone any and all UDC changes that should be driven by our new Comprehensive Plan. Impact Fees We believe there are several troubli Trends cts related to the proposed impact fees: Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Problem/Question/Revisions Potential Fix 11-1-11 Code enforcement Recggently a UDC violation case went to a court trial. The B. Investigation: prosecutor, defense council and judge all pointed out the 1. The code enforcement officer shall investigate any structure or use which he or she reasonably believes does not comply with the standards UDC does not specifically outline the methods of service and requirements of this title. when serving a UDC violator notice of a violation. The MCC does outline this process in 4-2-3 (C) 1, 2 and 3. 2. If, after investigation, it is determined that the standards or requirements of this title have been violated, a code enforcement officer shall serve a notice of violation upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The notice of violation shall state separately each standard or requirement violated; shall state what corrective action, if any, is necessary to comply with the standards or requirements; and shall set a reasonable time for compliance. The notice shall state that any further violation may result in criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 3. peF50H. if Re addFess is known, then notice may be made by publieation in the newspapeF Of FeeeFd fOF the Gity of Meridian. The Code Enforcement Officer will record all efforts made to effect service in person or by mail as part of their investigative report. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10- 2007). Methods of service shall be by any of the following: a Personal service upon such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property; or 1 b Regular mail to such owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property, at the address shown on the last available assessment roll or as otherwise known; or c Posting such notice and order at a conspicuous place on the property and publishing one notice in the official newspaper of the City that the property has been posted in accordance with this chapter and ordering the owner, occupier, or person in charge or control of the property to remedy the violation by the given date. \ 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of accessory use, residential. ACCESSORY USE RESIDENTIAL: A use or activity on a residential property that is secondary to the principal use. 11-1A-1 Definition Separate the personal and professional definition. They are PERSONAL AND PROFESSIGNA SERVICES: The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. separate uses in the allowed use tables in Chapter 2. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to, beauty services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; (?l. AV fitness training and instruction; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. PFafessienal but PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: . Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects landscape architects and other design services; ce�graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; F es; and title�^^^afl�es general offices The term does not include healthcare and social service. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of foot-candle. FOOT-CANDLE: A standard unit of measurement used to identify the intensity of light A unit of illumination equal to that given by a source of one candela at a distance of one foot This is the SAE/Imperial unit of measurement whereas Lux is the Metric unit of measurement. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of an indoor shooting range. INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: A controlled area of activity specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. The term does not include arts entertainment and recreation facilities. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of light trespass. LIGHT TRESPASS: Light emitting from one property that crosses the property line of another property in excess of 0.1 foot-candle as measured at a height of 60 inches above grade in a plane at any angle of inclination. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of lumen. LUMEN A lighting industry standard unit of measurement used to measure the total quantity of visible light emitted bV a source. 11-1A-1 Definition Modify definition of open space to include linear open OPEN SPACE: An area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The area may include, along with e space. natural environmental features, linear open spaces, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community enters yLO� or other recreational facilities. This term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures for habitation. 11-1A-1 Definition Add new definition of personal property. PERSONAL PROPERTY: AnV property that is not real property. ep tT 05/13/2019 u Yn 72 -- 11 -1A -1 v 11 -1A-1 Recreational vehicle Add the term mobile tiny homes to the definition. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle or portable structure primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreational, camping, and travel use. The term shall include, but not be limited to, motor home, travel trailer, fifth wheel trailer, truck camper, fold down camping trailer, park trailer, mobile tiny homes and travel trailer. 11 -2A -3(B)(3) Minimum street frontages Ensure common driveways provide access to an abutting _ public street. Remove from table. ^^",� Table 11-2A-6 Dimensional standards Developer requested that the UDC specifically call -out of the R-8 District setbacks for side loaded garages in the R-8 district. R-8 Standard Requirement Minimum property size/dwelling unit (in square feet) 14,000 Minimum street frontage (in feet): 40 With alley loaded garage, side entry garage, or private mew lots 32 Street setback' to garage (in feet): - --- --- Local 20 Collector 25 i Alley - - - I ✓ Street setback' to living area and/or side loaded sarase (in feet): Local 10 Collector 25 r_ Alley 5 I Interior side setback (in feet) 5 Rear setback (in feet) 12 Street landscape buffer (in feet): Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Maximum building height in feet) [5 Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the residential Updating table to reflect that restaurant uses have specific districts use standards. Use R-2 R-4 R-8 . R-15 ' R-40 I I I i I Restaurant'- - F—F - J A 05/13/2019 2 aovLs Jeahl-O I 11-3A-6 Ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses Amend this section of code to reference the definition of a water amenity in chapter 1 and grant the decision-making body on the application the authority to waive the tiling of A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural waterways, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed, irrigation facilities. the following standards shall apply. Add new language as testified at the public hearing. Some text was added based on feedback from NMID. B. Piping: 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection C1 of this section. 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1,and any neeessaFy appFevals whieh may be Fequired fFOFR aR iFrigatian eF dFainage entity are obtained. See also subsection C2 of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual ge facility is located on an adjoining property. :a.rT' ei;-eea�ifdecision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, if it finds that the lic purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved Ar drainage entity aFe ebtaiAed a IiEeRse affeement is executed with the irrigation Dist C. Fencing: 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the city council, director and/or public works director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho shall be submitted to both the director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet (6') in height and having an 11 -gauge, two inch (2") mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain. D. Easement,;- In FPSidential d-istFiets, irr gatien easements V"id-P-l' thRR ten feet (Io') shall hp Rel, -Lipd in a cemF:nen let that s a miRimurn of twenty feet (20') wide and eutside of fP_RePd aFea, unless medified by C ty EOIAnEil at a public heaFiRg ith notire te 5uFrey n.ding PFE)peFty EmRers. Improvements -a related to piping fencing or any encroachment as outlined in sections A B and C of this section requires written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity. E. peeperties. Easements In residential districts irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by city council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. F. NatWal PF@ nage GeHFse5� Al! natuFal d4Rage eeuFses shall be left Hn&WFIaed OF be iwpreved in a manneF that Will irnffeve the hydFayl;Es and ease d4nage Eourse" -;hR" Rt# he dpeFned te apply tG FniRGF swales and deffe55iens that aFe leEated entirely an the applicaRt's prepeFty and WNE11 seFve a Impeding Movement Of Water Prohibited: For any irrigation or drainage ditch not within the jurisdiction of an irrigation or drainage district piping shall not impede the movement of the amount of water crossing the property prior to development or the amount of water delivered to downstream properties. G Natural Drainage Courses All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of maintenance of the channel Relocation of natural swales is acceptable if the hydraulics and ease of maintenance are provided for. The term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on theapplicant's property and which serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent. 05/13/2019 11 -3A -14(A) and (C) Outdoor storage as an An outdoor storage investigation recently went to a jury 11-3A-14: OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN ACCESSORY USE: accessory use trial. During the trial it was made apparent that our current outdoor storage language does not include "personal Accessory outdoor storage shall be allowed for an approved use subject to the following standards: property." This became an issue when defense counsel A. All outdoor storage of material, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be conducted in an orderly manner. It shall be asked the investigating officer to explain how the items unlawful to conduct outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies in a manner that: referenced fit the current language in the code. The Curren language easily applies to commercial properties but not 1. Creates a public nuisance, visual blight, or acoustic impacts by reason of condition duration and/or volume. residential properties. 2. Blocks, impedes or overlaps any sidewalk and/or vehicular traffic. 3. Causes the site to be used as a "vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. B. For properties in commercial and/or traditional districts, outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are fully contained and screened from view of adjacent properties, the railway corridor, and public streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height of six feet (6'). Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure. C. For properties in residential districts, all materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies, shall only be stored in the rear or side yard and shall be screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height. No outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, personal property and/or supplies shall be allowed in the required street yard, except as follows: On corner properties, such materials may be stored in the street side yard where such area is screened by a solid fence, six feet (6') in height; see section 11-3A-7 of this article for fencing regulations in street side yards. 11 -3A -14(D)(2) Outdoor storage as an Clean-up to provide clarification to this section of code. 2. For properties that adjoin the railway corridor, in addition to the standards of subsection D1 of this section, outdoor storage of materials, accessory use equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be screened from the interior edge of the required street buffer a distance of one hundred feet (100') fFeffl the edge 9f Fight ef way parallel to the railway corridor. 11-3A-20 Travelling sleeping quarters The current title and the definition are inconsistent. The 11-3A-20: TRAVEL6ING S' `��°, INGLIVING QUARTERS: No motor vehicle or trailer including, but not limited to, travel trailers, fifth wheels, title reads in part "...Sleeping Quarters" and the definition recreational vehicles, mobile tiny houses and/or motor coaches, shall be used as a residence or as living quarters except within an approved reads in part "...living quarters." recreational vehicle park. No recreational equipment, including, but not limited to, tents, tepees, yurts, and/or huts, shall be used as a resident e" 4_0 or as living quarters. A The tiny house movement is growing in popularity and we ►�) are seeing them in Meridian. Mobile tiny houses are not currently defined in our code. As their popularity increases, we are fielding more inquiries about Meridian's stance on them. 11 -3B -5(A)(1) Standards and installation Update this section of code to reflect the newly adopted A. Approved Tree Species: tree publication guide for the Treasure Valley." 1. The publication titled Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide Q a Feffeatien depaFt. eRt (late ) is hereby adopted by this reference as the city of Meridian's list of approved and prohibited tree species. The publication categorizes the trees by size as class I, class II, or class III trees. 11 -3B -9(C)(2) Landscape buffers to adjoining Add flexibility to this section code so applicants don't have 2. Minimum Buffer Size: The width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located, unless such width is otherwise uses to submit City Council Review application to reduce the modified by the decision making body set forth in UDC Table 11 -SA -2 eity council at a public heaFiRg with notice te SUFFOunding pFopeFty landscape buffers when commercial and industrial uses ewRers. The tables of dimensional standards for each district in accord with chapter 2. "District Regulations", of this title establish the minimum y abut a residential use. Example of this is when a conditional buffer size. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum use permit is before Planning and Zoning Commission and of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. the Commission doesn't have the authority to waive the�QG%� buffer except through the City Council Review process. 05/13/2019 9 4j/ Table 11-3C-6 Required parking spaces for Modify parking standards to make it clear what parking residential use standards apply to nursing care facilities and age restricted housing. Request of the UDC Focus Group members, they requested that 1 and 2 bedroom units have the same parking requirements. 05/13/2019 Of Number Bedrooms (Per Required Parking Space Use And Form Unit) d o Fninknum j() feet by 20 feet parking a Dwelling, duplex and dwelling, 1/2 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in an enclosed single-family (detached, garage, other space may be enclosed or a attached, townhouse) minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad' X3/4 wl 45 !'���C 5+ 4 per dwelling unit; at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad' 6 per dwelling unit; at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10 foot by 20 foot parking pad' Dwelling, multi-family3 (triplex, 1 [L.5per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered fourplex, apartments, etc.) arport or garage 2/3 2 per dwelling unit; at least 1 in a covered carport or garage 4+ per dwelling unit; at least 2 in a covered [carport or garage Dwelling, secondary 1 set forth above for single-family dwellings determined by the total number of ras drooms on the property Nursing and Residential Care 1 __.__5__p er bed Facilit Vertically integrated 1 �1 per dwelling unit residential4 - r_ -_ — 2/3 1 per dwelling unit 4+ 1 per dwelling unit 11 11 -3G -3(B) 05/13/2019 Qualified open space TI -5-Z-5 ( S Modify the open space standards to ensure the City is B. Qualified Open Space: The following may qualify to meet the common open space requirements: getting consolidated usable open space with residential 1. Active Or Passive In Intended Use: Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use, and accessible by all residents of the developments. development, including, but not limited to: Once the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted, this section a. Open grassy area of at least fifty feet by one hundred feet (50' x 100') in area; of code will be reviewed in its entirety. b. Community garden; c. Ponds or water features; of d. Pla ;_ e Linear open space area that is at least 20 feet and up to 50 feet in width, has an access at each end and is improved and I forth in subsection 11 -3G -3E of this chapter. ons To Public Park: Ad Jitions to a public park or other public open space area. 3. Landscape Buffer as aee Open SpFull Area of Buffer: The full area of the landscape buffer along collector ;Ind a�aal streets may count Open Nu. " the required common open space i#-deve{eiged a+v+l "' ` A k ef�e Eit�� gathvrra'r s's�terfland wheFe the — 55. Parkways Collector An cal Residential Streets: Parkways along local residential streets that meet all of the following standards may count toward on open space requirement: a. The parkway meets the minimum width standard as set forth in subsection 11 -3A -17E of this chapter. b. The parkway is planted with street trees in accord with section 11-3B-7, "Landscape Buffers Along Streets", of this chapter. c. Except for alley accessed dwelling units, the area for curb cuts to each residential lot or common driveway shall be excluded from the open space calculation. For purposes of this calculation, the curb cut area shall be twenty six feet (26') by the width of the parkway. 6. PaFkWays Along AFterials: PaFkW@YS @10Rg aFterial streets that meet all ef the fellewing standaFGIS may ceLint tE)waFd the «. a. The paFkway ;5 a minimum of teR feet (10') in width measured betweeR edge of sidewalk and bael( of euiFb. WheFe ACHD is anticipating fHtuFe widening of the StFeet, the -yidth of the huffer rhall he rneaSUFed 40M the ultimate curb location as anti6pated by ACHD; and (1) Th parkway is planted with street trees and etheF FnateFia'S iR aeEerd with SUI35eetion 11 313 7C, "Standards", ef this EhapteF; eF I at I east twenty five percent (25%) 0 f PaFl(way area dWrong gFOWiRg seasen. ShR1135 must be planted as a Eentinueus edge (3F in a distinEt repeating pattern te EFeate veFtiEal visual bFeal( betweeR Feadway and pedestrian aFeas (C) Planter beds must Fneet R�u!Ehing and vegetatiOR coverage FequiFerneRts listed under subseEtOORS 11 38 SH and IS! E)f this ehapter. 67. Stormwater Detention Facilities: Stormwater detention facilities when designed in accord with section 11-36-11, "Stormwater Integration", of this chapter may count towards the qualified open space requirement if located within a passive or active qualified open space of at least twenty thousand (20,000) square feet and is visible from a public street(s) on at least two (2) sides. 78. Open Water Ponds: Aesthetically designed open water ponds and holding areas may comprise up to twenty five percent (25%) of a required open space area when developed with at least one (1) site amenity in accord with UDC 11 -3G -3C. All ponds with a permanent water level shall meet the following standards: a. The pond shall have recirculated water. pond shall be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. 15 11-31-1-3 Variance process Legal has determined that variance may not be required for Council to 11-3H-3: PROCESS: approve an access to State highways per State Statue. This Staff shall review all development applications for compliance with these standards. The City Council ' ' may consider and approve modification to the UDC is being requested by the City Attorney's Y modifications to the standards of this article upon specific recommendation of the Idaho transportation department or if strict adherence is not office. Added this language based on feedback from the public feasible as determined by City Council. hearing. 11-4-3-14 Education Institution Add specific criteria for parking. I In all commercial and residential districts education institutions shall provide one parking space for every four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area. 11-4-3-27(B)(1) Site Design Recently, there have been some conflicts between the setbacks in the B. Site Design: UDC and the building code. This change is needed to make it clear that 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. the IBC has different ways of governing building separation on a Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. property. 11-4 Indoor Shooting Range The City has approved one such facility in the Gramercy development. 11-4-3-47: INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE: This has caused issues for code enforcement and other sections of city A. No indoor shooting range shall be allowed within three hundred feet (300') measured from property line to property line of a residential use or code. This use is currently defined as an indoor rec facility. Added this — district daycare center, education institution hospital library or nursing or residential care facility. language based on feedback from the public hearing. B. Accessory uses including but not limited to retail equipment rental and restaurants are allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only. C. The application shall include a sound study prepared by a licensed sound engineer that demonstrates how the proposed use will address the impact of noise on adjoining uses Any adverse effects shall be mitigated through setbacks buffers sound mitigation and/or hours of operation. 11-4 Restaurant Add specific uses standards for a restaurant, specifically to address 11-4-3-48: RESTAURANT parking. A. Parking: 1. At a minimum one parking space shall be provided for every two and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title. 11 -5A -6(G)(5) Public hearing Extend the time period when the Commission has to forward its 5. The decision making body (see section 11-5A-2, table 11-5A-2 of this article) action shall be made within seventy (70) days after receiving all is infOffnatien is recommendation to Council. Need to make more consistent with this not needed. information to make a decisionapplicat on cansideFed if additional section of code. For applications where the commission is acting as a recommending body, the commission shall forward its recommendation to the council within seventy ferry five (4570) days. 11 -5A -8(B) Fees Remove the request for fee waiver from code. 11-5A-8: FEES: In the application of fees for the review of permit applications, the following rules shall apply: A. Basis For Calculation: For any requested public hearing involving more than one classification of a petition or application, the filing fee shall be calculated on the basis of the cumulative fee for the individual application(s). B. Fees Not Refundable: Fees to be charged for the various procedures stated above are not refundable, except where a petition or application is withdrawn at least three (3) weeks prior to the date of its scheduled public hearing, and then only after order by the city council. 11 -5B -4(B) Variances Remove the access to state highways section from the applicability A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for modification from the bulk and placement requirements of this title. ction based on recommendation from Legal. State statutes do t specify access to state highways as part of a variance process; m B. Applicability: The provisions of this section shall apply to requests to vary from the requirements of this title with respect to lot size, width, and in violation. depth; f , side, and rear setbacks; parking spaces; building height; all other provisions of this title affecting the size and shape of a structure or the / place upon properties;highways. If a means of alternative compliance is available, it should b exha ted before applying for a variance. 05/13/2019 16 EIDIAN?- DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA .lune 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 8 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Ordinance No. 19-1829 Amending Meridian City Code Amending Meridian City Code Section 8-1-1, Adding a Definition of Parklet; Renumbering Meridian City Code Sections 8-1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, and 8-1-6 to be Sections 8-1-4, 8-1-5, 8-1-6, and 8-1-7, Respectively; Adding a New Section to Meridian City Code, Section 8-1-3, Regarding Requirements for Parklets; and Providing an Effective Date Meeting Notes: L I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 8.A . Presenter: Caleb Hood Estimated Time f or P resentation: 1 minute Title of I tem - Ordinance No. 19-1829: An Ordinance Amending M eridian C ity C ode S ection 8- 1-1, Adding A D efinition Of P arklet; Renumbering M eridian City Code S ections 8-1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, And 8-1-6 To B e S ections 8-1-4, 8-1-5, 8-1-6, And 8-1-7, Respectively; Adding A New Section To M eridian City Code, S ection 8-1-3, Regarding Requirements F or Parklets; And Providing An Effective Date Adoption of parklet permit ordinance per March 12, 2019Third Amendment and Addendum to Master License Agreement for Regulati on and Maintenance of Sidewalk Facil ities in the Meridian City Core between City and A C HD . R evocation clause edits requested by C ouncil on J une 4 are incorporated. C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate P arklet Ordinance Cover Memo 6/6/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate L egal.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/6/2019 - 2:44 P M Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/6/2019 - 2:44 P M L egal.B aird, Ted Approved 6/6/2019 - 2:59 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 557 of 602 PARKLET PERMIT ORDINANCE PAGE 1 OF 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 19-1829 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 8-1-1, ADDING A DEFINITION OF PARKLET; RENUMBERING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTIONS 8- 1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, AND 8-1-6 TO BE SECTIONS 8-1-4, 8-1-5, 8-1-6, AND 8-1-7, RESPECTIVELY; ADDING A NEW SECTION TO MERIDIAN CITY CODE, SECTION 8-1-3, REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKLETS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, parklets, public spaces created when a public or private entity converts one or more existing on-street parking spaces into public open space, are a cost-effective means to activate streets, create more vibrant neighborhoods, and promote economic vitality; WHEREAS, there is a demand for the installation of parklets in Meridian’s downtown City Core; WHEREAS, on April 27, 2016, the City and Ada County Highway District (“ACHD”) entered into a Second Amendment and Addendum to Master License Agreement , in which ACHD and City agreed to allow City to regulate, control, and authorize parklets in the Meridian City Core on an ongoing basis, pursuant to jointly developed design standards and safety regulations for parklet installations, and pursuant to ACHD approval through the City of Meridian Citizen’s Use Permit process; WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, following ACHD’s implementation of a special event permit for temporary uses of the right-of-way in spring 2017, the City repealed its Citizen’s Use Permit; and WHEREAS , on March 12, 2019, the City and ACHD entered into a Third Amendment and Addendum to Master License Agreement for Regulation and Maintenance of Sidewalk Facilities in the Meridian City Core, by which agreement the parties 1) affirmed City’s authority to allow parklets in the downtown core, 2) adopted mutually acceptable standards for parklet design and construction, and 3) agreed that the City would establish a parklet permitting process, to serve as the framework for City’s and ACHD’s review and approval of parklets in downtown Meridian; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code section 8-1-1 shall be amended by the addition of language as follows: PARKLET: A public space created when a public or private entity converts one or more existing on-street public parking spaces into public open space using visual or physical barriers. Parklets Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 558 of 602 PARKLET PERMIT ORDINANCE PAGE 2 OF 4 are intended to be a cost-effective means to activate streets, create more vibrant neighborhoods, and promote economic vitality. Section 2. That Meridian City Code sections 8-1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, and 8-1-6 shall be renumbered, to be sections 8-1-4, 8-1-5, 8-1-6, and 8-1-7, respectively. Section 3. That a new section, Meridian City Code section 8-1-3, shall be added to Title 8, Chapter 1, to read as follows: 8-1-3: REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKLETS: A. Purpose. The purpose of the City of Meridian Parklet Program is to provide an opportunity for the conversion of one or more public parking spaces, within the City Core, to space designated for other, non-vehicular uses. The goal of the parklet program is to increase social, economic, and placemaking opportunities within the City Core by allowing for a greater range of community serving activities to occur within public right-of-way. B. Parklet Permit: 1. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish a Parklet without a City of Meridian Parklet Permit. 2. Application. Application for a City of Meridian Parklet Permit shall be made to the director or designee. Such application may be made only by a person owning or renting property directly adjacent to the parking spot in which the proposed parklet is to be placed, or any portion thereof. Such application shall include: a. A completed application on the form provided by the planning division; b. Detailed site plan; c. Photographs or illustrations depicting proposed parklet; d. Application fee as set forth in the fee schedule of the planning division; e. Copy of written notice of intent to submit such application, provided to all property owners on the block on which the parklet is to be placed, by U.S. Mail, by e-mail, or by personal delivery. f. Proof of an insurance policy with minimum limits of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per person bodily injury, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) per occurrence bodily injury, and one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per occurrence property damage, naming the City as additional insured; and g. Other materials as may be reasonably required by the planning director. 3. ACHD approval. Upon receipt of all application materials for a City of Meridian Parklet Permit, the director or designee shall submit such application to the Ada County Highway District for review and approval. 4. Issuance or Denial of Application. Within thirty (30) working days following receipt of all application materials required by this section, the director shall either issue a Parklet Permit to the applicant or deny the application. Where a Parklet Permit is denied, the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 559 of 602 PARKLET PERMIT ORDINANCE PAGE 3 OF 4 director shall notify the applicant of such denial in writing, which shall include notice of the right to City Council review of such decision as set forth in this section. Written notice of the denial shall be sent via U.S. mail. 5. Grounds For Denial. The director shall deny an application for a Parklet Permit where: a. The application is incomplete or required application materials or fees have not been submitted; b. Evaluation of the application or application materials reveals that provided information is invalid, false, or incomplete; c. The Ada County Highway District has recommended denial; or d. The proposed parklet is not designed, or will not be placed, in accordance with City of Meridian Parklet Standards and all applicable standards and provisions of law. 6. Review of Denial. City Council review of the director’s denial of a Parklet Permit may be requested by the applicant within fourteen (14) days of such issuance or denial. Such request shall be made in writing, shall state the reasons for such request, and shall be delivered to the City clerk via U.S. mail or in person. Upon receipt of such request, the City clerk shall schedule a public hearing on the request at a City Council meeting within thirty (30) days. The City Council's decision shall be a final decision. 7. Provisions of Permit. The Parklet Permit shall include: a. The name of the permit holder permitted to establish a parklet under such permit; b. The times, dates, places, and manner by which the parklet may be established under such permit; c. A description of the parklet to be established under such permit; and d. Any and all other conditions of placement or maintenance of the parklet established under such permit as may be necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to mitigate effects on surrounding properties. 8. Term of Permit. The Parklet Permit shall be valid for a period of one year from date of issuance, and may be renewed by the process for application therefor as set forth herein. Upon expiration of the permit, the parklet and all related components shall be removed. 9. Revocation of Permit. In addition to any and all other applicable civil or criminal penalties, the director may revoke a Parklet Permit where: a. Any term or condition of the permit, any provision of law, or a parklet standard is violated; b. It is found, after issuance, that it was issued pursuant to falsified, inaccurate, or incomplete information on the application therefor; c. The parklet, its placement, or any component thereof varies materially from the approved site plan or other representation in the application. The director shall notify the permit holder of such revocation in writing, and shall mail such notice to the permit holder at the mailing address set forth in the Parklet Permit application. Where the revocation is necessary to address a public health or safety concern, such revocation shall be effective immediately upon mailing of notice to the permit holder. Otherwise, the revocation notice shall provide measures necessary to Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 560 of 602 abate the violation and a deadline for such abatement, and the revocation shall be stayed pending such abatement period and/or upon the City Clerk's receipt of a request for City Council review of such revocation. 10. Review of Revocation. City Council review of the director's revocation of a Parklet Permit may be requested by the permit holder within fourteen (14) days of such revocation. Such request shall be made in writing, shall state the reasons for such request, and shall be delivered to the City cleric via U.S. snail or in person. Upon receipt of such request, the City Cleric shall schedule a public hearing on the request at a City Council meeting within thirty (30) days. The City Council's decision shall be a final decision. 11. Nontransferable. Parlclet Permits shall be nontransferable as to holder, location or arrangement of parklet, or allowed amenities. Changes of holder, location, arrangement, or amenities shall require a Parklet Permit. 12. Limited Scope. A Parklet Permit shall not convey or imply pei7nissions beyond the scope of the permit. Separate regulation and/or permitting requirements shall apply to service of alcoholic beverages, signs, temporary uses, changes in use, and changes, attachments, or improvements to the roadway. 13. Compliance with Permit. It shall be unlawful for any Parklet Perinit holder to violate or fail to comply with any term, condition, or standard set forth in such permit. C. Parldet Standards. All Parlclets shall comply with the Parklet Standards adopted by written agreement duly executed by the City Council and the Ada County Highway District Commission. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish a parklet in a time, place, or manner inconsistent with the duly adopted Parklet Standards. D. City Core Only. Parlclets may be established only within the City Core, as defined in this Chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish a parklet outside the City Core. Section 4. All City of Meridian ordinances, or resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. Section 5. That this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of June, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this I I day of June, 2019. APPROVED: ED ALc�TTEST: 0 V 2 Cilvof w CAVI E IDI Tanury de Weerd, ay�o s Jo on, Jerk s� SEAL PARKLET PERMIT ORDINANCE PAGE 4 OF 4 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 19-1829 An ordinance amending Meridian City Code section 8-1-1, adding a definition of parklet; renumbering Meridian City Code sections 8-1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5, and 8-1-6 to be sections 8-1-4, 8-1- 5, 8-1-6, and 8-1-7, respectively; adding a new section to Meridian City Code, section 8-1-3, regarding requirements for parklets; and providing an effective date. �QO�PZED AUG`S First Reading: G Adopted after first reading by suspension of the rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code Cit e n IDJL AHO § 50-902: YES �JF Mayor and ity Cou eel SSEAL Second Reading: / By: Chris Johnson, Ci ler k Third Reading: Al �c TFR of the TRE STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 19-1829 The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance no. 19-1829 of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this �h day of '3 -Un e , 2019. J William L.M. Nary, City Attorney PARKLET PERMIT ORDINANCE PAGE 5 OF 4 EIDIANC-- DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 8 B Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Ordinance No. 19-1827 Amending Meridian City Code Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; To Provide For An Amendment To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee Schedules; And Providing An Effective Date. Meeting Notes: 3 -u, -o- ifs 20 l I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 8.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - T hird Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: An Ordinance To Amend T he M unicipal C ode Of T he City O f M eridian, C ounty Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending T itle 10, C hapter 7, S ection 12(E )(2), M eridian C ity C ode, K nown As T he M eridian Impact F ee Ordinance F ee S chedule; To P rovide F or An Amendment To T he P olice, F ire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee S chedules; And P roviding An E ffective D ate. C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate O rdinance Ordinance 6/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/5/2019 - 12:35 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 563 of 602 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 1 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 12(E)(2), MERIDIAN CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE; TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained Raftelis ("Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by Consultant, dated March 28, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; determines the costs necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees as set forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS , in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans proposed by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for additional police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 564 of 602 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS , all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS , an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS , if the adopted fee is less than the fees proposed under the methodology set forth in the Impact Fee Study, the impact fee eligible portions of adopted Capital Improvement Plan will not be fully funded unless general fund revenue or other income sources are used to fund the difference between the maximum allowable fee and the adopted fee; and WHEREAS , the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee met on April 12, 2019 and passed a motion to approve the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans and recommend that the City Council hold the required public hearing on the Capital Improvements Plans and the updated Impact Fees and WHEREAS , after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss, review and hear public comments on the proposed Capital Improvements Plans and the revised Impact Fee as recommended by the Development Impact Fee Committee; and WHEREAS , based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at a public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS , in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS , the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 565 of 602 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 3 of 4 WHEREAS , the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS , the Impact Fees adopted by this Ordinance are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council. Section 2. The Impact Fee Study set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is hereby approved. Section 3. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2) of the Meridian City Code is REPEALED AND REPLACED as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: E. 2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as follows effective the 1st day of October, 2019: Impact Fee Schedule Effective October 1, 2019 Residential (per individual dwelling unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area) Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Total Fees 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 For multi-family residential structures the fee is based on the average size of units for the entire building. i.e. total building square feet of climate controlled space divided by the total number of individual dwelling units Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Total Fees Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 566 of 602 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 4 of 4 Section 4: That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7 remain unchanged. Section 5: This Fee Schedule shall be in effect on the 1st day of October, 2019, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this _____ day of _________, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ______ day of __________, 2019. APPROVED: ______________________________ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Chris Johnson, City Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 567 of 602 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 5 of 4 EXHIBIT A Development Impact Fees Study Final Report March 28, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 568 of 602 227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 www.raftelis.com March 28, 2019 Mr. Todd Lavoie Chief Financial Officer City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Development Impact Fees Report Dear Mr. Lavoie, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) is pleased to provide the 2019 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian. After collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Raftelis recommends several changes to improve consistency with Idaho’s enabling legislation, including: • Updated development projections and land use assumptions based on Meridian data • Documentation of current infrastructure standards and projected need for additional facilities • Proportionate fees for two types of nonresidential development and five size thresholds for residential development Our report summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements, to be funded by development impact fees, along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible Comprehensive Financial Plan. It has been a pleasure working with you and we thank City staff for engaging with quality information and insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian. Sincerely, Dwayne Guthrie, PhD, AICP Manager Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 569 of 602 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act .................................................................................................................. 8 Proposed Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Citywide Parks ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recreation Buildings ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Proposed and Current Impact Fees ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 15 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................................ 16 Police Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Excluded Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Current Use and Available Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards ......................................................................................................................... 18 Police Infrastructure Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Police Development Fees ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Projected Revenue for Police Facilities.................................................................................................................................... 20 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police ................................................................................................................................. 21 Fire Impact Fees ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Existing Standards for Fire Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Fire Infrastructure Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees .................................................................................................................................. 24 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 28 Fee Implementation and Administration ............................................................................................................................. 29 Cost of CFP Preparation ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Development Categories ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Credits and Reimbursements .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 31 Service Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Summary of Growth Indicators ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit ........................................................................................................ 33 Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Jobs and Nonresidential Development.................................................................................................................................... 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 570 of 602 Executive Summary Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need, benefit, and proportionality . • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid should not exceed a development’s proportionate share of the capital cost. As documented in this report, the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the projects identified in this study taken from Meridian’s Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, Raftelis determined service units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth- related capital costs. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth “an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth.” The enabling legislation calls for three integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA) for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan, which the City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The LUA (see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition, the CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with service units by residential size thresholds. The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility type (i.e., parks/recreation, police and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards, the projected need for improvements to accommodate new development, the updated DIF compared to current fees, revenue projections and funding strategy for growth-related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian. Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements, which have been met by the City of Meridian, as documented in this study. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, “development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development.” Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 571 of 602 67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report, with more detailed information maintained by City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third, the Idaho Act states the cost per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types of applicable credits that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b) review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d) file periodic reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study. Proposed Impact Fees Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian’s 2019 impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are made during the adoption process, Raftelis will update the fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions. Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2019 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian. As discussed in Appendix A, Raftelis recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, based on climate-controlled space. In contrast, the 2013 study used a “one size fits all” approach, whereby all housing units paid the same DIF. The 2019 size threshold that matches the average fee according to the 2013 method is a residential dwelling with 2501 to 3200 square feet. As shown below, the average fee per dwelling increased from $2,017 in 2013 to $2,943 in 2019, which is an increase of $926 (46%). In addition, the 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.47 in 2013 to $0.56 in 2019, which is an increase of $0.09 per square foot (20%). Type of Impact Fee Service Area Incremental Expansion (current standards) Cost Allocation Parks and Recreation Facilities Citywide Park Improvements and Recreation Centers Residential Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings Functional Population and Inbound Vehicle Trips to Nonresidential Development Fire Facilities Citywide Fire Stations and Apparatus Functional Population and Jobs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 572 of 602 Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Citywide Service Area Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Proposed Total (2019) Existing Total (2013) Increase or Decrease % Change Residential (per housing unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 $2,017 ($922) -46% 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 $2,017 ($108) -5% 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 $2,017 $466 23% 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 $2,017 $926 46% 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 $2,017 $1,416 70% Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 $0.47 $0.41 87% All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 $0.47 ($0.01) -2% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 573 of 602 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees The 2019 updated impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure standards for improved acres of parks and floor area of recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area. Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development. Figure PR1 documents recent cost factors per acre for park improvements and land. Based on four park site acquisitions, land for parks in Meridian is expected to cost approximately $61,000 per acre. City staff confirmed this land cost factor is reasonable and consistent with a recent land valuation of $65,000 per acre quoted for expansion of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. As shown in the table below, park improvements have been averaging $241,000 per acre. Figure PR1: Cost Factors for Park Improvements Citywide Parks Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR2, the current infrastructure standard is 2.91 acres per 1,000 residents. At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for citywide park improvements. To maintain current standards over the next ten years, Meridian will improve 102.3 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately $24.65 million. Estimated Costs Park Name Acres Land Improvements Discovery Park 27.00 $405,184 $8,261,000 Reta Huskey Park 8.92 $680,007 $1,495,126 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50 $1,274,995 $1,382,621 Hillsdale Park 9.53 $857,700 $1,622,282 Total Costs 52.95 $3,217,886 $12,761,029 Weighted Average Cost per Acre => $61,000 $241,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 574 of 602 Figure PR2: Citywide Parks Standards and Need for Improved Acres Existing Parks Improved Acres Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.2 Settlers Park 57.7 Heroes Park 30.1 Discovery Park 27.0 Fuller Park 23.2 Bear Creak Park 18.8 Tully Park 18.7 Storey Park & Bark Park 17.9 Gordon Harris Park 11.1 Hillsdale Park 9.5 Reta Husky Park 8.9 Jabil Soccer Fields 8.4 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.5 Seasons Park 7.1 Chateau Park 6.7 Renaissance Park 6.5 Champion Park 6.0 Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.6 8th Street Park 2.8 Centennial Park 0.4 Total => 332.2 Allocation Factors for Parks Improvements Cost per Acre $241,000 Residential Proportionate Share 100% Service Units Population in 2019 114,102 Infrastructure Standards for Parks Improved Acres Residential (per person) 0.00291 Park Needs Year Population Improved Acres Base 2019 114,102 332.2 Year 1 2020 121,126 352.7 Year 2 2021 126,812 369.2 Year 3 2022 132,163 384.8 Year 4 2023 136,845 398.4 Year 5 2024 140,190 408.2 Year 10 2029 149,248 434.5 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 102.3 Growth Cost of Parks => $24,654,300 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 575 of 602 Recreation Buildings Figure PR3 lists current floor area for recreation centers. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Meridian should expect to spend at least $225 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current standards, Meridian will need 17,096 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost approximately $3.85 million. Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected growth costs, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Proposed and Current Impact Fees At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs due to growth. The projected need for acres of improved parks and square feet of recreation centers was addressed above. The need to acquire an additional five acres of land for parks is based on staff’s comparison of the existing inventory of undeveloped park sites (i.e., 97 acres) to the projected need for 102 additional acres over the next ten years. In addition to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park impact fee fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $26,168,471 divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $744 per service unit. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per Existing Recreation Centers Square Feet Meridian Community Center 4,200 1 Meridian Homecourt 51,303 1 Total to Include in Current Standards 55,503 Allocation Factors for Recreation Centers Building plus Land Cost per Square Foot* $225 Residential Proportionate Share 100% 2019 Meridian Population 114,102 * Based on local developer estimate. Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.49 Recreation Center Needs Year Population Square Feet Base 2019 114,102 55,503 Year 1 2020 121,126 58,920 Year 2 2021 126,812 61,686 Year 3 2022 132,163 64,288 Year 4 2023 136,845 66,566 Year 5 2024 140,190 68,193 Year 10 2029 149,248 72,599 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 17,096 Growth Cost for Recreation Buildings => $3,847,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 576 of 602 dwelling. The row highlighted light green indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling, which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Park Improvements acres 102 $241,000 $24,654,000 Park Land acres 5 $61,000 $305,000 Recreation Centers sq ft 17,096 $225 $3,847,000 Total => $28,806,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,656,132 Net Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Population Increase 2019 to 2029 35,146 Cost per Service Unit $744 Residential Impact Fees (per dwelling) Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Parks & Recreation Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $781 $1,113 ($332) -30% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $1,361 $1,113 $248 22% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $1,770 $1,113 $657 59% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $2,098 $1,113 $985 88% 3201 or more 3.29 $2,447 $1,113 $1,334 120% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $2,099 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 577 of 602 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive approximately $26.15 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and impact fee revenue. Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue Ten-Year Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Parks Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential $2,098 Year per housing unit Hsg Units Base 2019 42,345 Year 1 2020 44,445 Year 2 2021 46,145 Year 3 2022 47,746 Year 4 2023 49,145 Year 5 2024 50,145 Year 10 2029 54,811 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 Projected Revenue => $26,150,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 578 of 602 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to existing development. Existing parks and recreation centers are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Total impact fee funding of approximately $28.8 million represents a growth share of 80%, requiring approximately $7.28 million from other revenue sources over the next ten years. Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Parks and Recreation Needed Planned Improved Acres 102.3 151 Building Sq Ft 17,096 22,000 FY Description Amount Units Cost 2020 West Meridian Regional Park - Design $500,000 2022 West Meridian Regional Park - Construction 47 acres $5,147,500 2021 New Community Center - Design & Construction Documents $500,000 2023 New Community Center - Construction 22,000 square feet $5,000,000 2027 Margaret Aldape Park - Design $994,000 2029 Margaret Aldape Park - Construction 70 acres $10,012,500 2021 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Design $500,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Construction 25 $5,160,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Design $500,000 2025 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Construction 25 acres $5,160,000 2022 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Design $185,000 2024 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Construction 9 acres $1,906,500 2021 Additional Land Acquisition 5 acres $525,000 Total Cost => $36,090,500 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $28,806,000 Growth Share => 80% Existing Development Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $7,284,500 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 579 of 602 Police Impact Fees The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards for police buildings. Proportionate Share In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1, functional population was used to allocate public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is like the U.S. Census Bureau’s "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction. It also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Meridian, the cost allocation for residential development is 73% while nonresidential development accounts for 27% of the demand for fire infrastructure. Figure P1: Functional Population Excluded Costs Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. The City’s CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety Demand Units in 2015 Demand Person Residential Hours/Day Hours Population* 91,360 61% Residents Not Working 55,961 20 1,119,220 39% Resident Workers** 35,399 20% Worked in City** 7,231 14 101,234 80% Worked Outside City** 28,168 14 394,352 Residential Subtotal 1,614,806 Residential Share => 73% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 55,961 4 223,844 Jobs Located in City** 36,676 20% Residents Working in City** 7,231 10 72,310 80% Non-Resident Workers (inflow commuters) 29,445 10 294,450 Nonresidential Subtotal 590,604 Nonresidential Share => 27% TOTAL 2,205,410 * 2015 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. ** 2015 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 580 of 602 equipment that do not meet the minimum useful life requirement in Idaho’s Impact Fee Act. Current Use and Available Capacity In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian has determined that police building space will require expansion to accommodate future development. Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development. Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police. For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average-weekday, vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and nonresidential development, along with FY18-19 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services, as documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of $333 per square foot (provided by City staff). The cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY18- 19 service units, the standard in Meridian is 0.26 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development, Meridian’s standard is 0.06 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development, on an average weekday. Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards Police Infrastructure Needs Idaho’s development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3, projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles. Meridian will need 12,161 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten-year, growth-related capital cost of police buildings is approximately $4.05 million. Police Buildings Square Feet PSTC (half) 7,250 Admin Building 33,000 TOTAL 40,250 Source: City of Meridian Police Department. Police Buildings Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share (based on functional population) 73% 27% Growth Indicator Population Avg Wkdy Veh Trips to Nonres Dev Service Units in FY18-19 114,102 179,607 Square Feet per Service Unit 0.26 0.06 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 581 of 602 Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Police Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per development unit is also shown in the table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2017). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with nonresidential development within Meridian, trip ends (entering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using a basic 50% adjustment factor. In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act), less the projected police impact fee fund balance expected at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $2,633,140, divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $54 per residential service unit. Impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light blue indicates the updated police fee for an average-size dwelling is $152 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Buildings - Residential 0.26 Sq Ft per person Buildings - Nonresidential 0.06 Sq Ft per trip Police Buildings Cost $333 per square foot Infrastructure Needed Veh Trips to Police Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings (sq ft) Base 2019 114,102 179,607 40,250 Year 1 2020 121,126 184,062 42,328 Year 2 2021 126,812 188,819 44,080 Year 3 2022 132,163 193,625 45,749 Year 4 2023 136,845 198,637 47,258 Year 5 2024 140,190 203,714 48,427 Year 10 2029 149,248 231,013 52,411 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 51,406 12,161 Growth Cost of Police Buildings => $4,050,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 582 of 602 fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit Projected Revenue for Police Facilities Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately $2.6 million (see the upper portion of Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Police Buildings square feet 12,161 $333 $4,050,000 Outdoor Training Facility 23% $690,000 Total => $4,740,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,125,463 Net Growth Cost => $2,633,140 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $1,922,192 Nonresidential $710,948 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $54 Nonresidential (vehicle trips) 51,406 $13 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $56 $223 ($167) -75% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $98 $223 ($125) -56% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $128 $223 ($95) -43% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $152 $223 ($71) -32% 3201 or more 3.29 $177 $223 ($46) -21% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends per KSF Trip Adjustment Factors Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 37.75 50% $0.24 $0.12 $0.12 100% All Other 9.00 50% $0.05 $0.12 ($0.07) -58% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $154 Nonresidential Floor Area Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot $0.10 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 583 of 602 approximately $2.5 million in police development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and development fee revenue. Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Impact fees will pay for approximately $4.74 million, representing a growth share of 59%. Other revenue sources will be required to fund approximately $3.26 million in police facilities over the next ten years. Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Police Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities => $2,633,140 Police Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office & Other Services $152 $50 $240 $50 $50 per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Year Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $1,895,000 $130,000 $336,000 $64,000 $85,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $2,510,000 Buildings Description Square Feet Total Cost Training Facility Classroom 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 1 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 2 3,000 $1,000,000 Substation 6,000 $2,000,000 Total => 15,000 $5,000,000 Cost per Square Foot => $333 Outdoor Facilities Description Cost Outdoor Training Facility $3,000,000 Total => $8,000,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $4,740,000 Growth Share Funded by Impact Fees => 59% Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $3,260,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 584 of 602 Fire Impact Fees After evaluating calls for service data to general types of development, Raftelis recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development. Existing Standards for Fire Facilities Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. The standard for fire buildings is 0.44 square feet per person and 0.46 square feet per job. Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase communications equipment with a useful life of at least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and communications equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department. Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was allocated 73% to residential and 27% to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every additional resident will require Meridian to spend approximately $62 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately $64 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Fire Stations Square Feet Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) 7,360 Fire Station # 6 0 PSTC (half) 7,250 Training Tower @ Station #1 6,523 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 Fire Admin Space (City Hall) 13,511 TOTAL 68,975 Allocation Factors for Fire Stations Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% Population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.44 Nonresidential (per job) 0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 585 of 602 Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles Fire Infrastructure Needs The City’s Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian, fire facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development over the next ten years, Meridian will expand fire buildings by 20,859 square feet and spend $2.93 million to expand the fleet of fire vehicles. Fire Apparatus and Equipment Coding Total Cost Engines FE $5,148,000 Ladder Truck LT $1,600,000 Pickup Trucks PT $539,659 Other Vehicles OV $287,700 Communications Equipment CE $2,112,284 TOTAL $9,687,643 Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications Apparatus and Communications Residential (per person) $61.98 Nonresidential (per job) $64.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 586 of 602 Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thousand square feet of floor area are also documented in the Land Use Assumptions. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light orange indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling is $693 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit and a cost of $246 per additional person. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Fire Station s - Residential 0.44 Sq Ft per household Fire Station s - Nonresidential 0.46 Sq Ft per job Fire Station Cost $535 per square foot Fire Apparatus/Communications - Residential $61.98 Cost per person Fire Apparatus/Communications - Nonres $64.46 Cost per job Facilities Needed Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and Year Jobs Stations Communications Base 2019 114,102 40,575 68,975 $9,687,643 Year 1 2020 121,126 41,612 72,551 $10,189,837 Year 2 2021 126,812 42,677 75,549 $10,610,907 Year 3 2022 132,163 43,768 78,411 $11,012,890 Year 4 2023 136,845 44,887 80,990 $11,375,214 Year 5 2024 140,190 46,035 82,993 $11,656,541 Year 6 2025 143,578 47,214 85,030 $11,942,532 Year 7 2026 144,996 48,421 86,209 $12,108,228 Year 8 2027 146,413 49,659 87,403 $12,275,860 Year 9 2028 147,831 50,929 88,611 $12,445,618 Year 10 2029 149,248 52,231 89,834 $12,617,376 Ten -Yr Increase 35,146 11,656 20,859 $2,929,733 Cost of Fire Stations => $11,160,000 Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications => $2,930,000 Total Growth Cost => $14,090,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 587 of 602 compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee of $695 for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Proposed nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fire impact fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.35 in 2013 to $0.46 in 2019. Based on the 2019 fee schedule, a new warehouse would be in the category of All Other. This fee category assumes 1.50 jobs per thousand square feet of floor area. To convert the fee to an amount per square foot, we divide by 1000 then multiply by the cost factor per job ($274). The result is $0.41 (truncated) per square foot. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 588 of 602 Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Fire Stations square feet 20,859 $535 $11,160,000 Fire Apparatus dollars $2,930,000 Total => $14,090,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,241,236 Net Growth Cost => $11,867,367 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $8,663,178 Nonresidential $3,204,189 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $246 Nonresidential (jobs) 11,656 $274 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Hsg Unit Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $258 $681 ($423) -62% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $450 $681 ($231) -34% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $585 $681 ($96) -14% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $693 $681 $12 2% 3201 or more 3.29 $809 $681 $128 19% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 2.34 $0.64 $0.35 $0.29 83% All Other 1.50 $0.41 $0.35 $0.06 17% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $695 Nonresidential Sq Ft Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot) $0.46 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 589 of 602 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities Over the next ten years, fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire infrastructure, which has a ten-year growth cost of $11,867,367 (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately $11.82 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. The revenue projection assumes implementation of the proposed fire fees and that development from 2019 to 2029 is consistent with the land use assumptions described in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities => $11,867,367 Fire Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and Other Services $693 $410 $640 $410 $410 Year per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 4 2023 49,145 10,030 5,410 4,920 6,510 Year 5 2024 50,145 10,290 5,550 5,040 6,680 Year 6 2025 51,159 10,550 5,690 5,170 6,850 Year 7 2026 52,071 10,820 5,830 5,310 7,030 Year 8 2027 52,984 11,100 5,980 5,440 7,210 Year 9 2028 53,898 11,380 6,140 5,580 7,390 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $8,640,000 $1,070,000 $900,000 $520,000 $690,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $11,820,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 590 of 602 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire station floor area by approximately 25,000 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately $4.38 million. The total cost for these projects is approximately $17.75 million. The growth cost funded by impact fees is $14.09 million over ten years, which is 79% of the total cost. An additional $3.66 million in other revenues will be required to fully fund the Fire Department’s CFP for growth-related improvements. Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities Fire Stations Square Feet Total Cost Purchase Land for Fire Station #7 $500,000 Design Fire Station #7 $800,000 Build Fire Station #7 12,500 $5,387,500 Purchase Land for Fire Station #8 $250,000 Design Fire Station #8 $800,000 Build Fire Station #8 12,500 $5,637,500 Total => 25,000 $13,375,000 Cost per Sq Ft Based on Stations #7 & #8 => $535 Fire Apparatus Units Total Cost Quint Truck 1 $1,600,000 Heavy Rescue Vehicle 1 $800,000 Fire Engine Station #7 1 $572,000 Fire Engine Station #8 1 $572,000 Vehicle for EMS Captain 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Fire Inspector/Investigator 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Battalion Chiefs 1 $63,000 Alternative Response Unit 2 $642,000 Total => 9 $4,375,000 Total => $17,750,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $14,090,000 Growth Share => 79% Funded by Other Revenues => $3,660,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 591 of 602 Fee Implementation and Administration Consistent with best practices and Idaho’s enabling legislation, Meridian updates capital improvements and development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory Committee, then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee calculations. Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible, tracking funds according to first in, first out accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure. Cost of CFP Preparation As stated in Idaho’s enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. This minor cost ($18,603 per infrastructure type) was added to the 2019 Meridian impact fees. Development Categories Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building, the average size threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate-controlled floor area for the entire building, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment complexes and some residential development provide common areas for use by residents, such as exercise rooms and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not subject to additional impact fees. Also, Section 67-8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential building, that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to residential buildings, Raftelis recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to additional impact fees. The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density (i.e. jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area), as documented in Appendix A. “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial development. All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian’s impact fee study. For residential development, impact fees are based on average persons per Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 592 of 602 housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the average number of jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian’s elected officials for their consideration. Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience, Raftelis recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 593 of 602 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian’s 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho’s enabling legislation defines land use assumptions as: “a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 20-year period.” Service Areas To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees, the City of Meridian has evaluated collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the entire incorporated area. Raftelis recommends one citywide service area for Meridian impact fees. Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines “service area” as: “Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles, or both.” The City’s adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as modified over time. Summary of Growth Indicators Population, housing unit, jobs and nonresidential floor area are the “service units” or demand indicators that will be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are consistent with Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan, which is more general and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be periodically updated (e.g. every 5 years). Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19 data. In Meridian, the fiscal year begins on October 1 st . Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing units and nonresidential floor area, as shown in Figure A1. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than projected, fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development. Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years, the impact fee study assumes Meridian’s population increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.7% per year. Over the next ten years, jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.6% per year, which is from the Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2010 to 2040. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 594 of 602 Figure A1: Annual Development Projections Proportionate Share The term “proportionate” is found throughout Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67-8202(2) states the intent to, “Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;” Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(17). “A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for various land uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to pay a project's proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development project's proportionate share of system improvement costs…” Meridian, Idaho FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY23-24 FY28-29 FY38-39 Fiscal Year Begins Oct 1st 2019 2020 2021 2022 2024 2029 2039 Base Yr 1 2 3 5 10 20 Total Population City of Meridian 114,102 121,126 126,812 132,163 140,190 149,248 164,187 Annual Increase 7.2% 6.2% 4.7% 4.2% 2.4% 1.0% 1.0% Housing Units Single Family 35,911 37,649 39,056 40,381 42,367 46,229 54,516 Annual Increase 5.6% 4.8% 3.7% 3.4% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Multi-Family 6,434 6,796 7,089 7,365 7,778 8,582 10,322 Annual Increase 6.6% 5.6% 4.3% 3.9% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% Total Housing Units 42,345 44,445 46,145 47,746 50,145 54,811 64,838 Annual Increase 5.7% 5.0% 3.8% 3.5% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Persons per Hsg Unit 2.69 2.73 2.75 2.77 2.80 2.72 2.53 Jobs (by place of work) Industrial 7,501 7,693 7,890 8,092 8,511 9,656 12,430 Commercial 11,455 11,748 12,048 12,356 12,996 14,746 18,982 Institutional 4,133 4,238 4,347 4,458 4,689 5,320 6,848 Office & Other Services 17,486 17,933 18,392 18,862 19,839 22,509 28,976 Total Jobs 40,575 41,612 42,677 43,768 46,035 52,231 67,236 Annual Increase 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Jobs to Housing Ratio 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 1.04 Nonresidential Floor Area (square feet in thousands) Industrial 9,070 9,300 9,540 9,780 10,290 11,670 15,030 Commercial 4,890 5,010 5,140 5,270 5,550 6,290 8,100 Institutional 4,450 4,560 4,680 4,800 5,040 5,720 7,370 Office & Other Services 5,890 6,040 6,190 6,350 6,680 7,580 9,760 Total KSF 24,300 24,910 25,550 26,200 27,560 31,260 40,260 Avg Sq Ft Per Job 599 599 599 599 599 598 599 Avg Jobs per KSF 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 595 of 602 Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1). “All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. In the following sections, Raftelis describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential development. Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a “long-form” questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds makes fees more proportionate and facilitates construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.85 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with two or more units average 2.00 year-round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes, which have two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.76 year-round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. Raftelis recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit. Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, Raftelis recommends residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size. Custom tabulations of Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics Units in Structure Persons House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Unit * 81,202 27,793 2.92 28,448 2.85 89% 2% All Other ** 6,765 3,379 2.00 3,378 2.00 11% 0% Subtotal 87,967 31,172 2.82 31,826 2.76 2% Group Quarters 4,864 TOTAL 92,831 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024, B25032, B25033, and B26001. *Single unit includes attached and detached. ** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 596 of 602 demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro-Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, Raftelis derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control totals for Meridian. As shown above, the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that Meridian averages 2.76 persons per housing unit. Figure A3: Persons by Bedroom Range DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, Raftelis used the 2018 Ada County Assessor’s residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e., two, three, and four or more bedrooms). Raftelis recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, Raftelis derived the estimated average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1000 square feet or less) has an estimated average of 1.16 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space), the average is 3.63 persons per housing unit. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area by the total number of dwellings in the building. Recommended Multipliers (2) Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing (1) Units (1) Housing Unit Mix 0-1 48 39 1.30 2.8% 2 353 194 1.92 14.1% 3 1,598 678 2.48 49.2% 4+ 1,614 467 3.64 33.9% Total 3,613 1,378 2.76 100.0% (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdat a Sample for ID PUMA 701 (2012-2016 5-year database). (2) Recommendedpersons per housing unit are scaled to make the average derived from PUMS survey data match the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.76 persons per housing unit). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 597 of 602 Figure A4: Persons by Square Feet of Living Space Jobs and Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development. Raftelis uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure A5, color shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes the will be used by Raftelis to derive average weekday vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, Raftelis averaged Light Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing (ITE 150) to derive an average of 1,209 square feet per industrial job. The prototype for future commercial development is an average-size Shopping Center (ITE code 820). Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 427 square feet per job. For institutional development, such as schools, daycare and churches, the impact fee study assumes an average of 1,076 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is an Elementary School (ITE 520). For office and other services, an average-size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 337 square feet per job. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 598 of 602 Figure A5: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Figure A6 indicates 2015 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type of nonresidential, are from Meridian’s Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau’s online web application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel information obtained from Ada County. ITE Land Use / Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 32.21 1.30 771 Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 3.35 4.05 0.83 1,209 * Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 599 of 602 Figure A6: Jobs and Floor Area Estimates Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 600 of 602 E1DIAN*,----- I DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 8 C Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Ordinance No. 19-1830: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4, Meridian City Code, Known As The Definitions Section Of The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; To Provide For An Amendment To The Definition Of "Dwelling Unit"; Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. Meeting Notes: 9H-6A�P VED I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 8.C. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Ordinance No. 19-1830: An Ordinance To Amend T he M unicipal Code Of T he C ity Of M eridian, County Of Ada, S tate Of Idaho, Amending T itle 10, C hapter 7, S ection 4, M eridian City Code, Known As T he D efinitions S ection Of T he M eridian Impact F ee Ordinance; To P rovide For An Amendment To T he Definition Of “Dwelling Unit”; P roviding F or A Waiver Of T he Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate O rdinance Ordinance 6/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/7/2019 - 12:01 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 11, 2019 – Page 601 of 602 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 19-1830 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 4, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "DWELLING UNIT"; PROVIDING FORA WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, recent amendments to the City of Meridian Development Impact Fee Schedule adopted by Ordinance No. 19-1827 require a clarification of the definition of "Dwelling Units" to include individual units within a multi -family structure. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. The foregoing recital is hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as a finding of the City Council. Section 2. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4 of the Meridian City Code is AMENDED as follows: 10-7-4: DEFINITIONS: DWELLING UNIT: A building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling unit includes a mobile home, a manufactured home, a modular building, and individual units in a multi -family building. , B mobile heme, a manufaetwed home, a medular- building and/of a metel/hetel/teeffling house. Section 3: That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4 remain unchanged. Section 4: 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 j�`' day of June, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 11* day of June, 2019. APPROVED: o���o Aucu�i ��� TTEST: � ow 0 Tammy de Weerd, Mayor -ii s , City Clerk �/rE IDIANIZ.,+-- � J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 11, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 9 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: