2011-04-18 Special JointMayorTammydeWeerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird
Brad Hoaglun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Meridian will hold a Special Meeting in Conference Room A-B at Meridian City
Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on Monday, April 18, 2011 at
12:00 p.m. The following Agency Commissioners and Board members have
also been invited to attend:
City of Nampa
Canyon County
Ada County Highway District; and
Nampa Highway District #1
The following_item will be-the topic of discussion. Public testimony will not be
taken:
Airport -Overland Corridor Study
DATED this 14t"day of April, 2011.
JAYCEE
ti3t~:~~;
r~tE .r
i ~ Rr' 4~ r~. . ~r~:
w+ e~ d t
~ ~~ ~ ~'_
HOLMAN -CITY C~ER ~~~
~~ ,~
~,, ~~; ::
~~ ~
~ h,
`s~~i ~ ~~,+~~' ~~,~
+~ ~
~~~~~11t~4i4~~~~
Meridian City Council Special Meeting -April 18, 2011
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
r~ ,~ ~,
. ~.~,
NOTICE 4F SPECIAL MEETING
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
MayorTammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird
Brad Hoaglun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Meridian will hold a Special Meeting in Conference Room A-B at Meridian City
Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, on Monday, A ril 18, 2011 at
p
12:00 p.m. The following Agency Commissioners and Board members have
also been invited to attend:
City of Nampa
Canyon County
Ada County Highway Distric#; and
Nampa Highway District #1
The following item will be the topic of discussion. Public testimony will not be
taken:
Airport -Overland Corridor Study
DATED this 14t~ day of April, 2011.
JAYCEE
1`,1`~'Y11tt3~~,f ,,l~
R
\ ~
~,
;,.
..
.. +
~~
HGLMAN -CITY C~ER ~~ ~.
p ~
..
w.' ~~ 4
~.
~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ti
~` ~s ~
fltj~tt-i111f,111~,`~1
Meridian City Council Special Meeting -April 18, 2011
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents andlor hearings,
please contac# the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting April 18, 2011
A special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 12:12 p.m.,
Monday, April 1, 2011, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Brad Hoaglun, David Zaremba, and
Charlie Rountree.
The following Agency, Commissioners, and Board Members were also invited to attend:
City of Nampa
Canyon County
Ada County Highway District
Nampa Highway District #1
Topic of Discussion: Airport -Overland Corridor Study
Bowman: If I may I'd like to call the meeting to order. My name is Clair Bowman, I will
be giving the presentation here after a bit, but the first order of business, since we have
invited a quorum of four or five agencies here, would be to give each of your agencies
who needs to call a meeting to order formally to do that at this point. City of Nampa,
you do not have a quorum here. Nampa Highway District does. Do you need to --
Bryce? Where are you? Do you need to call your meeting to order as a quorum of your
commission here? Okay. City of Meridian I believe has a quorum here. Do you need
to call that meeting to order?
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call the meeting to order and recognize for the record
that Councilman Zaremba, Councilman Rountree, Councilman Hoaglun and Mayor de
Weerd are all present.
Bowman: For Ada County Highway District, do you need to just identify who the people
are?
Arnold: Yes. We don't need to call a meeting to order, but for the record we have four
of our Commissioners here, Commissioner Arnold and Commissioner McKee,
Commissioner Case and Commissioner Baker.
Bowman: Okay. Thank you. This study is one of those fun ones to work on in that it is
a truly collaborative venture. The city of Nampa has for some time been trying to
determine what to do Airport Road wise in connecting to the west -- or, excuse me, to
the east or whether Sam Lane should be the primary connection to the east connecting
Ada County. A couple of years ago the City Council had an option to take some of the
funds that they were holding onto for that building project and say, wait a minute, we
have to look further than that at what's going to be the function of that roadway, how
,,-~, does it work? The obvious interconnection to Ada County at that point was the new
alignment that was being constructed for Overland Road with the new interchange to
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 2 of 13
,~ Ten Mile. After several meetings among staff for these agencies we agreed to put
together a jointly funding agency study. Members of technical advisory committee
represented each of those five agencies. I'm the one representing city of Nampa. Ada
County Highway District is both Sabrina and Jeff Lowe. Nampa Highway District No. 1
is Eric Shannon. City of Meridian is Caleb. I didn't see where you sat down. Thank
you, Caleb. And for the Idaho Transportation Department is Eric Rabe, who is the
project manager for this as a federally funded project. The purpose of this corridor, as
an official purpose statement, which says a whole bunch of nice things that you can
probably read better than I can reiterate them for you. In practice there is a much
shorter definition. We need to preserve right of way somewhere on a corridor for a
more direct future route to facilitate east-west travel south of I-84, while at the same
time accommodating traffic. We are not dealing with fixing congestion in this study, we
are dealing with trying to make certain that when the congestion occurs in the future we
have identified and preserved a right of way on which to build a roadway. The process
that's been studied, you know, has been pretty lengthy, we have the technical advisory
committee interviews, public information meetings. Today we are at the point of
evaluating public meeting comment and getting additional comment from the folks
assembled here, after which the technical advisory committee anticipates we will select
a single preferred alternative, prepare the corridor plan, and submit it to -- back to each
of your agencies for adoption. I might point out in this regard the little note down in the
corner of the slide here, it says Parametric. Susan Graham is sitting in the audience.
She's the project manager for Parametrics and somehow, Susan, I couldn't get the
,-~,, March 16th date changed on the bottom, so we will tolerate that. These are the
alignment alternatives that were given serious consideration. At one point we had an
additional alternative that came across here south of the airport connecting up on
Victory Road alignment and that did not -- that very quickly was eliminated, because it
empties into a place in the city of Nampa that has a very restricted railroad underpass
that is in very bad repair and only about a 12 foot clearance. So, we simply from a
practicality standpoint, did not want to dump the traffic on the west end of this
connection into a residential area with those kind of obstacles.. So, we had two
alignments on the Canyon county side, that Sam Lane is the chartreuse one at the top.
Airport Road is the brown one here. This is the Nampa Airport location. Excuse me.
For each of those alignment alternatives we looked at how they combined into four
possible alignments at approximately the county line to the east. Our preliminary lane
configuration on both sides of the county line was a five lane segment. For Canyon
county that meant a hundred foot right of way. For Ada County that meant a 97 foot
right of way. And we began to evaluate the alignment and the alternatives for those
alignments based on that section. The criteria we used for grouping the two tiers --tier
one was, essentially, land use and transportation. You can see the details, property
impact, neighborhood impacts, accommodating Nampa Airport expansion.
Accommodating the regional planning where the specifics for land use. For
transportation we were dealing with connectivity, mobility, traffic ops, and a potential
detour route for I-84 traffic. Tier two criteria involved the environmental and cost issues.
The environmental and cultural and historic resources, a primary one, hazardous
.,~..,,, materials, less likely noise impact -- certainly something to be dealt with as we are going
through the various areas with existing residences. And irrigation and drainage
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 3 of 13
resource impacts. For cost we are looking at cost of required right of way, irrigation
crossing and relocation and retaining walls. For each of those -- for each of the
combination of alternatives with a potential alignment we developed a spreadsheet that
grouped the impacts into red, green, yellow. Green meaning this alternative -- or this --
this criteria in green here favors alternative 2B here. A red in here indicates that this is
a negative for that. That's all you really need to see. There is no way to read it from
your perspective there. We, then, took the tier one criteria, scored them -- the scoring
mechanism will be a part of the final report. Took the tier two criteria, scored those, and
worked through a process for how to move toward a single alternative and alignment
option as our recommended alternative. We held an open house on October 14th, had
over a hundred people attend. I owe a good deal of thanks and appreciation to the Ada
County Highway District for the work they did on both public meetings. My sense is that
the sandwich boards that you put out along this route, along all these alternatives, got
far more attention than the direct mail that we did. People see those sandwich boards.
We had many comments to that effect. Just a bit of feedback for you. Of the hundred
folks plus, we got 66 written comment forms, almost two-thirds of them agreed that we
need to determine the alignment and, then, when we asked them their preferences on
criteria clearly head and shoulders above everything else were the neighborhood
impacts and property impacts. If you go back up to -- see if I can go back here.
Looking at that section, hundred foot section versus something less than that going
through -- let's see. Wait a minute. I'm going to back up one more. Both these
alternatives end up going through some existing residential areas. So, the public
,~~ feedback, once we look back in retrospect, was pretty predictable that they wanted
those neighborhood and property impacts to be taken more seriously and reduced
where ever we could possibly. And on tier two, knowing the impact again, that's a --
that's atransportation side of the same issue, because if you build a road closer to
homes the noise impact gets worse. So, the technical committee collectively came up
with a footprint for Canyon county that's now a 60 foot footprint. It will be striped -- as
it's developed it will be striped in three lanes until such point is it would need to be four
lanes through --through the length of it. For Ada County that's a 63 and 75 foot right of
way for the Ada County side of that line. Here are the impacts -- or the reduced impacts
associated with that narrower footprint on the road. Residential impacts dropped by a
factor of five. Commercial and industrial impacts went to half or less. And agricultural
impacts were reduced by about a third from what they were with the wider footprint on
the roadway. As we worked through the decision process, this is kind of the summary
graphic that Susan and her staff put together to illustrate when and what -- for what
reasons various alternatives were discarded along the way. The key point here for
today is that we have ended up with two, alternative 2B and alternative 2C. The
alternative -- the Airport Road -- I will get to a graphic and show you here in just a
moment. And B and C are two different ways of connecting from Airport Road to the
intersection of Ten Mile and Overland in Ada County. The technical advisory
committee, with the help of Parametrics and with a great deal of help from COMPASS
and from Ada County Highway District's modeling staff, modeled multiple ways at how
to determine what recommendations we would make between 2B and 2C. Ultimately it
.,~, came down to we have no technical basis for deciding. It's going to be primarily a
political decision-making process. We went to a public meeting with these alternatives.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 4 of 13
.~, To show you now, the purple line alternative over here, connecting either to Route B,
which comes down here through the southern portion of the Busy Bee gravel pit or it
comes down to the alignment of the Lamont Road and stays on Lamont Road for a bit
and, then, comes back up. Those are the two options we took to a March 16th public
meeting. We asked how the remaining alternatives compare. This is the question that
folks filled out on their evaluation form, their comment form that day. We had about 80
people attend this meeting, about the same proportion of comment forms from these
written comments received, but not a clear preference, because -- it is a somewhat
clear preference to alternative 2B, but not a dramatic preference there. We provided
some of the general comments here that you can see. The last two I think were --
excuse me --the last one may have come from one of the commissioners that is sitting
in this room today. I don't know. Is that true, Bryce?
Millar: Would you make one comment? What's the total length of this corridor and
which part is in Ada and what part is Canyon?
Bowman: Okay. Both alternatives 2B and 2C are approximately five miles in length.
The distance from Ten Mile Road to McDermott is two miles. The other three miles are
in Canyon county. Of that three miles in Canyon county -- I probably should have
pointed out earlier for those who are not familiar with it --approximately one mile of that
from McDermott to Robinson is in the Nampa Highway District jurisdiction outside the
city limits of the city of Nampa and the western portion certainly from Happy Valley west
and somewhere between Happy Valley and Robinson is where the city limits are for city
limits of Nampa. So, we have three agencies with jurisdiction. Thank you for the
question, Bryce. I forgot that along the way. So, what's next. Without clear guidance
from the public and with the need to have an opportunity to -- to let the political process
have -- I guess up front insight into the fact that we are looking at this as a political
decision-making process between 2B and 2C, today's multi-agency meeting is a part of
that. The technical advisory committee is meeting immediately after this meeting. We
anticipate we will head for a specific recommendation that we can give to Parametrics
and will be included in the draft plan. There are also in this study some Nampa Airport
specific analyses -- I will show one graphic a little bit later on, just to illustrate the kind of
things we are looking at there. Those also need to be completed before the draft
corridor plan is presented. After the corridor plan is prepared we will be presenting it to
each of your agencies for adoption. In the case of Canyon county we will also be going
to the Canyon county commission to request application of an ordinance so the Canyon
county commission can protect right of way on a future to be defined corridor. And,
then, those agencies that need to adopt the plan, we will anticipate early summer -- this
summer we will back to you with a formal request to adopt the plan. For the airport this
is zoomed in now with the Nampa Airport here. Happy Valley Road, Kings Road,
Garrity Boulevard, winding around to the north and this is Victory. Nampa Airport just
completed an updated master. plan. The intersection at Kings Road, Garrity, and Airport
Road is currently -- technical term is a mess. We assume in the traffic analysis for this
corridor study, we assumed that that intersection would be fixed, that it would be usable
,,.~ for left turns from Airport westbound to Kings and for Garrity eastbound to get onto
Airport. That -- that is the number one priority for the airport analysis is to figure out
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 5 of 13
~~ how to fix that intersection or there are some -- some preferred versions of that, but,
essentially, you got to fix one of those -- two of the yellow boxes or at some level you
have got to fix both of them for along-term solution. With that I'd invited what your
thoughts and comments are. I will go back to the graphic that has the two options there
and I will make one more comment about it. This one. After our public meeting on
March 16th we had landowners representing the landowners here close to the gravel pit
and a couple to the south there, schedule a meeting with Caleb, Jeff Lowe, and myself
to talk about the option that is route B there. Route B skirts the southern edge of the
Busy Bee gravel pit, which is winding down nearing -- in fact, they are starting to backfill
already at this point on the south edge.. But when it comes across Black Cat Road it is
at a high point here and it goes right through the middle of the peppermint distillery
that's sitting there. A commercial operation. The landowner suggested that we come
from Nova Lane and come out into the gravel pit and back up and come out where the
low point is between this high point and the high point at Overland up here and, then,
look at alternatives. They would prefer that we go up to the Overland Road. There are
problems with that alignment and we might well -- in fact down here. Our direction to
Parametrics at this point is that they explore the relative merits of those two alignments
from a cost and feasibility perspective. That will be included -- that analysis will be
included as part of what the technical advisory committee deals with as it looks at the
project. The ultimate outcome of the project is a metes and bounds description of a
center line. That's what we are looking for. Then we would ask -- in Canyon county's
case we would ask for them to preserve a certain number of feet of right of way on
,,.-~,, either side of that to -- I'm not sure how you handle that and ACRD and the city of
Meridian to address that. I believe that's the end of what I have to offer or comment on.
Staff members, any additional comment? Go ahead, David.
Zaremba: Just a question, Clair. I think I overheard at the earlier meeting, November,
October, whatever that was last year, some of property owners near or along the yellow
alignment -- 2C alignment seemed to think there were already some transportation
easements given. Was that thought brought up to your knowledge and was it pursued?
Do we know anymore about that?
Bowman: At this point we believe there are none.
Zaremba: Okay.
Bowman: We believe they were talked about, but none were actually ever recorded.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Bowman: Yes.
Shannon: We at Nampa Highway are quite concerned that Airport needs to come back
to relieve Kings intersection up there.
Bowman: Yes.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 6 of 13
r'"`,~
Shannon: Can you point -- most people know where that is. If you slide that Airport
runway down you have two alternatives. One we would go around the airport or try to
go under it.
Bowman: Correct.
Shannon: With the need of Happy Valley Road as north side corridor to the interchange
there at Garrity, if you block that, then, it pushes everything to Robinson that has no
interchange to it. So, that was the concern that we had. The effort be made to go
under that runway if it has to be extended.
Bowman: Going under that runway is one of the options we are looking at on that
southeast corner there. Pearson Dewitt from Parametrics is already working on those
costs and I don't know, Susan, if you're ready to present those to the advisory
committee today.
Graham: No.
Bowman: Okay. I thought it would be next month that we get those. Okay. For today's
meeting we will be looking at the comments coming out of the public meeting and the
comments coming from this meeting, if any. We will look to make a decision and a
,.~ recommendation back. Other questions? Observations?
Rountree: In your opening comments you talked about this being a future federal aid
project.
Bowman: No. Federal aid -- I misspoke if I did. Federal aid funds are being used for
the study -- the corridor study, but the anticipated build out is developer driven. There
are no funds committed by any of the three road facility agencies at this point, either for
right of way or for construction. We don't .anticipate those funds will be made available
anytime in the near future. So, preserving the corridor is really what we are about,
rather than building a roadway at this point. So, that developers through some of that
area would ultimately bear the responsibility for building the roadway.
Rountree: So, there is no federal grant money and no federal highway money to --
Bowman: I would think they would be local.
Rountree: No. I mean the study.
Bowman: Oh. Is the study federal --
Rountree: Federally funded.
Bowman: Yes, it is.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 7 of 13
Rountree: Highways or --
Bowman: Highways funding.
Rountree: And what's the environmental control in this corridor study?
Bowman: We are looking at a stand only for cultural and historic resources, hazardous
materials, wetlands -- I think that's the only three. Right, Susan?
Rountree: Has that been done?
Bowman: The cultural and historic has been concluded. That was one of the --one of
the criteria we used to evaluate that. Hazardous material has been completed. That
also was one of those we used to evaluate the option. Susan, I need some help on the
-- on the third one of those.
Graham: We looked at all of the environmental elements at a very high level and --
Bowman: Even the wetlands?
Graham: Even the wetlands.
Bowman: okay.
Graham: Really only from a soils mapping and available GIS data, all of those
elements, and we did use that to make sure we had at least identified if there were any
problems in any of the environmental categories and we didn't find any.
Bowman: Thank you. Does that answer your question, Charlie?
Rountree: Thank you.
Bowman: Anyone else, comment or questions?
Thorne: Yes. Clair. It probably isn't an issue, but has there been any consideration
with that corridor study in tying Highway 16 to the interstate?
Bowman: You bet. I don't want to go back up to the specific scoring criteria, but I can
illustrate for you -- Highway 16 alignment is approximately on the alignment with
McDermott Road here. I think it will actually come down slightly to the east of that is my
understanding of that. There will be an interchange at I-84 for northbound traffic only
Highway 16 would come down and terminate at I-84. There are no provisions in the
GARVEE plans for any connectivity to McDermott Road to the south. That's not true.
,~,, There are no provisions to build it. There are provisions to design it so that if local
agencies or if the state at some future point wanted to make it a complete interchange
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 8 of 13
~ they could do so and wouldn't have to rebuild what was there already. So, there are
design considerations allowing for the extension to the south, but there are no funds
budgeted, thought of, planned for, or even allowed in the GARVEE program for any of
other state fundings sources right now to go south of there. So, our --the direct answer
to your question, Martin, is that our analysis was limited to how close are we willing to
allow this alignment to come to I-84. The closer we get the more we compromise the
future smooth functioning of a southern access off of the interstate. So, this Route A up
here, the one that's browned out, one of the negative source on that alignment was
because it was too close to the interstate. For Route D down here one of the negatives
there was that it's too far away. But those are simply one of about 20 evaluation criteria
that we were applied. Does that answer your question?
Thorne: Yes. I don't need to make an editorial comment, but I would like to.
Bowman: Go for it.
Thorne: That would be an oversight not to go south.
Bowman: Okay. Other comments or questions? All right. We will certainly be back
sometime this summer with a formal request to consider a draft plan. I thank you for
your attendance today. Brad.
Hoaglun: I'm sorry, Clair. That reminds me. On alternative 2B, when will we hear
about the studies through the gravel pit, those other options?
Bowman: Probably be a month out. I would guess it will be the May technical advisory
committee meeting before we have the numbers and the analysis completed to work
through that. I think there may well be an alternative movement of that alignment that
would help to resolve the issue of a number of these folks sitting in the back of the room
today.
Hood: Clair, if I may --
Bowman: Yes.
Hood: -- I think something that will help the technical advisory committee, too -- and
realizing that a vote probably isn't in order, but I didn't really hear any preference what's
still on the table with alternative 2B and 2C. So, if anyone has any preferences it would
certainly help staff out with what you know here and if you need more information before
your -- I have gone to my council and had a discussion with them previously, but -- but
for the group as a whole I think we are looking for some direction as well as we move
forward in this study with the preferred alternative. So, if anybody has feelings or
thoughts one way or the other I think those are -- would be appreciated at this point as
well.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 9 of 13
.~. Anderson: I guess just to add to that, one thing that would be helpful in the direction is
if, for example, we find all the agencies are leaning towards B, that helps us not
continue towards C. We have gotten to this level. Orvice-versa, you know, we just see
C for these reasons -- that helps the county continue doing additional analysis on B.
there are still some additional steps and maybe Clair can go over some of those. One
that I can tell you about is there is still some intersection analysis on the traffic side that
need to occur that Ada County Highway District on our side is working with Parametrics,
kind of weighing out from the new inputs on the model and do we think they are going to
be constructed in 2000 -- 2035 to be roundabouts orsignaled --you know, based on the
demographics. So, there is still some additional, but we don't want to continue doing
additional work and focus resources, unless there is a clear direction coming from the
agencies. If there is additional information that you are looking for, this would be a good
time to know, so that your collective staff can bring you individually back that
information. And, then, I believe the next step from that would be we will schedule
individual meetings on the corridor to bring that back to you. What we don't want to do
is have staff recommendations come to you individually and we have a, you know,
smattering of B here and a C here and B here and a C here. We are trying to
coordinate four different agencies to adopt a plan. So, I would -- don't want to walk
away from this meeting and not make sure what our direction is. And a hush falls over
the crowd. Someone needs to go first.
Arnold: Well, I guess I will pipe up on behalf of the Ada County Highway District that
,.~ our project is -- before we would pick a preference for an alignment we are going to take
public input. So, I personally can't pick an alternative today, because I don't have all the
information. I have some that you have presented today, some we previously received
in writing, but we will have the public input component of it to consider as well. So, from
my standpoint we are going to have to do the analysis for both of the alternatives
presented to us at the appropriate time for a decision. But the other commissioners
may have adifferent --different view.
Person: Well, I would echo what Commissioner Arnold said and that's the information I
don't believe is -- we have got enough there and specifically the gravel area, you know,
that's -- I think that's an important part it has to be looked at, so that's where I'm at.
Arnold: And I'm going to be listening to Meridian -- Caleb, Brad, because, you know, I
think there is a lot of land use issues here, too, that will follow. You're going to have a
big input, so if you find one route better than the other for land use reasons, I think that's
going to weigh heavily.
Bowman: Bryce, you want to express the preference for your commission that we were
talking about last week?
Millar: Where do I start? Probably so, yeah. We are just concerned with the airport
coming over that road and if you decide to change the airport or change anything else,
,,..~ give us a little closer target where do you think this is going to happen, 2035? '45? Out
that far?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 10 of 13
Bowman: By being primarily developer driven at this point, I would anticipate the new
alignments are likely not to be in place for the next ~ 5 to 20 years. I would think. We
would simply be preserving right of way. If we get another very rapid growth spirt that
could change that. Both Meridian and Nampa right now are revising comp plans. In
both cases I think the density between, oh, probably Pit Lane and Ten Mile will be
changing to become a more dense land use. To the extent that development works on
anew density level, the 20 years might too far out, it might come sooner than that.
That's why we are trying to focus right now just on preserving the alignment. The option
to keep open which of these two alignments you might at the Ada Highway District level,
creates a bit of conflict, although not terribly, because you come to the county line and
you still have a separation there. But my sense is, you know, without asking permission
of the Nampa Highway District or the city of Meridian, my sense is that if you came up
with an alignment on the east side of there that somewhere including the B and C
alignment, somewhere in that vicinity, we can probably make it match up on the west
end, so that we get a continuous route. I don't see anybody grimacing at that on the
Canyon county side here, but that would be a guess. So, I think we can go through the
process and still get to an appropriate metes and bounds description for preservation.
Tom.
Tom: We are probably 2C, but happen 26. I thought I'd throw that in there. But just --
maybe Imissed it somewhere, but how much actual new -- how much road is there right
,,~ now that -- I know the diagonal doesn't existfrom 2C going up to B --
Bowman: That's right.
Tom: But what exists on airport going through?
Bowman: Airport currently ends at Robinson.
Tom: Okay.
Bowman: So, from here to either here or there is all new road.
Tom: And there is no road -- no right of way or anything in there at all right now.
Bowman: No right of way. That is correct. You have a one mile stretch of Overland
Road up here that because of the residential development along it and because of its
substandard nature right now, we eliminated that as an option along the way.
Person: You say was 2C the yellow --
Bowman: Yes.
,,~, Person: That's all new road?
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 11 of 13
~ Bowman: Over as far as Black Cat. There is road through here called Lamont for this
half mile -- or I guess it goes all the way through for the mile through there.
Person: Okay. Thank you.
Bowman: Bryce, you had another comment?
Millar: Yes. If the airport moves away from the Kings corner does the airport alignment
have to drop down to meet it or how does that work? Or it will still come clear straight
into --
Bowman: Airport Road would not move.
Millar: Yeah. Okay. It will still stay the same.
Bowman: Right. Okay. David, one comment and, then, Eric.
Zaremba: Just a comment and I'm just -- because I know staff is trying to get a final
push one direction or the other. Since you very first started this I have leaned toward
2B, just because visually it's the straightest line. But my struggle and why I still consider
2C to be almost equal is I really need the answer on what does it cost to go across the
south end of the quarry and in the comments that I have written and the statements that
,~ I have made, I still treat B and C kind of equally, even though visually I lean towards B,
but I -- I think for myself and probably other Meridian City Council people, we need that
answer. What is that difference in that cost?
Bowman: All right. We can get you that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Bowman: Eric.
Shannon: Just for clarification. Airport when it goes east actually goes past Star and it
ends at McDermott.
Bowman: Oh, that's right. It goes all the way to McDermott. It winds through the gravel
pit there. That's right. So, it comes through here and winds around and through the
gravel pit between them from here. So, yes. Thank you. Airport Road does go all the
way through to McDermott.
Person: I was thinking of that and there is not quite as much right of way to buy as far
as actual roadway existing today, so --
Bowman: And some of those large landowners out there we actually had pledges when
,~ we did our stakeholder interviews, you take an alignment and we will donated right now
the right of way to preserve it. Bryce.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 12 of 13
Millar: Where those gravel pits are, just a suggestion to Ada County. Where this is a
long ways out like that, if they could possibly concentrate on filling them and keep it
straight if we could. We are looking a long way out. Let's dump our dirt there.
Possibly? And keep that as straight as we could it would be nice, rather than where it's
going to be filled eventually anyway, if we could concentrate it right on that alignment it
would be good. Just a suggestion.
Bowman: Okay.
Hoaglun: And my thinking is -- I'm kind of like Councilman Zaremba, you know, to me
when you do transportation the straighter the better and it's just a little easier, to seems
cost effective. I would like to know about those tweaks through the gravel pit area, but
kind of like that comment there where, you know, we are dealing with a gravel pit that's,
being backfilled, that has less impact than on people who live on Lamont and so -- but
there is a cost factor we also have to look at.
Bowman: Right.
Hoaglun: 6 makes make more sense right now.
Bowman: Okay. I made a commitment to Nancy that we would be out of here by 1:00
;rte o'clock today. I think we are right on schedule to do that, so she can come set up their
support people. I wish to express my thanks to all of you for coming. We are obviously
open to comments and suggestions after you leave the meeting and think about it a bit
more. I would be happy at anytime to sit down with any one of you to talk about your
thoughts, options, or whatever. Do we have any groups that formally called their
meeting to order?
De Weerd: I did.
Bowman: You did. We need to turn it over to you.
De Weerd: We were posted as a special meeting.
Bowman: We need to turn it to Mayor de Weerd to close her meeting.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, we are adjourned.
Zaremba: Okay.
Bowman: Thank you. I appreciate your attendance.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:51 P.M.
Meridian City Council Special Meeting
April 18, 2011
Page 13 of 13
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR T De WEERD
fJ~ r~ ~ ~u ~t Yak`
ATTE
~ 1 I ~~ Il
DATE APB, ~ ~ ~ `~°'
~~;~~~.
-~~~
.,<,. ,:.~ r ~
,..
`ti/ z S.,f ~,q , `
~ ,y/ It
. r Y~ ~ : '{ 't9 X
TOM DALE
MAYO R
s
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Memorandum
T0: Nampa City Council Members
Mayor de Weerd and the Meridian City Council
Ada County Highway District Commissioners
Nampa Highway District #1 Commissioners
Canyon County Cammiss}eners
FROM: Mayor Tom Dale, City of Nampa
RE: Airport-Overland Corridor Study -Public Officials Meeting
DATE: March 23, 2011
CITY HALL
41 1 3RD ST. SOUTH
NAMPA, IDAHO 83651
(208) 468-5401
FAX: (208) 465-2227
Please j oin me for a j oint-agency luncheon meeting April 18, 2011, at noon at Meridian City Hall to
cooperatively review the preferred alignment for the Airport-Overland Corridor study. This important
regional corridor meeting will beheld prior to the COMPASS Board meeting.
The Airport-Overland Corridor Study is amulti-agency effort to determine a preferred alignment for a
future arterial connecting Garrity Boulevard on the west to Overland Road at its newly aligned
intersection with Ten Mile Road on the east. Once a preferred alignment is determined, land use
agencies will be requested to protect this right-of way from future encroachment. Construction of the
future roadway will be at the discretion of each agency that has jurisdiction over their respective
segment of the alignment. Currently, it is expected this process will be driven by development
pressure, not by seeking new funding from local property taxes or state or federal highway funds.
During the meeting on April 18, a brief overview of the project, progress to date, and results from a
March 16 public information meeting (the second for this project) will be provided. Officials will then
be asked to share their opinions on the two final alignment alternatives. At a later date, each
jurisdiction will be asked to take official action adopting the study and the preferred alignment.
Your personal participation at this meeting is requested. It will be posted as an official meeting for
each of the agencies to whom this memorandum is addressed. A staff member from the Nampa Public
Works Department will call to confirm whether or not you are available and, if so, your lunch choice.
Please feel free to contact Clair Bowman (bowmancm(a~cit, oy~ fnampa.us or 468-5474) with any
questions. I hope to see you Monday, April 18 at noon at Meridian City Hall. Thank you.
pc: City Clerks
Commission Secretaries
Technical Advisory Committee Members