2014-03-25~~ivl E IDIAN~- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
IDAHO MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 6:00 PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
X_ David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Michael Pearson
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Interagency Agreement with Ada County Highway District for Roadway
Construction/Water Construction Located at Pine Ave., N. Haven Cove PI.
to N. Rotan Ave. (ACRD Project No. 812011.005)
Vacated
B. Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Planning
Services Agreement for "Fields District Phases 2 & 3" to Pegasus Planning
& Development for the Not-To-Exceed amount of $74,500.00
C. Approval of Professional Services Agreement for "Economic Development
Analysis and Plan" to Pegasus Planning and Development for the Not-To-
Exceed Amount of $45,000.00
D. Resolution No. 14-982: A Resolution for the Vacation (VAC 14-001) of a 10
foot wide Public Utility Drainage and Irrigation (PUDI) easement along the
Shared Lot Line of Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 Platted with the Leisman Addition
Subdivision
6. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, March 25, 2014 Page 1 of 3
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.
7. Action Items
A. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: TEC 14-003 Seyam
Subdivision by Volante Investments Located North Side of E. Franklin Road
and East of N. Eagle Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the
Preliminary Plat Approved
B. Public Hearing: MDA 14-002 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest
Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request:
Amendment to the Development Agreement to Allow a Mix of Single Family
Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all Attached Lots and Update the
Conceptual Development Plan Approved
C. FP 14-009 Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 3 by Ronald W. Van Auker
Located 2950 E. Franklin Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of
Six (8) Building Lots on 6.81 Acres of Land in the C-G and I-L Zoning
Districts Approved
D. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-042 Centre Point
Square by Center Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and
South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Forty (40) Single-Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots
on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District Continued
to April 1, 2014
E. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025 Centre Point
Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and
South of E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to
Change the Development Plan from Multi-Family to Single Family
Continued to April 1, 2014
F. Public Hearing: ZOA 14-001 Medium High-Density Residential District (R-
15) Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment by Tahoe Homes
Request: UDC Text Amendment to Modify the Dimensional Standards of
the R-15 Zoning District Approved
G. Public Hearing: MDA 14-003 Kennedy Commercial Center by Derk Pardoe
Located North Side of W. Overland Road and West of S. Stoddard Road
Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (DA) (Instrument
#108119853) for the Purpose of Excluding the Property from the Recorded
DA and Incorporating a New Concept Plan and Building Elevations
Consisting of Office, Retail and Multi-Family Residential into a New DA
Approved
8. Department Reports
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, March 25, 2014 Page 2 of 3
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.
A. Public Works: Budget Amendment for Replacement of a Backhoe for aNot-
to-Exceed Amount of $105,000.00 Approved
B. Public Works: Budget Amendment for Meridian Split Corridor Phase II -
Meridian Development Cooperation (MDC) Historic Streetlights for aNot-to-
Exceed Amount of $75,000.00 Approved
9. Future Meeting Topics
Adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, March 25, 2014 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall. became propertyof the Cily of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the Cily Clerk's Office al 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council March 25, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:08 p.m., Tuesday, March
18, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David
Zaremba Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Sonya Watters, Justin
Lucas, Warren Stewart, Dennis Teller, Jamie Leslie, Mark Niemeyer, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for your patience. We appreciate your joining us this
evening and so with that I will just launch right into our regular meeting. For the record
it is Tuesday, March 25th. It's 6:08. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam
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 Michael Pearson
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Michael Pearson. He is with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Please join us in the
community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank
you for joining us tonight.
Pearson: Thank you. Almighty God, in that you choose by grace to not only create us,
but to redeem us and one day restore us to -- fully to you, we humbly invite your
presence here this evening. We pray that in the deliberations this evening, the
discussions, the votes, the conclusions will be in line with your will for Meridian city. We
ask your blessing on all those present this evening in Jesus' name, amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 2 of 59
De Weerd: Thank you so much for leading us. For the record let it be noted that
Council Borton is with us. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Item 5-A the staff has requested to vacate that particular item from the
agenda. Item 5-D is resolution number is 14-982. And with those suggested changes I
move that we adopt the agenda.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as noted. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Interagency Agreement with Ada County Highway District for
Roadway Construction/VUater Construction Located at Pine
Ave., N. Haven Cove PI. to N. Rotan Ave. (ACRD Project No.
812011.005) Vacated.
Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional
Planning Services Agreement for "Fields District Phases 2 &
3" to Pegasus Planning & Development for the Not-To-Exceed
amount of $74,500.00
C. Approval of Professional Services Agreement for "Economic
Development Analysis and Plan" to Pegasus Planning and
Development for the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $45,000.00
D. Resolution No. 14-982: A Resolution for the Vacation (VAC 14-
001) of a 10 foot wide Public Utility Drainage and Irrigation
(PUDI) easement along the Shared Lot Line of Lots 3 and 4,
Block 3 Platted with the Leisman Addition Subdivision
De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as previously noted.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 3 of 59
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed.
Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Items IVloved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Continued from IVlarch 18, 2014: Public Hearing: TEC 14-003
Seyam Subdivision by Volante Investments Located North
Side of E. Franklin Road and East of N. Eagle Road Request:
Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat
De Weerd: So, we will move right into our Action Item, to 7-A, which is a public hearing
that was continued from March 18th on TEC 14-003. I will ask for staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item before you
tonight is a request for a time extension on the preliminary plat for Seyam Subdivision.
This site consists of 39.28 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and I-L and is located east of
North Eagle Road at the northeast corner of North Guadians Avenue and East Franklin
Road. This is the fourth time extension requested by the applicant. As with all
extensions Council may require the preliminary plat to comply with current provisions of
the Unified Development Code. Since the previous time extension request the city
standards pertaining to street lights, performance surety, and warranty surety, as well
as the Public Works construction standards have changed. As provisions of the subject
time extension request, staff recommends the applicant comply with these updated
standards. Brad Miller, the applicant's representative, has submitted written testimony
in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval of the subject
request with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Mayor
and Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Rountree: No.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 4 of 59
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comment? Always nice to see you, Brad. If
you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Miller: Brad Miller. 3084 East Lanark in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Miller: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm a little bit embarrassed to come
back for another time extension, because it is a little bit excessive, but I would like you
to know that we have already had the final plat signed off by ACRD, by DEQ, and it will
hit the city here in the next couple weeks. So, our objective is to get this thing recorded
ASAP and get the improvements put in this summer. So, that's what our plan is. So,
apologize that we are coming back again, but with the economy and a few other things
thrown in there it's kind of been one of those things.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Thanks, Brad.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to hear -- or
provide testimony on this item?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Seeing none, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-A.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-A.
Rountree: Close the hearing.
De Weerd: I'm sorry. Close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 5 of 59
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve Item 7-A, TEC 14-003.
Bird: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-A. Is there any discussion
from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing: IViDA 14-002 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC
Located Southwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E.
N1clVlillan Road Request: Amendment to the Development
Agreement to Allow a Mix of Single Family Attached and
Detached Lots Instead of all Attached Lots and Update the
Conceptual Development Plan
De Weerd: Item 7-B is a public hearing on MDA 14-002. I will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next application before you is a development
agreement modification -- and if I can find my PowerPoint. This site is located on the
southwest corner of North Locust Grove Road and East McMillan Road at 47 North
Locust Grove Road. The applicant requests an amendment to the approved, but not yet
recorded development agreement for Da Vinci Park. The applicant proposes to update
the development plan for the property with a new concept plan for a mix of single family
attached and detached lots, instead of all attached lots. The amendment includes
changes to the applicable text of the agreement to include detached building lots,
updated lot number references based on the revised plan, a revised conceptual
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 6 of 59
development plan, as you see here the approved concept plan currently is on the left,
the proposed concept plan is on the right. The removal of the provision that requires
the property to be subdivided prior to issuance of building permits. The configuration of
the commercial and residential portions of the development have changed slightly on
the revised concept plan from that previously approved. The residential area has
increased by .39 of an acre and the qualified open space has decreased slightly, but still
complies with the minimum UDC. standards. The total number of building lots has
decreased from 38 to 34 dwelling units, resulting in a slight decrease in density from
4.89 to 4.38 dwelling units per acre. With the amendment a mix of housing types are
now proposed consistent with the mixed use neighborhood and medium density
residential land use designations for this site. Because the site currently consists of two
legal parcels, the applicant would like to start construction on two homes, one on each
parcel, after demolition of the existing house and accessory structures. Provided that
access to the building site meets the fire department standards and any other applicable
life safety requirements, staff does not object to the applicant commencing construction
on these two structures. These structures should be located so that they comply with
the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district for the future platted lots. Prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy for these structures the final plat should be recorded and all
improvements completed. The applicant has also submitted conceptual building
elevations for the detached units as shown here. Written testimony has been received
from Bob Unger, the applicant's representative in agreement with the terms in the staff
report and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions Mayor and
Council may have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Does the applicant have any comments?
Unger: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Bob Unger with ULC
Management, 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. It's a pretty simply, cut, dry
application. We have spent time with staff to make sure that this amendment would
comply and we really don't have a lot more to add to it. So, we'd ask for your approval.
De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Unger: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this item? Okay. Council, seeing no testimony --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 7 of 59
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: -- any questions? Mr. Bird.
Bird: If we have no questions or testimony, I move we close MDA 14-002.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-B. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve MDA 14-002 and to include all staff and applicant comments.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-B. If there is no discussion
from Council I would ask Madam Clerk to call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. FP 14®009 ®Ison ~ Bush Subdivision No. 3 by Ronald W. Van
Auker Located 2950 E. Franklin Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots on 6.81 Acres of
Land in the C-G and I-L Zoning Districts
De Weerd: Item C is Final Plat 14-009. I will ask for staff comments at this time.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The next application before you is a request for
final plat. This site is located at 2950 East Franklin Road on the north side of East
Franklin Road west of Eagle Road. The proposed final plat depicts six building lots on
6.81 acres of land in C-G and I-L zoning districts. The proposed plat is in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Written testimony has been received
from Brad Miller, the applicant's representative. He is in agreement with the terms of
the staff report and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions
Council may have.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 8 of 59
De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Milam: No.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: It's not a public hearing, so --
De Weerd: It's not a public hearing and the applicant didn't have any comment.
Bird: I move that we approve FP 14-009 and include staff comments.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-C. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-042
Centre Point Square by Center Point Square, LLC Located
West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty (40) Single-
Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on
Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District
Continued to April 1, 2014
E. Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025
Centre Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located
West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request:
Development Agreement Modification to Change the
Development Plan from Multi-Family to Single Family
De Weerd: Item 7-D and E are continued from March 18th, public hearing on PP 13-
042 and MDA 13-025. I will ask for staff comments at this time.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 9 of 59
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm filling in tonight for Bill
Parsons, who wasn't able to be here on this project. I know he presented to you last
week. Just to bring everyone up to speed, this -- this is a continued public hearing
related to these items. The primary purpose of the continuance was, one, to give staff
some time to discuss with the applicant and the fire department traffic calming
measures on East Picard Lane and, two, to provide more specificity within the design
requirements in the development agreement. Staff has -- has done that. I'm going to
go ahead and move through here and show you where we landed and we have come
up with the following development agreement provisions related to those -- to those
issues. As you can see here we struck out the -- the proposed elevations that we were
-- that were requested by the Council, so those have been removed from the package
and we have provided the following language related to the addition of a chicane, which
is an off-setting bulb out, as proposed by the fire department and also have added quite
a bit of language related to the design of the structures. Staff is confident that this
language addresses the concerns of the Council. I'm not going to read it all to you, but
can stand for any questions at this time.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: I think it needs to be noted in the record that we did receive several new
written testimony, as well as there is a letter in front of you that we received today as
well. So, any questions for staff at this time?
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Do you have an illustration of the roadway alignment, the
chicanes that are suggested?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, let me see if I actually have a graphic of
the roadway alignment. The way that condition read -- this is a -- here you go. Here is
a conceptual picture. This is not, I just want to emphasize, the exact alignment of how
these would work. The development agreement provision states that the chicane needs
to be designed by a certified civil engineer who is, you know, familiar with traffic calming
devices and at the time of final plat staff will have the chance to review the final design,
but will give an illustration of what a chicane could look like. Whether it is two bulb outs,
whether it's three, all of those things would need to be identified at the design phase of
the project with the final plat.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, follow up.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: We have had some experience with this approach on a subdivision that
accesses Ustick. Do you have any information with respect to that on how effective it's
been or not?
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 10 of 59
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I'm trying to think of the subdivision that
accesses Ustick that has the chicanes. There is not a lot of chicanes within -- in the
City of Meridian.
Rountree: It's a single street.
Lucas: Okay.
Rountree: It's east of Meridian.
Lucas: East of Meridian Road --
Rountree: And north --
Zaremba: West of Locust Grove I think.
Lucas: You know, Ithink -- I think I am familiar with the -- the chicane that you're talking
about. At this point staff hasn't received any regular complaints in that area, so it
appears that those chicanes have helped to meet the concerns of the neighbors
regarding traffic calming. We are not in any active investigation that I know of related to
that and I don't know -- I know we have someone from ACRD here tonight and I don't
know if they could shed light on that. It's a little different situation where that's a public
street and this would be a private street, so -- I don't know if that exactly answers your
question, but I guess in short I don't really have anymore detailed information on that
specific chicane in the City of Meridian.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Justin, I know you weren't at the last hearing, but Councilman Rountree
did bring up a very valid concern and I don't know if between last week and this week it
was really discussed, so I'm going to throw this out to you. There is great concern with
the connecting points that this private road provides between two public roads and with
both maintenance and liability with having the traveling public and -- and we already
know that it's well used as a cut through as -- in both directions, either from Eagle to get
to Ustick or Ustick to get to Eagle and the businesses on that. What is the legal liability
for this public -- or private road as it accommodates people who wouldn't normally be
there to visit these residents?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the question related to legal liability -- I
don't know if I can speak directly to that, we might need counsel to weigh in. I do know
that typically a configuration where you have a private street connecting to public streets
isn't ideal. In this specific situation it was approved in this manner and as you know on
this development site there has been some -- some changes over time to the plan out
there. Now, when it comes to liability, private streets are, obviously, not under the
jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District, therefore, the -- the public liability there I
believe is removed from them. They are not under the jurisdiction, really, of the City of
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 11 of 59
Meridian, those are private streets, just like a commercial drive aisle or a driveway.
Maybe counsel would like to weigh in on the -- on the question of liability further than
what I have clarified.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would say the same thing that Justin
just said. I mean these are no different than a drive aisle -- yeah, there is, obviously, a
number of different areas around town that have public access through them that are
still private drive aisles of -- you know, the rear of a number of shopping facilities have
delivery areas and drive aisles back there that allow public access and they are using
an easement or -- but they are not right of way. So, it is the private property owner's
responsibility for both the maintenance, as well as liability. Now, roadway liability
generally is only going to go to the construction and maintenance of the roadway itself.
So, just because somebody gets in a collision in a private drive doesn't necessarily
mean the people who own the asphalt have a responsibility towards that collision, but --
but it is a private -- but it is -- Justin is correct, it's no different than any other private
aisle or private drive that exists around other commercial areas in the city.
De Weerd: And -- and I know that the -- the public would not be responsible, but what
are we setting up in terms of -- to my recollection we did not really anticipate that this
would be a connector between two different areas of the public road. Certainly it was
anticipated that cars would access through the northern commercial area for the
commercial and the residential would go out to Ustick using that same connecting point.
I think the city does have some -- some ownership in the predicament that this property
is in, so -- and I don't know if a chicane would slow the traffic. It slows it where we can't
enforce it, but it's almost to me -- I know Planning loves to hear gated community, but
the only solution I see is gating this private area, so that it's not accessible to the public,
so -- and that's just, I guess, my opinion and throwing it out there, but it is concerning
having this public-private-public type of situation.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, part of where this originated back about
eight years ago was when these properties were approved originally there was no
cross-access between them and if you recall the northern property was approved and,
then, this property was approved at the same time, but there was no cross-access. So,
this became a landlocked parcel and so there was a concern by the property owners at
the time that they now had an undevelopable piece of property. So, that roadway that
was -- that was constructed is a future roadway I think for public access. It's just that
the north piece hasn't developed the rest of it to provide further access like you're -- like
you're talking about. But the access was intended to connect these two, knowing the
private street was already there, because -- because the developer of this parcel
wanted to make sure they had access to Ustick or they couldn't develop it. So, it was
the compromise that was reached back in about 2005 to allow them access. So,
would agree with you that there is a long history as to how this got the way it is, but part
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 12 of 59
of it was, basically, the -- the desire to develop it and the designer or the owner in the
northern piece was willing to grant the public road access immediately -- originally they
weren't intending to have that access open until they opened up the -- or developed the
entire north piece and that was the problem. So, they agreed to that as a compromise,
so that puts us in a predicament. I don't know if it does -- I don't think it answers your
question, but I mean that's partly the reason why it's here.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions at this point?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Mr. Nary, are you referencing the -- that corner piece between Picard and --
right there. That connection.
Nary: Yes.
Borton: All right.
De Weerd: And it was built -- oh. Okay. Anything further? Would the applicant like to
make comment? Please state your name and address for the record.
Unger: Madam Mayor and Council, my name is Bob Unger, ULC Management, 6104
North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. As far as the traffic calming device, the chicane
that we are showing on this -- on Picard Lane, that particular design is a designation
that I got out of a traffic manual and I did review this with Chief Palmer and he was
comfortable with that, but also staff put it as a condition that that be reviewed and
approved by a traffic engineer and we are fine with that. There is an alternative that can
go in that the chief told me about. There actually are speed bumps that can be installed
that have a specific spacing, so that emergency vehicle tires will -- will not hit the bump
and there is a specific ACHD standard for that design. If the Council's preference is to
go with the speed bumps we are open to that and Chief Palmer indicated that he would
be open to either one. So, I don't think we have an issue there. In -- I'd like to just
review the private road connection that -- that you have been discussing here. Back
when this project was approved, the overall project of Bienville Square in 2005, 2006,
the particular street alignments that are shown today, those were approved and it was
understood that they were private roads from Eagle Road -- excuse me --down to North
Le Blanc Way, which is where it becomes a public road again and that -- that we would
connect to Ustick via the Centre Point Way, which is exactly what we did, and the
development of the property to the north -- this Cajun Road or Cajun Lane was going to
extend through over -- all the way over to Ustick when they did their development and
they were only a month ahead of us, so everything we did had to align with them. So,
that's exactly what we did. And, in fact, the roundabout and the northern portion of
Cajun Lane there exists across-access agreement between this development and the
property to the north. So, they would have -- in fact, it comes all the way in from Eagle
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 13 of 59
Road, so that they would be able to use this access to get into their development also
and at that time the -- the center portion of the project -- the master plan for that called
for 28 condominium units adjacent to Le Blanc Way and that's where the 28 attached
living units are currently built and the balance of this -- the master plan showed 17 four-
plex structures, a total of 68 units, and what we are proposing is 40 units. So, it
certainly is a reduction in what the original proposal -- the original master plan that was
approved by the -- by the Council back in '05, '06. So, we feel that the overall project
that was originally approved, including the private streets, it was understood that these
connections were being made and that these specific densities that were going to go in
there were the 28 units and the 68 units and in reality we are asking for a reduction in
the number of units. So, we feel that we have more than complied with the original
master plan of the project and we have actually put together a much more desirable
product than what was originally proposed. So, having said that, I will stand for any
questions that you might have.
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Unger, I think you have put a more desirable product in for the rest
of it and I guess I would say that we don't always have all the answers, but if we don't
live and learn from what we observe, we wouldn't be doing our job and upholding our
commitment to the public that elect us and I think there have been lessons learned out
there. Right now because the northern piece is not developed, it's putting a lot of
pressure on a private road that you're not going to have to deal with, because once
you're done with this you're gone. The homeowners and the people that live there will
be dealing with it and they are the ones that will have the cost imposed on them in
maintaining a private road that's used very publicly and I guess that is -- is the largest
question in front of this Council at this time. So, we may have understood that the
connection that was made at that time, but time has shown us and taught us something.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm still concerned about the traffic flow on private-public parcels. You made
mention that the master plan was approved with the understanding that these are
private roads. I believe it was also made with the understanding that the master plan
would be built and that the public roads would be provided as well to and including the
inclusion of across-access agreement to the property to the north. In my opinion that
road needs to be done in order to accommodate any further development in the interior,
because that was the intent of the master plan. I can't -- I can't deny that you have put
together a better proposal. I think you have scaled it up considerable. And that's
because you have learned from the past project. So, I guess -- that's just my
observation, Bob. I feel strongly that way.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Unger?
Bird: I have none.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 14 of 59
De Weerd: Any other comments at this point?
Unger: No. Madam Mayor, Iwill --
De Weerd: Save it for the --
Unger: That's fine.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to testify this evening?
Yes, sir. If you could, please, state your name and address for the record.
Lemay: Yes. My name is Joseph Lemay. My address is 2989 North Centre Point Way,
Meridian. 83646.
De Weerd: Thank you, Joseph.
Lemay: Madam Mayor, Council Members, thank you for having us. You have
mentioned chicanes may calm traffic and speed bumps may calm traffic, but as you
have also mentioned they do nothing to alleviate the maintenance and responsibility of
the private roadway. As a homeowner in the subdivision there I don't find it fair or
reasonable that the City of Meridian -- and I'm not pointing fingers, but I'm saying I don't
find it fair or reasonable that the city, nor ACHD, should put that maintenance cost on
myself, the other homeowners that are here and the general public around there for a --
as you indicate, a very publicly used roadway. To that end we are asking the city to
stop the further development until either the road can be proved that it was constructed
properly and handed to ACRD for their -- so that they can maintain that and, then, we
would be fine with Bourbon Street, which is the southern most roadway that goes
around the new development. We are okay with that being a private road. It's at the
very southern end of the -- of development. It's also private. There is no public access
there per se, because they would have to go around all of the buildings, all the homes,
to get there. It's not acut-through through affair as Picard is. We are asking that no
more development go in until this can be addressed to either be turned over to ACRD
for their maintenance and control or another access, as you have pointed out, Cajun
Road being brought out the north and cut across where it cuts into Centre Point. And,
again, we are -- we are concerned. Traffic calming is a great thing. There is a lot of
people that think that is the Indianapolis Speedway through there. Our bigger concern
is the maintenance of the road and saddling that cost on 51 homes to the west. Thank
you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you. Please. Let me first thank you for your service to our country
and if you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Bailey: My name is Bob Bailey and my address is 2925 North Centre Point Way and
thank you for your service. I really appreciate the fact that all of you -- your insight and
your knowledge of this situation, I really appreciate that. I am a resident and I will tell
you it scares me to see some of the things that are going on on that roadway there. I
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 15 of 59
don't know if you know, we have a Jimmy John's right up there. The only way they can
get north, east, or west of their location is down that road. They drive very fast, they
don't stop at the stop signs and what's a bigger concern is now we are going to have all
these additional units and these units are small units, we expect that there is going to be
families in those units, small kids running around. Speed bumps may help, but, then,
there is the liability of damage to vehicles and stuff. Are we going to incur that cost as
the residents there? I would like to see us, you know, just hold this off, take our time,
make sure we make the right decisions here. We all have a responsibility to the
citizens. I do that on a daily basis and I know you do, too, and I'm asking as a citizen for
your help in making sure that we do this right, we take our time, we plan it correctly and
we make sure the community is safe and we make sure that the residents are
protected. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Sir? Did you have a question? No? Okay. Yes, sir. Good
evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Hysmith: I'm Larry Hysmith and I live at 2903 North Centre Point Way.
De Weerd: Thank you, Larry.
Hysmith: Also being a resident of this area I have the same concerns that everyone
else has, but the larger concern is the liability of a potential accident. The burden of
rebuilding, repairing, maintaining that would go a long way -- I'm a retired individual -- in
hurting my budget, let alone the others that we have in the development -- the other
residents. But this liability -- should an accident happen we are responsible, we are tied
in with the other -- the way this development occurred and, again, I also would
appreciate if we could stop further development until we could resolve this issue. If we
turn it over to the city that would be wonderful. Or possibly get the contractor to absolve
us in Jackson Square of all liability and I don't know if that could be brought up, but I
appreciate it very much. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Gammon: Yes. My name is Elizabeth Gammon. 3305 Centre Point Way and actually
own the home with my daughter, who put in just about all her money into the home.
Last meeting I said I was ashamed that I helped her find this home, because of all these
problems coming up and now I'm terrified, because I wasn't aware of all the liability with
this road. As far as the cars go, our -- Cajun Road going out, I don't know how that's
going to solve many of the problems even with that if it goes straight out, but I wanted to
tell you that today for ten minutes, not during rush hour, I watched the cars coming in
and out of the area. I did not count the cars that belonged to residents. There were 11
cars in ten minutes. There were nine coming from Ustick -- not Ustick -- Eagle Road.
Of those nine one person stopped at the stop sign. There were a number coming off of
-- or one that came off of -- from the shopping center. They came and just turned
around there, which I have seen quite frequently. There were two cars that came --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 16 of 59
other -- two other cars that came off of Eagle Road. One -- no, two -- there were three.
Two were Jimmy John's -- and I have to say they get a fairly bad rap, because they are
not the only problem, they are only part of the problem. The only reason we know is
because they have a sign. We don't know where the other cars are coming from. I can
only assume that many are either patrons or business people from the business section.
And I want to tell you when I was writing this information down I looked down at my
paper and I'm writing it down and looked up again and saw four cars waiting to -- at the
light at Ustick Road to get out. That's how bad the traffic is now. What it's going to be
like when they put something in and it -- the issues aren't taken care of I don't know.
don't -- the speed bumps -- I agree with the others that it will calm things, people will
slow down and maybe even stop at the stop sign, but I don't think it's going to solve the
problem and I wish that this is stopped until we -- we don't have to have liability for the
roads. And I was going around this Saturday trying to get some of the residents to
come to the meeting and there are retiring, there are young people, and there are
growing families and in talking to many of these people they can't even afford the
upkeep and wear and tear that the public is causing to the private road. And I
appreciate all of your input and how you're doing research on this and how you are
actually listing to us. So, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening.
Holsinger: Good evening. My name is Barry Holsinger. I live at 2836 North Centre
Point Road in the development we are talking about. I recently moved here from
Federal Way, Washington, about six months ago and because I really knew that Boise
was a great community to live in and retire in and still do and I hope that it stays that
way and I'm an educator and I realize the liability that happens with children and with
streets and so on. In Federal Way we had a recent incident where a kid rode a bike
across a road and was killed and the question of liability in that situation came up and
certainly the biggest question was whether the signs were in the right spot and whether
the -- whether the kid was properly protected and it was a private road and big
questions about whether liability lied with the city of Federal Way or the city -- private
owners in that particular spot. I'm concerned about whether, you know, this -- this road
is going to be properly signed as a private road, because it has public access. Whether
it's going to be -- speed bumps are going to cause some accidents or not. The snow
removal and other things that are involved with the cost of that. I'm concerned that they
are going to wipe out me as a retired person in our community of Meridian. So, thank
you very much for letting me speak to you tonight.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Good evening.
J.Hysmith: Councilmen. My name is Julie Hysmith. 2903 North Centre Point Way.
Also a resident and retired from Seattle area also. It sounds like we did not do -- many
of us did not do our due diligence when we purchased our homes, but every person I
spoke with had requested copies of the CC&Rs way before we sold our paper -- signed
our papers. Not one of us knew we were responsible for that road. Not one. And we
talked to almost every homeowner this last week after we met with you. We took over
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 17 of 59
the Jackson -- the residents of Jackson Square took over the CC&Rs and the
homeowner association less than a year ago. At that time we were just given a stack of
papers as you can imagine. There is no place in those papers that actually states that
we are responsible for that road, but there is a joint maintenance agreement, which we
didn't even know we had. Did we do our due diligence? I think we did. We had title
companies searching these things out also. There is a lot of questions that now when
we move here to retire and try and survive we could be held responsible for that road.
Here, again, I hope you do not approve it the way it is. On top of that, if you ever drive
that -- you should probably all go take a drive. They have two way traffic and parking on
one side. You're asking for a car accident. It's not wide enough for three cars abreast
and by putting 40 units in there, there is no room for their cars. The ones that are -- the
interior are exactly like the front. Every driveway, every garage is full and both sides of
the street are packed with cars from the -- those duplexes. So, that is very concerning
right there. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Good evening.
J.Bailey: Janet Bailey. 2925 North Centre Point.
De Weerd: Can you pull the -- yes. Thank you.
J.Bailey: I, too, am very concerned. In fact, I just found out about the liability on the
road just from the board last week. I am a board member as well. And I am -- I have
been mostly concerned about the traffic in there. I am neighborhood watch. I have
been working with Ken Corder. He has been instrumental in helping get a bus stop
moved. At the beginning in the interest of the Centre Point we moved it further in,
because there is small children and with the proposed units he's putting in the traffic is
already -- it's doubled from when we bought. So, now with what he's proposed, the
traffic is through the roof. They -- nobody stops. The kids -- it worries me to death
about the small children in there trying to walk around. People -- it's really bad. And I
am in complete agreement to put a stop to whatever to fix the traffic. The speed bumps
-- I vote for speed bumps. I don't think the chicanes will work the way these drivers are.
They don't pay attention. They just blow right through those stop signs. I think that we
need something to impact to make them stop or slow down or reroute the roads. I'm not
sure. So -- but thank you. I appreciate your help.
De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Yes, sir. Good evening.
Morton: My name is Tyler Morton. I live at 2906 North Centre Point Way. Thanks for
having us here today.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Morton: I won't reiterate too much of this stuff, I just wanted to hammer away a little bit
more. It seems a little ludicrous that so few houses would be responsible financially for
such apublic -- publically used roadway. Some I believe back there used the argument
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 18 of 59
or the comparison that you have all those shopping centers with roads behind them --
well, limagine the Home Depot or Kohl's could deal with the burden of that sort of
maintenance or liability much easier than several retired families, you know, living on a
set income. And thanks for your time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Tyler. If you have new testimony -- you know, if you have
something that someone else has not said at this point I would ask that you come
forward, but -- okay. You can't talk from back there. If you will state your name again
for the record.
Gammon: Elizabeth Gammon. 3305 North --
De Weerd: In the mike.
Gammon: Okay. Thank you. Elizabeth Gammon. 3305 Centre Point. I just want to
make a comment about the shopping center. You realize it's not really in the same area
that our homes are. It's actually across the road. But it still is a problem. So, it's not
like a road behind it or anything like that, it's actually not in the same area.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Yes, please.
Johnson: Marita Johnson. I live at 2940 North Centre Point Way and I'm a new
resident there, I just bought the home in June, and I picked this just because of the
location with being a -- you know, home family kind of residence. I just recently retired,
so I'm looking at living there for the rest of my life. I know when I purchased the home
they had talked about maybe there was an assisted living going to go in that place by
the roundabout and I thought, well, that's great, I will just move from there to the
assisted living in time. But had I known that there would be multi-dwellings there and
then -- one of the reasons I wanted to buy a house is because I wanted get away from
that sort of environment. I sold a house years ago when -- after I -- well, finished my
graduate work and have been staying in different places like that and I know that the
traffic and -- you know, a lot of them turn into rentals and, you know, I don't have
anything against people finding, you know, affordable housing, but I do know you create
a very different atmosphere as far as the traffic and, you know, just safety issues. So,
yeah, this was a surprise to me when I found out that we might have that responsibility
also to pay for that road and (thought -- if it's our road and it's a private road, I like their
idea like a gated community, you know, can it just be blocked off. I wouldn't mind just
going through the Ustick one to get back and forth, but the other traffic, the more it
increases like that, the less desirable the house is for me to want to stay there and I
love Meridian, came to this area because I already have children who live in Meridian
and have loved it and they are -- some as close as Sundance. So, anyway, they have
been paying taxes and being involved with it. So, I'm hoping to keep that same kind of
atmosphere as what Centre Point Way was when I purchased it. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any further testimony? If not, I would ask wrap
up remarks from the applicant.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 19 of 59
Unger: Madam Mayor, Bob Unger representing the applicant again. First of all, I -- boy,
when we had our neighborhood meetings we discussed traffic, we discussed some of
those issues, and we all came to an understanding that we would put in traffic calming
devices and everybody indicated they would be very happy with that. So, I'm a little bit
surprised to get kind of blasted here this evening with this issue. The cut-through traffic
that we are talking about does not go through the subdivision itself, it goes -- they come
in -- any of this traffic comes in, you know, off of Eagle Road, comes down to Cajun,
they taken a right, they go down Picard and, then, they get to Centre Point and they
take a right to get out to Ustick. They are not -- this traffic is not traveling through the
actual subdivision itself, it's traveling along this northerly road -- the northerly street.
just -- I want to, you know, get that point out. It's -- and if we were to gate Picard we
know what everybody would do, they would take a left and, then, they would go down
through the subdivision in front of everybody's homes. I mean I would have a concern
about that. The original project -- that homeowners association -- an association called
Mason Creek Property Owners Association. Mason Creek Property Association is a
blanket association over the entire project and that's where every owner is required to
maintain the private streets. They pay dues to the association for maintenance of the
private streets. So, when people who now have the Jackson Square Association, which
is an association on top of Mason Creek Association, when they bought -- I don't know
what happened with their title company, but that title company should have provided
them with the CC&Rs for the Mason Creek Homeowners Association, so that they were
made aware that these are private streets there and that they were responsible for the
continued maintenance of those streets. Included in those dues is a liability insurance
policy that is being paid for the private streets. You know, I understand it's -- how easy
it is to purchase a house and, then, find out later that you have responsibilities that you
weren't aware of and I'm sorry that that happens. I'm sorry it happened in this situation.
But Ithink --Ithink everybody now apparently is aware that there is that over -- the
Mason Creek Association that is responsible for the maintenance of the private roads
within the development and in addition what we are proposing is 40 additional lots -- is
40 additional residences. That's going to put more money -- I mean they are going to
become contributors to that fund also. So, I think --Ithink there is a win there. At our
hearing last week I think I did explain to you that we did go to the highway district and
we did ask them if they would take over these private streets and I was told by Gary
Inselman that the chances of that were between slim and none and don't waste my time
applying to ACRD to do that, because staff would recommend denial. I really feel that
what we are proposing -- and if you look at your trips per day for 40 units it's 320 trips
per day. In the existing homes over there it's the same situation. Eight trips per day.
That's how it's calculated by ACRD. I can put in traffic calming devices to slow people
down. I can even go talk to Jimmy John's, but I can't make it go away. So, we are
asking the Council to consider our situation where we had a project that was approved
for development years ago, reiterated just a year or so ago when we did phase two.
The development agreement allowed for multi-family on this next phase and at no time
was it brought to our attention that we were going to have a problem with these roads.
So, I'd ask for you all to take that into consideration and let us move forward. I will
stand for any questions.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 20 of 59
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Not to put all the blame on ACRD, tell us why they would not accept your roads.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, the construction standards are not to their width. Their
minimum right of way width is 44 feet with a 33 foot road section that's back to curb,
back to curb. We are at 30 feet. And since they were not the inspectors on the actual
construction compaction, et cetera, of the sub base, it would all have to -- they would all
have to go back through and be totally tested. In essence it would have to be
reconstructed and widened to all of their standards, which -- that's an expensive -- we
just -- last year we just built the -- the section of -- the southern section of Bourbon --
you know, Bourbon Lane and the balance of North Cajun.
Bird: Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Bob, just maybe walk me through this. You have got Mason Creek
Homeowners Association. Under that you have Centre Point Square HOA, Jackson
Square HOA, and the Bienville HOA; is that accurate?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Cavener, no. What we have is -- overall is the Mason Creek
Property Owners Association. Okay? And the -- a quick history of this thing. I'm sorry.
A quick history is that in -- in 2008 when the crunch hit the bank took back the property.
All right? And they finished the -- the project and actually started building the homes on
the western portion of the project and they established an additional homeowners
association, which is the Jackson Square HOA and it was strictly for those homes
located on -- on the west side of Le Blanc and on either side of Centre Point Way and
those are the only two associations at this time. Our plan was to establish the Centre
Point Square Association, which would encompass the 28 attached units that are there
now and the additional 40 that we are proposing.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, just aquick --
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Cavener: Are there any residents of this neighborhood on the Mason Square HOA
board?
Unger: Madam Chair, Mr. Cavener, I do not know.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 21 of 59
Cavener: Okay.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions for staff or the applicant?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I have a question and I'm not sure if this is for Justin or for Bill. I'm trying to
wrap my head around who -- who owns these private streets then. Is it the Mason
Creek Homeowners Association that owns them? Is it the residents that are -- that are
taking ownership of the street? Who owns these private streets and is able to make
decisions regarding its -- the liability?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, the private streets are owned by any
property owner within the boundaries of this -- of this original development, as Mr.
Unger was saying. And so if you own property within that development, basically, you
have some sort of stewardship over the private streets. But they -- actually, a private
street is much like a common lot where a common lot is owned and maintained by the
homeowners association. Most of the time common lots are grass or their irrigation
access or something like that. In this case, because it's a mixed use development, you
will have home homeowners who help pay for this, you will have maybe owners of
multiple buildings -- let's say you have in this situation where you may have one owner
who owns multiple of those townhomes, the owner is openly responsible for that -- for
those private streets and so it's just the way that this development was originally
approved with the -- for the City of Meridian. Typically you don't have this situation and
as I stated earlier, there is ultimately going to be different circulation options in this area.
I think that's a key point and something as a planner I'm taught to do, which is to take
the long view and that certainly doesn't mitigate the issues that we have now, but there
are going to be other circulation options in this area when this -- when this piece of
ground develops. I don't know when that's going to happen and ultimately don't know
what the plans are for this development. Roads will be extended and will -- these roads
and the circulation pattern in here will be the responsibility of that property owner or
group of property owners in the future and so it's -- I don't know if that exactly answers
your question, but that's the best I can do.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would just comment -- and this expands a little bit on the question that Mr.
Bird asked. Developers know when they submit their application both to the city and to
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 22 of 59
ACRD that if they propose a substandard road and -- and intend it to become a private
road, they are not building it at that point to known ACRD standards, which they already
knew and, unfortunately, this isn't the only place this happens where the developer
makes the decision before any house is built and anybody's bought the house or moved
in that they are going to have a substandard road that ACHD will never take charge of
and I don't know -- because we don't have authority over the road what -- what part the
city can take and at some point maybe saying we will never approve a private road. I'm
not sure we can do that, because there are circumstances where a private road is
reasonable. I believe we did at one time have a rule that a private road couldn't connect
two public roads and maybe that rule has gotten lost in some of the other changes that
have happened in our thing, but I -- I do want to, I guess, provide a little defense of
ACRD that they let developers know that when they choose to do a substandard road
not only will ACHD not take that road over then, they will never take it over and the only
option for the developer, if they are still involved, would be, essentially, to tear that road
out and start over to ACHD standards, which, as Mr. Unger has mentioned, means it's
got to be wider and it's got to be a better base under it. So, they usually don't choose to
go that direction. I'm not really offering any help, but I am sort of trying to defend ACRD
and their position in it and the knowledge that the developers know this when they --
when they build them in the first place.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Zaremba. Any other questions or --
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have more of a comment. Justin, could you put that other picture back up and
-- my concern --
Lucas: Be just a moment. I was actually searching our code for something. I will bring
up that map. I apologize.
Milam: Oh. Thank you. A lot of my concern is based on bringing that -- is it Cajun
that's supposed to go through eventually? Maybe another map. Based on some things
that we have seen with ACHD recently, I don't know where they would allow that to
come out, because it will be too close to the intersection, unless it -- I mean I guess it
comes to here, but, then, that's too close to -- it's going to come into Centre Point, not to
Ustick, because it has to be, what, 700 -- I mean 700 feet from there or something?
That's an ACHD question, but I wouldn't want to make a decision based on assuming
that they are going to allow a road to go through at a later date.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I might be able to clarify that a little bit.
This -- this piece of ground here does have some previous approvals on it to vest it with
access points to -- to Ustick Road. So, there are some existing access points that were
built with the Ustick and Eagle intersection and coordinated with this property owner that
are anticipated to occur there. You can see they, basically, align directly with what was
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 23 of 59
provided to the Kohl's property on the other side. So, there will be the opportunity when
this develops for access to -- to Ustick Road. Do those access points exactly meet
ACHD's current standards, you're right, they probably do not, but since they are
previously approved they are -- there is -- at this point they are vested with that property
and I believe this one is -- is a full access. Igo to Kohl's all the time and I think that's
how it works. That's a full access. This one is a right-in, right-out. There is an existing
median that is there. So, just a clarification. It's also very likely that they will have
access to North Centre Point Way on this property also. So, there will be multiple
access points provided to this property when it develops.
Milam: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: It seems like the unique challenge that -- that arises with private streets in an
undeveloped area, to Councilman Rountree's point, is the sequence of events that's
required to take place in order to be successful. You know, a private street in an
otherwise developed area poses less risk because you have got a more known quantity
of traffic counts and -- and who is going where and when. This access point heading
north back when this originally was approved, is a critical component to the exception
that makes these private streets in this context less problematic. I think. In talking out
ideas of compromise I -- I appreciate what Mr. Unger has to do with this project to make
it more appealing and address all the other issues in addition to traffic. I don't know if
it's a feasible option in a development agreement to place a cap on the number of
buildable lots or -- or permits until a second access point to the north is provided. If
you're able to approve and allow for, for example, eight lots, ten lots, something to that
effect to be built, no further permits until a second access point from Cajun to the north
connects to Ustick Road. I'm not married to that number, I'm just trying to think of
different ways to try and address some of the -- the good concerns that the public has
brought up with adding additional traffic to this private street. When we were originally
comfortable with having the traffic there, but it was premised upon a second access
point to Ustick. I don't know if that's a middle ground to solve some of the concerns.
And I don't know if the applicant even likes that idea. It's an idea.
De Weerd: Well, certainly if you would like we can ask the applicant.
Borton: I don't know if anybody up here likes that idea, so -- might be a mute point,
but -- Madam Mayor? Yeah. Mr. Unger, if you will come up and tell me that's a terrible
idea in your eyes or not. I'm not saying it's a good one, but I don't like the chicane idea
and the. speed bump idea. I understand the original concept and the use of the private
roads more narrow as they may be, still could have been and can be successful, but it --
out of sequence it creates problems. When the entire property is developed it can be
successful, so --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 24 of 59
Unger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, I truly do not believe that a strict
number of lots until the development to the north punches through aroad -- since day
one of this project that northern property dictated everything we did. We had put in over
800 feet of wall, because they offered a month earlier to our review to put in 150 feet.
We were dictated by the architectural design of their development and they never
developed. We -- we had to build Centre Point Way out to Ustick Road on an easement
in order to access that portion of our property with an understanding that they would
participate years ago and they still haven't developed their property and it's affecting the
development of our property. The development of our property that we were
guaranteed to in a development agreement and a second development agreement from
a year ago and I'm really upset and I know that my client feels the same way -- that at
this late stage in the game that this Council wants to deny our project because of the
private roads that they approved and reneged on the development agreements that
then have approved in the past to allow us to develop this property. It's very very
frustrating. We have bent over backwards. We have spent hours with staff designing
this project, revising the development agreement as per your request last week,
meeting with the fire department to put in traffic calming devices or more if need be, not
only at he Council's request, but also at the property owner's request out there and it's
very very frustrating to be at this point and being asked to hold off on developing it or
even a portion of it until the piece to the north develops. So, I --
De Weerd: So, imagine if you had bought a house, one of the first in this development,
and all of the things that have changed since then happened as well. Things change,
Bob. There is no absolutes. But this is not a good scenario and unless you really can
convince us that this is a good scenario -- is it?
Unger: Madam Mayor, I do not believe that this is a bad situation -- a bad scenario. I
do not believe that the traffic issues that are being discussed this evening really warrant
a denial, because there isn't as much traffic on there as there actually is capacity on that
road.
De Weerd: Do you want responsibility to pay for this?
Unger: I would be more than glad --
De Weerd: Do you want -- if you will accept responsibility to pay for all maintenance on
that private road I think you could probably find some resolution tonight.
Unger: Madam Mayor, that is exactly what the Mason Creek Property Owners
Association does. Precisely what it does. There are funds on a monthly basis going
into that account. There is a liability insurance required and maintained. I mean the
funds are going in there. We are paying funds and we are paying money in there, too,
at this point right now and as -- as lots are developed and bought there is more and
more funds put into the account for maintaining these private streets. So, to answer
your question, Ithink -- I think it is a very acceptable situation. I don't think we are
exceeding any capacities of these streets whatsoever. The cut-through traffic is not
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 25 of 59
going through the actual residential subdivision, it's bordering along the edge and when
and if some day somebody buys this piece of property to the north and the extension is
taken across to Ustick, it will improve the situation. But I firmly do not believe that the
situation as it stands today, including 40 more lots, is going to exceed the capacity of
the streets.
De Weerd: Well, I think you stood in front of us last week and said you were pretty
surprised by the product that was built. It wasn't what you anticipated and I don't think it
was what any of these homeowners anticipated either. So, a lot has changed and --
Rountree: Madam Mayor, to that point, yes, you have been through multiple steps and
you have been multiple steps because you have changed and you have indicated what
you're going to do and, then, you have changed again and indicated what you wanted to
do and every time you have done that it's brought out issues related to your previous
changes. Now, I'm not going to say it's -- I'm not going to characterize it as a bait and
switch, but that's kind of how it happens. You come in and get an approval for this and,
then, you come in and ask for a modification and get approval for that with conditions
and, then, you come back and say we want to change it for these conditions and, then,
all of a sudden what you have done is the past is reflecting on what it is you want to do
in the future and I think that's where you are, Bob. It's not a matter that we have
changed our minds, the conditions have changed significantly. Your concepts have
changed. Your densities have changed. To the better.
De Weerd: Eagle Road has changed.
Rountree: Eagle Road's changed. The development on Eagle Road's changed. So, I
appreciate your frustration, but you got to appreciate ours as well. And I'm not going to
say that that's what this Council is going to do, but --
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Bob, so a lot of the -- the opponents tonight have been complaining about the
cost -- cost of the road going in and a lot of the frustration that we heard was based on
that, but we haven't really heard any specifics. You're saying it's being taken care of in
the homeowners association. Are the homeowners association dues going up? Is the
same money that they are paying now going to fund the road or they expected to come
up with a huge amount of money out of pocket now to pay for this or did I miss
something? Sorry.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mrs. Milam, no, their dues aren't going up. Their dues are what
they were when they bought their property. Their dues did not go up. This doesn't
change anything as far as the Mason Creek Association dues and the maintenance of
the streets.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 26 of 59
Milam: And Jackson Square HOA is under Mason Creek -- or you say they are
separate -- we are a little bit confused by that. So, there is the umbrella. There is a
property owners association and, then, there is the HOA, but what I have heard tonight
is that these retired folks and whoever -- non-retired or people that live there, the
residents, are going to have to come up with a huge sum of money to pay for the roads
going in. Is that --
De Weerd: No. Mrs. Milam, the concern expressed by Jackson Square HOA or
Jackson Square Homeowners, who it sounds like Mason Creek joined the Jackson
Square HOA, is now -- they have all responsibility for maintaining and repairing, if
necessary, that private road and that's -- that's the concerns that they are expressing.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Milam: But it's the same money that they are already paying now.
Bird: Yeah. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, my biggest concern on this is -- is the incomplete -- and all the homeowners
-- they are very smart people out there, but if I was them tomorrow morning I would be
talking to my title company and my mortgage company and find out why that stuff wasn't
there. But in the same token with as many owners and stuff as this project's had I can
see why it could have got missed. I think that things have changed out there. I realize
that. I have -- I have problems with -- I don't have problems with private roads, but I --
think adeveloper that's thinking of the people that are going to buy it from him and
going to be there, would make roads that are like public roads -- I can tell you the width
of those. You have -- if you get three trucks down there you're taking out -- as long as
you stay on the roadway you're taking mirrors off. It's -- I don't know. I have got a --
have got to feel more confident about everything being done right up front. I mean are
these homeowners when they go to their title company are they going to see CC&Rs
that tells all this stuff or are they going to get what these other people -- there is too
many of the other people that didn't get to see it and I mean, like I said, I would be -- in
the morning I would be to the mortgage company and the title company, but that's their
privilege.
Unger: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, I would certainly hope -- hope that the title company
would provide that. Now, the CC&Rs that -- that we have prepared acknowledge the
Mason Creek Association and those CC&Rs.
Bird: Acknowledge them, but give them to them.
Unger: And I don't know -- I don't know if -- if the other association -- whether theirs
acknowledge it or not. Those were prepared by Idaho Mutual Trust, as a matter of fact.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 27 of 59
So, I don't know what theirs say, but I know that our CC&Rs acknowledge the Mason
Creek Association.
De Weerd: Any other questions for Mr. Unger?
Rountree: I don't have any.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Unger: Could I make one other comment, please?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Unger: Madam Mayor and Mr. Rountree, I understand we have come back before this
Council and made changes from the original plan. Instead of going with 28
condominium units, we came in and. asked to go to 28 attached units, which we felt was
an improvement. Granted, they were not built to everybody's happiness, including ours.
And when that was approved our development agreement acknowledged that this next
phase would be an R-15 multi-family. And, yes, we have come back to you and said,
you know, multi-family just isn't right there and going to an attached single family living
unit is more compatible with the area and less density. So, I don't feel that we are
asking for anything special, we are actually asking for a reduction in density and
something that we feel is much better for the area. And I appreciate the fact that you do
understand my frustration and my client's frustration on this. I think I have said enough
and I will bite my tongue and sit down. Thank you.
De Weerd: And I imagine you have information about the HOA that has been brought
up from Council. If you will, again, state your name for the record.
J.Hysmith: Julie Hysmith. 2903 North Centre Point Way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
J.Hysmith: I'm speaking as the treasurer of the HOA currently.
De Weerd: And that's Jackson Square.
J.Hysmith: Jackson Square Homeowners Association. This is the first time we have
heard or seen that we are connected to Mason Creek at all. Mr. Unger just said he's
been using that in his CC&Rs. We have gone through the -- the documents, the
corporation docs, the CC&Rs for Bienville Square, the joint maintenance agreement --
there is no mention in there that we are part of this in any way and we are not paying
anything to this either.
De Weerd: So, you didn't take Mason Creek -- I understood that you kind of merged the
two HOAs.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 28 of 59
J.Hysmith: To my knowledge not -- Jackson Square was set up as its own corporation
in December of 2009. The CC&Rs were done in March I believe it was of 2010 and
that's what we have been -- you know, that's what we were given last year in June of --
June 5th of last year is when we took over and we have been going through those docs
and meeting with an attorney right now trying to get -- you know, make sure we have
everything done properly. But here again no knowledge ahead of time of this.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird?
Bird: Madam -- to your knowledge -- and you're secretary-treasurer?
J.Hysmith: I'm the treasurer.
Bird: Treasurer. You are not paying for any road liability, any road maintenance, your
dues are strictly going to maintain open space and --
J.Hysmith: The Jackson Square -- we have one alley in Jackson Square that is access
for two lines of the homes. That's the only road maintenance we have that we take care
of.
Bird: And nowhere in your bylaws or any of your papers refers back to Mason Creek?
J.Hysmith: None.
De Weerd: It's a mystery. Thank you.
J.Hsymith: I mean we are just -- we are sitting here and everybody back there -- I'm
sure you're looking at their faces going what's going on.
De Weerd: That's what we are trying to figure out, too.
J.Hysmith: Yeah. And I mean it's just -- it's compounding every day. I mean last week
it was -- we found out we are totally responsible -- or 50 percent responsible for this
private road. You know, our people didn't know that. We didn't know it. When our
board started setting~up the reserve accounts we didn't set anything up for this. We did
for our irrigation water, but it tied with Bienville and we are a subsidiary of Bienville as
far as we understood. But nothing other than that.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I guess, Mr. Unger, we do have -- I have another question for
you then. But thank you so much.
J.Hysmith: Thank you.
De Weerd: I don't know if it clarified it or just made more questions for Mr. Unger. So --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 29 of 59
Unger: Bob Unger.
De Weerd: I'm sorry, I'm just -- so Mason -- or this had one HOA, but when the bank
took over did they split it, then, into Mason Creek and, then, Jackson Square, two
different HOAs? Can you maybe shed some light on this?
Unger: Madam Mayor, Iwould -- you know, I wasn't involved in that, what the bank did.
don't believe that -- I don't believe that they could actually -- well, I guess they could
eliminate Jackson Square from the Mason Creek Association. I wish I had a copy of the
recorded plat, because I believe there is actually something on -- in or on the recorded
plate, the original Bienville Square plat, that -- that said something about the CC&Rs.
De Weerd: In your opinion who -- who has responsibility for this private road?
Unger: In my opinion the Mason Creek Property Owners Association, because that's
the only thing that I -- you know, the only CC&Rs and ownership that I am aware of. I
don't know the Jackson Creek. The owners have told me in our neighborhood meetings
that we have had -- numerous ones -- that -- you know, that theirs -- you know, theirs
don't include anything about the private roads. So, maybe when the bank established
the Jackson Creek Association they -- they removed them from the Mason Creek. I just
-- I don't know for sure, Madam Mayor. I wish I did. Madam Mayor?
Milam: It sounds like a legal issue.
Unger: Can we ask for acontinuance -- to continue to maybe answer some of these
questions. Because now you have got me -- I want to dig into this now. So, I want to
find out the true story on this.
De Weerd: Certainly if I have a motion and a second, then, Council agrees.
Unger: I think it would help us all.
De Weerd: I'm sure the homeowners would love to know what kind of liability they are
holding as well, so --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Iwould move that we continue the public hearings on MDA 13-025 and ZOA 00 --
Milam: Second.
Bird: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That's the wrong one. And PP 13-042 --
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 30 of 59
Bird: -- to date certain. To April 1st, 2014, and come back with some information --
De Weerd: I hope that's not indicating -- April Fools Day doesn't indicate anything;
right?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, is there anything specific that you
would like staff to do or is this a directive to the applicant to provide this information?
The reason I ask is I just want to make sure that we are providing you with the best
information we can. As you know, the city does not maintain records of CC&Rs, we do
not review CC&Rs and have no real easy access to those type of documents. If,
indeed, you want us to do that, you would have to provide us the funds to do title
searches, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, because we are --
De Weerd: Justin, I think the applicant wants to do some research. I guess my
question is -- again, it goes back to whether Council denies this or agrees or passes it,
there is still a private street between two public streets and if it's denied that doesn't go
away.
Lucas: It does not.
De Weerd: If it's approved are there additional options than just the traffic calming that
would help this -- this connection point, because something that someone said that
these businesses here, if they want to go north or west, they don't have an option and
so this is their option and so that problem is not going to go away. I guess I would ask
staff, in addition to what -- Mr. Unger's research he's going to do on the question of the
liability is what can be done to -- to make that situation safer, either on that private road,
as long as whoever the responsibility -- responsible party is for that private road agrees,
just what are some of the choices. Does Council have something else for staff? Mr.
Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would just add I agree that the city doesn't even want to get
into the business of reviewing CC&Rs. We appreciate that they exist when and where
they do, but we don't want to be involved in either approving them or enforcing them.
But Ithink Iwould -- Mr. Unger has offered to do a little bit more research into the
CC&Rs specifically and I wouldn't mind having those answers from him. But I would
ask Mr. Unger in your exploration of this --Ithink you have called it the Mason Creek
Property Owners Association an overall umbrella of all property owners and you don't
need to answer this today, but -- but find out whether those commercial properties are
part of that property owners group. My recollection is this was originally all one project
that included the commercial properties as well and if they are members of that property
owners association, then, maybe they need to step up a little more liability if they are
using private roads more and just -- if you could research that piece of it I would
appreciate it.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 31 of 59
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue these two items to April 1st. All
those in favor say aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Any further instructions to staff or applicant in what we hope to see come
back?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Ultimately what I would like to come back with is who owns these streets.
Who owns the private streets.
De Weerd: Who is responsible for their maintenance, repair, and liability. Okay.
Milam: Madam Mayor, Iwould --
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: -- like to see the opposition and developer maybe get together and compare
their CC&Rs or review them together somehow, so that we don't end up in a situation
where they are saying this is what they say and they are saying -- they are still, you
know, believing that theirs don't say that and have some agreement on -- on what they
read. They may not have any liability if it's -- if there is nothing in writing. At least with --
De Weerd: I'm sure Mr. Unger will -- will do his end of it and I would imagine that the
homeowners are going to look into their CC&Rs and liability as well. I take full trust in
that. I think we have an active group over here that's going to make sure and we
appreciate the communication, too. Okay. Thank you so much.
F. Public Hearing: Z®A 14-001 Medium High-Density Residential
District (R-15) Unified Development Code (UDC) Text
Amendment by Tahoe Homes Request: UDC Text Amendment
to IVlodify the Dimensional Standards of the R-15 Zoning
District
De Weerd: Okay. Public hearing on Item 7-F is on ZOA 14-001. I will ask for staff
comments as I open that public hearing.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. I will go ahead and move
on here. If I might pause just for a moment as people leave the room, if you don't mind.
The next item before you is a UDC text amendment, a zoning ordinance amendment
specifically to amend one of the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district.
Typically staff brings forward text amendments to our unified development, but we do
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 32 of 59
have a process by which developers or other members of the public can apply for
modifications of our code. The specific request before you tonight is to change the
interior side yard setback in an R-15 zone only from five feet to three feet. The
applicant has provided a street scene rendering, which I can show you, which depicts
how that could look when you reduce the side yard setback from five feet to three feet.
Essentially what you get with two homes next to each other -- typically in the City of
Meridian they are ten feet apart. In this -- with this change they would be allowed to be
six feet apart between two homes. The applicant believes that the requested change
would align with other adopted city codes, such as the International Building Code,
International Fire Code, and the International Residential Code. Staff has discussed
this proposal at length with the fire marshal, our Meridian city building official, and they
have both confirmed that these -- this change would not conflict with any adopted codes
-- other adopted codes within the City of Meridian. They have both indicated that they
believe this would be -- present any life safety issues within the City of Meridian. Staff
has analyzed this request holistically, looking at the UDC as a whole and believes that
the proposed change does not conflict with other sections of the code and staff believes
that as written and proposed to you that this will allow for the R-15 zoning designation to
meet its goal which is to achieve higher density residential development. The
Commission recommendation on this project was for approval at their February 20th
meeting. At that public hearing Jim Conger spoke in favor of the application and also
submitted written testimony. There was no one presenting any testimony in opposition.
I would like to note that the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho
submitted a letter supporting this request and that the only key item of discussion was
related to encroachments allowed into any setback, which is a part of our code, and
both the fire marshal and the building official and staff work with the applicant to land on
the language that is before you tonight regarding encroachments into setbacks below
five feet. At this time there is no other outstanding issues and I can certainly stand for
any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. Council, any questions? Mr. Bird?
Bird: Madam Mayor. Justin, you're telling me that their overhang can only be one foot?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes. In the encroachments, which would -- will
be -- that's like a vertical plane, you know, going up from that setback, would be -- would
be one foot.
Bird: So, we go down from six feet to four feet?
Lucas: Yes. Yeah. There would be four feet of clear space between the buildings.
Correct.
Bird: Is that -- I'd have to ask a roofer. Does that meet the roofing deal. But, anyway, if
the fire department and the building department is for it -- I don't want the fire
department coming back a year from now and taking us out there and saying look what
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 33 of 59
I got, I can walk between here and put my arms and there is two windows up there, one
gets fire, five seconds we got another fire.
De Weerd: But you need only one ladder to fight both of them.
Bird: Can't get a ladder in between there.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just some points of clarification. There
are certain restrictions when you do a building that close together and anyone who
proposes to build to the three foot setback would have to meet all of those restrictions
outlined in our code. There is restrictions related to the glazing, windows, there is
restrictions related to how close the eaves can be. Right now under current code we do
five feet and allow for two foot encroachments in the setback. So, if you think -- if you
just do the math we are really not making -- we are not really changing that distance
between the building --
Bird: You are. You're doing six feet. You have got six feet now. You have only got
four to -- and that extra two feet closer -- they can jump -- fires can jump from roofs that
fast. Windows, yeah, you can put the wire glass in there and stop the fire from coming
out, but that don't help that vinyl window that 99 percent are sold in the houses from
melting and going through. I think it's a bad call.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: We have had similar discussions like this before. At one point our code was
five feet per story, so if you had a two story building you had to have ten feet on each
side of the property line. Developers have been trying to chip away at all that and we
have gotten down to less and less. There are exceptions to -- when you talk about the
building and encroachments from the building and you're talking about whether or not
there is a baker's window that could encroach or whether there is a roof overhang, it's
my understanding that things on the ground, such as an air conditioning unit, don't
count. In other words, that comes out of this space as well and if you have six feet from
building to building and, then, somebody puts their air conditioning unit in that six feet,
that's allowable. However, that doesn't change the fact that the fire department
sometimes still needs to get through there with a ladder and I -- one of the times when
we had a situation where somebody was building multi-family houses -- and I'm trying to
remember. This was years ago. We allowed a diminished space between the two
walls, but we also added the requirement that nobody could ever build a fence there.
My concern is if we don't all say that, I'm -- I'm not comfortable with this reduction. I
guess we will at some point ask the fire chief to weigh in on this, but apparently he's
already been asked and it meets fire codes and stuff. I don't see how. I'm with Mr. Bird.
But I think we also need to make sure that whatever rules are allowable in our
ordinances about other things that can go in there, we need to make sure that if we are
going to allow this narrow of a space and the fire department says, okay, it doesn't
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 34 of 59
become a chimney, but we also need to say that, okay, there can't be an air
conditioning unit in it, there can't be a fence in it that splits it in half and other
requirements like that. That's an opinion, but a strong opinion.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba. Currently it does restrict
fencing. Just to speak specifically to that point, it already talks about any setback under
five feet you cannot have a parallel fence between the two units, so that is covered
within -- within current city code as you -- as you recall. So, that would apply in this
situation where if you, indeed, choose to allow this reduction, there would be no fences
allowed. Code is silent on -- on mechanical units. It doesn't specifically speak to that.
Those types of issues are taken care of through the building permit review of where the
mechanical unit is located and how it will be located. Mr. Conger is here tonight, can
speak to many of these issues that are being brought up, but I certainly can stand for
any other questions.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Zaremba: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Justin, you're saying no fencing between, but how about across the back and the
front butting up.
Lucas: Yeah. Across the -- across the front, no, you wouldn't be allowed to and across
the back to secure the backyard, yes, you would be allowed to -- to have a fence there.
Bird: But not in the front.
Lucas: Correct.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: What does that do to utility easements that are often on lot lines?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, we also coordinated very closely with our
development services. Those easements typically are five feet to run with our setback
and will be reduced to -- to three feet to coincide with the back. There is nothing that
mandates the five foot easement and with subdivision, obviously, if there is any public
utility lines that need to be brought between there those -- those six foot setbacks
wouldn't be adequate. Typical the easements on the side between two homes are for
drainage and public utility access for irrigation or other things that are in the back of the
property and all of those would be maintained.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 35 of 59
De Weerd: I think you're brilliant, chief. You have had the Council members you're
your arguments with -- and be the good guy and say we are okay with it. It meets code.
Way to go. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? With the -- I mean for staff.
Would the application like to make comment? Sorry about that. It seems like it's been a
long evening already.
Conger: It does seem like a long evening.
De Weerd: Welcome.
Conger: Madam Mayor, thank you. Jim Conger, 1627 South Orchard Street in Boise.
Again, Madam Mayor, thanks -- thanks for letting me be here. Members of the Council.
First and foremost, I will go into -- into all those answers of the questions, but first I want
to thank the Planning and Zoning staff. We have had Justin and Bill Parsons, we have
had numerous meetings throughout this process. It's taken upwards to three months to
write this pretty simple, as far as writing the code goes and also a big thanks out to not
only the fire department, but the building department. We have had many meetings
with the fire department and many meetings with Daunt in the building department and
kind of to clarify, we -- we are asking for a modification to the Unified Development
Code. We are not asking for any modifications to either the building code or the fire
code. We were just simply trying to get all three codes to the same page. We are just
simply trying to get all three codes to the same page. We are clearly only asking this in
the R-15 zone. Our goal has been with Tahoe Homes as we continue to try to find
these in-fill parcels that are in the R-15 and denser, they are in the core and we are
trying to compete, basically, at the end of the day, with apartment type projects, as the
land value is what it is, it's all in what you can pay if you can pay to get the product you
want. Just as far as fire code, I mean in the R-15, obviously, and in the R-8 -- I mean
we can be at zero and we have the same concerns with roof fires and things of that
nature, we are just simply trying to be at three foot. So, we can be a five, we can be all
the way down to zero. We are just trying to be at the three foot mark. As fire spreading
we definitely do not want that, but, again, we could be at zero. Fencing. Justin hit that.
I had that on my list. There is no fencing allowed. Definitely no fencing in the front.
Fencing at the rear would start, basically at approximately four feet from the back of the
house, because the gates would be at angles, so you wouldn't even have fencing flush
with the back of the houses, they would be approximately five foot back from the back of
the house. As far as the clear span and access and utility easements or -- or, God
forbid, the fire access in an emergency, right now, yes, you would have ten foot, but you
don't have ten foot, you have five -- everybody puts a fence down the side. There is
very few homes that don't. So, really, we have five foot with two foot encroachments.
So, really, at the end of the day we have three feet that's available to go between a
typical house and the chimney pop out. What we are suggesting and what everybody
has come to and said it before me here is we end up with four foot of clear space. We
think we are actually gaining a foot at the end of the day and I'm not trying to look like a
hero here, we are trying to reduce that back. So, I'm not being a total wise guy. But at
the end of the day we are at four foot clear versus the three foot clear that you have in
any typical house that's being built with a five foot setback. I think at the end of the day
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 36 of 59
I think this type of product -- we like the marketability of the single family product, we
like the people that buy the single family product and we are trying to continue to
compete with the four-plex and the apartment type land prices. With that I will stand
with any questions -- or stand for any questions for sure.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Conger, what would be the objection to making the side walls -- they are not
fireproof, but fire rated like two pieces of 5/8ths sheetrock on each -- on the walls, like
we do for fire breaks up in attics? Would that be -- would that be something -- I still
have a -- and you can -- you know, you can come up with the three foot against the four
foot and all this stuff. I'm still trying to figure out where I have ever seen a one foot
overhand, but I guess there is one foot overhangs around somewhere. Eaves I mean.
Conger: Yes. Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird, I think that the biggest
problem with exceeding the fire code, which was what that request would be on there,
just some -- we have -- you know, we have a responsible charge from -- coming in with
a single family product, we -- we have a -- we are fighting a price point and we are not
trying to hurt people and, you know, clearly that's not the goal. But we think the fire
codes are extremely stringent. We don't think they are too stringent, but we think they
are very stringent and that's not required for the -- per the fire code, so I think we would
be well above and beyond that. I think, you know, I'm comfortable, because I'm here on
behalf of Tahoe Homes and I do a lot with Tahoe Homes and I think as far as the
architect, things of that nature, and making the eaves work and the pop outs, you know,
we went away from the two foot pop out to the one foot pop out. Really what that's
costing us is a foot inside the house, but we can live with that foot and we were very --
very blessed to get both the fire and P&Z to go with the foot pop out, but I think the
eaves and all that nature with the ability of Tahoe Homes I'm comfortable to say that I'm
not concerned at all from an esthetics standpoint, but --
Bird: But we are not doing it for Tahoe Homes. We are doing it as a UDC change. So,
mean if Joe Blow Homes comes in here, we -- we still live by this same thing, this
same code. And I understand your reasoning, don't get me wrong, and we are not here
to -- to stop economic growth, as long as it's done right. I just -- I have some real
concerns -- not right now, new homes and stuff, but we haven't -- we haven't had any of
these that are 20 or 25 years old to start having the fires and stuff, you know, and you
see a whole block go down or something, which you have seen in the -- back east and
stuff where they have this kind of stuff, but -- I just have some real concerns of being so
close.
Conger: Sure. Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird, I -- I get your east reference.
See, I have got a 16 year old in a prep school back there and I'm telling you I have been
back there a lot this last year and they aren't six feet apart.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 37 of 59
Bird: No.
Conger: They are one and a half.
Bird: Yeah.
Conger: So, I think that's maybe not a fair representation of what we are going to have
down the road and I think what the safety of this -- and we talked long and hard with
your staff, you know, we talked about are we doing this with R-8, are we doing it R-15,
and everybody, even us, came to the realization, no, this is R-15 zoning. We are not --
we are not messing in the R-8 category and with the R-15, yes, I'm comfortable with
Tahoe Homes, but, yes, the city should be comfortable, because when you start putting
in R-15 applications in comes the architectural drawings -- you require quite a few
things through the process that you already have that you will not have a product that
you don't like or you won't make it through the process that we all go through. So,
think from a safety standpoint (think -- I get it, but I think we have to rely heavily upon
the fire code. The fire code can go to zero. The first code -- and right now it's the -- the
three foot is the magic number for fire code. The building code is at three foot. We are
simply trying to take just the R-15 zone and match your UDC with what currently exists
with the fire code and the building code and I think there are numerous safety factors
put into that fire code that allows three foot to be the right number and the smart
number.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Mr. Zaremba? No?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I have one for Justin. Tell me what this means. It's the -- it's the last
sentence on your -- summary here that you have provided to Council. The developer
and staff will have to coordinate more closely on the front end of development review if
this were in place. What does that mean?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, the reason that was written in there was
that as these come in, you know, when there is a modification like this, we will need, as
the first few come in, to look carefully at these when it comes to location of mechanical
units and working with our building official and fire marshal to make sure that this is
being implemented as -- as is -- as is discussed tonight and as is anticipated. So, that's
the intent of that -- that statement is to say that, you know, when you make a change
like this we will have to do some pretty close coordination as these homes come in to
make sure that everyone understands this is a new rule and there is the one foot pop
out, used to the two, and there is just changes that are made there. Over time, as the
building official becomes more familiar with this and as staff becomes more familiar with
it, I would anticipate that we would be able to run these pretty straight forward just like
every other development that we do. But there is certainly a transition period, especially
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 38 of 59
when you're changing something like a side setback. I hope that answers your
question.
Rountree: Follow up not on that subject, but -- as we have adopted the codes that are
being spoken to tonight, have we waived those portions of the code that are potentially
conflicting with our ordinance? So, do we have a -- or have we just adopted them and
not addressed the fact that we have an ordinance that's above and beyond what -- the
codes that we have adopted.
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, typically in a situation with an
international code, fire code, cities can adopt more restrictive regulations, such as five
versus three, but typically wouldn't adopt less restrictive. So, as Mr. Conger stated, a
five foot setback is generated not based on building code or fire code, it's generated
based on fit and feel for the City of Meridian and it's been five feet for a long time. As
you might remember it was four feet in the R-8 zones for a period of time at City of
Meridian and it was changed to five feet. And so there have been some modifications
over the years to this. But five feet is a relatively typical setback in the state of Idaho if
you look at any code, but if you look internationally across -- even across the, you know,
the west, the five feet is not necessarily the typical setback, it's just something that we
have done and ultimately it's up to you guys to decide whether you feel comfortable
going lower than that or not. Staff is comfortable with it for many reasons. Number one,
it does -- the concerns with safety and access and all of those things, we feel like those
other codes -- the International Fire Code, the building code, are good at addressing
those issues and are ever confident in those codes and that's why we are for them.
Staff also looks at density in our R-15 zoning designation -- in our higher density zoning
designations as a positive and that's from the perspective of trying to get higher
densities in these areas of R-15 near transportation corridors, near busy intersections.
We feel like that's a positive, because it has an overall positive impact on transportation,
on -- on many other things that -- on providing public utilities, et cetera, et cetera. So,
staff looks at it kind of from a holistic view of what does this really do for the city and
certainly there are concerns there and staff doesn't necessarily have all these answers,
but we think it's a reasonable request and that's why we recommended approval on this
-- on this request.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Rountree: Question for Mr. Nary. This is just a procedural question along the lines of
what I just asked Justin. I don't recall when we have approved most recently the fire
code or the building code, the international codes, that we have indicated in our
approval that we also are approving City of Meridian to have a more restrictive
component of that and my question is which one rules? If we have not approved an
international code and not specifically said, oh, by the way, our ordinance has
something more restrictive and that rules or that's in effect.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 39 of 59
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, remember,
all the international codes are the minimum standard that's required.
Rountree: Right.
Nary: So, if the city has higher standards, as here -- and I think that's what Mr. Conger
is getting at, is that here they are trying -- the proposal is to essentially marry those up.
But you wouldn't see, unless somebody specifically wanted to request a waiver of some
sort, you wouldn't likely see it, because it wouldn't get past the staff's review, because it
didn't meet the UDC requirement. So, you may not have seen any. I would agree with
you, Council Member Rountree, I don't recall any recently that's asked that, but it
wouldn't have come to you. But, yeah, the city code UDC requirement would control
and I think that's the reason for the request.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Anything further comment?
Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, if I could just say two things. On -- on the
change in the setback -- so, we won't have to go as far as east -- in Boise -- and I'm not
ever comparing Meridian and Boise, but we do --
De Weerd: Thank you for not doing that.
Conger: I just don't like doing it. But we do a lot of three foot setbacks in Boise. I'm not
saying that makes it right, I'm just talking on the safety thing and as far as watching the
news and things of that nature and nobody -- our latest one, so you know, we did I think
four years ago in side the middle of Mill District in Harris Ranch around the pizza parlor,
those are all at three foot. They are a different architecture style, so some like them,
some don't, but I mean as far as the life safety, things of that nature, that is done quite a
bit within 20 minutes drive of here and I think the last thing I will close on is back to
competing with the apartment people. You guys have -- not a new designation, but
fairly new to me, it's that medium high. It's not medium, it's not high, but it's medium
high and if you look in your code book that gets anywhere in that eight to 12 -- it's
physically impossible to get there with detached product without some of these benefits
to marry up the development code to the -- to the fire codes. We just simply can't get
there on density when it's in the right spot.
De Weerd: And this way you also allow a rental homeownership that -- that I think the
new -- the new older person is looking for. Does that make sense? The new older
person? Okay.
Conger: Madam Mayor, said with the rental product.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 40 of 59
Conger: Yeah. Which we agree. But I think that rental product starts at about the 15
units per acre and does start going north from there. Now, when we come in with rental
product I'm usually not that popular, so we are trying to detach here tonight and still not
that popular. So somewhere --
De Weerd: No. You can own it then.
Conger: Oh, a condo.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Conger: Yeah, we are not brave enough to make condos yet and I don't know many on
the market that are, but some day we might get amnesia and come in with one.
De Weerd: That is what I'm hearing out there. People want to own it, but they don't
want to maintain a yard.
Conger: Yeah. I agree. Yeah. I agree.
De Weerd: Any other questions?
Conger: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to
provide testimony on this item? Okay. Council, what would you like to do?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Move that we close public hearing ZOA 14-001.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-F. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Now, Justin, we are just -- we are just asking for R-15 change; right? I know there
is some other codes that we have got. I think Mr. Nary hit upon that, that our code is
more than the international code. I'm not a real international code person, but we are
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 41 of 59
not going to affect them and we are not going to affect the -- our code setbacks and
stuff in anything but R-15; right?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. This would only be
within the R-15 zoning designation.
De Weerd: And Joe Blow Homes.
Bird: And Joe Blow Homes.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Would you like to make any comment?
Niemeyer: Madam Mayor, yes. Sitting here listening to the discussion -- first, let me --
let me say, Councilman Bird, I completely appreciate your comments. Higher density is
a struggle for us, because we get into these issues of how close are things being built
together. As we look at what we are going to approve or what we are not, to go beyond
the fire code in our opinion requires analysis and data and conclusion and,
unfortunately, we don't have the tools to be able to burn buildings and look at fire temps
at various widths. We do know based on the science that the NFPA has done and the
ISC is that when you get within a certain distance it doesn't matter if you narrow it or
widen it, that heat, when a fire is burning at 14, 15, 16 hundred degrees, it's going to
spread -- if we had our way we would have a nice 30 foot separation and I know we are
not going to get that. We do try and balance the needs of the city. We know the city is
going to continue to grow and we know that our R-15 densities are going to continue.
So, I do appreciate and I would like I guess to support the comment that we are looking
at R-15 right now and not anything else, because we need to try and limit this. We just
have only so many tools that we can fight these fires with and in these closer densities
and higher densities it is going to be a challenge as we continue to develop the city and
so, Councilman Bird, I completely appreciate your comments and my gut reaction is let's
make it 30 feet. I know that's not possible, so --
De Weerd: You want to drive a truck through it.
Niemeyer: I would like to, yes, but I know that's not possible, so -- I don't know that I
added much to the conversation, other than my support of -- this is an isolated situation
that we are looking at. I would like to not have this proceed onto other zonings.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And, Chief, Ican -- I can appreciate that and, you know, we are very fortunate
here where less than five percent of our fire calls are fire --
Niemeyer: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 42 of 59
Bird: -- and probably two or three percent is structure fire, thank God, because we have
improved on our building materials and stuff to keep from having this, but, like I said, I
don't want a year from now you take us out to this place and say look at this, we can
walk down -- I can hardly -- I could probably hardly get through it.
De Weerd: Now you want new equipment and -- you know.
Niemeyer: You caught me.
De Weerd: I think our firefighters are just as thin as Boise's, so we will be okay.
Bird: I said me, not the firefighters.
De Weerd: Anything -- any comments?
Bird: No further questions.
Rountree: No.
De Weerd: Okay. I don't have a motion.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I move that we approve ZOA 14-001 with all staff, application, and public
testimony.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-F. Is there any discussion
from Council? Madam Clerk.
Bird: Aye just because of Justin.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Burton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
G. Public Hearing: MDA 14-003 Kennedy Commercial Center by
Derk Pardue Located North Side of W. Overland Road and
West of S. Stoddard Road Request: Amend the Recorded
Development Agreement (DA) (Instrument #108119853) for the
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 43 of 59
Purpose of Excluding the Property from the Recorded DA and
Incorporating a New Concept Plan and Euilding Elevations
Consisting of Office, Retail and Multi-Family Residential into a
New DA
De Weerd: Well, Justin, that's -- that's impressive. Okay. Item 7-G is a public hearing
on MDA 14-003. I will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Lucas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The final item before you
tonight -- at least final action item is a development agreement modification for what's
commonly known as the Kennedy Commercial Site. This site is located on the north
side of West Overland Road, west of Stoddard Road. It's currently the home of the
University of Phoenix, the Western Electronics building, and I don't know if there is
another buildings out there or not. I think that's -- that's the two buildings that are
primarily out there. In 2008 this property received a change to its comprehensive plan
designation and a rezone to accommodate commercial development. A development
agreement was required at that time which tied the application to the specific concept
plan and building elevations. I just put those up on the screen. This is the current
approved concept plan and elevations for -- for that entire site. You can see the
Western Electronics building. You can see the University of Phoenix site. And the
remainder of this site -- except for this area, which is where I believe ITD has built a
drainage pond. There is an existing pond on this -- on this site also. So, before you the
applicant has applied to amend this development agreement for two primary purposes.
One, they would like to remove the subject property from the existing overall
development agreement and enter into a new development agreement that would just
cover these properties here. This at one time was all under one ownership, but due to
various issues with the economy and other things, this -- a portion of this site was lost
from that owner and was owned by a bank and has been subsequently purchased. So,
one time is they want to be removed from the overall development agreement and just
have the new development agreement apply to them. The second item is that they
would like to change the conceptual plan and develop this property as a mixed use
development consisting of office, multi-family, and retail uses. They are requesting a
multi-family use on this site, which wasn't anticipated with the original development of
the property, but it is a conditional use within our C-G zone and is something that our
Comprehensive Plan anticipates within commercial areas, which is the multi-family
developments. So, the applicant has submitted a new concept plan, which I would like
to show you tonight. It's not as big as this one, because it actually takes -- if you orient
yourself around Western Electronics, that would be right here and the applicant is
prosing a concept plan here, which shows the multi-family development. This is that
pond site owned by one of the transportation agencies. This would be a future office
complex and this is a future retail area within the development that they are proposing.
These are various -- buildings of various size. Currently it shows approximately 180
multi-family units that they anticipate sitting on this site with multiple buildings of about
three stories. The applicant has submitted some photos -- some conceptual elevations
of both the retail slash office components and the multi-family development with tuck
under garages, some brick or stone accents, obviously patios and other architectural
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 44 of 59
elements. So, these -- this is the -- this is the proposal before you, which is to change
that development agreement and -- and allow for this type of development there. One
key point on this is that the -- the applicant would still be required to seek conditional
use permit approval for the multi-family development. So, your action tonight does not
automatically guarantee that they will be able to build multi-family here. What it does is
you're, basically, giving your yea or nay on whether you think it's appropriate at this site.
If you do go in that direction they would have to submit application which would go
before our Planning and Zoning Commission, which would get into much more detail on
the design aspect and the site layout of that multi-family development, the amenities
and all those other things that are discussed in our code. The applicant chose to come
to you to seek your take on whether that was appropriate here or not prior to going
forward through our conditional use permit approval. That being said, staff does have
some new development agreement provisions that we are presenting tonight. Basically
we are tying them to the concept plan, at least the -- when it comes to the buildings, the
bulk scale and the elevations submitted. There are a couple things here that the
applicant's going to address related to points two and three. Staff, if you look at this
concept plan, there was no access shown on the plan to Overland Road and staff kind
of ran with that and went with this provision which restricts direct lot access, unless
waived by City Council. But all those platted lots -- and there was an access point
approved by the city and platted with a final plat are basically located right here and the
applicant is requesting to keep that access point which was previously approved. I can
show it to you. It's about right here on the -- on the site. Because this was previously
approved by the city and it was actually discussed and approved through a final plat,
staff is amenable to that request and it does not believe that allowing that access to
remain is going to be a major issue for the city. Along with that the third point it talks
about cross-access and shared access between these properties, which are here, and
this undeveloped industrial property here. Staff does believe that's an important
element between these two sites is to have cross-access so they can share a driveway
and we believe that condition should remain. The final plat for this property talks about
cross-access and might be sufficient enough to meet that requirement, but staff -- so,
staff is supportive of cross-access between those two -- those two properties. We did
receive some written testimony from Mr. Jay Storey, who represents the owner of this
industrial property and he didn't have -- isn't really for or against the project, he just
wanted to raise the -- he is an industrial property and is concerned about having
residential property next to him and it's a valid concern and something that staff believes
through the conditional use -- permit process for the residential product that we can deal
with, because this, as I say, is not a final entitlement, there has to be a conditional use
permit for that multi-family. With that being stated, staff is recommending approval of
this development agreement modification and I will certainly stand for any questions you
have.
De Weerd: Thank you, Justin. Council, any questions?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 45 of 59
Zaremba: Two questions if I may and the first one -- the request is to remove the
current subject parcels from the previous DA that applied to much more area. Does the
old DA still apply to the other areas that are not -- okay. So, that -- that doesn't change
that DA that the other properties are under. Okay. So, that answers that and I see you
nodding your head yes, so I will --
Lucas: Affirmative on that.
Zaremba: -- I will say that answer is on the record. The other one is about the
residential development in this area, somewhere -- and I don't remember -- I don't think
it's in our ordinances, but it's something in ITD's requirements or the Federal Highway
Administration requirements that if you build residential units this close to an interstate
facility they have sound deadening and vibration requirements that they apply to the
resident building, at least on the wall that faces the roadway. Has that been explored?
I don't think that's our ordinance, but I --
Rountree: It is.
Zaremba: -- somewhere it sticks in my mind that it's around somewhere.
Rountree: It's our ordinance.
Zaremba: It is ours?
Lucas: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there are -- there are some
concerns, obviously, with residential this close to the freeway and there are
requirements that those units be constructed in a way that reduces those -- those
impacts. I don't know exactly where that is in our ordinance, I'd have to dig a little bit to
see, but I believe as Councilman Rountree states that it is, I'm sure it is.
Zaremba: I know it's somewhere and I -- it could be in our ordinance, which is fine.
just want to make sure the developer was aware that there are such requirements and
that answers my question.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just to clarify that point, it is in our ordinance. It's a requirement that any
development adjacent to a state highway facility is required to do noise mitigation in the
form of buffer -- buffering berms or walls or a combination of both, so that's our
ordinance. I don't know what section, but it is there. Madam Mayor, I do have a
question.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 46 of 59
Rountree: But I guess it will be for the applicant, it's not Justin's question.
De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to make comment? Good evening. Thank
you for patiently waiting. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Shrief: Good evening. Wendy Shrief. I'm with Horrocks Engineers and my business
address is 5700 East Franklin Road, Suite 160, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. I'm here
representing a developer whose name is Derk Pardoe. He's an award winning Salt
Lake City developer, he's somebody that's kind of taking a chance out here in this part
of Meridian where development has largely stalled. He's purchased 14 acres in this
area adjacent to the University of Phoenix and he's proposing a mixed use project,
which, hopefully, we will get into later on when we submit our CU and master site plan
application and we wanted to go ahead and put up a copy of our preliminary site plan
and kind of run through some of our designs. You can see this is actually a -- it's a fairly
large site, it's 14 acres in size. We were proposing the residential. We are actually
going to be using our commercial buildings, office and retail to buffer our project -- the
residential portions from the freeway, from Overland and from any potential industrial
uses in the area. So, the project is tucked away safely. You can see here in the -- the
corner almost in line with the cul-de-sac there on Tech Lane. So, we will be using the
mixed use nature of the project to buffer the residential. So, the developer purchased
the property with the C-G zoning and we are not asking for any -- any modifications in
C-G zoning, just do residential in the future with a master site plan. We had a couple
issues that -- the noise mitigation again, I don't believe we are -- actually, the residential
will be close enough to the freeway for it to be necessary, but we are fine with that being
a condition of approval and that would, I think, automatically be the only way that we
would have to meet all those regulations with the project. And I wanted to also point out
the -- the picture that we showed of those projects in Utah, our client built those. This is
the Riverwalk project in Midvale, Utah. It's an award winning project and these are his
buildings. So, he's hoping to build a high quality project mixed use out here in this area
where, you know, that -- but hasn't seen a lot of activity since the downturn in 2007. So,
he's excited to be working out here. This is his first project out here in Idaho and
excited to be here. Just to kind of run quickly through, the access issues we -- the
property owner purchased this property with there being existing access points off of
Overland Road and he would like to preserve the right to use that access point, so we
are not asking for any changes from the final plat, just to convey to you that access
point in a project that we are going to be proposing. We were preparing a traffic study,
Horrocks is, for -- for the project for the master site plan application and our preliminary
findings show that it's between level service A and B with a full functioning access point,
so we think we are definitely in good shape and we just want to keep what we -- what
we are already entitled with the original preliminary plat and final plat. So, we are here
-- I'm here for any questions regarding the project.
De Weerd: Thank you, Wendy. Any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 47 of 59
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Why, in your opinion, is this a better concept than the concept that's
approved for this site?
Shrief: Than the original concept? I think in this location we thought it was -- rather
than bringing in -- it's a large parcel where it would be difficult to bring in a major tenant
on that 14 acres, so rather than bringing in one single tenant we wanted to bring in kind
of a mixed use concept, similar to what you have seen -- some of them around Eagle
Road, some of those where you have got mixed residential, retail, office, that's this
developer's projects to not just do a single -- a single product. I think -- I think it's an
asset to the City of Meridian to -- to have that -- to have this housing -- actually, higher
quality housing in this area. It will be -- but to have it adjacent to the University of
Phoenix, easy freeway access, to Locust Grove and the Walmart and it's a good
location in a lot of ways for -- for rental housing. You would have attached garages.
They have a lot of features for higher level rental housing.
Rountree: On your concept plan --
Shrief: Uh-huh.
Rountree: -- are the apartments that -- the buildings to the -- to the north with the office
space to the northeast.
Shrief: So -- wish I had a pointer here. But the properties at the -- along the edge of the
freeway -- this is all retail and the residential is all internal, basically lining up with -- with
the bulb of the cul-de-sac.
Rountree: Okay.
Shrief: So, we will be buffering the residential with -- with future office and retail. So, in
-- you know, the person that purchased this property, he does residential and
commercial and he wanted to do a mixed use project. So, I think it -- I think it will be an
asset to the City of Meridian and I think it will -- it will develop well with that mix of uses.
And it's a large enough site where I think we can buffer the residential well.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Two questions, actually. Staff mentioned that should there
be an access to the west and you're saying there currently is that already approved --
staff raised the issue of whether or not you would be willing to make across-access
agreement with the neighbor to the west and is that a possibility?
Shrief: Mayor and Council, in talking with Justin this afternoon and looking more into
the final plat that's been approved, we have already granted one. That's already in
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 48 of 59
place, we don't want to change what there is. There is an existing cross-access
easement between our property and that property to the west. So, we don't want to
change any of that.
Zaremba: Okay. And the other question probably is for Justin and that is, again,
thinking of the contact from the neighbor to the west who intends to stay industrial, we
would require a greater buffer between residential and industrial and my thinking is
since it's this property that we are changing, the neighbors should not have to make that
buffer and what accommodation do we need to make on this property to provide that
buffer between residential and industrial?
Lucas: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, it's a really good
point and something that Council has brought up in the past not to somehow reduce the
use on an industrial -- existing industrial property due to the approval of residential and
with that Council direction, through the conditional use permit process staff is planning
to require -- which we can through the CUP -- for this development to provide that 25
foot buffer -- basically a 25 foot buffer from the property line to those residential units
and, then, when the property to the -- to the west develops they would be able to come
forward through alternative compliance and say, hey, city, you required it of them to
build this, because we were already here and we feel like that's a fair way to -- to
approach that. We can't simply waive the requirement for that piece who is to the west,
because they are not before us with an application, but we can anticipate that and
because of the location of the lateral, which -- which actually runs right up through here,
providing that buffer from the residential because the way the lateral is and for where
the easement is for the lateral, it looks like that's not an unreasonable request for the --
for the applicant. So, you certainly can make that a condition of this development
agreement, but staff, based on this direction tonight, will look at that through the
conditional use permit process. But if you want to put it in there you certainly can.
Shrief: Mayor and Council, I think we would like to request that we could have parking
in that -- in that 25 foot buffer.
De Weerd: Other questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Shrief: Thank you.
De Weerd: I also had Kelly Hogan sign up in favor of this application. Would you like to
provide testimony? Thank you for patiently waiting. If you will, please, state your name
and address --
Hogan: Long night.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 49 of 59
De Weerd: Yes, it has.
Hogan: Kelly Hogan, office address is 943 West Overland, directly southeast of the
proposal. And my thoughts on this is it's a good idea. I have been there now for about
three years. I have the three acres just southeast. It would be a nice shot in the arm to
see this area start to develop out. You know, there is a lot of stuff on the west that
pending. I know there is a couple things directly to the west of me that are proposed
and have been approved. So, I guess I'm in support of this. I have a commercial
building there. I'd like to see some of the services in the commercial side of it enhance
my business office there for patrons of my office complex, maybe a closer sandwich
shop or things like that. So, in general I think it's a good idea and -- I like the high
density of it. Looking directly across the highway and some of the comments earlier
there is housing right on the other side of that highway that's not high density, but it's
single family homes as well and it's much closer. Phoenix University right there. Multi-
family housing, things like -- there might be people going to school, it would be really
nice to be able to be right there next to the university and when Western Electronics and
some of that other building for some of the manufacturing space kicks up it could be a
good employment option for some of the people that may be doing some of the work
there, so in general, Council and Madam Mayor, I think it's a great idea. I would be in
full support of it as an adjoining business owner.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kelly. Is there any further testimony on this? Okay. Council?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: Madam Mayor? Go ahead.
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I was just going to say -- I was going to close --
Rountree: I was just going to make a comment, but I can make it after you close the
hearing, if that's what you're going to do.
Milam: I move that we close public hearing MDA 14-003.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 7-G. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rountree: Madam Mayor. Thank you. I do not believe it's wise to build multi-level
residential adjacent to the interstate and it's a clear shot across that pond and most of
the commercial lots to eight lanes of interstate traffic. I don't think that that is going to
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 50 of 59
result in a highly desirable place to live. Having it adjacent to an industrial site has the
same consequences for multi-level residential. No matter what you do in that 25 plus
feet in a buffer the second and third stories are going to see what's going on in the
backyards of whatever industrial development is there, which we desperately need. I
heard no reason why this is better than the original concept that was primarily
commercial, which would be compatible with the noise generated from an interstate
facility. We have an ordinance that would require noise buffering, which, essentially,
can't be done with multi-level residential. It's -- it's not feasible economically to do it. At
about five million dollars a mile to provide noise buffering it's rather expensive and it
only works for single level residential to some degree. For those reasons I'm not in
favor of this and I will not be supporting it.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I agree with Councilman Rountree. I think the applicant has brought forth a
very attractive product and it probably is also very appealing, but it just doesn't seem to
be, all things considered, the appropriate location in light of the concept that was
previously approved.
De Weerd: I guess I will give my two cents worth. Maybe even one. But I -- I like the
idea next to the University of Phoenix. I have visited Western Electronics a number of
times and it's clean manufacturing, it doesn't emit a lot of noise. If you put residential
next to any kind of industrial this -- this is probably the best case scenario for it. I do
think it also adds to the housing options in the area. You look at the single family
housing across the freeway, they don't have the view these -- these have an amazing
view, so I can understand why -- why it's of interest. There is a lot of supporting
services for housing in this area and -- yeah, I would rather see an employer there, too,
but it's been available for an employer for that kind of development for some time.
Maybe it was a half cent worth.
Rountree: Maybe a nickel's worth.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I tend to agree with you. I -- I like the concept. I personally would not choose to
live there, because the noise would bother me. However, a lot of people are not
bothered by that and would prefer to have the view and access and would choose to
live in -- I think it's agood -- it is a good location, other than the freeway. But -- you
know. But I think that's the thing with housing, nobody is forcing anybody to -- to live
there and I think it does have alot -- the development itself as a whole has a lot to offer
the community in that area.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 51 of 59
De Weerd: You have urban areas that have multi-family housing along a freeway
across the United States. I don't think this would be the first of its kind, but --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: And I would agree with Ms. Milam, I wouldn't live there. The noise would
just drive me nuts, but that's -- I have seen people that don't necessarily like where I
live, if you can believe that.
Milam: Quiet. Very quiet.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, let's not drag this meeting out any longer. But I wouldn't want to live there
either, because I wouldn't want multiple family, but --
De Weerd: Well, then, quit mumbling and make the motion.
Bird: I move that we approve MDA 14-003 and include all staff and public -- applicant
and public comments.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would like to ask the maker of the motion -- I know he
included all staff comments, but to clarify that any required buffer between residential
and industrial be placed on this property, not on the industrial property.
Bird: Yes. It would be placed on this property. And also the -- the entrance off of
Overland stays on the west side.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, nay; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: Four ayes. Two nays. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS.
Item 8: ®epartment Reports
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 52 of 59
A. Public Works: Budget Amendment for Replacement of a
Backhoe for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $105,000.00
De Weerd: Okay. Under 8-A is our Public Works Department. I will turn this over to
Dennis. Mr. Barry is -- is on vacation, so in light of -- in his honor we have a 50 slide
presentation on this next item.
Bird: I was going to ask where is Tom. When they are over there telling Justin to get the
PowerPoint up I'm going holy Toledo.
Teller: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of Council. Thank you for your time
tonight. I was going to say, you know, I'm going to try to keep this under 50 slides and
less than an hour.
De Weerd: Thank you for that.
Teller: You're very welcome. We are going to run it here about 12 slides, so hopefully
we can get through this quickly. What I would like to discuss with you tonight is
basically our current backhoe that's assigned to the water division -- and more
specifically its history, conditions and reasons for bringing this amendment in front of
you tonight. See if I can do this. So, just a little history on our backhoe. Right now it's
about 25 years old. It was built in 1989. In 1998 it was purchased actually used from
Western States Caterpillar here in Meridian. Originally for the wastewater and when we
purchased this backhoe it already had about 4,700 hours on it and in 2010 it was
transferred over to the water division to replace the 20 year old backhoe that was
purchased actually new in 1979. Since then this machine has been heavily used and is
starting to rapidly deteriorate on us. It currently has over 11,000 operations hours on it,
which is, basically, equivalent to about 1,400 days of continuous use. It has become a
concern. Repair parts are rapidly becoming obsolete. They are hard to find and they
are a little bit -- well, actually, difficult to locate, but expensive. Additionally the state of
the machine's current condition -- it's got some really worn out joints in it and hydraulic
lines that are starting to fail. It's kind of a safety concern to staff and anyone working
around it. Additionally, repairs were made in 2012 trying to keep this machine going.
We had a transmission failure that cost us about 12,000 dollars to get repaired.
Unfortunately, less than two years later now the transmission has again failed and a
major structural component on the back of the backhoe, the boom, has broken. Now,
these two failures have rendered the machine basically inoperable. We have got some
quotes and cost to perform these repairs and get it back up to running condition prior to
is about 27,800 dollars. These costs, combined with the previous cost of repair equal
about 40,000 dollars and it's almost half the cost of a new machine. We are considering
the current value of the machine. We had it appraised. Its net worth right now is about
9,000 dollars. So, these repair costs are very substantial and not really recommending
them. The machine is now currently out of order and we are dependent on the
availability of rental machines and contracts to perform our routine maintenance and
emergency activities. This actually slows our response time and increases our
interruption of service to our customers when we do have main breaks and failures.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 53 of 59
This slide is a picture of our existing backhoe with some -- some things pointed out on it.
Of course we had a transmission failure. The boom which I talked about earlier is
actually the large back portion of the -- the machine that does all the digging. The
failure point there is pointed out. It's where one of the large hydraulic arms connects to
this point and in this slide -- this is a close-up of the point where that hydraulic ram
actually attaches and you can see the slit and separation there where a pin goes
through to hold this in place. If this were to fail any further this would drop and that's
where we have our safety concerns. This could actually just completely come down
and cause some really bad damage or injuries. The problem with this cast piece is that
it is cast and it's not repairable. We cannot weld on it and, unfortunately, this boom is
not available new, since the machine is so old. So, we did a little bit of research and we
have found a used piece out of Texas. It's not cheap and, of course, it is used and the
condition and life expectancy of this used piece is unknown. So, we are, basically,
trading one old piece for another old piece. So, basically, what are the benefits of us
having a backhoe. Some of the benefits for us is to have critical equipment on site and
available for completing emergency repairs and responding quickly. It also provides us
the access to 850 plus miles of not only water lines, but wastewater lines when we need
to. Just a note that over the past five years -- or past year we have performed all of our
repairs and routine maintenance in house and if you have seen the photos here, this is
actually our distribution crew working on a --aline that failed last fall. This is a 12 inch
main right by the Coca Cola over on Overland. This line failed about 5:00 o'clock in the
morning and we were drawn attention to it by customers calling for low water pressure
complaints and it was, basically, the entire south side of town was dropped, including
the hospital, of their critical water pressure that they need to get all the way up to the top
of that building. If you look at the top picture of this you can see an irrigation ditch that's
right next to this main and how much water is flowing in that. This was, actually, during
the nonirrigation season and we had a full ditch running. We estimated about 4,500
gallons a minute were flowing out of this main and down this ditch. So, luckily we have
the equipment available and we started work on this immediately. We had this back up,
excavated and complete within five hours with our crews. So, we have saved a
substantial amount of money and got everybody back into service quickly. Another
benefit of a backhoe is -- like I said before this is going to reduce our dependency on
contracted services who can be either out of town or unavailable. Our contractors are
starting to move out of the valley to get work and they might not be here immediately
when we need them and we might have to wait several hours up to days to get them in
here. Another benefit of this is that it will help us to fulfill our strategic objective to
develop an in-house and routine emergency and repair program. And, additionally, cost
savings are realized by completing routine maintenance repairs in house versus
contracting them out. In this chart you can see the cost of those routine activities that
we have completed over the last six months and contracted activities and we have
annualized these over the last year. And conservatively this shows that we will have a
60,000 dollars annual savings realized by performing these repairs in house. As our
system starts to grow and our maintenance activities expand, these savings will only
increase with our activities. So, what are our options? We know that we need a
backhoe. We know that we need to replace the one that we have. So, we have looked
at four separate options and the return on investment for each. And the first one we
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 54 of 59
looked at was a repair and as I spoke of earlier repair for this machine is pretty costly at
27,000 dollars. The repairs are, basically, three times the cost of the machine's value
now. Life expectancy is estimated to be less than two years and we are just not
considering this as a viable option at this point. However, we did look at three additional
options which would be rental, leasing, and new purchase. So, focusing on these three
options, we made some assumptions for O&M costs and useful life expectancy of a new
machine. Annual O&M costs were based on an estimate of two dollars per operating
hour and 250 operating hours per year. Useful life was assumed at 12 years. As
shown in this analysis the lowest cost was determined to be a new purchase with an
overall cost of 76,000 dollars. Return on investment for this machine is estimated to be
less than two years. The annual savings realized of 60,000 dollars to bring the repairs
in house. So, in summary, the new machine purchase was more economical to repair,
rental, leasing option. Return on investment for the new purchase is estimated at less
than two years. Safety will increase with a new mechanically sound machine.
Completing routine maintenance and emergency repairs in house was more economical
than contracting, with an estimated savings of 60,000 plus annually. We have the ability
to handle emergency situations without relying on contractor or equipment availability.
And we have the necessary equipment needed to fulfill our strategic objection, which is
to respond quickly to emergency repairs and provide the best customer service
possible. So, with that I request approval by Council to amend the current FY-14
Enterprise Budget to allow for the purchase of a replacement backhoe through
competitive bid in the amount not to exceed 105,000 dollars.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dennis. Council, any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Dennis, I have got quite a few questions. As I take it this old one we have -- if my
math is right we have used -- we have used it less than 500 hours a year over 16 years.
We go 6,300 hours and -- and 16 work years would be 32,000 hours, so 2,080 is a work
year for normal people. Anyway --
Teller: Okay.
Bird: And also you have got 105,000. I don't see anywhere where we have got three
bids from -- have we got bids from manufacturers or are we just going off of Western
States?
Teller: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes, we have obtained at least one quote just
to kind of give us a base of where we would be. We have not gone out for three
competitive bids without your approval. And as for the hours, there is a discrepancy in
the hour meter on that machine has been changed and with the records through
Western States Cat it's a little over 11,000 hours that it --
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 55 of 59
Bird: Okay. When you got it there was 47,000, so that makes 6,300 hours in the water
department for 16 years. You got it in '98? Well, a working year is 2,080 for the
average person -- for the normal. That's a year's work for an employee. You multiply
that by 16, 32,000 hours. Divide that by your 6,300 hours comes to about 500 a year.
Teller: Okay.
Bird: And another question. If we -- if we do all this in-house maintenance are we doing
it with existing personnel?
Teller: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes, we are doing that with in-house persons --
personnel right now.
Bird: Okay. So, we have got plenty of people on board that -- to do this and their
regular duties, too?
Teller: We have been building up for this. Not that we -- as we do develop this program
we are going to probably need additional staff in years to come and because, of course,
the city is definitely growing and I would say ten years ago I would be confident and say
we are completely fine, but as our system is beginning to age we have seen, of course,
over the last year three main -- major main failures that were totally unexpected and
multiple service failures that are continuing to arise on us, so --
Bird: And I -- I personally as one go back to the old way we did it. You come in with
three bids, ask for a budget amendment at that time -- I'm just going to -- I'm just not
going to vote for a blank budget amendment. I am in favor of buying it. I'm not in favor
of leasing or renting, because at the end of the lease you own nothing and you have just
paid a lot of money. So, I want to see -- we make -- we have it done with the other
departments when they buy vehicles they have bids. I mean, you know, 105,000 and it
only costs 90, let's just have a 90,000 dollar amendment.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird, this -- this only amends the budget, it doesn't approve the
purchase. That would have to come through with the bids as well.
Bird: And why would you want to amend the budget when you're just stating the
backhoe for a not to exceed number when it's going to come in at a bid number?
De Weerd: Well, just to answer that -- and it's not a political answer, it's because there
has been a history about that -- our backhoes, so they just wanted to make sure to -- to
get approval and know that you're supportive of it before they move forward with the
bidding process and that -- so, this was a suggested approach, Mr. Bird, just to make
sure we are all on the same page. But this will come back to Council, but definitely
wanted to make sure they had good Council support on it.
Bird: Do you want some ocean front property in Phoenix?
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 56 of 59
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I'm fine with the request. It's a not to exceed amount. I guess if you do three
bids and it comes back more, you're going to have to do another budget amendment.
So, if you get general consensus from the Council to move forward with getting three
bids and getting a new backhoe and, then, come in with a number, I'm fine with that as
well, so --
Teller: Thank you.
Rountree: And whatever it costs to get a piece of equipment that's going to do what it is
we need to do I'm all right with that.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One of the reasons -- and we have gone through this -- this material with Public
Works -- that I thought it was ripe for discussion is because this prior backhoe was so
old it's usage is over 20 plus years, whether or not an option made sense to lease one,
even for a year to two, have new equipment for the 9,000 a year and, then, have some
current accurate data and our current usage on what that new backhoe is being used
for, how frequently, how not frequently and it does make sense, then, to charge one or
continue to lease. I didn't know if that option made sense. As opposed to going out and
buying one now.
De Weerd: Well, I guess, Mr. Borton, there is no doubt that a backhoe is an essential
component and tool in the water department -- not only daily basis, but also emergency
service. So, a lease to me is throwing money out the window.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: You had up there on the deal fire hydrants. How much -- how often do we have to
use a backhoe on fire hydrants? I thought we bought that real nice expensive truck with
the boom for fire hydrants.
Teller Yes. Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, yes, we do use the truck for fire hydrants.
That is to perform the maintenance activities, the crane portion to repair primarily daily
maintenance activities, if one gets ran over. But we have used one several times this
year as they have been hit beyond repair and we have actually had to dig them up
completely to the main. So, that's what we use the backhoe for is to excavate to the
main and replace it all the way up.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 57 of 59
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: So, just to clarify this, because I haven't done this a lot. So, we are doing it not
to exceed amount. Now, does the actual budget amendment come in for the purchase
price? We do a preliminary approval and, then, the amendment is made after the bids
come in and the purchase -- if it comes in at 90,000 is that what the actual budget
amendment is?
Bird: That would be the budget.
Milam: Okay. And to clarify what Keith said, we don't have somebody that is a full time
operator; right? A full-time employee just to run this --
Teller: We have multiple -- it's actually a three man crew that's dedicated to
maintenance and repair.
Milam: That always --
Teller: Yeah.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Dennis, now we have got the trailer -- we got a trailer?
Teller: Yes, sir.
Bird: And we got a rig to pull it with?
Teller: Yes, sir.
Bird: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If there is no further discussion, I would move that we approve Item 8-A, the
Public Works budget amendment for the replacement of the backhoe not to exceed
105,000 dollars.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 58 of 59
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-A. Any discussion from
Council? Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Works: Budget Amendment for Meridian Split Corridor
Phase II -Meridian Development Cooperation (MDC) Historic
Streetlights for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $75,000.00
De Weerd: Item 8-B is also under Public Works. This is more of a clean-up item. I will
turn this over the Warren. You don't have a slide show?
Bird: How many slides?
Stewart: I don't have any. Madam --
Bird: You're falling down, boy.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: In light of the lack of slides, I would move that we approve Item 8-B, Public
Works Budget Amendment for the Meridian Split Corridor in an amount not to exceed
75,000 dollars.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-B. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
Meridian City Council
March 24, 2014
Page 59 of 59
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Now, Warren, I would use this every time possible. See what no slides
grants you. Instant action.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Under Item 9, Council, any items for consideration for future agendas?
Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FIL `THESE PROCEEDINGS)
/ / j
MAYOR TAMMY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: ~ ,, ~'. `>~'
< ity of
YCEHOLMAN, CITY CLER' -~ ~~1~~.=L___ \, ,`
~,.
QF
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #lA: Seyam (TEC-14.003)
Application(s):
- Time extension on the Preliminary Plat for Seyam Subdivision
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 39.28 acres of land zoned C-G & I-L, and is
located east of N. Eagle Road at the NEC of N. Gaudians Avenue & E. Franklin Road.
Summary of Request: This is the 4th time extension requested by the applicant. As with all extensions, Council may
require the preliminary plat to comply with current provisions of the UDC. Since the previous time extension request,
the City's standards pertaining to street lights, performance surety & warranty surety as well as the Public Works
constmction standards have changed. As provisions of the subject time extension request, staff recommends the
applicant comply with these updated standards.
Written Testimony: Brad Miller, Applicant's Representative (in agreement w/staff report)
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions
Notes:
Item #7B: Da Vinci Park (MDA-14.002)
Application(s):
- Development Agreement Modification
Location: The site is located at the SWC of N. Locust Grove Road & E. McMillan Road at 47 N. Locust Grove Road.
Summary of Request: The applicant requests an amendment to the approved but not yet recorded development
agreement for Da Vinci Park. The applicant proposes to update the development plan for the property with a new
concept plan for amix ofsingle-family attached & detached lots instead of all attached lots.
The amendment includes:
1. Changes to the applicable text of the agreement to include detached building lots;
2. Updated lot number references based on the revised plan;
3. A revised conceptual development plan; and
4. The removal of the provision that requires the property to be subdivided prior to issuance of any building
permit. '
The configuration of the commercial & residential portions of the development has changed slightly on the revised
concept plan from that previously approved. The residential area has increased by 0.39 of an acre and the qualified
open space has decreased slightly but still complies with the minimum UDC standards. The total number of building
lots has decreased from 38 to 34 resulting in a slight decrease in density from 4.89 to 4.38 d.u./acre. With the
amendment, a mix of housing types are now proposed consistent with the MU-N & MDR land use designations for
the site.
Because the site currently consists of 2 legal parcels, the applicant would like to start construction on 2 houses, one
on each parcel, after demolition of the existing house & accessory structures. Provided that access to the building
sites meets the Fire Department's standards & any other applicable life safety requirements, staff does not object to
the applicant commencing construction on these two structures. These structures should be located so that they
comply with the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district for the future platted lots. Prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for these structures, the final plat should be recorded & all improvements completed.
Written Testimony: Bob Unger, Applicant's Representative (in agreement wlstaff report)
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Notes:
Item #7C: Olson and Bush No. 3 (FP-14.009)
Application(s):
- Final plat
Location: The site is located at 2950 E. Franklin Road, on the north side of E. Franklin Road, west of Eagle Road.
Summary of Request: The proposed final plat depicts 6 building lots on 6.81 acres of land in the C-G & I-L zoning
districts. The proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat.
Written Testimony: Brad Miller, Applicant's Representative (in agreement w/staff report)
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Notes:
Item #7D & E: Centre Point Square (PP-13.042 and MDA•13.025)
Application(s): Preliminary plat and development agreement modification
Summary of Request: The City Council continued the Centre Point Square Subdivision and directed staff to bring
forth new development agreement provisions that address:
1) Traffic calming for W. Picard Street;
2) Specific design criteria for the single family dwellings; and
3) Landscaping on the buildable lots.
Staff proposes the following development agreement provisions for your consideration:
1) The applicant shall construct chicanes) within E. Picard Lane subject to the requirements of the Fire
Marshall. The chicanes) shall be designed and certified by a licensed traffic engineer. This documentation
shall be submitted with a final plat application.
2) All single family dwellings (detached and attached) within the proposed development shall obtain certificate
of zoning compliance and administrative design review approval. All dwellings within the development shall
incorporate articulation and modulation through changes in materials, color, fenestration and architectural
elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines in a manner that
incorporates design features such as, but not limited to, the following:
• Composite roofing (no metal);
• Provide at a minimum, two (2) siding materials (e.g. stucco, board and batten, cedar shake and
horizontal lap);
• Stone and/or brick wainscot/accents;
• Covered front porches andlor enclosed patios in accord with the approved elevations;
• Decorative trim, shutters, corbels, pop-outs, front porch columns and dormers;
• Four (4) distinct color schemes in earth tone colors;
• Each dwelling shall have its own distinct exterior elevations to avoid a monotonous design within
the development; and
• Each buildable lot shall be landscaped in accord with sheet L1.01. Minor deviations to the
landscape plan may be approved during CZC and DES review provided the proposed changes to
the plantings do not decrease in number or size.
If the City Council believes additional development agreement provisions are necessary, staff recommends a clear
outline of the required changes.
Written testimony: The applicant is in agreement with the proposed DA provisions.
Item #7F: R-15 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-14.OD1)
Application(s): UDCTextAmendment
Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing to amend the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district.
Specifically, the requested change is to reduce the interior side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet. The applicant has
provided a street scene rendering that depicts the difference between the current interior side yard setback and
proposed setback.
The applicant believes the requested change would align with other adopted City codes (e.g. International Building
Code, International Fire Code and International Residential Code). Staff has discussed the proposal with the City's
Building Official and the Fire Marshall and both have confirmed that the proposed changes would be allowed under
the above-mentioned adopted codes.
Staff has analyzed the request with other provisions in the UDC to ensure the proposed change does not conflict with
other sections of the code. In summary staff believes other sections of the UDC will be unaffected by the proposed
text change, however, the developer and City staff will have to coordinate more closely on the front end of the
development review.
Commission Recommendation: Approval at the February 20~"meeting.
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Jim Conger
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Jim Conger
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: None
Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: Commission modified the text in Exhibit A to allow a 1-
foctencroachment inthe interior side yard if the setbacks are below five (5) feet.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Written Testimony since the Commission Hearing: None
Notes:
Item #7G: Kennedy Commercial (MDA-14.003)
Application(s):
- Development Agreement Modification
Location: The site is located on the north side of W. Overland Road, west of S. Stoddard Road.
History: In 2008, the property received CPAM and RZ approval for a commercial development. A development
agreement was required with the rezone and requires compliance with specific concept plan and building elevations.
Summary of Request: The applicant has applied to amend the recorded DA approved with the rezone of the
property for the purpose of:
1. removing the subject property from the existing DA and entering into a new DA; and
2. develop the property as a mixed use development consisting of office, multi-family and retail uses.
At the time of rezone approval the City approved specific development plans (concept plan and elevations) for the
property that consisted of a mix of office, retail, educational, financial and restaurant uses.
The applicant has submitted a new concept plan depicting amixed-use development consisting of three (3) retail
buildings ranging in size between 7,000 square feet and 11,250 square feet adjacent to Overland Road, 180-unit
multi-family development and a single office pad site adjacent to Interstate I-84. The proposed concept plan also
illustrates access to the development, site layout, parking and site circulation.
In conjunction with the concept plan, the applicant has submitted sample photos of the multi-family dwellings and the
commercial buildings. The multi-family dwellings depict building materials that incorporate brick wainscot, a mix of
wood siding, private patios, variations in the wall planes and rooflines and tuck under garages. The multi-family is
conceptual in nature and requires procurement of a conditional use permit prior to commencement of the use.
In general staff is supportive of the concept plan, building square footages and design concepts proposed with the
subject application, thus staff recommends approval.
Written Testimony: Jay Story submitted comments on behalf of the adjacent property owner to the west.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Notes:
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5q
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Interagency Agreement with Ada County Highway District for Roadway
Construction/Water Construction Located at Pine Ave., N. Haven Cove PI. to N. Rotan
Ave. (ACHD Project No. 812011.005)
MEETING NOTES
v~~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
E IDIAN~-
Public ~ D A H O
Works Department
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Members of City Council
~~~~E~
Austin Petersen, EIT -Transportation and Utility Coordinator
DATE: March 12, 2013
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Clky Ceunsll Memberlr
loe Barton
Keith Bird
Luke Cavener
Brad HoaBlun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
SUBJECT: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR: ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION/ WATER
CONSTRUCTION PINE AVE., N. HAVEN COVE PL. TO N. ROTAN AVE.
ACRD PROJECT N0.812011.005
ACTION
A. Move to:
1. Approve the Interagency Agreement for ACRD Project No. 812011.005
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS
Austin Petersen, Transportation and Utility Coordinator (PM) 489-0352
Warren Stewart, PW Engineering Manager 489-0350
Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372
III. DESCRIPTION
A. Back rground
Ada County Highway District (ACRD) plans to install curb, gutter and sidewallc along
Pine Avenue where there currently is none, between N. Haven Cove Place and N. Rotan
Avenue. ACRD has agreed, per the attached agreement, to include City water
improvements in their plans and bid documents for this project.
B. Proposed Project
The Public Works Department would like to make the Pine Avenue Waterline
continuous by connecting two existing dead ends. This will require installing
approximately 590 feet of 10 inch water main within the limits of the ACRD project.
Page 1 oj2
~~~T~
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR:
ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION/ WATER CONSTRUCTION
PINE AVE., N. HAVEN COVE PL. TO N. ROTAN AVE.
ACHD PROJECT NO. 812011.005
THIS INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTIONNVATER
CONSTRUCTION ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of
2014, by and between the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a
highway district organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("DISTRICT" or "ACHD"), and
the CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Idaho ("MERIDIAN" or "City"), regarding ACHD Project no. 812011.005
RECITALS
WHEREAS, ACHD is a single county-wide highway district, a public entity, organized
and existing pursuant to Idaho Code Title 40, Chapter 14, as amended and supplemented,
with the exclusive jurisdiction and authority to maintain, improve, regulate and operate public
rights-of-way in Ada County;
WHEREAS, City is a municipal corporation organized and operating pursuant to
Idaho Code Title 50, as amended and supplemented with jurisdiction, authority and police
power to regulate and control municipal activities within the City;
WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67-2332 provides that one or more public agencies may
contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service,
activity or undertaking which each public agency entering into the contract is authorized by
law to perform, provided that such contract is authorized by the governing body of each party
and that such contract shall set forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, objectives and
responsibilities of the contracting parties;
WHEREAS, DISTRICT and MERIDIAN desire to undertake a cooperative effort to
incorporate into the DISTRICT'S road construction projects known as PINE AVE., N. HAVEN
COVE PL. TO N. ROTAN AVE. ("Project" or "Project Boundaries"), certain modifications or
improvements to City owned facilities, including constructing water line, adjusting water valve
boxes, and correcting potable /non-potable spacing issues (collectively, "City Water Line
Extension") as detailed in Project No. 812011.005, to be constructed pursuant to a
separately-executed agreement between DISTRICT and the selected Contractor
("CONTRACT"); and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT is willing to accommodate MERIDIAN'S request by including
the City Water Line Extension in the Project plans, subject to the terms, conditions and
obligations set forth in this Agreement and so long as DISTRICT receives assurances by the
City that it will fully reimburse DISTRICT for all actual costs including, without limitation, any
indirect costs and expenses that DISTRICT incurs as a result of the additional work
attributable to the modification or installation of the City Water Line Extension within the
Project Boundaries.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, mutual covenants and
agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Page 1 of 8
sanitary sewer or potable water service lines, water valve boxes, manhole locations,
and other City facilities.
At the conclusion of the Project, submit to MERIDIAN written documentation of
expenditures with an invoice for payment of all costs and expenses the DISTRICT
incurs, in addition to those provided under paragraph 1.g. above, as a result of the
additional work attributed to the City Water Line Extension within the Project
Boundaries, including but not limited to, costs or changed conditions, plan errors and
omissions, and delays attributable to design and/or installation of the City Water Line
Extension.
2. MERIDIAN SHALL:
a. Provide the inspection, field survey and grade controls required for the City Water
Line Extension installed and adjusted under the CONTRACT and provide copies of
appropriate tests and construction diaries to the District Project Representative as
designated by DISTRICT.
b. Provide DISTRICT with the special provisions if applicable, and stamped plans, bid
quantities and an Engineers Estimate (or pursuant to Paragraph 1.g. pay the
DISTRICT the actual cost if the DISTRICT'S design consultant prepares the same)
for the City Water Line Extension to be incorporated into the Project and included in
the bid documents for the CONTRACT (all work required for the City Water Line
Extension to be performed in accordance with the most current edition of the Idaho
Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC), the City's Supplemental
Specifications to the ISPWC, and the City's Revisions to the Standard
Specifications).
c. Remit to DISTRICT, within thirty-five (35) calendar days after the date of any invoice
referenced in paragraph 1.g., all funds for which MERIDIAN is responsible pursuant
to the approved progress payment estimate and the final CONTRACT payment
estimate.
Remit to DISTRICT, within thirty-five (35) calendar days after the date of invoice
referenced in paragraph 1.j., all funds for which MERIDIAN is responsible pursuant to
this Agreement.
Reimburse DISTRICT five percent (5%) of MERIDIAN'S construction costs
attributable to the City Water Line Extension as payment toward the additional costs
incurred by DISTRICT, including overhead and benefits, and project administration
costs which include but are not limited to: public advertisement of the Project,
supplying bid plans, supplying construction plans, preparing and holding the
preconstruction meeting, generating monthly pay estimates and paying the
Contractor, preparing change orders, general construction project oversight, and
maintaining construction project files.
f. Reimburse DISTRICT for mobilization, traffic control, flagging, detours and weekly
meetings on a prorated basis. The prorated basis for the above items will be
Page 3 of B
3. THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER AGREE THAT:
a. In accordance with Idaho Code § 67-2332, the purposes, powers, rights and
objectives of each of the parties are as set forth in the Recitals above. Each of the
Recitals above is incorporated into the body of this Agreement.
b. The amount to be reimbursed to DISTRICT by MERIDIAN for MERIDIAN'S portion of
the Project shall be based on the actual quantities of work acceptably performed
and/or installed, as determined from field measurements made by MERIDIAN, and
paid for pursuant to the unit, and or lump sum prices, established in the CONTRACT.
c. DISTRICT shall obtain MERIDIAN'S approval prior to commencement of any change
order work involving the installations, adjustments, relocations and abandonments of
City water or sewer facilities.
Prior to commencement of work by the Contractor, the parties will, together with the
Contractor, inspect within the entire Project Boundaries for the purpose of reviewing
the Project to locate any unstable areas and to resolve any items of concern or
misunderstanding.
e. This Agreement may not be enlarged, modified, amended or altered except in writing
signed by both of the parties hereto.
f. All signatories to this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the power to
execute this Agreement and to bind the agency they represent to the terms of this
Agreement.
g. Should either party to this Agreement be required to commence legal action against
the other to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in said action.
h. Any action at law, suit in equity, arbitration or judicial proceeding for the enforcement
of this Agreement shall be instituted only in the courts of the State of Idaho, County
of Ada.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the personal
representatives, heirs and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to be an indebtedness or liability in
violation of Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution.
k. The validity, meaning and effect of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance
with the laws of the State of Idaho.
This Agreement and the exhibits hereto constitute the full and entire understanding
and agreement between the parties with regard to the transaction contemplated
herein, and no party shall be liable or bound to the other in any manner by any
representations, warranties, covenants or agreements except as specifically set forth
herein.
Page 5 of 8
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day
and year herein first written.
ATTEST: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
By: By:
Bruce Wong John S. Franden
Director President, Board of Commissioners
ATTEST: CITY OF MERIDIAN
By:
By:
Jaycee Holman Tammy de Weerd
City Clerk Mayor
Page 7 of 8
Meridian Cify Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Planning Services
Agreement for "Fields District Phases 2 & 3" to Pegasus Planning & Development for
the Not-To-Exceed amount of $74,500.00
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Memo
To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk,
From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager
CC: Jacy Jones, Bruce Chatterton
Date: 3/25/2014
Re: March 25"' City Council Meeting Agenda Item
The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the
March 25"' City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration.
Approval of Contract Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Planning Services
Agreement for "Fields District Phases 2 and 3" to Pegasus Planning and
Development for aNot-To-Exceed amount of $74.500.00.
Recommended Council Action: Approval of Contract Amendment No.1 to
Pegasus Planning and Development for the Not-To-Exceed amount of
$74,500.00.
Thank you for your consideration.
• Page 1
~~i~E IDI N~--
i
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
CONTRACTOR NAME: DEPARTMENT NAME:
Pegasus Planning and Develo~ lment CommunityjDevelopment
ADDRESS: - ADDRESS:'
tso3 W. S'" Street 33 E. Broadway
Austin, TX 70703 Meridlan, ID' 83642
CURRENT CONTRACT INFORM ~ TION•
Contract name & Project No. f~sterl Agreement Igr Proleaslonal ~srvlrss (Unlimlfedl
Amentlment Dsle: 3 5/ 014 Prevlous Amendments: _Q
I
Curren) Contract Dales: STAR7: 10/2/2013 COMPLETION: 9/30/2014
Current Contract Amount (Inc/uslve~olPrevlous Amendments fa Dale): $ 55.500 00
CHOOSE ONE AMENDMENT ~ OLUMS BELOW, either "STANDARD A ENDMENT" or "AMENDMENT TO EXERCISE
OPTION TOR NEW" and check off any applicable em®ndments under that column.
STANDARD AM NDMEN _ AMENDMENT TO EXERCISE OPTION TO RENEW
(Check all That agnN) (Check all that AcgNl
I
X Amendment to Contract Pertgrr~nance (Scope) Amendment to Contract Pertormance
~_ Amendment to Contract Dates ~ _ Amendment to Conlracl Dales
i
X Amentlment to Conlracl Amoun} _ Amendment to Contract Amount
-„Other: (Explain) -Other: (EMplaln)
DESCRIPTION OF REASON FOR AMENDMENT: (Attach al! relevant documentation deta/l/ng amendment):
I,
To extend A regiment for an additional ear and add the "Survival"clause on the followln a e.
NEW CONTRACT INFORMATION•
Amendment Dale: 3/ 5/2 14
New Contract Dates: STAF~T: 3 2 2014 COMPLETION: /30/2014
Amaunl of Amendment Change S 74,500 00
Curren) Contract Amount (/ncluslve p/Prevlous Amendments to Dafa): $ 130.000;00.
f
ALL OTHER TERMS A D CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND PREVIOUS
AMENDMENTS EMAIN UNCHANGED AND IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
CITY __
ERIDIAN ~'i
P6GASU ~ANNIN~G DEVEL MENT
TAMMY ERD,MAYOR~ o~p~~on°Qbsr
Dated: ~
' ~S' ~~j ` ~F1 y ~
o"
Dated: '~
clry e
j EF~II3IAN*--
InHll
Attest: I SEP,L Meridian art rove/
' ~
S '
~ ~,
'~r
0.`~'~
BY:
Ja cee L.
Y /
a
~ ~
Holman, Cit Clerk
Y ; p
°r~M1,.,~:~~
~`°"""""j4 BY,:
Br a Chattenon, Community Dev. Director
Meridian Agriculture Research District -Feasibility Study and Plan Phases 2 and 3
Meridian, Idaho
SCOPE OF WORK - "Phase II and III -Feasibility and Plan" (os / 2s / 14)
Below is a scope of work for the completion of the Fields District Plan. The final deliverable will be a Plan for the Fields
District that the City and its partners can use moving forward to implement the Fields District concept. This initiative will
be done in conjunction with assisting the City of Meridian's Community and Economic staff in the creation of a Citywide
Economic Development Strategy; therefore, aspects of the Fields District plan will be interwoven into Meridian's Economic
Development Strategy.
Completing all of the tasks listed below will take approximately 4 months. The cost for completing these tasks is $74,500
(including expenses and 4 trips).
TASK ONE: CONFIRM STRATEGIC DIRECTION
This Task will result in finalizing the strategic direction for the Fields District concept before beginning Concept Planning in
Task Two.
~ Consulting Team will hold an internal work session prior to Trip 1 to finalize the direction that will be recommended to
Client on Trip 1.
During Trip #1 lead team members from Pegasus and Point A Consulting will spend three full days in Meridian to finalize
the overall strategic direction of the Fields District, meet with additional key stakeholders (some new and some follow up),
and gather additional site information.
Some in-state travel to meet with stakeholders may be necessary.
D Consultants will prepare a memo summarizing this trip and the overall direction.
TASK TWO: CONCEPT PLANNING: PRIORITY SCENARIOS FOR TESTING & DEVELOPMENT
Consultants will build upon previous Case Study analysis from Phase I and Finalize Case Study Analysis during this Task.
~ Consultants will spend two full days in Meridian during Trip 2. The main purpose of this trip is to begin drafting
preliminary concepts, testing concepts with key stakeholders and clients, and refining the concepts.
D Identify site owners, developers, businesses and institutional providers who have sites, plans or resources to lend to this
initiative.
D Further analyze 2-3 case studies that are reflective of the final concept being planned and analyzed.
0 Develop detailed case studies for each one, including costs, governance structure, impacts.
D Additional stakeholder input will be necessary during Task Two
0 Consultant will be accompanied by designer/renderer during Trip 2.
TASK THREE: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
During Task Three, Consultants will finalize the Concept plan and begin developing 2-3 scenario concepts for discussion
with the Client.
D Finalize 2-3 sites for planning purposes. Vet with client via teleconference before finalizing 23 scenarios that will be
presented and discussed in Meridian.
D Consultants will spend one full day in Meridian during Trip 3 to meet with client and review each concept. This will bean
iterative process and may require follow-up teleconference video meetings to review.
D Finalize Conceptual renderings for each scenario
D Develop order of magnitude cost estimates
D Develop preliminary recommendations onthe overall feasibility of each scenario to discuss with client.
D Initiate recruitment of partners
TASK FOUR: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINAL REPORT
During Task Four, Consultant will prepare a final draft report that includes an Executive Summary, drawings, and
Conceptual Plan for Fields District (this will be the marketing piece that Meridian can use to implement this project).
All analysis from Phase I and this final Phase will be included in this final report. Consultant will deliver final report to City
upon approval by Client.
COMPENSATION MODIFICATION
This Amendment will be paid on aNot-To-Exceed -Lump Sum amount, therefore no receipts for expenses
will be necessary. Services should be billed monthly as a percentage of work completed.
PROJECT TIMELINE -FIELDS DISTRICT FEASIBILITYAND PLAN
ED =Interviews, Focus Groups, Site Visits
P =Council /Public Meetings
TM =Project Team Meeting with Client Team
Jacy Jones
From: Jaycee Holman
gent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 6:35 PM
To: Jacy Jones
Subject: FW: Econ consultant agreement attachment B
Attachments: Meridian ED budget details.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Please make this part of the record for the minute book on item 5B.
From: Bruce Chatterton _.~. ~ ~ ~ ~.~.e.r. ~~ ___~.. _ _ ~ ~...6,.m~
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:49 AM
To: Joe Borton
Cc: Tammy de Weerd; David Zaremba; Charlie Rountree; Genesis Milam; Keith Bird; Jaycee Holman
Subject: Fwd: Econ consultant agreement attachment B
Councilmember Borton, in response to your request for a more detailed breakdown on the tasks for the
Economic Development Audit and Plan on tonight's agenda, please see the attached table (you may need to
scroll down to the bottom of the body of this e-mail). Please let me know if you have additional questions or
need more information. The consultant will be present at tonight's Council meeting if any discussion is
needed. Thanks.
--Bruce
Sent from my iPad
' Begin forwarded message:
From: Sean Garretson <lean(a~~eRasusnlanninganddeveloroment.com>
Date: March 25, 2014 at 11:23:29 AM MDT
To: Bruce Chatterton <bchattertonna,meridiancity.org>
Cc: Brenda Sherwood <bsherwoodna,meridiancity.org>, Jillian Anderson
<jillian eeasusplannineanddevelonment.com>
Subject: Re: Econ consultant agreement attachment B
See attached. Let me know if you need anything further. I will be there at 6pm.
Sean
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Bruce Chatterton <bchattertonna,meridianci .org> wrote:
Sean, see the request below from Council member Borton re the contract that is up for approval
tonight. Can we get some details today so we can forward to him? Also, if at all possible it
would be good to have you there at 6:00 tonight in case this goes off the consent agenda and
there is discussion.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tammy de Weerd <tdeweerd~meridiancity.org>
Date: March 25, 2014 at 10:55:04 AM MDT
To: Bruce Chatterton <bchattertonCa~meridiancity.org>
Subject: Fwd: Econ consultant agreement attachment B
Can we get more detail as Joe is requesting?
Tammy de Weerd
Mayor, City of Meridian Idaho
33 E. Broadway Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 489-0529
www.meridiancity.org
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joe Borton <jborton(a~meridiancitv.org>
Date: March 25, 2014, 8:08:41 AM MDT
To: Tammy de Weerd <tdeweerdna,meridiancity.org>, Charlie
Rountree <crountreena,meridiancity.or~>
Subject: Econ consultant agreement attachment B
Try as I might to dig thru the various "power words" and adjectives
woven throughout the Pegasus task list, they ought to ought show
on Attachment B some more detail on how their total $45k fee
would be distributed (spent) over the various tasks rather then a
single fee for all 1-9. If any one task requires very little time or
effort we should see that reflected on that attachment? My .02
can they show that in an amended appendix by tonight?
Sincerely,
Joe Borton
Meridian City Council
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Sean Garretson, AICP
President
Pegasus Planning and Development
c 512/300-7270
www.PegasusPlanninaandDevelonment.com
Make positive changes in our communities and those we serve.
}e
~}'
~~
t5
`~;tW3.
o
._
a--+
a~
m
i
v
a
0
.~
W
o o3ok of o~o~o of o~
o: o;o~ 0 0 0~0~0, o O
0 0~ of o 0 0 0, o! 0 0
o m~ui m M M~NIN~ d, 0
~I ~ i ~ ~ ? `~~Ilf
i
~ ~
~ i {
~ III
t I ~~ C
i ~i ( I I
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
c3 ia~ ~ ~,~ I is
~ ~~ •~
N ~ ~'~ 3 ; ~ f0 I I
~I co;-~€ j C i i d1
tl ~_ ~ IQ ' ~,C
co ~, ._
N~ ci a ~ ai ~~ ci N~V
Qi c~+.~l =; _I v3 Ems, ~
~~ ~ 3~ CE ,~ c ~ ~ ~~H
'~ ~ LI~~ ~ N fO~U
OWi of W~ ~iml N ~'_, Dir1
'a ! ( ( ~, 0
~ I ~ I f0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ f6 i ~ ~ fop
•~~ v J~ ~I ~~ c~ ~~ cj ~ J
L L ~ ~ Q
Elul ~i ~; HI X01 L(I a~? ~ f'
£(,iI ~ C C~ 3t L', oO
'++ ~ ~ ~{ V
UE~! 4J C m~ X~F- ~? ~~
~I C
a~o!a L ~ u+;v s; a~_
C
OfH~I-~ u~.~ iiavf~vl~Wl Z~
m~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~I ~~ H= Hi
f6 f6 i f0 f0 f0 f6 f6 f0 ~ f6
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approval of Professional Services Agreement for "Economic Development Analysis
and Plan" to Pegasus Planning and Development for the Not-To-Exceed Amount of
$45,000.00
MEETING NOTES
I ~~ ~~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Memo
To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk,
From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager
CC: Jacy Jones, Bruce Chatterton
Date: 3/25/2014
Re: March 25"' City Council Meeting Agenda Item
The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the
March 25~' City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration.
Approval of Professional Services Agreement for "Economic Development Analysis
and Plan" to Pegasus Planning and Development for aNot-To-Exceed amount of
$45,000.00.
Recommended Council Action: Approval of Professional Services Agreement
to Pegasus Planning and Development for the Not-To-Exceed amount of
$45,000.00.
Thank you for your consideration
• Page 1
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ECONOMIC DEVLOPMENT ANALYSIS AND PLAN
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES is made this 25T"
day of MARCH, 2014, and entered into by and between the City of Meridian, a
municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, hereinafter
referred to as "CITY", 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and
Pegasus Planning and Development, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT",
whose business address is 1603 W. 6~h Street. Austin. TX 70703.
INTRODUCTION
Whereas, the City has a need for services involving Professional
Economic Development Analysis and Planning Services• and
WHEREAS, the Consultant is specially trained, experienced and
competent to perform and has agreed to provide such services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants,
terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Scope of Services:
1.1 CONSULTANT shall perform and furnish to the City upon execution of this
Agreement and receipt of the City's written notice to proceed, all services, and
comply in all respects, as specified in the document titled "Scope of Services" a
copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by
this reference, together with any amendments that may be agreed to in writing by
the parties.
1.2 All documents, drawings and written work product prepared or produced
by the Consultant under this Agreement, including without limitation electronic
data files, are the property of the Consultant; provided ,however, the City shall
have the right to reproduce, publish and use all such work, or any part thereof, in
any manner and for any purposes whatsoever and to authorize others to do so.
If any such work is copyrightable, the Consultant may copyright the same, except
that, as to any work which is copyrighted by the Consultant, the City reserves a
royalty-free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and use
such work, or any part thereof, and to authorize others to do so.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 1 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
1.3 The Consultant shall provide services and work under this Agreement
consistent with the requirements and standards established by applicable
federal, state and city laws, ordinances, regulations and resolutions. The
Consultant represents and warrants that it will perform its work in accordance
with generally accepted industry standards and practices for the profession or
professions that are used in performance of this Agreement and that are in effect
at the time of performance of this Agreement. Except for that representation and
any representations made or contained in any proposal submitted by the
Consultant and any reports or opinions prepared or issued as part of the work
performed by the Consultant under this Agreement, Consultant makes no other
warranties, either express or implied, as part of this Agreement.
1.4 Services and work provide by the consultant at the City's request under
this Agreement will be performed in a timely manner in accordance with a
Schedule of Work, which the parties hereto shall agree to. The Schedule of
Work may be revised from time to time upon mutual written consent of the
parties.
2. Consideration
2.1 The Consultant shall be compensated on a Not to Exceed Lump Sum
basis as provided in Attachment B "Payment Schedule" attached hereto and by
reference made a part hereof for the Not-to-Exceed amount of $45,000.00.
2.2 The Consultant shall provide the City with a monthly statement, as
services warrant, of fees earned during the billing period, which the City will pay
within 30 days of receipt of a correct invoice and approval by the City. The City
will not withhold any Federal or State income taxes or Social Security Tax from
any payment made by City to Consultant under the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. Payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums is the
sole responsibility of Consultant.
2.3 Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Consultant shall not be
entitled to receive from the City any additional consideration, compensation,
salary, wages, or other type of remuneration for services rendered under this
Agreement., including but not limited to, meals, lodging, transportation,
drawings, renderings or mockups. Specifically, Consultant shall not be entitled
by virtue of this Agreement to consideration in the form of overtime, health
insurance benefits, retirement benefits, paid holidays or other paid leaves of
absence of any type or kind whatsoever.
3. Time of Performance:
This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties, and shall
expire upon completion of the agreed upon services (est. to be July 31, 2014), or
unless sooner terminated as provided below or unless some other method or
time of termination is listed in Attachment A. This Agreement shall terminate
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 2 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
automatically on the occurrence of (a) bankruptcy or insolvency of either party, or
(b) sale of Consultants business.
4. Independent Contractor:
4.1 In all matters pertaining to this agreement, CONSULTANT shall be acting
as an independent contractor, and neither CONSULTANT nor any officer,
employee or agent of CONSULTANT will be deemed an employee of CITY.
Except as expressly provided in Attachment A, Consultant has no authority or
responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in the City. The selection
and designation of the personnel of the CITY in the pertormance of this
agreement shall be made by the CITY.
4.2 Consultant shall determine the method, details and means of performing
the work and services to be provided by Consultant under this Agreement.
Consultant shall be responsible to City only for the requirements and results
specified in this Agreement and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement,
shall not be subjected to City's control with respect to the physical action or
activities of Consultant in fulfillment of this Agreement.
5. Indemnification and Insurance:
CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for
any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons
or property and losses and expenses and other costs including litigation costs
and attorney's fees, arising out of, resulting from, or in connection with the
performance of this Agreement by the CONSULTANT, its servants, agents,
officers, employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising
out of the tortuous conduct of CITY or its employees. CONSULTANT shall
maintain, and specifically agrees that it will maintain, throughout the term of this
Agreement, liability insurance, in which the CITY shall be named an additional
insured in the minimum amounts as follow: General Liability One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence, Professional Liability / Professional
errors and omissions One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) aggregate, Automobile
Liability Insurance One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence
and Workers' Compensation Insurance , in the statutory limits as required by
law.. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the covenants to
indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY; and if CITY becomes liable for an
amount in excess of the insurance limits, herein provided, CONSULTANT
covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and
for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or injury to
persons or property and other costs, including litigation costs and attorneys' fees,
arising out of, resulting from or in connection with the performance of this
Agreement by the Consultant or Consultant's officers, employs, agents,
representatives or subcontractors and resulting in or attributable to personal
injury, death, or damage or destruction to tangible or intangible property,
including use of. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a Certificate of
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 3 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Insurance, or other proof of insurance evidencing CONSULTANT'S compliance
with the requirements of this paragraph and file such proof of insurance with the
CITY at least ten (10) days prior to the date Consultant begins performance of its
obligations under this Agreement. In the event the insurance minimums are
changed, CONSULTANT shall immediately submit proof of compliance with the
changed limits. Evidence of all insurance shall be submitted to the City
Purchasing Agent with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Broadway
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642.
6. Notices: Any and all notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto,
unless otherwise stated in this agreement, shall be in writing and be deemed
communicated when mailed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt
requested, addressed as follows:
CITY
City of Meridian
Purchasing Manager
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
208-888-4433
Email:
kwatts@merid iancity.o rg
PEGASUS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Attn: Sean Garreston, President
1603 W. 6rh Street
Austin, TX 78703
Phone: 512-300-7270
Email:
sean @pegasusplanninganddevelopment. com
Either party may change their address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving
written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided.
7. Attorney Fees: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto
concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to
any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable 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.
8. Time is of the Essence: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is
strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and
provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations
hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by
the party so failing to perform.
9. Assignment: It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that
CONSULTANT shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate or sell
any of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written
consent of CITY.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 4 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
10. Discrimination Prohibited: In performing the Services required herein,
CONSULTANT shall not unlawfully discriminate in violation of any federal, state
or local law, rule or regulation against any person on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability.
11. Reports and Information:
11.1 At such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be
furnished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as
the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement.
11.2 Consultant shall maintain all writings, documents and records prepared or
compiled in connection with the performance of this Agreement for a minimum of
four (4) years from the termination or completion of this or Agreement. This
includes any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photo static, photographic and
every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of
communication or representation including letters, words, pictures, sounds or
symbols or any combination thereof.
12. Audits and Inspections: At any time during normal business hours and as
often as the CITY may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the
CITY for examination all of CONSULTANT'S records with respect to all matters
covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall permit the CITY to audit,
examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make
audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel,
conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this
Agreement.
13. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material: No material produced in
whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United
States or in any other country. The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to
publish, disclose and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other
materials prepared under this Agreement.
14. Compliance with Laws: In performing the scope of services required
hereunder, CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and
codes of Federal, State, and local governments.
15. Changes: The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of
Services to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or
decrease in the amount of CONSULTANT'S compensation, which are mutually
agreed upon by and between the CITY and CONSULTANT, shall be
incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement.
16. Termination: If, through any cause, CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, or
agents fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this
Agreement, violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 5 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Agreement, falsifies any record or document required to be prepared under this
agreement, engages in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the
performance of this contract, or if the City Council determines that termination of
this Agreement is in the best interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the
right to terminate this Agreement, in part or in its entirety, by giving written notice
to CONSULTANT of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at
least fifteen (15) days before the effective date of such termination.
CONSULTANT may terminate this agreement at any time by giving at least sixty
(60) days notice to CITY.
In the event of any termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished
documents, data, and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement
shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property, and CONSULTANT shall be
entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily
complete hereunder.
Notwithstanding the above, CONSULTANT shall not be relieved of liability to the
CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this
Agreement by CONSULTANT, and the CITY may withhold any payments to
CONSULTANT for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the CITY from CONSULTANT is determined. This provision shall
survive the termination of this agreement and shall not relieve CONSULTANT of
its liability to the CITY for damages.
17. Construction and Severability: If any part of this Agreement is held to be
invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability
of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is
reasonably capable of completion.
18. Advice of Attorney: Each party warrants and represents that in executing this
Agreement. It has received independent legal advice from its attorney's or the
opportunity to seek such advice.
19. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties
and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral of written,
whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith.
20. Public Records Act: Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 9-335, et seq.,
information or documents received from the Contractor may be open to public
inspection and copying unless exempt from disclosure. The Contractor shall
clearly designate individual documents as "exempt" on each page of such
documents and shall indicate the basis for such exemption. The CITY will not
accept the marking of an entire document as exempt. In addition, the CITY will
not accept a legend or statement on one (1) page that all, or substantially all, of
the document is exempt from disclosure. The Contractor shall indemnify and
defend the CITY against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, actions,
attorney fees and suits whatsoever for honoring such a designation or for the
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 6 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Contractor's failure to designate individual documents as exempt. The
Contractor's f~ ilure to designate as exempt, any document or portion of a
document that~is released by the CITY shall cpnstitute a complete waiver of any
and all claims ~or damages caused by any sucfj release.
21. Confidentialit~r: Consultant understands ancj acknowledges that all tests and
results(confide,ntial information) are intended i solely for the City. Consultant
agrees to holds all confidential information in confidence and will not disclose the
confidential information to any person or entity without the express prior written
consent of Cit>J,.
22. Applicable l
enforced in al
the City of Me
23. Approval Rey
approved by t
CITY OF MERIDIAN
BY: ~1~[!>
TAMMY de RD,
Dated: 3 - ~
Approved by Council:_
Purchasing
BY:
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and
ance with the laws of the State of Idaho, and the ordinances of
i.
red: This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until
City of Meridian.
PEGASUS PLANNING & DEVELO ENT
BY: '
Sean!Garreston, Pr si/dent
Dated: 3 ~'v''( /
.a,s~
y~.ryof ~,
G~~TAl~t#--
O~,no
i
`~ SEAL
~~P VP
~.~ ~d"e. i~IICAE~~~
Community
Approval
BY: %~/ti
Development Department
Dev.
3
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENt ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 7 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Attachment A
SCOPE OF WORK
TASK ONE: COMMUNITY AND DATA ASSESSMENT
Consultant will build upon existing analysis performed during Fields District Phase I to
determine Meridian's competitiveness in the immediate region and the northwest region.
Through client and stakeholder feedback, Consultant will identify which
communities are Meridian's current competition and develop demographic and
economic profiles of each community. We will also compare Meridian to those
communities on these variables and other factors that the client helps identify
such as CIP spending per capita or major economic drivers.
During Trip #1 lead team members will spend three full days in Meridian to meet
with additional key stakeholders (eg., real estate community, additional university
leaders, public works director, and others not yet contacted during the Fields
District Phase I study) and gather additional information, data and reports relative
to Meridian's economic development opportunities and assets.
Meet with City's public works director and other city staff to receive an overview
of major infrastructure considerations as it relates to economic development.
TASK TWO: WORKFORCE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ANALYSIS
The retention and development of a skilled workforce is crucial to the economic growth
of a city.
• Analyze the area's demographics from the perspective of current employers and
potential recruits. Included in this analysis will be the overall growth of the labor
force, unemployment rates, commuting patterns, wage rates and occupational
statistics.
• Meridian has a great school district system and presence of several higher
education institutions. We will dig further into how all of these institutions are set
up to help Meridian business and how the relationship with Meridian and its
economic developers can be improved.
• During Trip #2 Consultants will further analyze items listed in Task Two-Eight.
TASK THREE: CLUSTER. LOCATION QUOTIENT AND TARGET INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS
The industries that Meridian and the Region targets for growth and recruitment are a
major factor in strategy formulation, marketing programs and incentive policy. The
economic development goals and strategies, marketing plans, and incentives will be
focused on these target industries, so it is crucial that our team and Client reach a
consensus on the existing state of programs to promote these target industries before
Task Nine.
• Analyze Meridian's and the Region's existing target industries utilizing location
quotient analysis at the 4-5 digit level of NAICS. Some of this analysis has been
done and we will build upon that;
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 8 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
• We will analyze successful efforts in growing these industries and identify niche,
sub-industry growth opportunities;
• Analyze regional and national trends in federal research areas, regional growth
industries, and state industry targets and incentives for target industries;
• Identify business retention, recruitment, and workforce training programs
currently serving these industries;
• We can utilize import substitutions modeling to identify opportunities to replace
imports with locally produced goods, particularly in areas of food production;
• Develop a profile of each target industry, identifying: successes and failures of
current programs to meet workforce needs; industry growth trends, site
requirements, and recommendations on whether key industries are justified as
"key" industries for the Region.
• Identify potential infrastructure needs that must be addressed for Meridian to be
successful in expanding these target industries.
TASK FOUR: INCENTIVES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLKIT ANALYSIS
Understanding Meridian's competitive strengths from a demographic, economic and
overall asset perspective is certainly important to developing strategies to build upon
those assets. Equally important is understanding the competitive nature of economic
development-from the global and regional perspective.
• Analyze any incentive deals and economic development tools (eg., urban
renewal, investment zones) done or utilized by the city over the last ten years.
• Review economic development tools employed by other Idaho communities not
currently being used in Meridian.
• Research State tools and programs that are not being fully-leveraged in
Meridian.
• Look at other assets that Meridian could leverage as incentives including land,
infrastructure and other such assets.
• Identify other tools (or ways to use existing tools) that Meridian could employ to
further its economic development goals.
TASK FIVE: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL SITE ANALYSIS
Most businesses want a "shovel ready" site when they are looking at communities for
their next business expansion. Communities without such a site often do not make the
business' short list of communities to further investigate for their expansion. Therefore, it
is crucial to have parks or sites that are appropriate for the targeted industries the
Region is currently pursuing.
• Analyze reports and plans for existing and proposed infrastructure (drainage,
water, wastewater, roadways).
• Visit existing public and private business and industrial parks to understand the
existing assets, the marketability and industry composition at each site, the
overall available space and average lease rates.
• We will rely on our knowledge as economic developers in the private sector to
provide information on available sites.
• Assess potential new business and industrial sites, based on the target industry
recommendations, and the site requirements of the target industries.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 9 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Work with City to map out all sites with marketable assets as part of a marketing
piece for economic development use.
Identify potential deficiencies or areas where infrastructure needs to be better
aligned with economic development goals.
TASK SIX: EXISTING AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
Eighty percent of job growth in the U.S. is from existing businesses that expand their
operations. Having programs in place to help your existing businesses grow is essential
to a sustainable economic development strategy. Developing and nurturing
entrepreneurial activity in the Region will be an area we spend extensive time analyzing.
The most successful entrepreneurship programs have a clear target market for their
services, a strong set of programs, and a defined list of expected outcomes. Economic
development financial institutions, local banks and credit unions also play a key role in
making the area friendly for the growth of small business. The physical building, or
incubator, should be the last piece of the entrepreneurship puzzle to be put in place.
• Review programs run out of the counties, municipalities, school districts, and
higher education institutions to understand the services offered.
• Meet with recipients of these services to also understand if there are additional
services that could be developed.
• Examine how economic development organizations foster entrepreneurship and
how to improve on its efforts.
• Develop an understanding of the existing research and tech transfer initiatives
taking place in and around the Region and identify opportunities for creation or
spinoff research programs or incubators. Universities, technical schools,
investors and philanthropists, and members of the public and private sector could
all have a significant role to play.
TASK SEVEN: TOURISM ANALYSIS
We will examine the existing tourism industry in Meridian and the region.
• Identify specific opportunities for Meridian to pursue further tourism development
(eg., ties to vineyards, agritourism, retail. While this budget does not include a
retail leakage analysis, we are able to perform this analysis upon request for
additional fee.
• Examine how other competitors are attracting tourists, their main tourism drivers
and the primary demographic they are attracting.
TASK EIGHT: MARKETING AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Our collective experience as consultants and land developers give us the insight into
the priorities and interests of site selectors. We will assess web platforms, outreach
tactics, and marketing materials to improve Meridian's ability to attract developers.
• Review how economic development functions in Meridian and provide
recommendations for improvements such as resource management,
organizational structure, staffing, and other relevant issues.
• Analyze budgets, committee representations, and responsibilities given to each
group.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 10 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Identify and analyze best practices from organizations in comparison
communities. We will share examples of other economic development
structures to evaluate best options for the City.
Analyze how Meridian can further leverage its relationships with State and
regional organizations such as BVEP and Department of Commerce.
Prior to Task Nine, and during Trip Three, consultants will provide a presentation
on the findings from the Audit portion of this project. Also during this •trip,
consultants will have a workshop with client on initial strategies and
recommendations.
TASK NINE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGY
During Task Nine, Consultant will prepare a final draft report summarizing findings from
the Audit portion of this project and all recommendations for Meridian to pursue in their
economic development efforts.
• Write a final plan that focuses on key opportunities, target industries, integrates
Fields District and Core efforts, and addresses necessary infrastructure and
quality of place improvements to support economic development goals, and
solidifies Meridian's competitiveness.
• Meet with other consultants performing fiscal impact analysis to integrate work
products and share impact models.
• During Trip Four Consultants will provide a presentation to Client and
stakeholders on the final plan.
PROJECT TIMELINE -ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUDIT AND PLAN
Trep 1 ~ Trlp2 7rp 3 ___ .
I Trip 4 i
TASK February March April Mry hme
Task Chsa:CommuriryaMData Asseument, Benchmark
Task Two: NbrFforte and Educatbnal InsfiMbn Pnahysis
Task Three: Cluster, London Oygtient and Target Ndustry Analysis
Task Four. IncereNes a nil E D Tod(s}Analysis
Tank Five: Business aril Industrial ParkAnas
Tazk Sh: E+cist~and SmaN Business Deveb mem Analysis
Tack Seven: ioudsm AnaNsls
Task El t: Marketi and OperatbnalAnelysb
Task Nine: Becorrvnendatbrts aril Strate
,.._ TM aFro~ectTapmMeetng whh went Te
_... „_ ,. EDalnaarvesesl Focut Group; SRe Vsta ~
_, is Coundl/PubErMeed~ ~ _. + am
I
~~
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 11 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Attachment B
MILESTONE /PAYMENT SCHEDULE
A. Total and complete compensation for this Agreement shall not exceed
$45,000.00.
TASK DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
~_g Economic Development Analysis and Plan $45,000.00
TOTAL $45,000
Total includes all expenses and project will be billed at % of completion.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS & PLANNING Page 12 of 12
PROJECT NUMBER 10485
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: V,
ITEM TITLE: LEISMAN ADDITION
Resolution No. ~ l ~ _l o~: A Resolution for the Vacation (VAC 14-001) of a 10
foot wide Public Utility Drainage and Irrigation (PUDI) easement along the Shared Lot
Line of Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 Platted with the Leisman Addition Subdivision
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00 3
BOISE IDAHO 03126114 02:12 PM
DEPUTY Vicky Bailey
RECORDED-AEOUEST OF III I I
Meridian Ciry i 14022098
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO.
I ~l - q8~
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER,
MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA
A RESOLUTION VACATING THE TWO (2) 5-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC
UTILITY, DRAINAGE,, AND IRRIGATION (PUDI) EASEMENTS ON THE SHARED
LOT LINE BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 3 OF LEISMAN SUBDIVISION
LOCATED EAST OF NORTH CINDER ROAD AND NORTH OF W. PINE AVENUE
IN THE NORTHEAST'/< OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2014 the City Council of Meridian, held a hearing on the
vacation of two (2) 5-foot wide public utility, drainage, and irrigation easements on the shared
lot line between Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 of Leisman Addition Subdivision located east of N.
Linder Road and N. of W. Pine Avenue in the Northwest'/ of Section 12, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and
WHEREAS, after such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said
described vacation; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO:
Section 1. That the two (2) 5-foot wide public utility, drainage, and irrigation
easements on the shared lot line between Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 of Leisman Addition
Subdivision located east of N. Linder Road and N. of W. Pine Avenue in the Northwest % of
Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, are hereby vacated. A copy of the necessary relinquishment is attached as Exhibit "A".
VACATION-LEISMAN SUBDIVISION -VAC 14-001 Page 1 of 1
Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
adoption and approval.
P~A~SSyE~D BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,
this ~j ' day of , 2014.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this
~\i day of , 2014.
~~~~~
G~Mayor a my deWeerd
~tp;f c.. ,, .. b~p~,
ATTEST: ~~~` ~ D
s
c;r> o~
~~~I,lIID1AN~-
Jayce .Holman, City Clerk E ;
A
~~~ °~ IAe YIt CaG~~
STATE OF IDAHO, )
ss
County of Ada )
On this ~~~' day of 'r'l0.yc L~ 2014, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY de WEERD
and JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the
City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
the City of Meridian executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official
seal the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
~......
gSlCTA ~~
.'cy,$O JP f;
. ;
RESIDING AT: /~-(PX ~a 1
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~a ~ ~ ~ ~p2~
:::.:
VACATION-LEISMAN SUBDIVISION -VAC 14-001 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A -Existing PUDI Easements to be Vacated
gk
S
a=
LLIPS 4DDITION c~S PHILLIPS ~ ~
DgW.4TTf- y
`- `"°"` °°DIT`°" LEISMAN ADDITION
1 ,_>F...
yl ' I P SDBDIVISION INTNF
a3o.o0
6W IK NW W, SECTION IE, TfIWNSNIP 3 NDHTHi flAN061 WESg SM
OO n I OO ~ G ~$ PD0. CODNTY, IOAXO
~. ,
9L K 2 i _ ,W.°a.~,.~..,.w~
I ~ ~
w,«.~, £
~m• _
STATE ~ ~ STNEET u '
sew'
s x 9
--°- -- .., ~. -- ------~--4
91 O la Lk'GEND
~4YM F .I" ~~ S r~~SC --~ ~ YN~~ [sr i
'e~Me O e o w'1^ ~ w~rrM„ .".,Wr„ a ,w. ~xrn,pl.u I
m~ x ja o K"~ .~ ~~
~ U _
_.. 8 J ; I
T 3
.e O Y 1 8 ~ c«., a..r~ .".
-rxW-. 777 ~.._. f i. p I
_~ ...
IY1 , Y
~ 3 { aJ:__- le m _1S ~o
~. ~ __...... ._.___ xu••un
h xmE:
,,, q ,u mi' ..~ mim mr ..~~.Y 19 u., .
~~ . . ui max : re~ea rr
_. ~ ~ W I I e.i r.,.Mr.
U G " ~ n °i,r,°~.,
7 _~e eIN i r ° wm '
~a°.~ ~.
xnMr r rv iu nrr~r~r u,r~°tlr NwaN rla~.
~a.~.. ue.r.°
.ea
~n~a:T
Leisman Addition -VAC-14-001
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 6
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE: ITEMS MOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
MEETING NOTES
/~ p-v~'
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: TEC 1
ITEM TITLE: SEYAM SUBDIVISION
Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: TEC 14-003 Seyam Subdivision by
Volante Investments Located North Side of E. Franklin Road and East of N. Eagle Road
Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat
MEETING NOTES
+~ ~~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE March 25, 2014 ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
7A
TEC 14-003
PROJECT NAME
SEYAM SUBDIVISION
PLEASE PRINT NAME
FOR I AGAINST I NEUTRALI
CITY CLERKS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: MDA 14-002
ITEM TITLE: DA VINCI PARK
Public Hearing: MDA 14-002 Da Vinci Park by CS2, LLC Located Southwest Corner of N.
Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road Request: Amendment to the Development
Agreement to Allow a Mix of Single Family Attached and Detached Lots Instead of all
Attached Lots and Update the Conceptual Development Plan
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
f. CITY OF MERIDIAN
-CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE March 25, 2014 ITEM # 7B
PROJECT NUMBER
MDA 14-002
PROJECT NAME
DA VINCI SUBDIVISION
I PLEASE PRINT NAME I FOR I AGAINST INEUTRALI
-ECEIV t
CITY OF E~a
i
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: FP 14-009
ITEM TITLE: OLSON & BUSH
FP 14-009 Olson & Bush Subdivision No. 3 by Ronald W. Van Auker Located 2950 E.
Franklin Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Six (6) Building Lots on 6.81
Acres of Land in the C-G and I-L Zoning Districts
MEETING NOTES
~~' ~ ~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE F/NAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-042
ITEM TITLE: CENTRE POINT
Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-042 Centre Point Square by
Center Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty X40) Single-Family Buildable Lots
and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15
Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
Cd.~.~ ~ v/,/Y
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
~p crl-o~Z
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 7E
PROJECT NUMBER: MDA 13-025
ITEM TITLE: CENTRE POINT
Continued from March 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025 Centre Point Square by
Centre Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road
Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the Development Plan
from Multi-Family to Single Family
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
,CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE March 25, 2014 ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
7D / 7E
PP 13-042 / MDA 13-025
PROJECT NAME
CENTRE POINT SQUARE
PLEASE PRINT NAME
FOR I AGAINST I NEUTRALI
CITY CLERKS
..~~ ~u-~
~~~~
March 24, 2014 ~+~ M'4iQ? ~" '
'~9 oRsMFS1~ly
Dear Mayor, OF~Q~N
I'm writing this to you in hopes that perhaps in some small part, you may be able to raise concerns with
City Council, in regard to development near my home.
The Centre Point Square/Bienville/Jacksons Square development has not gone well. Based on a concept,
the City has allowed to develop unsafe conditions where Meridian home buyers are caught in a scary
mix of multiple HOA's, one that a home buyer expects and is notified of, and the other run by business
and bankers, and which the buyer is never told of. Failed development dealings, plan changes, and
significant roadway changes on both Eagle (and to a smaller degree Ustick), leave home owners of my
smaller subdivision being increasingly held accountable and responsible for the decisions by others.
I have already been harmed by the housing installed across the street, orchestrated by this developer.
Unlike many others perhaps, I take no issue with apartments or alternative housing choices (when done
appropriately), but I do resent neighboring housing that fails to conform to established aesthetics, which
does not have to meet my HOA's CC&R's, and which reinforces and creates social ills. People adapt to
their environment, and the housing across the street is stark and cold. I invested in my neighborhood
having been led to believe that I would be living in a nice and integrated mixed use community. When I
selected and built on my lot, the developer was advertising some very warm and inviting Portland'ish
looking townhomes on Leblanc Way. Instead, I find myself near multi-family housing under the guise of
single family housing (bedrooms all the same size with their own bathrooms, aka for roomates), and
having not had to comply with typical, and regulated, multi-family housing requirements (landscaping,
aesthetics, parking, etc.). Then there's the tire store, and all the cut-through, speeding, stop sign running
traffic on a private roadway. This unsuccessful vision of a nice walkable and integrated community aside,
may also threaten me with additional liability to my home, due to the unsafe operation of the private
roadways. Our society is litigation happy. As if resale wasn't a big enough issue.
The City required an additional roadway be put in as part of the last phase of development by this
developer. This roadway which I am now told that I am partly responsible for, was not needed or
wanted. It was required because of some original and long since failed concept plan, and for which I may
now potentially be held partially liable for. How is it that I can be burdened with such a thing without
even being consulted with? If a roadway was required, it should have been built to ACHD standards and
been turned over to them. I find it unfathomable to trust the installation quality of this new road, by this
developer, now being responsible for other "improvements" previously made or damaged (e.g. -
crumbling pathways) by them. There was already one roadway that has been a constant source of safety
violations, and now there's a second. New medians on Eagle (changes to traffic patterns), auto-oriented
commercial (literally), and drivers with a complete disregard for others, are all threatening me.
I know that there are no simple answers for this, but I would ask that you please help Council to find a
solution that limits the impacts of development on residents in my neighborhood. While I realize that
bad people do bad things, and sometimes there's just no getting around or avoiding them, there's no
question in my mind that the City has not helped this problem. Requiring a developer to install and build
a roadway for which my little HOA is partially responsible for, begs a number of questions, but even
more so when allowing said developer to continually make changes to a failed plan and in conditions
which have changed substantially since conception, without re-evaluating the whole thing. I believe the
City and Bill Parsons in particular has tried to act in good faith, really, but it was with development that
does not share that ethic, and in conditions which warranted a different approach.
I do not believe there should be private roadways connecting two extremely significant roadways in the
County, so close to a restricted intersection. The public very likely perceives the use of these roadways
as sometimes being required (medians otherwise restricting certain travel directions). Furthermore, I do
not believe that additional development of any kind should be allowed to occur on said roadways, until
a better solution is found. It's hard for me to envision any scenario where the bank/developer controlled
HOA and their lawyers would allow the roadway to be closed, especially with the medians, so I would
request that they be given some direction to fix their created problem. They are the ones the benefit
from it, not the homeowners.
Sincerely,
An impacted homeowner
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 7F
PROJECT NUMBER: ZOA 14-001
ITEM TITLE: UDC UPDATE
Public Hearing: ZOA 14-001 Medium High-Density Residential District (R-15) Unified
Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment by Tahoe Homes Request: UDC Text
Amendment to Modify the Dimensional Standards of the R-15 Zoning District
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info.INotes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE March 25, 2014 ITEM # 7F
PROJECT NUMBER
PROJECT NAME UDC TEXT AMENDMENT BY TAHOE HOMES
PLEASE PRINT NAME
ZOA 14-001
FOR I AGAINST I NEUTRALI
ECE
MAR 2.5 ?01~t
CITY OFCCCe~:."„:
i,
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25. 2014
ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: MDA 14-003
ITEM TITLE: KENNEDY COMMERCIAL CENTER
Public Hearing: MDA 14-003 Kennedy Commercial Center by Derk Pardoe Located
North Side of W. Overland Road and West of S. Stoddard Road Request: Amend the
Recorded Development Agreement (DA) (Instrument # 1 081 1 9853) for the Purpose of
Excluding the Property from the Recorded DA and Incorporating a New Concept
Plan and Building Elevations Consisting of Office, Retail and Multi-Family Residential
into a New DA
MEETING NOTES
IZ®~, N o
~ ~~
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE March 25, 2014 ITEM #
PROJECT NUMBER
7G
MDA 14-003
PROJECT NAME
KENNEDY COMMERCIAL CENTER
PLEASE PRINT NAME FO AGAINST NEUTRAL
~ ~ ''~ -2 off oc(CS
~< l ~~/ ~rJ ~,
-~",
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Public Works: Budget Amendment for Replacement of a Backhoe for aNot-to-Exceed
Amount of $105,000.00
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
~~ -b
~~~~
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SE V`x~ r v 'fig
AG i INITIALS
~oovm
~~~~ ,~ w
<
'~ ~~ m ~v
Ad~~
~.
3 ~ ~
o,~~z a o ff
~ ~
a
£~OC
o am
~ ~ ~o
d
'm $ m
~+ ~ N
i m
o
~v a -
~
a<.~
~ o m
~ID ~
~o
~ C OS
~n
c
'
~ o o a
~ ^
~ o
~
m
~ B
::3
3 ~ m m ~ ~
n ~
m v > >
,~~a~ ~
.~~
~ m ~ ~
C K ~ ~
ry ~ ~ ~ ~
N
d 3 e 'm
e ~ ~ n ~
a aai ~ :: ~
$ m ~ w
~
S n
~ ~
omn°'
~ ~ ~ 3 n
m
vvnm
N O p
~
.
e ~
-„
~~
' a
~
r
'
8
~ v
; d
d~ ~
a
o' m
c
dm ~
~
.~* X
~~ N
C j ~
~a a
:°. ~
c~
N
~~ v
e '^
' e 'c
°a ~
$' a ~
a ° '_:
a ~
E
's s m
as ~
__~
'~ 'm
~; a
C
~ 3 N
~? a
i ~
ge ~
N ~ n
~~ ~
a~~
3 S
G
n~
¢3
~g
a
as
3~
t
"aA
~z
~~
~o
a3
~F
r g
a
W
F
a
3
x
m
3'
B
3
6~
s~
9~
7 .~'.
3
$~
a~
3~
Fa
~.
a~
~~
a~
n~
~~
3 °
8q
~~
3
a
3m¢
K
0
i
a
4
N
a
3
8
B
d, ~
~ ~ C
QN m
~~ ~
~~ a
3
m
~= z
v
H ~. 3
J ~ Z
m ~
m Q
(=D
~ ~
m
0
c
(D
a
B
c
m
K N
d ~
a N
o
~ ~
c ~
o: 3
~ ~
N ~
m
N Z
3
0
C
.~i.
m
c
~N-n
0
vt
0
0
v
N
m
n a
4k
v
N
N
N
N
S
4i
O
O
1
n
v
a
m~
O
a
S
r
v M..~.~
oz
0
m 3 0
aria
$~
d
8~
~a
m3
O o
and
A
~~
m ~
>>
'~ a
c~
m ,~
:; 3
3A
~ m
r~
a o
1
m 3
d
ad
m 8
N
S n
O y
d ~
• N
O
O d
N
~ °
n o
~
°
!
N •
~ o
ph ~
Z
~ ~
~
g
` '
m
N z
N ~
1
~ ~
3
m
M
N
8
O
A p ~ Gi
z D
.
r G
O ~ s~
.[
D
r i
~ y
°
C "
'
~ n
~" N n
1 ~
6 y ~
A
C
ow r
~ ~
3
r
~ ~ I
N D
m
x
0
0
°o
g ~
~ P
O
N
O
O
0
0
O
r
a
a
~ y 4
~T dS ~ ~w
o ~ ~ 3 m ~
~.~>>~
~ E ~~
~a~.=.~.
6 A
~~~~
m
~~~~a
~~~~~
~ a
~nso~
~~°~~.
~~~~o
~aa$
~~
"3o~a
~ N
c^`°
3 ~ ~$ y
m.
g ~ ~ ~
o O
N~o ~ ~
~ ~ c
c ~ ~
,~a-
o r'
~' T d m:
m 'm ~ o
~ ~ e
m ~
m m
~~
D
`~
d
9
'O
~
O
1
~
O
v
m ~
'
~
z a
N
N
..
3
0
~e
O
{
m
M
V
d
m
m
N
R
'0
m
Z
Cam,
~ O
~3~
DA
3p
ZD
OZ
3
m
Z
-I
O T
~ 3
m
n
0
z z z z
o v o 0
O ~ O ~
f~
W
ATTACHMENT C
MOUNTAIN
WATERWORKS
Business Case Analysis
DATE: February 13, 2014
TO: City of Meridian -Water Division
FROM: Mountain Waterworks
SUBJECT: Rubber Tired Backhoe Equipment
INTRODUCTION
The City of Meridian Water Division currently responds to the majority of routine and
emergency underground water system repairs by hiring outside contractors due to lack of
staff resources. As part of the City's Strategic Initiative (Objective WA-3 -Develop an in-
house routine and emergency repair program), the Water Division is in process of
developing an in-house routine and emergency repair program. The routine emergency and
repair program is identified under Objective WA-3 as a Priority 1 task. One main activity
identified as part of this objective is to procure and maintain excavation equipment, a rubber
tire backhoe, to allow underground repairs to be completed in-house by City staff.
BACKGROUND
The Water Division currently owns a 1989 Caterpillar Model 426 II backhoe loader for
operations and maintenance activities. The backhoe was originally purchased used for the
City's Wastewater Division and has approximately 11,000 total running hours. It was
transferred to the Water Division in 2010 to replace an undersized and antiquated 1979
Case backhoe. After 15 years of service in the Water and Wastewater Divisions it has finally
reached the point where general maintenance costs have been overridden with increasing
mechanical failures and operational costs.
In July of 2012, the transmission had a major failure costing $12,207 to repair. Now less
than 2 years later, the transmission has again failed. Additionally, the backhoe is in need of
other substantial repairs due to failure of a major structural component of the "boom" portion
of the backhoe itself. This failure along with the transmission failure has caused a complete
loss-of-use condition. The following photos depict the structural failure of the boom, which
cannot be welded to repair. Complete boom replacement is required.
Boise -McCall -Plummer
208.780.3990 -office@mountainwtr.com
www.mountainwtr.com
Mountain WaterworNs, Inc.
www.mountainwtr.com Page 2
mountain Waterworks, Inc.
In addition to the transmission and boom maintenance, other critical repairs have been
identified. The Water Division obtained a quote from Western States for all required repairs
necessary to bring the backhoe into reasonable working order. The total quote for these
repairs is $27,800. The itemized quote is attached.
KEY OUTCOMES AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
The need to procure a backhoe for implementation of the City's in-house repair program will
be evaluated using both economic and non-economic factors. Economic factors include
annualized capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Non-economic factors
include customer service and emergency response time.
Economic Factors
The project will be considered a success based on economic factors if the chosen
alternative provides a higher return on investment or overall savings than current practices.
Non-Economic Factors
The project will be considered a success based on non-economic factors if customer service
and emergency response times improve over existing practices.
The business case analysis focuses on the following criteria:
• Maximize return on investment (ROI)
• Improved emergency response and system security
• Decrease unscheduled maintenance due to improved routine maintenance
schedules; which will result in:
o Fewer expensive emergency repairs
o Increased revenue from system water loss reduction
o Longer infrastructure life
o Improved fire flow supply reliability
• Improved customer service
ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives have been identified to execute the Strategic Initiative with respect to the
necessary excavation equipment, in particular the backhoe. The four alternatives are as
follows:
1. Repair the existing backhoe
2. Monthly rent from a local dealer
3. Lease from a local dealer
4. Purchase new backhoe
In lieu of the actions set forth by the Strategic Initiative, a "do-nothing" alternative consists of
continuing the practice of hiring outside contractors to complete emergency and routine
www.mountainwtr.com Page 3
Mountain Waterworks, Inc.
underground work. A comparison of contractor versus in-house repair cost estimates for
routine activities is presented below. The maintenance activities listed have been completed
within the last 6 months.
- ___ _
e __,. _ ..
't __.-
a . w
~
s =
~
~ _
_
_
Maintenance Activity
Hours _
rln-House
labor (Total)
Material
Cost
In-House
(Total Cost)
Contractor
(Total Cost) _
Last6
Months
(units)
~In-House
Annual Cost 'Contractor
Annual
Cost
Flre hydrant replacement 8 $ 630 $ 2,500 $ 3,130 $ 6,500 1 $ 3,130 $ 6,500
Main to meterins[all-short side 6 $ 470 $ 900 $ 1,370 $ 3,900 1 $ 1,370 $ 3,900
Main to meter install-longside 10 $ 780 $ 900 $ 1,680 $ 5,900 2 $ 3,360 $ 11,800
Large main leak repair 8 $ 630 $ 500 $ 1,130 $ 4,500 1 $ 1,130 $ 4,500
Meter plt and setter replacement 4 $ 320 $ 700 $ 1,020 $ 2,700 5 $ 5,100 $ 13,500
&Inch valve re lacement 6 $ 470 $ 1,200 $ 1,670 $ 4,200 2 $ 3,340 $ 8,400
TOTAL $ 34,860 $ 97,200
1, Assumes 3-man crew at$z6/hr each _
2. Assumes no additional work from newt
established routine andemer en
re air
ro ram
Several additional repair projects have been identified by City staff, which are not captured
in the above annual costs. The total annual cost assumes similar maintenance activities will
be necessary over an entire year. Based on the conservative estimated number of annual
repairs, a savings of approximately $62,000 is realized by performing in-house repairs. In
reality, as infrastructure ages and when the City fully implements the in-house repair
program, many more repairs will be completed and the annual savings are expected to
increase significantly.
The estimated equipment backhoe costs for the alternatives are summarized below.
S ~~
_'_'~ i
~
Alternative
Initial Cost Period
(months) Salvage
Value Annual
Capital Cost Annual
O&M Total
Annual Cost
Repair Existing (initial) $ 27,800 24 $ 9,000 $ 9,400 $ 500 $ 9,900
Rent (per month) $ 2,100 1 $ - $ 25,200 $ - $ 25,200
Lease (per year) $ 9,000 60 $ - $ 9,000 $ - $ 9,000
Buy New (initial) $ 95,000 144 $ 35,000 $ 5,000 $ 500 $ 5,500
Note the following assumptions:
• Due to the condition of the existing backhoe, a service life of 2 years is estimated
after the repairs are completed.
• Maintenance based on an estimate of $2.00/operating hour per discussion with the
backhoe suppliers, 250 operating hours per year. Rental and lease alternatives
include routine maintenance
• New construction equipment useful life assumed at 12 years per "Estimating Useful
Life for Capital Assets by Paul Gruenwald, American Appraisal Associates"
www.mountainwtr.com Page 4
Mountain Waterworks, Inc.
The rent, lease, and buy new alternative costs over a 12-year period are listed below. The
repair existing alternativ a is not considered to be a viable long-term alternative.
• Rent Total 12 Year Cost = $302,400
• Lease Total 12 Year Cost = $108,000
• Buy New Total 12 Year Cost = $66,000
The economic analysis shows the most cost effective alternative for the City is to purchase
new equipment with a total annual estimated cost of $5,500.
Objective WA-3 includes an emergency response time goal of less than 30 minutes from
notification. The City can respond to an emergency with on-call staff, but repair response
- time is dictated by contractor availability. If adequate resources are available to City staff to
complete routine emergency repairs, response time and customer service will improve. An
additional benefit for having equipment available to complete routine maintenance activities
is the overall condition of the water system will increase resulting in a less vulnerable City
utility.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Mountain Waterworks recommends that the City purchase a new backhoe to further
implement the strategic Objective WA-3 to provide routine and emergency underground
water system repairs. The data provided clearly shows it is more economical for the City to
complete these repairs than hire outside contractors, program implementation will meet the
objectives to provide better customer service, quicker emergency response time, and the
water system will be less vulnerable.
The buy new backhoe equipment alternative ROI could be within 1-2 years assuming the
City commits to implementing the repair program.
www.mountainwtr.com Page 5
~/ WESTERN
~1 STATES
MERIDIAN STORE ( ) -
Bill to: 5827909
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 E BROADWAYAVE
MERIDIAN ID 89942-2619
Mach ID: 15-198 Jobsite:
~.,a °l. -~ Vim.
Pgge 1 oft
Service Work Order
~wy rnoorL Ref Doc: BY72198
$?0-1221. ~S.~s Createtl Dale: 11108/2019
Quote Expira9on: 12706/2013
Created By: Joe Shoen
Sliip to Address:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
(Address unavailable)
Ordered By: CARL PATTEN PO #: Equipment No: '
Make: CATERPILLAR Model: 42611 SN: D7BC02251 SMU/Od: 8371
Related Make: Related Model: Relatetl SN:
ESTIMATE NOTES
WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Segment Description Parts ~ La6or Mlsc Total Flat Rate
Indlcetor
1A REPLACE GASKET/ RESEAL ENG OIL FILTER $25.00 $105.00 $0.00 $130.00
HSGlBSE
1B REPLACE ALTERNATOR PULLEY $150.00 $105.OD $O.OD $255.00
3A REMOVE AND INSTALL TRANS&TORQUE _
$1,100.00 $1,890.00 $0.00 $2,890.00
CONVERTER
3C RECONDITION TRANSMISSION $2,028.87 $1,575.00 $0.00 $3,604.87
3D ADDITIONAL PARTSlLABOR TRANSMISSION $1,275.00 $525.00 $0.00 $1,800.00
4A REPAIR KINGPIN BOTH $429.98 $1,260.00 $D.00 $1,fiB9.96
4C REPAIR BRAKE & AXLE SEAL $100.00 $420.00 $0.00 $520.00
5A REMOVE AND INSTALL STEERING $150.00 $420.00 $0.00 $570.D0
CYLINDER
5B REPLACE GASKET/ RESEAL STEERING $250.00 $450.00 $D.00 $700.00
CYLINDER
SC REMOVE AND INSTALL STABILIZER $10D.00 $210.00 $0.00 $310.00
CYLINDER LEFT SIDE
SD REPLACE GASKET/ RESEAL STABILIZER $250.00 $210.00 $D.00 $460.00
CYLINDER LEFT SIDE
SE SALVAGE STABILIZER CYLINDER LEFT SIDE $64D.00 ~ $315.00 $0.00 $1,155.00
5G REMOVE AND INSTALL SWING CYLINDER $175.OD $210.00 $0.00 $385.00
5H REPLACE GASKET! RESEAL SWING $250.00 $215.00 $0.00 $465.00
CYLINDER
5J REMOVE AND INSTALL BUCKET CYLINDER $150.00 $315.00 $0.00 $465.00
WESTERN ,
STATES
MERIDIAN STORE ( ) -
BIII to: 5827000
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 E BROADWAY AVE
MERIDIAN ID 83842-2618
SK REPLACE GASKET/ RESEAL BUCKET
CYLINDER
7A REPAIR ONE-PIECE BOOM
7C REPAIR FLOODLIGHT
7D REMOVE AND INSTALL SWING FRAME
7E REAMIBORE/DRILL5WING FRAME
7F TROUBLESHOOT WARNING/INDICATOR
LIGHT
SUBTOTAL
ENVIRO SURCHARGE
SHOP SUPPLIES
TOTAL
Please Remit Payment to:
Western States Equipment
PO Box 3805 Seattle, WA 98124-3805
Page 2 of 2
Service Work Order
Ref Doc: BY72193
Created Date: 11/0612019
Quote Expiration: 7 2/0 612 01 3
Created By: Joe Shoen
$250.00 $210.00 $0.00 $480.00
$2,886.00 $2,520.00 $0.00 $5,206.00
$175.00 - $105.00 $0.00 $280.00
$1,329.00 $1,050.00 $0.00 $2,378.00
$150.00 $2,450.00 $0.00 $2,600.00
$300.00 $420.00 $0.00 $720.00
$12,164.65 $14,980.00 $0.00 ~ $27,144.85
$150.00
$542.90
$27,837.76
$27,837.75
CREDIT (DO NOT PAY):
RETURNS: TERMS:
We will be pleased to glue re[um consideration for parts purchased from Prices Ilsted are tlue antl payable on the tenth of the monOr fogowing
us if you franlsh our Invatce numbers antl present the pads to ue within purchase, A service charge of 1-1/2% PER MON7H which 5 18%
30 days after purchase. Conted your area Pads Department for ANNUAL RATE Is added tc all past due amounts.
details.
ATTACHMENT B
C ~ STERN
MERIDIAN STORE() -
eolto: S827oo0
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 E BROADWAY AVE
MERIDIAN ID 83842.2678
Mach ID: 16-198 Jobeite:
Page 1 of 2
Service Work Order
~wy tnooro Ref Doc: BY72793
aTg-1?/Lb ~S.-t+S Created Dal9: H108/2019
Quote Explro0an: 72108/2013
Creatxl By: Joe Sheen
Slilp to Address:
CRY OF MERIDIAN
(Address unavallabls)
ONared BY CARL PATTEN PO # EqulplneM No:
Males: CATERPILLAR Modeh 42811 - SN: 07t1C02%1 SMUlOd: 6.771
Related Make: Related Model: Related SN:
ESTIMATE NOTES
WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Segment Desedptbn pads - Lahor Mlsc Total Flat Rate
Intllcator
7A REPLACE GASKET/ RESEAL ENG OIL FILTER 25.00 $705.00 50.00 $190.00
NSO/BSE
iB REPLACE ALTERNATOR PULLEY 5160.00 S1O5.OD $0.00 $255.00
9A REMOVE AND INSTALL TRANSBTOROUE ~51,100.OD 51,890.00 §O.Op §2.980.00
CONVERTER
3C RECONDITION TRANSMISSION §2,029.87 51,575.00 $O.OD 53,8D4.87
3D ADDITIONAL PARTSILABOR TRANSMISSION 51,27b.00 5525.00 $0.00 51,800.00
4A REPAIR KINGPIN BOTH 5428.98 51,2811.06 $0.00 51,689.98
4C REPAIR BRAKE & AXLE SEAL $100.00 $420.00 $0.00 $520.00
6A REMOVE AND INSTALL STEERING $150.OD ¢120.00 $O.OD $570.00
CYLINDER
58 REPLACEGASKET/ RESEAL STEERING $250.00 $450.00 50.00 $700.00
CYLINDER
6C REMOVE AND INSTALL STABILIZER 5700.00 5210.00 $0.00 5310.D0
CYLINDER LEFT SIDE
SD REPLACE GASKET/RESEAL STABILIZER 8250.00 5210.00 50.00 $460.00
CYLINDER LEFT SIDE
SE SALVAGE STABILIZERCYUNDERLEFTSIDE $640.00 $315.00 50.00 51,155.00
5G REMOVE AND INSTALL SWING CYLINDER $175.00 5210.00 SD,00 §385.00
5R REPLACE GASKET/RESEAL SWNG 5250.00 §213.00 $0,00 5465.Op
CYLINDER
6J REMOVE AND INSTALL BUCKET CYLINDER $150.00 $316.OD $0./10 $485.00
~SfiA7~ES N 1
MERIDAN STORE () -
BII! to: 6827080
CRY OF NERIDWN
~ E BROADWAYAVE
MERIDIAN ID 83642.2879
5K REPLACEOASKET/RESEALBUCKET
CYLINDER'
7A REPAIR ONE-PIECE 1300M
7C REPAIR FLOODLIGHT
7D REMOVE AND INSTALL SWING FRAME
7E REAMfBOREIDRILLSWINGFRAME
7F TROUBLESHOOT WARNINGBNDICATOR
LIGHT
SUBTOTAL
ENVIRO SURCHARGE
SHOP SUPPLIE3
TOTAL
Page 2 of 2
Service Work Order
Ref Doc: BY72193
Greeted Date: 11/OBf2013
Ouote Expiretlon: 12N6/2013
Greeted By: Jae 9hoen
$zso.oo $zlo.oo So.oo $4BO.Do
$2,888.00 $2,510.00 $O.DO 55,205.00
$175.00 $105.00 $0.00 $280.00
$1,329.00 $1,060.00 $D.00 $2,379.00
E150.oD $2,460.00 $0.00 $2,800.00
$300.00 $420.00 $0,00 $720.00
$12,184.85 $14,980.00 $0.00 `$27,144.85
5150,00`
$542.90
$27,837.78
PleaesRemkPaymentto: • $27,937.78
Weslem States Equipment
PO Box 3805 Beadle, WA 987243805 CREDA (DO NOT PAY):
RETURNS: TERMS:
yYa wBl be pgpeed to plus relum wnsltlere0on for paMe Wrdlaesd from Rises Ileted are due antl peyade on the tents ollhe monm fo0owln0
ua B you fumleh ourinvalce numbers and present Bra perlq fo uewdhin pun:hace. A eervice tharpe of 1-1!296 PER MONTH vfilch R 16%
39 days aflar pumheae. CaMeat your area Peda Oepedmenl for ANNUAL RATE Is added le ell peat due amouMS.
delalls.
Stacy Kilchenmann
From: Dennis Teller
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:17 PM
To: Stacy Kilchenmann
Subject: RE: Backhoe Amendment
In the past, up until Sept of last year, we have hired contractors to perform the majority of our repair and maintenance
activities. This was due to the Division's organizational structure and lack of leadership to perform these activities in-
house. Last year, realizing the high cost to contract work and the uncertain availability of contractors, we rearranged our
organization. This re-org shifted the right resources to the right sections. We followed that up in Sept with the addition
of Brian Kerr assuming the leadership role and providing the needed guidance and training necessary to gear up for a full
blown in-house maintenance program. Since then, with our newly established crew, we have completed numerous
repairs and perform maintenance activities on a daily basis. By doing so we have not needed to contract with any
outside service providers since. Our goal is to stay on this course and the work load is only increasing as our system ages.
The purpose of the need to purchase now, instead of waiting till next year, is that we currently have no assurance that
either contractors and/or a rental machines will be available when we need them. They (contractors and rental
equipment) can be out of town, unavailable, all rented out, etc... leaving us helpless. If we were to have a major main
line failure (last year we had three substantial line failures that crippled our system effecting water service to our most
critical users, i.e. the hospital. Two of these happened over the Christmas and New Year's holiday.) we would not be able
to perform repairs potentially leaving critical end users without service. Fortunately we were able to find a contractor to
assist, but we paid dearly for it. The third one happened this fall which was after our staff switch over; we handled with
ease and a substantial savings.
Hope this makes sense. It really comes down to having equipment reliable resources available to preform our, now
normal duties, and have them ready at moment's notice. With fire protection and public health on the line we need to
position ourselves so we only need concentrate on effecting emergency repairs quickly, not securing resources.
TD/AN.,~ rOU,
newr~.ts Teller, wAtevsuperirtitev~dewt
From: Stacy Kilchenmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:47 PM
To: Dennis Teller
Subject: RE: Backhoe Amendment
The first part of the analysis states we hire outside contractors due to lack of staff resources and we are in the process of
developing an in-house emergency routine and emergency repairs program. So clearly the backhoe will need to be
replaced, but if we don't have the staff to replace outside contractors right now could this not go through the regular
budget process?
From: Dennis Teller
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:27 PM
To: Stacy Kilchenmann
Subject: RE: Backhoe Amendment
Stacy,
This is the rest of the documentation for the backhoe replacement. Sorry it wasn't part of what you received.
Meridian City Council Meeting
DATE: March 25, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: $B
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Public Works: Budget Amendment for Meridian Split Corridor Phase II -Meridian
Development Cooperation (MDC) Historic Streetlights for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of
$75,000.00
MEETING NOTES
Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE: E-MAILED TO
STAFF SENT TO
AGENCY SENT TO
APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS
S C 1D < c r ~ W [ o~i ~~ N c
d69A m~ fD~ d,KON ~ 5~~~
7 fG d .~ ~ n_ ~ N N 'i V ~ W ~ ~ m
~' ~~~ J (gy~pp cWi ~ n.d ~ o '^aa
7 ~ ~ o N 7. A ~m~ ~ O'a ~~
m ~ d O~ n d N c N d
$aa~ c N yc'~ ~ X25, ~ w „3~
J J O~ ~ C d 0
7 y,g ~ v ~° ad 0' ~° n3
and £ Noo ma~'~+ m ~~d
~~od o ~ 01003 ~ si~'~J°
dga~ 3 ~a oa,,; ~; ids?
C°~ a S ~. a N N ~. ~ ~ N Q N `C
~~ T' d N ~. d A^~ O CO• d O
w C~ ~ ~~ ~ w ~ re 7 N d N
d fa 7 7 y n~ ^ m r° ~ .~ ~ lVii O
N J f1
~C~ W m r ~} ~' 3~ "^ n~ m m p ep
~ < 7 N I N K d O p d
~ dm arJ. Win. .°~ ~»w lR
d3~c d W maa.3 ~v'~°B.
ad ~~ `•0 c 3 Zf2a §d ~J
d c d n
a•
7 'd~ J n_.~ c ~ n
~`z rJ ~ ^ =~ n O VI w Td o
s°mm ~ ~ SJ Wig, X01 ~3
p ~i ~ W ^ n p S d n a»~
e"s d
~~ n~ a N d a y it N~ d .2
W ry O n N
g~'~ < ~ ~^ ° m a9 3d
m% d v i~ N~ 6 N S y
p ~ ~ O' n p d n<
d
oPi C 10 d ~ LS ~ nd'•M1D
~ m > > O ~ N ~ T ~ ^: O
(1 N N K W ~p O^ < ~ ..~
6 y a x u ~ `N' O J s 0
Q ~ ~ rt ~d s
d' ~a x
O' d O
6 ~ n f~ ~
d N d OCO~ O ]. - ].
'~~ n O yj9 d J 0'~
~ m
p f n, a. v ~
w o~~ s~
3 v~ ~ ~T O j O
J A R° y 0 O
w ,de v~ m s F
waW ~„W
d ~ ~ ~ d d
N w 9
d ~ » d ~ rij (p
p 8 OI ~ = C
N d ~ N rt
s ~. ~ d
S .~ ~ _ ~ ~ J
w =f ^^s
.. ~
~ ~ S ° m a ?
~ W ~* N
s .~ ~~s
d <
n of0 ~ ~ ~ ~
E ° ~ 3 F ~ o
~ d n N N J
v'Oi O 1"-R 6 ~ ~ C
C f W 6 d W<
_ J
in O
3 J .. n ° o
s m
d
d, ~
7
C
N ~
C N ~
f0 ~ D
Vl
a ~
c 2
3
J' Z
N O
o
S
.dw
O
G
0
a
N
~, ~.
n ~
d O
O ~
7 N
m ~
c 3
~ ~
a
~'a
~ 7
C ~
O.
~ ~
m ?
3
0
c
of
N
K
En
V
Ut
O
0
N ~ T
d
n D.
m m
x~~
g ~
n
g
4C1
s
~~
30
J
a
a
~•
O
S
N
41
d a
~m
/ d
1 SA
~a
3
m
~~
d~
$~
d
~~
~. ~
Q
a~
m a
w ~
~~
~ ~
~ o
m~
~a
am
m o
w '~
a~
m
_~
..
0
m
n~~~~ o~
~.~ v
m
~_~~
W N
$ D
0 3 w 3Y c
~O'`~~a3
5 ~o' ~ 8 m
3 n.~+
~~~ ° ~. g
_~~~
~~
~N~~N
s ~' Q
€~~
s ~s
('~ N
C^
2 ~~ ~ O
T ~~~~~
~ r
_T
~YJQ~'.
p~ m N
p G V
~3
y "H
`.
' .F ° ~.
~~
< -c s
m w v
~ ~
z.
C~
~
O
,
~ ~,
~3
D~
3v
~ Zz
~ m
° ~
.
c ~
y ~ A
0 „ 3
9
~,
o°°'
' "{
~~
a ,
.
W ~
9 n
d N
~d
V
E IDIAN~--
Public ~ D A H O
Works Department
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
CIly Ceundl Memberfs
loe Borton
Keith Bird
Luke Cavener
Brad Hoa9lun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Members of City Council
FROM: Austin Petersen, EIT -Transportation and Utility Coordinator
DATE: March 17, 2014
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR MERIDIAN SPLIT CORRIDOR PHASE II
-MDC HISTORIC STREETLIGHTS
RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Move to:
1. Approve the budget amendment for Meridian Split Corridor Phase II -
Historic Streetlights
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS
Austin Petersen, Transportation and Utility Coordinator (PM) 489-0352
Warren Stewart, PW Engineering Manager 489-0350
Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372
III. DESCRIPTION
A. Back rg ound
In July 2012 Meridian Development Cooperation (MDC) requested funds from
the City to assist in paying Ada County Highway District (ACRD) for historic
streetlights along the Meridian Split Corridor Phase II project. Following a
presentation to City Council on July 12th, of that year, the Mayor and City
Council passed a $75,000 budget enhancement to assist MDC with the streetlight
installation. Installation of these lights was not complete in FY 2013 so no
payment was issued. During the FY2014 budget development process the request
to carry funds forward for the Meridian Split Corridor Phase II -MDC Historic
Streetlights was overlooked. The street light installation is now complete and
MDC has sent an invoice to the City requesting the agreed upon funds.
Page 1 of 2