REGULAR COUNCIL July 3, 2017

Mayor Henry called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

Clerk made note that Councilmembers Haverfield, Levi, Bruner, and Raymond were present. Councilmember Skaug was absent.

Mayor Henry amended the consent agenda by removing item #21 - 1st Reading of Ordinance for Zoning Map Amendment from AG to BC at the southwest corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Midland Blvd. for Shon Parks representing Derk Pardo - CIF Enterprises LLC and item #26 - 1st Reading of Ordinance Correcting the Legal Description for an Annexation and Zoning of 1101 E Hawaii Ave by Adding the Right of Way Property.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Raymond to approve the Consent Agenda with the above mentioned amendments; Regular Council Minutes of June 19, 2017; Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes; Board of Appraisers Minutes of May 16, 2017; Airport Commission Minutes; Planning & Zoning Commission; Library Commission Minutes; IT Steering Committee Minutes; department reports, bills paid; The City Council dispenses with the three (3) reading rule of Idaho Code § 50-902 for all ordinances; final and preliminary plat approvals: 1) None; and authorize the following public hearings: 1) Zoning Map Amendment from RP to RML for the southerly approximate 150 ft of the property located at 412 E Hawaii Ave. (Section 34 T3N R2W, Kurtz Addition, Block 179, ½ adjacent vacated street on the north, and ½ the adjacent vacated street on the east and west) for Chance Hobbs – Moonlake Consulting, LLC; 2) Zoning Text Amendment of Section 10-1-12 A.4. – Off Site Vehicle Sales Events as Temporary Uses, increasing the number of off-site sales events per calendar year from one to six. Applied for by Team Mazda Subaru; 3) Annexation and Zoning to RA at 0 Midway Rd. (A 7.64 acre or 322,970 sq ft parcel of land situated in a part of the SE ¼ Section 13 T3N R3W BM – Parcel R3280001200) for Jose and Leticia Montoya; Authorization to Proceed with the Bidding Process: 1) 2017 CDBG Park Accessibility Improvements; Renewal of Agreements and Authorize the Mayor to Sign: 1) None; Monthly Cash Report: 1) None; Resolutions – Disposal of Property with Value Under $1,000.00: 1) Various Equipment for Civic Center; 2) Rescue System for Wastewater Treatment Plant; 3) Used Precious Metals – None; Alcohol – Chonies Sports Bar, 306 North Kings Road, on-premise beer and wine; Miscellaneous Items: 1) Approval of Republic Services Annual Price Adjustment; approval of the agenda. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with Councilmembers Bruner, Raymond, Haverfield voting YES. Councilmember Levi ABSTAINED and Councilmember Skaug was ABSENT. Mayor Henry declared the MOTION CARRIED

Public Works Director Michael Fuss presented a staff report to update the council on current projects as follows:

Update to 2017 Street Division Chip Sealing Campaign – Chip sealing in Zone B1 and Zone B2 is 100% complete. It is estimated that fog sealing, as well as sweeping, is about 25% complete for the season. The following roads have been fog sealed: Idaho Center Boulevard, Franklin Road, Treasure Valley Way, Star Road, Tiegs Way, Equine Drive, North Gate and East Gate. These roads will be striped by June 28, in time for the God and Country Rally at the Idaho Event Center. Regular Council July 3, 2017

Crews will resume fog sealing operations later in the week as cleanup sweeping operations continue with an estimated completion date of July 14. Thermoplastic application and continued paint striping is estimated to be completed by August 15. Staff provides daily updates to the City website for citizens to review and track the progress. As this campaign takes all Street staff and resources, requests will be delayed until after completion, apart from an emergency.

Item 21 - 1st Reading of Ordinance for Zoning Map Amendment from AG to BC at the southwest corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Midland Blvd. for Shon Parks representing Derk Pardo - CIF Enterprises LLC was postponed at the request of staff.

The following Ordinance was read by title:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO TO PROVIDE ZONE DESIGNATIONS OF AG (AGRICULTURAL) TO APPROXIMATELY 51.51 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF RS6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – WITH A ″REQUIRED PROPERTY AREA″ OF AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET) TO APPROXIMATELY 16.78 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND OF RMH (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO APPROXIMATELY 0.33 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SAID LANDS BEING LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST GREENHURST ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH MIDDLETON ROAD AND SOUTH MIDWAY ROAD; DETERMINING THAT SAID ZONING DESIGNATIONS ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO; REZONING SAID PROPERTY FROM RMH (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), RS6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – WITH A ″REQUIRED PROPERTY AREA″ OF AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET), BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS), AND RS7 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – WITH A ″REQUIRED PROPERTY AREA″ OF AT LEAST 7,000 SQUARE FEET), TO AG (AGRICULTURAL), FROM AG (AGRICULTURAL), RMH (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), RS7 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – WITH A ″REQUIRED PROPERTY AREA″ OF AT LEAST 7,000 SQUARE FEET), RML (LIMITED MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), TO RS6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – WITH A ″REQUIRED PROPERTY AREA″ OF AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET), AND FROM BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) AND AG (AGRICULTURAL), TO RMH (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR RECORDATION; INSTRUCTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE SAID PROPERTY AS AG (AGRICULTURAL), RS6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – WITH A ″REQUIRED PROPERTY AREA″ OF AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET), AND RMH (MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN, ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND OTHER AREA MAPS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND PARTS THEREOF, IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. (Applicant M3 Companies, LLC)

Page 2 Regular Council July 3, 2017

The Mayor declared this the first reading.

Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules.

MOVED by Raymond and SECONDED by Levi to pass the preceding ordinance under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4320 and directed the clerk to record it as required.

The following Ordinance was read by title:

AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN LANDS, LYING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF W. ROOSEVELT AVENUE AND S. MIDDLETON ROAD, COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 20.21 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LAY CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, COUNTY OF CANYON, STATE OF IDAHO, AND THAT SAID LANDS SHOULD BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO, AS PART OF THE BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) ZONE; DECLARING SAID LANDS BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW TO BE A PART OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO; DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER AND PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF NAMPA TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED WITH CANYON COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE, SECTION 63-215. (Applicant BNS Properties, LLC)

The Mayor declared this the first reading.

Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules.

MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Haverfield to pass the preceding ordinance under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4321 and directed the clerk to record it as required.

The following Ordinance was read by title:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, VACATING

Page 3 Regular Council July 3, 2017

THE SOUTHERLY TWELVE (12') FEET OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS EAST CLARK AVENUE, IN NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, ADJACENT AND ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF 704 12TH AVENUE ROAD, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ALTER THE USE AND AREA MAP ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. (Applicant Brian Watt)

The Mayor declared this the first reading.

Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Raymond to pass the preceding ordinance under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with Councilmembers Bruner, Raymond, Haverfield voting YES. Councilmember Levi ABSTAINED and Councilmember Skaug was ABSENT. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4322 and directed the clerk to record it as required.

The following Ordinance was read by title:

AN ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THE NAMPA CITY COUNCIL, AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 3-7-12, OF THE NAMPA CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE MAKEUP OF THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND PARTS THEREOF, IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. (Applicant Building Department)

The Mayor declared this the first reading.

Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Bruner to pass the preceding ordinance under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4323 and directed the clerk to record it as required.

Item #26 First reading of Ordinance correcting Ordinance 4183 has been postponed until the next regular Council meeting of July 17, 2017.

Page 4 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Mayor Henry presented a request to authorize Mayor to go into negotiations with the recommended prosecuting attorney.

Police Chief Joe Huff presented a staff report explaining that on May 15, 2017 an RFP was put forward to negotiate the misdemeanor and infraction prosecution services for the City of Nampa.

Three qualified firms put in for this contract, Canyon County Prosecutor Attorney’s Office, Hamilton, Michaelson and Hilty, and Williams Law firm.

After the packets were reviewed the Canyon County Prosecutors Office and Hamilton, Michaelson and Hilty were selected to be interviewed further for the contract. Both of the firms were well qualified. However, the selection panels recommendations to the Council is that the City of Nampa negotiate and continue prosecution service with the Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney.

Reasons for this selection is the proven track record that we have with the Prosecutors Office. We currently have open and good communication with the Prosecutors office which leads to a more centralized prosecution for us. Ongoing training that is provided by the prosecution to our officers. We currently work on the same case management system which is Spillman, which gives us the ability to file our reports electronically with them. The prosecutor’s office is able to provide 24 hour on call prosecution service for us. Victim witness services that they have and then they have 4 full time prosecutor/investigators which assists us with our subpoena services follow up with our cases.

The current service that we as a police department receive from the Prosecutors Office in my opinion is un-matched. It would be my recommendation to the Council that you authorize negotiations for a new contract beginning on October 1, 2017 with Canyon County Prosecutor.

MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Haverfield to Authorize the Mayor to go into negotiations with Canyon County Prosecutor Brian Taylor. Mayor Henry asked all in favor say aye with all Councilmembers present voting AYE. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

The following Ordinance was read by title:

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that Canyon County Development Services received a building permit application for a new residential structure in Nampa’s Area of Impact that will be accessed by a new private access road.

Canyon County Code and City of Nampa Code require a street name assignment where there is an existing common driveway providing access to more than three (3) permanent residences.

Page 5 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Section 9-1-1 of the Nampa City Code requires the City Council to approve the names for new or additional streets.

Engineering received an application from the developing property owner requesting to name the unnamed private access road within Nampa’s Area of Impact. • The developing property owner received signatures from the impacted property owners on the application providing consent with the application content and prioritized list of proposed street names. • The private access road serves two properties. ▪ One parcel will be developed (new residence). • The new parcel and structure’s address will coincide with the new street name. ▪ One parcel has an existing residential structure. • The existing structure’s address will change to coincide with the new street name.

Property owners request and staff recommends the following street name assignment: • East Bay Horse Lane

This proposed change is shown on exhibit “A” attached

Emergency Services supports this naming

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY IDAHO NAMING A PRIVATE LANE EAST BAY HORSE LANE. (Applicant Engineering)

The Mayor declared this the first reading.

Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Raymond to pass the preceding ordinance under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4324 and directed the clerk to record it as required.

The following Resolution was presented:

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that this is a requirement from our bond attorney on the LID 162 for sidewalks.

Page 6 Regular Council July 3, 2017

A new process, as you know we are going through with the 100 sidewalk improvements. This is one of the criteria’s to make sure that we have can move the project forward.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, DECLARING ITS OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN AUTHORIZED REIMBURSABLE EXPENDITURES PAID BY THE CITY ON BEHALF OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 162 FOR THE CITY (THE “DISTRICT”) FROM THE LID 162 FUND OF THE CITY RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY’S SIDEWALKS, PEDESTRIAN RAMPS, DRIVE APPROACHES, CURBS, GUTTERS AND OTHER RELATED STREET IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT FROM OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISTRICT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MOVED by Raymond and SECONDED by Bruner to pass the resolution as presented. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. Mayor Henry declared the resolution passed, numbered it, 44-2017, and directed the clerk to record it as required. MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry presented as request to authorize the Parks and Recreation Department to purchase a picnic shelter for Midway Park.

Parks and Recreation Director Darrin Johnson presented a staff report explaining that Nampa Parks and Recreation requests Nampa City Council authorize the purchase of a refabricated picnic shelter. The shelter will be placed at Midway Park and is part of the next phase (Phase 1A) of construction.

There are two picnic shelters planned for Midway Park at full buildout – one small shelter and one large shelter. This specific shelter is considered the smaller shelter and the dimensions are 28 feet by 32 feet. Attached are the design drawings. The large shelter will be constructed in a future phase.

We are currently accepting bids for the next phase of Midway Park and the shelter purchase is not part of the bid package. However, the installation of the shelter is included in the bid package. We would like approval to order the shelter now because there is about a 10-week delivery time and we expect the timing of its arrival to fit in with our installation schedule.

The shelter is purchased using Impact Fee Funding. This item is procured through the HJAC Cooperative government purchasing program and the cost is $35,125.

Page 7 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Nampa Parks and Recreation requests action to approve the purchase of the described picnic shelter for the amount of $35,125.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Bruner to approve the purchase of the described picnic shelter for the amount of $35,125.00. Mayor Henry asked all in favor say aye with all Councilmembers present voting AYE. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry presented as request from the Board of Appraisers who recommended action to customer appeal of sewer utility bill.

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that on June 20, 2017, the Board of Appraisers (BOA) heard an appeal from Margaret Mangeac regarding the City’s billing for sewer utility service at her property located at 912 West Greenhurst Road.

Deborah Spille, City Treasurer, provided the history on sewer utility services for the property (see Exhibit A). o Records indicate sewer utility billing began in November 2006 to April 2017 and customer paid $4,360.27 for City sewer services

Customer experienced sewer issues and contacted the City. Upon addressing the situation, it became apparent the property had a septic tank and was not hooked up to City sewer services. A dye test confirmed this finding.

Customer is requesting full reimbursement of approximately 11 years of payment, plus interest (see Exhibit B). o The City’s Utility Rebilling Policy (Policy) provides refunds for no more than a two (2) year period, at no interest o Beyond the Policy requires an appeal to the BOA and approval of City Council

Mrs. Mangeac presented her appeal to the BOA. o She requested full reimbursement, plus 20% interest o During the appeal process Mrs. Mangeac’s calculation of what she paid (approximately $12,000), compared to the City’s billing history, was called into question

A motion was made, and seconded, with nine (9) YES votes and two (2) NO votes from BOA members to reverify amount billed by City and paid by Margaret Mangeac for City sewer utility services, from November 2006 to April 2017, and provide customer full reimbursement. No

Page 8 Regular Council July 3, 2017 interest to be paid. For verification purposes, provide customer an account history report for 912 West Greenhurst Road.

As directed by the BOA, Utility Billing staff rechecked the customer’s account history. o Records indicate a total of $4,360.27 was invoiced from November 2006 to April 2017 for sewer utility service (see Exhibit C) o A $1,531.28 credit adjustment was made to customer’s water and trash utility bill, leaving a remaining balance of $2,828.99.

Correspondence was sent to Mrs. Mangeac notifying her of the BOA motion and subsequent recommendation to City Council (see Exhibit D) o An Account History Report, dated June 20, 2017, was also provided to verify the City’s billing history

A courtesy call was also placed to customer of the BOA’s recommendation o Customer requested a cash payment, rather than a credit to her utility bill, due to the length of time to recover her money

Councilmembers made comments and questioned staff on the request.

Mayor Henry made comments.

Finance Director Vikki Chandler made comments on the request.

MOVED by Raymond and SECONDED by Haverfield to authorize full reimbursement to Margaret Mangeac for billing of City sewer utility services, from November 2006 to April 2017, in the amount of $4,360.27, and provide refund check rather than credit to customer’s water and trash utility account. Mayor Henry asked all in favor say aye with all Councilmembers present voting AYE. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry presented as request to authorize the Mayor and Public Works Director to sign a Task Order and Contract for Consultant Services with FCS Group for Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study.

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that the City continues to evaluate alternatives to meet the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Page 9 Regular Council July 3, 2017

The Nampa Wastewater Advisory Group (NWAG) and City Council have provided guidance on preferred options based on capital, operation, maintenance, risks and benefits.

To properly evaluate the method of funding and impacts to customers, a Cost of Service Study and Rate Study is necessary.

Staff has called upon Financial Consulting Solutions (FCS) Group to leverage its previous 2012 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study experience with the City to incorporate up to three different Phase II wastewater treatment options.

The study will include o Financing Options ▪ Pay-as-you-go (cash funding) ▪ Bond financing ▪ Special programs (e.g., State Revolving Fund) o Revenue Requirement Analysis ▪ The total amount of rate revenue needed to meet enterprise financial obligations o Cost of Service Analysis ▪ Allocation of costs to functional cost components ▪ Allocation of costs to customer classes o Update Rates ▪ Across the board rate scenario ▪ Updated cost of service rate scenario ▪ A monthly water rate schedule will also be provided based on the most recent water cost of service and rate analysis o Documentation and Presentation

Results will be shared with the NWAG, Board of Appraisers, City Council, and the greater public prior to any implementation.

City staff and FCS Group have agreed on a scope and fee for the proposed study (see Exhibit A).

Funding is proposed through the Wastewater Division’s 2017 and 2018 fiscal year budgets.

Councilmembers asked questions of staff.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Raymond to authorize the Mayor and Public Works Director to sign Task Order and Contract for consultant services with Financial Consultant Solutions Group for a Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study for $83,470.00

Page 10 Regular Council July 3, 2017

T&M NTE (time and material not to exceed). Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry presented as request to authorize the Mayor to sign the FAA Grant Agreement for AIP-28 Rehabilitate Runway 11-29 Pavement/Parallel Taxiway/Connectors Project at Nampa Municipal Airport.

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that in March 2017, the City submitted a grant application to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for AIP-28 (Airport Improvement Program) Rehabilitate Runway 11-29 Pavement/Parallel Taxiway/Connectors project at the Nampa Municipal Airport.

On June 14, 2017, the FAA notified the City the AIP-28 has been awarded and is requesting the Grant Agreement be executed by July 7, 2017 (see Attachment 1).

Construction is anticipated to last 5 days, beginning September 11, 2017. o The runway and parallel taxiway and connectors are being closed during construction period

The total anticipated project cost is $247,379.11. o FAA grant is 90% $222,641.00 o State grant is 2.5% $ 6,184.00 o City match is 7.5% $ 18,554.11

On June 21, 2017, the Nampa Airport Commission met to review the FAA Grant Agreement.

The Commission moved to recommend that City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the FAA Grant Agreement for Grant AIP-28.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Bruner to authorize the Mayor to sign FAA Grant Agreement for AIP-28 (Airport Improvement Program) Rehabilitate Runway 11-29 Pavement/Parallel Taxiway/Connectors project at the Nampa Municipal Airport. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry presented as request to award the bid and authorize the Mayor to sign contract with CR Contracting, LLC, pending FAA Approval and Funding, for AIP-28 Rehabilitate Runway 11-29 Pavement/Parallel Taxiway/Connectors Project at Nampa Municipal Airport.

Page 11 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that in March 2017, City Council authorized Nampa Airport staff to submit grant applications and certifications to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for grant funding of improvement projects at the Nampa Municipal Airport.

Staff has received a grant offer from its grant application and certification from the FAA for the AIP-28 Rehabilitate Runway 11-29 Pavement/Parallel Taxiway/Connectors project. o The construction is anticipated to last 5 days, beginning on September 11, 2017 o The runway and parallel taxiway and connectors will be closed during construction

The total anticipated project cost is $247,379.11. o FAA grant is 90% $222,641.00 o State grant is 2.5% $ 6,184.00 o City match is 7.5% $ 18,554.11

J-U-B Engineers, Inc., was selected through a Request for Professional (RFP) Services process in March 2014 to provide engineering services at the Nampa Municipal Airport for the next five years. o In March 2015, the City signed a professional services agreement with J-U-B for engineering assistance with grant and construction bidding processes

Construction cost as estimated by J-U-B was $168,710.75

Five (5) bids were received by the Airport for the proposed construction. CR Contracting, LLC is the apparent responsible and responsive low bidder at $159,039.85 (see Exhibit A).

Contractor will be required to provide necessary bonds, insurance certificates, and other documents as required before the Agreement can be executed and Notice to Proceed can be issued.

J.U.B Engineers and Staff have reviewed the bids and recommend award to CR Contracting, LLC.

On June 21, 2017, the Airport Commission held a special meeting to review all submitted bids and moved to recommend that City Council award bid and authorize Mayor to sign the contract with CR Contracting, LLC in the amount of $159,039.85, pending FAA approval and funding.

MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Haverfield to award the bid, and authorize the Mayor to sign contract with CR Contracting, LLC, in the amount of $159,039.85, pending FAA approval and funding, for AIP-28 Rehabilitate Runway 11-29 Pavement/Parallel Taxiway/Connectors project at Nampa Municipal Airport. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Page 12 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Mayor Henry presented as request to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement for Professional Services with J-U-B Engineers, Inc., for Engineering Services as Required by the FAA AIP-29 for Phase 2 Environmental for the Purchase of Land in the Runway 11 Runway Protection Zone Project.

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that in June 2017, Phase 1 Environmental for the Purchase of Land in the Runway 11 RPZ (Runway Protection Zone) was finalized.

On June 5, 2017, the Airport Commission recommended City Council authorize Nampa Airport staff to submit grant applications and certifications to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding.

Staff has received preliminary approval from the FAA of its grant application and certifications for Phase 2 Environmental for the Purchase of Land in the Runway 11 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) project at the Nampa Municipal Airport. o The project is anticipated to begin in July 2017 and be completed in 2018

The total anticipated project cost is $225,000.00 (pending FAA final approval). o FAA grant is 90% $202,500.00 o State grant is 2.5% $ 5,625.00 o City match is 7.5% $ 16,875.00

As part of the AIP grant funding process the FAA requires an Agreement for Professional Services be put in place.

J-U-B Engineers, Inc., was selected in March 2014 to provide engineering services at the Nampa Municipal Airport for the next five years.

The FAA is reviewing the IFE (Independent Fee Estimate).

The City’s legal counsel is reviewing the FAA Agreement for Professional Services.

On June 21, 2017, the Nampa Airport Commission met to review the FAA Agreement for Professional Services with J-U-B for engineering assistance in the amount of $192,448.37 (see Exhibit A).

The Commission moved to recommend that City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement for Professional Services with J-U-B, pending FAA concurrence and legal review.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Levi to authorize the Mayor to sign Agreement for Professional Services with J-U-B Engineers, Inc., for engineering services as required by the

Page 13 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program (AIP-29) for Phase 2 Environmental for the Purchase of Land in the Runway 11 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) project Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry presented as request to authorize the Mayor to sign the 2017 Nampa Municipal Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan.

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that the Nampa Municipal Airport has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Plan in accordance with United States Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26.

The City has received federal assistance from the DOT. As a condition of receiving this assistance the City has signed an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26.

This document states it is the policy of the City to ensure DBEs (as defined in Section 26) have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT assisted contracts. It is also the City’s policy to: ᴥ Ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT assisted contracts ᴥ Create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT assisted contracts ᴥ Ensure the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law ᴥ Ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs ᴥ Help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT assisted contracts ᴥ Promote the use of DBEs in all types of federally assisted contracts and procurement activities ᴥ Assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program ᴥ Provide appropriate flexibility to recipients of federal financial assistance in establishing and providing opportunities for DBEs Legal counsel has reviewed and concurs with the 2017 Nampa Municipal Airport DBE Program Plan (see Attachment A)

On June 21, 2017, the Airport Commission met to review the Plan.

Recommendation was made to request Nampa City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Plan pending legal review.

Page 14 Regular Council July 3, 2017

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Raymond to authorize the Mayor to sign the 2017 Nampa Municipal Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

The following Resolution was presented:

Fleet Superintendent Doug Adams presented a staff report explaining that the Public Works Department Fleet Services Division has identified the need, in the fiscal year 2018 budget, to replace a tow vehicle for the Nampa Police Department (NPD) Bomb Squad, a 2003 Ford Excursion SUV.

On April 11, 2017, the current Bomb Squad tow vehicle had a rear end failure. Further investigation by the Fleet Division determined the current tow vehicle is inadequate to tow the trailer and resulted in failure.

Without an adequate tow vehicle, the NPD Bomb Squad is unable to deploy.

The Bomb Squad provides regional response service to Nampa and 16 surrounding jurisdictions in 11 counties.

The Bomb Squad trailer is currently deployed approximately 50 times per year.

The need for vehicle replacement is now an emergent need due to a mechanical failure of the current tow vehicle.

NPD has explored other funding options and no alternatives were found.

Moving towards Total Fleet Management for established guidelines for funding, acquisition, maintenance, replacement and disposal of City fleet vehicles, Fleet Services has identified the following vehicle for immediate replacement:

Fleet Services Division, and disposal team, recommend disposal via trade-in.

Nampa Police Department staff concurs with this recommendation.

Page 15 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Through a collaborative dialogue between Fleet Services and the NPD, the needs and functionality requirements of an effective Bomb Squad tow vehicle have been thoroughly discussed.

It has been determined a light duty pickup, on a 1-ton 4x4 chassis utilizing a diesel engine and automatic transmission would be required.

Fleet Services proposes to purchase one (1) new tow vehicle, specified to fit the needs of the NPD Bomb Squad.

The tow vehicle is proposed to be purchased using the existing NPD fiscal year 2017 budget.

The new vehicle will be purchased using the informal bid process for solicitation of qualified vendors to supply an adequate vehicle as per specifications set forth by the NPD and Fleet Services.

Councilmembers had questions on the bomb squad being used for the other areas without reimbursement.

Captain Brad Daniels answered questions of Council.

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF IDAHO, AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY. (Police)

MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Raymond to pass the resolution as presented and dispose of identified surplus property as recommended by Staff and authorize use of existing Nampa Police Department fiscal year 2017 budget for immediate purchase of one Bomb Squad tow vehicle. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. Mayor Henry declared the resolution passed, numbered it, 45-2017, and directed the clerk to record it as required. MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry presented a request to authorize the Mayor to sign utility agreements with Union Pacific Railroad for the 11th Avenue North project.

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that the Engineering Division, as part of the Public Works Asset Management Program, identified 11h Avenue North, Industrial Road and 11th Street North to be reconstructed in FY17.

Council awarded the bid for the project construction to Idaho Materials on May 1, 2017.

Page 16 Regular Council July 3, 2017

Council authorized the signing of an agreement between Boise Valley Railroad and the City to improve five at grade crossings on 11th Avenue North on May 1, 2017.

As part of the 11th Avenue reconstruction, City utilities are being upgraded under the five railroad crossings, including a new storm drain system under all tracks, a new 12" water main under all tracks and a new 8" water main under the northern most track. Each utility crossing will be bored under the tracks (see Exhibit A).

All utility crossings under the railroad require an agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad.

Attached as Exhibit B is the first of two Pipeline Crossing Agreements for the utility crossings.

o The attached agreement covers the new 12" water main under all tracks o Agreement Fee = $13,410.00 o Agreement grants the City the right to construct, maintain and operate the subject utility The Engineering Division anticipates the second agreement from the UPRR in the next couple weeks. o The pending agreement will cover the new 8" water main under the northern most track and the new storm drain system under all tracks o Agreement Fee is pending-anticipated fee is from $15,000 to $20,000 o Agreement will grant the City the right to construct, maintain and operate the subject utilities o Anticipate the pending agreement will be of the same language as the attached Exhibit B The attached Agreement, Exhibit B, and the pending Agreement are critical to the contractor's construction schedule.

Engineering recommends authorizing the attached Pipeline Crossing Agreement.

Engineering recommends authorizing the pending Pipeline Crossing Agreement upon receipt from UPRR, therefore minimizing any delays to the contractor.

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Raymond to authorize the Mayor to sign utility agreements with Union Pacific Railroad for the 11th Avenue North project. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry opened a public hearing for a variance to Nampa City Code NCC 10-1-9.B(4) requiring a minimum 3:12 roof pitch for a mini-storage facility to be located in the RP zoning

Page 17 Regular Council July 3, 2017 district. The applicants are requesting a ½:12 roof pitch for the proposed Southside Storage, LLC facility to be located at 2508 Southside Blvd (all of Lot 10 and a portion of Lot 9 of Covert Subdivision, in the NW ¼ Section 1 T2N R2W BM, on 3.684 acres, within an RP zoning district. The applicants state they are requesting the Variance due to the fact the required 3:12 pitch will cause the roof ridges to be inconsistent on the buildings of variable size within the storage facility, and the fact the ½:12 slope would be consistent (when installed as required) with the Idaho State Building Code as adopted by the City of Nampa for Riley Planning Services, Penelope Rile representing Beau Weaver.

The applicant was not in attendance.

Planning and Zoning Director Norm Holm presented a staff report explaining that the request is for a variance(s) to Nampa City Zoning Code(s) N.C.C. § 10-1-9.8(4) that requires a minimum three (3) to twelve (12) [3: 12] roof pitch or a self/mini-storage facility located in the RP (Residential Professional) Zone. The Applicant is requesting [rather] a one-half (1 /2) to twelve (12) [½ : 12] roof pitch for the proposed "Southside Storage LLC" complex's storage buildings ... Located in a certain 3.684 acre parcel of land (hereinafter the "Property") addressed as 2508 Southside Blvd. (all of Lot 10 and a portion of Lot 9 of Covert Subdivision, in the NW ¼ of Section 01, T2, R2W, Boise Meridian, Canyon County, Nampa within the RP zone in Nampa (see attached Vicinity Map) ...

Applicable Regulations

10-24-1: (Variance) Purpose: The council is empowered to grant variances in order to prevent or to lessen practical development difficulties, unique site circumstances and unnecessary physical, geographical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of zoning as would result from a literal interpretation and enforcement of certain of the bulk or quantifiable regulations prescribed by this title.

A variance shall not be considered a right or special privilege, but may be granted to an applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of: a) special characteristics applicable to the site which deprive it of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and b) the variance is not in conflict with the public interest. Hardships must result from special site characteristics relating to the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from geographic, topographic or other physical conditions, or from population densities, street locations or traffic conditions or other unique circumstances.

Variances are not intended to allow something that others do not have a permitted right to do. The purpose of a variance is to provide fair treatment and to see that individuals are not penalized because of site characteristics beyond their control. (Ord. 2140; and. Ord. 2978)

Page 18 Regular Council July 3, 2017

10-24-2: Actions: A. Granting Of Variance Permit: The council may grant a variance permit with respect to requirements for fences and walls, site, area, width, frontage, depth, coverage, front yard, rear yard, side yards, outdoor living area, height of structures, distances between structures or landscaped areas as the variance was applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of application, investigation and evidence submitted, the council concludes the following: 1. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. There are extraordinary site characteristics applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. 4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

Staff Findings and Discussion

I. Variance Introduction: Variances are traditionally offered zoning tools used as remedies to seek jurisdictional waivers or reductions of quantifiable, measurable development code requirements (e.g., setbacks, property dimensions, height standards, min. or maximum quantities or sizes, etc.) with which compliance in a given situation could not be attained due to site constraints (such as unusual topography) inherent to a property, rather than being the result of an applicant's own action(s)/development desires. Normally, economic considerations or "self-imposed hardships" or predicaments are not qualifying grounds to support a Variance application or its approval. As noted in the planning text The Practice of Local Government Planning (ICMA, 1988, 2nd ed.),

"Many requests for variances are for minor bulk variances in existing neighborhoods: for example, expansions of patios or carports one or two feet into designated side-yard setbacks. On such matters the zoning board becomes a sort of neighborhood arbitration board, dealing with physical hardships. Although these hardships are rarely great, this should be weighed against the extent of the public sector's stake in the somewhat arbitrary determination that a 10-foot- side yard is superior to a 9-foot one."

Page 19 Regular Council July 3, 2017

In Nampa, in order to justify a Variance Permit request, an applicant is tasked with arguing successfully to the City's Council that there is some aspect of the Property that physically, topographically or based on code requirements puts them at a disadvantage in trying to accomplish what they wish in comparison to like properties, especially in the surrounding area.

If the Council believes that there is no real topographical hardship associated with a Variance application (e.g., a river, a highway or a mountain in the way, etc.), then left to the applicant is the opportunity to argue that there is a "unique site circumstance" sufficient to justify their request. In times past, Variance Permits have been issued on a case by case basis where a unique situation could be determined to exist that pertained to a Variance application. Thus, historical matters, errors by the City or County, demonstrated lack of knowledge concerning a code by an applicant or their contractor, common sense "solutioning", development precedent and a variety of other mitigating factors have been evaluated in conjunction with these kinds of applications for relief from quantifiable, measurable standards adopted as law via Nampa's zoning ordinance.

Council is at liberty to approve or deny a Variance. And, their vote should not necessarily be construed as setting precedent -- for nothing binds them to vote the same way twice other than their own perceptions and those of others that they may be concerned with. Still, consistency is a desirable goal when dealing with case by case Variance requests. As a Variance decision is a "quasi-judicial" matter, any vote to approve or deny should be accompanied by a reasoned statement listing the rationale for the decision made.

II. This Application: As Variance Permits have been used to provide opportunity for an applicant to seek relief from a dimensional or quantifiable, metric standard, this request was received to ask the Council to consider allowing a reduced rear yard setback to allow a shed to remain where it has been placed on the Property rather than being required to move it to a code compliant location.

As this is a Variance request, it is the obligation of the Applicant to present such facts and persuasive arguments as to convince the Council that there exists some form of hardship or other unique site circumstance to justify issuance of the requested permit. The review criteria the Council is to use in assessing the application are those in bold font listed at the beginning of this report under the heading of "Applicable Regulations", "Actions" 1-5. Those criteria serve as the "Conclusions of Law'' to be associated with this matter.

III. General, Possible Findings: 1. The Property (legal description within City case file VAR 027-17) made the subject of this Variance request is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Nampa; and,

Page 20 Regular Council July 3, 2017

2. The Applicant has a controlling interest in the Property and is authorized to represent the same or allow another party to represent the same in this matter; and, 3. The Applicant proposes a reduced roof pitch/slope for storage buildings proposed for construction on the Property in accordance with Council approved rezoning and development agreement modification that facilitated development of a self/mini•storage facility on the Property; and, 4. As authorized and mandated according to Idaho statute, the City has adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance that applies to all properties within the City's incorporated limits, and (by limited form and fashion) to areas within its negotiated Impact Area; and, 5. The City's zoning ordinance requires that properties (i.e., lots or parcels) and improvements thereon in the RP Zone comply with all relevant zoning code requirements appertaining thereto; and, 6. That among RP zoning regulations, mini/self-storage buildings constructed in that land use district within the City of Nampa are required to provide/yield a 3": 12" roof pitch per N.C.C. 10-1-19.8(4); and, 7. The Applicant seeks a Variance Permit from the City of Nampa in order to allow mini/self-storage buildings proposed for construction on the Property to have a ½": 12" roof pitch; and, 8. The Applicant has submitted to the City a complete Variance Permit Application together with the requisite fee, and the City has received the application; and, 9. The Variance Application is being processed in conjunction with procedures compliant with the Local Land Use Planning Act, and Nampa Zoning Ordinance standards appertaining to such an application type; and, 10. Variances, as a rule, are not to be issued simply for economic reasons or convenience; they "shall not be considered a right or special privilege, but may be granted to an applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of: a) special characteristics applicable to the site which deprive it of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity"; and, 11. Further, a statement has been provided that attempts to justify the Variance request as some type of topographical or other physical site hardship or "unique site circumstance" that restricts Property development or "buildout" or use of land as allowed to other City properties or as granted already to City properties developed and/or used in similar fashion to the business plan(s) of the Applicant; and, 12. Adjacent property owners have not provided comment regarding the application; and, 13. The City's Engineering Division has expressed that they are not opposed to the application; and, 14. The City's Building Department has expressed that they are not opposed to the application and will require "that the roofing be installed per manufactures spec[ifications] and per [the] 2012 IBC. They will also need to pull all permits required; and,

Page 21 Regular Council July 3, 2017

15. The Nampa Highway District has expressed that they are not opposed to the application; and, 16. No direct physical impact on the general public by this request is foreseen by virtue of this request were it approved; expected impact would be center, rather, on the question any approval raises as to its propriety, possibly including a perceived setting of precedence for similar setback code deviations given compliance to setback standards demonstrated by other persons/parties in the City; and, 17. Attached to this report is all of the information Staff had by the time this report was ready to go to print (12 noon, June 28).

IV. Analysis/Opinion: In Nampa, as pertaining to land use variance permit requests, a burden rests upon an applicant to argue persuasively to the City's Council that one or more conditions related to the property they represent interfere(s) with the applicant's use of their land in manner and form commensurate with that enjoyed, most particularly, by their neighbors or other properties in a similar situation and zoning district as that applicant's land. Each variance application is reviewed on a case by case basis and the merits of the matter are weighed in the public venue. Public testimony is received and the opinions of City departments or outside agencies submitted to the Council for their consideration.

With respect to the matter made the subject of this report, Applicant, per their narrative argues for their variance requests, essentially as follows: A) That in developing the Property, having to cause the storage buildings to comply with N.C.C. 10-1-19.8(4) will, "be problematic and create a discordant view from abutting properties and the street. With the variety of building widths each of the ridge heights will be different and will produce a "sea" of different roof ridges within a confined space." Noting the understandable arguments made by the Applicant, Staff also observes as follows:

A) That storage facility was already approved by the City's Council which relied on exhibits provided by the Applicant to make its decision. The exhibits conveyed the impression that the mini/self-storage structures would have congruent rooflines; and, B) That the Council recently approved another mini/self-storage facility at the intersection of South Middleton Road and West Roosevelt Avenue and in so doing mandated that said facility comply with the same standards the Applicant's project must meet, save that in said instance the roof pitch requirement was foregone; and, C) That the roof pitch requirement challenged by this action was designed to be applied to storage buildings with residential gable roof designs (flattened triangles) and said

Page 22 Regular Council July 3, 2017

standard is not aptly applied to storage buildings with shed-style roofs (which are an approved design for use in the RP Zone) such as proposed by the Applicant; and, D) That no expressions of opposition to the Variance Permit request have been received to date by the City from adjoining property owners or agencies or City departments ...

That considering (but notwithstanding) the fore-going, Staff opines as follows:

Storage Buildings' Roof Pitch Requirement Relief Request: Favorable Recommendation

As to the requested/proposed, reduced roof pitch requirement (1/2:12 vs. 3:12), Staff believes the same to be reasonable for consideration for approval given the findings stated in this report. That is, we consider the request to be fair and reasoned given the situation they are confronted with and the nature of what is sought.

Recommended Condition(s) of Approval

Should the Council vote to approve this Variance package request, then Staff recommends that they/you consider imposing the following Condition(s) of Approval against the same:

Generally: 1. Applicant(s) shall comply with all applicable requirements [including obtaining a Building Permit] as may be imposed by City agencies appropriately involved in the review of this request (e.g., Nampa Fire [inspection], Building, Planning and Zoning and Engineering Departments, etc.) as the Variance(s) approval(s) do/does not, and shall not, have the affect of abrogating requirements from those agencies or City divisions/departments ...

Councilmembers asked questions and had comments on the request.

No one appeared in favor of or in opposition to the request.

MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Haverfield to close the public hearing. Mayor Henry asked all in favor say aye with all Councilmembers present voting AYE. Mayor Henry declared the MOTION CARRIED

MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Bruner to table the variance to Nampa City Code NCC 10-1-9.B(4) requiring a minimum 3:12 roof pitch for a mini-storage facility to be located in the RP zoning district. The applicants are requesting a ½:12 roof pitch for the proposed Southside Storage, LLC facility to be located at 2508 Southside Blvd until the July 17, 2017 Council

Page 23 Regular Council July 3, 2017 meeting. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the MOTION CARRIED

Mayor Henry adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.

Passed this 17th day of July, 2017. ______MAYOR ATTEST:

______CITY CLERK

Page 24