COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY - PDF by wuyunyi

VIEWS: 41 PAGES: 122

									             COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
              DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
                                   2008-2009

 Strong communities constitute a healthy regional economy.


Community/Business Collaboration

  Business/Business Innovation

     Regional/Local Coordination




                                    PREPARED BY
                            SAGE COMMUNITY RESOURCES
                                        FOR
                    THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
                           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                        June 5, 2008

Main Office
125 E. 50th St.
Garden City, ID 83714   TO THE READER:
T 208.322.7033
   800.859.0321
                        The Southwest Idaho Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) annual
F 208.322.3569
                        update for 2008-2009 is a direct result of Sage Community Resources’ planning effort to
                        identify and promote economic development in Region III. The analysis of trends, patterns
                        and opportunities builds on earlier findings presented in our formal Overall Economic
Weiser Office           Development Plan submitted in 1993. Since then we have condensed Goals and
P.O. Box 311
                        Objectives into three main Goals:          Economic, Community, and Organizational
Weiser, ID 83672
T 208.549.2411          Development.
   800.859.0324
F 208.549.0071          This year’s CEDS includes a preview of a new approach we plan to take in 2009-2010.
                        The new approach will incorporate visual tools and analysis that will help us effectively
                        monitor the region’s progress towards the CEDS goals and objectives. The new approach
                        also incorporates land use trends and ties land use regulations and guidelines to economic
                        development objectives. There is an important relationship between economic
                        development and land use that the CEDS should recognize. Most importantly, the new
                        approach includes a monitoring and evaluation mechanism that will transform the CEDS
 Proudly serving        into a Regional Plan of Action. Our goal is to strengthen the CEDS as a tool for both
 Southwest Idaho
                        public and private investment in this region.
      Ada
     Adams              From private businesses to the communities that support them, ownership of the vision for
      Boise             healthy regional economic growth and support for a comprehensive approach is critical to
     Canyon             economic successes. Sage will continue to stress collaboration and innovation between
     Elmore
      Gem               all partners throughout our region.
    Owyhee
  Payette Valley        FOR THE SAGE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
   Washington



                        John Evans
                        Board Chair




TTY/TDD
1.800.377.3529

EEO/AA Employer


www.sageidaho.com
Sage Community Resources

COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
UPDATE of the ANNUAL REPORT

2008-2009




PREPARED BY

Sage Community Resources (Sage)

With Financial Assistance from
The Economic Development Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

Under Provisions of
EDA Grant No. 08-83-05993




Counties Served by Sage:

Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette, Valley & Washington



                         Sage Community Resources is an Equal Opportunity Employer/Program.
                   Auxiliary aids & services are available upon Request for individuals with disabilities.
                                  Idaho Relay Services number is: TDD 1-800-377-1363
Sage Community Resources
Annual Overall Economic Development Plan Report

Adoption Resolution


WHEREAS, as part of its strategic planning program for the Economic Development District, Sage
     Community Resources (the “Association”) in conjunction with its Comprehensive Economic
     Development Strategy Committee (the “Committee”) are responsible for planning and coordinating
     economic development activities throughout the district with the goal of stimulating new private and
     public investments to create employment and growth opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the Association and Committee are organized in accordance with Federal requirements to the
     Economic Development Administration to broadly represent the economic development district
     area including representation of local government, business, and other community interests; and

WHEREAS, the Committee and Association have prepared an Update to its Annual Comprehensive
     Economic Development Strategy Statement as a guide for economic development activities; and

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Sage Community Resources and their Committee does hereby
     adopt the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Statement and Year 2008-09 Annual
     Report to the Sage District.

ADOPTED THIS 5th DAY OF JUNE, 2008:
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .......................................................................................................................    1

Goals, Objectives & Strategies.........................................................................................                2

Economic Indicators .........................................................................................................          5

Progress & Challenges: 2000 – 2007..............................................................................                       7

Barriers & Needs .............................................................................................................          8

Region III Initiatives ..........................................................................................................      10

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................    13

New Approach .................................................................................................................         15


          Appendices:
                     Appendix A                 Sage Community Resources
                                                      ED Districts Map
                                                      SAGE Organizational Chart
                                                      SAGE Internal Strategies
                                                      Oversight & Review
                     Appendix B                 Brownfields

                     Appendix C                 Economic Data by County
                     Appendix D                 Board of Directors
                                                Board Organizational Chart
                                                CEDS Committee Membership
                     Appendix E                 Sage Project Priorities

                     Appendix F                 2009-2010 CEDS New Approach Preview
Introduction                                                                               Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Introduction
The 2008-2009 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Idaho’s Region III Economic
Development District represents an update of the economic development conditions, programs, strategies and
priority projects for the region. The Service Area for IDA-ORE Planning and Development Association (dba Sage
Community Resources) is the ten counties of southwest Idaho: Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee,
Payette, Valley and Washington.

All activities of the CEDS for southwest Idaho strive to:

         Be market-based and results driven;
         Have strong organizational leadership;
         Advance productivity, innovation, and entrepreneurship;
         Look beyond the immediate economic horizon, anticipate economic change and diversify the local and
         regional economy; and
         Demonstrate a high degree of commitment (through resource partnerships).

This report provides an overview of what’s happened as a result of our focus on a “Collaborative Ownership of
Southwest Idaho’s Economic Future”. It also includes an overview of our focus for next year’s
comprehensive economic development strategy.

The Complete 2008-2009 CEDS, including specific project priorities, is available online at http://www.sageidaho.com
and provides details regarding each of the following:

    •    Goals, Objectives & Strategies
    •    Economic Indicators
    •    Barriers & Needs
    •    Region III Initiatives




                                                            1
Goals, Objectives & Strategies                                                                Sage CEDS 2008-2009

Goals, Objectives & Strategies
Goal I:
Economic Development
Healthy growth occurs in southwest Idaho by facilitating and supporting efforts that lead to job creation, community
facility development, and business expansion and retention which strengthen, broaden and diversify the regional
economic base.

Objective I.A:                                                  Strategy I.B.2: Facilitate Reuse Idaho Brownfields
Economic Adjustment Strategies                                  redevelopment and investment initiatives.
Cities and counties that have suffered a major blow to          Strategy I.B.3: Support entrepreneurial, community
their economic base or have experienced on-going                development banking, and financial literacy training.
out migration, continued high unemployment, and/or              Strategy I.B.4: Pursue local and county level
per capita income levels significantly lower than the           industrial development through support of local
state and national average will be revitalized through          initiatives and in partnership with other state
compatible development strategies.                              development programs.
                                                                Strategy I.B.5: Coordinate with financial institutions
Strategy I.A.1: Anticipate, monitor and analyze                 to share in rural business ventures.
significant natural resource utilization trends and             Strategy I.B.6: Support local, sub-regional and
economic dislocations in the region attendant to mill           regional Economic Development professionals and
closures, land use policy shifts, transportation                organizations with a focus on business recruitment,
bypasses, and significant increases in utility costs            retention and expansion.
and/or availability.
Strategy I.A.2:       Support the development of                Objective I.C:
resource-related industries that utilize available              Workforce Networking
resources and existing infrastructure.                          Residents of Southwest Idaho are well educated and
Strategy I.A.3: Reverse disinvestment in rural areas            trained to assume existing and emerging jobs within
of the District by assisting with commercial district           the region.
revitalization programs.
Strategy I.A.4: Increase the availability of full service       Strategy I.C.1: Promote training opportunities.
industrial and business parks at appropriate locations          Strategy I.C.2: Align industry needs with job and skill
that will act as magnets for growth.                            training programs.
Strategy I.A.5: Understand and promote activities
that adopt the use of new or innovative technology to           Objective I.D:
enhance the competitive position for new or emerging            Regional Collaboration
business development.                                           Comprehensive, regional economic planning is
Strategy I.A.6: Encourage the formation of sub-                 integrated with sub-regional and local planning efforts
regional economic development corridors.                        that focus on increasing economic opportunities and
                                                                the quality of life in southwest Idaho.
Objective I.B:
Business Development                                            Strategy I.D.1: Nurture cross-jurisdictional, sub-
Viable businesses are retained and expanded,                    regional and regional investment, and development
resulting in increased jobs, capital investment, and            partnerships between public and private entities.
wealth retention.                                               Strategy I.D.2: Promote large-scale public works
                                                                activities that require significant investment and have
Strategy I.B.1:    Focus on minority business                   a district-wide impact such as telecommunications
enterprises (MBE) and woman business enterprises                and alternative fuels.
(WBE).




                                                            2
Goals, Objectives & Strategies                                                                 Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Goal II:
Community Development
Communities have the personnel and tools they need to plan for the future and know and exercise their
options when designing and implementing their development strategies.

Objective II.A:                                                  Objective II.B:
Local Capacity Building                                          Infrastructure Development
Local staff, volunteers, and elected officials are skilled       Communities in southwest Idaho have a sustainable
leaders with the knowledge to effectively solicit,               public infrastructure sufficient to accommodate
implement, and monitor healthy growth and                        healthy economic development and investment.
development in their communities.
                                                                 Strategy II.B.1: Encourage the development of an
Strategy II.A.1: Encourage staff, volunteers, and                integrated transportation infrastructure that expedites
elected officials to participate in leadership training          the movement of people and goods to, through, and
programs.                                                        out of southwest Idaho.
Strategy II.A.2: Support new local positions for                 Strategy II.B.2: Facilitate construction and/or
focused economic and community development work.                 reconstruction of new and existing sewer and water
Strategy II.A.3: Encourage staff, volunteers, and                systems to enhance economic competitiveness and
elected officials to participate in the Idaho Rural              quality of life.
Development Council’s leadership training.                       Strategy II.B.3: Support efforts for southwest Idaho
Strategy II.A.2: Support new local positions for                 communities, businesses and residents to have
focused economic and community development work.                 sufficient access to communication and information
Strategy II.A.3: Encourage community participation               infrastructure.
in strategic planning sessions and public meetings.              Strategy II.B.4: Promote energy efficiency and
Strategy II.A.4: Create and maintain a development               renewable energy sources throughout southwest
resource “tool-kit” for local staff and officials.               Idaho.

            Sage Multi-faceted Approach                          Objective II.C:
                                                                 Community & Regional Planning
           Economic Adjustment Strategies                        Local, sub-regional and regional plans will have long-
           Business Development                                  term visions with implementable action steps, will be
           Workforce Networking                                  comprehensive in nature, and will be the product of a
           Regional Collaboration                                coordinated, participatory decision-making process.
           Local Capacity Building
           Infrastructure Development                            Strategy II.C.1: Facilitate Comprehensive Plan
           Community & Regional Planning                         updates, the drafting and revision of ordinances, and
           Organizational Efficiency & Effectiveness             the implementation of proactive planning tools.
           Coordination & Communication                          Strategy II.C.2: Integrate visual planning tools and
           Monitoring & Evaluation                               Geographic Information Systems technology into
                                                                 local, sub-regional, and regional planning processes.




                                                             3
Goals, Objectives & Strategies                                                              Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Goal III:
Organizational Development
Sage Community Resources provides our region with proactive economic development and planning tools that meet
the current and future needs of southwest Idaho.

Objective III.A:                                              Objective III.B:
Organizational Efficiency and Effectiveness                   Coordination & Communication
Sage Community Resources operates through a fully             The Business & Community Development
engaged Board of Directors, a productive and                  Department at Sage maintains and engages an
capable staff, and the involvement of motivated               extensive network of partners in ongoing
partners. It is well-managed, financially secure, and         communications about the state of the region and the
progressive in developing programs and policies that          organization’s current and potential projects and
further the collective interests of the region. (Please       programs.
refer to Appendix C.)
                                                              Strategy     III.B.1:    Increase     and      broaden
Strategy III.A.1: Maintain appropriate staffing levels        communications        between      Sage,       member
by shifting resources within the Business &                   communities,       member        counties,      partner
Community Development Department and adding                   organizations, academic institutions, private business,
staff upon funding availability to permit broader and         government entities, and the general public to build
more consistent assistance throughout the District.           understanding about the region and its economy.
Strategy III.A.2: Implement new methods of
community outreach.                                           Objective III.C:
Strategy III.A.3: Regular Staff and Board                     Monitoring & Evaluation
Development through training.                                 Sage and an engaged CEDS Committee use the
Strategy III.A.4: Maintain a database of project files        CEDS as an action plan for regional economic health
reflecting information gathered in the outreach               by monitoring and evaluation benchmarks and
process on a county and community level.                      progress.
Strategy III.A.5: Perform a standardized review,
evaluation and development process for new projects.          Strategy III.C.1: Use project evaluation techniques to
                                                              identify how well programs reduce economic
                                                              disparities between rural and metropolitan centers
       Economic Diversification Categories                    Strategy III.C.2: Review development finance
                                                              operating plans regularly to adjust to changing market
           Value-Added Agriculture                            conditions while setting a goal of lending up to 100%
           Value-Added Forest Products
                                                              of funding available.
           Value-Added Mining
                                                              Strategy III.C.3: Develop and implement appropriate
           Business Retention & Expansion
           Plugging Retail Leakage / Import
                                                              tools to collect, analyze and monitor economic
           Substitution                                       development data.
           Business Recruitment                               Strategy III.C.4: Effectively visualize trends analysis
           Entrepreneurship Development                       and growth projections utilizing CEDS data.
           Local/Regional Tourism
           Pass-Through Visitor Services
           Culture/Arts/Historic Center
           Transportation Hub/Warehousing
           Attracting Retirees
           Attracting Lone Eagles
           Telecommunications Business
           Environmental Restoration
           Health Care
           Attracting/Retaining Government Offices



                                                          4
Economic Indicators                                                                       Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Economic Indicators
All of our efforts in designing and implementing the CEDS are to encourage positive and sustainable economic
change throughout our service region. For purposes of developing this plan, economic indicators are reviewed by
county for changes in relation to the state of Idaho as a whole. The economic indicators are compiled by previous
decades, 1990-2000 as well as 2000-2006, or the most current year available. Census data and statistical
projections from the Department of Commerce and Labor and the Bureau of Labor and Economic Analysis have also
been incorporated.

Looking at economic indicator percentage changes in each of our counties helps us develop services that address
our member needs. These key indicators include: population; labor force (civilian); unemployment rates; annual
average wages; per capita personal income; transfer payments as % of income; and poverty rates (see Table 1).

All ten of the counties in Region 3 receive an “economic distress ranking” based on their positive or negative
percentage growth for the most complete and current period. This is a relative ranking and only “indicates” some
areas of their economy. The summary of these indicators and rankings appears on the following page.




                                                       5
                                                                                                                                                                             Progress & Challenges
                                                       Change and Distress Index Calculated from Individual Tables
                                                                               Change in           Change in            Change in
                                   Change in                Change in           Annual             Per Capita            Transfer
                                  Labor Force             Unemployment          Average             Personal          Payments % of          Poverty              Distress
             Pop Growth             (Civilian)                Rate               Wage                Income              Income                Rate               Ranking
County        2000-2007            2000-2007                2000-2007          2000-2006           2000-2006            2000-2006              2005               Overall
Ada             24.1%       2         15%         3           2.3%        2       14%        9         21%       9         0.0%        2       9.4%      1            2
Adams            2.0%       7         12%         4           4.9%       10       21%        5         30%       5         1.7%        3      14.2%      6            6
Boise           13.5%       4           9%        5           3.0%        3       20%        7         27%       7        11.5%        9      11.9%      3            4
Canyon          36.5%       1         27%         2           3.3%        5      17%         8          9%      10         4.0%        6      15.8%      8            6
Elmore          -0.9%      10           5%        6           3.5%        6      28%         3         31%       4         2.4%        4      13.7%      5            4
Gem              8.7%       6           5%        8           3.3%        4       8%        10         25%       8        12.3%       10      14.9%      7           10
Owyhee           1.8%       8           0%        9           1.7%        1      26%         4         31%       3         6.2%        8      18.5%     10            8
Payette         10.6%       5           5%        7           3.7%        9      20%         6         38%       1         2.6%        5      13.2%      4            3
Valley          16.9%       3         28%         1           3.5%        7       36%        1         34%       2        -1.2%        1      10.2%      2            1
Washington       1.7%       9          -2%       10           3.5%        8      32%         2         28%       6         4.6%        7      16.2%      9




                                                                                                                                                                             Sage CEDS 2008-2009
                                                                                                                                                                      9
Idaho           15.9%      N/A        14%        N/A          2.7%       N/A      18%       N/A        24%      N/A        0.9%       N/A     13.4%     N/A         N/A


Tied rankings in bold
Ranking Description: 1 = least distress
                      10 = most distress

Population Growth: Highest % change = least distress                                       Average Annual Wage Change: Highest increase = least distress
Labor force: Highest % change = least distress                                             Per Capita Income Change: Highest Increase = least distress
Unemployment Change: Highest DECREASE = least distress                                     Transfer Payments as % of Income change: Lowest INCREASE = least distress
Progress & Challenges                                                                     Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Progress & Challenges:
2000-06 compared to 2000-07
                                                                  Interesting Indicators…
Several market issues affected all segments of local, regional
and national economies including the fallout from sub-prime         3 counties held their Overall Distress
lending defaults, corresponding housing foreclosures, tighter       Ranking in 2000-07 compared to 2000-06
business financing, and the resulting stalled commercial and
                                                                                    Boise  4
retail construction. During this time escalating oil prices
                                                                                    Canyon 6
brought the cost to $120/barrel and domestic pump prices to                         Valley 1
$3.85/gallon for gasoline and over $4.25/gallon for diesel.

The Economic Distress rankings and percentages for each of           2 counties improved their Overall
the ten counties in our planning region are relative to each         Distress Ranking 2000-07 compared to
other and are expected to change and move between the                2000-06 year by 2 positions.
rankings as individual indicators shift within the region’s
economy. We look at these indicators as a running                                   2000-06     2000-07
composite that tracks changes over time as we devise ways            Adams             8          6
                                                                     Owyhee          10           8
to plan for and address chronic or sudden challenges.

Each period we look at changing rates or percentages in key          Only 1 county – Washington – changed
economic indicators, such as change in unemployment or               its overall distress position 3 ranks from
change in per capita personal income.                                an ranking of 6 to 9.

In the previous period of 2000-06, all counties posted a
decline in their unemployment rate changes ranging from -.2          4 of the 10 counties had a single-digit
in Owyhee County to a -1.2% reduction in Payette County.             population growth, while 5 had
Extending the comparison period from 2000 to 2007 all                population increases from 10.6% to
                                                                     36.5% in Canyon County.
counties saw an increase, adding economic distress to each
county. As a state, Idaho had a -.5% decrease in 2000-06
unemployment vs a 2.7% increase in unemployment for                  1 county – Elmore – continues to reflect
2000-07.                                                             a decline in population for the new 2000-
                                                                     07 period, a significantly less percentage
Looking at a running comparison of “Overall Economic                 decline when looking at 7 years vs. the
Distress” between 2000 and the most current data period the          previous 6 – year period. Elmore
following relative changes were noted below.                         County’s economy is heavily dependent
                                                                     upon the activities and personnel
Note: “1” is least distressed and “10” is most distressed for        associated with the Mountain Home Air
                                                                     Force Base.
this comparison.
                                                                                    2000-06     2000-07
                                                                     Elmore          -.3.5%       -.9%

 Least Distressed Counties 2000-07:
                                                        Rank #1      Rank #2
    Population Growth:                                  Canyon       Ada
    Change in Labor Force:                              Valley       Canyon
    Change in Unemployment Rate:                        Owyhee       Ada
    Change in Aver. Annual Wage:                        Valley       Washington
    Change in Per Capita Personal Income:               Payette      Valley
    Change in Transfer Payments % of Income:            Valley       Ada




                                                          7
Barriers & Needs                                                                               Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Barriers & Needs
Barrier: Infrastructure - Community infrastructure remains a critically under-funded need. As costs escalate the
funding gap between need and supply widens for both rural and urban communities. Many of the non-urbanized
communities such as Payette, New Plymouth, Marsing, Melba, Roswell, Emmett, Council, Greenleaf, and Homedale,
to name but a few, are faced with the dual problems of declining tax revenues and antiquated water, sewer, and
waste water systems that must be replaced. Several of the communities have been or are currently in violation of
environmental regulations of the U.S. and Idaho Environmental Resource Departments. Others are in a position to
attract new public and private investment, but to facilitate that growth, water or wastewater system expansions and
improvements are critical. In short, many small communities are working to improve their capital infrastructure in
order to comply with environmental regulations and also capture a greater share of the trade and service opportunity
in their trade areas.

         Need: Community Involvement in Capital Facilities and Infrastructure Projects – Public art projects can
         enhance and engage the community in capital construction or infrastructure building projects while helping
         to articulate a community’s unique identity. For instance, if you’re going to build a new sidewalk or fence,
         why not make a beautiful fence or sidewalk? Involve artists in the planning stages to help a community
         envision its possibilities. Broadening involvement in addressing infrastructure needs and possibilities has
         not received the attention it should. Communities planning for downtown revitalization are strongly
         encouraged to create Arts Commissions with a focus on cultural heritage in their public spaces.

         Need: Rural Infrastructure Funding – Some of the smallest communities must create municipal water and/or
         sewer systems where none have ever existed to meet federal and state health and safety codes. These
         same communities strive to be investment-ready for private development but have no “base” to begin with
         and no reasonable, affordable alternatives for the existing residents. Traditional grant funding is either tied
         to direct job creation or to resolve a critical health and safety needs of the existing population. Communities
         of 120 households cannot shoulder the financing of capital costs of $8m for sewer treatment without
         significant grant dollars.

Barrier: Affordable Housing – Housing stock, and in particular, affordable housing, has emerged as a critical need for
economic development to occur in at least two counties – Valley and Adams. The Valley/Adams Planning
Partnership (VAPP) was formed to address the need for adequate worker housing in order to retain existing
businesses as well as to attract new, complementary services. A new housing authority was established in Valley
County. Communities and the County developed inclusionary housing and other ordinance modifications to
encourage privately-funded affordable housing. Shortly after being established, inclusionary housing ordinances
were successfully challenged in the courts. Similar ordinances in another region of the state are also in the process
of being rescinded. Affordable housing throughout the region continues to be a large concern and barrier to a
growing service-sector and tourism-based economy.

         Need: Growth Management Tools, Training, and Funding – Growth management is defined as, “specific
         regulatory policies aimed at influencing how growth occurs, mainly within a locality.” These policies typically
         affect density, availability of land, mixtures of uses, and the timing or pace of development. Growth
         management has also evolved to include affordable housing and in some cases elements of Smart Growth.

         The definition of “public infrastructure” for economic development has historically been defined as capital
         improvements: the availability of municipal water, sewer, power and roadways necessary for private
         investment and job creation to occur. Recently, exponential growth in some of our region’s smallest
         municipalities (often under 500 people) has expanded that traditional definition to include “adequate housing




                                                           8
Barriers & Needs                                                                             Sage CEDS 2008-2009


        and adequate development guidelines.” Southwest Idaho communities face three major barriers in this
        respect:
                 Small rural communities rarely have professional planning staff;
                 Standards, regulations and guidelines governing land use and community design are outdated; and
                 Fee structures for development review and the processing of permits and applications are well
                 below the actual cost of processing and review.

        Even the smallest of communities in southwest Idaho are in need of growth management assistance to be
        able to foster the conditions for healthy development to occur. Most of these areas have no dedicated or
        trained staff to support the part-time elected leadership, leaving individual developments and communities
        ill-equipped to develop a sustainable economic investment structure.

        Without additional resources and professional guidance, small planning and zoning commissions and
        city/county officials have no professional tools to make long-term investment decisions, public, or private.
        “Public infrastructure for private investment to occur” requires professional human resources, to develop the
        long-range capital infrastructure. This is expected to remain one of the most challenging needs for our
        region during the next year. Sage is working with state agencies, such as the Idaho Department of
        Commerce and Labor, USDA Rural Development, and the Idaho Rural Partnership to develop the resources
        to address this unmet need. Upon request, Sage professional planning staff has been assisting member
        counties with their comprehensive planning, capital planning, and overall strategic planning efforts.

Barrier: Job Loss, Out-migration of Skilled Workers and Lack of Available Development Capital – There is a
significant degree of difficulty in packaging the kinds of projects that promote commercial business investment
opportunities. The associated risks in loan approvals and repayment performance have also increased for rural
communities and for private entrepreneurs in those communities. In many cases the amount of owner equity
required is unattainable for local entrepreneurs that have a desire to invest in their communities. Broadband
connectivity to rural communities continues to be a challenge for private operators to support due to costs and
potential revenues.

        Need: Attracting Redevelopment Interest to Rural Areas – As the Boise metro area grows, there is a
        growing interest in living quarters and business in adjacent rural communities. Ada County, and the cities of
        Meridian, Kuna and Star, are leading the region and state in population growth, creating opportunities and
        challenges. Canyon County continues to have high population growth. The City of Emmett continues its
        planning efforts to improve its local economic base and infrastructure to attract new industry and provide
        local employment for citizens who currently commute to work in the Boise metro area. Multiple
        communities have downtown revitalization programs underway; others hope to pursue downtown
        renovations to promote economic development through tourism and recreational opportunities for other
        small communities in the region; and local economic advisory groups are forming to support the elected
        leadership. Sage has helped establish Urban Renewal Districts in several communities to strengthen and
        leverage redevelopment potential and provide the administrative strength to continue managing these
        districts with our member communities.

        Need: Joining Communities Together for Regional Solutions – The Valley/Adams County Growth
        Management Task Force has been successful in developing the housing authority, showing strength in
        regionalization. Land and housing costs have risen abruptly making affordable housing a critical need for
        sustained economic development. The Woody Biomass and Western Alliance initiatives and similar
        partnerships will be necessary for rural communities to attract and retain private investors. Communities
        are also looking at joint sewer solutions and regional business associations to leverage local time and
        dollars to build and promote each other.




                                                         9
Barriers & Needs                                                                          Sage CEDS 2008-2009


        Need: Cultural Heritage Marketing – Artwalks can bring attention and new customers to downtown
        businesses. Festivals and events can create gathering places, expand the business day (i.e. Alive after
        Five in Boise, and Friday Night Express in Caldwell), provide that critical “quality of life” factor for
        employees, and create attraction for visitors. Small communities need to think of themselves and their
        neighboring cities along a travel route as an “economic development corridor”…a destination for
        investment. Communities, professionals, and funding organizations need to recognize the important role of
        low-cost activities and events, which provide the critical “short-term” component to an economic plan, and
        engage both residents and visitors in a sustainable economy.




                                                       10
Region III Initiatives                                                                        Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Region III Initiatives
Resource-Dependent to Resource-Related Economies: Over the last 25 years, the gross value of products from
farming, forestry and mining, including manufactured goods from raw products, has increased by about 140 percent,
but the rest of the economy has increased more than five fold (Profile of Rural Idaho, Idaho Department of
Commerce and Labor, May 2005). This is significant for those rural counties that remain resource and agricultural
dependent.

Efforts are underway to develop small businesses that are resource-related, such as the woody biomass utilization
industry. This industry takes advantage of the many thousands of tons of biomass (commonly called slash) that
southwest Idaho’s forested lands produce every year. While traditionally this material has been burned, it is now
being converted into value-added products and utilized for heating and cooling rural, mountain schools, saving both
resources and dollars.
                                                                             A     shift    to     agricultural-related
                                                                             businesses      is    also      occurring,
                                                                             particularly where tourism is emerging
               Common Uses for Woody Biomass                                 as a key economic development
                                                                             catalyst (Adams and Valley County).
                                                                             This shift can bring its own set of
    Posts and poles                                        Furniture         challenges.                 Infrastructure
    Building construction timbers                          Mulch             improvements, growth management,
    Landscape borders                                      Pulp chips        and affordable housing to support this
    Wood and bark chips for landscaping                    Tongue depressors shift are looming as the biggest
    Shavings for livestock bedding                                           challenges for both counties. As
    Hog fuel for electric power generation of for heating purposes           discretionary      spending      tightens,
                                                                             national and international travel into the
                                                                             area’s economy shrinks which the
                                                                             businesses thrive on.

Adjusting local and regional economies necessitates a focused approach. Economic Development Professionals
have been funded in two sub-regions of District III through the Idaho Department of Commerce Rural Initiative
Program.

    A. One professional focuses on the Woody Biomass Utilization Industry in Adams, Valley, Gem, and Boise
       counties. This public/private partnership is striving to connect small timber and wood waste supply with
       existing and potential producers to utilize a previous waste product. This effort has both the Boise and the
       Payette National Forest involved as well as private businesses.
    B. The other professional will focus on an economic development corridor (Western Alliance for Economic
       Development) in Canyon and Owyhee Counties, which includes 7 participating cities. These small
       communities are working together to present a region of development opportunities, throughout the
       communities, rather than marketing individual cities of 200-2,400 persons.

Adjusting local and regional economies also entails adjusting our thinking about entrepreneurs to recognize artists as
entrepreneurs. Musicians often have a music teaching business. Visual artists create products for sale. Just like any
other aspiring small business owner, artists need their entrepreneurial aspirations supported through education,
business start-up loans, and/or business incubators. These professional “lone eagles” can be extremely important for
small, rural communities and tie very nicely with low-infrastructure needs and an emerging tourism industry.




                                                          11
Region III Initiatives                                                                          Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Workforce and Technology: The role of high tech has been a major long-term positive factor in the Treasure Valley
(Boise MSA) economy in terms of jobs, low unemployment, and income. Nevertheless, the success in the larger
metro economy tends to skew data for the remainder of the Economic Development District (EDD). It continues to be
a slow process in building the physical, educational and social infrastructure often required to attract the higher
income generating technology-based employment to the rural areas of the EDD. Focus on entrepreneurship,
promotion of scenic and heritage-based tourism, capital development, and regional public/private partnerships create
the core of current regional strategies.

The Canyon-Owyhee School Service Agency (COSSA) provides skilled job training in partnership with Boise State
University and Idaho State University to develop a skilled workforce in the 2-county area of Canyon and Owyhee.
COSSA is one of the partners in the Western Alliance for Economic Development noted above. Efforts are underway
to determine the feasibility of a regional technology training center to anchor an economic development corridor in
Canyon County.

Sage has also launched our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping laboratory. GIS technology is useful
and often necessary to provide visual tools for decision making. As communities partner and establish economic
corridors to attract investment, GIS is one of the tools that will bring attention to sub-regional and regional strengths
and weaknesses and help them collectively market their investment potential.

Partnerships: Sage program staff continues to work closely with the Idaho Department of Commerce (IDOC) and
our member counties to developed strong cross-jurisdictional economic development programs.
        The Woody Biomass Utilization Program is a partnership between Sage, public entities (IDOC, Department
        of Agriculture, US Forest Service and four member counties), and private businesses (wood manufacturers).
        The Western Alliance for Economic Development is a focused partnership between Sage, seven small
        cities, two counties, COSSA and the Caldwell/Canyon Economic Development Council. By establishing an
        economic development corridor, financial, physical and human resources can be leveraged to attract, retain
        and expand businesses in the sub-region.
        Sage is also partnering with cities, counties, and public and private organizations to deliver current and long-
        range growth management assistance.
        The Reuse Idaho Brownfields Coalition (RIBC) is an innovative and collaborative partnership of all six
        economic development districts as well as the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. The RIBC
        enables communities to reuse blighted properties thereby increasing surrounding property values and
        generating economic opportunities – the conditions where jobs can be created. (Please see Appendix C.)

Sage’s adopted mission is …to provide community and economic development services, through partnerships, to
create healthy communities in the ten counties of southwest Idaho. Our goal is to broaden the participation in and
the audience for the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), to make informed investment
decisions in a strategic manner for the benefit of our entire region.




                                                           12
Conclusion                                                                                    Sage CEDS 2008-2009


Conclusion
It is the desire of the Sage Board of Directors that this Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Statement
serves as the basis for planning and development activity in the year ahead. This is no small task for a region that is
undergoing major economic transitions and a continued disparity between urban and rural communities; the very real
threat to continued viability of our resource-based rural areas is unplanned growth and the unknown impacts of
changes in the global marketplace to our local and regional economies.

Therefore, this CEDS update contains significant elements that are directed towards programs that enhance and
promote internal and external critical thinking about this transition. These are the tools—partnerships, collaboration,
diversification, regionalization, visual planning aids—that can turn threats into opportunities.

To meet the needs of our member communities, Sage is constantly evolving. Member communities have requested
increasing assistance with their current and long-term planning activities. All but the largest of the communities lack
the professional and technical tools to analyze pending developments in relation to their vision for a sustainable
economy. In discussing these needs with community members, the relationship between economic development
objectives and land use planning decisions becomes increasingly evident. Together, Sage and our member cities
and counties have also discovered a need for visual tools to aid in local as well as regional decisions.

Appendix F – 2009-10 EDS Preview profiles the proposed structure for a full re-write using Canyon and Owyhee
Counties, given their related needs and funding through separate growth management and market analysis projects.
Our hope is to develop this data-rich guide which will eventually be dynamically presented online and utilized by both
public and private investment partners. This sample chapter is a sample of our new approach and the proposed
structure for the re-write of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Southwest Idaho. Given the
ongoing focus on fund and project development, additional funding is being sought to develop this same level of data
for the entire region next year.




                                                          13
  2 0 0 8—2 0 0 9    Analysis:                                                 2 0 0 8— 2 0 0 9    C. E. D. S
  Southwest Idaho communities have recently recognized an important
  relationship between their land use decisions and their economic
                                                                               Region   III
  development objectives. Land use decisions can limit a community’s                              WHAT IS THE C.E.D.S ?
  ability to nurture local entrepreneurs, to support a small scale resource-
                                                                                                  The Comprehensive Economic
  related economy, or to become a full-service community. More than
                                                                                                  Development Strategy is a guide
  ever this important relationship has encouraged communities to take a
                                                                                                  for diversifying and strengthening
  broad-based, comprehensive approach to planning. A positive
                                                                                                  the regional economy of Southwest
  relationship between land use and economic development is necessary
                                                                                                  Idaho through a broad-based
  for a healthy regional economy.
                                                                                                  process that employs public and
  2 0 0 8—2 0 0 9    Goals:                                                                       private participation in decision

    To make the CEDS a useful tool that communities refer to when they                            making and implementation.

    formulate and implement their land use and economic development
    strategies.
    To highlight the important relationship between land use and economic
    development in southwest Idaho.                                                               THE C.E.D.S PROCESS :
    To design and implement a framework to ensures that land use and                              1. ANALYZE CHALLENGES &
                                                                                                     OPPORTUNITIES
    economic development objectives are compatible.                                               2. ESTABLISH GOALS
                                                                                                  3. ESTABLISH OBJECTIVES
                                                                                                  4. DEVELOP A REGIONAL PLAN OF ACTION
  2 0 0 8—2 0 0 9    Objectives:                                                                  5. IMPLEMENT A PLAN OF ACTION
                                                                                                  6. IDENTIFY INVESTMENT PRIORITIES
    Re-format the CEDS to make it more useful and user-friendly.                                  7. IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCES
    Tie the CEDS to county and city comprehensive plans.                                          8. CLEARLY DEFINE METRICS OF SUCCESS

    Research a “Joint Regional Comprehensive Plan / Economic
    Development Strategy” as a potential Regional Plan of Action.


Economic development in Southwest Idaho is a COMPREHENSIVE, COORDINATED, REGIONAL effort.
New Approach                                                                     Sage CEDS 2008-2009


* To be completed June 2009 with sufficient funding. See Appendix F for a Sample Chapter and proposed
  new approach using Canyon and Owyhee counties. These two counties were selected as the sample
  area given related and separately funded projects.




                                                 15
APPENDIX A: SAGE COMMUNITY RESOURCES




        SAGE District Map
        SAGE Organizational Chart
        Internal Strategies
        Oversight and Review
                                 SAGE Internal Strategies
Maintain Business & Community Development staffing levels.

SAGE Planning staff has integrated both economic and community development work into their overall
scope of responsibilities. Economic development planning is currently a shared staff function. Key staff
include:

        Pat Engel, Director of Business & Community Development;
        Jenn Atkinson, Planning & Development Services Program Manager;
        Don Outram, Business Development Coordinator;
        Bobetta Turner, Loan Administrator;
        Marianne Piquet, Planning Technician;
        Roy Powell, GIS Technician;
        Kim Cochrane, Resources Development Specialist and
        Jan Adams, Administrative Assistant

This past year we did hire a part-time research assistant funded in part through a non-EDA funded project.
We are coordinating with BSU to have an ongoing internship for data collection. We are pursuing sufficient
funding to provide full-time professional staff in the Planning & Development Service Program.

Targeted efforts of the Planning Team include:

        Community planning and capacity building
        Project planning and development
        Grant writing and resource development
        Administrative and management services
        Technical assistance and community economic development counseling

Continue to develop a database (project files)

Our project file database organized information gathered in the outreach process on a county and
municipal level. This action is an internal operation to upgrade the information collected during community
outreach activities. The products of this effort are hard copy and electronic files of county and municipal
information. This is an enhancement of existing resource files.

Perform a management system for project review, evaluation and development

CEDS committee members and staff shall focus and adjust workloads resulting from enhanced program
development activity. The target is to create a sustainable and effective planning effort.

During the current fiscal period, Sage development activities are experiencing and increase in project
workload. This activity is designated to provide a framework for management of that workload. The
concept allows projects to flow through our system in the following manner:
    1. Potential projects enter the process on a “Project Intake Form” developed by staff and local project
       representatives of through the CEDS project update process. This year each city/county was
       asked to also document success and challenges in meeting last year’s “No. 1 Priority” projects.”
    2. Project Intake Forms and CEDS project lists are reviewed on a regular basis by Sage Community
       & Business Development department staff. Projects are then placed into the “work stream” based
       on review and evaluation criteria examples of which include:
           a. Critical need
           b. Local commitment
           c. Likelihood for successful funding/completion
           d. Timing
           e. Current workload (and ability to adjust)
           f. Development outcomes (i.e., jobs, industrial diversification or tax base expansion)
           g. Potential return on investment for Sage
    3. Project representatives are informed of placement in the work stream and project schedules.
       Questions are then handled by the project review committee and the CEDS committee, which
       provide oversight for the system.

This final step in the management system includes the placement of potential projects into primary,
secondary, and tertiary levels depending upon the degree of the previously mentioned evaluation criteria.
A brief discussion describing the characteristics of these categories follows:

        Level I    Projects in this category have a high need factor as well as clear local commitment
                   (including local funds). These activities fit within a short-term time frame and can be
                   assessed as having a high degree of potential for successful funding and completion and
                   an unmistakable fit with Sage’s economic development mission.

        Level II   Projects in this category have the same characteristics as Level I projects but with
                   somewhat lesser urgency. As an example a water supply/distribution project may not
                   present a clear and present impediment to long-term community development, but
                   identifiable issues exist that threaten to disrupt the development process. The length of
                   time required to address other issues such as funding, cost estimates, pre-design
                   solutions, etc., is also substantially longer than in the first level.

        Level III Projects in this category are specific and identifiable but require significant additional
                  project planning. These community and economic development project potentials can
                  often require a year or more of development effort, but certainly are viable in concept
                  and need.
                             Strategy Oversight & Review
This program development and management module is presented in concept as a fully operational and
integrated device to guide SAGE projected development activities. This process actually began under the
92-93 “OEDP” and is being maintained and our current assessment of results is positive.

As previously mentioned the CEDS committee serves in an oversight capacity in working with the Strategy
Committee and staff to develop final management guidelines, general priorities for the program, and to
provide problem solving capabilities. Staff and the Strategy committee are involved with liaison and
reporting to the Board concerning progress of the enhanced project management system.

The Business & Community Development department, as a part of the organization-wide business planning
effort, has created a departmental business plan. This plan will become the template for departmental
operations through 2008 and will be examined and updated annually.
APPENDIX B: BROWNFIELDS
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT AND REINVESTMENT PROGRAM:
Innovation and Collaboration Leading to Restoration, Revitalization, and Redevelopment

        DEFINITION OF A BROWNFIELD: Brownfields are real property, the expansion,
        redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential
        presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and
        reinvesting in these properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open
        land and both improves and protects the environment

Background
In 2004 Sage, along with the other five Economic Development Districts (EDDs) in Idaho, and the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), established a statewide coalition with the goal
of creating a statewide funding source for the cleanup of Brownfields properties in Idaho. In
November 2004, Sage prepared and submitted an application to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for $3 million to capitalize a statewide Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) for cleanup of
identified contamination. The Reuse Idaho Brownfields Coalition (RIBC) was selected to receive
and received a Brownfields RLF grant in May 2005 November 2006. Our statewide goal is to
enable communities to reuse blighted properties thereby increasing surrounding property values
and generating economic opportunities - the conditions where jobs can be created.

To provide additional incentive, the Idaho state legislature funded the Community Reinvestment
Pilot Initiative (Pilot). This program makes up to $1.5 million in state funds available to private and
non-profit entities completing DEQ-approved cleanups at any of the ten (10) properties selected as
Pilot Brownfields – vacant or underutilized properties the reuse of which is complicated by
environmental contamination. Specifically, upon cleanup completion, the State issues the
participant a Community Reinvestment Rebate equaling 70% of cleanup costs incurred, with a
maximum rebate of $150,000 per Pilot Brownfield.

Implementation of the Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund (BRLF) began February 27, 2007, with a
presentation to the six Directors of the Economic Development Districts and RIBC, representatives
of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
website www.idahobrownfields.org came online promptly resulting in an on-line request for a BRLF
application in the Panhandle Area. BRLF inquiries have been received from each of the Economic
Development Districts, ranging from former gas stations and dry cleaners to abandoned mine sites
and most notably the historic Albion State Normal School in Cassia County.


The BRLF provides communities with an opportunity to springboard economic development much
as the Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC) and the City of Caldwell used their EPA
Assessment Grants to determine the extent of contaminants (and reassure developers). Region 3
members can use the BRLF program to stimulate their specific economic development projects.
This program will leverage existing public investments in infrastructure and encourage growth in
Idaho's smallest as well as largest downtowns, thus preserving our agricultural land in our
comprehensive economic development strategy.
Cleanup
Our expansion of the Brownfields program with this new funding enhances our focus on
developing, “partnerships for the economic development of communities”. The grant will be used to
capitalize a revolving loan fund from which the Reuse Idaho Brownfields Coalition (RIBC) will
provide loans and limited sub-grants to support cleanup activities for sites in areas contaminated
with hazardous substances and petroleum. This funding is critical in a state where 74 percent of
Idaho's regions meet the federal "area distress" criteria based on per capita income and
unemployment rates. Many rural communities continue efforts to reuse former lumber mill sites left
from the decline of the timber industry. In the past decade, the Boise Cascade Corporation, a large
Idaho employer, closed its lumber mills, stripping numerous cities of their primary employer and
leaving behind abandoned sites. Numerous mining operations have also closed down, leaving
communities with damaged properties.

In much of Idaho, Greenfields are inexpensive and attractive to developers. By offering competitive
financing for Brownfields properties, this new Revolving Loan Fund will help preserve greenspace,
encourage reuse of existing infrastructure, protect and improve public health and safety through
the cleanup of sites, spur job creation, and eliminate blight in town centers. This new statewide
coalition – Reuse Idaho Brownfields Coalition (RIBC) - is an exciting new partnership program to
address Brownfields throughout the State of Idaho. Sage will be the lead in developing outreach
assistance and management of this $3 million program providing low-to-no interest financing for
private as well as public entities.

Site-Specific Assessment
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) and the EPA assessed over 30
Brownfields in 2004 through Idaho’s Statewide Brownfield Response Program (see Assessment
Fact Sheet following), and the IDEQ is developing a statewide inventory of up to 300 sites. This is
an excellent opportunity for site-specific assessment assistance that can be addressed quickly
through Idaho’s Statewide Brownfield Response program. A Fact Sheet is provided immediately
following this section.

Areawide Assessment: It was determined, in partnership with RIBC member, Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) that a regionwide “assessment” was not a critical need.

Voluntary Remediation: In 1996, the Idaho Legislature created the Idaho Land Remediation,
DEQ's Voluntary Cleanup Program, to encourage innovation and cooperation between the state,
local communities and private parties working to revitalize properties with hazardous substance or
petroleum contamination. In 1997, DEQ developed the Idaho Land Remediation Rules detailing
implementation of the Voluntary Cleanup Program. DEQ also created an application to participate
in the Program, and Guidance for Application Completion. This Voluntary Remediation Program
will go hand-in-hand with accessing Cleanup funding through the Reuse Idaho Brownfields
Coalition RLF for Cleanup.

To begin the process toward restoration, revitalization and redevelopment of abandoned or
underutilized sites, use the Brownfields Revitalization Inventory Form following this section,
and submit to Sage Community Resources.
        Ranking Criteria for Brownfields Redevelopment

        Site Name:_____________________________                Date: ________________           Scored by:________________________________


                                                                                                                                                    Total
                                                                                                                                                    (Points
Category                               3 to 5 points                   2 to 3 points                   0 to 2 Points              Points   Weight
                                                                                                                                                       x
                                                                                                                                                    Weight)
Site Ownership                Owned by local government          Owned by local government      Privately owned or privately
                              entity or non-profit and not       or non-profit that may be or   owned with local government
                              responsible for contamination      is responsible for the         support for development and                 5%
                                                                 contamination                  plans for local government
                                                                                                ownership/redevelopment
Ability to Obtain Site        Definite or highly likely          Probable                       Unlikely
Access
                                                                                                                                            5%
Current Site Use              Abandoned                          Under-utilized                 Fully-utilized
                                                                                                                                            5%
Current Site Condition        High negative visual impact to     Moderate negative visual       Minimal negative visual
                              the community. Physically          impact to the community.       impact to the community.
                              unsafe and neglected structures,   Deteriorating buildings,
                              deteriorated buildings and         overgrown grass and
                                                                                                                                            10%
                              incompatible with nearby uses.     weeds.
Reuse is Hindered by Actual   Perception of contamination, no    Minimal contamination          Substantial contamination
or Perceived Contamination    known contamination, with no       identified by partial          identified by previous
                              assessment                         assessment or other site       assessment work or other site
                                                                                                                                            25%
                                                                 activities                     activities
Redevelopment Plans Meet      Site included in city or local     City or local government       No specific plan, or little
City Planning & Reuse         government redevelopment plan      support for plans, and/or      redevelopment interest or
Goals and are Compatible      with either (1) government-        developer interest, and/or     plan in place, or city or local             25%
with Long-Range Plans         funded redevelopment, or (2)       within targeted renewal        government not specifically
                              privately-funded redevelopment     zone                           supportive
Economic Benefit of           Obvious or documented job          Job creation is likely and     Potentially questionable,
Planned Reuse                 creation                           will be documented             difficult to document job                   10%
                                                                                                creation
Social Benefit of Planned     Benefits all members in the        Benefits most members in       Benefits a select few
Reuse                         community. Addresses an            the community. Historic        members of the community.
                                                                                                                                            10%
                              identified need in the community    preservation, and/or            Difficult to document historic
                              master plan that may benefit a      improves aesthetics is likely   preservation, and/or aesthetic
                              specific demographic which is       and will be documented          improvement
                              currently underserved. Provides
                              for historic preservation and /or
                              improves aesthetics.
 Existing Infrastructure      Current & appropriate               Some infrastructure exists      Minimal or no infrastructure
                              infrastructure exists to fully      to support redevelopment        exists to support
                                                                                                                                   3%
                              support redevelopment plans         plans, more is needed           redevelopment plans
 Environmental Justice        There is clearly not equal          There might be equal            There is equal protection from
                              protection from environmental       protection from                 environmental hazards
                                                                                                                                   2%
                              hazards                             environmental hazards


Bonus: Green Building, Green Space, Leveraged Funds, Other (define)______________________________________ Bonus Points (1-2) :___________




Total Score (sum of Total column + Bonus Points) ___________________

Sites scoring 340 or more points have High Redevelopment Potential
     BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION INVENTORY FORM
A Brownfield is any real property, the expansion, reuse of development of which
may be complicated by actual or perceived (based on past use) environmental
contamination (hazardous substances and/or petroleum products).

SITE: Name (how is the property commonly identified), address (including city, county and
zip code (if known)) and site acreage.




OWNER (CURRENT AND IMMEDIATE PAST OWNER, IF POSSIBLE): Name and
address of the property owner. If known, please provide the following information on the
current (and immediate past) owner; a contact person, telephone and fax numbers, and
when and how they became the property owner – i.e. purchase, tax deed, donation, other.
Any information on the owner who would have been associated with the site during the time
when the environmental condition (or perceived condition) occurred is very helpful.




SITE HISTORY: Provide a brief summary of the site’s current use (show underutilized or
abandoned) and discuss the past use resulting in known or perceived contamination.




REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: Provide a brief discussion of the redevelopment
potential of the property and the importance of the property to the community.




SUBMIT COMPLETED BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION INVENTORY FORMS
TO: Please submit forms to the attention of Don Outram, as follows:

              Via   email at:      doutram@sageidaho.com
              Via   phone at:      (208) 322-7033 ext 227
              Via   fax at:        (208) 322-3569
              Via   mail at:       Sage Community Resources
                                   125 E. 50th Street
                                   Garden City, ID 83714

  If you have any questions regarding completing or submitting this form, please
                   contact Don Outram 208.322.7033 ext. 227.
The Brownfield Area-wide Assessment Program
The goal of this program is to help local governments redevelop “Brownfield” sites in their communities by
funding and conducting site assessments when a lack of environmental information is complicating site
redevelopment or reuse.

Through this program, funded through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), trained professionals
will conduct an assessment to determine the nature and extent of contamination (if any) at proposed
Brownfield sites. A Final Report will be prepared that:

        Reveals whether a site is clean, lightly contaminated, or heavily contaminated;
        Determines the nature and extent of the contamination;
        Identifies potential cleanup options; and
        Estimates cleanup costs (if any).

    Who is Eligible to Apply?
    Units of local governments, local are development agencies, non-profit organizations and other
    government entities created by the State Legislature are eligible to participate in the program by
    submitting a completed Intake form on the reverse side of this page. The applicant does not have to
    own the site.

    What Sites Are Eligible for Assessments?
    All Brownfield sites are potentially eligible to participate if proposed by an eligible applicant, who did not
    cause or contribute to contamination at the site.
APPENDIX C: ECONOMIC DATA BY COUNTY

              (pending)
APPENDIX D: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
            BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
            CEDS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
                                                            SAGE COMMUNITY RESOURCES
                                                          BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ INFORMATION
                                                              (Revised February 13, 2008)


County            Name                    Addresses             Phone Nos.          Fax No.                    E-Mail                  Committee Positions
Ada      John Evans,              5699 N. Riffle Way           853-8727 (H)      853-2219           johngevans31@msn.com      Board Chair*
         Garden City Mayor        Garden City, ID 83714        870-5570 (cell)                                                Member, Executive Committee*
         Chair                                  Or                                                                            Committee Co-Chair, Municipal Leasing
         Real Estate Developer    City of Garden City          472-2900 (city)                                                Committee
                                  6015 Glenwood St.
                                  Garden City, ID 83714


         Rick Yzaguirre           Ada County Commissioners     287-7000          287-7009           Bocc1@adaweb.net
         Full time Commissioner   200 W. Front Street                                               saxtman@adaweb.net
                                  Boise, ID 83702                                                   (assistant)


Adams    Bill Brown,              P.O. Box 325                 347-2290 (H)      253-4880           bdbrown@frontiernet.net   Brown’s Mountain Market
         Commissioner             New Meadows, ID 83654        630-4512 (cell)                                                347-2306
         Businessman                                                             253-1141                                     347-3165 (fax)
                                  Adams County Courthouse      253-4561          Sheriff’s office
                                  P.O. Box 48                                    fax
                                  Council, ID 83612


Boise    Fred H. Lawson,          P.O. Box 1300                392-6636          392-4473           fhlawson@ctcweb.net
         Commissioner             Idaho City, ID 83631         (county)
         As of 4/3/03                                          259-3344 (W)
         Innkeeper                420 Main                     259-3345 (H)


Canyon   Martin Thorne,           Nampa City Councilman        880-6984 (cell)   466-1133           mthorne@sunvalley.net
         Councilmember            City of Nampa
         As of 10/7/04            411 Third St. South
         Business Owner           Nampa, ID 83651

                                  420 W. Dakota Avenue
                                  Nampa, ID 83686 (Home)
County             Name                     Addresses           Phone Nos.         Fax No.               E-Mail                    Committee Positions
         David Ferdinand,           1115 Albany                454-7507          454-7336    dferdinand@canyonco.org      Vice-Chair
         Commissioner               Caldwell, Id. 83605                                                                   Executive board member
         District #3

         Jim Dakan,                 2401 Terrace Drive         454-0639          455-3003    jimdakan@cableone.net        Committee Co-Chair, Municipal Leasing
         Councilmember              Caldwell, ID 83605                                                                    Committee
         As of 1/8/04
         Retired Funeral Director

Elmore   JoAnne Lanham              P.O. Box 910               366-7418          366-2238    mayorgf@rtci.net
         Mayor                      110 East 2nd Ave.          Courthouse
         City of Glenns Ferry       Glenns Ferry, ID 83623
                                                               366-2363 (H)
                                                               841-7301 (cell)


         Connie Cruser              970 N. 5th E.              587-2129, ext.    587-2159    ccruser@att.net
         Commissioner               Mountain Home, ID 83647    270
                                    (home)                     587-4630 (H)
                                                               590-2442 (cell)



Gem      Michele Sherrer,           Board of Commissioners     208.365-4561      365-7795    commissioners@co.gem.id.us
         Commissioner as of         415 E. Main Street         365-5132 (H)                  msherrer@bigskytel.com
         4/7/05                     Emmett, ID 83617

                                    2119 Haw Creek Circle
                                    Emmett, ID 83617
                                    (home)



Owyhee   Hal Tolmie                 Owyhee County Courthouse   495-2421          495-1173    halandjudy@frontiernet.net
         Commissioner               P.O. Box 966               337-3711 (H)
         Retired retail owner       Homedale, Id. 83628

                                    P.O. Box 128
                                    Murphy, Id. 83628 (home)
County                       Name                    Addresses         Phone Nos.         Fax No.                  E-Mail                     Committee Positions
Payette             Marc Shigeta             6880 Holly Ave.          739-1612 (C)      642-6011       mshigeta@payettecounty.org
                    Commissioner             New Plymouth, ID 83655   278-3770 (H)
                                                                      County:
                    Doug Henderson                                    642-6015
                    Mayor of Payette         700 Center
                                             Payette, ID 83661        642-6024                         mayor@doughenderson.com
                                                                      739-5145 (cell)   642-1412



Valley              Gordon Cruickshank       P.O. box 1350            634-2490 (H)                     gcruickshank@co.valley.id.us
                    Commissioner             Cascade, Id. 83611




Washington          Layna Hafer,             P.O. Box 207             550-0367          414-1816       Lhafer2@msn.com                Member, Executive Committee*
                    At Large EC Member       Weiser, Idaho 83672      (cell)                                                          At-Large
                    Weiser City Councilor                             549-2699 (H)

                    Michael Hopkins          256 E. Court Street      549-2030 (W)      208-414-3925   mhopkins@ruralnetwork.net
                    Commissioner             P.O. Box 670             549-8164 (H)
                                             Weiser, Id. 83672        County:
                                                                      208-414-2789


Minority Rep        Kirby Ortiz,             6191 W. Winstead Pl.     323-1976(W)       323-1122       kortiz@gemstatecom.com         Secretary/Treasurer
Hispanic Business   Vice Chair-Economic      Boise, ID 83704          376-5658 (H)                                                    Member, Executive Committee*
Association         Development                           Or
                    HBA Focus                c/o Gem State
                    Business owner/General   Communications
                    Manager                  1976 Century Way
                                             Boise, ID 83709


Members-at-Large    Dave Jett,               TEC, Inc.                587-5188 (H)                     djjett7@msn.com                Member, Executive Committee*
                    Past Chair               250 Bob White Ct. #200   598-0282 (cell)                                                 Immediate Past Chair
                    Consultant               Boise, Id. 83706
County               Name                     Addresses             Phone Nos.         Fax No.              E-Mail                     Committee Positions
            Dr. James Weatherby       2569 S. Swallowtail Lane     387-4963 (H)                  jweathe@gmail.com
            Emeritus Professor of     Boise, ID 83706
            Public Policy

            Judy Peavey-Derr          199 N. Capitol Blvd. #1005   345-2275 (H)                  judypeaveyderr@msn.com        Member, Executive Committee*
            At Large EC Member        Boise, ID 83702                                                                          At-Large



            Eric Randall              20250 Hoskins Rd.            455-0820 (H)                  erandall@zionsbank.com        Member, Executive Committee*
            At Large EC Member        Caldwell, ID 83607                                                                       At-Large
            Canyon County                           or
            Bank Manager              Zions Bank                   459-2112 (W)
                                      509 S. Kimball
                                      Caldwell, ID 83605

            Bryan Wewers              Boise Operations Center
            Idaho Power Company       P.O. Box 70                  388-2411 (W)                  BWewers@idahopower.com
                                      Boise, Id. 83707             861-6143 cell

            Cameron Arial             Zions Bank                   344-9522 (W)      424-7619    Cameron.Arial@zionsbank.com
            Zions Bank                Government Relations         559-4353 (C)
                                      202 N 9th St., Suite 205
                                      Boise, ID 83702

            Todd Lakey                34 S. Bingham Street         467-6555 (W)                  tmloffice@qwest.net
            Canyon County             Nampa, ID 83651              465-5891 (H)
            Attorney
            Change in Status as of
            9/16/04

            Representative            260 Westlawn Avenue          549-2473 (H)                  Mdthomas83672@earthlink.net
            Diana Thomas              Weiser, ID. 83672            550-0282 (cell)


         * Denotes Elected Position
                         SAGE COMMUNITY RESOURCES
      COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS) for Southwest Idaho

                                            COMMITTEE MEMBERS
                                               FY 2008 – 2009

                     GOALS: Community, Economic and Organizational Development
CEDS REPRESENTATION AREAS:                            Bryan Wewers
          Brownfields                                 Boise Operations Center
          Business Recruit/Retain/Expand              Idaho Power
          Economic Development                        P.O. Box 70
          Education & Training                        Boise, ID 83707
          Growth Management                              Work:        388-2411
          Infrastructure: Utilities, Tech., Transp.      Fax:
          Resource Development & Financing            E-Mail:       BWewers@idahopower.com
Cameron Arial                                         Susan Mason, Dir.
Zions Bank                                            Certificate in Community & Regional Planning
Government Relations                                  Boise State University
202 N. 9th St., Ste 205                               1910 University Drive
Boise, ID 83702                                       Boise, ID
    Work:      344-9522                               Work:
    Fax:       424-7619                               Fax:
E-Mail:        cameron.arial@zionsbank.com            E-Mail: susanmason@boisetstate.edu
Susie Davidson                                        Aaron Scheff
Idaho Department of Commerce                          Brownfields Response Program, Dir.
Economic Development Marketing                        Idaho DEQ
700 West State Street                                 1445 No. Orchard
P.O. Box 83720                                        Boise, ID 83706-2239
Boise, Idaho 83720                                       Work:        373-0429
  Work: 334-2650 ext. 2146                               Fax:         373-0287
  Fax: 208-334-2631                                   E-mail:         ascheff@deq.idaho.gov
E-Mail: susan.davidson@business.idaho.gov
Mark Cotner                                           Ron Wrest
Director                                              Payette County Econ. Development
Canyon-Owyhee School Service Agency (COSSA)           Attn: Economic Development
20567 Whittier Dr.                                    1130 3rd Ave. N., Room 104
Greenleaf, ID 83626                                   Payette, ID 83661
  Work:         454-2087                                 Cell:       707-1883
  Cell:         860-6489                                 Fax:
E-Mail:         mark@cossa-sitech.org                 E-Mail:        payecon@fmtc.com
Steve Fultz                                           Julie Howard
Director,                                             Marketing/Business and Capital Dev.
Caldwell/Canyon Econ. Dev. Council                    Idaho Office of Science & Tech.
   117 9th Ave., Ste 4                                700 W. State Street
   Caldwell, ID 83704                                 Boise, ID 83720
      Work:       454-0087                              Work: 334-2650 ext. 2147
  Fax:        459-8115                                  Fax:
E-Mail: sfultz@ci.caldwell.id.us                      E-Mail: julie.howard@technology.idaho.gov
Courtney Thompson                                Rachel Winer
Washington County Econ. Development Specialist   Idaho Smart Growth
309 State Street                                 P.O. Box 374
Weiser ID 83672                                  Boise, ID 83701
   Work:     (208) 414-0452                        Work: 333-8066
   Fax:                                            Fax: 336-6056
E-Mail: wccedc@ruralnetwork.net                  E-mail: isg@idahosmartgrowth.org
Mike Pollard                                     Morris Huffman
Coordinator                                      Biomass Coordinator
Western Alliance for Economic Development        Woody Biomass Utilization Partnership
P.O. Box 684                                     P.O. Box 422
Caldwell, ID 83606                               Emmett, ID 83617
 Work: 249-4417                                    Work: 631-4082
 Fax: 322-3569                                     Fax: 365-7187
E-Mail: mpollard@sageidaho.com                   E-Mail: mhuffman@sageidaho.com
Tim Breuer                                       Dave Jett
Exec. Dir. Land Trust of Treasure Valley         Chair, Capital Matrix
708 W. Franklin St.                              1471 Shoreline Dr. , Ste # 123
Boise, ID 83702                                  Boise, ID 83702
 Work: 345-1452                                    Work: 598-0282
 Fax:                                              Fax:
E-mail: tbreuer@lttv.org                         E-mail: djjett7@msn.com
APPENDIX E: SAGE PROJECT PRIORITIES
ADA COUNTY


    City of Boise

           Boise Redevelopment District Brownfield Program
                  -     Total Estimated Cost: $200,000
                  -     Job Impact: N/A
                  -     Financing/Grant Funding: EPA, local
                  -     Priority: Level I


    City of Eagle

           Water Extension and West Side Reservoir
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: $3 million
                 -     Job Impact: TBD
                 -     Financing: Local, private
                 -     Priority: Level I

    Water and Wastewater Extension (LMI neighborhood)
               -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
               -     Job Impact: N/A (Public Facilities)
               -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
               -     Priority: Level II

           Downtown Signage-Directional/Parking
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: $5,000
                 -     Job Impact: N/A
                 -     Financing: Local, private
                 -     Priority: Level III

           Wastewater Extension/Collection System and Pump Station
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: $3.5 million
                 -     Job Impact: TBD
                 -     Financing: Local, private


    City of Garden City

           City Facility Upgrade
                  -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                  -       Job Impact: TBD
                  -       Financing: Local, private
                  -       Priority: Level II
      Downtown Revitalization
            -    Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
            -    Job Impact: 20-80
            -    Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
            -    Priority: Level II

      Cityscape Improvements
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
             -     Job Impact: 50-60
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
             -     Priority: Level II

      Public Services Center Expansion Project
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $200,000
             -      Job Impact: Unknown
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, private
             -      Priority: Level II

      Wastewater Upgrade
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $600,000 Phase 1 & II
            -     Job Impact: N/A (Public Facilities)
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
            -     Priority: Level II

      Affordable Housing Plan
             -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -     Job Impact: N/A
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
             -     Priority Level: II


City of Kuna

      Downtown Revitalization: Parking, Sidewalks, Lighting
           -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -     Job Impact: TBD
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
           -     Priority: Level I

      Downtown Core Area: Convert Gravity Flow to Pressurized Irrigation
           -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -     Job Impact: N/A
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: Local, USDA
           -     Priority: Level II
City of Meridian

       Meridian’s Promise
             -       Total Estimated Cost: $25,000
             -       Job Impact: TBD
             -       Financing/Grant Funding: Private, City of Meridian
             -       Priority: Level I

       East 3rd Street Connection Study
               -       Total Estimated Cost: $60,000
               -       Job Impact: TBD
               -       Financing/Grant Funding: City of Meridian, Meridian
                                                Development Corp., Ada County
                                                Highway District
               -       Priority: Level I

       Streetscape Improvement: Main/Idaho Streets, Phase I
               -     Total Estimated Cost: $300,000
               -     Job Impact: TBD
               -     Financing/Grant Funding: Meridian Development Corp.
               -     Priority: Level I

       Water Reservoir (Ground Level Storage Tank)
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $4.5 million
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: Local, private
              -     Priority: Level II

       Downtown Surface Parking
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: Meridian Development Corp.
            -     Priority: Level II

       Downtown “Wayfinding” Signage Program
            -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, private
            -     Priority: Level III

       City of Meridian Public Art Project
               -     Total Estimated Cost: $32000
               -     Total Job Impact: TBD
               -     Financing/Grant Funding: City of Meridian, Idaho Commission of
                     the Arts, private
               -     Priority Level: I
       Business Enterprise Corridors Planning and Marketing
             -       Total Estimated Cost: $20,000
             -       Total Job Impact: TBD
             -       Financing/Grant Funding: Public, Private
             -       Priority Level: I

       Gateway Landscaping, Phase I
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $500, 000
             -     Job Impact: TBD
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: Public
             -     Priority Level: I

       City Hall Plaza
              -    Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
              -    Total Job Impact: TBD
              -     Financing/Grant Funding: City of Meridian
              -     Priority Level: I

    Community Development Block Grant
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $230,544
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: HUD
            -     Priority Level: I

    Downtown Surface Parking, Phase I
-        Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
-        Job Impact: TBD
-        Financing/Grant Funding: Meridian Development Corp., private
-        Priority Level: I


City of Star

       Gateway Improvement: Star Gateway Entry Signs
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $100,000
             -     Job Impact: TBD
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: Gem Community Grant
             -     Priority: Level I

       Wastewater Improvement: New Head Works
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $250,000
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: Star Sewer & Water District
             -      Priority: Level I
Water Improvement: Water Interceptor Line
       -     Total Estimated Cost: $400,000
       -     Job Impact: TBD
       -     Financing/Grant Funding: Star Sewer & Water District
       -     Priority: Level I
ADAMS COUNTY


    City of Cascade

           Sewer and Water Development
                  -     Total Estimated Cost: $3.7 million
                  -     Job Impact: TBD
                  -     Financing/Grant Funding: USDA
                  -     Priority: Level I


    City of Council

           Council Business Park Expansion – Phase II
                 -       Total Estimated Cost: $489,000
                 -       Job Impact: 50
                 -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, Gem Comm., local,
                                                  RCDBG
                 -       Priority: Level I

           Council Downtown Revitalization
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: $3.5 million
                 -     Job Impact: 75+
                 -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, ITD, local,
                                                 USDA
                 -     Priority: Level I

           Council Senior Center Remodel
                 -       Total Estimated Cost: $100,000
                 -       Job Impact: 1-5
                 -       Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
                 -       Priority: Level I

           RV Bathroom Facility
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: $20,000
                 -     Job Impact: TBD
                 -     Financing/Grant Funding: IDPR, local
                 -     Priority: Level I

           Baseball Fields and Concession/Bathroom Facility
                 -        Total Estimated Cost: $75,000
                 -        Job Impact: TBD
                 -        Financing/Grant Funding: Baseball America Fund, Land
                                                    and Water Conservation Fund, local
                 -        Priority: Level II
US 95 Council Alternate Route
      -      Total Estimated Cost: $4.5 million
      -      Job Impact: TBD
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: ITD
      -      Priority: Level II

Council Fire Station
      -        Total Estimated Cost: $300,000
      -        Job Impact: 2-3
      -        Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, ITD, local
      -        Priority: Level II

Council Business Park Expansion – Phase III
      -       Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
      -       Job Impact: 50
      -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, Gem Comm., local,
                                       RCBG
      -       Priority: Level III

Old Courthouse Rehab and Reuse
      -      Total Estimated Cost: $100,000
      -      Job Impact: TBD
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
      -      Priority: Level III

Low-Income Affordable Housing
      -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
      -     Job Impact: TBD
      -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, local, USDA
      -     Priority: Level III

Council Cottage Industries Project
      -       Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
      -       Job Impact: 10+
      -       Financing/Grant Funding: ED and training grants, EDA,
                                       historical and arts funding, local
                                       school district funds, RCBG,
                                       USDA
      -       Priority: Level III

Brownsfield Clean-up Sites
      -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
      -      Job Impact: 10-20
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, EPA, local
      -      Priority: Level III
City of New Meadows

      Dorsey Warr Park Improvement Project
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $143,500
             -     Job Impact: TBD
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: Meadows P. & R. Coalition,
                                             Donations, Idaho Parks &
                                             Recreation, City
             -     Priority: Level I

      Industrial Park Building Space Expansion
              -       Total Estimated Cost: $280,000
              -       Job Impact: TBD
              -       Financing/Grant Funding: RCDBG, D & D Auto, New
                                               Meadows Industrial Park
              -       Priority: Level I

      Sewer System Improvements: Phase I & II
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
             -     Job Impact: TBD
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: Idaho RCDBG, USDA-RD,
                                            New Meadows Water & Sewer
             -     Priority: Level I

      Water System Improvements: Phase I & II
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $1,236,000
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: Idaho RCDBG, EDA, New
                                              Meadows Water & Sewer
             -      Priority: Level I

      Pavement of City Streets
            -       Total Estimated Cost: $2,500,000
            -       Job Impact: TBD
            -       Financing/Grant Funding: Idaho Transportation Local Roads,
                    Idaho RDBG, USDA-RD
            -       Priority: Level I

      Business Retention & Expansion Survey
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $TBD
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: Chamber of Commerce,
                                             Business Interest Group, City
             -      Priority: Level I
Depot Project: Rehab and Re-use
      -       Total Estimated Cost: $750,000
      -       Job Impact: TBD
      -       Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD Enhance, local
      -       Priority: Level I

Business Retention & Expansion Survey
      -      Total Estimated Costs: N/A
      -      Job Impact: N/A
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: Volunteer
      -      Priority: Level I

Scenic Byway Enhancements
       -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -     Job Impact: N/A
       -     Financing/Grant Funding: Idaho Department of Tourism
       -     Priority: Level II

Affordable, Self-Help Housing: Families & Seniors
      -      Total Estimated Costs: TBD
      -      Job Impact: N/A
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: HUD, IHFC, local, private
      -      Priority: Level II

Downtown Revitalization: Storm Water Collection & Treatment,
Sidewalks
      -    Total Estimated Cost: $1,750,000
      -    Job Impact: TBD
      -    Financing/Grant Funding: Idaho Transportation Rural
                                      Funds, Business Improvement
                                      District
      -    Priority: Level III
BOISE COUNTY


    Boise County

           Biomass Co-Generation Plant: Horseshoe Bend
                 -     Total Estimated Costs: TBD
                 -     Job Impact: N/A
                 -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
                 -     Priority: Level III


    City of Crouch

          Municipal Water System
                -      Total Estimated Costs: TBD
                -      Job Impact: N/A
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG-RD
                -      Priority Level: N/A


    City of Garden Valley

          Sewer District
                -        Total Estimated Costs: TBD
                -        Job Impact: N/A
                -        Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
                -        Priority Level: TBD


    City of Horseshoe Bend

           Master Plan: Feasibility for Boise Cascade Land
                 -       Total Estimated Costs: TBD
                 -       Job Impact: N/A
                 -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
                 -       Priority: Level I

           Downtown Revitalization (Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Lighting)
                -     Total Estimated Costs: TBD
                -     Job Impact: N/A
                -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
                -     Priority: Level I
       Joint City/County Admin. Building with Possible Community Center
              -      Total Estimated Costs: TBD
              -      Job Impact: N/A
              -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
              -      Priority: Level II

       City Skateboard Park
              -      Total Estimated Costs: $50,000
              -      Job Impact: N/A
              -      Financing/Grant Funding: Grants, local
              -      Priority: Level III


City of Idaho City

       Boise Basin Community Park & Master Plan
              -     Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
              -     Job Impact: 40-50
              -     Financing/Grant Funding: HUD EDI, ICDBG, local,
                                              private, USFS
              -     Priority: Level I

       Water / Sewer Upgrade Project
              -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
              -      Job Impact: TBD
              -      Financial/Grant Funding: DEQ, local, local bond, USDA
              -      Priority: Level I

       Downtown Historic District Renovation
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $1.5 to $3 million
            -      Job Impact: 40-50
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, ITD Enhance,
                                             local, private, USDA-RD, USFS
            -      Priority: Level II

       Downtown Core Area Street Paving/Drainage
            -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD Enhance, local,
                                            private
            -     Priority: Level II
CANYON COUNTY


    City of Caldwell

           Sewer System Expansion in North Caldwell
                 -      Total Estimated Cost: $7 million
                 -      Job Impact: TBD
                 -      Financing/Grant Funding: Local
                 -      Priority: Level I

           Airport Terminal
                  -      Total Estimated Cost: $5.9 million
                  -      Job Impact: 460
                  -      Financing/Grant Funding: Local
                  -      Priority: Level II

           Airport Land Acquisition, Runway Extension, and Approach Guidance
           System
                  -      Total Estimated Cost: $8 million
                  -      Job Impact: 150
                  -      Financing/Grant Funding: FAA, Local
                  -      Priority: Level II

           Downtown Catalyst Development
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: $35 million
                 -     Job Impact: 1,000
                 -     Financing/Grant Funding: Local, Private Investment
                 -     Priority: Level II

           Franklin Boulevard/I-84 Interchange Expansion & 21st Street
           Improvement
                  -      Total Estimated Cost: $39 million
                  -      Job Impact: 100
                  -      Financing/Grant Funding: ITD, Local
                  -      Priority: Level II

           Roadway, Parking Lot and Irrigation System Construction Adjacent to
           Airport
                   -    Total Estimated Cost: $7 million
                   -    Job Impact: 550
                   -    Financing/Grant Funding: Local
                   -    Priority: Level III
       Roundabout at Centennial Way
             -       Total Estimated Cost: $7 million
             -       Job Impact: 150
             -       Financing/Grant Funding: ITD, Local
             -       Priority: Level III

       Ustick Road/I-84 Interchange
              -      Total Estimated Cost: $31 million
              -      Job Impact: TBD
              -      Financing/Grant Funding: ITD, Local
              -      Priority: Level III
       Caldwell Train Depot Parking Project-Phase III
              -      Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
              -      Job Impact: N/A
              -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
              -      Priority Level: I


City of Greenleaf

       Water/Wastewater Improvement Project
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
             -     Job Impact: N/A
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local bond, USDA
             -     Priority: Level I

       Senior Center: Garage/Rehab
              -      Total Estimated Cost: $100,000
              -      Job Impact: N/A (Public Facilities)
              -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
              -      Priority: Level I

       City Park Renovation
              -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
              -      Job Impact: N/A
              -     Financing/Grant Funding: Local, LWCF, recreation district
              -     Priority: Level II

       City Library
              -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
              -       Job Impact: N/A
              -       Financing/Grant Funding: Local, private
              -       Priority: Level III
      Fire Department
             -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -     Job Impact: N/A
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, state, USDA
             -     Priority: Level III

      Police Substation
             -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -       Job Impact: TBD
             -       Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
             -       Priority: III


City of Melba

      Wastewater Improvement Project
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $4.2 mil.
            -      Job Impact: N/A (Public Facilities)
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, USDA-RD
            -      Priority: Level I


City of Middleton

       Wastewater Improvements
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $3,745,000
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local USDA
             -      Priority: Level I

       Downtown Rehabilitation Project
             -    Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -    Job Impact: TBD
             -    Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local USDA
             -    Priority: Level I

       Purchase Land for Public Parking
              -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
              -     Job Impact: TBD
              -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local USDA
              -     Priority: Level I

       City Library
              -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
              -       Job Impact: TBD
              -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local USDA
              -       Priority: Level I
      State Highway 44 Relocation
             -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -     Job Impact: TBD
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local USDA
             -     Priority: Level I

      Community Center
           -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -      Job Impact: TBD
           -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local USDA
           -      Priority: Level I


City of Nampa

      Downtown Revitalization Façade Improvement
           -     Total Estimated Cost: $80 million
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, local, private, Urban Renewal
           -     Priority: Level I

      Downtown Revitalization (Street Redesign, Façade Improvements)
           -     Total Estimated Cost: $2.5 million
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, CDBG, Heritage Trust, private,
                 public
           -     Job Impact: TBD
           -     Priority: Level I

      Economic Adjustment Strategy for High-Tech Manufacturing
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $200,000
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, Urban Renewal, bond
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Priority: Level I

      Downtown Professional Business Development Initiative
           -      Total Estimated Cost: $3.7 million
           -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, local
           -      Job Impact: TBD
           -      Priority: Level I

      Northside Industrial Development
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, Urban Renewal
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Priority: Level I
      Idaho Sports & Horse Park – English Riding Complex
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, private, Urban Renewal
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Priority: Level II

      Downtown Private / Public Development
           -      Total Estimated Cost: $75 million
           -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, local, private, Urban
                                            Renewal
           -      Job Impact: TBD
           -      Priority: Level II

      Telecommunications Initiative (Build and Own a Dark Fiber Network:
      “Wired City”)
            -       Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
            -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, local, school, Urban
                                               Renewal
            -       Job Impact: TBD
            -       Priority: Level II

      North Nampa Floodplain Mitigation
             -    Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -    Financing/Grant Funding: CDBG, Army Corp of
                                           Engineers, City of Nampa
             -    Job Impact: TBD
             -    Priority: Level II

      Downtown Farmers Market
           -      Total Estimated Cost: $150,000
           -      Financing/Grant Funding: FMPP, USDA
           -      Job Impact: TBD
           -      Priority: Level II


City of Parma

       Downtown Revitalization
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $162,500
            -     Job Impact: +20
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
            -     Priority: Level I

      Industrial Park
             -       Total Estimated Cost: Undetermined
             -       Job Impact: TBD
             -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
             -       Priority: Level III
       Community Center
               -     Total Estimated Cost: $300,000
               -     Job Impact: N/A
               -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
               -     Priority: Level III
       Shelter Care Facility
               -     Total Cost: TBD
               -     Job Impact: N/A
               -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, private
               -     Priority: Level III


City of Wilder

       Downtown Revitalization
            -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
            -     Priority: Level II

       Develop Public Education into Economic Strength for Community
             -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
             -      Priority: Level II

       Develop Public Education into Economic Strength for Community
             -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
             -      Priority: Level II

       Fire Station
               -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
               -      Job Impact: N/A
               -      Financing/Grant Funding: FEMA, ICDBG, local
               -      Priority: Level II

       Economic Diversification Strategy
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $30,000
             -     Job Impact: TBD
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, Gem Implementation
             -     Priority: Level II
Sewer Upgrade
      -     Total Cost: TBD
      -     Job Impact: TBD
      -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
      -     Priority: Level II

Land Use Planning: River as Economic Development Assest
      -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
      -      Job Impact: TBD
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
      -      Priority: Level II

Industrial Park: Rail and Hwy. 95 Access
       -       Total Cost: TBD
       -       Job Impact: TBD
       -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local, private
       -       Priority: Level II
ELMORE COUNTY


    Elmore County

           Wind Power Development
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                 -     Job Impact: TBD
                 -     Financing/Grant Funding: IDWR, local, private
                 -     Priority: Level I

           Tourism Development / Regional Theme
                 -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                 -      Job Impact: TBD
                 -      Financing/Grant Funding: Chamber, ICDBG, local
                 -      Priority: Level I

           Dairy Development
                  -     Total Estimated Cost: $30 million
                  -     Job Impact: 200+
                  -     Financing/Grant Funding: Private
                  -     Priority: Level I

           Simplot Composting Operations
                 -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                 -     Job Impact: TBD
                 -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, Simplot
                 -     Priority: Level I

           Pave Strike Dam Road
                  -      Total Estimated Cost: $2,400,000
                  -      Job Impact: TBD
                  -      Financing/Grant Funding: Mountain Home Highway
                                                   District
                  -      Priority: Level II


    City of Glenns Ferry

           Minex Water Line
                 -      Total Estimated Cost: 107,100
                 -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, Gem Comm., ICDBG
                 -      Job Impact: TBD
                 -      Priority: Level I
      Museum Brownfields Project
           -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -     Job Impact: TBD
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: EPA, local
           -     Priority: Level I

      Downtown Revitalization
           -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
           -     Job Impact: TBD
           -     Priority: Level II

      Industrial Park
             -        Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -        Job Impact: TBD
             -        Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
              -       Priority: Level III


City of Mountain Home

      Downtown Revitalization Project
           -     Total Estimated Cost: $1 million
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: Chamber, ICDBG, local
           -     Job Impact: 50-90
           -     Priority: Level I

      Water Extensions & Increased Pumping Capacity
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $4 million
            -      Job Impact: N/A
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: IDEQ, local
            -      Priority: Level I

      Expansion of Scott’s Industrial Park, LLC (Airport)
            -       Total Estimated Cost: $1 million
            -       Job Impact: TBD
            -       Financing/Grant Funding: City, Urban Renewal Agency
            -       Priority: Level I
GEM COUNTY


    Gem County

         Industrial Park: Hwy. 52 and Union Road
                -       Total Estimated Cost: $2,890,000
                -       Job Impact: 250
                -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
                -       Priority: Level I

         Freeway Access Phase II: Dewey Road
               -     Total Estimated Cost: $5-7 million
               -     Job Impact: TBD
               -     Financing/Grant Funding: ITD
               -     Priority: Level I

         Southern Bridge Crossing to Gem Island Sports Complex
                -      Total Estimated Cost: $350,000
                -      Job Impact: TBD
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: Gem Implementation, LHTAC,
                -                                local
                -      Priority: Level I

         Recreation / Community Center
                -      Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
                -      Job Impact: TBD
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, private
                -      Priority: Level I

         Telecommunications Infrastructure
               -     Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
               -     Job Impact: TBD
               -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local, private, USDA-
                                                RUS
               -     Priority: Level I

         Bathroom Facilities at Flag Monument
               -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
               -      Job Impact: NA
               -      Financing/Grant Funding: ITD, private, local, VFW
               -      Priority: Level II

         Airport Land Trade: Runway Extension
                -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                -      Job Impact: TBD
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
                -      Priority: Level II
      Skate Board Park Expansion
             -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -     Job Impact: N/A
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: LWRC, local, private
             -     Priority: Level II

      Gem Island Improvement – New 4-Plex
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $1 million
            -      Job Impact: 100
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: County, ICF, rec. district
            -      Priority: Level II

      Fairgrounds: Grandstand
             -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
             -      Priority: Level II

      Gateway to County
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $100,000-$250,000
            -      Job Impact: TBD
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: ITD
            -      Priority: Level III

      Museum Renovation
           -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -     Job Impact: N/A
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
           -     Priority: Level III

      Sweet Mantour Fire Station
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $1,000,000
            -     Job Impact: N/A
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
            -     Priority Level: II


City of Emmett

      Water & Wastewater Infrastructure Compliance
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $2-6 million
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, DEQ, ICDBG, local
            -     Priority: Level I
Downtown Revitalization
     -     Total Estimated Cost: $1.5 million
     -     Job Impact: TBD
     -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, LTAC
     -     Priority: Level I

Industrial Park: Enterprise Loop
       -       Total Estimated Cost: $1 million
       -       Job Impact: 100
       -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local, private
       -       Priority: Level I

Emmett Community Center
     -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
     -     Job Impact: TBD
     -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, private
     -     Priority: Level I

Art Incubator
       -      Total Estimated Cost: $500,000-$750,000
       -      Job Impact: 100
       -      Financing/Grant Funding: Arts Commis., EDA, local, private,
                                       RCBG
       -      Priority: Level I

Airport Project
       -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -       Job Impact: TBD
       -       Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, private
       -       Priority: Level II
OWYHEE COUNTY


    Owyhee County

          Owyhee Initiative Projects
               -        Total Estimated Cost: TBD
               -        Job Impact: TBD
               -        Financing/Grant Funding: County, multiple agencies,
                                                 private
               -        Priority: Level I

          Promote Snake River Tourism
                -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                -      Job Impact: TBD
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
                -      Priority: Level II

          Wind Power
                -    Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                -    Job Impact: TBD
                -    Financing/Grant Funding: County, IDWR, private land
                                              owners
                -    Priority: Level II


    City of Grand View

          Arsenic Project
                 -      Total Estimated Cost: $1 million
                 -      Job Impact: N/A
                 -      Financing/Grant Funding: USDA-RD, local
                 -      Priority: Level I

          Arsenic Removal Project
                 -    Total Estimated Cost: $2.4 million
                 -    Job Impact: N/A
                 -    Financing/Grant Funding: USDA-RD, DEQ, ICDBG
                 -    Priority: Level II
City of Homedale

      Downtown Business District Renovation
           -     Total Estimated Cost: $2.2 million
           -     Job Impact: N/A (Slum & Blight)
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, ITD, local,
                                            private, USDA-RD
           -     Priority: Level I

      Development of Hwy. 95 Corridor
            -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -      Job Impact: N/A
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD, local
            -      Priority: Level III

      Residential Curbs, Sidewalks, and Gutters
            -Total Estimated Cost: $3 million
            -Job Impact: N/A
            -Financial/Grant Funding: N/A
            -Priority Level: III


City of Marsing

      Water Improvements
             -     Total Estimated Cost: $1.5 million
             -     Job Impact: N/A
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: BLM, Bureau of Rec., ICDBG,
                                             ID F&G, local, USDA-RD,
             -     Priority: Level II

      Central Business District Renovation
             -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD, local
             -      Priority: Level II
PAYETTE COUNTY


    Payette County

           Clay Peak Recreation Facility Improvements (Law Enforcement/NRA
           Shooting Range)
                  -     Total Estimated Cost: $900,000
                  -     Financing/Grant Funding: BLM, IDRD, local, private,
                                                  RCDBG, USDA-RD, USDOD,
                                                  USDOJ
                  -     Job Impact: TBD
                  -     Priority Level: III

           Savannah Pacific Wood Products
                 -      Total Estimated Cost: $6 million
                 -      Financing/Grant Funding: RCDBG, USDA-RD, private
                 -      Job impact: N/A
                 -      Priority Level: I


    City of Fruitland

           Elevator/Ramp System for Old School Community Center
                  -     Total Estimated Cost: $150,000
                  -     Job Impact: TBD
                  -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
                  -     Priority: Level I

           Pilot Study-Arsenic Removal from Municipal Water System
                   -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                   -     Job Impact: TBD
                   -     Financing/Grant Funding: DEQ, ICDBG, local, USDA-RD
                   -     Priority: Level I

           Construction of Business/Industrial Park
                  -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                  -      Job Impact: TBD
                  -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local, USDA-RD
                  -      Priority: Level II

           Water Improvements
                  -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                  -     Job Impact: N/A
                  -     Financing/Grant Funding: DEQ, ICDBG, local, private,
                                                 USDA
                  -     Priority: Level III
City of New Plymouth

       Wastewater System Improvements: Tertiary Treatment & Collection
             -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -       Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
             -      Priority: Level I

       Water System Improvements - Phase II
              -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
              -     Job Impact: TBD
              -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
              -     Priority: Level I/II

       Downtown Improvements: Curb, Gutters, Sidewalks
             -    Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -    Job Impact: TBD
             -    Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD, local
             -    Priority: Level II


City of Payette

       Public Facilities (Fire Station Replacement)
              -        Total Estimated Cost: $950,000
              -        Job Impact: TBD
              -        Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, rural fire, USDA
              -         Priority: Level I

       Public Facilities (Infrastructure extension)
              -        Total Estimated Cost: $2 million
              -        Job Impact: TBD
              -        Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD, local
              -        Priority: Level I

        Public Facilities (Sewer Plant Expansion)
               -       Total Estimated Cost: $6 million
               -       Job Impact: TBD
               -       Financing/Grant Funding: Local, DEQ, ICDBG, EDA
               -       Priority: Level I

        Senior Center
               -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
               -      Job Impact: N/A
               -      Financing/Grand Funding: Local, ICDBG
               -      Priority: Level II
Public Facilities (Water System Upgrades)
       -        Total Estimated Cost: $250,000
       -        Job Impact: TBD
       -        Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, USDA, DEQ
       -        Priority: Level II

Public Facilities (Water Production)
       -        Total Estimated Cost: $165,000
       -        Job Impact: TBD
       -        Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
       -        Priority: Level II

Greenbelt Expansion
      -      Total Estimated Cost: $250,000
      -      Job Impact: TBD
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: Congressional Appropriation, ICDBG,
                                      local
      -      Priority: Level III

Public Facilities (Water Storage)
       -        Total Estimated Cost: $900,000
       -        Job Impact: TBD
       -        Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
       -        Priority: Level III

Community Center
     -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
     -      Job Impact: N/A
     -      Financing/Grant Funding: Local, ICDBG
     -      Priority: Level III

Incubator Building (Industrial Park)
       -      Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
       -      Financing/Grant Funding: Local, ECDBG, EDA
       -      Job Impact: TBD
       -      Priority: Level III
VALLEY COUNTY


    Valley County

          Roads & Infrastructure Development – West Roseberry Extension
                -       Total Estimated Cost: $1.8 million
                -      Job Impact: 75
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: County, ICDBG
                -      Priority: Level I

          Roads & Infrastructure Development – Donnelly to Tamarack
                -       Total Estimated Cost: $10 million
                -      Job Impact: 200
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: County, EDA, ICDBG
                -      Priority: Level I


    City of Cascade

          Business/Commercial/Industrial Park
                -     Total Estimated Cost: $2.5-$3 million
                -     Job Impact: 50-100
                -     Financing/Grant Funding: City, EDA, ICDBG
                -     Priority: Level I

          Lake Eastside Marina: Access Development & Breakwater
                -       Total Estimated Cost: $3.5 million
                -       Job Impact: 35-40
                -       Financing/Grant Funding: Bureau of Rec., local, other
                -       Priority: Level I

          Cascade Sewer and Water Development
                -      Total Estimated Cost: $3.7 million
                -     Job Impact: 50
                -     Financing/Grant Funding: Bank loan, USDA
                -     Priority: Level I

          Greenbelt with Visitor Center
                -       Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
                -       Job Impact: TBD
                -       Financing/Grant Funding: ITD, local, other
                -       Priority: Level III
City of Donnelly

             Drainage: North Donnelly
                   -       Total Estimated Cost: $632,900
                   -       Job Impact: N/A
                   -       Financing/Grant Funding: City, ICDBG, USDA-RD
                   -       Priority: Level I

             Business Park #2 – Donnelly Deport Center
                   -       Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
                   -       Job Impact: 35-50
                   -       Financing/Grant Funding: City, RCBG
                   -       Priority: Level I

             Transportation Plan
                   -       Total Estimated Cost: Funded
                   -       Job Impact: N/A
                   -       Financing/Grant Funding: ITD (STP)
                   -       Priority: Level I

             Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - NLRSWD
                   -      Total Estimated Cost: $16 million
                   -      Job Impact: TBD
                   -      Financing/Grant Funding: DEQ, district, private
                   -      Priority: Level I

             Water System Improvements/Well (Backup)
                   -      Total Estimated Cost: $460,300
                   -      Job Impact: N/A
                   -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, ICDBG, USDA-RD
                   -      Priority: Level II

             Turn Lane (Bridge to Bridge)
                   -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                   -       Job Impact: N/A
                   -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, ITD
                   -      Priority: Level II

             Storm Water and I & II
                   -      Total Estimated Cost: $2,100,520
                   -      Job Impact: TBD
                   -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, DEQ, EDA, ICDBG, ITD,
                                                    US Army COE, USDA-RD
                   -      Priority: Level II
      Public Restrooms
             -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, ICDBG
             -      Priority: Level II

      Downtown Revitalization Plan
           -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -     Job Impact: TBD
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
           -     Priority: Level II

      Re-establish Donnelly Library
             -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -      Job Impact: TBD
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, private
             -      Priority: Level II

      Donnelly Downtown Revitalization
            -     Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local
            -     Priority: Level III

      Off-Street Parking Lot
             -       Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
             -       Job Impact: TBD
             -       Financing/Grant Funding: City, ICDBG
             -       Priority: Level III


City of McCall

       Highway 55 Corridor Improvements (Four Corners to Downtown)
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $7,625,000
            -      Job Impact: N/A (public facilities)
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ITD, ICDBG, local
            -      Priority: Level I

       I/I Removal Project
              -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
              -      Job Impact: N/A (public facilities)
              -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, EPA, ICDBG, ITD, local
              -      Priority: Level I
Industrial Park Development
       -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -       Job Impact: 100+
       -       Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, RCDBG
       -       Priority: Level I

Wastewater Treatment Plant
      -      Total Estimated Cost: $16-$24 million
      -      Job Impact: 100+
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, DEQ, private
      -      Priority: Level I

Highway 55 Corridor Improvements (Downtown to West City Limits)
     -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
     -      Job Impact: N/A (public facilities)
     -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, ITD, local
     -      Priority: Level II

McCall Conference and Event Center
      -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
      -     Job Impact: 100+
      -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
      -     Priority: Level II

Airport Sewer System Expansion
       -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -     Job Impact: 200+
       -     Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local
       -     Priority: Level II

Riverfront Park Development
       -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -      Job Impact: N/A (public facilities)
       -      Financing/Grant Funding: EPA, IDPR, local, LWCF
       -      Priority: Level II

McCall Airport Master Plan – Business Park & Terminal
      -      Total Estimated Cost: $5-$17 million
      -      Job Impact: 100+
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: City, EDA, ICDBG, private
      -      Priority: Level III
WASHINGTON COUNTY


    Washington County

          Weiser: Airport Industrial Park
                -       Total Estimated Cost: $3-6 million
                -       Job Impact: 500
                -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, local, USDA-RD
                -       Priority: Level II

          Bridge-to-Bridge Project: Planned Use of Riverfront
                 -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                 -      Job Impact: TBD
                 -      Financing/Grant Funding: Bureau of Rec., EDA, ICDBG,
                                                   US Army COE,
                 -      Priority: Level II

          Highway 95 Master Plan
                -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                -     Job Impact: TBD
                -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD, local
                -     Priority: Level II

          Regional Coordination to Enhance Economic Development with Adams
          and Payette Counties
                 -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
                 -      Job Impact: TBD
                 -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
                 -      Priority: Level II

          Business Forums for Business Development and Expansion Assistance
                -      Total Estimated Cost: $1,000 - $10,000
                 -     Job Impact: TBD
                 -     Financing/Grant Funding: In-kind, local
                 -     Priority: Level II

          Geothermal Power Generation
                -      Total Estimated Cost: $5-10 million
                -      Job Impact: 5-50
                -      Financing/Grant Funding: DOE, Dept. of Water
                                                 Resources, private
                -      Priority: Level III
City of Cambridge

**ALL PROJECTS HAVE BEEN PUT ON HOLD BECAUSE OF LACK OF**
              MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE CITY

      Downtown Improvements
           -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
           -     Job Impact: TBD
           -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, ITD, local
           -     Priority: Level II

      Bio-Mass Business Development
            -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -      Job Impact: TBD
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: Local, USFS, WCHRC&D
            -      Priority: Level II

      Upper Country Elder Care Facility
            -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
             -     Job Impact: TBD
             -     Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, in-kind, local
             -     Priority: Level II

      Cambridge Fire District-New Facility and Equipment
            -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -      Job Impact: N/A
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
            -      Priority: Level III

      Pharmacy
            -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -       Job Impact: 1-5
            -       Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
            -       Priority: Level III


City of Midvale

      City Sidewalks & Gutters
             -      Total Estimated Cost: $60,000
             -      Job Impact: N/A
             -      Financing/Grant Funding: City
             -      Priority: Level I
      Business Park
            -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -       Job Impact: 40
            -       Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, ICDBG, private
            -       Priority: Level II


      Water Upgrade Project
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $500,000
            -      Job Impact: TBD
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, USDA-RD
            -      Priority: Level III

      Midvale R.V. Park
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $50,000
            -      Job Impact: TBD
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD, City of Midvale, In-Kind
            -      Priority Level: I


City of Weiser

      Washington County Rural Fire District
            -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
            -     Priority: Level I

      Washington County EMS Equipment
            -     Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -     Job Impact: TBD
            -     Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
            -     Priority: Level I

      Brownfield Property Development (Feedlot, Mike’s Cleaners, Physical
      Therapist, Downtown Weiser)
            -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
            -       Job Impact: TBD
            -       Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
            -       Priority: Level I

      Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project – Phase II
            -      Total Estimated Cost: $5.8-$6.3 million
            -      Job Impact: TBD
            -      Financing/Grant Funding: EDA, DEQ, ICDBG, local,
                                             USDA-RD
            -      Priority: Level I
Revitalization of Bass Ponds
       -       Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -       Job Impact: TBD
       -       Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
       -       Priority: Level II

Marketing (Vendome Event Center and Washington County)
      -      Total Estimated Cost: $25,000
      -      Job Impact: TBD
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: USDA-RD
      -      Priority: Level II


Weiser Fire District Equipment
       -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -      Job Impact: N/A
       -      Financing/Grant Funding: TBD
       -      Priority: Level II

Business Development/Expansion along Hwy 95 By-Pass
      -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
      -      Job Impact: TBD
      -      Financing/Grant Funding: Local, private
      -      Priority: Level III

Senior/Assisted Living Housing
       -      Total Estimated Cost: TBD
       -      Job Impact: TBD
       -      Financing/Grant Funding: ICDBG, local, private
       -      Priority: Level III
APPENDIX F: 2009-2010 CEDS NEW APPROACH PREVIEW
    Southwest
         Idaho
Comprehensive
    Economic
  Development
      Strategy
       (CEDS)
    2009-2010
      Preview
     Sage Community Resources
       provides community and
   economic development services
        through partnerships,
    to create healthy communities
in the ten counties of southwest Idaho.
                                                                          Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.......................................... 1         5.0 Labor & Employment .......................... 11
                                                                                                                                                 Transportation......................................... 31
                                                                          Educational Attainment.......................... 11
                                                                                                                                                 Health Care............................................. 33
2.0 Physical & Political Geography .......... 2                           Labor Force ............................................ 12
                                                                                                                                                 Culture and Diversity.............................. 33
      Location ................................................. 2        Employment Indicators .......................... 14
      Political Geography................................ 3               Industry Employment Trends................. 15
                                                                                                                                            7.0 The Regional Economy ........................ 34
                                                                          Annual Income ....................................... 17
3.0 County Profiles ..................................... 5               Commute to Employment Centers ......... 18
                                                                                                                                            8.0 Monitoring & Evaluation..................... 35
      County Economic Profiles ..................... 6
                                                                     6.0 Infrastructure & Land Use.................. 26
4.0 Population Trends &                                                   Adopted City Growth Management
    Characteristics...................................... 8               Tools....................................................... 27
      Population Trends and Projections......... 8                        Land Use ................................................ 29
      Population Density................................. 9               Infrastructure Availability ...................... 29
                                                         List of Tables

Table 2.1: Administrative Districts in Canyon   Table 5.6: Canyon County Employment by         5.0 Labor & Employment
           and Owyhee County                               Industry                                Educational Attainment
Table 3.1: Selected Economic Indicators for     Table 5.7: Owyhee County Employment by             Labor Force
           Canyon County, Idaho                            Industry                                Employment Indicators
Table 3.2: Selected Economic Indicators for     Table 5.8: Annual per Capita Income by             Industry Employment Trends
           Owyhee County, Idaho                            County Compared to State of Idaho       Annual Income
                                                           and U.S.
Table 4.1: Population Changes of Canyon and                                                        Commute to Employment Centers
           Owyhee Counties                      Table 5.9: Owyhee County Community Flows

Table 4.2: Population Forecasts for Canyon      Table 5.10: Canyon County Community Flows,     6.0 Infrastructure & Land Use
           and Owyhee Counties                              2004                                   Adopted City Growth Management
                                                                                                   Tools
Table 4.2: Population Density of Canyon and     Table 6.1: Standard Zoning Regulations
           Owyhee Counties                                                                         Land Use
                                                Table 6.2: Growth Management Regulations           Infrastructure Availability
Table 5.1: Educational Attainment in Canyon
           and Owyhee Counties as of 2006       Table 6.3: Infrastructure Availability in
                                                           Canyon and Owyhee Counties
Table 5.2: Annual Civilian labor Force by
           County                               Table 6.4: Canyon and Owyhee Transportation
                                                           Infrastructures
Table 5.3: Percent Change in Civilian Labor
           Force by County                      Table 6.5: Key Airports in Canyon and
                                                           Owyhee Counties
Table 5.4: Canyon County Labor Force
           Information                          Table 6.6: Health Care Services Available by
                                                           County
Table 5.5: Owyhee County Labor Force
           Information                          Table 6.7: Key Museums and Cultural Centers
                                                           in Southwest Idaho
                                              List of Maps and Charts

Maps                                           Figure 5.4:   Owyhee County Employment       Figure 5.15: Top Five Cities Where
                                                             by Industry                                 Greenleaf Residents, Work
Map 2.1:       Region III Development
                                                                                                         Excluding Greenleaf
District                                       Figure 5.5:   Per Capita Income in
                                                             Southwest Idaho Compared to    Figure 5.16: Top Five Cities Where
Map 2.2: Canyon County Fire, School, and
                                                             State and Nation                            Greenleaf Employees Live,
         Highway Districts
                                                                                                         Excluding Greenleaf
                                               Figure 5.6:   Owyhee County Community
Map 2.3: Owyhee County Fire, School, and
                                                             Flows                          Figure 5.17: Top Five Cities Where Melba
         Highway Districts
                                                                                                         Residents Work, Excluding
                                               Figure 5.7:   Top Five Cities Where Grand
Map 3.1: Canyon County Land Map                                                                          Melba
                                                             View Residents Work,
Map 3.2: Owyhee County Land Map                              Excluding Grand View           Figure 5.18: Top Five Cities Where Melba
                                                                                                         Employees Live, Excluding
Map 4.1: Canyon and Owyhee County City         Figure 5.8:   Top Five Cities Where
                                                                                                         Melba
         Populations                                         Homedale Residents Work,
                                                             Excluding Homedale             Figure 5.19: Top Five Cities Where
Map 4.2: Population
                                                                                                         Middleton Residents Work,
                                               Figure 5.9:   Top Five Cities Where
Map 6.1: Canyon County Infrastructure                                                                    Excluding Middleton
                                                             Homedale Employees Live,
         Availability
                                                             Excluding Homedale             Figure 5.20: Top Five Cities Where
Map 6.2: Owyhee County Infrastructure                                                                    Middleton Employees Live,
                                               Figure 5.10: Top Five Cities Where Marsing
         Availability                                                                                    Excluding Middleton
                                                            Residents Work, Excluding
Map 6.2: Canyon County and Owyhee                           Marsing                         Figure 5.21: Top Five Cities Where Nampa
         County Airports                                                                                 Residents Work, Excluding
                                               Figure 5.11: Top Five Cities Where Marsing
                                                                                                         Nampa
                                                            Employees Live, Excluding
Charts                                                      Marsing                         Figure 5.22: Top Five Cities Where Nampa
Figure 4.1:   Growth Rate Trends for Cities                                                              Employees Live, Excluding
                                               Figure 5.12: Canyon County Community
              in Canyon and Owyhee                                                                       Nampa
                                                            Flows
Figure 5.1:   Age Distribution                                                              Figure 5.23: Top Five Cities Where Notus
                                               Figure 5.13: Top Five Cities Where
                                                                                                         Residents Work
Figure 5.2:   Labor Force Annual Rate of                    Caldwell Residents Work,
              Change                                        Excluding Caldwell              Figure 5.24: Top Five Cities Where Notus
                                                                                                         Employees Live
Figure 5.3:   Canyon County Employment         Figure 5.14: Top Five Cities Where
              by Industry                                   Caldwell Employees Live,
                                                            Excluding Caldwell
Southwest Idaho Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2009-1020 Preview

    The last complete review of the Southwest          Finally, we plan to make the CEDS more
Idaho Comprehensive Economic Development               effective by implementing a monitoring and               1.0
Strategy (CEDS) was in 1993. Since that time           evaluation    mechanism—a       “checks  and
there have been significant changes, both to the       balances” system that will help us determine    Introduction
structure of the Region III Economic                   whether we are on track towards meeting our
Development District (EDD) and to the regional         goals and objectives each year.
economy. From its formation as an EDD in
1971 until the year 2000, IDA-ORE served a 12-             This supplemental chapter is a preview of
county region—ten counties in southwest Idaho          the 2009-2010 Southwest Idaho Comprehensive
and two counties in southwest Oregon. In               Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). It
November 2000, the 2 Oregon counties                   features the approach we’ll be taking to the
withdrew from their Idaho affiliation to join an       rewrite by focusing on two counties, Canyon
Oregon-based EDD. Since 2000, IDA-ORE has              and Owyhee.
served the 10 counties of southwest Idaho
exclusively.

     Significant changes in demographics and the
regional economy have also taken place in the
last 15 years. Idaho now has the fourth fastest
growing population in the US and as a result, the
physical development of land is occurring at an
increasingly high rate as agricultural land is
converted to residential use. The economy is in
transition as well: from being natural resource
dependent to being natural resource related. It is
more important now than ever to understand the
relationships between planning decisions and
economic development objectives.

    To acknowledge the changes taking place in
Region III a comprehensive rewrite of the
Southwest Idaho CEDS is overdue and we plan
to undertake this effort next year in great detail.
We plan to make the CEDS more useful by
incorporating more data, and by incorporating
data in a more visual format using tables,
graphs, charts and maps. We also plan to make
the CEDS more comprehensive by incorporating
data on land use patterns and land use planning.
                                                                                                                       1
                                                                                                               June 2008
                                                                                                 Physical & Political Geography


                       Location                                            miles. Canyon and Owyhee counties’ combined
2.0                        The Region III Development District of
                                                                           square mileage constitutes 37.9% of the region’s
                                                                           total land area and 9.9% of the total land area of
Physical & Political   Idaho consists of ten counties in the
                       Southwestern corner of the state. The counties
                                                                           the state. Canyon County’s 2006 population
                                                                           was estimated at 173,302 and Owyhee County’s
Geography              that constitute Region III are Ada, Adams,
                       Boise, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, Payette,
                                                                           was estimated at 11,104.         Together, they
                                                                           constitute for 28.8% of the region’s total
                       Valley, and Washington.          A total of 35
                                                                           estimated 2006 population and 12.3% of the
                       incorporated cities are located in the ten county
                                                                           state’s.
                       region. Map 2.1 shows the cities and counties of
                       the Region III Development District.
                           The region is bordered by the state of
                       Oregon to the west, the Region II Development
                       District to the north, both Region IV and Region
                       VI to the east, and by the state of Nevada to the
                       south. At a total of 21,923 square miles, the
                       Region III Economic Development District
                       makes up 26.2% of the state’s total land area and
                       42.7% of Idaho’s 2006 population.
                           Canyon County and Owyhee County are the
                       focus of the CEDS update preview. Canyon
                       County has a total area of 604 square miles;
                       Owyhee County has a total area of 7,697 square




                                                                                                  Map 2.1


2
Physical & Political Geography


Political Geography
     Administrative boundaries are listed in
Table 2.1 for Canyon and Owyhee Counties.
All ten counties of Region III are included in the
third judicial district of the Idaho Supreme Court
and the first Congressional District of Idaho.
Owyhee County makes up the entire twenty
third Legislative District of Idaho, while Canyon
County includes Judicial Districts 10, 11, 12,
and 13. Map 2.2 presents Canyon County fire
districts, school districts, and highway districts.
Map 2.3 shows the same information for
Owyhee County.

 Table 2.1 Administrative Districts of Canyon and Owyhee Counties
                          Judicial     Legislative    Congressional
   City/County                                                                        Fire Districts                 School District
                          District      District         District
                                           10
                                                                      Star Fire District,
                                           11
            Canyon               3                         1          Kuna Rural Fire District,
                                           12
                                                                      Upper Deer Flat Fire Department
                                           13
          Caldwell               3          10             1          Caldwell Rural Fire District           Caldwell District
         Greenleaf               3          10             1          Caldwell Rural Fire District           Vallivue District
             Melba               3          13             1          Melba Fire District                    Melba Joint District
         Middleton               3          11             1          Middleton Rural Fire District          Middleton District
            Nampa                3          13             1          Nampa Fire District                    Nampa District, Vallivue District
             Notus               3          11             1          Caldwell Rural Fire District           Notus District
             Parma               3          11             1          Parma Fire District                    Parma District
             Wilder              3          11             1          Wilder Fire District                   Wilder District
                                                                      Bruneau Fire District,
           Owyhee                3          23             1
                                                                      Murphy-Reynolds-Wilson Fire District
                                                                                                             Bruneau-Grand View Joint
       Grand View                3          23             1          Grand View Fire District
                                                                                                             District
        Homedale                 3          23             1          Homedale Fire District                 Homedale Joint District
           Marsing               3          23             1          Marsing Fire Department                Marsing Joint District


                                                                                                                                             3
                        Physical & Political Geography




    Map 2.2   Map 2.3




4
County Profiles

   County      profiles   include   select
demographic indicators accompanied by                   3.0
county base maps. They offer a snapshot of
each county in the Region
                                             County Profiles




                                                           5
                                                                                                                   County Profiles


County Economic Profiles
Canyon County

    Canyon County has 590 square miles of
land area and a population density of 222.8    Table 3.1 Selected Economic Indicators for Canyon County, Idaho
people per square mile (2006). Since 1980,
the county’s population has grown by 51.7%.                                     Rank                                       Rank
                                                                               in the                                      in the
                                                                     Value     Region                            Value    Region

                                                  Population                                     Per Capita
                                                    (2005)         164,593        2            Income(2005)     $20,397     10
                                                                                                  Median
                                                  Growth %                                       Household
                                                  Since 1990        45.27%        2            Income (1999)    $35,884      4

                                                 Households                                    Poverty Rate
                                                   (2000)           47,965        2               (2000)        12.0%        7

                                                 Labor Force                                    H.S. Diploma
                                                   (2007)           86,328        2            or More (2000)   76.0%        8
                                                                                                Bachelor's
                                               Unemployment                                    Deg. Or More
                                                Rate (2007)          3.6%         6               (2000)        14.9%        5

                                              Sources:
                                              http://commerce.idaho.gov “community profiles”
                                              http://labor.idaho.gov “labor market profiles”
                                              http://factfinder.census.gov “fact sheets




Map 3.1

6
County Profiles


County Economic Profiles
Owyhee County

    Owyhee County has 7679.0 square miles
of land area and a population density of 1.4   Table 3.2 Selected Economic Indicators for Owyhee County, Idaho
people per square mile (2006). Since 1980,
the county’s population has grown by 25.5%                                     Rank                                         Rank
                                                                              in the                                        in the
                                                                   Value      Region                              Value    Region

                                                 Population                                       Per Capita
                                                   (2005)          11,073        6              Income(2005)     $22,089     9
                                                                                                   Median
                                                 Growth %                                         Household
                                                 Since 1990       24.21%         8              Income (1999)    $28,339     9

                                                Households                                      Poverty Rate
                                                  (2000)            4,452        7                 (2000)        16.9%       1

                                                Labor Force                                      H.S. Diploma
                                                  (2007)            5,108        7              or More (2000)   67.6%       10
                                                                                                 Bachelor's
                                               Unemployment                                     Deg. Or More
                                                Rate (2007)         1.5%         8                 (2000)        10.2%       9

                                               Sources:
                                               http://commerce.idaho.gov “community profiles”
                                               http://labor.idaho.gov “labor market profiles”
                                               http://factfinder.census.gov “fact sheets”




Map 3.2

                                                                                                                                  7
                                                                                                                                      Population Trends & Characteristics


                                                         Population Trends and                                          Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 present population
4.0                                                                                                                 trends since 1980. In recent years, Wilder,
                                                         Projections                                                Grand View, and Marsing have all seen very
Population Trends                                             According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the              slight declines in their city populations. There is
                                                         total population of Canyon County in 2000 was              no evidence to suggest that this decline in
& Characteristics                                        131,441. This reflects nearly a 31.5% increase             population will be a continuing trend, though.
                                                         from the population in 1990. Owyhee County                 Experts at COMPASS Idaho have forecasted
                                                         experienced a 21% increase from its1990                    over 2% growth in the city of Wilder by 2010,
                                                         population to a 2000 population of 10,644. For             and while there is no certified information about
                                                         the most part, the counties and their respective           Owyhee County cities yet, past economic trends
                                                         cities have been experiencing steady growth                and current subdivision approvals suggest that
                                                         since 1980. The cities of Wilder, Grand View               the pattern will be continual growth across the
                                                         and Marsing have experienced a slight decline in           sub region.
                                                         population in recent years.       According to
                                                         population projections prepared by COMPASS
                                                         Idaho, the trend will be reversed and we should
                                                         continue to see population growth within these
                                                         cities.

Table 4.1 Population Changes of Canyon and Owyhee Counties
                   Population                                               Population Change                              Percent Change

                                                                              2005-      2000-       1990-      1980-        2005-      2000-       1990-     1980-
                     2006        2005       2000        1990       1980
                                                                              2006       2006        2006       2006         2006       2006        2006      2006
         Canyon     173,302     164,593    131,441     90,076     83,756      8,709      41,861     83,226      89,546       5.0%       24.2%      48.0%        51.7%
        Caldwell    37,056      32,814     25,967      18,400     17,699      4,242      11,089     18,656      19,357       11.4%      29.9%      50.3%        52.2%
      Greenleaf       895         878        862         648        N/A         17          33        247         N/A        1.9%       3.7%       27.6%      N/A
          Melba       555         547        493         252        276          8          62        303         279        1.4%       11.2%      54.6%        50.3%
      Middleton      4,793       4,067      2,978       1,851      1,901       726        1,815      2,942       2,892       15.1%      37.9%      61.4%        60.3%
         Nampa      76,587      68,094     51,867      28,365     25,112      8,493      24,720     48,222      51,475       11.1%      32.3%      63.0%        67.2%
          Notus       549         511        458         380        N/A         38          91        169         N/A        6.9%       16.6%      30.8%      N/A
          Parma      1,834       1,797      1,771       1,597      1,820        37          63        237          14        2.0%       3.4%       12.9%          0.8%
          Wilder     1,453       1,457      1,462       1,232      1,260        (4)        (9)        221         193        -0.3%      -0.6%      15.2%        13.3%
        Owyhee      11,104      11,073     10,644       8,392      8,272        31         460       2,712       2,832       0.3%       4.1%       24.4%        25.5%
     Grand View       475         478        470         330        N/A         (3)         5         145         N/A        -0.6%      1.1%       30.5%      N/A
      Homedale       2,579       2,553      2,528       1,963      2,078        26          51        616         501        1.0%       2.0%       23.9%        19.4%
        Marsing       964         983        890         798        786        (19)         74        166         178        -2.0%      7.7%       17.2%         18.5%

Sources:
factfinder.census.gov, “population finder;” commerce.idaho.gov, “community profiles” & Press Release 21 June 2006

8
Population Trends & Characteristics

     Table 4.2 presents Canyon County                Table 4.2 Population Forecasts for Canyon and Owyhee Counties
population projections through the year 2015.                                      Population Projections                                  Rate of Change
The city of Melba is forecasted to grow 62%                                                                                                2003- 2007- 2010-
between 2007 and 2010. Another traditionally                                         2002      2003       2007        2010        2015
                                                                                                                                            2007    2010  2015
small town, Greenleaf, comes in second with
                                                          Canyon                   144,417 152,174 184,251 189,509 220,503 17.4%                      2.8%     14.1%
29% projected population growth over the same            Caldwell                  28,587 30,716 40,873 43,297 55,673 24.9%                           5.6%     22.2%
time period. Since 1990, both towns have far           Greenleaf                     878     878     912    1,287   1,928   3.7%                     29.1%     33.2%
exceeded their neighboring cities in percent of            Melba                     500     511     571    1,513   2,002 10.5%                      62.3%     24.4%
population growth. Although Parma is expected          Middleton                    3,235   3,606   5,151   6,171   7,830 30.0%                      16.5%     21.2%
to see a decline in their population over the next        Nampa                    58,952 63,227 81,354 91,382 107,483 22.3%                         11.0%     15.0%
two to three years, COMPASS Idaho has                      Notus                     482     500     588     698    1,573 15.0%                      15.8%     55.6%
attributed this projected decline in a recent              Parma                    1,792   1,808   1,996   1,679   3,534   9.4%                     -18.9%    52.5%
change in the traffic analysis zones used for              Wilder                   1,481   1,484   1,682   1,718   2,642 11.8%                       2.1%     35.0%
population projections                                   Owyhee                    10,940 11,100 11,370 11,800 12,550 2.4%                            3.6%      6.0%
                                                      Grand View
     Map 4.1 presents a graduated scale of city
                                                       Homedale
populations in Canyon and Owyhee Counties as             Marsing
of 2006.
                                                     Sources:
                                                     http://www.compassidaho.org/documents/prodserv/demo/citypops1990_2007.pdf
                                                     http://www.compassidaho.org/documents/prodserv/demo/updatedtrendweb.xls
                                                     http://www.compassidaho.org/documents/prodserv/demo/updatedcommchoiweb.xls



                                                      Figure 4.1 Growth Rate Trends for Cities in Canyon and Owyhee

                                                                                                                                                          Caldw ell
                                                                             Growth Rate Trends for Cities in Canyon and Owyhee
                                                                        80.0%                                                                             Greenleaf


                                                                        70.0%                                                                             Melba

                                                                                                                                                          Middleton
                                                                        60.0%
                                                                                                                                                          Nampa
                                                       Percent Change




                                                                        50.0%
                                                                                                                                                          Notus
                                                                        40.0%
                                                                                                                                                          Parma
                                                                        30.0%
                                                                                                                                                          Wilder
                                                                        20.0%
                                                                                                                                                          Grand View
                                                                        10.0%
                                                                                                                                                          Homedale
                                                                         0.0%
                                                                                                                                                          Marsing
                                                                                   2005-2006       2000-2006          1990-2006          1980-2006
                                                                        -10.0%

                                                                                                               Year


        Map 4.1 Population
                                                                                                                                                                       9
                                                                                                                         Population Trends & Characteristics


Population Density                                     growth rates they are faced with finding a        growth and there is a high demand for new
                                                       balance between preserving rural character and    development.    Table 4.3 shows population
     Population density is an important factor in
                                                       providing low-cost services and amenities to      density by both total area and total land area
considering development opportunities and
                                                       residents.                                        based on the 2000 Census.
growth options. While low density development
                                                           Owyhee County has a total area of 7,679
may be seen as a way to maintain rural
                                                       square miles and a population density of 4
character, it can also lead to urban sprawl. Low
                                                       people per square mile. Much of this land is
density development is characterized by large
                                                       currently being utilized for agricultural
distances between citizens and city services
                                                       purposes, which is the basis for economic
which can lead to inefficient infrastructure
                                                       stability in the county.       Canyon County,
needs, costly transportation and commuting
                                                       although densely populated compared to
patterns, decentralized economic growth and an
                                                       Owyhee County, is still sparsely populated when
increase in the cost of key services including
                                                       compared to its neighbor, Ada County. Canyon
fire, police and emergency medical. As the
                                                       County has been experiencing high population
cities in Region III respond to increasingly high

Table 4.3 Population Density of Canyon and Owyhee Counties
                                               Total Land        Population         Population
                   Total        Total Area
                                                  Area         Density of Total     Density for
                 Population      (square
                                                (square          Land Area          Total Area
                   2000           miles)
                                                 miles)         (per sq. mi.)      (per sq. mi.)

     Canyon       131,441          604.0             590            222.8              217.6
    Caldwell      25,967           11.4              11.3           2298.0            2277.8
  Greenleaf         862             0.7               0.7           1231.4            1231.4
      Melba         493             0.3               0.3           1643.3            1643.3
  Middleton        2,978            1.8               1.8           1654.4            1654.4
     Nampa        51,867           19.9              19.9           2606.4            2606.4
      Notus         458             0.4               0.4           1145.0            1145.0
      Parma        1,771            0.9               0.9           1967.8            1967.8
      Wilder       1,462            0.4               0.4           3655.0            3655.0
    Owyhee        10,644          7697.0            7679.0           1.4                1.4
 Grand View         470             0.6               0.5           940.0              783.3
  Homedale         2,528            0.9               0.9           2808.9            2808.9
    Marsing         890             0.7               0.7           1271.4            1271.4

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org, search: city
factfinder.census.gov "population finder"                                                                 Map 4.2 Population Density


10
Labor & Employment


Educational Attainment                             In Owyhee County there is an even higher
    Skilled workers can usually be categorized
                                                   percentage of the population under the age of 20.          5.0
                                                   This means that the labor force in Owyhee
by their level of educational attainment. Of the
ten counties within the development district,
                                                   County will soon be growing at a faster rate than     Labor &
                                                   it currently is. Many of these residents will be
Owyhee County ranked 9th place in percent of
population holding bachelor’s degrees or higher.
                                                   seeking employment in the agricultural,             Employment
                                                   construction and manufacturing industries,
Canyon County ranked 5th. Educational levels
                                                   which combined make up almost half of the
are spread diversely within the region; counting
                                                   employment in Owyhee County.
the population 25 years old and older, many do
not hold a high school diploma or equivalent,
while many hold a Ph.D. or higher. Education
has continually been linked to income levels and
poverty levels, so diversification within the        Table 5.1 Educational Attainment in
education of the population also explains            Canyon and Owyhee Counties
diversification of income levels within the          as of 2006
population. The educational levels in Canyon                          High School
                                                                                       Bachelor's
and Owyhee Counties are presented in Table                            Graduate or
                                                                                        Degree
5.1, counting only members of the population                           Equivalent
who are age 25 or older.                                  Canyon         76.6%            14.9%
Overall, Canyon County has a higher rate of              Caldwell        68.8%            11.7%
                                                       Greenleaf         77.0%            17.6%
high school graduation than Owyhee County,
                                                           Melba         81.5%            13.2%
although Canyon County cities have more                Middleton         78.7%            10.6%
volatility. Likewise, Canyon County’s rate of             Nampa          77.0%            16.0%
Bachelor’s Degree attainment is significantly              Notus         66.5%            6.3%
higher than Owyhee’s, but there is still a wide            Parma         61.1%            9.5%
spread between communities.                                Wilder        35.1%            3.4%
    In the County’s Comprehensive Plan,                  Owyhee          67.6%            10.2%
Canyon County addresses the very real concern         Grand View         70.1%            11.8%
that many elementary, middle and high schools          Homedale          57.6%            5.4%
in the area are reaching capacity or are above           Marsing         65.7%            10.4%
capacity. This is due to the unusually high          Source:
                                                     www.factfinder.census.gov "fact sheets"
percentage of the population being school-aged
compared to the rest of the state of Idaho. This
also means that soon, these children will enter
the labor force in their communities. Many of
them will be seeking employment in the near
future, which provides ample opportunity for
business development in Canyon County.


                                                                                                                11
                                                                                                                                          Labor & Employment


Labor Force                                          the month. The labor force essentially defines        force is increasing while the population remains
                                                     people who are willing to work for employment,        unchanged or increases at a slower rate of
     Civilian labor force is defined as the
                                                     whether they are currently employed or                growth than the labor force. The annual labor
members of the population employed or
                                                     unemployed. Growth in the labor force may be          force since 1996 is presented in Table 5.2. The
unemployed; labor force excludes persons
                                                     related to growth in the population, but it may be    percent change per year in the civilian labor
younger than 16 or older than 65,
                                                     related to external forces. An increase in the        force is presented in Table 5.3 and in Figure 5.1,
institutionalized persons (including military),
                                                     labor force means an increase in potential            as shown on the following page.
and persons not actively seeking employment
                                                     employees for new businesses. Businesses may
during any part of the week of the 12th day of
                                                     see an opportunity for investment if the labor
the

 Table 5.2 Annual Civilian Labor Force By County
                    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004                        2005       2006
            Ada    150,023 155,647 162,809 166,544 170,639 175,774 175,436 176,872 178,515                     186,449    194,994
         Adams      1,821   1,667   1,663   1,609   1,909   1,950   1,866   1,854   1,856                       1,872      2,090
          Boise     2,461   2,475   2,548   2,468   3,431   3,468  12,893   3,525   3,560                       3,670      3,819
        Canyon     56,840 59,549 62,126 63,637 66,038 69,072 70,635 73,150 75,078                              78,496     81,888
         Elmore     8,724   8,936   9,212   9,236  10,594 10,960 10,935 10,646 10,710                          10,739     10,842
           Gem      6,210   6,290   6,400   6,260   7,040   7,222   7,089   7,032   7,024                       7,211      7,519
        Owyhee      4,706   4,475   4,523   4,405   4,794   4,878   4,740   4,690   4,628                       4,703      4,936
        Payette     9,902  10,085 10,202 10,182 10,012      9,918  10,041 10,395 10,286                        10,221     10,371
          Valley    4,185   4,209   4,155   4,044   4,116   4,033   4,001   4,010   4,217                       4,602      5,009
     Washington     4,515   4,580   4,658   4,626   5,168   5,076   5,105   4,711   5,016                       4,986      5,060
 Source:
 http://labor.idhao.gov "Work force Trends"
                                                     for

                                                  Table 5.3 Percent Change in Civilian Labor Force by County
                                                                   1996-       1997-      1998-    1999-    2000-     2001-     2003-      2004-     2005-
                                                                   1997        1998       1999     2000     2001      2002      2004       2005      2006
                                                         Ada      3.61%       4.40%      2.24%    2.40%    2.92%     -0.19%    0.92%      4.26%     4.38%
                                                      Adams       -9.24%      -0.24%     -3.36%   15.72%   2.10%     -4.50%    0.11%      0.85%     10.43%
                                                       Boise      0.57%       2.86%      -3.24%   28.07%   1.07%     -0.49%    0.98%      3.00%     3.90%
                                                     Canyon       4.55%       4.15%      2.37%    3.64%    4.39%     2.21%     2.57%      4.35%     4.14%
                                                      Elmore      2.37%       3.00%      0.26%    12.82%   3.34%     -0.23%    0.60%      0.27%     0.95%
                                                        Gem       1.27%       1.72%      -2.24%   11.08%   2.52%     -1.88%    -0.11%     2.59%     4.10%
                                                     Owyhee       -5.16%      1.06%      -2.68%   8.11%    1.72%     -2.91%    -1.34%     1.59%     4.72%
                                                     Payette      1.81%       1.15%      -0.20%   -1.70%   -0.95%    1.22%     -1.06%     -0.64%    1.45%
                                                       Valley     0.57%       -1.30%     -2.74%   1.75%    -2.06%    -0.80%    4.91%      8.37%     8.13%
                                                  Washington      1.42%       1.67%      -0.69%   10.49%   -1.81%    0.57%     6.08%      -0.60%    1.46%
                                                  Source:
                                                  http://labor.idaho.gov "Work force Trends"
12
Labor & Employment


 Figure 5.1 Age Distribution                           high     unemployment       rates                                                   Comprehensive Plan is to preserve the
                                                       preceding the labor force                                                           agricultural base of the county. Agriculture,
                                                          For the past decade, the                                                         forestry, and hunting together make up the
                                                     Canyon County labor force has                                                         largest sector of employment for Owyhee
                                                     continued to increase. Although                                                       County. The uncertainty within the agricultural
                                                     at times the increase has been at a                                                   market coupled with higher industry seasonal
                                                     decreasing rate, the change in                                                        and cyclical unemployment may lead to labor
                                                     labor force has been positive.                                                        force opportunities for other seasonal businesses
                                                     Owyhee County’s labor force has                                                       that operate in the winter months
                                                     been much more volatile in the
                                                     last decade, at times increasing
                                                     and at times decreasing. These
                                                     dramatic and frequent changes in
                                                     the labor force could be a function
                                                     of industry employment trends.
                                                          As a largely agricultural
                                                     economy, one of Owyhee
                                                     County’s goals in the 2002
                                                     dddddd
Figure 5.2                                            Figure 5.2 Labor Force Annual Rate of Change
                                                                                                                     Labor Force Annual Rate of Change
     In 2000, the Idaho Department of Labor
changed the methodology in their calculations of                 30.00%

the labor force. The new method calculated the                                                                                                                                                                 Ada

labor force by city of residence, not city of                    25.00%
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Adams
employment. Although this method is slightly
                                                                 20.00%
more accurate, it caused an initial peak in the                                                                                                                                                                Boise

labor forces of all ten counties.                                15.00%
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Canyon
     Several counties experienced decreasing
labor forces in 1999 and again in 2002. This                     10.00%
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Elmore
                                                       Percent




could have been caused by several factors,
including population declines, individuals who                    5.00%                                                                                                                                        Gem

left the labor force voluntarily (going back to
                                                                  0.00%                                                                                                                                        Owyhee
school), or by individuals leaving the labor force
because of an economic phenomena called                           -5.00%                                                                                                                                       Payette
                                                                                 7




                                                                                                8




                                                                                                               9




                                                                                                                              0




                                                                                                                                             1




                                                                                                                                                              2




                                                                                                                                                                             4




                                                                                                                                                                                            5




                                                                                                                                                                                                           6
discouraged workers. Discouraged workers are
                                                                              99




                                                                                             99




                                                                                                            99




                                                                                                                           00




                                                                                                                                          00




                                                                                                                                                           00




                                                                                                                                                                          00




                                                                                                                                                                                         00




                                                                                                                                                                                                        00
                                                                           -1




                                                                                          -1




                                                                                                         -1




                                                                                                                        -2




                                                                                                                                       -2




                                                                                                                                                        -2




                                                                                                                                                                       -2




                                                                                                                                                                                      -2




                                                                                                                                                                                                     -2
                                                                         96




                                                                                        97




                                                                                                       98




                                                                                                                      99




                                                                                                                                     00




                                                                                                                                                      01




                                                                                                                                                                     03




                                                                                                                                                                                    04




                                                                                                                                                                                                   05
                                                                      19




                                                                                     19




                                                                                                    19




                                                                                                                   19




                                                                                                                                  20




                                                                                                                                                   20




                                                                                                                                                                  20




                                                                                                                                                                                 20




                                                                                                                                                                                                20
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Valley
employees who have been unsuccessful in the                      -10.00%

labor market for so long that they decide to stop                                                                                                                                                              Washington
looking for employment. With substantially                       -15.00%
                                                                                                                                            Year
high
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            13
                                                                                                                                                     Labor & Employment


Employment Indicators                                          Since 1996, Owyhee County has                           region which saw an increase in the civilian
                                                           experienced lower rates of unemployment that                labor force. In order for this to have caused an
    For Canyon and Owyhee Counties, more
                                                           Canyon County. Generally, both counties have                increase in the unemployment rate, the number
detailed information regarding employment
                                                           stayed at a rate of unemployment below that of              of people unemployed had to exceed the number
trends is presented in Tables 5.4 and 5.5.
                                                           the natural rate of 5%.                                     of people who joined the labor force.
Canyon and Owyhee Counties experienced
                                                                Because the rate of unemployment is                        Owyhee County has typically stayed well
changes in unemployment rates at different time
                                                           calculated as µ=(total number unemployed/total              below the natural rate of unemployment. In
periods. From 1996 to 2000, Canyon County
                                                           in the labor force), anything that changes either           1999,     the    county     experienced    rising
experienced decreasing unemployment while
                                                           the number of people unemployed or the number               unemployment rates which almost doubled that
Owyhee County experienced increasing
                                                           of people in the labor force will change the                of 1998. The relatively high unemployment
unemployment for the same period. The most
                                                           unemployment rate. In 2002 Canyon County                    rates, which lasted until 2002 do not follow the
recent 2006 data shows that Canyon County
                                                           saw the greatest increase in unemployment over              trend of their labor force. This indicates that
experienced a 3.6% unemployment rate, while
                                                           the ten-year spread. During the same year, the              external forces caused workers to lose their jobs
Owyhee County experienced a rate of 2.2%.
                                                           county was one of the only counties in the                  during these years.

 Table 5.4 Canyon County Labor Force Information

         Canyon County 1996           1997       1998     1999     2000     2001     2002    2003     2004     2005       2006

     Civilian Labor Force   56,840   59,549     62,126   63,637   66,038   69,072   70,635   73,150   75,078   78,496 81,888
          Total Employed    53,768   56,440     59,002   60,750   63,131   65,368   66,368   68,715   71,024   75,040 78,944
       Total Unemployed     3,072    3,109      3,124    2,887    2,907    3,453    4,267    4,436    4,054    3,457 2,943
     Unemployment Rate       5.4%     5.2%       5.0%     4.5%     4.4%     5.0%     6.0%     6.1%     5.4%     4.4% 3.6%
Source:
http://labor.idaho.gov "Work force Trends"
                                                           regfffion which saw an increase in the civilian
                                                           labor force. In order for this to have caused an

                                             Table 5.5 Owyhee County Labor Force Information
                                                   Owyhee County           1996      1997    1998     1999     2000      2001    2002     2003    2004    2005    2006

                                              Civilian Labor Force         4,706    4,475    4,523    4,405    4,794     4,878   4,740   4,690   4,628    4,703   4,936
                                                   Total Employed          4,560    4,357    4,397    4,223    4,610     4,682   4,531   4,564   4,505    4,588   4,827
                                                Total Unemployed            146      118      126      182      185       196     209     126     122      115     109
                                              Unemployment Rate            3.1%     2.6%     2.8%     4.1%     3.9%      4.0%    4.4%    2.7%    2.6%     2.4%    2.2%
                                             Source:
                                             http://labor.idaho.gov "Work force Trends"
                                                           region which saw an increase in the civilian

14
Labor & Employment


Industry Employment Trends                                                                         Table 5.6 Canyon County Employment by Industry
     Data shows that in 2006 Canyon County’s                                                                                                                                       % Distrib. Avg. Hourly          Avg. Annual
                                                                                                                                                                    Jobs
primary industry was manufacturing. 17% of all                                                                                                                                     In County Wage per Job         Salary per Job
jobs held in the county were manufacturing,                                                        Total Covered Employment and Wages                              55,033            100.0%   $        14.10       $     29,328
second being public administration. Only 5% of                                                               Agriculture, forestry, hunting                        2,750              5.0%    $        12.15       $     25,272
all jobs in the county were agriculturally related.                                                                                   Mining                          68               0.1%   $        21.62       $     44,970
In Owyhee County, one third of all jobs were in                                                                               Construction                         6,595             12.0%    $        13.99       $     29,099
the agricultural sector of employment. The                                                                                  Manufacturing                          9,370             17.0%    $        16.61       $     34,549
second largest sector was local educational                                                                                Wholesale trade                         2,070              3.8%    $        19.72       $     41,018
services, holding 13% of all jobs in the county.                                                                               Retail Trade                        6,828             12.4%    $        12.63       $     26,270
The Canyon County spread of employment by                                                                    Transportation, warehousing                           1,892              3.4%    $        14.89       $     30,971
sector is presented in Table 5.6 and charted in                                                                                     Utilities                         51              0.1%    $        17.32       $     36,026
Figure 5.3. The Owyhee spread is shown in                                                                                      Information                           594              1.1%    $        16.81       $     34,965
Table 5.7 and Figure 5.4.                                                                                          Finance and insurance                           1,180              2.1%    $        19.69       $     40,955
     According to the 2010 Canyon County                                                                        Real Estate, rental, leasing                         733              1.3%    $        11.54       $     24,003
Comprehensive Plan, the trend in employment                                                               Professional, technical services                         1,431              2.6%    $        16.56       $     34,445
by industry has not changed much since 1980.                                                             Mgmt. of companies, enterprises                             372              0.7%    $        20.81       $     43,285
Combining all service sectors of employment,                                                               Administrative, waste services                          2,516              4.6%    $        11.08       $     23,046
the service industry has traditionally made up                                                                       Educational services                            710              1.3%    $        13.76       $     28,621
more than 25% of the total employment in the                                                                Health care, social assistance                         5,533             10.1%    $        14.29       $     29,723
county. Both retail and wholesale trade have                                                               Arts, entertainment, recreation                           313              0.6%    $         4.56       $      9,485
experienced steady (yet slow) declines in their                                                        Accommodation and food services                             3,243              5.9%    $         5.25       $     10,920
percentage of employment in the county.                                                                  Other services, exc. Public admin                         1,285              2.3%    $        11.18       $     23,254
Forestry services has not made up more than 5%                                                                       Public administration                          7,499             13.6%   $        17.87       $     37,170
of employment in the county since before 1980,                                                     Source:
and the industry trend has not since experienced                                                   John Panter, Regional Economist
much change. These subtle changes in industry
trends are sure to bring about competition for                                                     Figure 5.3 Canyon County
                                                                                                                                                                                                  5%   0%
incoming firms in the growing sectors of the                                                       Employment by Industry                                               14%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   12%
                                                                                                                                                          2%
economy as well as provide eager labor from the                                                                                            6%
decline of other industries.                                                                                                              1%




                                                                                                                                                                                                                              17%
                                                                                                                                               10%
 Agriculture, forestry, hunting    Mining                           Construction                        Manufacturing
 Wholesale trade                   Retail Trade                     Transportation, warehousing         Utilities                                    1%
                                                                                                                                                           5%                                                            4%
 Information                       Finance and insurance            Real Estate, rental, leasing        Professional, technical servies                         1% 3%
                                                                                                                                                                        1% 2%                               12%
 Mgmt. of companies, enterprises   Administrative, waste services   Educational services                Health care, social assistance                                                 3%
                                                                                                                                                                              1%
 Arts, entertainment, recreation   Accomodation and food services   Other services, exc. Public admin   Public administration
                                                                                                                                                                                0%


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  15
                                                                                                                                                                                Labor & Employment

    In Caldwell, Melba, and Middleton, the
largest employers by number of employees are                  Table 5.7 Owyhee County Employment by Industry
their respective school districts. Both Parma’s                                                                                                  % Distrib. Avg. Hourly           Avg. Annual
                                                                                                                                         Jobs
and Wilder’s largest employers are food                                                                                                          In County Wage per Job          Salary per Job
processing plants. The S.S.I. Meat Processing                    Total Covered Employment and Wages                                      2,972     100.0%   $     12.15            $ 25,272
Plants in Wilder employs 400 of the 1,453                                  Agriculture, forestry, hunting                                 991      33.3%    $     10.80            $ 22,464
people living in the city. Because S.S.I. Meat                                        Mining and Utilities                                 25       0.8%    $     28.15            $ 58,552
Processing Plant is outside of the city limits, it                                          Construction                                  188       6.3%    $     15.38            $ 31,990
                                                                                          Manufacturing                                   174       5.9%    $     14.51            $ 30,181
will not be counted in the commute chart (Figure
                                                                                        Wholesale Trade                                    59       2.0%    $     18.61            $ 38,709
3.22) toward the end of this chapter. As                                                     Retail Trade                                 236       7.9%    $      9.24            $ 19,219
discussed in the previous section, the people                              Transportation, warehousing                                     25       0.8%    $     14.12            $ 29,370
employed at this plant are included in the Wilder                                            Information                                   25       0.8%    $     14.64            $ 30,451
civilian labor force if they are residents of                                     Finance and insurance                                    24       0.8%    $     12.78            $ 26,582
Wilder.                                                                       Real Estate, rental, leasing                                15        0.5%    $      5.14            $ 10,691
                                                                        Professional, technical services                                  114       3.8%    $     13.22            $ 27,498
                                                                       Mgmt. of companies, enterprises                                     20       0.7%    $     24.95            $ 51,896
                                                                         Administrative, waste services                                   102       3.4%    $     27.02            $ 56,202
                                                                             Local Educational services                                   409      13.8%    $     11.82            $ 24,586
                                                                          Health care, social assistance                                  117       3.9%    $     11.17            $ 23,234
                                                                         Arts, entertainment, recreation,
                                                                                                                                          165      5.6%        $         3.93      $     8,174
                                                                     accommodation and food services
                                                                       Other services, exc. Public admin
                                                                                   Public administration                                  283      9.5%        $        15.75      $    32,760
                                                              Source:
                                                              John Panter, Regional Economist

 Figure 5.4 Owyhee County Employment by Industry                                                                6%
                                                                                                                         0%
                                                                                                                                   10%


                                                                                                       4%                                                                 33%




                                                                                               14%


                                                                                                          3%                                                             1%
                                                                                                               1%                                                  6%
     Agriculture, forestry, hunting          Mining and Utilities                                                   4%
                                                                                                                                         8%       2%      6%
     Construction                            Manufacturing                                                           1%
     Wholesale Trade                         Retail Trade                                                            1%
     Transportation, warehousing             Information
                                                                                                                          1%
     Finance and insurance                   Real Estate, rental, leasing
     Professional, technical servies         Mgmt. of companies, enterprises
                                                                                                                              1%
     Administrative, waste services          Local Educational services
     Health care, social assistance          Arts, entertainment, recreation, accomodation and food services
     Other services, exc. Public admin       Public administration



16
Labor & Employment


Annual Income                                           In 2002 Canyon County experienced a decline in                               When this occurs with a relatively small increase
                                                        average wages. During this same year, they                                   in the number of people unemployed, the
    Income can often be linked to the
                                                        experienced a large increase in the                                          unemployment rate will rise.
educational attainment of the individual. It can
                                                        unemployment rate and a relatively small                                         Owyhee County experienced the same
also be linked to many other external factors,
                                                        increase in the labor force. At a lower level of                             occurrence in wage rate and unemployment rate.
such as the economic condition of the state and
                                                        wages, people leave the labor force because the                              The same year that the county first saw a decline
nation, or the firm’s ability to hire more and pay
                                                        wage rate is potentially below their reservation                             in average wage (1999) they experienced a
a higher wage rate.          The annual income
                                                        wage rate. A gap occurs between the amount of                                significant increase in the unemployment rate.
breakdown is presented below in Table 5.8 and
                                                        labor one is willing to hire and the amount of                               This could be caused by the reservation wage
in Figure 5.5.
                                                        labor one is willing to supply at that wage.                                 required by the workers.

 Table 5.8 Annual per Capita Income by County Compared to State of Idaho and U.S.
                         1996         1997         1998         1999            2000                         2001             2002              2003             2004
            Ada      $   27,104   $   27,446   $   28,742   $   30,589      $   33,506   $                   34,059      $    34,456        $   34,811     $     37,596
        Adams        $   16,381   $   18,270   $   19,404   $   20,113      $   21,750   $                   22,181      $    22,401        $   23,474     $     25,688
          Boise      $   18,838   $   18,908   $   20,043   $   20,252      $   21,542   $                   21,518      $    21,718        $   22,631     $     23,589
       Canyon        $   17,038   $   17,400   $   18,433   $   19,153      $   19,709   $                   19,760      $    19,295        $   19,142     $     19,754
        Elmore       $   17,743   $   17,904   $   18,264   $   19,198      $   20,141   $                   20,900      $    22,196        $   22,875     $     24,558
           Gem       $   17,157   $   17,358   $   17,880   $   18,219      $   19,376   $                   19,895      $    19,241        $   19,360     $     21,225
       Owyhee        $   15,842   $   16,813   $   17,853   $   18,470      $   18,373   $                   19,565      $    19,344        $   19,005     $     22,080
        Payette      $   15,689   $   15,845   $   17,209   $   18,180      $   18,373   $                   19,778      $    20,355        $   21,387     $     23,296
         Valley      $   22,614   $   22,895   $   24,608   $   25,958      $   27,783   $                   28,288      $    28,742        $   29,412     $     32,480
   Washington        $   16,509   $   17,021   $   17,998   $   18,377      $   18,405   $                   19,329      $    19,494        $   20,095     $     21,863
 State of Idaho      $   20,248   $   20,648   $   21,789   $   22,786      $   24,073   $                   25,014      $    25,180        $   25,461     $     27,414
         Nation      $   24,175   $   25,334   $   26,883   $   27,939      $   29,843   $                   30,562      $    30,795        $   31,446     $     33,090
 Source:                                                                                 Per Capita Income In Southwest Idaho Compared to State and Nation                              Ada
 http://labor.idaho.gov "Work force Trends"
                                                                                                             $40,000
                                                        When                                                                                                                            Adams


                                                                                                             $35,000                                                                    Boise


                                                                                                                                                                                        Canyon
                                                                                         Per Capita Income   $30,000

                                                                                                                                                                                        Elmore
                                                                                                             $25,000

                                                                                                                                                                                        Gem
                                                                                                             $20,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        Ow yhee
                                                                                                             $15,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        Payette
                                                                                                             $10,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        Valley

                                                                                                              $5,000
                                                                                                                                                                                        Washington

                                                                                                                $-                                                                      State of Idaho
                                                                         Figure 5.5                                    1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001    2002    2003   2004
                                                                                                                                                                                        Nation
                                                                                                                                                   Year

                                                                                                                                                                                                 17
                                                                                                                                         Labor & Employment


Commute to Employment                                   For Owyhee County, there are a total of 775
                                                    jobs in Homedale and 404 in Marsing. Only
Centers                                             17% of the jobs in Homedale are held by
     Because of the vast urban-rural diversity      Homedale residents. 83% of those jobs are held
within the region, commuting to work is             by people who commute from other areas into
common. The information in this section only        Homedale for work. 95% of all jobs in Marsing
considers workers’ highest paying jobs (if they     are held by people who live in other areas. This
hold more than one) and only considers              implies that not only are people commuting to
employment centers which are within the limits      these cities, but also commuting out.
of a city.
     In their 2002 Comprehensive Plan, Owyhee
County addressed the issue of public
transportation. Although rail lines to Marsing
and Homedale were discontinued in 1998, most
of the highways in the county link Owyhee
residents to Oregon, Canyon County, and other
places of employment directly.
     Canyon County continues to improve
commute conditions between Canyon and
Owyhee Counties for the efforts of easily
maintaining the joint county school districts, as                      Figure 5.6 Owyhee County Community Flows
stated in their 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This
encouragement of transportation efficiency
between counties increases the ease and time-                                           *No Data Available for Grand View Com m ute In
effectiveness at which commuters can drive to
                                                                             100%
work.
                                                                              90%
                                                                              80%
                                                                              70%
 Table 5.9 Owyhee County Community Flows
                                                                              60%
                      Grand View       Homedale       Marsing                 50%
      Commute In          N/A              645           383                  40%
     Commute Out          20               495           115                  30%
                                                                              20%
             Stay          0               130            21
                                                                              10%
            Total         20              1270           519
                                                                               0%
     Net Commute
                          N/A              150           268                             Grand View            Homedale                  Marsing
            Flow*
 Source:                                                                                  Commute In           Stay           Commute Out
 John Panter, Regional Economist
 *Net Flow=Commutes In-Commutes Out

18
Labor & Employment



        5.7 Top Five Cities Where Grand View Residents
 Figure Top Five Cities Where Grand View Residents Work,
          Excluding Grand View (Total of 12 Commuters)
 Work, Excluding GrandView (Total of 12 Commuters)

    Boise City,
    Idaho
                                       8%
                            8%
    Emmett,
    Idaho

    Hailey,
    Idaho
                    17%                                       50%
    Mountain
    Home AFB,                                                             Figure 5.9 Top Five Cities Where Homedale Employees
    Idaho                        17%                                               Top Five Cities Where Homedale Employees Live,
                                                                          Live, Excluding Homedale (Total of 162 Commuters)
    Mountain                                                                           Excluding Homedale (Total of 162 Commuters)
    Home,
    Idaho
                                                                             Caldwell,
                                                                             Idaho
                                                                                                            6%
                                                                                                 10%
                                                                             Nampa,
                                                                             Idaho                                                   40%
                                                                                           17%
                                                                             Boise City,
                                                                             Idaho

 Figure 5.8 Top Five Cities Where Homedale Residents                         Greenleaf,
         Top Five Cities Where Homedale of 242 Work, Excluding
 Work, Excluding Homedale (TotalResidents Commuters)                         Idaho
                          Homedale (Total of 242 Commuters)                                                27%
                                                                             Wilder,
                                                                             Idaho
      Nampa,
      Idaho                                  6%
                                  6%
      Caldwell,
      Idaho         22%                                             44%

      Boise City,
      Idaho

      Parma,
      Idaho

      Meridian,
                                       22%
      Idaho




                                                                                                                                           19
                                                                                                                       Labor & Employment



          Top Top Five Cities Where Marsing Residents
 Figure 5.10 Five Cities Where Marsing Residents Work, Excluding
                      Marsing (Total of 77 Commuters)
 Work, Excluding Marsing(Total of 77 Commuters)

     Nampa,
     Idaho                       4%   4%

     Boise City,   19%
     Idaho                                                         44%

     Caldwell,
     Idaho

     Twin Falls,
     Idaho
                           29%
     Meridian,
     Idaho




                                                                         Figure 5.11 Top Five Cities Where Marsing Employees
                                                                                    Top Five Cities Where Marsing Employees Live,
                                                                                     Excluding Marsing (Total of 114 Commuters)
                                                                         Live, Excluding Marsing (Total of 114 Commuters)

                                                                              Caldwell,
                                                                              Idaho                  11%
                                                                                              11%
                                                                              Nampa,
                                                                                                                                41%
                                                                              Idaho

                                                                              Boise City,
                                                                              Idaho
                                                                                            16%
                                                                              Los
                                                                              Angeles,
                                                                                                           21%
                                                                              California
                                                                              Fresno,
                                                                              California




20
Labor & Employment



Table 5.10 Canyon County Community Flows, 2004
                      Caldwell Greenleaf      Melba    Middleton    Nampa     Notus      Parma    Wilder
       Commute In      8068       34           39         516       14948      61         372      143
      Commute Out      8027       312          70        1105       16351      60         290      172
              Stay     3395        7            2          77        8201       0          61       17
             Total     19490      353          111       1698       39500      121        723      332
      Net Commute
                         41         -278        -31       -589       -1403       1        82       -29
             Flow*
Source:
John Panter, Regional Economist
*Net Flow=Commutes In-Commutes Out; negative numbers represent a greater number of commutes out than
 commutes in




                                                      Figure 5.12 Canyon County Community Flows




                                                           100%

                                                            80%

                                                            60%

                                                            40%

                                                            20%

                                                             0%
                                                                   Caldw ell Greenleaf    Melba    Middleton   Nampa   Notus   Parma   Wilder


                                                                      Commute In                    Stay               Commute Out




                                                                                                                                                21
                                                                                                                        Labor & Employment


                                                                                 Top Five Cities Where Greenleaf Residents Work,
 Figure 5.13 Top Five Cities Where Caldwell Residents                            Top Five Cities Where Greenleaf Residents
                                                                     Figure 5.15Excluding Greenleaf (Total of 207 Commuters)
          Top Five Cities Where
                                (Total Residents Commuters)
 Work, Excluding CaldwellCaldwell of 5,545Work, Excluding            Work, Excluding Greenleaf (Total of 207 Commuters)
                       Caldwell (Total of 5,545 Commuters)

     Boise City,                                                        Caldwell,                     8%
                                           3% 2%                                          11%
     Idaho                       9%                                     Idaho
                                                                                                                                   38%
     Nampa,                                                             Nampa,
     Idaho                                                     46%      Idaho
                                                                        Boise City,
     Meridian,                                                          Idaho       21%
     Idaho
                                                                        Meridian,
     Garden City,                                                       Idaho                                    22%
                      40%
     Idaho
                                                                        Homedale,
     Twin Falls,                                                        Idaho
     Idaho




 Figure 5.14 Top Five Cities Where Caldwell Employees
            Top Five Cities Where Caldwell Employees Live,                     Top Five Five Cities Where Greenleaf Employees
                                                                     Figure 5.16 Top Cities Where Greenleaf Employees Live, Excluding
             Excluding Caldwell (Total of 3,507 Commuters)
 Live, Excluding Caldwell (Total of 3,507 Commuters)                                       Greenleaf (Total of 14 Commuters)
                                                                     Live, Excluding Greenleaf (Total of 14 Commuters)

        Nampa,
        Idaho                               3%                            Nampa,
                                      4%                                                                   7%
                            9%                                            Idaho
        Boise City,                                                                             14%
        Idaho                                                             Homedale,
                                                                                                                                   44%
                                                                          Idaho
        Meridian,                                                         Caldwell,
        Idaho                                                51%          Idaho
                                                                                          14%
        Milldeton,    33%                                                 Meridian,
        Idaho                                                             Idaho
                                                                                                           21%
        Eagle,                                                            Mountain
        Idaho                                                             Home, Idaho




22
Labor & Employment




             Top Five Cities Where Melba Residents
 Figure 5.17 Top Five Cities Where Melba Residents Work, Work,            Top Top Five Where Where Middleton Work,
                                                                 Figure 5.19 Five Cities Cities Middleton Residents Residents
               Excluding of 62 Commuters)
 Excluding Melba (Total Melba (Total of 62 Commuters)                                                   827 Commuters)
                                                                 Work, Excluding Middleton (Out of 827 Commuters)
                                                                            Excluding Middleton (Out

       Boise,
                                     5%                                                                5%
       City, Idaho         15%                                      Boise City,       12%
                                                      30%           Idaho
       Nampa,
       Idaho                                                        Nampa,                                                48%
                                                                    Idaho
       Caldwell,
       Idaho                                                        Caldwell, 16%
                     21%                                            Idaho
       Meridian,
       Idaho                               29%                      Meridian,               19%
                                                                    Idaho
       Garden
       City, Idaho                                                  Eagle,
                                                                    Idaho




           Top Five Cities Where Where Melba Live, Excluding
 Figure 5.18 Top Five Cities Melba Employees Employees Live,     Figure 5.20 Top Five Cities Where Middleton Employees
                                                                          Top Five Cities Where Middleton Employees Live,
 Excluding Melba (Out of 10 Commuters)
                         Melba (Out of 10 Commuters)                        Excluding Middleton (Total 202 Commuters)
                                                                 Live, Excluding Middleton (Total ofof 202Commuters)

                                                                    Caldwell,                     8%        3%
     Nampa,
     Idaho                         10%                              Idaho                                                 33%
                             10%                                    Boise City, 23%
     Oregon City,
                                                                    Idaho
     Oregon
                                                                    Nampa,
     Caldwell,
                                                                    Idaho
     Idaho             10%
                                                        60%         Meridian,
     Boise City,
                             10%                                    Idaho                                        33%
     Idaho
                                                                    Pocatello,
     Blackfoot,                                                     Idaho
     Idaho



                                                                                                                                23
                                                                                                          Labor & Employment



 Figure 5.21 Top Five Cities Where Nampa Residents Work,
           Top Five Cities Where Nampa Residents Work,              Top Top Five Where Notus Residents Work (Total of
                                                           Figure 5.23 Five Cities Cities Where Notus Residents Work
 Excluding Nampa (Total of 11,836)
                 Excluding Nampa (Total of 11,836)         (Total of 34 Commuters) 34 Commuters)


                                       3%    2%                                                 6%
     Boise City,            13%                               Boise City,           12%
     Idaho                                                    Idaho
                                                                                                                       41%
     Caldwell,                                                Caldwell,
     Idaho                                                    Idaho

     Meridian,      15%                                       Meridian,     15%
     Idaho                                                    Idaho
                                                    67%
     Garden City,                                             Nampa,
                                                                                          26%
     Idaho                                                    Idaho

                                                              Twin Falls,
     Twin Falls,
                                                              Idaho
     Idaho




                                                                   Top Five Cities Where Notus Employees Live (Total of
 Figure 5.22 Top Five Cities Where Nampa Employees Live,
           Top Five Cities Where Nampa Employees Live,     Figure 5.24 Top Five Cities Where Notus Employees Live
                                                                                      19 Commuters)
                  Excluding of 6,646)
 Excluding Nampa (Total Nampa (Total of 6,646)             (Total of 19 Commuters)


                                  3%    3%                    Middleton,                  11%
     Boise City,
                      17%                                     Idaho
     Idaho                                                                                                       31%
                                                                              16%
                                                   45%        Homedale,
     Caldwell,
     Idaho                                                    Idaho

     Meridian,                                                Caldwell,
     Idaho                                                    Idaho

     Kuna, Idaho          32%                                 Boise City,           21%
                                                              Idaho                                      21%

     Eagle, Idaho                                             Dallas,
                                                              Texas



24
Labor & Employment



             Top Five Cities Where Parma Residents
 Figure 5.25Top Five Cities Where Parma Residents Work, Work,                   Top Top Five Where Wilder Wilder Residents Work
                                                                       Figure 5.27 Five Cities Cities WhereResidents Work (Total
 Excluding Parma (Total of 169 Commuters)
             Excluding Parma (Total of 169 Commuters)                  (Total of 89 Commuters) 89 Commuters)
                                                                                                of


                                                                          Caldwell,                          8%
                                  5%     4%
     Boise                                                                Idaho                11%
     City, Idaho                                                 34%
                    24%                                                   Nampa,                                               48%
                                                                                        11%
     Caldwell,                                                            Idaho
     Idaho
                                                                          Homedale,
     Nampa,                                                               Idaho
     Idaho
                                                                          Boise City,
                                                                          Idaho                      22%
     Meridian,
     Idaho                                    33%
                                                                          Parme,
     Wilder,                                                              Idaho
     Idaho




                   Top Five Cities Where Parma Employees Live,
 Figure 5.26 Top Five Cities Where Parma Employees Live,               Figure 5.28 Top Five Cities Where Wilder Employees Live,
                                                                                 Top Five Cities Where Wilder Employees Live,
              Excluding Parma (Total of 86 Commuters)
 Excluding Parma (Total of 86 Commuters)                               Excluding Wilder (Total of 40 Commuters)
                                                                                   Excluding Wilder (Total of 40 Commuters)


      Caldwell,                    10%                                    Caldwell,
                                                                                                           10%
      Idaho                                                      31%      Idaho
                      17%                                                                 13%
                                                                          Nampa,                                             39%
      Nampa,
      Idaho                                                               Idaho

                                                                          Parma, Idaho
      Boise City,
      Idaho
                                                                                         18%
                                                                          Boise City,
      Homedale,             19%                                           Idaho
                                                       23%                                                        20%
      Idaho
                                                                          Meridian,
      Ontario,                                                            Idaho
      Oregon




                                                                                                                                   25
                                                                     Infrastructure & Land Use

                      While the CEDS has always addressed
6.0              trends in the Region’s economic development,
                 land use patterns have not been incorporated into
Infrastructure   the analysis. Several cities and counties in
                 Region III have identified a need for land use
& Land Use       planning as it relates to economic development.
                 The cost and availability of land drives the
                 ability of Region III communities to foster
                 healthy economic development patterns. This
                 includes the cost of building and maintaining
                 public services and infrastructure, providing
                 adequate work force housing, maintaining
                 efficient transportation corridors, revitalizing
                 downtown cores, maintaining a cultural identity
                 and managing natural resources. The CEDS has
                 always been a collaborative and regional effort;
                 our new approach will address the need for the
                 CEDS to be comprehensive. Building healthy
                 communities in Southwest Idaho relies on
                 implementing land use development objectives
                 that are consistent with the Region’s economic
                 development goals.




26
Infrastructure & Land Use


Adopted City Growth                                 Owyhee Counties as part of their development          through the ordinances they have enacted.
                                                    strategies. Table 6.2 presents other growth           Business and community development will
Management Tools                                    management tools which these cities have put          occur when investors and entrepreneurs see how
    Table 6.1 presents a table of standard zoning   into effect. To accomplish the goals of the           city ordinances can have a positive effect on
regulations adopted by the cities of Canyon and     CEDS, it is essential to understand city priorities   their investment.
th                                                  d




Table 6.1 Standard Zoning Regulations
                                                                                                                                   Land
                                    Commercial              Comprehensive                                                           Use    Zero Lot
               Building                         Subdivision               Conventional Planned Unit          Conditional
                        Residential     and                  Plan Update                            Variance                       Map       Line
                Codes                           Regulations                Standards   Developments          Use Permit
                                     Industrial               Deadline                                                             Last   Provisions
                                                                                                                                  Updated
     Canyon
    Caldwell      yes       yes        yes          yes          Jan-08            yes             yes         yes       yes      Jan-08       no
   Greenleaf      yes       yes        yes          yes            N/A             yes             yes         yes                Oct-06      yes
       Melba      yes       yes         no          no           Oct-07            no              yes         yes       yes      Jun-05       no
                                                                                                                                           commercial
   Middleton      yes       Yes-       yes          yes          Feb-08            yes             yes         yes       yes      Aug-07
                                                                                                                                              only
      Nampa       yes       yes        yes          yes          Oct-05            yes             yes         yes       yes         ?        yes
       Notus      no        yes        yes          yes          Jun-05            no              no          yes       yes      Jun-05       no
      Parma       yes        ?         yes          yes             ?              yes              ?          yes       yes         ?         ?
      Wilder      yes       yes        yes          yes          Nov-07            yes             yes         yes       yes      Jun-05       no
     Owyhee
 Grand View       no        yes         no          yes           2006             no              no          yes        no         ?        yes
   Homedale       yes       yes        yes          yes            N/A             no              yes         yes       yes        N/A        no
     Marsing      yes       yes        yes          yes          Jun-08            yes             yes         yes       yes      Jan-80       no




                                                                                                                                                        27
                                                                                                                                Infrastructure & Land Use


Table 6.2 Growth Management Regulations
                                                                                    Better
                                                                      Green                  Tree
                              Road Design                                           Home                                                      Historic
            Open                              Capital                 Space                Protectio Agriculture/Forest      Mixed Use
                 Conservation     and                   Development                Town or                                                  Preservation
            Spac                           Improvement              Conserva-                  n       Conservation         Development
                   Design     Construction              Impact Fees                  Main                                                      Design
             e                             Plan Element                tion                Ordinanc      Ordinance           Provisions
                               Standards                                            Street                                                   Guidelines
                                                                     Program                   e
                                                                                   Program
    Canyon
   Caldwell yes         no           yes         no          yes          no         no           yes          no                no              yes
 Greenleaf yes          no           yes         no          no           no         no           no           no                yes             yes
     Melba no           no           no          no          no           no         no           no           no                no              no
 Middleton yes          no           yes         no          yes          no         yes          no           no                yes             no
    Nampa no            ?            yes         yes         yes          yes        no           yes          yes               yes             yes
     Notus no           no           no          no          no           no         yes          no           no                no              no
     Parma ?            ?            yes          ?          yes           ?         no            ?            ?                 ?               ?
     Wilder no          no           yes         no          no           no         no           no           no                no              yes
   Owyhee
Grand View no           no           no          no           no           no         no          no           no                no              no
 Homedale no            no           no          no           no           no         no          no           no                yes             no
   Marsing no           no           yes         no           no           no         no          no           yes               yes             no



     Growth management tools are adopted to       animals (Canyon County Comprehensive                  within the city limits to ensure the best use of
ensure the city’s commercial and industrial       Plan, 2010). In Owyhee County, many of the            the land. Each city is unique in its needs for
growth, as well as to preserve the land that      citizens base their economic development on           these regulations.
has historical or natural significance to the     agriculture and utilize the ordinances to
community. In 2005, exempt land totaled           “preserve their local economy and way of
7.2% of the total Canyon County land area. It     life.” It is also a county goal to allow city
is a goal of the county to preserve areas such    planning and zoning to minimize regulation
as the Snake River, the Boise River, Lake         (Owyhee County Comprehensive Plan, 2002-
Lowell, Deer Flat National Wildlife Refugee,      2004).
Fort Boise Wildlife Management Area, and               The use of standard zoning and growth
desirable species of indigenous plants and        management regulations allows specialization




28
Infrastructure & Land Use


Land Use                                                        excellence in the design of all future        Owyhee County has summarized their land
                                                                residential developments.                use goals as follows:
    Canyon County sets forth six overall land
                                                            5. To encourage development in those              1. To anticipate and provide for a variety
use goals to accomplish in the duration of the
                                                                areas of the county which provide the             of uses in Owyhee County to meet the
Comprehensive Plan and to continue thereafter:
                                                                most favorable conditions for future              needs of the citizens while recognizing
    1. To encourage growth and development
                                                                community services.                               the importance of maintaining and
       in an orderly fashion, minimize adverse
                                                            6. Consider adjacent county land uses                 enhancing agricultural opportunities.
       impacts on differing land uses, public
                                                                when receiving county-line development        2. This [Goal # 1] will be done in a manner
       health, safety, and infrastructure
                                                                proposals         (Canyon       County            which protects and maintains soil, water,
       services.
                                                                Comprehensive Plan, 2010).                        air, wildlife, and other natural
    2. Use appropriate techniques to buffer
                                                            Based on these goals, it is apparent that             environmental and scenic qualities so
       incompatible land uses.
                                                        Canyon County desires future growth in the                that they may be utilized now and in the
    3. To provide for appropriately located
                                                        community, but also hopes to improve the                  future.
       residential areas within an adequate
                                                        conditions for the development they currently         3. This [Goal # 1] will be done in a manner
       variety of dwelling types and density
                                                        support by encouraging compatibility of past              which protects private property rights of
       ranges as needed to meet demands.
                                                        and future land uses.                                     all persons within the county (Owyhee
    4. To encourage livability, creativity, and
                                                                                                                  County Comprehensive Plan, 2002-
                                                                                                                  2004).
                                                                                                               Owyhee County’s main goal for the use of
Table 6.3 Infrastructure Availability in Canyon and Owyhee Counties                                      its land is to meet the needs of the citizens who
                                                                                                         live and use it every day. Because agriculture is
                Industrial/Business      Sanitary Sewer     Water       Broadband       Natural Gas      such an important part of the County’s economic
                       Parks                Service        Service       Service        Availability     foundation, it is important to maintain and
    Canyon                  yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes          enhance the agricultural viability of the land.
    Caldwell                yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes
  Greenleaf                 yes                   no         yes            yes             yes          Infrastructure Availability
      Melba                 yes                   yes        yes            yes             no               While common business infrastructure
  Middleton                 yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes          needs (sanitary sewer service, water service,
     Nampa                  yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes
                                                                                                         broadband internet availability, and natural
      Notus                                       yes        yes            yes             no
                                                                                                         gas availability) continue to be met within
     Parma                  yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes
                                                                                                         the development district, many cities and
      Wilder                yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes
                                                                                                         unincorporated towns continue to face
    Owyhee                  yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes
                                                                                                         increasing problems resulting from a lack of
 Grand View                                                                 yes             no
                                                                                                         available infrastructure.     The costs of
  Homedale                  yes                   yes        yes            yes             yes
                                                                                                         building    essential    infrastructure   are
    Marsing                 yes                   N/A        N/A            yes             no
                                                                                                         increasing. At the same time, cities are
Source:                                                                                                  beginning to see a decline in the available
http://commerce.idaho.gov
http://www.intgas.com/aboutigc/servicearea.html                                                          funding sources. They face the problems
                                                                                                                                                        29
                                                                                                                              Infrastructure & Land Use

associated with a lack of sufficient sewer or        adequate infrastructure plans will foster
natural gas capacity wile jointly facing the         economic growth. The available data is
problems associated with a lack of resources         presented in Table 6.3, Map 6.1, and Map
and solution.      The implementation of             6.2.
dkdkdk




 Map 6.1 Canyon County Infrastructure Availability                                   Map 6.2 Owyhee County Infrastructure Availability

30
Infrastructure & Land Use

Transportation                                          and inter-county transportation routes. The           purposes. The open airports in Canyon and
     Because so many citizens of Canyon and             highway district information is presented in          Owyhee Counties are presented in Table 6.5.
Owyhee Counties commute to work every day,              Table 6.4.                                            Canyon County and Owyhee County airports are
it is important to have adequate highway                    Airports are another major transportation         presented in Map 6.3. 
transportation available to them.        Highway        advantage to the counties. There are several           
transportation is a critical asset to the regional      small or privately owned airports which are open       
economy for this reason.          Seven highway         to public operations. Many people utilize these
districts serve Region III and provide inter-city       airports for recreation and transportation
and                                                     purpose




          Table 6.4 Canyon and Owyhee Transportation Infrastructures
                                                             Paved Roads      Unpaved Roads        Total Miles of
              Highway District          Cities Servicing                                                                 Major Railroad Lines
                                                                (miles)          (miles)              Roads
                                           Caldwell,
                   Canyon Highway
                                           Middleton,            323.5               2.75             326.25                Union Pacific
                           District
                                            Nampa
            Gem Highway District            Marsing             54.069              5.446             59.515                    None
            Golden Gate Highway
                                  Greenleaf, Wilder               200*                8*               208*                 Union Pacific
                         District
              Homedale Highway       Homedale                     8.0                7.5                   15.5                 None
                                  Caldwell, Melba,                                                                       Union Pacific, Idaho
          Nampa Highway District                                  390*                3                393*
                                      Nampa                                                                                   Northern
           Notus/Parma Highway Caldwell, Notus,
                                                                  185*                9*               194*                 Union Pacific
                         District     Parma
            Owyhee County Road
                                    Grand View                    85*                215*              300*                     None
                     and Bridge
          *Approximate

          Sources:
          Highway Districts which are listed in table




                                                                                                                                                        31
                                                                          Infrastructure & Land Use



           Table 6.5 Key Airports in Canyon and Owyhee Counties
                                                                                      Aircraft
                                              Airport         Number of   Based
            County        Location                                                   Operations
                                              Name            Runways     Aircraft
                                                                                      (annual)
                                             Caldwell
             Canyon       Caldwell           Industrial           1         533        147325
                                              Airport
             Canyon       Caldwell          Hubler Filed          2         18           N/A
                                         Caldwell Municipal
             Canyon       Caldwell                                2         N/A         1872
                                              Airport
             Canyon        Nampa          Mercy Heliport         N/A        N/A      Medical Use
             Canyon        Nampa         Sky Ranch Airport        2          2          N/A
                                         Nampa Municipal
             Canyon        Nampa                                  2         315        102378
                                              Airport
             Canyon        Parma           Parma Airport          2          4          3432
                                          Davison Ranch                                Closed
             Canyon         Notus                                 2          1
                                              Airport                                Permanently
                                                                                       Closed
             Canyon         Notus           Frank Field           1          0
                                                                                     Temporarily
                          Canyon
             Canyon                       Symms Airport           1          1           N/A
                          County
             Owyhee       Marsing         Whelans Airport         1          2           N/A
                         Grasmere
             Owyhee                      Grasmere Airport         2          0           324
                         Reservoir
                                            Homedale
             Owyhee      Homedale                                 2         15          7020
                                          Municipal Airport
             Owyhee       Murphy           Murphy Airport         2          0          6188
                          Murphy         Murphy Hotsprings
             Owyhee                                               2          0           996
                         Hotsprings           Airport
                          Givens
             Owyhee                       Sunrise Skypark         2         41           N/A
                         Hotsprings
                          Triangle       Josephine Ranch
             Owyhee                                               2          0           N/A
                            Flat              Airstrip
             Owyhee      Homedale         Richards Airport        2          2           N/A
             Owyhee        Riddle          Riddle Airport         2         N/A          N/A
             Owyhee       Murphy         ZX Ranch Airport         2          0           N/A
           Sources:
           http://www.topozone.com
           http://airnav.com
           http://www.aircraftguru.com
 Map 6.3

32
Infrastructure & Land Use

Health Care
     Table 6.6 presents information on health
                                                         Table 6.7 Key Museums and Cultural Centers In Southwest Idaho
care infrastructure available to the cities within
the county. Rural cities tend have less health           Community                                    Museum/Culture Center
care available to them within their city limits.
Many of them must travel to larger urban cities                          Basque Museum and Cultural Center, Boise Art Museum, Discovery Center of Idaho,
to receive health care.                                            Ada     Idaho Black History Museum, Idaho Military History Museum, Idaho Museum of
     Most of the communities have a walk-in                                             Mining and Geology, Idaho State Historical Museum
                                                                Adams     Adams County Historical Society, Adams County Museum, Council Valley Museum
clinic for immediate, non-emergent care. While
                                                                 Boise                            Boise Basin Historical Museum
none of the cities in Owyhee County have an                                  Canyon County Historical Museum, Hispanic Cultural Center, Oregon Train
emergency care clinic or emergency department                  Canyon
                                                                            Centennial Greenway, Warhawk Air Museum, Van-Slyke Agriculture Museum
of the clinic, in all three cities there is ample             Elmore                              Glens Ferry Historical Museum
ambulance service. In Wilder, there is neither                   Gem                              Gem County Historical Museum
emergency care service nor ambulance service,                Owyhee                             Owyhee County Historical Museum
but there is a first response team available                  Payette                                Payette County Museum
during emergencies. There is also a hospital                   Valley                              Central Idaho Cultural Center
with an emergency care unit in Caldwell, which             Washington              Cambridge Museum, National Old Time Fiddlers' Hall of Fame
is nearby.                                               Sources:
                                                         http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/localList.php?local=13&locTGroup=Museums&direction=down&sec=0
                                                         http://www.canyoncountyliving.com/interest.php?id=12


                                                                                                             Culture and Diversity
Table 6.6 Health Care Services Available by County                                                               Diversity and a strong sense of culture exist
                                                                                First      Emergency         throughout the region. Counties celebrate these
                            Community         Acute Care        Ambulance
                                                                              Response       Care            cultural diversities with museums, cultural
                            Health Clinic      Hospital          Service
                                                                               Service      Center
                                                                                                             centers, and through historical centers. Table
                 Canyon                                                                                      6.7 presents important museums in the region.
                Caldwell          X                  X               X             X             X
              Greenleaf
                  Melba           X                                                X
              Middleton           X
                 Nampa            X                  X               X             X             X
                  Notus
                  Parma           X                                  X             X
                  Wilder          X                                                X
                Owyhee
             Grand View           X                                  X             X
              Homedale            X                                  X             X
                Marsing           X                                  X             X


                                                                                                                                                           33
                                                                 The Regional Economy

                   The 2009-2010 CEDS will include a chapter
7.0            on “The Regional Economy,” an analysis of
               regional trends, patterns & opportunities. The
The Regional   chapter will highlight economic indicators,
               goals, objectives, strategies and partnerships.
Economy




34
Monitoring & Evaluation

    An important part of the new approach to
the Southwest Idaho CEDS is adopting a plan to               8.0
evaluate and monitor progress. To make the
CEDS a useful guide for local decision makers it   Monitoring &
must go beyond data and analysis; the CEDS
should be an action plan for improving the           Evaluation
regional economy.          By monitoring and
evaluating progress towards regional goals and
objectives, the CEDS becomes a Regional Plan
of Action with established priorities for the
future.
    Priority project lists, as included in past
CEDS documents should be tied to a monitoring
mechanism that tracks progress towards the
overall CEDS goals. In this way the CEDS will
become an active document that guides
economic development decision making and
planning in Region III.
    Monitoring and evaluation will be an
important step of an effective long-range,
comprehensive economic development strategy.
Below are sample monitoring and evaluation
forms that will be utilized to produce the 2009-
2010 CEDS update.




                                                               35
                                                                                                            Monitoring & Evaluation




                           City / County Annual Project List
                                                                    From the Goals,                               New, On Course,
                                                                                                                  Making
                                                                    objectives and strategies                     Progress, On
                                                                    list in the CEDS.                             Hold


      Project / Program             Partners    CEDS Goal / Objective /      Investment         Priority       Status 
                                                      Strategy                                   Level 
                                                                                                                    
Downtown Revitalization      ICDBG, local                II.C.1                    $2 million      II 

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                     
36
Monitoring & Evaluation
                                                                                                                                                                   GOAL
    Monitoring and Implementation Plan                                                                                                                             I:
                                                                                                                                                                   ECONOMIC
                                                                                                                                                                   DEVELOPMENT




                                                                                                                                                     Washington 
                                                                                                          Owyhee 


                                                                                                                        Payette 
                                                                   Canyon 


                                                                                 Elmore 
                                         Adams 




                                                                                                                                       Valley 
                                                      Boise 




                                                                                               Gem 
                              Ada 
                                                                                                                                                                   • Healthy Growth
                                                                                                                                                                   • Job Creation
                                                                                                                                                                   • Community Facility
                                                                                                                                                                     Development
                                                                                                                                                                   • Business Expansion
                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                   • Business Retention
                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                   • Adequate Infrastructure
                                                                                                                                                                   • Qualified Workforce
                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                   Healthy growth occurs in
                                                                                                                                                                   southwest Idaho by facilitating
                                                                                                                                                                   and supporting efforts that lead
                                                                                                                                                                   to job creation, community
                                                                                                                                                                   facility development and
                                                                                                                                                                   business expansion and
                                                                                                                                                                   retention. We strive to
                                                                                                                                                                   strengthen, broaden and
                                                                                                                                                                   diversity the regional economic
                                                                                                                                                                   base.
                                                                                                                                                                    Short analysis of this year’s
                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                    progress.
                                                                                                                                                  


                                                                                                                                                  


                                                                                                                                                                                               37

								
To top