Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 06-27 Pre Meridian City Pre-Council MeetinQ June 27. 2006 The Meridian City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 by President Councilman Shaun Wardle. Members Present: Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, Charlie Rountree and Joe Borton. Members Absent: Mayor De Weerd. Staff Present: Stacy Kilchenmann, Ted Baird, Ron Anderson and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree o X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Bird: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we adopt the revised agenda, which the only revision is we take off Mayor Merrill's name from the Item NO.3. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Item 3. Continued Discussion for Request by Blueprint for Good Growth: Wardle: I apologize I was not here last week and missed this discussion, so I note, I believe we have in our packets a question from Council. Ted is that something that you are ready to speak to? Baird: Mr. President, members of the Council I think the question and answer would be best addressed by the Finance Director at this point. Wardle: Great, oh, thank you. Hi, Stacy. Meridian City PrewCouncil Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 2 of 19 Kilchenmann: Hi. The question that he asked me was if - about funding alternatives and actually there is a study that was budgeted for the current year for 2006 in the development services budget and it was for like a combination study and don't ask me what this means, concurrency something and Ted will have to answer that, which Anna said was supposed to be addressed in Blueprint for Good Growth and she didn't think would be and for doing a fiscal impact and we are already doing the fiscal impact through the Finance Department and Anna said she felt like she didn't need to do the other, so to make a long story short she doesn't need the money in there and there is $35,200 available that you could use without doing an amendment or a new enhancement. It is already budgeted. Baird: Mr. President, members of the Council I guess the question before you is if you choose to honor the additional funding request from the Blueprint for Good Growth for an additional $30,000 the answer is that you wouldn't have to re- budget or do an enhancement. So, the question, I guess would still be before you, do you want to act on that request at this time? Wardle: Thank you. Bird: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I believe that we stated that we would have an answer yes or no back to Mayor Merrill. We had Mr. Councilman Borton (inaudible) by two elders on the Council, but he would report back after tonight. So, I have no - I think we need to discuss it and make a decision, if everybody feels comfortable with that. Wardle: Mr. Borton, do you want to lead us into a discussion? Borton: Sure. I guess the question goes back to maybe Councilman Bird or Ted. What I don't know and I think I asked Councilman Rountree this as well is the extent of the city's obligations on this. The biggest thing that I heard from Mayor Merrill was that the vast majority of the business community is that they had intended to continue and participate financially and otherwise in this project and almost all backed out for a variety of reasons, which is concerning to me. The fact that there is money available because something else wasn't spent on something else doesn't matter one way or the other to me. What matters is whether or not it makes sense to expand an additional $30,000. The question I had before was had we in our initial allocation of funds, obligated ourselves or made representations that after our first payment that in a year or at this point would be some additional payment, an additional contribution by the city. I would be sensitive to us saying yes we will participate throughout the process and then not do it. So, I just don't know if we have made any obligations like that for this type of payment. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 3 of 19 Bird: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: As I recall we did not. We had quite a discussion on funding (inaudible). I echo Councilman Borton's words to a tee because I felt that when this came before us with a fifty-fifty private public, well, I think it is about a 90 -10 and it is going to be worse and I, too, even though we have the money ready in our city we have never had any problems carrying money over when we had it left over and to just support something because you have got the money, I don't believe I - but, in the same token I do have some concerns about Blueprint for Good Growth the same as I know some other Councilmen do that how effective is it going to be for all the money we have thrown at it, but in the same token we have thrown a lot of money at it and do you want to let it die on buying something that might be good for this community? I don't know. Rountree: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I will agree with Councilman Bird in terms I don't believe the city made a commitment for the second phase. I believe the first phase of this particular activity is funded and will be wrapping up soon as best these things wrap up. The question is there never was sufficient funding to complete both phases of Blueprint for Good Growth in anticipation of significant contribution funding of the private sector. That has not come to pass at all. I don't know other than a few thousand dollars there has been any funding for even the first phase. I am not sure that the dollars that are being requested from the various cities at this point, really and truly fund the second phase completely. I think there is still some hope that there will be some private funds yet to be gathered to go towards the final payment. I am really mixed on this particular item. I believe very much in what is intended to be accomplished with Blueprint and the combination of Communities in Motion, but the history at this point is not the best in the world. We have one city that has pulled out. We have one city that threatened to pull out and has since changed their mind, but I think with a good amount of discussion and in considerable oversight at this point, I don't know that any other city other than the City of Eagle, who did threaten to pull out have agreed to provide additional funding and they have according to Mayor Merrill. I agree with Keith that the public has invested a considerable sum of money in this particular study to date and it's one of those do you take what you have got and run or do you continue to fund it in hopes that it will turn into a usable document? I guess where I am on this thing is that I would agree that we participate in additional funding that they are requesting, which is $30,000 from the City of Meridian, but I would want to do that conditioned on getting some additional information that, in fact, what is that we are going to get with the things that are changing in the community? Such as Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 4 of 19 the amount of planned communities that are coming into the area now that will be - the oversight will be in the county as opposed to the cities. What impact is that going to have on the Communities in Motion? The numbers I have seen are significant. Communities in Motion are best. It gives us in 30 years a transportation system that is not too much unlike what we have now in terms of convenience, maybe even less. So, are we really buying something with this effort? I have a lot of questions yet, but I am not willing to throw in the towel at this pOint. So, if we can condition our approval on seeking some more information and then getting some insurance to this entire body that we, in fact, can expect some success or what kind of success can we have in terms of an expectation? Wardle: One of the questions that I have and again I was out of town last week for the discussion, but as I understood Blueprint for Good Growth is a very kind of remedial sort of schedule. We were doing the study in two phases. The second phase, which I understood have been coined, I am not sure if the term was official or not, but was the toolbox for the study. Is that what we are talking about funding here or a portion of? Rountree: I believe so. The implementation piece. Wardle: In that respect, I know the earlier process the phase one, I think we can agree was flawed at best and we are not exactly sure you know how it is going to wrap up, but I guess my personal opinion is we have invested a lot of time, political will, public input and effort and to not at least consider taking that to the next step where we could implement it, concerns me that we leave all the money on the table without really doing anything with it. I guess when I look at - I would hate to throw good money after bad, but at the same time I would agree that maybe we should take a strong look at funding it, but not as a cart blanche, our continued support is in agreement with the path we have been on, if that makes any sense. Rountree: Is that a motion? Borton: Mr. President, one other comment or concern that I would have is that (inaudible) stakeholders are all still in the boat. I know one city is out and more cities - I think Mayor Merrill indicated that there are some others that haven't yet committed and it makes no sense for a couple cities to participate in the process if it is not going to be all of them. The whole thing is premised upon (inaudible) cooperation, so I think the deadline is July yth. At least that is when I know they meet again - they are meeting again on then? Bird: That is their next meeting. Borton: I didn't get the impression that that was the date, but I think it was cut or run date and was a preferred date to discuss it. But, if there is additional Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 5 of 19 information that we wanted, I would like to know what the other cities are going to do as well. Wardle: I would say that one of the conditions that I would look at to consider this is that we, in my opinion, the money doesn't - we can commit the money, but not without the acceptance of the rest of the stakeholders. I mean, I don't see how we could, even if there were three cities that we would be able to get much done or would be doing other work for those cities that are not participating with our tax dollars, so I guess I agree with that statement. Do we have other conditions that we might consider Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I think that is a very good one, Mr. President. Bird: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree that that is a very good condition and I think we should predicate our motion on the condition that we support it as with stated if the rest of the public entities participate at an equal participation. You know it is not going to do any good if two or three people put their money in there because you are just - you are not going to finish it up and I am like Councilman Rountree, I don't think this is going to finish it up. I don't have much faith in it. I could support something that is real conditional, very conditional. Wardle: I guess I am looking for other factors for us to consider within that motion. If we make the funds available contingent upon all current committing members contributing, staying in the group -- what other sorts of things - would we like that to come back to the Council for final approval? Borton: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would. Bird: I would too. Borton: I mean in the simplest sense I would like to see the checks on the table from each and every jurisdiction. You know their commitment in writing or in some meeting where they expect they will participate (inaudible). Rountree: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Bird: I don't care about the amount. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 6 of 19 Rountree: Mr. President I would condition that on at least two other participants originally. They have both contributed the maximum they can because they are utilizing federal dollars and the way this thing was contracted it did not go through on the QB5 process so they can only contribute $50,000. Anything more than that they would be in violation of utilizing their federal funds. However, all the cities and other local entities, including Ada County utilize your local funds and can contribute whatever they might wish because they followed their acquisition process and that would be COMPASS and lTD. They both have contributed $50,000 and both would have done more, but for the way they acquired the consultant. Wardle: Well, I will make an attempt of a motion here for the Council to consider. I would move that we make available $30,000 of additional funding for Blueprint for Good Growth conditioned upon final approval of the Council, which will include full support and anticipation from all current committee members - do we want to include the requested amounts or do we want to just say --? Borton: Second. Wardle: Discussion? Rountree: Mr. President I would just add to the motion if you would that the Council also receives clarification of the final deliverable so we have an expectation of what it is we are getting and we know what we are getting. Wardle: I would add to the motion that the Council's decision to release funds for $30,000 would be containing a fully appropriated scope for the project as well as deliverables to the individual entities. Second agrees? Borton: Second agrees. Wardle: Second agrees and I am going to call roll. Mr. Clerk. Roll call vote: Wardle, aye; Borton, aye; Rountree, aye; Bird, aye. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. Item 4. Presentation and Update on Impact Fees by BBC Research & Consulting: Baird: Mr. Council President, if I could make a few introductory remarks about the purpose of tonight's meeting while they are getting setup. This is not going to be a public hearing. It is merely intended to be an informational session to the Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27,2006 Page 7 of 19 Council. Perhaps an opportunity for you to ask some questions and provide some guidance. The Impact Fee Committee has been involved in quite a lot of work since March of this year when the contract was awarded to BSC Consulting. They had a kick off meeting of the committee on March 22nd where they outlined the process. They met again on April 19th to review the ongoing data collections. They met again on May 18th and reviewed the first draft report, provided input to the consultant team. Met again on June 8th to review a second revised draft report, again providing additional input to the study team. The Impact Fee Committee is scheduled to meet again next week July 6th to consider all of the information that has been provided, all of the feedback, anything that you might happen to have tonight. There was an open house last night that will be discussed as part of the presentation, but I want to remind the Council that the committee was hired to evaluate the current impact fee program and to propose the possible maximum fees with the intent that the Council, when you have a public hearing would have an opportunity to revise that as you see fit. They were also directed to make a proposal for imposing new fees, one for public safety in the manner of police services and another for fire services. So, with that direction the study team has prepared these reports and we would anticipate that you would have a recommendation from the Impact Fee Committee coming forward at their next meeting and the initial public hearing has been scheduled for July 25th. So, with that as a way of background I will hand it over to Tom Pippin who is head of the research team. Pippin: Thank you, Ted. Mr. President, members of Council my name is Tom Pippin. I am an economist with the firm of BBC Research in Denver. Thank you for the opportunity to do this study and to present to you tonight. Let me first introduce several members of my team who are here. Behind me is Joanne Butler. Joanne is an attorney with the law firm of Spink Butler in Boise. We have worked with her firm in the past and her role is to make sure that our economic research is conducted in compliance with the state law. She will also at the end of the process help draft an ordinance for your consideration if you want to impose the new fees. To Joanne's right is Ann Wescott. Ann is a consultant with the (inaudible) consultant in Boise. She has a background in budget and capital projects planning for the City of Salt Lake City and she is a member of our team. She worked with your department heads to help develop their capital improvement plans. Before I dive into the presentation I think Ted did a good job of outlining what has happened so far. Four advisory committee meetings and one open house last night. In addition to that, a week ago yesterday we were invited to the Building Contractor's Association, their development council and we gave an informational presentation at the last SCA meeting last week. I am very informal, so please feel free to interrupt at any time with questions. I have done team introductions, so Ann if you don't mind let's advance ahead and skip over our resumes and get into the meat of the presentation, which is on page 6. You were reading my mind. I know the Council is familiar with impact fees because Meridian does have Parks and Rec impact fees and what we are coming to you tonight with is updating those Parks and Rec fees and giving a maximum for Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27. 2006 Page 8 of 19 what police and fire could be if you decided to adopt those fees. So, I won't dwell on this slide except to say there are two real important elements here. The middle phrase underlined is to support infrastructure. Just as a reminder, impact fees can't be used to pay for operating expenses, salaries, gasoline, utilities. They have to pay for items with a useful life of more than 10 years and that includes buildings, it includes land and in the case of the Fire Department it includes fire engines, which has a useful life of more than 10 years. The final thing I would like to draw to your attention on this page is the phrase proportionate share. Throughout the study we have made a lot of attempt to make sure that when we are looking at what's included in the impact fee calculations that we are not over charging growth. In other words we are only charging new development for what its proportionate share of the costs of new capital items are. As I go through this presentation, I am going to highlight for you several areas where the advisory committee is discussing whether or not they believe we have gotten to the correct proportionate share. There is some difference of opinion that I will outline for you tonight. As Ted mentioned the committee is going to meet again next Thursday and by the time this report gets to you, I think it is quite likely that the advisory committee will have some recommendations on top of our report that urge you as elected officials to perhaps not adopt the maximum that is outlined in our report, but to come in less than that because of some of the factors that I will outline tonight. Let's move onto the next page and that is when we talk about infrastructure and finding out gross proportionate share of that infrastructure is, we first start by looking at each department's capital improvement plans over the next 10 years. What do your department heads believe they need to build? We start with that large number and we subtract from it things in category number one. Regardless of growth, you are going to have to repair and replace existing infrastructure. There may be a leak in the Fire Department roof or an irrigation system at a park may spring a leak. Whatever the case may be, number one is going to happen and it cannot, cannot be any impact fee calculations. Category number two is a little bit of a mixed back and that is if you are building a facility to completely better your level of service and we will get into level of service in a moment then that will not be included in the impact fee calculations because you would be unfairly asking new growth to raise everybody's level of service. However, there are some facilities in category two, which we believe growth is if you will the straw that broke the camel's back. An example would be the fire training facility. We will get into some detail in a moment, but there are some projects, potential projects like that, which would represent an upgrade in your level of service because you do not have a fire training facility right now. However, growth is the reason in our judgment why you are going to need that facility -- in order to maintain your ISO rating for insurance, in order to comply with National Fire Protection Association requirements. That type of facility will allow you to maintain your level of service. So, for mixed projects like that, where growth might be the trigger, yet existing residents will also benefit if you build it. We have split the baby, if you will. I will show you an example in a moment. We are not putting 100 percent of the cost into the fee calculation, but we are also not putting zero in. We are putting a part Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 9 of 19 of it in and I will show you that. I will show you that in a moment. The final category is number three and this is very clear cut. If there are capital projects which are entirely related to growth then 100 percent of the costs of them have been included in the impact fee calculations and I will give you examples of that in a moment. Let's move onto the next page. This is a summary of the state statute and if legal questions arise later tonight, I will invite Joanne to come up to the podium, but let me make two points here. The first is that Idaho State Statute is very similar to statutes across the western U.S. I have been doing this type of work at BBC for 16 years. I have done between 40 and 50 impact fee studies and Idaho statute is very similar to what we see in other states. One thing that makes Idaho a little bit different is that first point up there, the advisory committee. Not all states require an advisory committee, whereas your statute actually calls out who has to be represented. The realty community, the building and development community, etc. So that is something a little bit different about your statute, but as Ted mentioned we have met with the committee four times, we had an open house at which the committee attended; several members of the committee are here tonight as well. Let's advance to page 9. One of the fundamental facts of impact fees is that if you are unhappy with your level of service, if you feel like you don't have enough parks amenities or if the fire response time is too slow or if you don't have enough (inaudible) infrastructure, if you are unhappy with your current level of service impact fees can't fix that by definition because that would be improving your level of service. What impact fees are designed to do in Idaho and in any of the other states where I have worked is to make sure that your level of service does not decline as growth occurs. So, in other words over the next 10 years, as new people move to Meridian and new businesses open here, the impact fees that we are about to show you - well, they are mathematically designed to make sure your levels of service stay constant. If you are unhappy with those level of service and you want to increase them that of course is within your power to do but you cannot use impact fee proceeds to cause that level of service increase. So, for example if we look at the police. The police right now define their level of service as the number of officers per square mile. Then of course, based on that - or I am sorry the number of square miles per officer. Then of course based on that number of officers, they need a certain size of building and ancillary structures. Right now Meridian, the service standard is one officer for every 4.5 square miles. The Chief would like to improve that service standard and have a higher density of officers, rather than one officer covering every 4.5 miles, the Police Department would like one officer to cover every 3.75 miles. You would have a higher density of officers. That is a great goal and I hope you get there, but the impact fees that we have designed do not include that improvement. They are designed to make sure you hold study at 4.5. Similarly, let's look at fire. Fire right now defines its level of service according to the NFPA standards, which is a common national measurement that a lot of fire departments use and their goal is to get to 90 percent of all calls for service. So, that is a fire, it's an EMS call, it's a hazmat spill or whatever the call is they want to get to 90 percent of them within five minutes, which usually means a minute to turn out, get everybody dressed Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 10 of 19 and into the vehicle and then four minutes to the scene. Unlike the Police Department, which is a little bit below of where it wants to be in terms of service standard, the Fire Department feels like it is right on, spot on this level of service. So, when we look at their capital improvement plan in a moment, all of the infrastructure in there is designed to hold the Fire Department constant at this level. Let's look at the final category and that is Parks and Recreation. Parks and Recreation is similar to police in that it is aiming to have a little bit higher of a service standard than what you have now. You are currently at 3.44 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The department would like to bump that to 4.05 acres per 1,000. Just like the police that is a great goal. I hope you get there, but it can't be achieved through impact fees. This is I promised you that I would point out several areas where the advisory committee has asked questions and there is a difference of opinion right now and I think we are going to talk about this more at the advisory committee meeting next Thursday. Here is the first area where I would like to tell you about an ongoing issue and that is the 3.44 acres per 1,000. We the study team has calculated that including Borup and Settler's Park in that standard. Now Borup and Settler's Park aren't completely developed. However, you on the City Council have authorized money in this year's budget to plant grass and to put in irrigation at those parks and then next year the actual construction of playground equipment, etc. would occur. In my experience, appropriation is the divided line. In other words, if you have appropriated money to develop a park, I have seen examples where you can count that in the parks standard and therefore, it would be part of the 3.44 acres. However, reasonable people can disagree about that standard and we have reasonable people on the advisory committee who do disagree. They are suggesting to us that the standards should not be 3.44 because Borup and Settler's aren't done yet, even though the money has been appropriated it hasn't actually been spent. Something that we are going to have I think a lively discussion about next Thursday is whether or not your standard is actually less than 3.44 if we deduct Borup and Settler's out of there. So, that is an example of the kind of issues that the advisory committee is giving us input on. Borton: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Borton: Borton: Can I ask you a question just using this as an example? How does the analysis go, let's say by way of an example of where the parks is at and this is just for example of course, is that four acres per 1,000 and then because of growth it becomes 3.44 acres and they decided to go through the impact fee amendment? Is the analysis at the current level of service in that example is 3.4 or is the argument or analysis - actually it is 4, but- Pippin: No, it is your first statement. We can only use what the current level of service is. In fact this question came up at the open house last night. Someone wondered if Meridian used to have a higher level of service and then as growth Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 11 of 19 occurs you dipped. Actually the opposite is true. Your park standard is increased as you have grown because in addition to collecting impact fees, you also have had significant park donations, which has raised your level of service. But, the point is that at whatever time we do the study, we need to take a snapshot and say what is your service standard? Right now where the debate is on the advisory committee is when we take the snapshot is it 3.44 because you have appropriated the money to green up Borup and Settler's or is it less than 3.44 because even though the money has been appropriated it actually hasn't been completely spent yet and there is no 100 percent right or wrong answer to that question, it is a judgment call. We will talk about it next Thursday and when this report comes back to you it will have a number. It may be 3.44. It may be different, but whatever the number is if the advisory committee believes it should be different, will indicate that. Wardle: If I can ask just for a pOint of clarification, and I ask Mr. Borton - when you say the Borup property, is that the portion on Cherry Lane or are you referring to Hero's Park, which is under construction currently, but not finished? Does that make sense? Pippin: It does and I believe we are not- Bird: It has got to be Hero's. Pippin: I may defer to Ann Wescott. Wescott: (Inaudible--). Bird: Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I have got a couple of questions now. Borup is being in the budget this year to green out? It is in the budget to green up the Borup crop property this year? It hasn't even been master planned. He said it was going to be - that it was in the budget to green it up and it hasn't been done and that is one of their arguments. My biggest question is the city golf course included in this? Pippin: The city golf course is excluded. Bird: Why? Pippin: Well, again that is a judgment call. Typically when you look at the level of service and you calculate that 3.44 acres, it is my experience that local governments don't include golf courses because those are designed as either a one of kind or maybe a two of a kind property and the capital associated with maintaining them and expanding them comes from the fees for rounds played. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 12 of 19 The communities that include their golf courses end up with a lot higher level of service than the 3.44 for example, which would lead to a higher impact fee. So, by excluding it, it results in a lower fee. Bird: Okay, in the City of Meridian up until about 10 years ago, most of the parks and recreation was done through a private deal. We have got an American Legion baseball field out there that the city spends little or none for upkeep or anything else on it. They have a person out there and they water and does stuff like that, but if there are any capital improvements to it, it is done by bringing an athletic roundtable. Pippin: You make an excellent point. Bird: How does that differ from the golf course? Pippin: That is all excluded. Bird: We charge fees to get in. Pippin: Perhaps it shouldn't differ, but none of that land is included in the service standard, so anything that is provided by your Parks and Rec District or the golf course, none of that is figured into the 3.44. Bird: The American Legion baseball field isn't included in that? It is in Storey Park. Pippin: If it is in Storey Park it is included, but no parks that are maintained by your Parks and Rec District are included. Bird: Okay. I just don't understand how - you know we have got softball fields or little league baseball fields going up to 4 or 500,000 - well, I don't know what was raised by a private sector. I mean, that is being counted isn't it? Pippin: No. Private sector parks - Bird: No, no. This isn't private, it is our park. They just helped raise some money to get it going and I just - I have a hard time when projects like this have been done with private money donations and stuff and why the golf course is not included in that 3.44 acres per 1,000. It is a city-owned golf course. Pippin: I think Ann wants to respond, but my (inaudible) reaction is that the golf course probably comes a lot closer to being an enterprise fund, a cost recovery operation in the softball fields or any of the other fields that you charge money for. If we get a clear direction from Council to put the golf course back in, we can certainly do that. The implication of that is that this acreage goes up and therefore the impact fee would go up correspondingly because if the city wants to Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 13 of 19 get to a higher level than 3.44 a higher impact fee would be required. Most cities, again, say we have one or two golf courses. As we grow we may not add another one or if we do add another one, we are going to pay for it on the installment plan through whatever type of operating surplus we have. So, rather than treating the golf course as something that growth should pay for, they simply say we are not going to expand it or if we do users are going to pay for it as opposed to all growth. Ann would you like to --? Wardle: There is a microphone right here and if you could speak into that for us that would be - thank you. Wescott: I left the golf course out of conservatism. Most cities usually don't like us to include them because they inflate that level of service, but it is - in an NRPA our national standard as a ratio it can be included. It really is a policy decision of the Council. Bird: Follow up, Mr. President. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: What does Boise and Nampa do with their - Nampa has two golf courses and I know they are ran different, don't get me wrong. I know that Warm Springs of course at Boise and I know they are ran a little different, but they are the - the facilities and the ground out there is city ground even though we have got it leased to somebody else. Wescott: I can certainly research both of those cities. I know that most times, in Boise for example, they backed way off even if they had calculated it in their service standard, they would have backed off that number to just sort of give the benefit of the doubt to the development community in calculating those fees. Bird: Thank you. Baird: Mr. President I should also point out that when the city is calculating what we have to offer our community, we can include that in a calculation. What we are talking about here is putting together a methodology and choices have been made along the way and it has been my observation that at every point that there is a decision to make, the committee has made the conservative choice in order to keep the potential fee defensible. So, I hope we are not arguing that - we are not saying it's not a public facility, we are just saying that for purposes of the methodology, it has been left out. As been stated, you can put it back in if it is your desire. Bird: It is like anything else when you have got numbers, you can construe it how you want it to look. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27,2006 Page 14 of 19 Pippin: I think Ted captured it well. Because of what other communities do and because of the fact that golf courses at least attempt to break even, we air on the side of conservatism and left it out. Let's advance to the next page. With that background that impact fees are designed to maintain your current level of service not to improve it and we've talked about what your current level of service is. We met with your departments to talk about what their capital improvement plan was going to be over the next 10 years and therefore how much capital would have to be spent to make sure your current level of service was maintained. If you look in the bottom right hand corner of this exhibit, you will see a number of about $1.3 million. In our judgment that is how much money the Police Department will need to spend over the next 10 years to make sure that the officers it is going to add to maintain it's current ratio have a place to interview suspects and store evidence and put stray animals and do their police work. Now, remember how I have said that there is some differences of opinion with the advisory committee, here is where the second difference of opinion comes up. You will notice that the fire range, which is the first line at $2 million and then the land for the firing range, which is the fifth line are included in here not 100 percent, but at 31 percent. Remember how I gave you an example about splitting the baby? In other words there are some projects where we believe growth is the trigger for needing them, however, existing residents are going to benefit when that project gets built. Fire range is one of those. As Meridian grows, in order to have an accredited department and keep certifying your officers and not sending people outside of Meridian to get trained, you are going to need a firing range; growth is the trigger for that. However, existing residents are going to benefit because you have got this onsite training facility. So because of that we are proposing 31 percent of the cost of this building be attributed to growth. The other 69 percent would have to come from you making a tax decision and appropriate funds out of the general fund. Some members of the advisory committee believe that the fire range should be at zero percent. In other words it should not be included at all in the impact fee calculations because Council may have made a decision or had some discussions that you are going to build that anyway regardless of growth. So, this is something that we will talk about next week, but I want to give you a heads up that when this report comes back to you next week, stay on the lookout for the fire range. It will either be in there at 31 percent or a different number and if the advisory committee feels like we have handled it incorrectly we will note that. Let's move on to the next CIP. This is for fire. If you look at the bottom right hand corner, you will see a number of about $6.4 million. Just like the Police Department has a certain amount of capital, it needs to spend over the next 10 years to maintain at service standard, so too does the Fire Department. We believe that number is $6.4 million, which will allow the Fire Department to maintain its goal of a 90 percent response time within five minutes. Now, there is another issue here that the advisory committee has raised and that we will talk about next Thursday and that is the question of whether or not certain items should be in here at 100 percent growth related. I will draw your attention to the first three lines. New Fire Stations 5, 6 and 7. It is our judgment that those facilities are being required only by growth. In other Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27,2006 Page 15 of 19 words, the reason you have to add those is to keep the level of service current as Meridian grows and as you physically expand your boundaries. Now, it is true that a Meridian resident downtown is going to be better off when Fire Stations 5, 6 and 7 are built. Even though they are going to be far away from downtown, Fire Departments back each other up and in case there is a major hazmat spill or a major fire, these, the equipment and the stations will provide a higher level of fire protection to existing residents and businesses. Because of that some members of the advisory committee say that those shouldn't be 100 percent growth related, they should be something less than 100 percent because existing residents will benefit. We believe it is our professional judgment that that benefit is incidental because it is not that its existing residents will benefit from these new stations, it is that new residents will benefit from stations you have already got. In other words, this is the way the Fire Department works. It mutually supports and reinforces each other. So, we believe that it is appropriate to count 100 percent of these costs in the impact fee calculations, but this is a subject of debate and when you see this report back, there may be a notation from the advisory committee that they would urge you to do something different. Finally let's look at the Parks and Recreation's CIP and we have arranged these going from smallest to largest. The Police Chief needs about $1.3 million over 10 years. The Fire Chief, we believe needs about $6.4 million. Parks and Rec, you look in the lower right hand corner needs a little over (inaudible) - (Tape turned over) Pippin: -- this is the amount that would be required to add new acreage and develop it to get us to that standard of 3.44 acres. You will notice on here that there are some projects that aren't fully included in the fee calculations. I am going to point out two of them and I will come back to the microphone, but just to draw your eye. Bird: Grab this microphone here. Pippin: Is that on? It sounds like it. If you look at the top line, it is entitled pathway, landscaping and improvements and if you look in this column, you will see it's in its zero percent. Remember how I said there are three types of capital spending, one of which is pure betterment? Well pure betterment cannot be included in the fee calculations and even though it would be excellent to do these landscaping and pathway improvements and we hope that you do, you can't spend impact fee money on it because it is for the benefit of raising your current level of service. So, we have taken that out. It is at zero percent. Similarly, there are two large potential facilities here. A community center at $10 million and an aquatic center at $1.5 million. The Mayor knowing that she wasn't going to be here this evening asked me to represent her point that she would hope that these are included in the fee calculations. Right now they are not and the reason that we have chosen our professional judgment not to include them in the fee calculations is because growth is not triggering the need for these facilities. It Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27,2006 Page 16 of 19 would be great if you have them, but unlike the fire training facility or the police shooting range, where growth is getting to a certain size is requiring that because of accreditation, etc., we view these are pure benefit, pure upgrade in service standard, so we have left them out. Anyway, $22.1 million is what would be required to maintain your current level of service. If after further discussions with the advisory committee we come to a different decision on Borup and Settler's park and your ratio is below 3.44 then this number would come down correspondingly because you would need to buy less parks to get to a lower ratio of population to acreage. Let's advance to the next slide, which is the second to last slide. Impact fees by their very definition are just division. We are taking your CIP's, your capital improvement plans, we are trying to identify what part of the CIP is growth related and then we are simply dividing that by who is coming, new residents and new businesses. So, when we take those last three slides that we just discussed and we divide it by anticipated growth in Meridian and your area of impact over the next 10 years we get (inaudible) schedule that is presented before you. The fee would be brand new. Right now it is set $92 (inaudible) unit and $.06 per square foot for non-residential. (Inaudible) which makes sense because we know that fire needs $6.3 million and police only need about $1.2 million of capital. The fire fee, the maximum allowable amount (inaudible) $458 and $.31 a square foot. Finally the Parks and Recreation fee which is an existing fee could increase to a maximum of $1,921. Your current park's fee for a single-family unit is just below $800. So, we are talking about a pretty significant increase of over $1,100, which begs the question why go up so much? And it has to do with the methodology and the data that you are using currently verses the data that we are using. Right now, the cost per land that is assumed in your impact re-calculation, I believe is $35,000 an acre. When we met with the Park's staff and did research, it is our belief that you can't buy a park land for $35,000 an acre. We are using an average of $110,000 an acre. Moreover, your current fees are predicated on a development cost, a certain amount per acre, which we believe is low. We are estimating, I believe, $85,000 an acre to develop parks based on your current experience. So the primary reason why the Parks and Rec fee would increase so substantially is to reflect new reality of how much land costs and how much development costs. Let me take this moment to point out one final area that the advisory committee has brought up and that I think we will be discussing next week and that is are there alternate funding sources for parks. In other words if the city chose to adopt something (inaudible) $1,921 per unit, could they or could the city still get its parks built through exactions or general fund transfers or donations or whatever the case may be? We have not assumed that any of that is going to happen, but are recommending in the report and in the ordinance that if donations happen that developers get a dollar for dollar credit. In other words if there is a certain park listed in the CIP and a developer donates that or a developer uses its contracting equipment to make part of the improvements to that park, their impact fee liability would be reduced dollar for dollar, which is a pretty standard practice. However, I wanted to let you know that the advisory committee is thinking about alternative sources aside from impact fees. So, when you see this Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27,2006 Page 17 of 19 report it may have a notation in it. When we add it all up, if you look at the bottom area in gray, we believe today that the maximum allowed impact fee that Meridian could adopt is $2,471 per dwelling unit and $.37 per non-residential square foot. Again, let me emphasize the phrase maximum, allowable fee. As elected officials, you may choose to come in underneath that amount because you are concerned about economic development or you are concerned about how Meridian looks, compares to its neighbors. It is fully within your purview to adopt an amount less than this. However, that decision has a consequence and let's go to the last slide. Impact fees are a two-way street. In other words new development isn't the only one that is paying. The city also has to cough up enough money to pay for the non-growth related portion of the CIP because it would be unfair of you or any city to charge impact fees and then not chip in a general fund contribution because if the CIP doesn't get built that means you are charging new development for something that you know can't get done. So, what is the city's participation amount? Well, if you look on the bottom of the gray bar you can see a number of about $14.2 million. If the city accomplishes everything on the CIP and that is including the community center and the aquatic center, which are big ticket items you would owe $14.2 million over 10 years. It is a little over $1.4 million a year. That, however, is discretionary because you may choose not to build the community center or the aquatic center. What is (inaudible) is not the full amount, the $14.2 million, but the bottom number the $2.3 million. In other words before you adopt impact fees, if you decide to do so, you have to be confident that over 10 years you can chip in $2.3 million of general funds to be paired up with the impact fees and go to spend on the CIP. That $2.3 million represents the non-growth related portion of projects that are split. Things like the fire training center or the shooting range for police. Another example would be the mobile command vehicle, which is in the CIP, a mobile command post that police and fire would share. These are cases where we split the baby and that $2.3 million would be the city's share. In order to keep the impact fee fund fair and whole, you would have to chip that in. The last thing I will say before I take questions is if you decide to adopt impact fees at less than the maximum amount then it might change your liability. In other words that $2.3 million, which is not discretionary you would be required to pay that if you adopt fees. It is possible that number would go up if you adopt less than the maximum amount of impact fees because if you collect less than the maximum from development you need to fill the gap with general funds. If you don't, your service level would decline. That is a decision you could make that you want to charge less than 100 percent of the impact fee amount and accept a slightly lower level of service. If you are worried about affording more than the $2.3 million, which we know from your Finance Department is an achievable number today. But, (inaudible) over $3 million, $300,000 per year over 10 years, the Finance Department, I don't think would be as confident about the city's ability to make those transfers. So, I appreciate your time. I would love to answer questions and again a recap, we are going to meet with the advisory committee next Thursday and at some point they will be asked to forward this study to you Meridian City PrewCouncil Meeting June 27, 2006 Page 18 of 19 and it is quite likely they may have some comments on it for your consideration. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Pippin. Council short questions, comments? Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. Pippin you indicated that at some time we might be seeing a report from the advisory committee. What is the timeline? Pippin: Let me begin that answer and then I will refer to Mr. Baird. It is my understanding that July ih, next Thursday is our next advisory committee meeting and your city attorney who will be there in Mr. Baird's absence, plans to ask the advisory committee for a motion at the end of that meeting next Thursday, a motion of transmittal. That is my understanding, but Ted may want to - Baird: Mr. Chair and members of the Council and Councilmember Rountree it was our plan that if a recommendation was to come out of the committee on the ih, we would be able to begin the statutorily required notice process and you could have a public hearing as early as July 25th. I recently heard from Joanne Butler that there has been some delay in preparing the ordinance and the ordinance may not, in fact, be ready for - we are required to have three publications of the ordinance. We can't suspend the rules like we sometimes do. So, the first reading would have to take place on July 11th, the second reading on July 18th and the third reading and public hearing on July 25th. There is some question as to whether or not that could be met. There is a possibility for an interim measure that we could bring forward only the CIP, public hearing and ordinance change for the park's portion because we currently have an ordinance that does allow park's fees, so you could consider that at the one hearing and then consider the fire and police a couple of weeks later when those are ready. So, it is a little bit unknown at this point, but it has been our commitment to the Mayor to bring that forward within the month of July. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council additional questions? Rountree: I have none. Thank you. Good job. Wardle: Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our Pre-Council meeting. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting June 27,2006 Page 19 of 19 Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: 7/ ~/t96 ~1111:lii' DATE APPRQV U8~'!illi(' ,>":\-( , '<'" :;;,-,-,- c} r~~ -'''''-;':;. :::- ...,~, ,- .-::- 0-;' - -;. ATTESTE~~ WILLIAM G. BERG,