HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Report 07 25 06.09.05.06 City CouncilFinal Report
July 25, 2006
City of Meridian
Impact Fee Study and
Capital Improvement Plans
Prepared for
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Prepared by
BBC Research & Consulting
Tom Pippin and Laura Doze
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850
Denver, CO 80209-3827
In Association with
Spink Butler, LLP
JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan
251 E. Front Street, Suite 200
Boise, ID 83702
Galena Consulting
Anne Wescott
1214 South Johnson Street
Boise, ID 83705
Table of Contents
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT – i
Report
Background and Objectives............................................................................................................ 1
Definition of Impact Fees................................................................................................................ 2
Land Use and Demographics.......................................................................................................... 6
Residential Data.............................................................................................................................. 6
Nonresidential Data........................................................................................................................ 9
Impact Fee Calculation Considerations......................................................................................... 10
Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans........................................................................... 10
Mechanics of Fee Calculations...................................................................................................... 19
City Participation.......................................................................................................................... 23
Cash Flow Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 26
Other Funding Sources................................................................................................................. 27
Implementation Recommendations.............................................................................................. 28
Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 30
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian .................................. 8
Exhibit 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development ..................................................... 10
Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ............................................................... 13
Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ............................................................... 14
Exhibit 5. Current Fire Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ................................................................... 15
Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 .................................................................. 16
Exhibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ........................................ 17
Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ........................................ 18
Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 .................................................................................. 19
Exhibit 10. Police Impact Fee Calculation..................................................................................... 20
Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation ........................................................................................ 21
Exhibit 12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation.............................................................. 22
Exhibit 13. City Participation – Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 .......................... 23
Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan.................................. 24
Exhibit 15. City Participation – Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016.............................. 24
Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan ..................................... 25
Exhibit 17. City Participation – Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016....................................... 25
Exhibit 18. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................... 26
Exhibit 19. Projected Cash Flows – CIP Methodology ................................................................... 26
Exhibit 20. Summary of Impact Fees............................................................................................ 30
Exhibit 21. City Participation Summary, 2006 to 2016 ................................................................. 31
Table of Contents
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT – ii
Attachments:
Appendix A – Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances
Appendix B – Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance
Appendix C – Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist
Appendix D – Current Service Standard Approach
Appendix E – Detailed Demographic Analysis
Appendix F – Communities in Motion
Appendix G – Collier’s Year-End Real Estate Market Review
Appendix H – Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement Plans
This report regarding impact fees for the City of Meridian (Meridian or City) is organized into the
following sections:
An overview of the report’s background and objectives;
A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use;
An overview of land use and demographics;
A step-by-step calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
approach;
A calculation of the City’s monetary participation in those capital improvements
defined as requiring repair, replacement or an upgrade, and the City’s pro rata share of
partially growth-related capital improvements;
A cash flow analysis;
A list of implementation recommendations; and
A brief summary of conclusions.
Each section follows sequentially.
We have also attached several appendices with supporting documentation: Appendix A. Minimum
Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances; Appendix B. Meridian
Impact Fee Ordinance; Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist; Appendix D. Current Service
Standard Approach; Appendix E. Detailed Demographic Analysis; Appendix F. Communities in
Motion report; Appendix G. Colliers’ Year-End Real Estate Market Review; and Appendix H.
Meridian FY 2005 CIP.
Background and Objectives
The City of Meridian (City) hired BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) in April 2006 to calculate
impact fees for police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. BBC was assisted by two
Idaho-based subcontractors: JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan of Spink Butler, LLP and Anne
Wescott of Galena Consulting.
Spink Butler interpreted the requirements of the Idaho Code, updated the City’s impact fee
ordinance and assisted in all phases of the project. Ms. Wescott inventoried Meridian’s current police,
fire, and parks and recreation assets; established capital improvement replacement costs; helped the
City refine their Capital Improvement Plans; and assisted in all phases of the project.
This document presents the maximum allowable fees based on the City’s demographic data and
infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the City’s monetary participation; examines
the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount; and outlines specific fee
implementation recommendations.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 1
Definition of Impact Fees
Impact fees are generally defined as one-time assessments used to recover the capital costs borne by
local governments due to new growth and development. Impact fees are governed by principles
established in Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act
(Impact Fee Act), attached as Appendix A, which specifically gives cities, towns and counties the
authority to levy impact fees. The Idaho Code defines an impact fee as “. . . a payment of money
imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of
system improvements needed to serve development.”1
Purpose of impact fees. The Impact Fee Act repeats the legislative finding that “. . . an equitable
program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is
necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the state of Idaho.”2
Idaho fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on
the calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact
fees that are consistent with federal law.3 Some of those restrictions include:
Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement
costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth;4
Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees may
be held in certain circumstances beyond the 8-year time limit if the governmental entity
can provide reasonable cause;5
Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital
improvements needed to serve new growth and development;6
Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the
capital projects fund.7
1 See Section 67-8203(9), Idaho Code. “System improvements” are capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a useful
life of 10 years or more) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities
include: parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law
enforcement, fire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code.
2 See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code.
3 As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a defensible impact fee. To meet substantive due
process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against
new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance
legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of “rough proportionality.” Adequate consideration of the
factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2) ensure that rough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Development Corp. v. South
Jordan, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
4 See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203(29), Idaho Code.
5 See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code.
6 See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code.
7 See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 2
In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following:
Establishment of and consultation with a development impact fee advisory committee
(Advisory Committee);8
Identification of all existing public facilities;
Determination of a standardized measure (or service unit) of consumption of public
facilities;
Identification of the current level of service that existing public facilities provide;
Identification of the deficiencies in the existing public facilities;
Forecast of residential and nonresidential growth;9
Identification of the growth-related portion of City Capital Improvement Plans;10
Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement
funding sources;11
Implementation of recommendations such as impact fee credits, how impact fee
revenues should be accounted for, and how the impact fees should be updated over
time;12
Preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to state law and
public hearings regarding the same;13 and
Preparation and adoption of an ordinance authorizing impact fees pursuant to state law
and public hearings regarding the same.14 The proposed update to the Meridian Impact
Fee Ordinance, which is the ordinance that will amend the City’s municipal code, is
attached as Appendix B. A checklist for ordinance requirements is found in
Appendix C.
How should fees be calculated? State law requires the City to implement the Capital
Improvement Plan methodology to calculate impact fees. The City could implement fees of any
amount not exceeding the maximum fees calculated by the CIP approach. This methodology requires
the City to describe its service area, forecast the land uses, densities and population that will occur in
that service area over the next 20 years, and identify the capital improvements that will be needed to
8 See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code.
9 See Section 67-8206(2), Idaho Code.
10 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code.
11 See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code.
12 See Sections 67-8209 and 67-8210, Idaho Code.
13 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code.
14 See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 3
serve the forecasted growth at the same level of service found in the existing community. 15 This list
and cost of capital improvements, along with a time schedule for commencing and completing the
construction of all capital improvements, constitutes the capital improvement element to be adopted
as part of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan.16 Only those items listed on the CIP are eligible to be
funded by impact fees.
Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements
plan.17 To ensure that impact fees are adopted and spent for capital improvements in support of the
community’s needs and planning goals, the Impact Fee Act establishes a link between the authority to
charge impact fees and certain planning requirements of Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act
(LLUPA). The local government must have adopted a comprehensive plan per LLUPA procedures,
and that comprehensive plan must be updated to include a current capital improvement element.18
This study considers the planned capital improvements for the period between 2006 and 2016 that
will need to be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee
Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the
principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a “proportionate share”
of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. “Proportionate share” is defined as “. . . that
portion of the cost of system improvements . . . which reasonably relates to the service demands and
needs of the project.”19 Practically, this concept requires Meridian to carefully project future growth
and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and defensible impact fee
schedules.
The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees: are calculated by measuring
the needs created for capital improvements by the development being charged the impact fee; do not
exceed the cost of such improvements; and are “earmarked” so as to benefit those that pay the impact
fees.
15 As a comparison and benchmark for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC also
calculated the City’s current level of service by quantifying the City’s current investment in capital improvements for each
impact fee category, allocating a portion of these assets to residential and nonresidential development, and dividing the
resulting amount by current housing units (residential fees) or current square footage (nonresidential fees). By using current
assets to denote the current service standard, this methodology guards against using fees to correct existing deficiencies. The
calculation of the City’s current level of service is found in Appendix D and this investment in capital improvements for
police, fire, and parks and recreation is referenced throughout this report.
16 See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code.
17 Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. See Appendix A for a description of the requirements of the Impact Fee Act for the capital
improvements plan.
18 See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code.
19 See Section 67-8203(23), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 4
There are various approaches to calculating impact fees and to crediting new development for past
and future contributions made toward system improvements. The Impact Fee Act does not specify a
single type of fee calculation, but it does specify that the formula be “reasonable and fair.” Impact fees
must take into account the following:
Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or
construction of system improvements;
Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in
the form of user fees and debt service payments;
That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by Meridian to system
improvements; and
All other available sources of funding such system improvements.20
Through data analysis and interviews with City staff, BBC and Galena Consulting identified the
share of each capital asset needed to serve growth. The total projected capital improvements needed
to serve growth are then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting
amounts divided by growth projections from 2006 to 2016. This is consistent with the Impact Fee
Act.21 However, only residential development is charged parks and recreation impact fees since
households are the primary consumers of park services. Among the advantages of the CIP approach is
its establishment of a spending plan22 to give developers and new residents more certainty about the
use of the particular impact fee revenues.
Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations
is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The
considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following:
The allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is “a standard measure of
consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit23 of
development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning
standards for a particular category of capital improvement.”24 The service units chosen
by the study team are all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential
development square feet.
20 See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code.
21 The impact fee that can be charged to each service unit (in this study, residential dwelling units and nonresidential square
feet) cannot exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements for system improvements
attributable to new development to provide an adopted service level by the total number of service units attributable to new
development. See Sections 67-8204(16), 67-8208(1(f) and 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code.
22 An example of a spending plan, Meridian Parks Capital Improvements Plan FY 2005, may be found in Appendix J.
23 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code.
24 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 5
A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses.
According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a “conversion table establishing the
ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial,
agricultural and industrial.”25 In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the
highest level of detail supportable by available data and, as a result in this study, impact
fees are allocated between aggregated residential (i.e., all forms of residential housing)
and nonresidential development (all nonresidential uses including retail, office,
agricultural and industrial).
Land Use and Demographics
In calculating the impact fees, it was necessary to allocate capital improvement costs to both
residential and nonresidential development. The study team performed this allocation based on the
number of projected new households and nonresidential square footage added from 2006 through
2016.
Pursuant to Idaho State law, we gathered data on 20-year land use assumptions in Meridian,
including population, households and employment. See Appendix E for the 20-year forecasts to
2026. However, the impact fee calculations in this report are based on the next 10 years of land use
data to maintain consistency with Meridian’s CIP planning horizon.
Residential data. The primary data sources for residential unit counts and square footage numbers
are the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS); the City of Meridian;
the U.S. Census Bureau; and the National Association of Homebuilders. Appendix E provides
COMPASS’ demographic spreadsheets and details any calculations performed by the study team to
arrive at current or projected residential data.
25 See Section 67-8208(1)(e), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 6
Current and future households. To estimate the current and future number of households in the
City, the study team used household estimates from COMPASS’ 2006 document entitled
Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and
Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21/06. This document provides detailed data (from 2005 to 2030
in five year increments) on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub areas
(North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). However, data are collected by Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ) and COMPASS states that the demographic area does not “match either city
limits or areas of impact boundaries”26 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at
all, and other TAZs are only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian’s area of
impact contains many of the same TAZs that are in COMPASS’ Meridian demographic area. Based
on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the study team has chosen to use COMPASS’
data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact.27
See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the derivation of the current and future household
numbers and COMPASS’ Community Choices Forecast spreadsheet.
Single family/multifamily distribution. Communities in Motion was the basis for the allocation of
future housing units between single family and multifamily units. Communities in Motion is the
Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Treasure Valley to 2030. The Communities in
Motion working group collaborated with COMPASS to estimate housing units by type in the
Treasure Valley. This report forecasts that Treasure Valley will eventually be 55 percent single family
and 45 percent multifamily housing units (see Appendix F). After discussing this land use allocation
goal with Anna Canning and Steve Siddoway from the City’s Planning Department, the study team
concluded that this distribution would likely not be achieved within the time frame of the 10-year
CIPs used in the impact fee calculations.
Therefore, in the interim, we believe it is appropriate for the allocation of future housing units in
Meridian to be based on trend data from the Communities in Motion report in Appendix F (72
percent single family and 28 percent multifamily). This housing type distinction is only necessary for
calculating residential square footage, a precursor to fee calculations, as discussed below. The impact
fees in this report are equivalent for single family and multifamily units.
Current and future square footage. In order to distribute the costs for capital improvements to new
residential and nonresidential development, a precursor to the calculation of impact fees, it was
necessary to estimate the current and future total square footage of residential and nonresidential
units in the City.
26 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about
COMPASS Forecasts.
27 Because the City anticipates negotiations with Ada County for an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for Ada County to
collect impact fees within the area of impact (AOI) on behalf of Meridian. An example of an IGA for the collection of park
impact fees by Ada County for the benefit of Boise City within Boise’s AOI is found in Appendix F.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 7
In addition, square feet data are used to calculate the growth-related percentage of certain capital
improvements that are only partially necessitated by growth. The particular capital improvements
referenced in this study that are only partially growth-related are the fire training tower, fire and
police command vehicle, ladder fire truck and the firing range. The calculations of the growth-related
percentage of these capital improvements is found on page 11.
Based on national data, BBC used figures of 2,097 square feet for single family units and 1,063
square feet for multifamily units.28 These estimates reflect the average of national annual median
square foot figures from 1999 to 2004 and represent the best available data.
Exhibit 1 below presents the number of current (2006) and projected (2016) single family and
multifamily units, and respective square footage estimates.
Exhibit 1.
Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian
Housing Units (1)
Single Family 20,053 25,537 5,485
Multifamily 2,282 9,931 7,649
Total Housing Units 22,334 35,469 13,134
Square Feet
(2)
Single Family (units * 2,097 sq.ft.) 42,040,244 53,539,312 11,499,069
Multifamily (units * 1,063 sq.ft.) 2,426,219 10,559,390 8,133,171
Total Square Feet 44,466,463 64,098,703 19,632,240
Total in
2006
Difference 2006
to 2016
Total in
2016
Notes: (1) COMPASS for housing units and Communities in Motion for allocation of housing units between single family and multifamily.
(2) National Association of Homebuilders 5-year trailing average for square footage.
Source: COMPASS, Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones (Excel
worksheet, Updated 3/21/2006), National Association of Homebuilders, Characteristics of New Single Family Homes (1987-2004), City of
Meridian, Communities in Motion and Impact Fee Study Team.
Currently, there are an estimated 22,334 housing units in the City of Meridian, 20,053 of which are
single family units and 2,282 of which are multifamily units. By 2016, the residential housing stock
is projected to have increased by 59 percent (13,100 households) for a total of over 35,000 units.
28 National Association of Homebuilders, average of median figures from 1999-2004, Characteristics of New Single Family
Homes 1987-2004.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 8
Nonresidential data .Colliers’ International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market
Review, 2005, tabulates existing office, retail and industrial square footage for cities in the Treasure
Valley. The report, located in Appendix G, discusses various submarkets in the Valley, including the
City of Meridian, and lists current nonresidential square footage, vacancy rates, building counts,
market rents, etc. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a
base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the
total current and projected nonresidential square footage in the City.
Current nonresidential development. As discussed with Colliers, the Year-End Real Estate Market
Review square footage count only includes buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. To adjust for this
underestimate of nonresidential square feet, the study team obtained City data on the square footage
of new commercial development since 2003. The City’s data are not a cumulative total of all square
footage in the City; rather the data only reflect the square footage of new permitted nonresidential
units. The study team calculated the percentage of new units since 2003 that were less than 10,000
square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City’s newly permitted
nonresidential units were less than 10,000 square feet. Knowing this, Colliers tabulation represents
79 percent of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. By dividing Colliers square footage
by 79 percent, the study team arrived at the current total of nonresidential square feet in Meridian.
This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006.
See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the current nonresidential square feet.
Future nonresidential development. No data exist for exact 2016 projections of nonresidential
square footage in Meridian. Therefore, BBC developed a defensible method for calculating future
nonresidential square footage. COMPASS’ document, Community Choices Forecast: Households,
Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, provides data on current
and future jobs in Meridian. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a
ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square
footage to 2016. Currently, there are 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology
described above, current nonresidential square feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the square footage by
the number of jobs in 2006 produces a ratio of 319 square feet per employee in 2006.29
COMPASS’ report also projects jobs in 2016. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to
employee remains constant, the study team used this ratio, as described above, to project
nonresidential square footage forward. The estimated number of jobs in 2016 (31,888) is multiplied
by the square footage per employee (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square
feet in 2016.
See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the future nonresidential square feet.
29 This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time, and can be adjusted in future impact fee updates. The
319 square feet per employee is the study team’s best estimate given the available data.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 9
Exhibit 2 below shows the current and projected nonresidential development square feet.
Exhibit 2.
Current and Projected Nonresidential Development
Total in 2006 6,544,830
Total in 2016
(1)
10,173,758
Difference (2006 to 2016) 3,628,928
Nonresidential
Square Feet
Note: (1) Assumes that nonresidential square footage grows in proportion to employment (319 square feet per employee).
Source: COMPASS, Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones (Excel
worksheet, Updated 3/21/2006), Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
Using the methodology described above, the increase in nonresidential square footage from 2006 to
2016 is approximately 3.6 million square feet.
Impact Fee Calculation Considerations
The fees calculated under the CIP approach were based on the following:
City investments in police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements
projected to be built from 2006 through 2016;
An allocation of investment to residential and nonresidential development, based on
new residential dwelling units and nonresidential square footage; and
A fee calculation that involves dividing the appropriate share of capital improvements
by projected residential units and nonresidential square feet.
Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans
The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a
fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to “. . . project demand for system
improvements required by new service units . . . over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20
years.”30 The impact fee study team recommends a 10-year time period based on the City’s best
available capital planning data.
30 See Section 67-8208(1)(h).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 10
The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of
new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth over the next 10 years at existing
service levels. Equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more is also impact fee eligible under the
Impact Fee Act.31 The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the “CIP Value”
in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee
categories. Because impact fees are calculated for three impact fee categories in this study (i.e., police,
fire, and parks and recreation), 33 percent of the study’s cost is included in all calculations.
Additionally, for the parks and recreation CIP (the only fee category with a fund balance), the City’s
current parks and recreation impact fee fund balance is subtracted from the total CIP value. The
existing fund balance will be used to pay for a portion of the future capital improvements and will
therefore decrease the amount needed to be collected from future impact fees. In the study team’s
judgment, the City is obligated to expend this existing fund balance on pre-planned growth-related
capital improvements before spending future impact fee receipts on newly identified projects in the
following CIPs.32
The forward-looking 10-year CIPs for the fire, police, and parks and recreation departments each
include some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth (e.g., the fire training tower, fire
and police command vehicle, fire ladder truck and the firing range). The study team met with each
department to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact
fee calculations.
The four capital improvements mentioned immediately above are calculated to be 31 percent growth-
related. The 31 percent ratio is calculated by dividing the accumulated new square footage between
2006 and 2016 (residential and nonresidential) by the total square footage in 2016.33 This percentage
is attributed to growth under the philosophy that growth caused the need for such facilities and
vehicles, and this growth also necessitates building a proportionately larger facility to accommodate
additional personnel (which would otherwise not be necessary with the existing population). The firing
range, fire ladder truck, training tower and command vehicle should be sized according to population
and peak period demand. The City needs to size these facilities and vehicles to be able to
accommodate the demand created by the current residents and the demand of future residents.
It should be understood that growth will be paying only a portion of the cost of these facilities. The
City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of these partially growth-related capital
improvements with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees
must be spent. As discussed later in this report, the value of this City participation investment is
approximately $14.7 million over the next ten years, or approximately $1.5 million per year. This
investment includes $11.9 million of discretionary funding in connection with purely non-growth-
31 The Advisory Committee has discussed the extent to which “equipment,” as opposed to “land and buildings,” can be
considered capital improvements eligible for impact fee consideration. Some Advisory Committee members expressed
discomfort with personal property being impact fee eligible, but the Impact Fee Act allows a broad range of improvements
to be considered as “capital” improvements, so long as the improvements have useful life of at least 10 years and also
increase the service capacity of public facilities. See Sections 67-8203(28) and 50-1703, Idaho Code.
32 “Collected development impact fees must be expended within eight (8) years from the date they were collected, on a first-
in, first-out (FIFO) basis . . . .” See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. Funds collected prior to July 1, 2006, must be
expended within five (5) years from the date they were collected, on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis.
33 The residential square footage is described in Exhibit 1 and the nonresidential square footage is described in Exhibit 2.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 11
related improvements, and $2.8 million of capital improvements, portions of which are not growth-
related and therefore must be funded from the City’s General Funds. These funds could come from
City revenues, donations, grants or other partnerships.
It should also be noted that certain CIP capital improvements are listed in the following exhibits as
zero percent growth-related because City staff relayed that the proposed capital improvements were
actually either entirely repair and replacement of existing facilities or represented an upgrade in
service levels not triggered by new growth. These non-growth-related capital improvements are listed,
nonetheless, in the CIP because municipalities often use the CIP for planning purposes, not just to
calculate impact fees. Meridian may find this inclusion in the CIP exhibits useful.
Levels of service. Levels of service (sometimes referred to in this study as “service level(s)”) must be
defined in the capital improvement element of the Comprehensive Plan, and is the basis for
establishing additional service capacity need in any system that serves new development. “Level of
service” is “. . . a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public
facilities.”34 Service levels need to be stated in quantifiable, specific terms, since they measure the
benefit new development receives for payment of impact fees. The capital improvement element
must clearly identify existing public facilities and service levels and identify any shortfalls in service
levels, if at all. Any such shortfall or “deficiency” that Meridian intends to overcome for both existing
and new development cannot be funded with impact fees. Likewise, the cost of raising the service
level for existing and future development beyond the current service level is ineligible for impact fee
funding. If Meridian desires to use impact fees to achieve a higher service level for new development
than existing service levels, Meridian must, outside of impact fees, raise the money to bring the
existing community to that higher service level as well. This restriction has a general effect of
restraining the setting of unreasonably high standards and fees solely for new development.
All of the capital improvement costs in the CIPs on the following pages represent improvements that
are needed for growth to maintain the current level of service. The City may be operating at a less
than desirable level (i.e., operating with deficiencies). In the future, the City may plan to increase the
level of service. If this is the case, any capital improvements that increase the current level of service
are not impact fee eligible and have been purposely excluded from the calculations.
Specifically, the police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based
on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. The police department’s targeted level
of service, however, is one officer per 3.75 square miles. Therefore, the department is operating at a
deficiency of .75 officers per square mile. The department does intend to increase the current level of
service to the 3.75 officers per square mile. Because this is an increase in the level of service, any
capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee
calculation.
34 See Section 67-8203(17), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 12
The fire department, on the other hand, is not currently operating at a deficient level of service. The
current and targeted level of fire service is to respond to 90 percent of all calls within five minutes
(i.e., one minute “turn out” time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710. The fire department plans on continuing this level of
service; therefore, all growth-related capital improvements in the CIP represent a continuation of the
current level of service and are impact fee eligible.
Akin to the fire department, the parks and recreation department is not currently operating at a
deficient level of service. The total number of currently developed acres is 183.92, which equates to
2.78 acres per 1,000 population. At 2.78 acres per 1,000 population, and a projected 2016
population of 105,411 (including area of impact), the parks department needs to add 109 acres over
10 years to keep the current service standard (2.78 x 105.4 = 293 acres minus the existing 183.92
acres = 109 acres).
Current police assets. As is evident, the provisions of the Impact Fee Act significantly limit the
City’s use of impact fees. This is particularly true for police service because most costs of serving new
development involve adding police officers or patrol vehicles that are not impact fee eligible, even
though the demand for added personnel and vehicles might be a direct result of new development.
Exhibit 3 lists the current police assets. The police department is currently operating with one officer
per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff.
Exhibit 3.
Current Police Assets
Source:
City of Meridian Police Department.
Type of Capital Improvement
Police Station (1401 E. Watertower)
Animal Shelter
Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios)
K-9 Training Facility
K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres)
The one officer per 4.5 square mile service standard equates to a current investment of $106 per
residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation).
Police Capital Improvement Plan. Exhibit 4 on the following page lists the future capital
improvements that are necessary to maintain the current level of service (i.e., one officer per 4.5
square mile) for future residential units and nonresidential development. Capital improvements not
included in the fee calculation include any investments that assist in the augmentation of the service
level to the point of reaching the goal of one officer per 3.75 square miles. The exhibit presents $1.3
million of future capital improvements that are eligible for inclusion in the police impact fee
calculation. The “Amount to Include in Fees” is derived from multiplying the “CIP Value” times the
“Growth-Related Portion” times the “Shared Facility” percentage.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 13
Exhibit 4.
Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201635
Type of Capital Improvement times times equals
Infrastructure (2006 to 2016)
Firing Range - Semi-Enclosed Building $2,000,000 31% 100% $626,374
Patrol Facility Expansion $157,248 100% 100% $157,248
Animal Shelter Expansion $140,000 100% 100% $140,000
Firing Range Land (2.5 Acres) (1)
$275,000 31% 100% $86,126
Police Substation in Fire Station #6
(2)
$1,470,000 100% 5% $73,500
Police Substation in Fire Station #7
(2)
$1,470,000 100% 5% $73,500
Police Communications Equipment (14 Radios) $63,280 100% 100% $63,280
Police Substation in Fire Station #5
(3)
$1,120,000 100% 5% $56,000
Command Vehicle
(4)
$200,000 31% 50% $31,319
Total 2006-2016 CIP $6,895,528 $1,307,347
Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833
Grand Total $6,928,028 $1,318,180
Amount to
Value Include in Fees
Growth-Related
Portion
Shared Facility
(% in fee)
CIP
Note: (1) Cost per acre of land is $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time.
(2) Total cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Station #5. Facilities are shared with the fire department.
(3) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with fire department.
(4) Command Vehicle is shared with the fire department.
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
The police CIP in Exhibit 4 includes five percent of the growth-related costs of three new fire
stations. This modest cost allocation is intended to pay for a small police office in each fire station
where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. Similarly, the police CIP includes 50
percent of the growth-related cost of a new command vehicle that will be shared equally with the fire
department, and should therefore bare a proportionate share of the cost.
Finally, the Impact Fee Act allows the inclusion of equipment in the impact fee calculation, as long as
the useful life of such equipment is 10 years or more. The police department has quantified the
number of additional radios needed from 2006 to 2016 to support new officers required by new
growth, and asserts that, based on historic usage, the department uses radios for 10 years or more
before retiring these radios.
The cost per acre for the firing range ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount.
Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land that is priced higher than $110,000 per
acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic
hindrances and less desirable locations.
35 Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPs in this study, are allocated 100 percent to new
growth. There was discussion among the Advisory Committee members as to whether these capital improvements, which
are in use throughout the service area or in the case of parks, potentially in use by all residents of the service area, should be
completely allocated to new growth. There will be incidental benefits to existing development in connection with capital
improvements paid for by new development (and vice versa). These incidental benefits will not undermine the impact fee
scheme. See Section 67-8204(23), Idaho Code. The Advisory Committee may want to discuss this issue further and either
leave the fee as proposed or recommend that the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental
benefit.
Current fire assets. The fire department responds to 90 percent of all calls for service within five
minutes (i.e., one minute “turn out” time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, and is the department’s current and
future level of service. Exhibit 5 presents the current fire assets.
Exhibit 5.
Current Fire Assets
Type of Capital Improvement
Facilities
Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. ft.
Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft.
Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. ft.
Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft.
Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd)
Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. ft.
Vehicles
1982 Pierce Engine (311)
1986 Pierce Engine (306)
1993 Pierce Engine (304)
2000 Pierce Engine (302)
2002 Pierce Engine (301)
2004 Pierce Engine (303)
2006 Pierce Engine (30?)
2000 International Water Tender (320)
1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351)
1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342)
1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341)
Equipment
Opticom Traffic Signal Controls
16 Vehicle Radios
4 Base Station Radios
Source: City of Meridian Fire Department.
The current level of service equates to a current investment of $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per
nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 15
Fire Capital Improvement Plan. The fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies.
The fire department plans on continuing this level of service, responding to 90 percent of all calls for
service within five minutes (i.e., one minute “turn out” time and four minutes in transit). Therefore,
all growth-related capital improvements in the CIP represent the continuation of the current level of
service and are impact fee eligible.
Exhibit 6 reflects the future fire capital improvements needed to maintain the current level of fire
service.
Exhibit 6.
Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016
Type of Capital Improvement times times equals
Buildings
Fire Station #5 (1)
$1,120,000 100% 95% $1,064,000
Fire Station #6
(2)
$1,470,000 100% 95% $1,396,500
Fire Station #7
(2)
$1,470,000 100% 95% $1,396,500
Training Tower $480,000 31% 100% $150,330
Vehicles
3 New Engines (One per Station #5 through #7) $1,230,000 100% 100% $1,230,000
Ladder Truck $760,000 31% 100% $238,022
Additional Staff Vehicles $67,500 100% 100% $67,500
Additional Squad Vehicles $65,000 100% 100% $65,000
Command Vehicle
(3)
$200,000 31% 50% $31,319
Equipment
Additional Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $190,000 100% 100% $190,000
Additional Base Radios $15,900 100% 100% $15,900
Additional Vehicle Radios $12,051 100% 100% $12,051
Additional Vehicle Extrication Equipment $60,000 0% 100% $0
Additional SCBA $57,000 0% 100% $0
Additional Thermal Imaging Cameras $45,000 0% 100% $0
Total Infrastructure $7,242,451 $5,857,122
Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833
Grand Total $7,274,951 $5,867,955
Amount to
Value Include in Fees
Growth
Portion
CIP Shared Facility
(% in fee)
Notes: (1) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with police department.
(2) Total cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Fire Station #5. Facilities are shared with the police department.
(3) Command Vehicle is shared with the police department.
Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with Fire Chief 4/10/06 and Impact Fee Study Team.
The City is expected to purchase $7.3 million dollars in fire capital improvements, $5.9 million of
which is impact fee eligible from 2006 to 2016. This amount includes 95 percent of the growth-
related costs of three new fire stations (the remaining 5 percent reflects the cost of police offices in the
station). Fifty percent of the growth-related cost of a new command vehicle will be shared with the
police department, which should thus bare a proportionate share of the cost.36
36 There was some discussion within the Advisory Committee that setting the CIP value, for a fire truck, for example, at its
brand new replacement cost, is not appropriate because the City could buy used trucks. We believe the consensus of the
Committee was that the City’s policy to purchase new equipment would continue.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 16
Current parks and recreation assets. The total number of currently developed park acres is
183.92, which equates to a service standard of 2.78 acres per 1,000 population. Exhibit 7 lists the
City’s current parks and recreation assets that are responsible for the 2.78 acres per 1,000 population
service standard.
Exhibit 7.
Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2006
Type of Capital Improvement
Paths & Trails
Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres)
Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres)
Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres)
Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres)
Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre)
Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre)
Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres)
Neighborhood & Mini-Parks
Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres)
Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres)
Season's Park (7 Acres)
Chateau Park (6.75 Acres)
8th Street Park (4 Acres)
Champion Park (6 Acres)
Centennial Park (0.5 Acres)
Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres)
Cox Monument (0.25 Acres)
Community Parks
Heroes Park (30 Acres)
Tully Park (18.5 Acres)
Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres)
Storey Park (15 Acres)
Urban Parks
Meridian Settler's Park Developed (53 Acres)
Source: City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department.
The level of service for parks and recreation equates to a current investment of $1,612 per residential
unit (see Appendix D for calculation).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 17
Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. Currently, Meridian’s 10-year population
growth would justify slightly more than 109 acres of new parks and recreation capital improvements
at the current 2.78 developed acres per thousand population level of service, as described on page
13.37 Any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in
the fee calculation. Exhibit 8 below lists the future capital improvements necessary to maintain the
current level of parks and recreation service in the future.
Exhibit 8.
Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201638
Type of Capital Improvement times times equals
Pathways & Trails
Pathway Landscaping and Improvements (FY 2010) $75,000 0% 100% $0
Neighborhood & Mini-Parks
(1) (2)
4 New Neighborhood Parks (7.5 Acres Each) $2,550,000 100% 100% $2,550,000
Community Parks (3)
1 New Community Park (33 Acres) $6,435,000 100% 100% $6,435,000
Hero's Park Development (Shelter, Playgrounds, Tennis Courts) $500,000 100% 100% $500,000
Storey Park - Acquisition and Development of 1.44 Acres (4)
$554,200 50% 100% $277,100
Large Urban Parks (3)
1 New Large Urban Park (45 Acres) $8,775,000 100% 100% $8,775,000
Meridian Settler's Park - Final Phase Development $425,000 100% 100% $425,000
Parks Amenities
Community Center $10,000,000 0% 100% $0
Aquatics Center $1,500,000 0% 100% $0
Equipment
2 Mowers (1 Replacement and 1 Additional Mower) $130,000 0% 100% $0
Total Infrastructure $30,944,200 $18,962,100
Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833
Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance (5)
FY 2006 Beginning Fund Balance $800,150 100% 100% $800,150
Grand Total $30,176,550 $18,172,783
Value
Growth
Portion
CIP
(% in fee)
Amount to
Include in Fees
Shared Facility
Note: (1) Land to be donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of impact fee credits.
(2) $85,000 per acre in development costs based on recent City construction history.
(3) $195,000/acre in land and development costs ($110,000/acre average plus $85,000 in development costs).
(4) Addition to existing park - acquired to retain connectivity to future growth/neighborhoods.
(5) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian.
Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and Impact Fee Study team.
Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $30.2 million, of which over
$18.2 million is impact fee eligible.
37 At the end of fiscal year 2004, the City was at a service level of 1.92 developed acres per thousand population. The
increase in the level of service in the short time since 2004 is a result of several donations. Although some of the park acres
are not developed today, the Finance Department advised the study team that the City has allocated funds to develop these
park acres by the end of this year, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population.
38 The CIP breaks down the types of parks facilities (i.e., pathways and trails; neighborhood and mini-parks; community
parks; and large urban parks. However, the calculation for impact fees (see page 23) lumps all parks facilities together. There
has been some discussion by the members of the Advisory Committee to the effect that the impact fee calculations should
also be broken down into four parts, i.e., and the added together for the total parks impact fee. The Advisory Committee
should discuss.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 18
Mechanics of Fee Calculations
Impact fees are calculated using the costs summarized in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8 and the demographic
information from previous exhibits.
As required by the Impact Fee Act, prior to fee adoption, the Advisory Committee must consider the
following factors:
the means by which existing system improvements have been financed (for example, if
grant money has been consistently used to finance system improvements, it may be
reasonable to postulate that this will continue in the future);
the extent to which new development will contribute to financing system
improvements through (past and future) taxes, assessments and contributions;
the extent to which new development has provided system improvements, without
charge, for other properties in the service area;
extraordinary costs incurred by the City in serving new development; and
the availability of other sources of funding for system improvements (e.g., local
improvement district assessments, general tax levies).39
Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend that
the City Council adjust the maximum allowable impact fee.40
Future land use assumptions. Exhibit 9 displays the City’s incremental increase (from 2006 to
2016) in square footage distributed between residential and nonresidential land uses. The
distribution is used to appropriately allocate capital improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to
the various land uses.
Exhibit 9.
Distribution of Land Uses,
2006 to 2016
Note:
(1) May not total due to rounding.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Land Use Category
Residential 19,632,240 84%
Single Family 11,499,069 49%
Multifamily 8,133,171 35%
Nonresidential 3,628,928 16%
Total
(1)
23,261,168 100%
of Total
Square Percent
Feet
39 See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code.
40 These factors are to be considered while the City is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the
adoption of an impact fee, credits may be calculated on a project-by-project basis in connection with an individual
assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 19
In 2016, the City’s residential development is expected to increase by 19,632,240 square feet, and the
nonresidential development is estimated to increase by 3,628,928 square feet. Therefore, the future
allocation of land uses is projected to be 84 percent residential and 16 percent nonresidential.
The study team has calculated all impact fees per residential unit, regardless of unit type, and per
nonresidential square foot, regardless of type. The study team does not recommend imposing fees at a
more detailed level of analysis (i.e., fee differentials for single family and multifamily units and
differentials for commercial, agricultural and industrial square footage). In our judgment, such
distinctions are unwarranted by empirical evidence.
After allocating costs to the appropriate land-uses, impact fees for residential and nonresidential
development are calculated by dividing the residential service costs by new residential units, and by
dividing nonresidential service costs by new nonresidential square footage.
Police impact fees. Exhibit 10 presents police impact fees of $85 per residential unit and $0.06 per
nonresidential square foot. This represents the maximum allowable impact fee under Idaho’s Impact
Fee Act.
Exhibit 10.
Police Impact Fee
Calculation
Notes:
(1) See Exhibit 4. Police Capital
Improvement Plan for a list of CIP
investments required to maintain the
current level of service.
(2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses,
2006 to 2016.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Calculation of Impact Fees
Future Value of Police Capital Improvements
(1)
$1,318,180
Future Land Use Percentage
(2)
Residential 84%
Nonresidential 16%
Allocated Value by Land Use Category
Residential $1,112,544
Nonresidential $205,636
Growth to 2016
Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134
Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928
Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded)
Residential (per dwelling unit) $85
Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.06
The study team used the current service standard as a benchmark to double check the forward-
looking CIP approach. The team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to
Meridian’s current investment in police infrastructure ($106 per residential unit and $0.05 per
nonresidential square foot – see Appendix D).
These similar amounts suggest that Meridian’s 10-Year Police CIP is not overcharging new
development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. One reason that the CIP-based
fees are lower than the City’s current level of investment is that Meridian’s K-9 Facility is not
planned for expansion as growth occurs.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 20
Fire impact fees. Exhibit 11 calculates the impact fees for fire capital improvements based on the
future growth projections and anticipated future capital improvement costs described in earlier
exhibits.
Exhibit 11.
Fire Impact Fee
Calculation.
Notes:
(1) See Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement
Plan for a list of CIP investments required to
maintain the current level of service.
(2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses,
2006 to 2016.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Calculation of Impact Fees
$5,867,955
Residential 84%
Nonresidential 16%
Residential $4,952,554
Nonresidential $915,401
Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134
Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928
Residential (per dwelling unit) $377
Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.25
Growth to 2016
Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded)
Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements
(1)
Future Land Use Percentage (2)
Allocated Value by Land Use Category
The maximum allowable impact fees for fire capital improvements total $377 per new residential unit
and $0.25 per new nonresidential square foot.
The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to Meridian’s current
investment in fire infrastructure ($362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot).
It is to be expected that the maximum allowable fees slightly exceed this current level of investment.
Natural cost increases in providing the same level of service and the addition of several new types of
infrastructure triggered by growth, but not wholly applicable to growth, increase the future
investment in fire infrastructure.
The anticipated construction of the fire training tower is, in part, responsible for higher fire fees as
compared to the current investment in Appendix D. The fire training tower is a large capital
improvement unlike any current fire investment. Because growth has triggered the need for this
facility, a portion of the cost of the fire training tower is impact fee eligible. Current investment does
not reflect any such type of large improvement, which explains why the fees under the CIP approach
are higher.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 21
Parks and recreation impact fees. Parks and recreation impact fees are shown in Exhibit 12,
which is based on Exhibit 8 and demographic projections. Parks and recreation investment is only
allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services.
Exhibit 12.
Parks and Recreation
Impact Fee Calculation
Notes:
(1) See Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation
Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP
investments required to maintain the
current level of service.
(2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses,
2006 to 2016.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Calculation of Impact Fees
Future Value of Parks & Recreation
Capital Improvements (1) $18,172,783
Future Land Use Percentage
Residential 100%
Nonresidential 0%
Allocated Value by Land Use Category
Residential $18,172,783
Nonresidential $0
Growth to 2016
Residential (total dwelling units) 13,134
Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928
Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded)
Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,384
Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A
The maximum allowable impact fee for parks and recreation capital improvements is $1,384 for any
new residential unit.
The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amount is quite similar to Meridian’s current
investment in parks and recreation infrastructure ($1,612 per residential unit). These similar amounts
suggest that Meridian’s 10-Year Parks and Recreation CIP is not overcharging new development for
its proportionate share of new capital improvements.
The current parks and recreation impact fee, as of June 1, 2005, totaled $763.16 for a single family
unit and $694 per multifamily unit. If the City adopts the new fees at the maximum amount shown
in the exhibit above, the fees would increase 81 percent for single family units and 99 percent for
multifamily units. An increase in fees of this magnitude is not uncommon and is justifiable if the
nexus between the new development and future capital improvements remains intact. It is the study
team’s belief that the analysis of demographic data and Capital Improvement Plans has been
thorough and that the rational nexus required by law has been maintained.
It should also be noted that a portion of the fee difference is due to the dramatic increase in the cost
of parkland in Meridian. The City’s current parks impact fee, for example, is based on an assumed
land price and subsequent development cost significantly less than the $110,000 and $85,000 per
acre, respectively, reflected in Exhibit 8.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 22
City Participation
Because not all the capital improvements listed in the CIPs are 100 percent growth-related, the City
would assume the responsibility of paying for the portion of the capital improvements that are not
attributable to new growth. These payments would come from existing funds, donations and/or
ongoing revenue sources that are not tied directly to growth.
To arrive at the City participation amount, the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility
amount need to be subtracted from the total CIP value. Exhibits 13 through 18 calculate the City’s
participation between 2006 and 2016. The participation amount includes the cost of purely non-
growth-related improvements, and portions of growth-related improvements that are attributable to
repair, replacement, or upgrade, and not impact fee eligible.
Exhibit 13.
City Participation – Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016
$6,928,028 - $1,318,180 - $3,978,667 = $1,631,181
Include in Fees (1)
CIP
Value (1)
City
Participation
(3)
less less equals
Shared
Facility Amount
(2)
Amount to
Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016.
(2) Calculated from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016.
(3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount of repair/replacement/upgrade capital improvements and the non-growth amount
required by the CIP.
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
If the City adopts the maximum police fees as calculated in this report, the City would potentially be
responsible for approximately $1.6 million in police capital improvements. The City’s participation
would ensure that police service levels in Meridian do not decline. Again, the City’s participation
amount does not include ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs that will also
be borne by the City and not paid by impact fees.41
Exhibits 14, 16 and 18 on the following pages further analyze the City’s participation amount by
separating the City’s total participation amount into two categories: the purely non-growth
improvements total, and the non-growth improvements total attributed to portions of impact fee
eligible improvements.
41 There was some discussion in the Advisory Committee meetings of phasing-in the amount of the impact fees over a
number of months or years. The Advisory Committee may decide to recommend this course. However, the City would be
required to fund (using sources other than impact fees) an amount equal to the difference between the total adopted impact
fee and the amount of the phased impact fee.
The concept of phasing-in the impact fees over time should not be confused with the “effective date” of the impact fee
ordinance. By law, the ordinance will not be effective for a grace period of thirty (30) days following adoption. Some
Committee members have raised the possibility of extending this grace period; this should be discussed by the entire
Advisory Committee.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 23
It should be noted that the participation amount associated with purely non-growth improvements is
discretionary. The City can choose not to fund these capital improvements (although this could
result in a decrease in the level of service if the deferred repairs or replacements were urgent).
However, the non-growth-related portion of improvements that are impact fee eligible must be
funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program.
Exhibit 14.
Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan
Amount attributable to purely
non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $0
Amount attributable to the non-growth-related
portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $1,631,181
Total $1,631,181
Dollar
Amount
Source: Impact Fee Study Team.
To maintain the current level of service, one officer per 4.5 square miles, the City must contribute
$1.6 million between 2006 and 2016. The City must contribute this amount since the capital
improvements reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements.
At the time this study was completed, no police capital improvements were purely non-growth.
Therefore, the City must fund the entirety of the calculated participation amount.
Exhibit 15 presents the City’s participation in fire capital improvements, comprised of capital
improvements that are repair, replacement or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital
improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements
(required funding).
Exhibit 15.
City Participation – Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016
$7,274,951 - $5,867,955 - $324,667 = $1,082,329
CIP
Value (1)
City
Participation
(3)
less less equals
Shared
Facility Amount
(2)
Amount to
Include in Fees (1)
Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016.
(2) Calculated from Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016.
(3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non-growth amount required by the CIP.
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
Based on the maximum fire impact fees calculated in this report, the City’s participation amount
could total just over $1 million.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 24
Exhibit 16 below distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are
repair, replacement, or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the
non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding).
Exhibit 16.
Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan
Amount attributable to purely
non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $162,000
Amount attributable to the non-growth-related
portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $920,329
Total $1,082,329
Dollar
Amount
Source: Impact Fee Study Team.
In the above analysis, the City has the discretion to contribute $162,000 toward capital
improvements that are purely non-growth-related.
In order for the impact fee study to maintain its integrity, however, the City must contribute
approximately $920,000 to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements.
Exhibit 17 outlines the dollar amount that the City should contribute, in addition to impact fee
receipts, to parks and recreation capital improvements between 2006 and 2016.
Exhibit 17.
City Participation – Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016
$30,176,550 - $18,172,783 - $21,667 = $11,982,100
CIP
Value (1)
City
Participation
(3)
less less equals
Shared
Facility Amount (2)
Amount to
Include in Fees
(1)
Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016.
(2) Calculated from Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016.
(3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non-growth amount required by the CIP.
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 25
Exhibit 18 distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are purely
non-growth-related (discretionary funding) and improvements that reflect the non-growth-related
portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding).
Exhibit 18.
Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan
Amount attributable to purely
non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $11,705,000
Amount attributable to the non-growth-related
portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $277,100
Total $11,982,100
Dollar
Amount
Source: Impact Fee Study Team.
Of the $12 million of calculated City participation, $11.7 million is discretionary because the
associated capital improvements have been defined as purely non-growth-related. However, $277,000
of the City’s participation is required in order for the impact fee analysis to remain whole.
Cash Flow Analysis
It is important for the City to assess revenues that would be generated by the maximum allowable
impact fees as presented in this study, prior to further consideration by the Advisory Committee.
Exhibit 19 below displays the impact fee cash flow from 2006 to 2016, using the fees calculated by
the CIP methodology.
Exhibit 19.
Projected Cash Flows – CIP Methodology
Projected Cash Flow
Projected New Residential Units 1,313 6,567 13,134
Projected New Nonresidential Square Feet 362,893 1,814,464 3,628,928
Cumulative Cash Flow $2,537,077 $12,685,386 $25,370,771
2007 2011 2016
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
If impact fees were adopted at the maximum amounts, the City would collect just over $25 million
in impact fee revenues from 2006 though 2016. This amount is mathematically designed to finance
the entire growth-related portion of Meridian’s CIP.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 26
Other Funding Sources
Impact fees are just one of several funding sources for capital improvements. No one source is likely
to fund all of the identified public facility needs. The City must be committed to addressing and
alleviating deficiencies in service levels and addressing the expansion of service levels through
exploration in connection with the following, without limitation, possible funding sources:
General Fund: The City’s General Fund takes in revenues and makes expenditures for
the ongoing operation of City functions.
General Obligation Bonds: With these bonds, the City borrows money for public
facility development to be repaid with funds generated by an increase in property taxes.
These voter-approved (two-thirds of all voters required) bonds establish an increase in
property taxes for a period of time (typically 20 – 30 years) necessary to repay the
bonds. The money raised can only be used for capital improvements and cannot be
used for maintenance.
Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds may be issued based on leasehold values of land,
facilities and operating entities that create a specific cash flow used to repay the bonds.
Voter approval is required.
Certificates of Participation: With this option, the City would sell COPs to a lending
institution in return for a loan used to make improvements in connection with a public
facility. The lender would securitize the loan by taking title to the facility prior to the
repayment of the COPs. The loan is repaid from revenue generated by the facility or
from the City’s general operating budget. This option is subject to judicial approval.
Grants: Grants are available from a variety of sources, including private foundations
and government resources.
Joint Public/Private Partnership: This approach to funding would entail the City
entering into a working agreement with a quasi-public or private entity to help fund,
build, and/or operate a public facility.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 27
Implementation Recommendations
As the City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Improvement Plans and impact
fees, we also offer the following information for your consideration. Please note that this information
will be included in the City’s impact fee enabling ordinance (Appendix B).
Capital Improvements Plan. Should the Advisory Committee recommend this study to the City
Council and should the City Council adopt the study, the Finance Department should revise the
City’s existing Capital Improvement Plans using the information in this study. The existing City
Capital Improvement Plans for these departments is attached to the study as Appendix H. A revised
capital improvement plan would then be presented to the City for adoption as an element of the
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the procedures of the Local Land Use Planning Act.42
Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City should
review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance (Appendix B) for adoption as reviewed and
recommended by the Advisory Committee.
Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is in a unique position to work with and advise
several departments and the City Council to ensure that the capital improvement plans and impact
fees are routinely reviewed and modified as appropriate.
Impact fee service area. Some municipalities have fee differentials for various city zones under
the assumption that some areas utilize more or less current and future capital improvements. The
study team, however, does not recommend the City assess different fees by dividing the City into
zones. Police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements inherently serve a system-wide
function. If, for example, a serious accident occurs in one part of the City, the fire department may
call on engines and equipment from other stations to assist. Therefore, it is more appropriate not to
differentiate fees based on City zones. In practice, all areas of the City have an equal demand on the
infrastructure because the parks, fire, and police department function most efficiently on a system-
wide basis.
Donations. If the City receives donations for capital improvements listed on the CIP, the City must
account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for a non- or partially growth-related
improvement, the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more
traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is for a
growth-related project in the CIP, the donor’s impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This
means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact
fee.
Grants. If a grant is expected and regular, the grant amount should be reflected upfront in the fee
calculations, meaning that the impact fees will be lower in anticipation of the contribution. If the
grant is speculative or uncertain, this should not be reflected up-front in the fee calculations since the
City cannot count on those dollars as it undergoes capital planning.
42 See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208(1).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 28
The rational nexus is still maintained because the unexpected higher fund balance, due to the receipt
of a grant, is deducted from the calculations as a "down payment on the CIP" when the fee study is
updated.
Credit/reimbursement. If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth-related
project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit
against the fees owed for this category or, at the developer’s choice, be reimbursed from impact fees
collected in the future.43 This prevents “double dipping” by the City.
The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until
they made the City aware of the construction or contribution. If credit or reimbursement is due, the
City must enter into an agreement with the fee payor that specifies the amount of the credit or the
amount, time and form of reimbursement.44
City participation. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City of Meridian may choose
not to adopt the CIPs as stated in this report, in which case the City will need to prepare revised
capital improvement plans for review and adoption.
Impact fee accounting. The City should continue to maintain an Impact Fee Fund (already
established for the existing parks and recreation fees) separate and apart from the General Fund. All
current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and
withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital improvements. The City’s General Fund should be
reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest earnings, and
ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital improvements
not related to growth.
Spending policy. The City should establish and adhere to a written policy governing its
expenditure of monies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for
City operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not
necessitated by growth. In cases when growth-related capital improvements are constructed, impact fees
are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capital
improvements are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth, cost
sharing between the General Fund and Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis.
Update procedures. The City is expected to grow very rapidly over the 10-year span of the CIPs.
Therefore, the fees calculated in this study should be updated annually as the City invests in
additional infrastructure beyond what is listed in this report, and/or as the City’s projected
development changes significantly. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor
for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill’s Engineering News Record.
43 See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code.
44 See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 29
Summary
Using the CIP methodology, the state mandated approach, BBC calculated the total (i.e., police, fire,
and parks and recreation) maximum defensible impact fee for residential units at $1,846 and $0.31
per nonresidential square feet as seen in Exhibit 20 below. This maximum fee is being presented to
the Advisory Committee for its review and consideration in light of statutorily identified factors.
Exhibit 20.
Summary of Impact Fees
Source:
Impact Fee Study Team.
Impact Fee Category
Police Fees
Residential (per dwelling unit) $85
Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.06
Fire Fees
Residential (per dwelling unit) $377
Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.25
Parks & Recreation Fees
Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,384
Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A
Total Fees
Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,846
Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.31
It is the study team’s assessment that the City could reasonably charge impact fees of any amount up
to the $1,846 per residential unit and $0.31 per nonresidential square foot. This amount is sufficient
to pay for the growth-related portions of Meridian’s Capital Improvement Plans.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 30
Summary of City participation. Exhibit 21 below summarizes the total amount the City is
required to contribute and the amount the City could contribute discretionarily over the next 10 years
to police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements.
Exhibit 21.
City Participation
Summary, 2006 to 2016
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Fee Category
Police $0
Fire $162,000
Parks & Recreation $11,705,000
Total $11,867,000
Police $1,631,181
Fire $920,329
Parks & Recreation $277,100
Total $2,828,610
Grand Total $14,695,610
(Partially Non-Growth Improvements)
City
Participation
Discretionary Amount
Required Amount
(Purely Non-Growth Improvements)
The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt fees
at the maximum amount, will be approximately $2.8 million. The required $2.8 million reflects the
non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. The amount attributable to capital
improvements defined as purely non-growth equals nearly $11.9 million; the City can choose not to
fund this total amount, however, service levels could decrease.
If the City plans to fund all repair, replacement or upgrade capital improvements in addition to the
required amount, the City will need approximately $14.7 million over the next 10 years. This equates
to $1.5 million per year that the City will have to finance by drawing from the General Fund,
donations or other revenue sources. However, fairness and maintaining the integrity of the impact fee
system require the City to fund just over $280,000 per year in non-growth-related capital
improvements that are impact fee eligible
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 31
APPENDIX A.
Minimum Standards and Requirements for
Development Impact Fees Ordinances
IDAHO TITLE 67
STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 82
Minimum Standards and Requirements for
Development Impact Fees Ordinances
67-8204. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES ORDINANCES. Governmental entities which comply with the requirements of this
chapter may impose by ordinance development impact fees as a condition of development approval
on all developments.
(1) A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system
improvements determined in accordance with section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Development impact
fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or reasonable estimates of such costs.
(2) A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public
facilities adopted in the development impact fee ordinance of the governmental entity that are
applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development. The construction,
improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing public facilities for which a development
impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new
development.
(3) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify the point in the development process at
which the development impact fee shall be collected. The development impact fee may be collected
no earlier than the commencement of construction of the development, or the issuance of a building
permit or a manufactured home installation permit, or as may be agreed by the developer and the
governmental entity.
(4) A development impact fee ordinance shall be adopted in accordance with the procedural
requirements of section 67-8206, Idaho Code.
(5) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process whereby the governmental agency
shall allow the developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment
of the proportionate share of development impact fees under the guidelines established by this
chapter which shall be set forth in the ordinance. The individual assessment process shall permit
consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to
adjust the amount of the fee. The decision by the governmental agency on an application for an
individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee, including an
explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and shall specify the system
improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 1
(6) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide a process whereby a developer shall receive,
upon request, a written certification of the development impact fee schedule or individual assessment
for a particular project, which shall establish the development impact fee so long as there is no
material change to the particular project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the
impact fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee
including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code. The certification
shall also specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used.
(7) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision for credits in accordance with
the requirements of section 67-8209, Idaho Code.
(8) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision prohibiting the expenditure of
development impact fees except in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8210, Idaho
Code.
(9) A development impact fee ordinance may provide for the imposition of a development impact
fee for system improvement costs incurred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that
new growth and development will be served by the system improvements.
(10) A development impact fee ordinance may exempt all or part of a particular development
project from development impact fees provided that such project is determined to create affordable
housing, provided that the public policy which supports the exemption is contained in the
governmental entity's comprehensive plan and provided that the exempt development's
proportionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than
development impact fees.
(11) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide that development impact fees shall only be
spent for the category of system improvements for which the fees were collected and either within or
for the benefit of the service area in which the project is located.
(12) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for a refund of development impact fees in
accordance with the requirements of section 67-8211, Idaho Code.
(13) A development impact fee ordinance shall establish for a procedure for timely processing of
applications for determination by the governmental entity regarding development impact fees
applicable to a project, individual assessment of development impact fees, credits or reimbursements
to be allowed or paid under section 67-8209, Idaho Code, and extraordinary impact.
(14) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify when an application for an individual
assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted to be made by a developer or fee payer. An
application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted sufficiently in
advance of the time that the developer or fee payer may seek a building permit or related permits so
that the issuance of a building permit or related permits will not be delayed.
(15) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for appeals regarding development impact
fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8212, Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 2
(16) A development impact fee ordinance must provide a detailed description of the methodology
by which costs per service unit are determined. The development impact fee per service unit may not
exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in section
67-8208(1)(f), Idaho Code, by the total number of projected service units described in section 67-
8208(1)(g), Idaho Code. If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of
time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions
at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by
dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the
projected new service units described in section 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code, by the total projected
new service units described in that section.
(17) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for
various land uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the
right to elect to pay a project's proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of
development impact fees according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the
development project's proportionate share of system improvement costs, except as provided in section
67-8214(3), Idaho Code.
(18) After payment of the development impact fees or execution of an agreement for payment of
development impact fees, additional development impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed
unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes.
In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the
additional development impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the
additional service units or change in scope of the development.
(19) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any
development to double payment of impact fees.
(20) A development impact fee ordinance shall exempt from development impact fees the
following activities:
(a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other
catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of its
destruction;
(b) Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units;
(c) Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on
the same lot, provided that the number of service units does not increase;
(d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot;
(e) Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of
service units; and
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 3
(f) Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouse,
unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of
system improvements.
(21) A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building,
manufactured home or recreational vehicle unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation
such as utility bills and tax records, either:
(a) That a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle was legally in place on
the lot or space prior to the effective date of the development impact fee ordinance; or
(b) That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the installation of a modular
building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle on that same lot or space.
(22) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process for dealing with a project which
has extraordinary impacts.
(23) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for the calculation of a development
impact fee in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A development impact fee
shall not be deemed invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners
or developers within the service area other than the person paying the fee.
(24) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a description of acceptable levels of service
for system improvements.
(25) Any provision of a development impact fee ordinance that is inconsistent with the
requirements of this chapter shall be null and void and that provision shall have no legal effect. A
partial invalidity of a development impact fee ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of the ordinance that are consistent with the requirements of this chapter.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 4
APPENDIX D.
Current Service Standard Approach
The Current Service Standard approach was used to calculate the City’s current investment in capital
improvement. This approach is only shown for comparison purposes and serves as a double check
against the CIP approach in the main report. If the current investment in improvements were
considerably lower than the calculated fees in the body of the main report, then the City would need
to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. If this were the case, it is likely projects were attributed to
growth at an inaccurately high percentage, or, alternatively, some of the growth projects have
elements of repair, replacement or upgrade that have not been identified.
On the other hand, if the current investment in improvements were considerably higher than the fees
calculated under the CIP approach, the City would also need to reassess the Capital Improvement
Plans. In this case, it is likely the City would need more future improvements to maintain current
levels of service, or the City did not allocate enough of the capital improvements to growth.
The Current Service Standard methodology utilizes the current distribution of residential and
nonresidential square footage in the City as a basis for allocating improvement costs. This
conservative allocation is based upon the theory that current investment reflects the current level of
service provided by the City, and this current level of service should be maintained in future growth.
In order to evaluate the City’s current capital improvements, BBC and Galena Consulting met with
City staff to review the replacement costs and equity percentages (portion owned) of current capital
improvements. If the equity percentage for any project is less than 100 percent, this indicates that the
project is debt financed and the loan has not yet been retired. For the portion of current
improvements that is not yet owned in its entirety, taxes are used to pay the debt service payments.
This prevents “double dipping” so that growth would not pay twice for improvements with taxes and
impact fees.
The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of
new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth at existing service levels. The cost of
the fee study is also eligible for inclusion into the calculation for all fee categories. All current capital
improvement exhibits include 33 percent of the fee study cost since the total cost is shared between
three impact fee categories (police, fire, and parks and recreation).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1
Exhibit 3 below presents the total replacement value of current police assets. The “Amount to
Include in Fees” is derived from multiplying the “Replacement Value” times the “Equity Percentage”
times the “Shared Facility” percentage.
Exhibit 3.
Current Police Assets, 2006
Type of Capital Improvement times times equals
Infrastructure
Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) $4,000,000 45% 100% $1,800,000
Animal Shelter $140,000 100% 100% $140,000
Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) $99,440 100% 100% $99,440
K-9 Training Facility $400,000 100% 100% $400,000
K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres)
(2)
$275,000 100% 100% $275,000
Total Infrastructure $4,914,440 $2,714,440
Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833
Grand Total $4,946,940 $2,725,273
Amount to
Value Include in Fees
Equity
Percentage
(1)
Shared Facility
(% in fee)
Replacement
Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital
improvement outright.
(2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre.
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
The cost per acre for the K-9 Training Facility ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar
amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per
acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic
hindrances and less desirable locations.
Exhibit 3 lists approximately $4.9 million in replacement costs for the City’s police improvements
with a useful life of 10 years or more. Under the Current Service Standard approach (not allowed as
the fee calculation methodology in Idaho), $2.7 million would be impact fee eligible.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 2
Exhibit 4 presents the current capital improvements identified by City staff for the fire department.
Exhibit 4.
Current Fire Assets, 2006
Type of Capital Improvement times times equals
Facilities
Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. ft.
(2)
$1,851,642 100% 100% $1,851,642
Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft.
(2)
$1,114,150 100% 100% $1,114,150
Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. ft.
(2)
$1,071,420 100% 100% $1,071,420
Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft.
(2)
$1,120,017 100% 100% $1,120,017
Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) $357,000 100% 100% $357,000
Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. ft.
(2)
$167,000 100% 100% $167,000
Vehicles
1982 Pierce Engine (311) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000
1986 Pierce Engine (306) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000
1993 Pierce Engine (304) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000
2000 Pierce Engine (302) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000
2002 Pierce Engine (301) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000
2004 Pierce Engine (303) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000
2006 Pierce Engine (30?) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000
2000 International Water Tender (320) $240,000 100% 100% $240,000
1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000
1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000
1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000
Equipment
Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $200,000 100% 100% $200,000
16 Vehicle Radios $64,272 100% 100% $64,272
4 Base Station Radios $21,200 100% 100% $21,200
Total Infrastructure $9,271,701 $9,271,701
Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833
Grand Total $9,304,201 $9,282,534
Amount to
Value Include in Fees
Equity
Percentage
(1)
Shared Facility
(% in fee)
Replacement
Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital
improvement outright.
(2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre.
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
The City has approximately $9.3 million invested in fire improvement. Under the Current Service
Standard approach, nearly all of the current investment would be impact fee eligible.
The cost per acre for fire facilities ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore,
because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime
geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less
desirable locations.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 3
Exhibit 5 shows the City’s current parks and recreation assets.
Exhibit 5.
Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2006
Type of Capital Improvement times times equals
Paths & Trails
(2)
Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) $233,200 100% 100% $233,200
Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) $220,000 100% 100% $220,000
Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) $165,000 100% 100% $165,000
Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) $121,000 100% 100% $121,000
Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 100% 100% $110,000
Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 100% 100% $110,000
Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) $27,500 100% 100% $27,500
Neighborhood & Mini-Parks
(3)
Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres) $2,184,000 100% 100% $2,184,000
Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) $1,462,500 100% 100% $1,462,500
Season's Park (7 Acres) $1,365,000 100% 100% $1,365,000
Chateau Park (6.75 Acres) $1,316,250 100% 100% $1,316,250
8th Street Park (4 Acres) $780,000 100% 100% $780,000
Champion Park (6 Acres) $570,000 100% 100% $570,000
Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) $97,500 100% 100% $97,500
Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) $48,750 100% 100% $48,750
Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) $48,750 100% 100% $48,750
Community Parks
(3)
Heroes Park (30 Acres) $5,850,000 100% 100% $5,850,000
Tully Park (18.5 Acres) $3,607,500 100% 100% $3,607,500
Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres) $3,607,500 100% 100% $3,607,500
Storey Park (15 Acres) $2,925,000 100% 100% $2,925,000
Urban Parks
(3)
Meridian Settler's Park Developed (53 Acres) $10,335,000 100% 100% $10,335,000
Total Infrastructure $35,184,450 $35,184,450
Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833
Impact Fee Fund Balance
(4)
FY 2006 Beginning Fund Balance $800,150 100% 100% $800,150
Grand Total $36,017,100 $35,995,433
Value
Equity
Percentage (1)
Replacement
(% in fee)
Amount to
Include in Fees
Shared Facility
Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital
improvement outright.
(2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre.
(3) $195,000/acre in land and development costs.
(4) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian.
Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
The City’s replacement cost for the current parks and recreation improvements totals approximately
$36 million. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly the entire current amount of
investment would be impact fee eligible.
The cost per acre ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost
is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic
locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable
Exhibit 6 displays the City’s current distribution of square footage between residential and
nonresidential land uses, based on the demographic exhibits in the main report. The distribution is
used to appropriately allocate improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses.
Exhibit 6.
Distribution of Land
Uses, 2006
Note:
(1) May not total due to rounding.
Source:
City of Meridian, Colliers International Boise
and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market
Review, 2005 and Impact Fee Study Team.
Land Use Category
Residential 44,466,463 87%
Single Family 42,040,244 82%
Multifamily 2,426,219 5%
Nonresidential 6,544,830 13%
Total
(1)
51,011,293 100%
of Total
Square Percent
Feet
Currently, 87 percent of total square footage in Meridian is comprised of residential development
and the balance (13 percent) is nonresidential development.
Impact fee calculation. Exhibits 7 through 9 present the impact fee calculation based on the
improvement costs in Exhibits 3 through 5. Fees are calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of
service costs by total residential units and nonresidential square feet. Again, since Idaho law mandates
the use of the Capital Improvement Plan approach, fees calculated under the Current Service Standard
approach serve only as a conservative double-check to validate the fee levels calculated under the CIP
approach.
Exhibit 7.
Calculation of Police
Impact Fees
Note:
(1) See Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets.
(2) See Exhibit 6. Distribution of
Land Uses, 2006.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Calculation of Impact Fees
Current Value for Police Infrastructure
(1)
$2,725,273
Current Land Use Percentage
(2)
Residential 87%
Nonresidential 13%
Costs by Land Use Category
Residential $2,376,438
Nonresidential $348,835
Current Land Use
Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334
Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830
Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded)
Residential (per dwelling unit) $106
Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.05
Under the Current Service Standard approach, the City has a current investment in police
improvements of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot.
Exhibit 8 below calculates the current investment in fire improvements under the Current Service
Standard approach.
Exhibit 8.
Calculation of Fire
Impact Fees
Note:
(1) See Exhibit 4. Current Fire Assets.
(2) See Exhibit 6. Distribution of
Land Uses, 2006.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team
Calculation of Impact Fees
$9,282,534
Residential 87%
Nonresidential 13%
Residential $8,094,370
Nonresidential $1,188,164
Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334
Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830
Residential (per dwelling unit) $362
Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.18
Current Land Use
Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded)
Current Value for Fire Infrastructure (1)
Current Land Use Percentage (2)
Costs by Land Use Category
As of 2006, the City has $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot invested
in fire improvements.
Exhibit 9 below displays the current parks and recreation investment per residential unit. Parks and
recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary
consumers of park services.
Exhibit 9.
Calculation of Parks and
Recreation Impact Fees
Note:
(1) See Exhibit 5. Current Parks and
Recreation Assets.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Impact Fee Calcultion
Current Value for Parks & Recreation
(1)
$35,995,433
Current Land Use Percentage
Residential 100%
Nonresidential 0%
Allocated Value by Land Use Category
Residential $35,995,433
Nonresidential $0
Current Land Use
Residential (total dwelling units) 22,334
Nonresidential (in square feet) N/A
Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded)
Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,612
Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A
The City’s current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $1,612 per residential unit.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6
APPENDIX E.
Detailed Demographic Analysis
The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act defines “Land Use Assumptions” as a description of the
service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over
at least a 20 year period.
The 2006 and 2016 current and forecasted residential land uses for the City of Meridian are based on
COMPASS’ demographic area as calculated in the Community Choices Forecast: Households,
Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21/06.
The basis for the City’s nonresidential square footage was Colliers’ International Boise and Sun
Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2005. This report is located in Appendix G.
This appendix details the calculations and assumptions used to arrive at current and future residential
units and current and future nonresidential square footage. This appendix should be read in
conjunction with the main report text, which summarizes the study team’s approach to the
demographic data analysis.
Residential Data
COMPASS produces two types of demographic estimates/forecasts: Trend Forecasts and the
Community Choices Forecast. COMPASS explains that “the goal of [the Trend] forecast was to
allocate future growth based on prevailing residential patterns and densities…Since Trend is based on
current development (everything built to date) and on-going development (approved and preliminary
development proposals), Trend will be adjusted each year to reflect changing pattern.”1
The second forecast, the Community Choices Forecast, “does not reflect the way the region has been
growing, instead it incorporates a vision for how we would like to grow.”2 In other words, this
forecast allows for changes in the Trend forecast reflecting the way in which the community desires to
grow. This forecast takes into account denser growth within existing areas of impact, higher density
development around transit corridors, and open space between communities. The study team has
chosen to use the Community Choices Forecast data because we believe it provides a more accurate
vision of the future and it has been adopted by COMPASS as the preferred growth forecast used in
the regional long-range transportation plan. The COMPASS document is entitled Community
Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis
Zones, last updated on March 21, 2006.
1 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMPASS
Forecasts.
2 Ibid.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 1
The document cited on the previous page provides detailed data on population, households and jobs
by three Meridian-specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). The
Community Choices forecast was updated this year and, as opposed to the Trend forecast that is
updated annually, the Community Choices forecast is slated for its next update in July 2010.
Current and future households. As stated in the main report text, to estimate the current and
future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from the
aforementioned COMPASS document. Because data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ),
COMPASS states that the demographic area does not “match either city limits or areas of impact
boundaries”3
For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs are
only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian’s area of impact contains many
of the same TAZs that are in COMPASS’ Meridian demographic area. Based on input from the
Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the study team has chosen to use COMPASS’ data (demographic
area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact.
The maps on the following pages portray the current City limits and COMPASS’ demographic areas.
3 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMPASS
Forecasts.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 2
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 4
The data below reflect the aggregated Traffic Analysis Zones that create the COMPASS-defined
demographic areas in the report Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment
by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones. These data were the basis for current and future
residential estimates/forecasts.
According to COMPASS’ Community Choices report, the population in Meridian in 2005 was
62,997, households totaled 21,330 and there were 19,498 jobs in the demographic area.
The data presented above are all 2005 numbers. Data are only provided for 5-year increments
beginning in 2005. Therefore, the study team calculated the annual percent change between 2005
and 2010 to estimate residential data in 2006. The study team used the same approach to calculate
data for 2016 (necessary for the Capital Improvement Plan approach).4
4 Annual percent change = ((ln(new population)-ln(old population))/number of years
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 5
The final table portrays how the study team arrived at 2006 and 2016 residential data.
Residential Calculation for 2006 and 2016
2005 2006 2010 2015 2016 2020
Population 62,997 66,029 4.8% 80,136 103,285 127,102 23.1% 114,479
Households 21,330 22,334 4.7% 26,992 34,747 35,469 2.1% 38,552
Jobs 19,498 20,514 5.2% 25,299 30,818 31,888 3.5% 36,660
Annual
Percent Change
Annual
Percent Change
(2005 - 2010) (2015 -2020)
Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team.
Twenty-year projection data. The table on the following page lists COMPASS’ forecasts to
2030 for all the demographic areas in Ada and Canyon Counties. Twenty-year forecasts are necessary
to include in this report to meet the requirements of the State Statutes. However, these data are not
used in the calculation of impact fees, since the timeline of the CIP is only 10 years.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6
In 2025, Meridian will have 127,163 persons, 42,761 households and 42,814 jobs.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 7
The table below presents the annual percent change between 2025 and 2030, which is used to
estimate residential data in 2026.
Residential Calculation for 2026
2025 2026 2030
Population 127,163 128,772 1.3% 135,466
Households 42,761 43,329 1.3% 45,701
Jobs 42,814 43,647 1.9% 47,187
(2025 -2030)
Annual
Percent Change
Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team.
The demographic data in 2026 are as follows: 128,772 persons, 43,329 households and 43,647 jobs.
Nonresidential Data
Colliers’ International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, was the basis
for calculating current and future nonresidential square footage. The study team totaled the retail,
office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in
Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected square footage in
the City.
Current nonresidential development. As discussed in the main report text, Colliers report only
tabulated buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. In order to adjust the square footage upwards to
include smaller buildings, the study team calculated the percentage of new commercial units since
2003 that were less than 10,000 square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the
City’s newly permitted commercial units were less than 10,000 square feet. The following exhibit
shows the City data that were used to quantify the proportion of units less than 10,000 square feet.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 8
New Commercial
New SQF
Average SQF per Unit
Average SQF per Unit 10,000 or under?
1 = yes; 0 = no
Total of New SQF if Unit Average is 10,000 SQF or less
C
January, 2003 10 321,381 32,138 0 0
February, 2003 5 15,897 3,179 1 15,897
March, 2003 1 11,245 11,245 0 0
April, 2003 6 80,676 13,446 0 0
May, 2003 5 28,651 5,730 1 28,651
June, 2003 6 83,054 13,842 0 0
July, 2003 5 56,238 11,248 0 0
August, 2003 4 73,440 18,360 0 0
September, 2003 4 79,144 19,786 0 0
October, 2003 9 114,298 12,700 0 0
November, 2003 1 59,955 59,955 0 0
December, 2003 5 22,999 4,600 1 22,999
January, 2004 2 83,720 41,860 0 0
February, 2004 1 5,909 5,909 1 5,909
March, 2004 14 211,533 15,110 0 0
April, 2004 14 296,405 21,172 0 0
May, 2004 8 75,564 9,445 1 75,564
June, 2004 5 49,441 9,888 1 49,441
July, 2004 6 63,217 10,536 0 0
August, 2004 6 88,251 14,709 0 0
September, 2004 7 236,008 33,715 0 0
October, 2004 9 24,651 2,739 1 24,651
November, 2004 5 53,604 10,721 0 0
December, 2004 4 33,626 8,407 1 33,626
January, 2005 4 30,796 7,699 1 30,796
February, 2005 6 116,497 19,416 0 0
March, 2005 10 98,186 9,819 1 98,186
April, 2005 8 78,587 9,823 1 78,587
May, 2005 18 126,426 7,024 1 126,426
June, 2005 12 313,203 26,100 0 0
July, 2005 20 217,740 10,887 0 0
August, 2005 18 179,225 9,957 1 179,225
September, 2005 12 90,319 7,527 1 90,319
October, 2005 19 197,382 10,389 0 0
November, 2005 8 135,358 16,920 0 0
December, 2005 10 169,161 16,916 0 0
January, 2006 7 92,752 13,250 0 0
February, 2006 7 38,503 5,500 1 38,503
March, 2006 5 133,144 26,629 0 0
Total SQF 4,186,186 898,780
21%
FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2003
% of Commerical Units less
than 10,000 SQF
FY 2006
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 9
In the spreadsheet on the previous page, the method to calculate the percentage of units less than
10,000 square feet is as follows:
1) Calculate the average square footage of built units to determine if, in that particular
month, the units built were, on average, 10,000 square feet or less.
New SQF column/New Commercial column =
Average SQF per Unit column
2) Use an Excel formula to quickly identify the months that “qualified” as having units
with an average square footage of 10,000 or less.
1 = “yes” (the average of all units was 10,000 square feet or less);
0 = “no” (the average of all units was not less than 10,000 square feet).
3) Tabulate the total square footage of the “qualifying” months with unit averages of
10,000 square feet or less.
Total square footage of “qualifying” months =
898,780
4) Determine the proportion of total square footage that can be attributed to buildings that
are 10,000 square feet or less.
898,780 total square feet of “qualifying” months / 4,186,186 total square feet
of all commercial buildings =
21 percent.
Knowing that 21 percent of the City’s new commercial square footage was less than 10,000 square
feet, the study team deduced that Colliers tabulation thus represents 79 percent (100 percent –21
percent) of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. The study team arrived at the final
(2006) nonresidential square footage in Meridian by dividing Colliers number (5,170,416 square
feet) by 79 percent. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006.
Future nonresidential development. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team
developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project
nonresidential square footage in 2016.
Currently, there are 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above,
current nonresidential square feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the square footage by the number of
jobs produces a ratio of 319 square feet per employee in 2006 (6,544,830 / 20,514).5
5 This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time. The 319 square feet per employee is the study team’s best
estimate given the available data.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 10
COMPASS’ report also projects jobs in 2016. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to workers
remains consistent, the study team used this ratio to project nonresidential square footage forward.
The estimated number of jobs in 2016 (31,888) is multiplied by the square footage per employee
calculated on the previous page (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square feet
in 2016.
See the spreadsheet below for details on the calculation of current and future nonresidential square
footage.
Current Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation
Total SFT Total SFT
per Colliers Report including units over
(all buildings greater 10,000 SFT
than 10,000 SFT) (see below for calculation)
5,170,416 6,544,830
Calculation of Total Current SFT
5,170,416 (Colliers) + x (SFT total of units less than 10,000) = y (total SFT)
x = .21y (21 percent of total square footage is less than 10,000 - see City data spreadsheet)
Substitute y for x
5,170,416 + .21y = y
5,170,416 = y-.21y
5,170,416 = .79y
5,170,416/.79 = y
y = 6,544,830
6,544,830
Current Square Footage Calculation
Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market
Review, 2005 and City of Meridian.
Future Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation
2006 Total SFT per Employee
Employment 2006 SFT (2006 Employment/ 2006 SFT)
20,514 6,544,830 319
2016 2016 SFT
Employment (2016 Employment * SFT per Employee)
31,888 10,173,758
Future Square Footage Calculation
Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of
Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 11
APPENDIX F.
Communities in Motion
1
VISION
We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities
are connected by an innovative, effective, multi-modal transportation system.
GOALS
Connections – Provide options for safe access and mobility in a cost-effective manner in the region.
Coordination – Achieve better inter-jurisdictional coordination of transportation and land use
planning.
Environment – Minimize transportation impacts to people, cultural resources, and the environment.
Information – Coordinate data gathering and dispense better information.
The Pressure of Growth
The Communities in Motion: Regional Long-
Range Transportation Plan considers future
transportation needs for Ada, Canyon,
Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties
– a diverse region with cities ranging in
size from less than 100 residents to more
than 200,000.
Commuting from Gem, Payette, Boise
and Elmore counties into Ada and
Canyon counties has increased over the
past 20 years. In 2000, more than half of
Boise County’s working population
commuted into Ada or Canyon County.
For Gem County, that percentage was 37
percent.
Other travel pressures exist. Recreational
travel is affecting Boise County, while
Payette County faces heavy truck traffic
along U.S. 95.
But the traffic problems of today will pale
in comparison to the problems in 2030.
Why? In part, because of population
growth. The six-county region had slightly
over 500,000 residents in 2000 according
to the United States Census. By 2030, the
population may swell to nearly 1 million
or more.
Jobs will increase as well and the location
of these jobs will be critical. Many of the
new Gem County residents make the
commute into Treasure Valley via S.H. 16.
Imagine that commute in 2030, when
Communities in Motion
Executive Summary
2
Gem County’s population could double.
Growth and what it means for our
region’s future is the reason for
Communities in Motion.
Growth Scenarios
This section relates to Question #1 on the
comment form
COMPASS and the Communities in Motion
planning process made an extensive effort
to look at how our region might develop.
Using input from the public, agencies,
elected officials and others, COMPASS
developed two growth scenarios: Trend
and Community Choices.
The Trend scenario reflects our future if
we keep developing as we have over the
past 40 years.
Under Trend, much of the residential
growth is at three units or so per acre.
Growth will continue at current densities
and will occur at the urban fringe,
eventually consuming most of the land
between the current cities.
Community Choices, the preferred
alternative in the draft plan, is a growth
alternative that consumes less land, leaves
more open space, offers housing choices
and fosters the use of alternative
transportation.
Community Choices clusters growth
inside the areas of impact, and emphasizes
higher densities and mixed-uses with jobs,
shopping and services closer to homes.
Trend Community Choices
125,400 acres 42,200 acres
72% single family 55% single family
20% new homes at
transit density
52% new homes at
transit density
20.7 Million Daily
Vehicle Miles of
Travel
19.6 Million Daily
Vehicle Miles of
Travel
This table compares these two scenarios. Both
scenarios provide for the same amount of growth.
Community Choices:
Provides a greater diversity of
housing choices, such as patio
homes, town homes, and
apartments
Increases the number of new
homes at transit density,
encouraging effective alternatives
to driving
Cuts 1 million daily vehicle miles
of travel, easing traffic congestion
3
ways — a real benefit when the streets are
congested.
2) Scheduled fixed-route services (buses
operating on specific streets) that tie into
the guideway systems.
For most of the region covered by
Communities in Motion, there is no bus
service for the general population.
Community Choices would increase
transit services more than 10 fold. It
would increase peak hour frequency to 15
minutes, expand Saturday services and add
Sunday services.
Commuter bus services would be
implemented to Elmore, Payette, Gem
and Boise counties. A rail or other fixed-
guideway service would be implemented
between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and
Boise with a bus rapid transit service
between Eagle and Boise.
Since most of the growth under Trend
would be at densities that could not
effectively support scheduled bus services
it was not practical to propose a major
expansion of services.
Under Trend, there would be less than
400 hours of scheduled bus service per
day, within the Treasure Valley area.
Service would not exist on Sundays and
would be greatly reduced on Saturdays.
Even on weekdays, the service only would
operate 12 hours per day, with a 30-
minute interval in peak hour (6-9 a.m. and
3-6 p.m.) service.
Roadways
This section relates to Question #3 on the
comment form
Roadway improvements will take place on
regional corridors. These corridors are
described in Chapter 4. Highlights:
S.H. 16 will be a major north-
south expressway by 2030,
connecting Gem County and I-84
S.H. 44 will be improved to five
lanes, including a bypass south of
Middleton and frontage and
backage roads
State Street will be a major transit
corridor connecting Eagle into
downtown Boise
U.S. 20/26 (Chinden) will be
widened and have enhanced
access management. It could be an
expressway from Caldwell to
McDermott Road or further east.
I-84 between Caldwell and Gowen
Road will be at least three to four
lanes in each direction
Greenhurst-Lake Hazel will be a
4
that can be funded with our available
resources as well as those that cannot.
Funding for transportation comes from
three general sources: federal funds, state
highway distribution account and local
funds.
Chapter 5 describes the source of funds
used for transportation. The bottom line
is that whether federal, state or local funds
are involved, most of the dollars come
from some kind of tax. Funding is not
equally available, either. In some counties,
there are very few resources in place to
build new major roads.
Our region is $629 million short of
funding all the roads. For transit, we are
$1.1 billion short. We started with a pot of
$350 million, and most of the future costs
of service will be for operations and
maintenance.
What do these large numbers mean for a
resident of our region? The total shortfall
could be met with additional revenues of
less than $200 per household per year.
Another way of looking at it would be by
tax or fee effort. Such sources could raise
the entire $1.7 billion needed for roads
and transit. More information can be
found in Chapter 5.
Funds Needed
Roadway Capital
Unfunded $628,600,000
Annual Unfunded $25,144,000
Annual share/household $71
Transit Total
Unfunded $1,098,890,000
Annual Unfunded $43,955,600
Annual share/household $125
Total Plan
Unfunded $1,727,490,000
Annual Unfunded (25
year period)
$69,099,600
Annual share/household
(2030 base)
$196
Final Thoughts
A plan is not a solution. It is a guidebook.
Where do we want to be? How might we
get there? What are the opportunities and
costs?
Implementing the plan is essential so it
doesn’t end up as another dusty document
on a shelf. Between now and the next
update in 2010, we will need to focus our
efforts on putting our vision and goals
into effect.
The Trend scenario is already occurring. If
we don’t move forward with Communities
APPENDIX G.
Collier’s Year-End Real Estate Market Review
in Motion it means we are willing to accept
Trend.
five-lane arterial connecting
Middleton Road and I-84
Interchanges, overpasses and rail
crossings are part of the corridor plan.
With investment in roads and transit, the
future network will be 23 percent over
capacity by 2030, instead of 43 percent if
Trend continues. About 5 percent of the
major roads are over capacity today.
Financial Reality
This section relates to Questions #2 and #3
on the comment form
A realistic plan acknowledges financial
realities. The federal government requires
that the long-range plan include
investments that reasonably close to our
estimated revenues. Furthermore, we can’t
claim the entire pot for new projects. At
least half the transportation funding will
go into operations and maintenance.
So when you look at the corridors in
Chapter 4, you are going to see projects
George Iliff
Managing Principal
olliers International is pleased to present our 2005 year-end Market Report. 2005 was a very active and
productive year for commercial real estate across the Treasure Valley. It was the first full year since the 2001
downturn in which the market was in full economic recovery. With a very strong population growth rate through-
out the valley and continued historic low unemployment, the market is not only showing strength, but the growth
is healthy and sustainable.
The office market has remained strong in downtown Boise. Class A vacancies were under 7% throughout 2005.
The strong office market is positioned to finish absorbing new condominium space in the mixed-use BoDo
development and the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, which is presently over 35% leased, and will be
completed mid-year.
The retail market can be described as strong and stable, with vacancies staying around 11% over the last two years.
While unanchored shopping centers have experienced some difficulties during 2005,
activity remains strong around anchored centers. The Treasure Valley Marketplace at the Karcher
interchange in Nampa will continue to be the big retail project in the valley during 2006 and 2007, with major
tenants Costco, Target, and Kohl’s already committed.
The past year was an incredible year for multi-family real estate investment transactions, with over one million
square feet and $69 million dollars in consideration. Cap rates for multi-family investment
transactions inched down to 6.4% as Boise approached national rates. The investment market demand for
industrial, retail, and office properties will continue to be high in 2006, as it was last year with local cap rates still
above national rates, but this margin is rapidly shrinking.
One of the most dramatic changes from 2004 to 2005 occurred in the industrial market, with vacancies tightening
and prices starting to rise in the fourth quarter after two years of stagnant growth. One of the biggest harbingers
of 2006 was the announcement of the sale of one of the former Zilog buildings in Nampa to Micron, a 160,000
square foot building which will even further tighten the market vacancy.
The residential housing market was front and center in the Treasure Valley economy during 2005. Fears of a
housing bubble burst in the valley have largely been dismissed, due to the continued population growth that is
driving demand for new housing and the current lack of a buildable lot inventory.
Last year was definitely the best for commercial and residential real estate in recent memory. As we start 2006, all
signs point to an equally good if not even better year. We at Colliers look forward to working with you again this
year to provide you with superior real estate services.
C
2005 OFFICE OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE
OVERALL
VACANCY RATE
OVERALL
VACANCY RATE
CLASS ‘A’
VACANCY RATE
CLASS ‘A’
VACANCY RATE
ASKINGRATES ASKING RATES
Office Inventory by Submarket
Central Bench
13%
Eagle
2%
Downtown
29%
Meridian
8%
West Bench
18%
Southwest
4%
Southeast
9%
Northwest
1%
Downtown
Periphery
16%
The only significant recent office projects have been office space
in BoDo that was completed in the 4th quarter of 2005 and the
180,000 Banner Bank building which will be coming on-line in
mid-2006. The market’s ability to absorb the Banner Bank
building will test whether the declining vacancies are due mostly
to a lag in new space coming online, or if the market is really ready
to absorb the new space. In either case, the downtown vacancy
will more than likely stay the same or lower slightly over current
levels as the new space is absorbed in 2006, but vacancies will
remain low from a relative standpoint.
Vacancies have tightened up dramatically in both downtown and
suburban markets around Boise. The downtown central
business district is currently at 8.1% with downtown class A
vacancy now at 6.7%. The vacancy rate across all submarkets is
11.5%. Eagle continues to have one of the highest office vacancy
rates among non-downtown submarkets at 25.1%, in part
because of high rents and the low level of new construction as a
percentage of the total in that submarket. Over the last year and
a half it has been apparent that class A space downtown has been
decreasing due to tenants seeking better quality space and the
underlying strong economics of the valley.
VACANCY RATES
The Boise market experienced declines in office vacancies and
constant absorption throughout 2005. Vacancies in downtown
Boise have finally dropped below the ten percent (8.1%
Downtown and 9.5% Downtown Periphery) barrier that it has
been flirting with for the last year and a half, and class A direct
vacancies have tightened to 6.7%. Leasing activity has been solid
in the downtown area and is expected to remain strong in the
downtown and selected suburban areas during the first
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Office Services
George Iliff
208.472.2858
Wayne Slaughter
208.472.2853
Craig Tribken
208.472.2842
Lew Manglos
208.472.2841
A key indicator of the depth in the Boise office market in 2006 will
be the rate of absorption of a new 180,000 square foot Banner
Bank building in the heart of downtown. The successful leasing
of this new space may signal other significant downtown
building projects to move forward during 2006.
OUTLOOK
International monitored the gap between full service
rents with those excluding janitorial service and found the over-
all market difference to be $1.16 ($15.52 verses $14.36).
One main growth feature of Boise is the rapid population
expansion to smaller cities west of Boise. In these areas, several
newer large suburban office and business parks will continue to
see strong leasing activity, and construction in western suburban
locations may lag behind demand. Demand will continue to be
high in 2006 in suburban markets for businesses looking to own
smaller buildings in the 2,500 - 7,500 square foot range.
Market asking rates for available office listings are analyzed to
get a feel for what the market will tolerate. While vacancies have
been tightening across the valley, quoted rental rates have only
inched up slightly. Current annual full service rents average $15.52
per square foot across all submarkets, while Eagle continues to
have the highest average asking prices at $20.74. Class A space in
downtown Boise is averaging $18.67 which is only up slightly
from July 2005's average rate of $18.44. Office spaces in the
Central Bench and Northwest submarkets have the lowest asking
prices at $13.59 and $13.30 respectively. All these figures are
effectively higher by $1 to $3 because of inadequate tenant
improvement allowances in most new buildings. If a tenant wants
a deal, they must look to second generation space so as to avoid
these tenant improvement costs.
MARKET ASKING RENTS
Increasingly, the market is seeing full service rents offered to
potential tenants in which janitorial service is excluded. Colliers
Vacancy by Submarket
SUBMARKET INVENTORY
SF
DIRECT
VACANT
SUBLEASE
VACANT
TOTAL
VACANT
BUILDING
COUNT
VACANCY
RATE*
Market Total 11,770,840 1,178,972 172,873 1,351,845 339 11.5%
Downtown
Downtown Periphery
Central Bench
With ongoing residential growth expected in the southwest and
western Treasure Valley through 2006, retail-oriented commercial
real estate will remain active and growing through 2006. Fears of
a housing bubble in the Boise residential market have been largely
ameliorated and that should secure a certain amount of retail
growth over the next several years. 2005 saw the beginning phases
of a full overpass and interchange at Karcher Road in the city of
Nampa and the development of the 65-acre Treasure Valley
Marketplace northeast of the interchange. 2005 saw the opening
of a new Edward’s Cinema, P.F. Chang’s, Ann Taylor Loft, Joseph A.
Banks, and numerous other new tenants as part of the BoDo
redevelopment in downtown Boise. 2005 also saw the explosion
of unanchored strip centers throughout the Treasure Valley.
While most have been successful to date, there are warning signs
that this segment of the market could encounter some setbacks
in 2006.
OVERVIEW
Colliers currently tracks 10.3 million square feet in retail centers,
10,000 square feet or larger throughout ten individual markets
that include the cities of Boise, Meridian, Eagle, and Nampa. The
West Bench of Boise, which includes the area around the mall,
represents 25% or over 2.5 million square feet of the inventory
that Colliers monitors. This area remains a center of retail
activity.
INVENTORY
Vacancy rates within the Treasure Valley retail centers 10,000 square
feet or larger have been very stable over the past six months,
moving from 10.9% in July to 11.1% at the year’s end. Over the
past year, vacancies have shown some upward trend, increasing
from 10.1% at the end of 2004. Vacancies have remained the
highest in the northwest portion of Boise over the last six months,
with current vacancy at 22.4%. The next highest vacancy is in
Garden City at 16.8%. Eagle vacancy has increased slightly to 6.5%
compared with 2.4% vacancy measured in July of 2005.
VACANCY RATES
Retail Inventory by Submarket
Eagle
4%
Garden City
5%
Meridian
18% Nampa
8%
Central Bench
10%
North End
2%
Northeast
4%
Southeast
13%
West
Bench/Mall
25%
Southwest
11%
Retail Vacancy Rates & Asking Rents
Central Bench
North End
Northwest
4.0%
8.0%
12.0%
16.0%
1998
Mid 1999
EOY 1999
Mid 2000
EOY 2000
Mid 2001
EOY 2001
Mid 2002
EOY 2002
Mid 2003
EOY 2003
Mid 2004
EOY 2004
Mid 2005
EOY 2005
5.2%
11.6%
11.6%
10.0% 10.2%
10.2%
8.8% 8.9%
9.0%
12.8%
9.9%
10.1%
10.8%
10.9%
11.1%
Percent Vacant
Percentage Vacant
2006 RETAIL OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE
ASKING RATES
VACANCY
ABSORPTION
ASKING RATES
VACANCY
ABSORPTION
Activity will be the strongest in Canyon County, at the Treasure
Valley Marketplace and the Wal-Mart/Sam’s Club developments.
Including the anchor retailers, over 800,000 square feet of retail
will be under construction by year’s end. With the success of
BoDo in downtown Boise, look for more mixed-use projects to be
announced with retail office and residential components.
Meridian will have at least two new projects with Kohl’s
anchoring one of the developments.
OUTLOOK
It is no surprise that the most active areas for retail during 2005 were
the West Bench area in Boise, which includes the area around
Boise Towne Square and Meridian. The West Bench mall area had
a net absorption of over 100,000 square feet and Meridian
followed closely behind with 90,000 square feet.
ABSORPTION
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Retail Services
Brook Blakeslee
208.472.2835
2006 INDUSTRIAL OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE
ASKINGRATES ASKING RATES
VVAACCAANNCCYY
Eagle
0.79%
Garden City
3.67%
Meridian
10.16%
Nampa
19.79%
Airport
11.34%
Central Bench
7.90%
Downtown
2.61%
Downtown
Periphery
2.94%
North End
0.22%
Northwest
0.16%
Southeast
9.54%
Southwest
3.58%
West Bench
18.89%
Caldwell
8.38%
Industrial Inventory by Submarket
Average Industrial Asking Rates by Submarket
Airport
Central Bench
Downtown
Downtown Periphery
North End
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
West Bench
Caldwell
Eagle
Garden City
Meridian
Nampa
Meridian and Nampa have the highest industrial vacancy rates in
the Valley, due primarily to three large vacant manufacturing plants.
Meridian is currently at 17.8% vacancy. Key vacancies in Meridian
include the former Jabil building at 357,000 square feet and 29,000
square feet in the Taylor West building. Nampa’s industrial
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Industrial Services
Steve Foster
208.472.2834
Devin Pierce
208.472.2862
Jeremy Wolf
208.472.2829
projects may be more prevalent in 2006 than in 2005. Boise is also
expected to see an increase in industrial condominiums to fit the
needs of an increasing number of tenants seeking medium to
smaller industrial spaces in the 2,000 to 5,000 square foot range
that they can own. Vacancies will tighten in 2006, due to
increased interest in large spaces such as the former Jabil, Zilog,
and Aluma Glass buildings that have been on the market for
some time. Meridian has continued to be a center of industrial
leasing activity because of the decreasing supply and limited space
variety in Boise. However, as Meridian’s limited vacant space
becomes absorbed, Nampa will see more and more activity.
Further west of Boise, industrial leasing activity is also expected
to experience more activity and interest during 2006.
Average triple net asking rates on available industrial properties
began to show an upturn toward the latter part of 2005, due to a
reduction of supply, as well as increases in construction and land
costs on new projects. Average asking rates for quality
warehouse distribution space are presently in the $0.42 - $0.45
N.N.N. per square foot range. These rates should remain constant
throughout the first half of 2006.
ASKING RATES
With tightening vacancies and a limited variety of available
industrial lease space, speculative building and build-to-suit
OUTLOOK
December 2005 Industrial Statistics At A Glance
SUBMARKET INVENTORY VACANCY VACANCY SIX-MONTH AVERAGE
SF SF % CHANGE RENT*
(NNN MONTHLY)
Airport
Central Bench
Downtown
Downtown Periphery
North End
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
West Bench
Caldwell
Eagle
Garden City
Meridian
Nampa
Total:
2,607,843
1,816,896
600,141
675,810
50,186
37,801
2,193,491
823,906
4,343,351
Total Boise MSA (Ada and Canyon counties) investment
transaction volume in 2005 maintained a similar level of activity
as was witnessed in 2004. Forty-six transactions totaling
$169,716,465 in consideration were tracked in 2005, compared with
forty-nine and $153,497,710 changing hands during 2004. While
overall volume stayed reasonably constant between 2005 and
2004, there was a significant shift in the distribution of
investment transactions, with multi-family transaction volume
increasing by 72% from 2004 levels. These dramatic gains in multi-
family transactions were offset by 22% and 20% declines in
transaction dollars among office and retail respectively.
Capitalization rates were also level, with rates averaging 8.0%
during 2005 compared with rates at 8.1% in 2004.
Data gathered by Colliers International from the sale of forty-six
investment properties in the Boise MSA during 2005, above $500,000
in consideration, was used to compile the following statistics.
Properties that sold with no income stream were excluded from
this analysis.
OVERVIEW
Office Outlook - Stable
Positives - Even with decreasing vacancy rates and increased down-
town absorption, there is still room for a decline in vacancy rates
For 2005, Colliers tracked thirteen office investment transactions
with total consideration of $53,275,495. Capitalization rates ranged
from a high of 12.7% to a low of 7.0%, with a group average of
8.9% compared with 8.4% in 2004. Boise office capitalization rates
are higher than the national estimate of 7.4% and Western United
States of 7.2%. Property sizes ranged from 3,017 square feet to
106,000 square feet with a total of 408,922 square feet changing
hands. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $52 to $239
with a median price per square foot of $140 and a weighted
average price per square foot for the entire group of $130.
The office leasing market stayed on track during 2005 with slowly
declining vacancy rates. Vacancy rates have gone down in closely
monitored areas of downtown with vacancies at 8.3%. New space
downtown, the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, will be
a good test to see if the market can absorb new premium space
and continue with low vacancy rates.
OFFICE INVESTMENT
in 2006. In 2005, new construction costs were outpacing rent
growth, but little new supply should help keep vacancy and
absorption at or slightly below 2004 and 2005 levels.
Negatives - Movement of office space to western parts of the
Treasure Valley may have a negative effect on the downtown
office market during 2006. If new class A building space coming
to market in 2006 absorbs slowly, it may send negative signals to
investors and lending institutions.
RETAIL INVESTMENT
Colliers tracked thirteen retail investment sales during 2005,
totaling $35,653,000 in consideration. Capitalization rates ranged
from a high of 9.7% to a low of 5.7%, with a group average rate of
7.9%. Boise capitalization rates for retail properties are in line with
the national estimate of 7.2%. Transaction price per square foot
ranged from $79 to $387, with a group average price per square
foot of $190 and a weighted average price per square foot of
$157.
Retail investment transactions occurred primarily during the first
six months of 2005 with only three monitored investment
transactions meeting our analysis criteria since July first. Retail
average pricing per square foot is currently higher in Boise ($190)
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Investment Services
Brian Watt
208.472.2854
Cheryl Larabee
208.472.2863
David Wali
208.472.2844
Rick Clark SEC, CCIM
208.472.2832
The Boise MSA will continue to grow with Census projections
putting the estimated annual growth at just over two and a half
percent (2.6%) which will translate into approximately 70,000 new
residents relocating to the Boise MSA by 2010. In addition, the
sustained population growth in the Boise MSA will mean
approximately 30,000 new households in the local economy.
Economy.com ranked Boise 46th out of 387 metro areas in
expected employment growth and listed Boise as below the
national average in costs to do business and cost of living. With
solid economic indicators and national consensus that Boise is a
growth market, the only question that remains is whether real
estate investment will level off at or increase above 2004 and 2005
levels. Multi-family properties should continue to be strong as
more owners look to take profits and place properties on the
market. With recent industrial sales and the tightening of
industrial vacancies, it is unlikely that the investment market will
slow to 2004 levels, where there were no monitored industrial
investment transactions.
OUTLOOK
investors purchasing smaller complexes at higher per square foot
prices compared with the first six months of 2005.
Multi-Family Outlook - Stable to Strong
Positives - Treasure Valley jobs and population will continue to
grow with continued positive national attention being directed
at Boise as a quality place to live and do business. As interests
continue to inch up as a result of Federal Reserve fiscal policy,
many possible first-time homebuyers may not feel the immediate
urgency to purchase. Increased home values may also push young
families or first-time buyers into rental options. There is still
room for capitalization rates to decline to national levels.
Negatives - Regardless of market conditions, home ownership is
still often a better choice for many consumers.
Industrial investment opportunities have been limited over the
past two years with four transactions being monitored during
2005. Industrial investment sales during 2005 totaled $11,339,970
with 213,000 square feet being sold. Capitalization rates ranged
from 7.6% to 11.0% with an average rate of 8.8%. Boise’s
capitalization rate for industrial properties is above the national
estimate of 7.6%. Transaction price per square foot ranged from
$45 to $88 with a transaction average of $53 and a weighted
average also at $53. The median price per square foot was $52.50.
INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT
MULTI-FAMILY INVESTMENT
For 2005, Colliers tracked the sale of 1,097 units in sixteen proper-
ties with a total consideration of $69,440,000. The multi-family
transaction volume for 2005 jumped considerably compared with
2004 levels ($40,232,000). This is consistent with national trends in
multi-family investment. Capitalization rates ranged from 8.2%
to a low of 4.3% with a group average of 6.4%. Boise's
multi-family capitalization rates for 2005 were just over the
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Land Services
John Starr
208.472.2838
Ryan Cantlon
208.472.2840
2005 was a booming year across the Treasure Valley, with increases
in new home construction land development. The housing
market was front and center in the valley’s economic news, with
recent Idaho Statesman headlines “valley’s Home Sale Prices Soar”
and “Building Fuels Valley Economy.” This was also a year in
which many were concerned that the housing market was near-
ing a bubble-breaking phase, but those fears have subsided
because of the underlying strength of the Treasure Valley economy.
OVERVIEW
Throughout the Treasure Valley, construction activity increased.
According to the Construction Monitor, Ada County home sales
increased by over 40% from 2004 levels to a total of 12,222.
Canyon County saw an even larger increase of 67%, with 6,264
home sales during 2005. An interesting trend in Canyon County is
that new home sales (as a percent of total home sales) have
decreased from 52% in 2003 to 31% in 2005, while new home
prices have increased by 41% over the same period. Canyon County
is a more volatile market for new home developers,
because consumers are choosing existing homes at higher rates.
New home building in 2005 increased by 270% in Kuna, 127% in
Star, and 90% in Middleton over 2004 levels.
HOUSING MARKET SUMMARY
With Boise-Nampa unemployment reaching a low of 3.0% in
December and continued high in-migration to the Treasure
Valley, the housing market looks buoyed to avoid a housing bubble
burst. The over 10,000 new homes built in Ada and Canyon
counties during 2005 reflect a 6% annual growth rate
HOUSING BUBBLE FEARS DIMINISHED IN 2005
in housing inventory that correlates well with current Census
Bureau population growth estimates of approximately 4%
annually in Canyon County and 3% growth in Ada County since
2001.
Demand for homes will continue to lead a demand for the inputs,
especially land. Speculators, investors and developers are all in
the market chasing an ever-diminishing supply of developable
land. In this market of rising land prices and ever-shorter terms, it
will be important to pay attention to market fundamentals such
as employment and population growth. Colliers International’s
Land Group has rededicated itself to success through
negotiations, and is working hard to assist acquisition clients in
making profitable land purchase decisions. The top priority is
selling land to the right buyers on the right terms for our listing
clients.
OUTLOOK
Concerns in the market have to do with the doubling of the price
of development land and the entry into the land market of
inexperienced investors with large sums of capital. The rising
price and relative scarcity of new homes may start to have a
negative effect on young and new homebuyers.
Developers are also faced with the increased costs which include
earth moving, pipe, asphalt, and the cost of materials for home
building. This is one factor that has contributed to higher new
home costs. Even with increased development costs, the factor
that has created the most increase in finished home prices is the
Range of Commercial Monthly Prices Per Square Foot
OFFICE RETAIL INDUSTRIAL
KETCHUM
HAILEY
$1.35-$2.00
$1.25-$1.50
$1.75-$2.35
$1.25-$1.50
$1.00-$1.50
$0.65-$1.10
Sun Valley’s mountain resort community resides in Blaine County,
with a population of just over 20,000, and includes the Wood River
Valley towns of Hailey, Sun Valley and Ketchum. Real estate in Sun
Valley is unique, in that the area continues to be one of the
premier resort destinations in the United States.
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE OVERVIEW
The Sun Valley residential home market has traditionally been a
vacation home market; however, the last three years have brought
an increased trend toward primary home purchases, giving
strength to a Single Family Home segment of over $1.5 million.
While the second home market was strong, with low interest rates
fueling the under $1.5 million Condo/Townhome market, the
valley also saw many sales in the $7 million to $10 million range in
2005.
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET TRENDS
Three primary market segments in Sun Valley are seeing new
construction: in-town condominiums, high-end estates north and
south of Ketchum, and subdivisions protected by codes and
covenants. Developers have been encouraged to move forward
with skillfully planned downtown projects as the City Council has
taken a more supportive stance on the types of projects being
approved. Homebuyers and those new to the area are
exhibiting an increased desire to live in neighborhoods where
property values are protected through rules and regulations, while
the extremely wealthy are looking for estate properties and
privacy.
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TRENDS
Condos and mid-valley single family homes will be hot
properties in 2006, mainly because the majority of new
construction is focused on condo projects in Ketchum and new
home construction in the Golden Eagle and Valley Club areas.
The coming year will also see more estate lot and estate home
sales in the $5 million dollar and up range. Other issues affecting
the Sun Valley real estate market in 2006 will be: 1) Airport
selection and FAA approval of a new airport location to serve the
Wood River Valley; 2) The formation of the Community
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE OUTLOOK
All commercial real estate sectors showed strength in 2005. The
greatest number of lease transactions occurred in retail, both new
businesses and relocation and upgrades. Ketchum is definitely
seeing some interest from regional and national tenants. Hailey
is growing commercially in response to the growing number of
local residents moving down the valley for more affordable
housing. Office leasing was also strong in Ketchum and Hailey.
The light industrial sector is busy, as more mixed-use light
industrial-zoned buildings are being erected in both Ketchum
and Hailey. The Ketchum light industrial zoning has been
modified to allow for limited residential, and that property type is
the current choice. Demand is high in Hailey, especially in Airport
West, and this new construction is being quickly absorbed through
Colliers Idaho Management
George Iliff
Managing Principal
Steve Foster
Associate
Devin Pierce
Associate
Jeremy Wolf
Associate
Industrial Services
Rick Clark, CCIM, SIOR
Principal
David Wali
Associate
Cheryl Larabee
Associate
Investment Services
Brian Watt
Transaction Coordinator
John Starr
Associate
Ryan Cantlon
Associate
Land Services
George Iliff
Principal
Lew Manglos
Associate
Wayne Slaughter
Associate
Office Services
Craig Tribken
Associate
Pete Conlon
Director of Maintenance
T.J. McDonough
Chief Engineer
Pete Rutherford
Senior Site Engineer
Maintenance / Construction
Services
Sun Valley Office
Paul Kenny
Brokerage Services
Matthew Bogue
Brokerage Services
Todd Conklin
Residential and Investment Services
Bob Morrison
Residential Services
W. Brook Blakeslee
Principal, Associate
Mike Christensen
Associate
Lew Goldman
Associate
Retail Services
Doug Croft
Director of Finance
Accounting Services
Thomas Siffermann
Director of Property Services
Patricia A. Zoot
Senior Property Manager
Marcie Epperson Lake
Assistant Property Manager
Carissa Schienle
Assistant Property Manager
Megan White
Lease Administrator
Bree Black
Lease Renewal Specialist
Real Estate Management
Services
Chris Stroh
Director of Multi-Family Services
Multi-Family Services
Holly Metzger
Director of Marketing
Cory Read
Director of Research
Melody Johnson
Marketing Graphics / Brokerage Services
Katie Collins
Public Relations / Listing Coordinator
Samantha Johnson
Marketing Administration
Lori Kurts
Marketing Graphics Coordinator
Marketing and Research
Services
Justin Vogel
Research Services
leases and purchases.
Ketchum’s commercial core became a hot topic during the latter
part of 2005, and the community has rallied behind Ketchum’s
comprehensive plan. From the illumination and renaming of
streets to the continuity of sidewalks, the community is working
hard to make Ketchum a more user-friendly town. Progress is
being made through education relating to organization and
resources, particularly that of creating a Community Development
Corporation or ‘CDC’ and Urban Renewal Districts. We expect to
see results of Ketchum’s hard work soon, with the redevelopment
of the Williams Market site, a new hotel in Ketchum, new mixed-
use development at McHanville, near St. Luke’s Wood River
Hospital, and mixed-use projects slated for mid to late 2006. The
City of Ketchum is encouraging both development and historic
preservation through the relaxation of building restrictions and
other favorable incentives for developers, such as the
implementation of Transfer of Development Rights, or ‘TDRs’.
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE OVERVIEW
Development Corporation tasked with helping developers and
residents to devise and implement good strategies for Ketchum
commercial and residential development; 3) Two local area golf
courses will be completed and ready for play this year, bringing
increased exposure to winter desert residents looking for a
summer alternative.
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Sun Valley Office
Paul Kenny
Brokerage Services
Matt Bogue
Brokerage Services
Todd Conklin
Residential/Investment
Bob Morrison
Residential Services
Services
APPENDIX H.
Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement Plans
relative scarcity of lots and new homes. Demand created from
people moving to the valley is emerging as the primary factor in
higher home prices.
Single Family Home Sales
2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005
Ada County Canyon County
7,110 8,648 12,222 3,059 3,750 6,264
2,611 3,123 4,886 1,591 1,456 1,960
36.7% 36.1% 40.0% 52.0% 38.8% 31.3%
Average New Home Price $194,644 $220,618 $246,671 $111,897 $129,386 $157,997
New Construction Home Sales (% of total)
TOTAL HOME SALES
New Construction Home Sales
SOURCE: INTERMOUNTAIN MLS
New Single Family Home Building Permits By City, 2003 - 2005
Boise Garden City Eagle Star Kuna Meridian Nampa Caldwell Middleton
2003
2004
2005
Ada County Canyon County
752 87 440 107 243 1,450 1,199 602 117
687 49 479 146 230 2,388 1,151 637 68
989 49 520 546 522 3,245 1,398 941 129
SOURCE: CONSTRUCTION MONITOR
national estimate (6.2%). Transaction price per unit ranged from
$37,500 to $98,500 with a sector average per unit price of $63,317.
Transaction price per square foot ranged from $54 to $116 with a
weighted average price per square foot for the entire group of
$76. The same weighted average price per square foot was at $69
as of July. The second half of 2005 saw owners selling and
Industrial Outlook – Stable
Positives – Limited industrial land availability will support current
rental rates, restrict new development, and push capitalization
rates down.
Negatives – Investors seeking industrial-type buildings or
warehouses will continue to have limited selection, and those
that do come on the market will require thorough analysis of
comparable sales and income potential.
2005 National Average Cap Rate Comparison
Multi-Family 8.5% 8.2% 9.0% 7.5% 7.6% 6.9% 6.4% 6.2%
Industrial 9.2% 9.6% 8.7% 8.9% n/a 8.4% 8.8% 7.6%
Retail 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 8.5% 8.0% 7.9% 7.9% 7.2%
Office 8.3% 9.4% 8.8% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 8.8% 7.4%
TYPE BOISE NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL
Red - Boise Capitalization rate is lower than national average.
Blue - Boise Capitalization rate is higher than national average.
SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL REAL CAPITAL ANALYTICS
2002 2003 2004 2005
than in Denver ($157) and Salt Lake City ($170).
Retail Outlook - Positive
Positives -Unemployment in the Boise MSA has stabilized and
remained at 3.5%, and the population continues to grow, which
will keep up demand for service and retail businesses.
Properties located near major traffic generators such as Wal-Mart
and other big box centers will be the most attractive to investors.
Negatives - Unanchored centers continue to be carefully
scrutinized by tenants, lenders and prospective investors. The
Treasure Valley market could see a slowdown in prospective
building and retail transaction volume while owners work to lease
new or currently under construction retail developments. One
signal that investors will be watching for is if new retail
developments are scaled back or put on hold.
2005 Year-End Investment Summary
46 Total 1,882,808 40,931 169,716,465 3,689,488 $90 8.0%
16 Multi-Family 1,033,638 55,532 69,448,000 3,612,188 $76 6.4%
4 Industrial 213,007 53,252 11,339,970 2,834,992 $53 8.8%
13 Retail 227,241 17,480 35,653,000 2,742,538 $190 7.9%
13 Office 408,922 31,456 53,275,495 4,098,115 $156 8.8%
COUNT TYPE SF AVG. SQ. FT TOTAL PRICE
AVG. SELLING
PRICE
AVG. SELLING
PRICE / SF
AVERAGE
CAP RATE
SOURCES: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL, LANGSTON & ASSOCIATES, MOUNTAIN STATES APPRAISAL
1,927,555
182,740
843,200
2,335,668
4,550,688
22,989,276
313,700
113,756
61,412
77,775
15,000
0
107,707
84,048
283,792
117,900
21,064
16,400
415,469
625,879
2,253,902
$0.43
$0.53
$0.20
$0.36
$0.32
n/a
$0.49
$0.43
$0.48
$0.17
$0.57
$0.35
$0.55
$0.35
$0.42
*All rents quoted as monthly triple-net SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
12.0%
6.3%
10.2%
11.5%
29.9%
0.0%
4.9%
10.2%
6.5%
6.1%
11.5%
1.9%
17.8%
13.8%
9.8%
-11.0%
-5.9%
2.5%
3.0%
29.9%
0.0%
3.0%
-9.2%
-0.8%
-1.2%
-3.0%
-13.3%
-15.5%
4.7%
-2.2%
vacancy is currently at 13.8%. Vacancies include the 268,000 square
feet in the former Zilog buildings; however, Micron’s purchase of
one of these buildings is imminent. The lowest industrial vacancy
is currently in the Garden City submarket with vacancy at 1.9%.
Garden City was one of the most active areas of the Valley in 2005,
even though its inventory is small at 800,000 square feet.
VACANCY
INVENTORY
Colliers International tracks nearly 23 million square feet of
industrial properties in buildings 10,000 square feet or larger.
Nampa, with 4.5 million square feet, and the West Bench area of
Boise, with 4.3 million square feet, are the largest submarkets that
Colliers monitors.
Boise is still experiencing rapid residential and retail growth and,
as well, the industrial market continued to expand during 2005.
After a couple of stable years, the industrial market has
experienced tightening vacancies with upward pressure on prices
starting to be felt. Industries such as flooring, glass, roofing, and
other construction-related businesses were active seekers of
industrial space in the Boise market during 2005. Asking rates are
on the rise, land availability is diminishing, and overall, the Boise
Industrial market is healthy.
OVERVIEW
Industrial Vacancy Rate by Submarket
Airport
Central Bench
Downtown
Downtown Periphery
North End
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
West Bench
Caldwell
Eagle
Garden City
Meridian
Nampa
0%
5%
10 %
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Mike Christensen
208.472.2866
Lew Goldman
208.472.2847
Expanded December 2005 Retail Statistics
Garden City 512,953 86,022 16.8% $8.00 $13.00 $11.73 8
Meridian 1,877,786 91,205 4.9% $7.00 $20.00 $14.00 24
Nampa 809,397 73,004 9.0% $7.00 $28.00 $12.45 15
Market Total 10,325,051 1,143,815 11.1% $8.58 $19.74 $13.70 171
Central Bench 1,024,018 135,068 13.2% $4.00 $17.00 $10.10 20
North End 199,010 9,503 4.8% $18.00 $18.50 $18.25 6
Northwest 442,037 98,891 22.4% $8.00 $15.35 $12.91 7
Southeast 1,294,713 190,857 14.7% $10.25 $23.00 $17.45 26
Southwest 1,154,539 77,089 6.7% $8.00 $21.00 $13.50 19
West Bench / Mall 2,567,428 353,243 13.8% $4.50 $24.00 $12.85 36
Eagle 443,170 28,933 6.5% $11.00 $17.50 $13.58 10
SUBMARKET INVENTORY CENTER
SF % LOW HIGH AVERAGE COUNT
VACANCY RENTS
Southeast
Southwest
West Bench Mall
Garden City
Meridian
Nampa
Eagle
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Vacancy Rate
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
Average Rent
Vacancy Ra te Average Rent
Absorption Ranking by Submarket
6TXDUH ) HHW
West Bench/Mall
Meridian
Southeast
Southwest
Central Bench
No rthwest
Garden City
No rth End
Eagle
Nampa
Asking rates overall have only increased slightly since July and
have been stable over the year. Retail market asking rates
averaged $13.49 in July and currently average $13.70. This is just
slightly higher than 2004 year-end estimates of $13.61. Top
average asking rents are being seen in the North End of Boise
($18.25) and Southeast Boise ($17.45). Nampa continues to see
the highest single asking rates with a $28 rent seen near the end
of 2005. The lowest retail asking rates are currently being seen in
the Central Bench area of Boise, which includes the area between
I-84 and I-184.
ASKING RATES
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
West Bench
Eagle
Meridian
3,351,714
1,931,440
1,501,206
157,293
1,045,982
433,063
2,131,175
262,005
956,962
263,044
171,564
155,142
30,629
94,930
63,002
171,917
65,770
162,974
15,971
12,075
139,865
4,962
279,015
183,639
155,142
30,629
94,930
63,002
311,782
65,770
167,936
55
50
57
5
28
19
81
14
30
8.3%
9.5%
10.3%
19.5%
9.1%
14.5%
14.6%
25.1%
17.5%
* Vacancy Rate includes sublease space Direct Vacancy Rate (excluding sublease space) = 10.0%
SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Full Service Asking Rates by Building Class
DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN
PERIPHERY
CENTRAL
BENCH NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST WEST BENCH EAGLE * MERIDIAN AVERAGES
Average
Full Service
Asking Rates By:
All
Classes
Class
'A'
Class
'B' and 'C'
$15.19
$18.67
$14.20
$15.28
$16.27
$14.04
$13.59
$15.50
$13.50
$13.30
n/a
$13.30
$16.50
$17.67
$15.92
$16.50
$16.50
n/a
$15.24
$16.13
$13.67
$20.74
$20.17
n/a
$17.67
$18.20
$16.20
$15.52
$17.21
$14.26
* One 'B' building vacancy listed at $22.00 SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
quarter of 2006. The West Bench and Meridian submarkets, which
includes the area around the Boise Towne Square Mall, have seen
the most leasing activity outside of the downtown area. One
anomaly in the Boise market is the lack of upward pressure on
rents. Rents have been increasing at rates lower than would be
expected in an environment where there are both declining
vacancies and rising construction costs. Lack of upward pressure
on rents has also made it more difficult to get new office building
projects off of the ground.
OVERVIEW
Office Vacancy by Submarket
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Downtown
Downtown Periphery
Central Bench
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
West Bench
Eagle
Meridian
Market Total
0%
Vacant Total Vacancy Rate = 11.5%
Square Feet
Average Office Asking Rates by Class
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
Downtown
Downtown Periphery
Central Bench
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
West Bench
Eagle
Meridian
N/A N/A N/A
A B and C
and reducing fuel consumption
Transportation Systems Proposed
Communities in Motion focuses on two
broad areas of investment: Transit and
Roadways.
Transit
This section relates to Question #2 on the
comment form
The Community Choices scenario is much
more likely to support transit, walking and
biking. Two basic services could be
feasible:
1) Fixed-guideways that could be light
rail, commuter rail or bus rapid transit
services. Fixed-guideways offer higher-
speed transportation on separate travel
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 5
locations.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 4
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14