HomeMy WebLinkAboutComp Plan Amdmt ResolutionCITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO.
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE TEN YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR PARKS, POLICE, AND FIRE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-8208(4), each time the City of
Meridian amends or modifies its Development Impact Fee Ordinance, it must also update
the corresponding capital improvements plans; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-8208(1), such capital
improvements plans shall be prepared and adopted according to the requirements
contained in the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act and shall be included as an element
of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August in
2002 as resolution 02-382; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have deemed it appropriate to amend
the text of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan update the ten year capital improvements
plans for parks, fire and police capital improvements projects in order to comply with this
prerequisite to amending the Meridian Development Impact Fee Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Meridian has retained the services of a consultant to
prepare a report that identifies and satisfies all of the capital improvements plan
requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act, and,
WHEREAS, the consultant's final report, dated August 28, 2006, contains a
checklist of the capital improvements plan requirements, found at Appendix "C" of said
report, attached to this resolution; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have provided all the requisite notices,
held the necessary hearings, and received the required information necessary to make a
final decision as required by the Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act to amend the
adopted comprehensive plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR POLICE, FIRE AND POLICE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS Pagel of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6509, the Mayor and City Council
hereby amend the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan to add the parks, police and fire
capital improvements plans as an addendum to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The
elements of the capital improvements plans are contained in the final report of the
consultant, dated August 28, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto incorporated herein
by reference. A copy of this Resolution and the attached document shall be held on file
in the office of the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and
effect immediately upon its adoption and approval.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this
day of , 2006.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of
.2006.
ATTEST:
Un
William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk
/:V2 9 ,.111v A
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR POLICE, FIRE AND POLICE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS Page2 of 2
Final Report
August 28, 2006
City of Meridian
Impact Fee Study and
Capital Improvement Flans
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
RECE ty E
fflis M co 9
CONSULTING
Galena Consulting
Anne Wescott ALEA
&O1-
'UT_T1NG
1214 South Johnson Street;'
Boise, ID 83705
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Table of Contents
Report
Backgroundand Objectives............................................................................................................ 1
Definitionof Impact Fees ............................... ............................... .......... ............................... - .... —2
Land Use and Demographics ............... ............ _... ................. ......... .................... ................ ......... - 6
ResidentialData.............................................................................................
NonresidentialData........................................................................................................................ 9
Impact Fee Calculation Considerations—....— ..................... ....... ........ _...... .................................. 10
Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans...........................................................................10
Mechanics of Fee Calculations...................................................................................................... 19
CityParticipation.......................................................................................................................... 23
Cash Flow Analysis ............................................ ....
OtherFunding 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 .................. ............... —I .......... ,...... -- ...... ._,,....... ,.,,,,.
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 .......... — ..... I ....... :...... .
24
Exhibit 15. City Participation — Fire Capital Improvement Pian, 2006 to 2016 ................. --.........
24
Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan .. ....... ..,1-- ...................
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
BBC RESEARCH bS CONSUL rING FINAL REPORT— I
Table of Contents
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
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT- II
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 (GIP)
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."'
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."'
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.' 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;
■ 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;
■ Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the
capital projects fund.
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 safery facilities, including law
enforcement, fire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code.
'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).
'See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203(29), Idaho Code.
'See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code,
See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code.
See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH St 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);'
■ 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;'
■ 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;"
■ 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; iz
■ 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." 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 $. 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
a See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code.
See Section 67-8206(2), Idaho Code.
° See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code.
" See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code.
See Sections 67-8209 and 67-8210, Idaho Code.
See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code.
° 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." Only those items listed on the CIP are eligible to be
funded by impact fees.
Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee roust first prepare a capital improvements
plan." 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."" 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.
"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.
" 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.
See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code.
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:
e 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
e 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. 71 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 plan 22 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. ,14
The service units chosen
by the study team are all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential
development square feet.
See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code.
' 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_
See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code.
See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH bt 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. ,21 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.
i5 See Section 67-8208(1)(e), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH St 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.- Household/, 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 I0 -year
C1Ps 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 Arked 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 £bund in Appendix F.
BBC RESEARCH St 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.2' 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
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 8,133,1_71
Total Square Feet 44,466,463 64,098,703 19,632,240
Nates: (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.
" National Association of Homebuilders, average of median figures from 1999-2004, Characteristics of -M,- Single Family
Homes 1987-2004.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 8
r 2106
to `2016'
Housing Units (�)
Single Family
20,053
25,537
5,485
Multifamily
2,282
9,931
7,64_9
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 8,133,1_71
Total Square Feet 44,466,463 64,098,703 19,632,240
Nates: (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.
" National Association of Homebuilders, average of median figures from 1999-2004, Characteristics of -M,- 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,
Papulation 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.
" 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
. N'c�rjtesid'e.:titial
Total in 2006 6,544,830
Total in 2016 (1) 10,173,758
Difference (2006 to 2016) 3,628,928
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 CTP 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.i30 The impact fee study team recommends a 10 -year time period based on the City's best
available capital planning data.
" See Section. 67-8209(l) (h).
BBC RE5EARCH St 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 3,1 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-
" 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.
" "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 -our (FIFO) basis.
33 The residential square footage is described in Exhibit 1 and the nonresidential square footage is described in Exhibit 2.
BBC RESEARCH St 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."" 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 tinreasonably 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 pet 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.
" See Section 67-8203(1.7), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, RACE 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
Sowce:
City of Meridian Police Department.
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 "CII' 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 20163s
Note: (1) Cost per, acre of land is $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time.
(2) Total cast 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 Pee 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.
" Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPS in this study, are allocatcd 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 furrher and either
leave the fee as proposed or recommend chat the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental
benefit.
BBC RESEARCH 6t CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14
Growth-RolatBd
.Shared Faciiliy
Amount to -
.Type of'eapital Iin'ptodetnent
Value
times Pardon
'tImes (% in fee)
equals Include in Fees
Infrastructure (2006 to 2016)
FiringRange- Semi-EnclosedBuilding
$2,000,000
3196
10096
$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) M
$275,000
31%
100%
$$6,126
Police Substation In Fire Station #6 (z)
81,470,000
100%
5%
$73,500
Police Substation in Fire Station #7 (2)
$1,470,000
100%
596
$73,500
Police Communications Equipment (14 Radios)
$63,280
100%
100%
$63,280
Police Substation in Fire Station #5 131
$1,120,000
100%
5%
$56,000
Command Vehicle (4l
$200,000
31%
50%
$31,319
il,807;3 47..
Fee -Related Research
Impact Fee Study
$32,500
100%
_ 33%
$10,833
:Grand Total
$,6,92§;0281
.
1;§78;1@D
Note: (1) Cost per, acre of land is $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time.
(2) Total cast 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 Pee 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.
" Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPS in this study, are allocatcd 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 furrher and either
leave the fee as proposed or recommend chat the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental
benefit.
BBC RESEARCH 6t CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14
Current fire assets. The (ire 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 S.
Current Fire Assets
"J P''
y.,.,.
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 ofCapital Improvement
Buildings
Fire Station #5 171
Fire Station #6 (Z)
Fire Station #7 (Z)
Training Tower
Vehicles
3 New Engines (One per Station #5 through #7.
Ladder Truck
Additional Staff Vehicles
Additional Squad Vehicles
Command Vehicle 131
Equipment
CIP. Growth Shared Facility Amount to
Value times 00111,011i atnei (% in fee) equals Inclu4l6' In'Fee$.
11,120,000
100%
95%
$1,064,000
$1,470,000
100%
95%
$1,396,500
$1,470,000
100%
95%
$1,396,500
$480,000
31%
100%
$150,330
$1,230,000
100%
100%
$1,230,000
$760,000
31%
100%
$238,022
$67,500
100%
100%
$67,500
$65,000
100%
100%
$65,000
$200,000
31%
50%
$31,319
Additional Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $190,000
Additional Base Radio$ $15,900
Additional Vehicle Radios $12,051
Additional Vehicle Fxtrication Equipment $60,000
Additional SCBA $57,000
Additional Thermal Imaging Cameras $45,000
. . Total In '.iistriicture..... $7,242,451 .
Vee -Related Research
Impact Fee Study
trand Total
100%
100%
$790,000
100%
100%
$15,900
1DO%
100%
$12,051
0%
100%
$0
0%
100%
$0
0%
100%
$0
$5,857,122
$32,500 100% % $10,633
.. $7,274,9 51 ... 33
�� � � � � � ��� $5,867 955
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 45. 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
" 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 bt 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
Paths ix 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 0 5 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 Flan. 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 nor 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 S.
Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201639
CIPShared FaulftyAmdunt to .
Type of Capital lmprdgemknt value times Portion times (% in fee) equals Include in Fee$
Pathways & Trails
Pathway Landscaping and Improvements(FY 2010)
.$75,000
0%
Neighborhood & Mini -Parks 11) (2)
4 New Neighborhood Parks (7.5 Acres Each)
62,550,000
100%
Community Parks (3)
1 New Community Park (33 Acres)
$6,435,000
10046
Hero's Park Development (Shelter, Playgrounds, Tennis Courts)
$500,000
100%
Storey Park- Acquisition and Development of 1.44 Acres f9)
$554,200
50%
Large Urban Parks (3)
1 New Large Urban Park (45 Acres)
$8,775,000
100%
Meridian Settler's Park- Final Phase Development
$425,000
100%
Parks Amenities
Community Center
$10,000,000
0%
Aquatics Center
$1,50,000
096
Equipment
2 Mowers (I Replacement and 1 Additional Mower)
$130,000
0%
-
Fee -Related Research
Impact Fee Study
$32,500
100%
Minus Impact Fec fund Balance (s)
FY 2006 Beglnnin4 Fund Balance
1.00%
Grand Total.
.$800,150
$34,176;564'
.
100% $0
100% $2,550,000
100% $6,435,000
100% $500,000
100% $277,100
100% .$8,775,000
100% $425,000
100% s0
100% $0
100% $o
33% $10,833
10096 .5800,1 50
E1$,1`J2,783 '
Note: (1) Land to he donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of impact fee credits.
(2) $85,000 per acre in development casts 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 2128/06, 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.
17 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 rhis year, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population.
'"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 & CONSULTINC FINAL REPORT, PACE 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)."
■ Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend that
the City Council adjust the maximum allowable impact fee.4o
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.
39 See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code.
ao .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 St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 19
Per Ont
a,; `• ::fir c:M,
-1 :iifr7atal`.
IM
Single Family
11,499,069
49%
Multifamily
8,133,171
35%
1 7t"
Total (7)
23,261,168
100%
39 See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code.
ao .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 St 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
Pee 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.
Future Value of Police Capital Improvements
Future Land Use Percentage tri
Residential
Nonresidential
Allocated Value by Land Use Category
Residential
Nonresidential
Growth to 2016
Residential (in dwelling units)
Nonresidential (in square feet)
Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded)
Residohti, o'1 F 1lA�f�llll
iYY •i uv iM •tI•,.
$1,318,180
84%
16%
$1,112,544
$205,636
13,134
3,628,928
$$5.
$�aa�
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 CTP -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 2D16.
Source:
City of Meridian and Impact Fee
Study Team.
Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements
$5,867,955
Future Land Use Percentage (2)
Residential
84%
Nonresidential
16%
Allocated Value by Land Use Category
Residential
$4,952,554
Nonresidential
$915,401
Growth to 2016
Residential (in dwelling units)
13,134
Nonresidential (in square feet)
3,628,928
Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded)
Id'�'t.xf :;
$317
s `
$0,25
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 devel2pment 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-
Calciila#i
Future Value of Parks & Recreation
Capital Improvements (1)
Future Land Use Percentage
Residential
Nonresidential
Allocated Value by Land Use Category
Residential
Nonresidential
Growth to 2016
Residential (total dwelling units)
Nonresidential (in square feet)
$18,172,783
100%
0%
$18,172,783
$0
13,134
3,628,928
Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded)
.... $1,384
NonreiideritiaP(peT''squ re'fbkit) 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
ream'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
Note! (1) Directly from Exhibit 4, Pollce 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.
” 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 6t CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 23
Ix: n, �
P:i+"„�sq{?;13� 'laP'4 �e�1i �:(, r„Vi: ��a��:�.r
'�'%:,,, . �,,,•a, ,��
$6,928,028
$1,318,180
$3,978,667
= $1,631,181
Note! (1) Directly from Exhibit 4, Pollce 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.
” 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 6t 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 nor 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
Dollar '
-Amount
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
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 IS.
City Participation — Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016
j ' Am6iUht ta' , hared'
i/alMie 111'';;,, ' less 'Include in Fees 1. less Fa'GiNity AMbunt ) equals Participation (3)
$7,274,951 $5,867,955 - $324,667 _ $1,082,329
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
.J,w
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)
$920329
Total
$1,082,329
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 mutt 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
Source:
(1) Directly from Exhibit S. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement plan, 2006 to 2016.
(2) Calculated from Exhibit S. 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.
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 improverrients (required funding).
Exhibit 18.
Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Pian
—.,, .
'Dollar
Amount
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
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 nor -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
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
e,rdjje 'e9d as1i Now
2067
2011
12�;1f
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
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 $).
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.12
Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City should
review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance (Appendix $) 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 ate 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 CTP, 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.
-i= See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208(1).
BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, RAGE 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.
4+ See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code.
BBC RESEARCH 8t CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PACE 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 $0.3I
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,
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 St Recreation Fees
Residential (per dwelling unit)
$1,384
Nonresidential (per square foot)
N/A
$1846
NorileiitiI'pj`ke fai�f)',
$l]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 RE5EARCM & 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,
Required Amount
(Partially Non -Growth Improvements)
Police $1,631,181
Fire $920,329
Parks & Recreation $277,100
Total $2,828,610
Gk rikl bt�l ,i4o
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
;���".��te�go
�7,. ,;r.•g�c;;;.,,V iti�aij�atiatt
.
Discretionary Amount
(Purely Non -Growth Im rovements)
Police
$0
Fire
$162,000
Parks & Recreation
$11,705,000
Total
$11,867,000
Required Amount
(Partially Non -Growth Improvements)
Police $1,631,181
Fire $920,329
Parks & Recreation $277,100
Total $2,828,610
Gk rikl bt�l ,i4o
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
CHANTER 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 requiremenre o. 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 rhe 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)(0, 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 nor 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 bt CONSULTING APPENDIX A, DACE 3
(0 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 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 RE5EARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, RAGE 4
APPENDIX B.
Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, GORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,
COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, BY REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 10,
CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, AND BY ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10,
CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT
FEE ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSITION, COMPUTATION AND
PAYMENT OF A POLICE IMPACT FEE, A FIRE IMPACT FEE, AND A PARKS AND
RECREATION IMPACT FEE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING
AUTHORITY, INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF SEPARATE IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR EACH OF SUCH IMPACT FEES;
PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS, REFUNDS, CREDITS AND WAIVERS RESPECTING
SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, APPLICABILITY AND
APPEALS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the
City of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police
Department, the City Tire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital
Irnprovements needed to serve new growth and development; and
WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Research and Consulting, Galena Consulting and Spink
Butler, LLP (collectively, "Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development
projections for the period 2006 to 2026 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks
and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and
the City's area of city impact; and
WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Irnpact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan,
prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, dated July _, 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets
forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various
types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fixe, and parks and
recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the
System Improvements addressed therein; determines the costs necessary to meet demands created
by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees as set forth in this Chapter that are at
a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the
service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The
City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards
referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the
police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities.
WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts
of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities,
including review and reliance on that certain City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, July 2002
(Resolution 02-382), as amended by Resolution Nos.: 03-401 and 03-409 (Parks and Recreation
M'ACT FEE ORDINANCE - 1
System Plan -Action Plan); 04-454; and 06-505 (North Meridian Area) and that certain amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City on , 2006 (Resolution No.—)
(collectively, the "Comprehensive Plan"), the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new
growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and
development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase
the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development.
WHEREAS, in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon
the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans prepared by Consultant and adopted by the
City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would
generate demand for additional police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements
addressed therein; and
WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study,
which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to
services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of
the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to
increase the service capacity of 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 City and City's area of City impact.
Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be
expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city
impact.
WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new
growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to
a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital
Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the reasonable impacts of new growth and
development on existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements, and the
reasonable costs of Capital Improvements necessary to increase the service capacity of the City's
existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to accommodate the additional
demands and impacts of new growth and development; and
WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at public hearing and a review
of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, the police, fire,
and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to
defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and
nonresidential land development listed herein; and
WHEREAS, in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements
Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and
do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development,
RAPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 2
which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements
of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein
address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific
dedications or improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in
accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho
Code, the Capital Improvements Plans have been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and in
accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, the Impact Fee
Study and Capital Improvements Plans have been presented to and reviewed by the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss,
review and hear public comments on the proposed Impact Fees set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby are fair and rational, charge new growth and
development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and
parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way.
BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of
the City Council. The existing Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby repealed
and a new Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby adopted as follows:
TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7,
MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
SECTION
10-07-01 Legislative Findings
10-07-02 Authority, Applicability, and Effective Date
10-07-03 Intent
10-07-04 Definitions
10-07-05 Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees
10-07-06 Payment of Impact Fees
10-07-07 Impact Fee Fund; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid
10-07-08 Exemptions From Impact Fees
10-07-09 Credits; Reimbursements
10-07-10 Appeals
10-07-11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee
10-07-12 Miscellaneous Provisions
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 3
10-07-01— Legislative Findings
The City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho finds that:
(a) Based on the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Citypursuant to Title 67,
Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including but not limited to the Capital Improvements Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, and the general governmental goal of protecting the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of the City, and its area of City impact, it is necessary that the City's Public
Facilities for: (1) park and recreation Public Facilities-, and (2) public safety Public Facilities for
law enforcement and fire to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and its
area of City impact.
(b) New residential and nonresidential growth and development imposes and will impose
increasing and demands upon the Public Facilities.
(c) The revenues generated from new residential and nonresidential growth and development
often do not generate sufficient general funds to provide the necessary improvements of these
Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development.
(d) New growth and development are expected to continue, and will place ever-increasing
demands on the City to provide and expand the Public Facilities to serve new growth and
development.
(e) The City has planned for the improvement of the Public Facilities in the Capital
Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
(f) The creation of an equitable Impact Fee system would enable the City to impose a
Proportionate Share of the costs of needed improvements to the Public Facilities to accommodate
new growth and development, and would assist the City in implementing the Capital Improvements
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
(g) In order to implement an equitable Impact Fee system for the Public Facilities, the City
retained BBC Research & Consulting to prepare an Impact Fee Study for these types of facilities.
The resulting document titled "The City of Meridian. Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements
Plan," dated July 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), recommended for approval by the Irnpact Fee
Advisory Committee, is on file in the office of the city clerk of the City of Meridian..
(h) The Impact Fee Study is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the City of
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and uses the Levels of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
for these Public Facilities.
(i) The Impact Fee Study sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the
impacts of various types of new growth and development on the Public Facilities, and determines
the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such
Public Facilities created by new growth and development.
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 4
(j) The Impact Fee Study uses a calculation methodology in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be generated
by new growth and development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be
available to pay for System _Improvements, including taxes, assessments, user fees, and
intergovernmental transfers, and included consideration of the following factors:
1. The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Asea;
2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed;
3. The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of
System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner
contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System hnprovements
through Developer or landowner contributions;
4. The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the
cost of existing System Improvements in the future;
S. The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for
providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the
Service Area;
6. Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development;
7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at
different times; and
8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not
limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation.
(k) The maximum allowable Impact Fees described in this Ordinance are based on the Impact
Fee Study, and do not exceed the costs of System Improvements for the Public Facilities to serve
new growth and development that will pay the Impact Fees.
(1) The police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities included in the calculation of
Impact Fees in the Impact Fee Study will benefit all new growth and development throughout the
City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City and the area of city impact as a
single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting and spending the Impact Fees collected.
(m) There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts
created by each type of development covered by this Ordinance and the Impact Fees that such
development will be required to pay.
(n) This Ordinance creates a system by which Impact Fees paid by new growth and development
will be used to finance, defray or to provide Capital Improvements for the Public Facilities in ways
that benefit the development for which Impact Fees were paid.
MPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 5
(o) This Ordinance creates a system under which Impact Fees shall not be used to correct
existing deficiencies in Public Facilities, or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to
pay for routine operation or maintenance of those Public Facilities.
(p) This Ordinance is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho
Code, concerning Impact Fee Ordinances.
10-07-02 — Authority, Applicability,_and Effective Date
(a) This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers pursuant to the
authority granted to the City by Title 50, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the authority granted to the
City by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code.
(b) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the
City and to any unincorporated areas of the City within the City's area of city impact where the City
has executed an intergovernmental agreement with Ada County for purposes of collection or
expenditure of Impact Fees pursuant to Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code, and other applicable laws of
the State of Idaho.
(c) This Ordinance is effective
(the "Effective Date"), which Effective Date
is at least thirty (3 0) days subsequent to the passage, approval and publication, according to law, of
Ordinance No. , which adopted the provisions hereof.
(d) Applications for Building Permits received by the City prior to the Effective Date of this
Ordinance, or amendments hereto, adopting Impact Fees or amending or adopting any methodology
by which Impact Fees are calculated, will be exempt from that portion of this Ordinance, or
amendment enacted after such Building Permit application, if a valid Building Permit has been
issued or construction has commenced prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendment.
For Building Permits that expire or are revoked after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the
Feepayor shall be entitled to a refund of previously paid Impact Fees as provided frirther in. Section
1.0-07-07, Meridian Code, provided that in the case of reapplication for Building Permit, the Impact
Fee in effect at that time shall be paid.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Development Requirements for System
Improvements shall be imposed by the City only by way of Impact Fees imposed pursuant to and in
accordance with Section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, and this Ordinance.
10-07-03 — Intent
(a) The intent of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the
residents of the City and its area of city impact.
(b) The intent of this Ordinance is to be consistent with those principles for allocating a fair
share of the cost of Capital Improvements to Public Facilities to serve new growth and development
in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. The provisions
of this Ordinance shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the provisions set
forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code.
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 6
(c) The intent of this Ordinance is that Impact Fees should be charged, collected, and expended
for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of
such categories of Public Facilities, which Capital Improvements are included in approved Capital
Improvements Plans that list the Capital Improvements that may be funded with Impact Fees.
(d) The intent of this Ordinance is to ensure that: Public Facilities are available to serve new
growth and development; new growth and development bears a Proportionate Share of the cost of
police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities; to ensure that
such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of the Capital Improvements to such Public
Facilities required to serve new growth and development; and to ensure that the fiinds collected
from new growth and development are used for Capital Improvements for Public Facilities that
benefit new growth and development.
(e) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to collect any monies from new growth and
development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for Capital
Improvements to Public Facilities created by such new growth and development.
(f) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that the Impact Fees be used to remedy any deficiency in
police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements existing on the Effective Date of this
Ordinance, or ever be used to replace, rehabilitate, maintain and/or operate any Public Facilities.
(g) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that any monies collected from an Impact Fee deposited
in an Impact Fee fund ever be commingled with monies from a different fund, or ever be used for
Capital Improvements that are different from those for which the Impact Fee was paid.
(h) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that Impact Fees be used for:
(1) Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital
Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans.
(2) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements.
(3) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve
existing Development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or
regulatory standards.
(4) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve
existing Development to provide better service to existing Development.
(5) Administrative and operating costs of the City unless such costs are attributable to
development of the Capital Improvements Plans used to determine Impact Fees by a
surcharge imposed by ordinance on the collection of an Impact Fee, which surcharge shall
not exceed a Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing the Capital
Improvements Plans.
(6) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other
indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance
Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans.
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 7
10-07-04 — Definitions
(a) "Affordable Housing" means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed
eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Service Area.
(b) 'Building Permit" means an official document or certificate by that name issued by the City
authorizing the construction or siting of any building.
(c) "Capital Improvements" means improvements with a useful life of ten (10) years or more, by
new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a Public Facility.
(d) "Capital Improvements Element" means a component of a comprehensive plan.
(e) "Capital Improvements Plan" means a plan adopted pursuant to this Chapter that identifies
Capital Improvements for which hnpact Fees may be used as a funding source.
(f) "City" means the City of Meridian, Idaho.
(g) "City Council" means the legislative body of the City of Meridian, Idaho.
(h) "Developer" means any person or legal entity undertaking development, including a party
that undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to Sections 50-1301 through 50-1334, Idaho
Code and 11-6, Meridian Code.
(i) "Development" means any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any
change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land,
which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that
would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land.
0) "Development Approval" means any written authorization from. a Governmental Entity
which authorizes the commencement of a Development.
(k) "Development Requirement" means a requirement attached to a Development Approval or
other governmental action approving or authorizing a particular Development including, without
limitation, a rezoning, which Development Requirement compels the payment, dedication or
contribution of goods, services, land and/or money as a condition of approval.
(1) "Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary
purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged,
designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling Unit includes
a Multifamily building, a mobile home, a Manufactured Home, a Modular Building and/or a
motel/hotel/rooming house.
(m) "Extraordinary Costs" means those costs incurred as a result of Extraordinary Impact.
(a) "Extraordinary Impact" means an impact which is reasonably determined by the City to:
result in the need for police, fire, and parks and/or recreation System Improvements, the cost of
ITVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 8
which will significantly exceed the sum of the Impact Fees to be generated from the Project; or
result in the need for police, fire, parks and recreation System Improvements that are not identified
in the Capital Improvements Plans.
(o) "Fee Administrator" means the official appointed by the Mayor with the City Council
approval to administer this Chapter.
(p) "Feepayor" means a person who pays or is required to pay an Impact Fee or the Feepayor's
Successor in Interest.
(c) "Governmental Entity" means any unit of local government that is empowered by Section
67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, to adopt an Impact Fee ordinance.
(r) "Impact Fee" means 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.
The term does not include a charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review or inspection costs
associated with permits required for Development.
(s) "Impact Fee Study" means the document entitled the "City of Meridian Impact Fee Study
and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July 3, 2006, prepared by SSC Research & Consulting for
the City.
(t) "Land Use Assumptions" means a description of the service area and projections of land
uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a twenty (20) year period.
(u) "Level of Service" means a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service
demand for Public Facilities.
(v) "Manufactured Home" means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home
construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling
mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected
on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis
and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to
the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems
contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements
of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer
voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of housing and Urban Development and
complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq.
(w) "Modular Building" means any building or building component, other than a Manufactured
Home, which is constructed according to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, as
adopted by the City or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either
entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site.
(x) "Multifamily" means a building or portion thereof, containing two (2) or more Dwelling
Units, excluding attached single-family townhouse units located on individual lots.
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 9
(y) "Owner" means the person holding legal title to real property, including the local, state or
federal, government or any subdivision thereof.
(z) "Person" means an individual, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, _estate,
partnership, association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other entity.
(aa) "Present Value" means the total current monetary value of past, present or future payments,
contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money.
(bb) "Project" means a particular Development on. an identified parcel of land.
(cc) "Project Improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and
designed to provide service for a Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the
occupants or users of the Project.
(dd) "Proportionate Share" means that portion of the cost of System Improvements determined
pursuant to Section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and Section 10-07-05, Meridian Code, which reasonably
relates to the service demands for Public Facilities of a Project.
(ee) "Public Facility(ies)" means: (1) parks open space and recreation areas, and related Capital
Improvements; and (2) public safety facilities, including law enforcement and fire facilities.
(£) "Service Area" means the territory within the limits of the City and the City's area of city
impact.
(gg) "Successor in Interest" means a Person who gains legal title in real property for which an
Impact Fee is paid or a credit is approved pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance.
(hh) "System. Improvements," in contrast to Project Improvements, means Capital Improvements
to Public Facilities that are designed to provide service to a Service Area including, without
limitation, the type of improvements the City has the authority to make as described in Section 50-
1703, Idaho Code.
(ii) "System improvement costs" means costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of
system improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable
thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in Section 50-1702(h),
Idaho Code, to provide additional public facilities needed to serve new growth and development.
For clarification, system improvement costs do not include:
(i) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities other than capital
improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans;
(ii) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements;
(iii) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve
existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory
standards;
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 10
(iv) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital hnprovements to
provide better service to existing development;
(v) Administrative and operating costs of the governmental entity unless such costs are
attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans, as provided in Section
67-8208, Idaho Code; or
(vi) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other
indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the governmental entity
to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans.
10-07-05 — Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees
(a) Any application for a Building Permit enabling the construction, and in the case of
construction that does not require a Building Permit, any building that takes place on or after the
Effective Date of this Chapter shall be subject to the imposition of Impact Fees in the manner and
amount set forth in this Chapter. The methodology adopted for the purpose of determining police,
fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees shall be based upon the assumptions set forth in the
Impact Fee Study.
(b) Impact Fees shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential and nonresidential
Development in the Service Area for which a Building Permit is required and shall be payable prior
to the issuance of any Building Permit (or installation permit in the case of a Manufactured Horne)
for a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential building. Except as otherwise provided herein, after the
Effective Date of this Chapter, no Building Permit shall be issued until the Impact Fees described in
this Chapter have been paid, unless the Development for which the permit is sought is exempted by
Section 10-07-08 or approved credits are used to cover the Impact Fee, as set forth in Section 10-07-
09. The Fee Administrator shall have the authority to withhold a Building Permit or stop
construction, as the case may be, until the appropriate Impact Fee has been collected.
(C) A Feepayor required by this Chapter to pay an Impact Fee may choose to have the amount of
such Impact Fee determined pursuant to either the Fee Schedule or subsections (d) through (f)
below. If the Feepayor chooses to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to
subsections (d) through (f) below, such Impact Fee shall be subject to the adjustment described in
S ection 10-07-09, if applicable. If the Proj ect is a mix of those uses listed on the Fee Schedule, then
the Impact Fees shall be determined by adding up the Impact Fees that would be payable for each
use as if it were a freestanding use pursuant to the Fee Schedule.
(d) Individual assessment of Impact Fees is permitted in situations where the Feepayor can
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the established Impact Fee is inappropriate for
the Proj ect. Written application for individual assessment shallbe made to the Fee Administrator at
any time prior to receiving Building Permit(s). Late applications for individual assessment of
Impact Fees maybe considered for a period of sixty (60) days after the receipt of a Building Permit
only if the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or
discoverable prior to receipt of a Building Permit and that undue hardship would result if said
application is not considered. Such independent Impact Fee calculation study for the Feepayor's
Development shall be prepared at the Feepayor's cost by a qualified professional and contain
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 11
studies, data and other relevant information and be submitted to the Fee Administrator for review.
Any such study shall be based on the same methodology and the same Level of Service standards,
improvements and costs used in the Impact Fee Study, and must document the methodologies and
assumptions used. The City may, hire a professional consultant to review any independent Impact
Fee calculation study on behalf of the City, and may charge the reasonable costs of such review to
the Feepayor.
(e) Any independent Impact Fee calculation study submitted by a Feepayor may be accepted,
rejected or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating Impact Fees. The
City shall not be required to accept any study or documentation the City reasonably deems to be
inaccurate or unreliable, and shall have the authority to request that the Feepayor submit additional
or different documentation for consideration in connection with review of any independent Impact
Fee calculation. If such additional or different documentation is accepted or accepted with
modifications as a more accurate measure of the Impact Fees due in connection with Feepayor's
proposed Development than the applicable Impact Fees set forth in subsection the Fee Schedule,
then the Impact Fee due under this Chapter shall be calculated according to such documentation.
(0 The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision establishing the Impact Fees in
connection with the individual assessment within thirty (3 0) days of the date a complete application
is submitted. The decision shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fees, shall
specify the System Inprovement(s) for which the Impact Fees are intended to be used, and shall
include an explanation of the following factors considered:
(1) The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area;
(2) The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed;
(3) The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of
System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner
contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through
Developer or landowner contributions;
(4) The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the
cost of existing System Improvements in the future;
(5) The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for
providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service
Area;
(6) Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development;
(7) The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at
different times; and
(8) The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not
limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation..
(g) Certification of the Impact Fee for a Project maybe applied for in the following manner:
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 12
(1) Written application may be made to the Fee Administrator not later than sixty (60)
days after Development Approval by the City Council. Late applications for certification of
the Impact Fee will not be considered unless the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts
supporting such application were not known or discoverable until after the time had run and
that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered.
(2) The Fee Administrator shall provide the Feepayor with a written Impact Fee
certification for the Project within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is
submitted. The certification provided by the Fee Administrator shall establish the Impact
Fee for the Project in question, so long as there is no material change to the Project as
identified in the certification application or the Impact Fee schedule. The certification shall
include an explanation of factors considered, and shall specify the System Improvement(s)
for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used.
The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fee, shall specify the
System huprovement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used, and shall include an
explanation of the factors considered, which factors are identified in subsection (f) above.
(h) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of an individual assessment or
certification shall be made to the City as provided further in this Chapter.
(i) The City recognizes that there maybe circumstances where the anticipated fiscal impacts of
a proposed Development are of such magnitude that the City may be unable to accommodate the
Development without excessive or unscheduled public expenditures that exceed the amount of the
anticipated Impact Fees from such Development. If the City determines that a proposed
Development would create such an Extraordinary Impact on the City's police, fixe, and/or parks and
recreation Public Facilities, the City may refuse to approve the proposed Development. In the
alternative, the City may calculate a pro rata share per Dwelling Unit, or square feet of
nonresidential buildings, of the Extraordinary Impact and charge a reasonable Extraordinary Impact
Fee that is greater than would ordinarily be charged.
0) If the City discovers an error in its Impact Fee formula that results in assessment or payment
of more than a Proportionate Share, City shall, at the time of assessment on a case by case basis,
adjust the Impact Fee to collect no more than a Proportionate Share or discontinue the collection of
any Impact Fees until the error is corrected by ordinance.
10-07-06 — Payment of Impact Fees
(a) After the Effective Date of this Chapter all Feepayors shall pay the Impact Fees as provided
by this Chapter to the Fee Administrator following application for a Building Permit and prior to the
issuance of any Building Permit for a Dwelling Unit, or nonresidential building.
(b) All Impact Fees paid by a Feepayor pursuant to this Chapter shall be promptly deposited in
the Impact Fee Fund described in Section 10-07-07.
10-07-07 — Impact Fee Funds; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 13
(a) There is hereby established a police Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all police
Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring police hnpact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated
for the accommodation of police Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth
and development that paid the Impact Fee.
(b) There is hereby established a fire Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all fire
Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring fire Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated
for the accommodation of fire Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and
development that paid the Impact Fee.
(G) There is hereby established a parks and recreation Impact Fee fund into which shall. be
deposited all parks and recreation Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring parks and recreation
Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation ofparks and recreation
Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the
Impact Fee.
(d) Each fund shall be an interest-bearing account which shall be accounted for separately from.
other Impact Fee funds and from other City funds. Any interest or other income earned on monies
deposited in a fund shall be credited to such fund. Expenditures of Impact Fees shall be made only
for the category of System Improvements for which the Impact Fees were collected and as identified
in the Capital Improvements Plans.
(e) Except as otherwise provided herein, monies from each fund, including any accrued interest,
shall 'be limited to the financing of acquisition, expansion, anal/or improvement of Capital
Improvements, or for principal and interest payments on bonds or other borrowed revenues used to
acquire, expand or improve such Capital Improvements, necessary to serve new growth and
development. Impact Fees in each fund shall be spent within eight (S) years from the date such
Impact Fees were collected on a first-in/first-out (FIFO) basis. The City may hold the Impact Fees
longer than the prescribed time period if the City identifies, in writing: (1) a reasonable cause why
the Impact Fees should be held longer; and (2) an anticipated date by which the Impact Fees will be
expended but in no event longer than eleven (11) years from the date the Impact Fees were
collected.
(fl The Fee Administrator shall prepare quarterly and annual reports to be provided to the
Advisory Committee and the City Council, which reports shall: (1) Describe the amount of all
Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter
or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility; and (2) Describe the percentage of tax and
revenues other than Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System hnprovements during
the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility.
(g) Funds shall be deemed expended when payment of such funds has been approved by the
City. The Feepayor or Successor in Interest shall be entitled to a refund of the Impact Fee if:
(1) service is available but never provided; (2) a Building Permit or permit for installation of a
manufactured home is revoked or abandoned; (3) the City, after collecting the Impact Fee when
service is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected Impact Fees; or (4) the
Feepayor pays an Impact Fee under protest and a subsequent review of the Impact Fee paid or the
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 14
completion of an individual assessment determines that the Impact Fee paid exceeded the
Proportionate Share to which the City was entitled to receive.
(h) When the right to a refund exists, within ninety (90) days after the City determines that a
refund is due, the City shall provide written notice of entitlement to a refund, to the Owner of record
and the Feepayor who paid the Impact Fees at the address shown on the application for
Development Approval, or to a Successor in Interest who has notified the City of a transfer of the
right or entitlement to a refund and who has provided to the City a mailing address. When the right
to a refund exists, the City shall also publish the notice of entitlement to a refund within thirty (3 0)
days after the expiration of the eight (8) year period after the date that the Impact Fees were
collected. Such published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Impact Fee
Refund."
(i) A refund shall include interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate provided for in Section
28-22-104, Idaho Code, from the date on which the Impact Fee was originally paid.
0) In order to be eligible for a refund, a Feepayor, Successor in Interest or Owner of record
shall file a written application for a refund with the Fee Administrator within six (6) months of the
time such refund becomes payable under subsection (e) above, or within six (6) months of
publication of the notice of entitlement to a refund, whichever is later. If a Successor in. Interest
claims a refund of Impact Fees, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such
rights have been transferred to the claimant prior to issuing the requested refund. Refimds shall be
paid within sixty (60) days after the date on which the Fee Administrator determines that a
sufficient proof of claim for a refund has been made.
(k) Any person entitled to a refund shall have standing to sue for a refund under the provisions
of this Chapter if there has not been a timely payment of a refund as provided herein.
10-07-08 — Exemptions from Impact Fees
(a) The following types of land Development shall be exempted from payment of the Impact
Fees imposed by this Chapter:
(1) Rebuilding or replacing a Dwelling Unit or the same amount of square feet of a
nonresidential structure on the same lot and existing on the Effective Date of this Chapter
provided that the rebuilt or replaced Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure does not
increase the need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. If such
Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure was destroyed, such Dwelling Unit or
nonresidential structure must be rebuilt or replaced and ready for occupancy within two (2)
years of destruction.
(2) Construction of an unoccupied, detached accessory structure, or addition of uses
related to a Dwelling Unit unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a
significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements.
(3) Remodeling or repairing a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential structure in a manner
that does not increase the need for police or fire or parks and recreation Public Facilities.
IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 15
(4) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot.
(b) An Impact Fee will be assessed for installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured
Home unless the Feepayor can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records,
either: (1) that a Modular Building or Manufactured Home was legally in place on the lot or space
prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter; or (2) that an Impact Fee has been paid previously for the
installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home on that same lot or space.
(c) Developments determined by the City Council that provide Affordable Housing may be
exempt from the Impact Fee requirement, provided that the exempt Development's Proportionate
Share of System Improvements is funded through a revenue source other than Impact Fees.
(1) Current housing affordability guidelines published by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") shall be used to determine whether Dwelling
Units in the Development qualify as Affordable Housing.
(2) Affordable Housing Projects are required to demonstrate that they will provide
Dwelling Units to eligible families based on HUD income and family size guidelines.
(3) Providers of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units must demonstrate a long-term
commitment to provide Affordable Housing for a period of not less than twenty (20) years.
(d) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination shall be made as provided further in this
Chapter.
10-07-09 — Credits; Reimbursements
(a) No Feepayor shall be required to construct, fund or contribute any Capital Improvement to
meet the same need for police, Ire, and parks and recreation Capital J mprovements for which an
Impact Fee is unposed. All System Improvements constructed, funded or contributed for police,
fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed, over and
above those required by the City in connection with new development, shall result in either a credit
on future Impact Fees or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) for such excess to be paid by
firture Development that benefits from such System Improvements. However, no credit or
reimbursement shall be provided for: (1) Project Improvements; (2) any construction, funding or
contribution not agreed to in writing by the City prior to commencement of such construction,
funding or contribution; and (3) any construction, funding or contribution of a type of Capital
Improvements not included in the calculation of the applicable Impact Fee.
(b) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project pursuant to Section 10-07-05 (d) through (f),
credit shall be given for the Present Value of all tax and user fee revenue generated by the Feepayor
within the Service Area and used by the City for System Improvements of the category for which
the Impact Fee is being collected. If the amount of such credit exceeds the Impact Fee for a Project,
the Feepayor shall receive a credit on future Impact Fees.
(c) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project, credit or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's
option) shall begiven for the Present Value of any construction of System Improvements or
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 16
contribution of land or money required by the City from the Feepayor for System Improvements of
the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected, including System Improvements paid for
through local improvement district assessments.
(d) If credit or reimbursement is due to the Feepayor, the City and Feepayor shall enter into a
written agreement, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction, funding or contribution. The
written agreement shall include, without limitation: a description of the construction, funding or
contribution of System Improvements including, in the case of real property, a legal description of
the real property; description as to how the System Improvements are to be valued; the amount of
the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement; instructions as to how the Capital
hnprovements should be provided to the City to ensure full transfer of ownership; and the
circumstances under which the credit or reimbursement is deemed effective. To assist in such
reimbursement, the City shall continue to collect Impact Fees from other Developers whose
proposed Developments will benefit from such construction, funding or contribution, and will
promptly transfer such funds to the Feepayor. If a Successor in Interest claims a reimbursement or
credit, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been
conveyed to the claimant prior to issuing the requested reimbursement or credit.
(e) Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of Impact Fees of the category for
which the Impact Fee is being collected in connection with any new growth and development until
the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use approved credits is presented to
the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the applicable Impact Fee otherwise due from the
Feepayor and shall note in the City records the amount of credit remaining, if any. Upon request of
the Feepayor, the City shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. If the credit has not
been exhausted within eight (S) years of the date of issuance of the first Building Permit for which
an Impact Fee was due and payable, or within such other time period as may be designated in
writing by the City, such credit shall lapse, unless a refund of the remaining credit is applied for as
set forth in Section 10-07-070) above.
(fl Approved credits or reimbursement shall only be used to reduce the amount of the Impact
Fee of the category for which the Impact Fee is otherwise due, and shall not be paid to the Feepayor
in cash or in credits against any other monies due from the Feepayor to the City.
(g) Credit for land dedications shall, at the Feepayor's option, be valued at: (1) one hundred
(100) percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the Ada
County Assessor; or (2) that fair market value established by an MAI appraiser reasonably
acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the Feepayor. Credit for contribution or
construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the City based on complete engineering
drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates submitted by the Feepayor to the City,
which estimates shall be revised as actual costs become available. The City shall determine the
amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if the City determines that such
information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs
reasonably acceptable to the City as a more accurate measure of the value of the offered System
Improvements to the City.
(h) Approved credits for land dedications shall became effective when the land has been
conveyed to the City in a form reasonably acceptable to the City at no cost to the City, and has been
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 17
accepted by the City. Approved credits for contribution or construction of System Improvements
shall generally become effective when: (1) all required construction has been completed and has
been accepted by the City; and (2) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and
acceptance procedures have beers -completed in compliance with all applicable requirements- of the
City. Approved credits for the construction of System Improvements may become effective at an
earlier date if the Feepayor posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of
credit or escrow agreement in the amount and under terms reasonably acceptable to the City.
(i) Credit may only be transferred by a Feepayor that has received credit to such Feepayor's
Successor in Interest. The credit may be used only to offset lmpact Fees for the same category for
which the credit was issued. Credits shall be transferred by any written instrument clearly
identifying which credits are being transferred, the dollar amount of the credit being transferred, and
the System Improvements for which the credit was issued. The instrument of transfer shall be
signed by both the transferor and transferee, and a copy of the document shall be delivered to the
Fee Administrator for documentation of the transfer before the transfer shall be deemed effective.
10-07-10 — Appeals
The decisions of the Fee Administrator may be appealed as provided below:
(a) Any Feepayor who is or maybe obligated to pay an Impact Fee, may appeal a decision made
by the Fee Administrator in applying this Ordinance to the City Council's designee. Such decisions
that maybe appealed include:
(1) The applicability of an Impact Fee to the Development.
(2) The amount of an Impact Fee to be paid for the Development.
(3) The availability, amount or application of any credit.
(4) The amount of any refund, reimbursement or credit.
A Feepayor may pay an Impact Fee under protest in order to obtain a Development Approval or
Building Permit(s) and, by paying such Impact Fee, shall not be estopped from exercising the
right of appeal provided herein, nor shall the Feepayor be estopped from receiving a refund of
any amount deemed to have been illegally collected. Upon final disposition of an appeal, the
Impact Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with the decision rendered and, if necessary, a refund
paid.
(b) In order to pursue an appeal, the Feepayor shall file a written notice of appeal with the City
Council's designee within fifteen (15) days after the date of the decision being appealed, or the date
on which the Feepayor submitted a payment of Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such
written application shall include a statement describing why the appellant believes that the decision
was in error, together with copies of any documents that the appellant believes supports the claim.
(c) The City Council's designee shall notify the Feepayor of the hearing date on the appeal,
which notice shall be given no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall
hear the appeal within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written notice of appeal. The appellant shall
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 18
have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The Fee Administrator
who made the decision under appeal shall likewise have the right to be present and to present
evidence in support of the decision. The burden of proof in any such hearing shall be on the
Feepayor to demonstrate that the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, reimbursement or refund was not
properly calculated by the City.
(d) The criteria to be used by the City Council's designee shall be whether: (1) the decision or
interpretation made by the Fee Administrator; or (2) the alternative decision or interpretation offered
by the. appellant, more accurately reflects the intent of this Ordinance that new growth and
development in the City pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System hnprovements for Public
Facilities necessary to serve new development. The City Council's designee may affirm, reject or
revise the decision of the Fee Administrator, providing written findings of fact and conclusions,
within fifteen (15) days after hearing the appeal. The City Council's designee shall modify the
amount of the Impact Fee, credit, refund or reimbursement only if there is substantial evidence in
the record that the Fee Administrator erred, based upon the methodologies contained in the Impact
Fee Study, this Ordinance and/or the Capital Improvements Plans. The decision of the City
Council's designee shall be final.
(e) A Feepayor may request that the City enter into mediation by a qualified independent party
to address a disagreement related to the Impact Fee for new growth and development. If both
parties agree to mediation, costs for the independent mediation service shall be shared equally by
the Feepayor and the City. Mediation may take place at any time during an appeals process and any
time limitation relevant to an appeal shall be tolled.
10-07-11— Impact Fee Advisory Committee
The City has established an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall continue to be
composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Two (2) or more
members of the Advisory Committee shall be active in the business of development, building or real
estate, and two (2) members shall be appointed to the Advisory Committee who are not employees
or officials of the City. The Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City
Council and is established to:
(1) Assist the City in adopting Land Use Assumptions;
(2) Review the Capital Improvements Plans, and proposed amendments, and file written
comments;
(3) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plans;
(4) File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the Capital Improvements
Plans and report to the City any perceived inequities in implementing the Capital
Improvements Plans or imposing the Impact Fees; and
(5) Advise the City of the need to update or revise Land Use Assumptions, Capital
Improvements Plans and Impact Fees.
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 19
The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee, upon request, all financial and
accounting information, professional reports in relation to other development and implementation of
Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plans and periodic updates of the Capital
Improvements Plans.
10-07-12 —Miscellaneous Provisions
(a) As used in this Chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural
number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates;
the word shall, will or must is always mandatory; the word may is permissive; and the word should
indicates that which is recommended, but not required.
(b) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any
Development for which a lawful Building Permit was issued prior to the Effective Date of this
Ordinance.
(c) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a Developer to construct
reasonable Project Improvements in conjunction with a Project.
(d) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the ability of the City to enter into intergovernmental
agreements as provided in Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code.
(e) The Impact Fees described in this Chapter, and the administrative procedures of this Chapter
shall be reviewed at least once every five (S) years to ensure that: (1) the demand and cost
assumptions and other assumptions underlying such Impact Fees are still valid; (2) the resulting
Impact Fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire, and/or parks and recreation
System Improvements required to serve new growth and development; (3) the monies collected in
any Impact Fee field have been and are expected to be spent for System Improvements of the type
for which such Impact Fees were paid; and (4) such System Improvements will benefit those
Developments for which the Impact Fees were paid.
(0 Violation of this Chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in the Meridian City
Code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the City charged with the
administration of this Chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this Chapter including,
without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a
proposed Development, shall be a violation of this Chapter.
(g) The captions used in this Chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the
interpretation of any portion of the text of this Chapter.
(h) If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any
reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho Impact Fee Act, Sections
67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions shall be
deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this Ordinance
shall continue in full force and effect.
MPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 20
W This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (3 0) days subsequent to
this Ordinance's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon Title 10, Chapter
7, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in
conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be repealed.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this _ _ _ day of
.2006.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of
2006.
APPROVED:
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 21
EXHIBIT A
FEE SCHEDULE
Except for such Impact Fee as luay be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent
Impact Fee calculation study, the amount of each Impact Fee shall be as follows.
Police Impact Fee
Schedule:
Residential
Non -Residential
Fire Impact Fee Schedule:
Residential
Non -Residential
Parks Impact Fee Schedule:
Residential
Non -Residential
Total Fees:
Residential
Non -Residential.
.... .....
�d sa : Commitee :-
R:co`uzrieud'aon
$85.00 per Dwelling Unit $85.00 per Dwelling Unit
$ 0.06 per square foot $ 0.06 per square foot
$377.00 per Dwelling Unit $300.00 per Dwelling Unit
$ 0.25 per square foot $ 0.20 per square foot
$1.,384.00 per Dwelling Unit $1,215.00 per Dwelling Unit
$ N/A per square foot $ N/A per square foot
$1,846.00 $1,600.00
$ 0.31 $ 0.26
This Fee Schedule shall be in effect between , 2006, and December 31, 2007,
On January 1, 2008 and on January Vt of each year thereafter in which an Impact Fee is in effect,
the amount of the Impact Fee shall be automatically adjusted to account for inflation increases in the
cost of providing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to serve new growth and
development utilizing an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as
McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from electing to
maintain a then -existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fee or from electing to waive
the inflation adjustment for any given fiscal year, or years. Any such action to determine an
inflation factor shall be by the City Council resolution.
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 22
APPENDIX C.
Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist
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 Er CONSULTING APPENDIX D, GAGE 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
Rapla'crriight�uliy, Shared Facility Amount to
Type of Capital1mpi'ovement Value dines PeFcEnto (1) tlfpas (% In fee) equals Inclgdie in Fees
Infrastructure
Police Station (1401 E. Watertower)
$4,000,000
45%
100%
$1,800,000
Animal Shelter
$140,000
100%
10046
$140,000
Police Communications Equipment (7.2 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%
$7,75,000
Total Wrastrtictute
$ 4 914,44p
} .
Fee -Related Research
Impact Fee Study
$32,500
100%
33%
$10,833
Grand,Totel341946;94@
• •-•�• w�"I r=�= =a= �_��_•�+ u=u� �_�-- Nayn,ei— unvugn ,vugust [UU6. It me 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, RAGE 2
Exhibit 4 presents the current capital improvements identified by City staff for the fire department.
Exhibit 4.
Current Fire Assets, 2006 r
,,.'p. ':,.,I,_f,`•jA'r,;:,; Pei 7,6�,"
Y.�«i`t�pa;;,;?;
,'t`;,,;',{�.d ty:"
I'P>y
AM,' Ul,i }'
), �4,r. '*,iJir, �i']�����a ikXr �.
1dZ�,�ai•.:� �
,hr,'dt',;"R`F'r',;,.�P�S`..'"Ini1L1![�4
(Y/: •,cFR1,: ��,�
„•�;�,,, .NJ
.E,:
Facilities
Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq, fL (z)
$1,851,642
100%
700%
$1,851,642
Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. it, t�1
$1,114,150
100%
100%
$1,114,150
Fire Station # 2 (2401 N_ Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. it, (2)
$1,071,420
100%
100%
$1,071,420
Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. R tz)
$1,120,017
100%
100%
51,120,017
Land for Station # 5 (N. finder Rd)
$357,000
100%
100%
$357,000
Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. it, (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%
1009E
$410,000
2000 Pierce Engine (302)
$410,000
100%
100%
$410,000
2002 Pierce Engine (301)
$410,000
100%
10046
$410,000
2004 pierce Engine (303)
$410,000
100%
100%
$410,000
2006 Pierce Engine (307)
$410,000
100%
100%
' $410,000
2000 International Water Tender(320)
$240,000
100%
100%
$240,000
1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351)
$65,000
700%
100%
$65,000
1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342)
$65,000
100%
100%
$65,000
1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341)
$65,000
100%
10096
$65,000
Equipment
Opticom Traffic Signal Controls
$200,000
100%
100%
S200,000
16 Vehicle Radios
$64,272
100%
100%
$64,272
4 Base Station Radios
$21,200
100%
100%
$21,200
,'s , "�1)'F"l ,la"fit �' i,'.\%d'N."r� .r"�'Fa rr��ei if�'' �qqt Ar;:1"
��'�r
;�1)•'„��7y,4:,,,J q ru,p .;µ�� • ai,:l,i;). �.�;, rfP..,;.�
.
.. .
y1 -yJ.y
.41 r ,'0'.��'�`i:��M;�.,rn�X1S%;
.., ., ,
.i bl.IMaAj,".,'dF�M>��'�:,;{.j
�,l nr�'i. {i.: :.'', .. •�g`�ry,N\154
Fee -Related Research
Impact Fee Stud
$32,500
100%
33%
$10,833
'' G'ARVi;..�,,i `T.: �',
rr'',,'''' IM" ;�p`7 <J��19,';?,J'
. 'Ss451r ��ii: �. ,, .,. ✓t ��n
6➢: (81 v.t
.,..;,u;li` t
.. 9 .15$.Fi': iti,y K,'.ISS"Jif�P,,. n'�Nf .'
,
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 S.
Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2006
Nate: (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
locations.
RBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX D, RAGE 4
,.,;
Replaeeinw,pt"^;, .., �,ab�'r,,
".Shared Parnlify
Type of C4pffal(Ifnpr&e!0-' .�
Value'
;:!(l!iR;ii;" I`F!ed4,c (Ii e'' tlmfs'.
. ('9 #1 fee)
.erfuali Ineludo�inRes
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%
8220,000
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 (7.0 Acre)
$110,000
100%
10096
$170,000
Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre)
$110,000
100%
100%
.$110,000
Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres)
$27,500
1009b
10096
$27,500
Neighborhood rA Mini -Parks (3)
Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres)
$2,184,000
700%
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%
10096
$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
700%
100%
$5,850,000
Tully Park (I a,$ Acres)
$3,607,500
100%
100%
$3,607,500
Bear Creek Park (185 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%
$70,335,000
otri,i d(1N r' �I"WCt4r0
,.,
�, , .. .
rr
Fee -Related Research
Impact Fee Study
$32,500
100%
33%
$10,833
Impact Fee Fund Balance (4)
FV 2006 Beginning Fund Balance
$800,150
.,
100%
100%
$800,150
pf
Grated .9, I'. ryvn rl .
.. .,
$36;017,7AD
Nate: (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
locations.
RBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX D, RAGE 4
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
91fi
Uses 2006,bf
-y
ot I
Note:
mvf;'R'; i!ti:b,9.yu•,�n 5 i.
'4-
not total due to rounding.
Single Family 42,040,244
82%
Source!
Multifamily 2,426,219
5%
City of Meridian, Colliers International Boise
and Sun Valley, Year -End Real Estate Marke[
', II'� � _ ��a,'�•r, +y
j,
13*o
Review, 1005 and Impact fee Study Team.
lI;A I
(1)
Total 51,017,x93
lOD(ye
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 late 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,
r rf,> ;..a `- yam. i� :,�;.;•„iAf;Y ,t,,
+ ;wr• x,1.5,,, r
Current Value for Police Infrastructure (t) $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
ImpWeesWand Wse(rounbed)
;ki iN° X1.05
,'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.
BBC RESEARCH & CON51-1I-TING APPENDIX D, PAGE, 5
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
Caleul�ti0tii'4 ;,..se5(
Current Value for Fire Infrastructure (�)
$9,282,534
Current Land Use Percentage (z)
Current Value for parks bt Recreation (t)
Residential
87%
Nonresidential
13%
Costs by Land Use Category
Nonresidential
Residential
$8,094,370
Nonresidential
$1,188,164
Current Land Use
Nonresidential
Residential (in dwelling units)
22,334
Nonresidential (in square feet)
6,544,830
Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded)
Nonresidential (in square feet)
ResIGI jt(% I' (P6rd V 11i6g unit)
$.36
Nonr;esl4opt,ial, (pier.oquare foot)
As of 2006, the City has $36.2 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.
The City's current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $1,612 per residential unit.
BBC RESEARCH 5t CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6
64 114
Current Value for parks bt Recreation (t)
$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)
The City's current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $1,612 per residential unit.
BBC RESEARCH 5t 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. F
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 estimateslforecasts: 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."
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."' 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.
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMNSS
Forecasts.
z Ibid.
BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX P, 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 SS CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 2
BW 0
. I
City of Meridian
Future Land Use Map
ram 'Yrl r: r.., `i �' Y�.: 1P• �1,'
F .',�, • � ��.A,., it � � 1�
.., . n Aeofr•c nlqusr nlPAI � f h>I, r+.lf+i
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, RACE 4
The data below reflect the aggregated Traffic Analysis Zones that create the COMPASS-d,f ned
demographic areas in the report Community ChoicesForecast.' Household , Population and Employrraent
by Demographic Areas and Trafc Analysis Zones. These data were the basis for current and future
residential estimates/forecasts.
r cues $3 � 2n"u` rI
P 4RGe 11w3...... �. 6d1 HWs161dWe ciBd�' ---^"munlY Chal
407
��nku dfe9 ti.. ch
-......_,._.. _._..._._.......... i9h 158 _ 4 1 1....... Hueseho9ds 1
�........ .7069`
... _�.,...._2 7 f�96 , �...._-... Wil._......... .Yst ..._._ 3 i1c..
6.867 3 791_ 41.823 align
9&78TH 8.138: [3998 6.909 -47..-.,...... _._.!.....----_..769
idw
_ 9827, S.ed 1.4 ._,----.-...._.._..._
19,9751 .���__..._.-_�.......�.�. ',.._-�.__ �3 6.
.- 1 9 5-. d,507 „2�TA5C -, -1 d979� : .. e, L ._._..g_ �.... �.V
_---...---�•-, .��.._..._ Tt6 10.41�� did5
6, 3,763 -- s�. 9S1
.. ,.. ..Y57368 1069.; 42721
__ 789161 7.298...4.196 I 861
9603!? 181429 1 I- �•----•-�_. 6651. 5?
!� 93,.43 71, &747 ��"
_41 3W
18.36�r 27.485 _ 4d.s`w9:�-. 19,•163 .2748
nCh 87064; 24.667 14.&1845282f 14126: 121[6 d-d,CK' W359^ 13.5.1:
i,+x.•,,--- 68749 2ff510 7t3g0 d6S 47.6;,8 _ 76.'x9: 27.879' 02,14TS O •..r�
�9r
F --..:._ ..�'w 17667 2d299� 67982' 19961 �O97i
.517. 4378' 471y
12.245 3819'. 7.328 __ 75.186' .-'__ 1� 9 499_33.242; 99F
a r7,r1a7: &291 I
Rural 2841 106 280
1052.1 M, __ S. _ • 127r_,f 897; __ 8��..,. t.�ie1- �
±73.Ff5 .
. ...._� �........ __ .�-_..�.... 3
1.118. .._._-_..�..
._ 66B-�•--t- _.-__. ,.�_� 171+ `"7F
241,
a,.'•, 1423 6390 rt .`' 7 4 i.74S
1 Rug1 68 19811 3790' f 613
�9._._,: T90�I.. _
91Y 101M 357019 194 no. ..__._. ___._.. �l 141 i
ttrlC4lCrH _10.28&
7unta4n C'aldwe6 _� ----.... 4,46x:.-.-.---_
3,171
1.60:
daO,wG.Caldwgl
a"
kuel1 etl0�046f
9,743
3.376
,e,9rr;
s3r1
lash H .._.
a!h 61x1 iJ�rb
'�'I
„a,,.
_
as..
57
5,768]
i�4a$99 _541.80 Jam,._
X6956 �.
Jabs d0adndlnle aduee6di elnployrnenl, the nrodel uses nan>br axwanro to wrlmxls eypl
COW AU ducumea r Cwwwsy chokes po MMR &a WkWS, ^PN"W W42.ppymert dy Gemvyrgrhk Arara+ne rolRc
>!ar3ei18xc4! warksAee1, 11pditad 732.'29041.
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
Annual percent change = ((ln(new popularion)-ln(old population))/number of years
BBC RESEARCH St 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
Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and InpAct 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 CTP is only 10 years.
BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6
Annual
Annual
Percent C4angg,
Percent Change
2005
4af16
(ODS = 2f1'0) - ,,Q,
I'' .`'
:; 0.A S
2016.
(2615-2020)
6020
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
Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and InpAct 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 CTP is only 10 years.
BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6
Q
H
N
TJ
cd
ro
Q
a..
O
�4
t`
N
vi
C
o
v
CL
m
H
N
H
�
y v
J
a
� i V
86
V
d
w
N � �
O
V
I °O
C
The table below presents the annual percent change between 2025 and 2030, which is used to
estirnaxe residential data in 2026.
Residential Calculation for 2026
Source: COMPASS Cornmunity 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 poise 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, RAGE 8
2625.:
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
Source: COMPASS Cornmunity 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 poise 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, RAGE 8
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 31.9 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
Current Square Footage Calculation
Total SFT
per Colliers Report
(all buildings greater
than 10,000 SFT)
5,170,416
Total SFT
Including units over
10,000 SFT
(see below for calculation)
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 = .21 y (21 percent of total square footage is less than 10,000 - see City data spreadsheet)
Substitute y for x
5,170,416 +.21 y = y
5,170,416 = y-.21 y
5,170,416 =.79y
5,170,416/.79 = y
y = 6,544,830
6,544,830
Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market
Review, 2005 and City of Meridian.
Future Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation
Future Square Footage Calculation —�_
2006 Total SFr 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
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 77
APPENDIX F.
Communities in Motion
1, P. F.0110NAI I.gNG - IY.nW ,. .i,.,sn1SCyndd1AA'i(-jr4 0N'q
r`
Communities in Motion
Executive Summary
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 Commimities in Motion: Regional Long -
Range Trans
ortation 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, mote 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
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 #t1 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'den'sity,
52% new homes at
transit density
20.7 Million Daily
Vehicle Miles of
Travel„
1,9.6, 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
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
2
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
Communifies 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
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, rotates 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
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
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
in Motion it means we are willing to accept
Trend.
4
Unfunded
$628,600,000
Annual Unfunded
$25,144,000
nnual share/household
$71
r7:4:.j;
�;,+,�,C7r „���'li.9k Y,yN.,
•,:'4:i�97;a ',, .1',.�,'Mr'�,
Unfunded
$1,098,890,000
Annual Unfunded
$43,955,600
Annual share/household
$125
Unfunded
$1,727,490,000
Annual Unfunded (25
$69,099,600
yearperiod)
Annual share/household
$196
(2030 base)
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
in Motion it means we are willing to accept
Trend.
4
APPENDIX G.
Collier's Year --End Real Estate Market Review
1, :_,,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, butthe 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 Boi7o
development and the 180,000 square foot Banner Bankbuildin.g, 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 1I% overthe lasttwo 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 aftertwo years of stagnant growth. One of the biggest harbingers 1
of 2006 was the announcement of the sale of one of the former 7ilog 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 lackof 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.
The Boise market experienced declines ip_ office vacancies and
constant absorption throughout 2005. Vacancies in downtown
Boise have finally dropped below the ten percent (8.1010
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
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.
&C.4k't kda.;6Yf°i'e:i?��(A',u �;�::ivhtiY§d✓Sivi`S�+�P�!'uv�i''7�M�'19Md4";i:':'R.?r�dk CM.',..n �,,.i "Wa'� wdG"'„'+'+d.A`iA4:7KiWfYSK:�:3lffJ1".S:i: •"+.Mm•
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.
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.
+;lei
OFFIC (A)1'�L_(� (1K A /�0 (�al..!\PJ(=
V,,\CAP1(_,Y 'FlAr
1x1CAPJ(Y ;3rdr�
�3r�r2n-)
t�-
Office Inventory by Submarket
[] Southeast ® Southwest ® West Bench
9% 40/0 18%
Northwest ®2 9/gle
1%
® Meridi.
In Central Bench
13%
35%
30%
25%
❑ Downtown -
Periphery. Downtown
16% .29%.
Office Vacancy by Submarket.
10%
5%
0%
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
�a�
0
Average Office Asking Elates by Class
55 \Nass,[ rr iri `"[oc 8ulte: n j Lni_ Idaho 8:3702 06.345,JDOOO
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.
Increasingly, the market is seeing full service rents offered to
potential tenants in which janitorial service is excluded, Colliers
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)"
..5ntaL rz»:q,,::,,,r........ ... ...... —
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.
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.
Vacancv by Submarket
5UBMARKET
INVENTORY
SF
DIRECT
VACANT
SUBLEASE
VACANT
TOTAL BUILDING
VACANT COUNT.
VACANCY
RATE�
Downtown
Downtown Periphery
3,351,714
1,931,440
263,044
171,564
15,971
12,075
279,015
183,639
55
50
8.3%
9.5%
Central Bench
1,501,206
155,142
155,142
57
10.3%
Northwest
157,293
30,629
30,629
5
19.5%
Southeast
1,045,982
94,930
94,930
28
9.1%
Southwest
433,063
63,002
63,002
19
14.5%
West Bench
Eagle
2,131,175
262,005
171,917
65,770
139,865
311,782
65,770
81
14
14,6%
25.1%
Meridian
MarkeLTotal
956,962
11,7M,840. :1,178,972
162,974
4,962
172,873
167,936
1,151,845
30
339
17.5%
11.5%
* Vacancy Rate includes sublease space Direct Vacancy Rate (excluding sublease space) = 10.0%
SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL-
Full
NTERNATIONAL
Full Service Asking Rates by Building Class
.. une .5. ouming vacancy usreo at 5t2.ou
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Office Services
George Iliff WayneSlaughter
208.472.2858 208.472.2853
208.472.2842
Lew Manglos
208.472.2841
r-
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. Changs, 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.
i
:w^✓rr:,ar.,rr�acxc.d,,;;rrx�:ra-�s•ts: es.,+;,a'r��*erwwar �,wa-s.:r.t:. ,a.::,::w,�•,;:, a.,..,,swo•r.rs:,�,��;�ru.r..;aJ;�:on::u, ,. „r.:..:
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.
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.
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
i 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 $28 rent seen near the end
of 2005. The lowest retail asking rates are currently being seen in
the Central Bench area of Boise, which includes the area between
1-84 and 1-184.
Retail inventory by Submarket
Q Garden City ® Meridian
5% 1$% ❑Nampa
61 Eagle
4%. ►` O
® Central. Ben
O West p 10%
Bench/Mall
25% North,End
2%
Q southwest Q Northeast
11% 4%
® southeast
13%
Retail Vacancy Rates & Asking. Rents
25.0Rb$25,00
1 Vacancy. Rate a Average Rent
10.0%
$20,00
H
0.0%
5.0%
L L
0.oas
4Sa �ey� Mayr a5c a�
r—
Qe C a%,a°
ss.00
�q ap ho. boa
t�
�c�
��e�i
Gaya
Absorption Ranking by Submarket
s s c ti
PS�dP r'd °`�hN °4�fj�
u.-..Y."p, 1?k,` ...
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.
T. ;.:� A ,,, _,.., .r : a rt,�", a sr ,;.w,�Kaawa ++a n:,; v:'. _,... =.w .kdrhr ..
Activity will be the strongest in Canyon County, at the Treasure
Valley Marketplace and the Wal-Mart/Sarn'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.
llil(A-Il\� - y
y:
Expanded December 2065 Retail Statistics
Percentage Vacant
16.0%
12.8%
12.0% 11;6/0 10.2% 11.6% 10.1% 10.9%....
a p1 10.8% 11.1
l 10.0% 10.2% _ 9.9%
v
a
5.2%
4,0%EQ�� C/1- F0
4' L. L G' f d ,�
�a0 c0 a0 e> a0 0-,
�O " '00V
O X00 00
9 y O O $ O 00 O O O O O �, �
a � .,� „� rr r
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL .
Retail Services 2GOIdman
Brook 9lakesleMi a Chritensen Lew
208.472.2835 208.472.2866 208.472.2847
INVENTORY
RENTS
LOW
HIGH
AVERAGE!,1
Central Bench
1,024,018
135,068
13.2%
$4.00
$17.00
$10.10
North End
199,010
9,503
4.8%
$18.00
$18.50
$18.25
Northwest
442,037
98,891
22.4%
$8.00
$15.35
$12.91
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
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
•
0,325,051
$8.58
$19.74
$13.70
Percentage Vacant
16.0%
12.8%
12.0% 11;6/0 10.2% 11.6% 10.1% 10.9%....
a p1 10.8% 11.1
l 10.0% 10.2% _ 9.9%
v
a
5.2%
4,0%EQ�� C/1- F0
4' L. L G' f d ,�
�a0 c0 a0 e> a0 0-,
�O " '00V
O X00 00
9 y O O $ O 00 O O O O O �, �
a � .,� „� rr r
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL .
Retail Services 2GOIdman
Brook 9lakesleMi a Chritensen Lew
208.472.2835 208.472.2866 208.472.2847
. -,. ,. .._....., .
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.
a.r ,+r ;r s01t�.tOrar'�»,•r: t;
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.
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
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.
2 r II`,i1..1II5IRIAI. (1L1Il.f_►1'1I' F1 I' A C,I_,<?HCE.
a\J r l�r�f
industrial Inventory.by Submarket
® Eagle ® Garden City
0.790/,0 3.67%
® Meridian
0 Caldwell 10.161%11
8.38%
West Bench 13 Nampa
18.89% 19.790/c
E3 Southwest
3.58%lel ®Airpor
11.340/,
❑ Southeast
9.54% ® Central Bench
■ Northwest 7.90%
Downtown
2.61%
0 North End ® Downtown
0.22% Periphery
2.94%
Average industrial Asking Rates by Submarket
35%
30%
25%
20°0
15 cA
i0%
5%
0%
X
Q ei h
ctio
o�
Industrial Vacancy. hate by Submarket
r ti 5ti. \
�dc
P ¢c b\ Ods cQ'be �o yoow �ey� C ,
owl
O�
755 Vdae+I Fror Sii ,V.. °'•cite 300 13oj5�. Id;.h.� 8,° i[I< - 45 5,000 ,--::.cn!Ii=.c;ia=Jic
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.
....... .....:..:..... ..... .......„....,,., r � tax
With tightening vacancies and a limited variety of available
industrial lease space, speculative building and build -to -suit
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.
December 2005 Industrial Statistics At A Glance
SUBMARKUINVENTORY
5F
AVERAGE
RENT#
(NNN MONTHLY)
313,700 12,0% -11.0% $0.43
Airport
2,607,843
Central Bench
1,816,896
113,756
6.3%
-5.9%
$0,53
Downtown
600,141
61,412
10.2%
2.5%
$0,20
Downtown Periphery
North End
675,810
50,186
77,775
15,000
11.5%
29.9%
3.0%
29.9%
$0.36
$0.32
Northwest
37,801
0
0,0%
0.0%
n/a
Southeast
2,193,491
107,707
4,9%
3.0%
$0.49
Southwest
823,906
84,048
10,2%
-9.2%
$0.43
West Bench
Caldwell
4,343,351
1,927,555
283,792
117,900
6.5%
6.1%
-0.8%
-1.2%
$0.48
$0.17
Eagle
182,740
21,064
11,5%
-3.0%
$0.57
Garden City
843,200
16,400
1,9%
-13.3%
$0.35
Meridian
2,335,668
415,469
17.8%
-15.5%
$0.55
Nampa
Tota. 1:22,9$9,276
4,550,688
625,879
13.8%
4.7%
$0.35
$D.42
`All rents quotedos monthly triple -net
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
Industrial Services
Steve Foster Devin Pierce Jeremy wolf
208.472.2834 208.472.2862 208.472.2829
IrL'.
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 221/10 and 20% declines in
transaction dollars among office and retail respectively.
Capitalization rates were also level, with rates averaging 8.00/0
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 $500,000
in consideration, was used to compile the following statistics.
Properties that sold with no income stream were excluded from
this analysis.
''d''i°'^Vl:a;yg'�aipPi"kM4'ti/i.S.C�Y',St1?'i:?e',6�MM@s •r�)".,'.-',.y;;.';;:.' ... _., ,..,..�/$"K."n':L;.:;. 1i..: v,r;. '.j-;:.
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.
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.
04jre Ourlooi: ' 5tabk
Positives - Even with decreasing vacancy rates and increased down-
town absorption, there is still room for a decline in vacancy rates
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.
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)
than in Denver ($157) and Salt Lake City ($170).
kecail t.n. tloolt
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
COUNT
TYPE
SF
AVG. SQ, FT
�OTAL PRICE
PRICE.
PRICE/ Sr
CAP RATE
13
office
408,922
31,456
53,275,495
4,098,115
$156
8.8%
13
Retail
227,241
17,480
35,653,000
2,742,538
$190
7.9%
4
Industrial
213,007
.53,252
11,339,970
2,834,992
$53
8.8%
16
Multi -Family
11033,638
55,532
69,448,000
3,6129188
$76
6.4%
a
SOURCES: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL, LANGSTON & ASSOCIATES, MOUNTAIN STATES APPRAISAL
756
V'•/GSL �I•74,II1L ,400
Rcls[°: IfJEA-Ip S:.{?
0;C Ij l 3,1E
9000
APPENDIX H.
Meridian FY 200S Capital Improvement flans
GENERAL FUND
PARKS and RECREATION DEPARTMEM
OVERVIEW
The City's goal is a park system that fcatures
large multi -use community parks located so that
no resident will be further than a mile from a
park. These parks will provide a wide variety of
both passive and structured (sports fields)
activities for their immediate neighborhoods.
The ultimate objective is to have these parks
linked together with a system of off-street trails.
This concept is called "the String of Pearls"
with the parks as pearls and the trail system the
string. Supplementing this system will be
neighborhood parks and mini parks maintained
by private homeowner groups.
PLANNING BACKGROUND
The City's Parks Department is relatively new.
In the last four years there have been several
studies that influenced the development and
direction of the parks department.
July 2000 -- Comprehensive Parks &
Recreation System Plan — This was
the original planning document that
established a design for the City's
park system and established
objectives for land acquisition, park
development and management and
operations,
• July 2002 -- City of Meridian
Comprehensive Plan - This, document
provides policies and direction on
how the City should grow and
develop.
June 2003 - Park Impact Pee
Ordinance — Revised based on Title
67, Chapter 82 of the Idaho Code
which authorizes. the imposition of
park development impact fees as an
equitable program for planning and
financing park improvements needed
to serve new growth and
development.
August 2003 — Comprehensive Parks
and Recreation Systems Action Plan -
Supplement to the original 2000
Comprehensive .Plan, provides
specific recommendations on, a layout
plan for parks, open space, trails and
other recreation facilities and a
strategy for funding the Plan.
'ark Minimum 20,000 square feel
Quarter -mite Small one lot parka designed to provide a small
playground and open space within a supdnnsion_
development and maintenance Is generally the
responsibility of the land developer and hmmonwnpr
associations.
2or6oad mark seven to fifteen acres
anei-hall mile Small parka designed for non -supervised, non,organized
recreation activities. They have a combination of
playground and park activities. Generally developed
Dy land oeveloper and maintained by homeowner
associations.
unity Parks Fifteen to thirty acres
On® to two miles Larger parks that provide active and structured
recreation opportunities. They have parking, restroom,
and picnic facilities.
Urban Parks Minimum fifty acraF
Entire Gity Large parks that hays spitce for playgrourtdo,oporto holds,
picnic areas, reslrooms, pathways, and specialized
facilities such as skate parks, aquatic lacilities, tennis
courts or indoor recreation facilities.
12
NEIGHBORHOOD
MMUNITY PARKS
PARKS
Generations Plaza .
25 acres
Small downtown plaza with seating and water feature
Centennial Park
.5 acres
Downtown next. to Boys & Girls Club, has a basketball
court, picnic space, open grass area and also provides
additional downtown parking
Cox Monument
25 acres
Small shelter located at City Hall on Idaho & Meridian
Total
1 acre
Chateau Park
6.75 nmos
DevOoped in 2002, grass areas and playground
equipment
8th Street Park
4 acres
Grass areas and playground equipment
Total
10 314 acres
Storey Park
15 acres
Established park mature landscaping, ball fields,
picnic facilities, and playground equipment
Tully Park
18.5 acres
New park with skate park, playround equipment, ball
fields, and picnic facilites
Bear Creek
Ia. 5 acras
Now park with playground equipment, tennis courts,
ball fields and picnic facilities
Total
..52 Arses
Meridian Settlers Park
26 acres devlp
New park with playground, ball fields and picnic facilities
32 acres undevlp Park with be 58 acres, currently half is developed
Total
26 acres
Fuller ParK 25 acres Park land owned and operated by the Western Ada
Settler's Park 112 acre Recreation District
Storey Park Swimming Pool 1 acre located within Slurey Park
Private Neighborhood Parks 50+ acres Small parks owned & operated by homeowners assns
city Golf Courso 119 acres The City owns the golf course but has entered Into a
long term lease with a private contractor for the
operation and maintenance. This lease, is for $6,000
per year.
:.t............,
y
t
13
PROJECTS IN PROCESS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Based on historical data and calculations done to based on those amounts. Projects are budgeted
establish the park impact fee amount it costs the on a three year start to finish timeline. Donations
City $25,000 to purchase park land and $70,000 of time and labor are included in park costs and
to develop park laud. Expected costs to finish shown later in this report as revenue.
on-going projects and new projects are budgeted
Autumn Faire 7 acres
$490,000 Located in Autumn Faire subdivision, parcel provided by
Cherry Ln Park
developer. The park is scheduled to be earnpleWd in 2006_
Kiwanis Park 9 acres
$630.D00 Close to Mt View High School, rnmpleted in partriership
with Daybreakers Kiwanls. The City will provide on-going
maintenance and develop the park irrigation lake and
K 4vs Warn
Sear Cme0 Pork
irrigation systern arld green up the Park. The Kiwanis Club
Settlers Park 58 acres
will build the restroom and shelter buildings.
Champion Park 6 acres
$420,000 located In the Park Stone subdivision near Eagle Rd and
East Usttdc Road. Completion is scheduled for 2005•
Police Statlon Park 5 acres
$350,000 Located west of the Meridian Police Station on
i:nenlpwn VW,
walenower Ave. Slated for dog training facility and rctmate
PARKS Lochsa Falls Park 3D acres 52,100,000 Located along Ten Mile Road between McMillian Road and
Chinden Boulevard, Scheduled for completion in 2010
McDermott 30 acres
$2,100,000 Located near the northeast corner el Cherry Lane and
Cherry Ln Park
McDermott Road- This is in the Gay's impact area rather
(Borup Property)
then in the city. City sewer and water are not currently
availabio to development hoc net Wartod, Tho park Is
slated to be the site of the Meridlan Lions Rodeo Grounds
K 4vs Warn
Sear Cme0 Pork
and an ice-skatina rink.
Settlers Park 58 acres
$5,510,000 59 acre park located at the comer of Meridian Road and
S217A00
Ustick. The park development has been divided into two
phases. The [list phase Is complete, the second phase Is
scheduled to be completed in 2006. The secoM phase
i:nenlpwn VW,
will be rompleled by Merfdlan Youth
Adventure Island at Settlers Park
S1 .1300,000 Handicapped accessible playground located in Settlers Park
$2601806'
phase 1 or the playground is complete, final completion is
Sentare Palk
'yes
S UM'09
11,231.300
tmu.uUlt
sexa.w*
^"'�•""""
~
K 4vs Warn
Sear Cme0 Pork
'yea
Yes
$76-000
$709,600
$277.000
$6"W@
S217A00
.
5780'900
i:nenlpwn VW,
Yea
$11.000
$1418.700
$2601806'
photic$ statan Park
Yes
510.000
$170.000
$170.009
r4uturmr Faue
Yes
$11.000
5103.000
5298.600
S2,100,0m
L=hsa Fsus
Yes
5147,900
$510.000
6401.000
$Q1,000
.54&1,090
keo'",oq - Cherry Wne Pita
Yes
$483.400
$10.000
$50.000
$670.090
$870.000
5670.p00
$2.561,400
Cenkonnial Pwk
$75,000
$77,00D
$306.087
&MY pork
S766.665
s3o,ow
549,009
Od.Ndwn Frees
$40.098
$167.600
7.5 arra rylrk unldenDhad
Pyrk 1-200 Purchase Pund
Yes
Yes
6200A0D
.1$7,600
$2$p.0o0
$250,000
S2S0�000
!6250 000
S2:n"F.099
$1,450.000
Da"lop Park Land
Yes
$700.000
$700,000
5709,000
$21100,000
Park Department 161aitt
$ mow
WNW
S50AW
Recrcedon Cenw
Ye$
9500.$100
$75,D90
575.900
ilogwav landsee
YOFAL$
$5 16.134
$3,053700
SS.83&
52099831
99101 A00
>n,®7000e
5169-4.@@a
$14217,$65
The parkland purchase fund is to accumulate money to purchase park land as it comes available. The $250,000 equates to
about 10 autres. Starting in fiscal year 2008 $700,000 per year is budgeted to devel,op 10 acres of pari: land per year,
14
,FUNDING
There are three: sources ()f funding available for
Dark. capital deve)opment, general reverltte from
the governi-nental activities, park impact Pees,
awl partnerships and donations. Palk impact
fees are collected when a residential building
permit is sold. These fees can be used only to
develop new parks based on the underlying
theory that new residents should help to pay for
new parks built to serve theta,
The Idaho law governing the calculation of
impact. fees changed recently. The fee
calculation factors in several variables; the
amount of new park cost to be picked up by the
general fund (proportionate share), the desired
park acres per resident, the cost to purchase park
land and the cost to develop it, the average cost
of a house in Meridian, and number of persons
per dwelling, Impact fees have become more
and more important as the resource that has
allowed Meridian to purchase and develop park
land. The current impact fee is $667 per
residential building permit. Due to the growth in
building permits the City collected over $1.2
million .in impact fees and fiscal year 2004, and
will .most likely do the same in fiscnl year 2005.
The ealt:uladon of the fee will be Kldl-Med
annually or at a minimum every other year and
the amount may be changed.
General fund revenue has to Gonne_ from the
general tax funds used to operate Fire,. Police,
and other general government activities. From
1995 to 2004 the City spent several million
dollars to purchase and develop 58 acres for a
large urban park. Development is on-going and
the park is not completed.
.From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2004
the City has spent $10,402,175 on purchases of
park land and park development. Of this amount
38% has been funded by the general fund., 42%
by impact fees, and 20% by donations.
Donations come from developers, partnerships
with community organizations, or volunteer fund
raising efforts.
IMPACT FEES $1,146,069 $27,851 $347,315 $481,090 $773,554 $966,564 U742,443_
DONATIONS $60,000 $82,962 $111,810 $323,108 $567,000 $22$,391 $399,500 $1,772,771
Based on projections for sales of residential
housing permits and the nark impact fee ,staying
the same the City will generate $7,926,464
from 2005 through 2010 from impact fee
revenue for new park development, Donations
of $4,084,000 are expected for the same time
period. This includes; $800,000 for
Adventureland Playground, $1,200,000 for
Settlers Park youth baseball fields, $435,700 for
Kiwanis Park, $860,000 for L,ochsa Falls PAL
GRAND TOTAL
soccer fields, $260,800 for Champion Park,
$187,500 donation of 7.5 acre parcel, and
$340,000 for the dog faci Iity and remote car
racing track near the police station.
The capital. improvement plan for the same time
period is $14„201,431. This means the City will
need to appropriate $4,081,748 from the general
fund or other sources if all projects in the capital
improvement plan are completed.
15
Housing Permits
'ark Impact F"5867 687 $687 $667 $667
$Fa7
IMPACT FEES $1250792 1, 7 ,000 $1,2 ,600 $1,122,561 $97842 714,367 $685, 6 6a 5&3 $7.926,464
DONATIONS 5228,391 003,90 5,1N, 00 $1, ,0 70,004 t,ti6d.DQip $4,711.191
GENERAL FUND t 182,85 SM �^ 9 011 7C8=$4,09,092
PRIORITIES
The Parks and Recreation Department's goal is 4
developed acres of parkland per 1000 population,
At the end of fiscal year 2004,the City was at
1.92 developed acres per 1000 population.
Assuming that at the same time period the City
population was 50,000 the City would need 200
acres of parkland to meet the 4 acres per 1000
mark. The City has about a hundred acres of
land scheduled to be developed in the next one to
two years. At that time the City's population is
projected to be up around 60,000. The City
would be about 40 acres short of acre per capita
goal.
CHALLENGES
In addition to purchasing and developing park
land the City has to maintain parks. Impact fees
cannot be used to maintain developed park land
and donations are typically for one-time
purchases, not on-going operating expenses.
GRANO TOTAL_S16,201,43'•1 316,977,447
This means the entire cost of maintenance comes
from general tax dollars. In fiscal year 2004 the
City spent approximately $4,900 per acre to
maintain its parks. Since the City had about 107
acres of developed park. land & other City
properties budgeted dollars for maintenance were
$524,300. If the City were at its goal acreage of
4 per 1000, assurtaing the City had a population
of 50,000 the cost of maintenance would be
$960,000. These maintenance figures include
only personnel and operating expense. In
addition there are capital costs for equipment and
vehicles.
The, City plans to vigorously pursue donations
and partnership agreements as well any gram
funding that might be available. I.t is almost
imperative that donations and impact fees pity for
lxwk development while general fund dollars are
reserved for the on-going maintenance and
operations of the developed parks,
16
FIRE DEPARTMENT
OVERVIEW
The City of Meridian hired its first full -titre
employee in 1977. By the end of 2005 the
Meridian l'''ire Department will have 47 full time
employees, lrt the 1950's a rural di.stric: was
formed to 5ervc the arca outsidc the city limits.
The rural district and the City combined forces to
serve a 54 square mile.jurisdiction that stretches
from the south channel of the Boise liver to the
north, Lake Hazel to the south, Cloverdale Road
to the east and McDermott Road to the west.
The rural fire district taxes pity for approximately
75 _i- Of Clic department's, expense with city taxes
paying for 75%. As the city limits expand the
proportion paid for by the city is increasing. The
rest of the funding comes from general fund tax
revenue.
Currently the City has three, fire stations with n
fOUrth tate planned to conte on kine in the fall of
2005. Fire Station #1 is a three bay Wire station
and includes the administrative offices. Fire
Stations #?, #3, and #4 are two lay stations. Fire
Station #1 is staffed with 12 firefighters, stations
#2 and #3 have 9 firefighters while plains for -
station #4 call far a staff of 12. The increase in
staff for station #4 is due to the City's plan to
start adding a pairarnedic to each shift.
Currefit cost to build a new fire station is over
$1,000,000. If the City has to buy the land,
versus having the land donated the cost can
increase by up to $150,000. Land for Firc
Station #4 was donated by the developers of
Thousand Springs. Thecost of a fire engine is
around $500.000.
MERIDIAN�CJJTY OF
PROPERTYr EQUIPMFNT
INVENTORY
Fire Station #1
6x01= Frantdin
Fire Station #2
2401 N. Ten Mile Road
Fire Station # 3
3545 N Locust Road
1982 Pierce En(line
1986 Pierce Engine
1993 Pierce Engine
2000 Pierce Engine
2002 Pierec Engine
2004 Pierce Engine
17
Transfer to Fire Truck Fund
$100,000-°..:
..>61,090,t]t10
2006 Command Vehicle
$45,000
Replace Vehicle
$35,000.
2007 Engine #4
$425,00U."..'.'-'
$425,4Q0
2008 Station 5
$1,05Q,OD0
Engine #5
$435,000: ;
$1',485;000
2009 Sation #6 Land
$130,500
Engine 46
$460,000
Replace En one
$460,000
2010 Station #6
$1,115,000
2012 Ladder Truck
2014 Training Tower
2015
2016
2017
2018
2020
Replace Engine $550 00(1 $7110;000
GRANT? TOTAL $270,500 $3,955,000 $6,095,000 $10,320,500
CHALLENGES
As the City population increases rapidly the
demand for safety services also increases. The
cost of building a fire station is small compared
to cost to staff a fire station. Starting in fiscal
year 2005 the City made the decision to staff the
fire stations with paramedics. The majority of
fire calls are medical and the City felt that as fire
is the First on scene it would be beneficial to
have medical treatment administered
immediately. This means the cost to staff a fire
station and include paramedics is edging toward
a $ l ,1)W'000.
As the table below show the cost of providing
fire and first response medical. service-, has
increased steadily every year, between 25 to 30
percent not .includ.ing the capital cost. The
general fund revenue for the same time period
has increased at half that rate. It will become
increasingly challenging to find the dollars to
keep up with the cost. The cost of building Fire
Station #4 is being picked up by the rural tare
department which has allowed the City to build it
faster then would have been possible otherwise.
However, down the road the City might be
required to repay the Ovral fire: district for the
cost of the fire stations.
Note: Only two weeks of staffing cost for Station #4 were budgeted in fiscal year 2005. Flowevcr a full
year of personnel cost has been added to the table above to illustrate what the actual cost will be.
[l.
PRIORITIES
Decisions to add stations are based on an area's
popiikition., number of call;_ and resporise. tirne_
7"he goal is to keep response time under four to
five minutes.
CHALLENGES
Since rapid growth is occurring simultaneously
in many parts of Meridian it has been
challenging to fund and build stations fast
enough to serve everyone. Provision of
paramedic services has become a challenge for
the City and Ada County. The County has
traditionally provided paramedic and ambulance
services. The City made the decision to add
paramedics to fire shifts due to concern with
ambulance response times. It will still be
necessary to transport patients in an ambulance
which means that an ambulance service will have
to respond in addition to the Meridian Fire
Department. With the lowering of
Medicare/Mcd.icaid rates and escalating medical
costs operating an ambulance/paramedic service
at a breakeven has become very difficult. It will
be important in the Future that government
agencies work together to find the most cost
effective approach to provide the service.
19
POLICE DEAARTAIENT
OVERVIEW
In Tune of 2002 the Meridian Police Department
moved from their tiny, cramped building and
mobile office trailer into a $4,000,000 30.000
square foot station located at 1401 E
Watertower. Currently the Police Department
has 69 full time and 3 part time employees. 56 of
those positions are police officers. The building
was designed for growth and no additional
construction is planned.
FUNDING
Like the Eire Department the police Department
has experienced growth although the percent
increases have not been as steep.
Future capital needs will he vehicles and -
technology rather then construction. The station
was funded through judicial
review/confirmation. This is a process where the
City is allowed to take on debt based on approval
from the court system. Normally city's can only
take on dobt for capital construction beyond a
one year period through a public vote with a
super majority voting for approval. However, if
the need for the new facility is compelling
enough it may be allowed by judicial
confirmation. Recently in Idaho this process
has been challenged by private individual.% and
will probably become obsolete.
The City went through a trustee and released a
bond issuance. In addition to principal and
interest payments the City paid bond closing
costs of over $100,000 , furniture and fixture
costs of $400,000 and annual property tax of
S50,Ot10. The following is the lease schedule.
The trustee is Wells Fargo,
CHALLENGES.
In addition to a citizen's challenges of the
judicial review process the tax exempt status of
the station was challenged resulting in Ada
County charging the City property tax. The City
maintains that they own the land and have a
capital lease purchase agreement with wells
Fargo and essentially have ownership and
control of the building. This would stake the
building tax exenipt as in the case with all public
buildings. The City has modified the wording in
the trust agreement and hopes to be relieved of
the tax assessment in the future.
7"-
20
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, SERIES 2001(LAW ENFORCENIF:NT BUILD
Ua[Ld: August 1, 2001
Sena] Maturities' 2002-2010
Term Maturaies:
Payment
Date
Principal
Interest
T0121
Balance
Outuanding
Due
M/S
Interest
Rate
PrincipaT
Amount
Six -month -s
Interest
$4,000,000
1 -Feb
2.002
SO
582.562.50
592.562.50
$4M0,nnn
2002
1-Au.g
2002
$335,000
582.562.50
3417.562.50
$3,665,000
2002
3.500
5335,000
55,862.50
I -Feb
2003
$0
$76.700.00
$76.70011
$3,665,000
2003
50.00
I -Aug
2003
$345,000
576,700.00
5421.700.00
53,320,00)0
2003
4.000%
5345,0100
56.900,00
I...Feb
2004
$0
$69,800.00
$6%800,OO
$3,320,000
2.004
50.00
I -Aug
2004
$360,000
569,800.00
$429,800.00
$2,960,000
2004
4,000%
$360.000
$7,200,00
1-1'cb
2005
$0
562,600.00
$62,600.00
$2,960.000
2005
30.00
I -Aug
2005
$375.000
$62,600.00
$437.600,00
$2,585,000
2005
4.000%
S375,0(x)
$7,500.00
1 -Feb
2006
SO
555,100.00
$55,100.00
$2,585,000
2006
$0S)o
1 -Aug
2006
4390.000
$55,100.0(:)
S445,IW-00
$2,195,000
2006
4.000`,,
$390.000
$7,800,00
[-Feb
2007
$0
$47„300,0()
$47,30O.UU
$2,195,000
2007
$0.00
I -Aug
2007
$405,000
'$47,300.00
$452,300.00
$1,790,000
2007
4.0W%
$405,000
$8.100.00
1 -Feb
2008
$0
.$39200.00
539,200.00
$1,790,000
2008
$0.00
I -Aug
2008
5420,000
$:39.200.00
$459,200.00
$1,370),00)
2008
41.2505E
$420,0(10
$8,925.00
1 -Feb
2009
$0
530,275.00
530,275.00
51.370,0(,()
2009
50.00
I -And
2009
$440,000
530,2751X)
$470,275.00
4930,000
2009
4.25Uryo
$440,000
$9.350.00
1 -Feb
2010
SU
520.925.00
.520,925.00
$930.000
2Ot0
50,00
I -Aug„
2010
.$455.000
520.925.00
$475,925.00
5475.000
2010
4.500%
51455,11()0
$10.737.50
1 -Feb
2011
$0
510,687.50
510,687.50
5475,000
20111
$0.00
1-Augr,
2011
$47.5,000
$10,697.50
$485,687 50
$0
2011
4.5(.)054
$475,000
$10,687.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0
0
$0.00
$1.000,000
5990.300.00
$4,990,300110
$4,000.000
$92,56230'
CITY A.DIVUNIVWA TION
OVERVIEW
The City has several administrative and support
positions. These include.Planning and Zoning,
Public Works and the Building Department,
Finance, Billing, Information Technology, the
Mayor's Office, the City Clerk, City Attorney's
Office, .Human Resources and the City Council..
Currently the Planning and Zoning Department,
Public Works and the Building Department rent
office space and the rest of the departments are
housed in City Hall located a 33 E Idaho. The
current City Hall was built in 1987 and is 8,000
square feet,
The City's priority now is to build a new City
Hall with space for all of the service
departments. Space needs are estimated to be
around 4$,000 square feet. The City's goal is to
keep the City Hall in the downtown core to be a
cornerstone of the downtown revitalization
movement.
FUNDING
Building costs are estimated to be approximately
$9 million, The cosi will be split between the
Cities general fund and the enterprise fund as
space will be split equally between employees of
the two funds. Each fund as adequate cash
balances to pay for their portion outright, it will
not be necessary to seek outside funding or debt.
CHALLENGES
The biggest challenge has been finding adequate
space in the downtown core for the building and
the necessary parking,
21