Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-528 Comp Plan Amdmt CIPCITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. D6 _ �_2' $ 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 of2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 5`� dayof 2006. APPROVED: Mayor Tam" Weerd Ck ATTEST: William G. Berg, Jr., Citf Cleric -b ,a 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 I SFARCIl.� Ck)NSULTING Galena Consulting Anne Wescott &A11NA STTNG 1214 South Johnson Street Boise, ID 83705 Table of Contents Report Backgroundand Objectives.. ................ ................................................................................... 1 Definitionof Impact Fees................................................................................................................ 2 LandUse and Demographics..........................................................................................................6 ResidentialData.............................................................................................................................. 6 NonresidentialData.. ............................... ............................................... - ....................... ......... 9 Impact Fee Calculation Considerations.........................................................................................10 Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans. ............................................. ....... ................ - - - 10 Mechanicsof Fee Calculations......................................................................................................19 CityParticipation.......................................................................................................................... 23 CashFlow Analysis....................................................................................................................... 26 OtherFunding Sources .........:... I.....,........................................................................................ 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 Pian, 2006-2016...............................................................14 Exhibit S. Current Fire Assets, City of Meridian, 2006...................................................................15 Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016..................................................................16 Exhibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ........................................17 Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ........................................18 Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006.................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 10, Police Impact Fee Calculation..................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation........................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation. ..... ................. — ....... ........ .............. ... 22 Exhibit 13. City Participation — Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201 6 ............._......._... 23 Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan ............. ........ .....:....... 24 Exhibit 15. City Participation -- Fire Capital Improvement Pian, 2006 to 2016 .............................. 24 Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan ..................................... 25 Exhibit 17. City Participation -- Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016......._... .... _ ... _ ........ _... 25 Exhibit 18. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................... 26 Exhibit 19. Projected Cash Flows — CIP Methodology................................................................... 26 Exhibit 20. Summary of Impact Fees............................................................................................ 30 Exhibit 21. City Participation Summary, 2006 to 2016................................................................. 31 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING 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 repo-rt's background and objectives; ■ A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; ■ An overview of land use and demographics; ■ A step-by-step calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach; ■ A calculation of the City's monetary participation in those capital improvements defined as requiring repair, replacement or an upgrade, and the City's pro rata share of partially growth -related capital improvements; ■ A cash flow analysis; ■ A list of implementation recommendations; and ■ A brief summary of conclusions. Each section follows sequentially. We have also attached several appendices with supporting documentation: Appendix A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact'Fees Ordinances; Appendix B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist; Appendix D. Current Service Standaxd 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 ne-n-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.3.S6me of those restrictions include: ■ Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth;4 ■ Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 8 -year time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable cause;5 ■ Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development;6 • Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund.' See Section 67-8203(9), Idaho Code. "System improvements" are capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities include: parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code. ` See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code. 3 As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a defensible impact fee. To meet substantive due process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of "rough proportionality." Adequate consideration of the Factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2) ensure that rough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Development Corp, v. South Jordan, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). 4 See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203(29), Idaho Code. '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 & 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)l - ■ 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;1° ■ 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 Imptovement 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 S. 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 ° 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 Cade. " See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. " See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Code. BBC RE5EARCH 8t CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 3 serve the forecasted growth at the same level of service found in the existing communicy.'' 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 CompreRensive Plan," Only those icerns listed on the CIP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements plan." 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.1II This study considers the planned capital improvements for the period between 2006 and 2016 that will need to be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a. "proportionate share" of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth.. "Proportionate share" is defined as "... that portion of the cost of system improvements ... which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project."19 Practically, this concept requires Meridian to carefully project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and defensible impact fee schedules. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees: are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital improvements by the development being charged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such improvements; and ate "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 Ciry'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. " 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: ■ 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 a 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 Acta' 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 CTP approach is its establishment of a spending plan22 to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following; ■ The allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is "a standard measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual Unit 23 of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular, category of capital improvement. "2' The service units chosen by the study team are all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential development square feet. 30 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(10 and 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code_ 2 An example of a spending plan, Meridian Parks Capital Improvements Plan FY 2005, may be found in Appendix l_ " See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 5 ■ A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a "conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial." 2' 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 CTP 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. " See Section 67-8208 (1) (e), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 6 Current and future households. To estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from COMPASS' 2006 document entitled Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21/06. This document provides detailed data (from 2005 to 2030 in five year increments) on population, households and jobs by three Meridian -specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). However, data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and COMPASS states that the demographic area does not "match either city limits or areas of impact boundaries"" 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 rhar 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.Z' See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the derivation of the current and future household numbers and COMPASS' Community Choices Forecast spreadsheet. Single family/multifamily distribution. Communities in Motion was the basis for the allocation of future housing units between single family and multifamily units. Communities in Motion is the Regional Long -Range Transportation Plan for the Treasure Valley to 2030. The Communities in Motion working group collaborated with COMPASS to estimate housing units by type in the Treasure Valley. This report forecasts that Treasure Valley will eventually be 55 percent single family and 45 percent multifamily housing units (see Appendix F). After discussing this land use allocation goal with Anna Canning and Steve Siddoway from the City's Planning Department, the study team concluded that this distribution would likely not be achieved within the time frame of the 10 -year CIPS used in the impact fee calculations. Therefore, in the interim, we believe it is appropriate for the allocation of future housing units in Meridian to be based on trend data from the Communities in Motion report in Appendix F (72 percent single family and 2$ 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. xe Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), FrequentlyAAked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts. 27 Because the City anticipates negotiations with Ada County for an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for Ada County to collect impact fees within the area of impact (AOI) on behalf of Meridian. An example of an IGA for the collection of park impact fees by Ada County for the benefit of Boise City within Boise's AOI is found in Appendix F. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL, REPORT, PACE 7 In addition, square feet data are used to calculate the growth -related percentage of certain capital improvements that are only partially necessitated by growth. The particular capital improvements referenced in this study that are only partially growth -related are the fire training tower, fire and police command vehicle, ladder fire truck and the firing range. The calculations of the growth -related percentage of these capital improvements is found on page 11. Based on national data, BBC used figures of 2,097 square feet for single family units and 1,063 square feet for multifamily units.28 These estimates reflect the average of national annual median square foot figures from 1999 to 2004 and represent the best available data. Exhibit 1 below presents the number of current (2006) and projected (2016) single family and multifamily units, and respective square footage estimates. Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian Nates: (1) COMPA55 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 3121/2006), 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 ate 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 ofl\Tew Single Family Homes 1987-2004, BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 8 Total 'In: ToUltin Differenc62006 2006 2016 to 20.16 Housing Units Single Family 20,053 25,537 5,485 Multifamily 2,282 9,931 7,649 Total Housing Units 22,334 35,469 13,134 Square Feet fol Single Family (units * 2,097 sci t.) 42,040,244 53,539,312 11,499,069 Multifamily (units * 1,063 sci t.) 2,426,219 10,559,390 8,133,171 Total Square Feet 44,466,463 64,098,703 19,632,240 Nates: (1) COMPA55 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 3121/2006), 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 ate 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 ofl\Tew Single Family Homes 1987-2004, BBC RESEARCH St 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 I;he City of Meridian, and lists current nonresidential square footage, vacancy rates, building counts, market rents, etc. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected nonresidential square footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed with Colliers, the Year -End Real Estate Market Review square footage count only includes buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. To adjust for this underestimate of nonresidential square feet, the study team obtained City data on the square footage of new commercial development since 2003. The City's data are not a cumulative total of all square footage in the City; rather the data only reflect the square footage of new permitted nonresidential units. The study team calculated the percentage of new units since 2003 that were less than 10,000 square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City's newly permitted nonresidential units were less than 10,000 square feet. Knowing this, Colliers tabulation represents 79 percent of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. By dividing Colliers square footage by 79 percent, the study team arrived at the current total of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the current nonresidential square feet. Future nonresidential development. No data exist for exact 2016 projections of nonresidential square footage in Meridian. Therefore, BBC developed a defensible method for .calculating future nonresidential square footage. COMPASS' document, Community Choices Forecast. Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, provides data on current and future jobs in Meridian. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet pet 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.Z1 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 Nonresidential Square Feet 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 Pormast:Households, Population and Employment by Oemoyrophic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones(Excel worksheet, Updated 3/2112006), Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Using the methodology described above, the increase in nonresidential square footage from 2006 to 2016 is approximately 3.6 million square feet. Impact Fee Calculation Considerations The fees calculated under the CIP approach were based on the following ■ City investments in police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements projected to be built from 2006 through 2016; ■ An allocation of investment to residential and nonresidential development, based on new residential dwelling units and nonresidential square footage; and ■ A fee calculation that involves dividing the appropriate share of capital improvements by projected residential units and nonresidential square feet. Current Assets and Capital Improvement plans The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to "... project demand for system improvements required by new service units ... over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years. n3' The impact fee study team recommends a 10 -year time period based on the City's best available capital planning data. 3 0 See Section 67-8208(1)(h), BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, RAGE 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 201633 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 existingpopulation). 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 (S) years from the date they were collected, on a first - in, first -our (FIFO) basis ... See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. Funds collected prior to July 1, 2006, must be expended within five (5) years from the date they were collected, on a first -in, first -out (FIFO) basis. 33 The residential square footage is described in Exhibit 1 and the nonresidential square footage is described in Exhibit 2. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE i l 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 unreasonably high standards and Fees solely for new development. All of the capital improvement costs in the CIPS on the following pages represent improvements that are needed for growth to maintain the current level of service. The City may be operating at a less than desirable level (i.e., operating with deficiencies). In the future, the City may plan to increase the level of service. If this is the case, any capital improvements that increase the current level of service are not impact fee eligible and have been purposely excluded from the calculations. Specifically, the police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. The police department's targeted level of service, however, is one officer per 3.75 square miles. Therefore, the department is operating at a deficiency of .75 officers per square mile. The department does intend to increase the current level of service to the 3.75 officers per square mile. Because this is an increase in the level of service, any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. " See Section 67-8203(17), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH F1 CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 12 The fire department, on the other hand, is not currently operating at a deficient level of seivice. 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 (NFIA) Standard 1710. The fire department plans on continuing this level of service; therefore, all growth -related capital improvements in the CTP 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 pro)ected 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 personnetand vehicles might be a direct result of new development. Exhibit 3 lists the current police assets. The police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets Source: City of Meridian police Department. Type ofCapital liripr#i ar eii*, Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) Animal Shelter Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) K-9 Training Facility K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) The one officer per 4.5 square mile service standard equates to a current investment of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Police Capital Improvement Plan. Exhibit 4 on the following page lists the future capital improvements that are necessary to maintain the current level of service (i.e., one officer per 4.5 square mile) for future residential units and nonresidential development. Capital improvements not included in the fee calculation include any investments that assist in the augmentation of the service level to the point of reaching the goal of one officer per 3.75 square miles. The exhibit presents $1.3 million of future capital improvements that are eligible for inclusion in the police impact fee calculation. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "CIP Value" times the "Growth -Related Portion" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 13 Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201635 Note: (1) Cost per acre of land is $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time. (2) Total Cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Station #5. Facilities are shared with the fire department. (3) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with fire department. (4) Command Vehicle is shared with the fire department. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The police CIP in Exhibit 4 includes five percent of the growth -related costs of three new fire stations. This modest cost allocation is intended to pay for a small police office in each fire station where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. Similarly, the police CIP includes 50 percent of the growth -related cost of a. new command vehicle that will be shared equally with the fire department, and should therefore bare a proportionate share of the cost. Finally, the Impact Fee Act allows the inclusion of equipment in the impact fee calculation, as long as the useful life of such equipment is 10 years or more. The police department has quantified the number of additional radios needed from 2006 to 2016 to support new officers required by new growth, and asserts that, based on historic usage, the department uses radios for 10 years or more before retiring these radios. The cost per acre for the firing range ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land that is priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. 3s Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPS in this study, are allocated 100 percent to new growth. There was discussion among the Advisory Committee members as to whether these capital improvements, which are in use throughout the service area or in the case of parks, potentially in use by all residents of rhe 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 Secrion 67-8204(23), Idaho Code. The Advisory Committee may want to discuss this issue further and either leave the fee as proposed or recommend that the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental benefit. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14 Growth -Related Shared Facility . Amount to Type of Capital Improvement Value times portion times (96 in lee) equals include in Fees Infrastructure (2006 to 2016) Firing Range. Semi -Enclosed Building $2,00,000 3196 10096 $626,374 Patrol Facility Expansion $157,248 100% 10096 $157,248 Animal Shelter Expansion $140,000 100% 10096 .$140,000 Firing Range Land (2.5 Acres)111 $275,000 31% 100% $86,126 Police Substation in Fire Station #6 lel $1,470,000 100% 5% $73,500 Police Substation in Fire Station 97 lel $1,470,000 100% 596 $73500 Police Communications Equipment (14 Radios) $63,280 100% 10096 $63,280 Police Substation In Fire Station #5131 $1,120,000 100% 5% $56,000 Command Vehicle 14' $200,000 31% 50% $31,319 TolaP20O6.2Q(,6:',tIP $6,895,528. .. . $1,307;347 Fee,Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 Grand Toiil 56 92,48 51;318,180 Note: (1) Cost per acre of land is $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time. (2) Total Cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Station #5. Facilities are shared with the fire department. (3) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with fire department. (4) Command Vehicle is shared with the fire department. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The police CIP in Exhibit 4 includes five percent of the growth -related costs of three new fire stations. This modest cost allocation is intended to pay for a small police office in each fire station where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. Similarly, the police CIP includes 50 percent of the growth -related cost of a. new command vehicle that will be shared equally with the fire department, and should therefore bare a proportionate share of the cost. Finally, the Impact Fee Act allows the inclusion of equipment in the impact fee calculation, as long as the useful life of such equipment is 10 years or more. The police department has quantified the number of additional radios needed from 2006 to 2016 to support new officers required by new growth, and asserts that, based on historic usage, the department uses radios for 10 years or more before retiring these radios. The cost per acre for the firing range ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land that is priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. 3s Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPS in this study, are allocated 100 percent to new growth. There was discussion among the Advisory Committee members as to whether these capital improvements, which are in use throughout the service area or in the case of parks, potentially in use by all residents of rhe 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 Secrion 67-8204(23), Idaho Code. The Advisory Committee may want to discuss this issue further and either leave the fee as proposed or recommend that the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental benefit. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14 Current fire assets. The fire department responds to 90 percent of all calls for service within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 171.0, and is the department's current and - future level of service. Exhibit 5 presents the current fire assets. Exhibit S. Current Fire Assets Type of'C�apltal Improvement Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. ft. Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft. Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. ft. . Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft. Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. ft. Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) 1986 Pierce Engine (306) 1993 fierce Engine (304), 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 1006 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 foor (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 Notes: (1) Total cost does not include land for Fire Station #5; land has already been purchased. Facility Is shared with police department. (2) Total Cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Fire Station #5. Facilities are shared with the police department. (3) Command Vehicle is shared with the police department. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with Fire Chief 4110106 and Impact Fee Study7eam. The City is expected to purchase $7.3 million dollars in Fre 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 CTP value, for a fire truck, for example, at its brand new replacement cost, is not appropriate because the City could buy used trucks. -We believe the consensus of the Committee was that the City's policy to purchase new equipment would continue. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PACE 16 CIP Growth Shared Facility Amount to Type of CApltal Improvement Value times Portion drimd ('%i in Fee) equals Include in Fees Buildings Fire Station #5 (7) $1,120,000 100% 95% $1,064,000 Fire Station #6 $1,470,000 100% 95% .$1,396,500 Fire Station #7 (Z7 $1,470,000 100% 95% $1,396,500 Training Tower $480,000 31% 100% $150,330 Vehicles 3 New Engines (One per Station #5 through #7) $1,230,000 100% 100% $1,230,000 Ladder Truck $760,000 31% 100% $238,022 Additional Staff Vehicles $67,500 100% 100% $67,500 Additional Squad Vehicles $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 Command Vehicle (;) $200,000 31% 50% $31,319 Equipment Additional Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $190,000 100% 100% $190,000 Additional Base Radios $15,900 100% 100% $15,900 Additional Vehicle Radios $12,051 100% 100% $12,051 Additional Vehicle Extrication Equipment $60,000 0% 100% $0 Additional SCBA $57,000 0% 1006A $0 Additional Thermal Imaging Cameras $45,000 0% 100% $0 Total Initasuvicture $7,342,451 $5.857,122 Fee•Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 Grand Total $7,274,951 .. $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 #5. Facilities are shared with the police department. (3) Command Vehicle is shared with the police department. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with Fire Chief 4110106 and Impact Fee Study7eam. The City is expected to purchase $7.3 million dollars in Fre 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 CTP value, for a fire truck, for example, at its brand new replacement cost, is not appropriate because the City could buy used trucks. -We believe the consensus of the Committee was that the City's policy to purchase new equipment would continue. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PACE 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. Exhibir 7 lists the City's current parks and recreation assets that are responsible for the 2.78 acres per 1,000 population service standard. ~� Exhibit 7. Current Parks and (Recreation Assets, 2006 Type pf Cw,ip(tkal Improvement. Paths dt 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 61 Mini -Parks Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres) Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) Season's Park (7 Acres) Chateau Park (6.75 Acres) 8th Street Park (4 Acres) Champion Park (6 Acres) Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) Community Parks Heroes Park (30 Acres) Tully Park (18.5 Acres) Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres) Storey Park (15 Acres) Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (53 Acres) Source: City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. The level of service for parks and recreation equates to a current investment of $1,612 per residential unit (see Appendix D for calculation). BBC RESEARCH 8E CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 17 Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Man. Currently, Meridian's 10 -year population growth would justify slightly more than 109 acres of new parks and recreation capital improvements at the current 2.78 developed- acres per thousand population level of service, as described on page - 13.37 Any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation, Exhibit 8 below lists the future capital improvements necessary to maintain the current level of parks and recreation service in the future. Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201638 Note: (1) Land to be donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of Impact fee credits. (2) $85,000 per acre in development costs based on recent City construction history. (3) $195,000/acre in land and development costs ($110,000/acre average plus $85,000 in development costs). (4) Addition to existing park - acquired to retain connectivity to future growth/neighborhoods. (5) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and Impact Fee Study team - Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $30.2 million, of which over $18.2 million is impact fee eligible. " At the end of fiscal year 2004, the City was at a service level of 1.92 developed acres per thousand population. The increase in the level of service in the short time since 2004 is a result of several donations. Although some of The park acres are not developed today, the Finance Department advised the study team that the City has allocated funds to develop these park acres by the end of this year, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population. " The CIP breaks down the types of parks facilities (i.e., pathways and trails; neighborhood and mini -parks; community parks; and large urban parks. However, the calculation for impact fees (see page 23) lumps all parks facilities together. There has been some discussion by the members of the Advisory Committee to the effect that the impact fee calculations should Also be broken down into four parts, i.e., and the added together for the total parks impact fee. The Advisory Committee Should discuss. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 18 CIP - Grawtfi shairod Fatitity Amount to Type of Capital-Irriprovement Value times portion tunes (%,infee) equo&. Include In Fees Pathways l3 Trails Pathway Landscaping and Improvements (FY 2010) $75,000 0% 10096 Eo Neighborhood 5r Mini -Parks (1) (2) 4 New Neighborhood Parks (7.5 Acres Each) $2,550,000 100% 10046 27,55%000 Community Parks (s) 1 New Community Park (33 Acres) $6,435,000 100% 100% $6,435,000 Hero's Park Development (Shelter, Playgrounds, Tennis Courts) $500,000 100% 100% $500,000 Storey Park - Acquisition and Development of 1.44 Acres (4).. $554,200 50% 100% 8277,'100 Large Urban Parks t3) 1 New Large Urban Park (4$ Acres) $8,775,000 100% 100% $8,775,000 Meridian Settler's Park • Final Phase Development $425,000 100% 100% 2475,000 Parks Amenities Community center $10,000,000 0% 100% $0 Aquatics Center $1,500000 0% 100% $0 Equipment 2 Mowers (I Replacement and l Additional Mower) $130,000 0% 100% $0 Tota1'Itl datNfsWi'e' $30,944.AG 318,962,100 Fee-Ralated Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance (s) FY 2006 Beginning Fund Balance $800,150 100% 100% sw,i so Grand rotdl $30,176,550 $18,172,783 Note: (1) Land to be donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of Impact fee credits. (2) $85,000 per acre in development costs based on recent City construction history. (3) $195,000/acre in land and development costs ($110,000/acre average plus $85,000 in development costs). (4) Addition to existing park - acquired to retain connectivity to future growth/neighborhoods. (5) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and Impact Fee Study team - Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $30.2 million, of which over $18.2 million is impact fee eligible. " At the end of fiscal year 2004, the City was at a service level of 1.92 developed acres per thousand population. The increase in the level of service in the short time since 2004 is a result of several donations. Although some of The park acres are not developed today, the Finance Department advised the study team that the City has allocated funds to develop these park acres by the end of this year, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population. " The CIP breaks down the types of parks facilities (i.e., pathways and trails; neighborhood and mini -parks; community parks; and large urban parks. However, the calculation for impact fees (see page 23) lumps all parks facilities together. There has been some discussion by the members of the Advisory Committee to the effect that the impact fee calculations should Also be broken down into four parts, i.e., and the added together for the total parks impact fee. The Advisory Committee Should discuss. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 18 Mechanics of Fee Calculations Impact fees are calculated using the costs summarized in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8 and the demographic information from previous exhibits. As required by the Impact Fee .Act, prior to fee adoption, the Advisory Committee must consider the following factors: ■ the means by which existing system improvements have been financed (for example, if grant money has been consistently used to finance system improvements, it may be reasonable to postulate that this will continue in the future); ■ the extent to which new development will contribute to financing system improvements through (past and future) takes, assessments and contributions; ■ the extent to which new development has provided system improvements, without charge, for other properties in the service area; ■ extraordinary costs incurred by the City in serving new development; and ■ the availability of other sources of funding for system improvements (e.g., local improvement district assessments, general tax levies).39 ■ Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend, that the City Council adjust the maximum allowable impact fee." 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 dut to rounding. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. 3s See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. 40 These factors are to be considered while the City is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits may be calculated on a project -by -project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 19 S' Uai;. Percent lalhsl:[� ;cat*gary i' °;, ''r, r .. of'Total "` ,1' 0 $2ij246' 84% Single Family 11,499,069 49% Multifamily 8,133,171 35% Nonrojdentlal 3' 1628,.928 16% Total (�1 23,261,168 100% 3s See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. 40 These factors are to be considered while the City is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits may be calculated on a project -by -project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH 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 Fee Act. Exhibit 1 o. Police Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Exhibit A. 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. Calcu(otion.of Impact. Fees Future Value of Police Capital Improvements $1,318,180 Future Land Use Percentage (z) Residential 84% Nonresidential 16% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $1,112,544 Nonresidential $205,636 Growth to 2016 Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $SS Notoesidet` kper squarefatkt) $0.06 The study team used the current service standard as a benchmark to double check the forward- looking CIP approach. The team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to Meridian's current investment in police infrastructure ($106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot — see Appendix D). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10 -Year Police CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. One reason that the CIP-based fees are lower than the City's current level of investment is that Meridian's K-9 Facility is not planned for expansion as growth occurs. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 20 Fire impact fees. Exhibit 11 calculates the impact fees for fire capital improvements based on the future growth projections and anticipated future capital improvement costs described in earlier exhibits. Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation. Notes: (1) See Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan For a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. C4etilaVoll impact Fees Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements $5,867,955 Future Land Use Percentage Izl 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 Non' residential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential(p�r.dwllira;iaritj,;; - $377 1160resldeF fal (per:$OA 64, $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 develgment 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. CAC lotion, of Impact Fees Future Value of Parks & Recreation Capital Improvements (1) $18,172,783 Future Land Use Percentage Residential 100% Nonresidential 0% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $18,172,783 Nonresidential $0 Growth to 2016 Residential (total dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded) R�0L0 11#4 (pel"dwelling unl,t) $1,384 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A The maximum allowable impact fee for parks and recreation capital improvements is $1,384 for any new residential unit. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amount is quite similar to Meridian's current investment in parks and ,recreation infrastructure ($1,612 per residential unit). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10 -Year Parks and Recreation CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. The current parks and recreation impact fee, as of June 1, 2005, totaled $763.16 for a single family unit and $694 per multifamily unit. If the City adopts the new fees at the maximum amount shown in the exhibit above, the fees would increase 81 percent for single family units and 99 percent for multifamily units. An increase in fees of this magnitude is not uncommon and is justifiable if the nexus between the new development and future capital improvements remains intact. It is the study team's belief that the analysis of demographic data and Capital Improvement Plans has been thorough and that the rational nexus required by law has been maintained. It should also be noted that a portion of the fee difference is due to the dramatic increase in the cost of parkland in Meridian. The City's current parks impact fee, for example, is based on an assumed land price and subsequent development cost significantly less than the $110,000 and $85,000 per acre, respectively, reflected in Exhibit 8. BBC RESEARCH 61 CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, DACE 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 riot- attributable otattributable 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 r,... Amount to, ' .� �. Shared.:: City (3) less Include in fiE*, t)= lez FacilityAM044 .: givals; . Participaxidn $6,928,028 - $1,318,180 $3,978,667 = $1,631,181 Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016- (2) Calculated from Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount of repair/replacement/upgrade capital improvements and the non -growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. If the City adopts the maximum police fees as calculated in this report, the City would potentially be responsible for approximately $1.6 million in police capital improvements. The City's participation would ensure that police service levels in Meridian do not decline. Again, the City's participation amount does not include ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs that will also be borne by the City and not paid by impact fees." 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.A.dvisory 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 confwed with the "effective dare" of the impact fee ordinance, By law, the ordinance vvill not be effective for a grace period of thirty (30) days following adoption. Some Committee members have raised the possibility of extending this grace period; this should be discussed by the entire Advisory Committee. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 23 It should be noted that the participation amount associated with purely non -growth improvements is discretionary. The City can choose not to fund these capital improvements (although this could result in a decrease in the level of service if the deferred repairs or replacements were urgent). However, the non -growth -related portion of improvements that are impact fee eligible must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan Amount attributable to purely non -growth -related improvements (discretionary) $0 Amount attributable to the non -growth -related Portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $1,631,181 Total $1,631,181 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 1S. City Participation — Fire Capital Improvement Pian, 2006 to 2016 Amdunitto Shared City Value .(9) less IncWe in Fees tl') less Facility Amoyt,t O 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 PAA i4ji.0PPIrt Amount attributable to purely non -growth -related improvements (discretionary) $162,000 Amount attributable to the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $920,329 Total $1,082,329 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 triad 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 Amount to SNirl'r` City Fe'„(i), F. cili. 2).,, partici ation (3) $30,176,550 $18,172,783 $21,667 = $11,982,100 Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non -growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 25 Exhibit 18 distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are purely non -growth -related (discretionary funding) and improvements that reflect the non -growth -related portion of impact fee eligible improverrients (required funding). Exhibit Ia. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan Dollar Amaurit 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 non -growth -related. However, $277,000 of the City's participation is required in order for the impact fee analysis to remain whole. Cash Flow Analysis It is important for the City to assess revenues that would be generated by the maximum allowable impact fees as presented in this study, prior to further consideration by the Advisory Committee. Exhibit 19 below displays the impact fee cash flow from 2006 to 2016, using the fees calculated by the CII' methodology. Exhibit 19. Projected Cash Flows — CIP Methodology P04sh Flow 2007 X071 2016, 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 maybe 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 Delp fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL RLPORT, PAGE 27 Implementation Recommendations As the City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Improvement Plans and impact fees, we also offer the following information for your consideration. Please note that this information will be included in the City's impact fee enabling ordinance (Appendix B). Capital Improvements Plan. Should the Advisory Committee recommend this study to the City Council and should the City Council adopt the study, the Finance Department should revise the City's existing Capital Improvement Plans using the information in this study. The existing City Capital Improvement Plans for these departments is attached to the study as Appendix H. A revised capital improvement plan would then be presented to the City for adoption as an element of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the procedures of the Local Land Use Planning Act.42 Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City should review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance (Appendix B) for adoption as reviewed and recommended by the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is in a unique position to work with and advise several departments and the City Council to ensure that the capital improvement plans and impact fees are routinely reviewed and modified as appropriate. Impact fee service area. Some municipalities have fee differentials for various city zones under the assumption that some areas utilize more or less current and future capital improvements. The study team, however, does not recommend the City assess different fees by dividing the City into zones. Police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements inherently serve a system -wide function. If, for example, a serious accident occurs in one part of the City, the fire department may call on engines and equipment from other stations to assist. Therefore, it is more appropriate not to differentiate fees based on City zones. In practice, all areas of the City have an equal demand on the infrastructure because the parks, fire, and police department function most efficiently on a system- wide basis. Donations. If the City receives donations for capital improvements listed on the CIP, the City must account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for a non- or partially growth -related improvement, the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is for a growth -related project in the CIP, the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Grants. If a grant is expected and regular, the grant amount should be reflected upfront in the fee calculations, meaning that the impact fees will be lower in anticipation of the contribution. If the grant is speculative or uncertain, this should not be reflected up -front in the fee calculations since the City cannot count on those dollars as it undergoes capital planning. i= See Sections G7-8203(4) and G7-8208(1). BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 28 The rational nexus is still maintained because the unexpected higher fund balance, due to the receipt of a grant, is deducted from the calculations as a "down payment on the CIP" when the fee study is updated. Credit/reimbursement. If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth -related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category or, at the developer's choice, be reimbursed from impact fees collected in the future.43 This prevents "double (lipping" 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 I0 -year span of the CIPS. Therefore, the fees calculated in this study should be updated annually as the City invests in additional infrastructure beyond whar 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. 47 See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code. +{ See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 29 Summary Using the CIP methodology, the state mandated approach, BBC calculated the total (i.e., police, Fre, 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. Impact Fee Category Police Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $85 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.06 Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $377 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.25 Parks 61 Recreation Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,384 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A Residen:tial..(perdwelling hit) $1,846 Nonresidential (per sgtl'artfoot). $0:31 It is the study team's assessment that the City Gould reasonably charge impact fees of any amount up to the $1,846 per residential unit and $0.31 per nonresidential square foot. This amount is sufficient to pay for the growth -related portions of Meridian's Capital Improvement Plans. BBC RESEARCH 61 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. 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 trillion 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 6t CONSULTING FINAL. REPORT, PACE 31 City Fe'e Category Participation . Discretionary Amount (Purely Non -Growth Improvements) Police $0 Fire $162,000 Parks & Recreation $11,705,000 Tota 1 $11,867,000 Required Amount (Partially Non -Growth Improvements) Police $1,631,181 Fire $920,329 Parks St Recreation $277,100 Total $2,828,610 Grand Total.' _ $14695,610 ... 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 trillion 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 6t CONSULTING FINAL. REPORT, PACE 31 APPENDIX A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees ordinances IDAHO TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHAPTER 82 Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances 67-8204. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCES. Governmental entities which comply with the requirements of this chapter may impose by ordinance development impact fees as a condition of development approval on all developments. (1) A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements determined in accordance with section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Development impact fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. (2) A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities adopted in the development impact fee ordinance of the governmental entity that are applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development. The construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing public facilities for which a development impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new development. (3) A. development impact fee ordinance shall specify the point in the development process at which the development impact fee shall be collected. The development impact fee may be collected no earlier than the commencement of construction of the development, or the issuance of 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. (S) 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 ST 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 1-4a11 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 wirh the requirements of section 67-8209, Idaho Code. (8) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision prohibiting the expenditure of development impact fees except in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8210, Idaho Code. (9) A development impact fee ordinance may provide for the imposition of a development impact fee for system improvement costs incurred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the system improvements. (10) A development impact fee ordinance may exempt all or part of a particular development project from development impact fees provided that such project is determined to create affordable housing, provided that the public policy which supports the exemption is contained in the governmental entity's comprehensive plan and provided that the exempt development's proportionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than development impact fees. (11) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide that development impact fees shall only be spent for the category of system improvements for which the fees were collected and either within or for the benefit of the service area in which the project is located. (12) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for a refund of development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8211, Idaho Code. (13) A development impact fee ordinance shall establish for a procedure for timely processing of applications for determination by the governmental entity regarding development impact fees applicable to a project, individual assessment of development impact fees, credits or reimbursements to be allowed or paid under section 67-8209, Idaho Code, and extraordinary impact. (14) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify when an application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted to be made by a developer or fee payer. An application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted sufficiently in advance of the time that the developer or fee payer may seek a building permit or related permits so that the issuance of a building permit or related permits will not be delayed. (15) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for appeals regarding development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8212, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 2 (16) A development impact fee ordinance must provide a detailed description of the methodology by which costs per service unit are determined. The development impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in section_ _ 67-8208(1)(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 not be assessed unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes. In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the additional development impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units or change in scope of the development. (19) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any development to double payment of impact fees. (20) A development impact fee ordinance shall exempt from development impact fees the following activities: (a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of its destruction; (b) Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units; (c) Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on the same lot, provided that the number of service units does not increase; (d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; (e) Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of service units; and BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, 13AGE 3 (f) Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements. (21) A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (a) That a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of the development impact fee ordinance; or (b) That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the installation of a modular building, manufactured. home or recreational vehicle on that same lot or space. (22) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process for dealing with a project which has extraordinary impacts. (23) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for the calculation of a development impact fee in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A development impact fee shall not be deemed invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners or developers within the service area other than the person paying the fee. (24) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a description of acceptable levels of service for system improvements. (25) Any provision of a development impact fee ordinance that is inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void and that provision shall have no legal effect. A partial invalidity of a development impact fee ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance that are consistent with the requirements of this chapter. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, GAGE 4 APPENDIX B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance ORDINANCE NO, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, 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 1.0, CHAPTER 79 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 Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements 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 parrs 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 Impact 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, fire, 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 unpacts 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 RAPACT 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 ofthe City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation hnpact 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, IlOPACT 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 M'ACT 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 City pursuant 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 ofprotecting 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 Irnprovements 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 Impact 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 bevels of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for these Public Facilities. (i) The Impact Fee Study sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for deternining 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 accoiuiting 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 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. (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. IMPACT 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 further in Section 10-07-07, 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 funds 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 hnprovements to serve existing Development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. (4) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital hnprovernefits 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 Impact Fees may be used as a funding source. (fl "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 Horne, a Modular Building and/or a motel/hotel/roon ng house. (m) "Extraordinary Costs" means those costs incurred as a result of Extraordinary Impact. (n) "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 IMPACT 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. (e) "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 IYnprovements 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 BBC 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 Horne, 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 tnist, .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. (ft) "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 Improvements 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 -- hUosition and CoMutation 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 Home) 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 hnpact 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 maybe, 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 Section 10-07-09, if applicable. If the Project 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 shall be 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 mayhire 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 maybe 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. (f) The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision establishing the Impact Fees in connection with the individual assessment within thirty (30) 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 Improvement(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 may be 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 rim 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 Improvernent(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 Improvement(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 may be 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, fire, 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 Tmpact 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 Impact 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. (c) 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 Imp act Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of parks 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, and/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 (8) 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 Improvements 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 hnpact 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 refarid 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. (j) 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. Reftmds 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 fixe or parks and recreation Public Facilities. RVIPACT 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, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed. 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 future 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 constriction, 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 be given 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 hnprovements 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 constriction, 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 Improvements 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 fiom 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 (8) 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 MAT 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 become 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 beea 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 Impact 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 may be 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 Permits) 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 3A PACT 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 4mount 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 Improvements 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, anal 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 (5) 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 fund 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. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 20 (i) This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) 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 may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to anindependent 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: $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot $377.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.25 per square foot $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot $300.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 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 Residential $1,846.00 Nova -Residential $ 0.31 $1,600.00 $ 0.26 This Fee Schedule shall be in effect between , 2006, and December 31, 2007. On January 1, 2008 and on January 1st 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 r c� -G U � ori b fi A ,y U � • N � '� � V � c 'O C p N Sal Q na v Wer IOU � � � � � u � 'r w N p• d y O r� �.-� ot i'ro cq bA A+ a N O bA •�N � `��- bA P''`d � a a a a � a p w C+ Q b1J y w o- u N p G � J m �+ N� •� a C, M � N o as G 4 Gn t1 w p p G a to w44, N G � a 9'19bQ' G oA 1, u N .y � �a 4 ai o aq G c w .5 o -aai 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 GIP approach, the City would also need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. In this case, it is likely the City would need more future improvements to maintain current levels of service, or the City did not allocate enough of the capital improvements to growth. The Current Service Standard methodology utilizes the current distribution of residential and nonresidential square footage in the City as a basis for allocating improvement costs. This conservative allocation is based upon the theory that current investment reflects the current level of service provided by the City, and this current level of service should be maintained in future growth. In order to evaluate the City's current capital improvements, BBC and Galena Consulting met with City staff to review the replacement costs and equity percentages (portion owned) of current capital improvements. If the equity percentage for any project is less than 100 percent, this indicates that the project is debt Financed and the loan has not yet been retired. For the portion of current improvements that is not yet owned in its entirety, taxes are used to pay the debt service payments_ This prevents "double dipping" so that growth would not pay twice for improvements with taxes and impact fees. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth at existing service levels. The cost of the fee study is also eligible for inclusion into the calculation for all fee categories. All current capital improvement exhibits include 33 percent of the fee study cost since the total cost is shared between three impact fee categories (police, fire, and parks and recreation). BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDix D, PAGE 1 Exhibit 3 below presents the total replacement value of current police assets. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "Replacement Value" times the "Equity Percentage" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets, 2006 Pkpisit e%0WW EquityIl %re Facility Amount fo Type of Capital Improvement Value times Percentage (1) timet t% 1h fee} equals include in fees Infrastructure Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) $4,D00,000 4596 100% 31,800,000 Animal Shelter $140,000 100% 100% $140,000 Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) $99,440 100% 100% .$99,440 K-9 Training Facility $400,000 100% 100% $400,000 K-9 Training Facillty Land (2.5 Acres) (2) $275,000 100% 10098 .$275,000 Total Irnfrastrud lure $4,914,444 $2,714,440 . Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 Qanc! Total $4,946,940 $2,725,273 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006..If the equity Percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright. (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The cost per acre for the K-9 Training Facility ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. Exhibit 3 lists approximately $4.9 million in replacement costs for the City's police improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more. Under the Current Service Standard approach (not allowed as the fee calculation methodology in Idaho), $2.7 million would be impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 2 Exhibit 4 presents the current capital improvements identified by City staff for the fire department. Exhibit 4. Current Fire (Assets, 2006 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 RcSEARCH & CONSULTING -` APP£NO(x Q, PAGE 3 Snared F'aciilty .: Amount to Type of Capi4 (riiptoyement ffihai _ .PE►centgo' ; •' Y{rt>+gs: (%in fee) egnvls include In Fees Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. ft. (Z) $1,851,642 100% 10096 $1,857,642 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft. (z) 11,114,150 100% 100% $1,114,150 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq, ft. fz) $1,071,420 10096 100% $1,071,420 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft. (xl $1,120,077 100% 100% $1,120,017 Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) $357,000 10036 100% $357,000 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 sq. ft. (z� $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% 10096 $410,000 2000 Pierce Engine (302) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2002 Pierce Engine (101) .$410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2004 Pierce Engine (303) S410,000 100% 10096 $410,000 2006 Pierce Engine (30?) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2000 International Water Tender (320) $240,000 100% 100% $240,000 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) $65,000 100% 100% ,$65,000 1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) $65,000 100% 10096 $65,000 Equipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls 5200,000 100% 1006A $200,000 16 Vehicle Radios $64,272 100% 100% $64,272 4 Base Station Radios $21,200 100% 10096 $21,200 Tot1i15irfri!#WSi" Fee•Retated Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 -Graatl;Tbtal. .., ., 59,304,24$ 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 RcSEARCH & CONSULTING -` APP£NO(x Q, PAGE 3 Exhibit 5 shows the City's current parks and recreation assets. Exhibit S. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2006 ,f�. Replacement . Equity "5i"aredFacitity Amount to Type of Cd Itll`1�p kry'4,ejnehtaue Cop ,. value (1j g drrws, Percents e filmes (Wiri fee) . equals Include in Fees Paths & Tralls (1) Five Mlle Creek Path (2.12 Acres) $233,200 100% 100% $233,200 Kiwanls Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) $220,000 100% 100% .$220,000 Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) $165,000 100% 100% $165,000 Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) $121,000 10096 100% $121,000 Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Ave) $110,000 100% 100% 5110,000 Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 100% 10096 S110,000 Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) $27,500 100% 10098 $27,500 Neighborhood & Mlni-Parks (a) Kiwanls Park (11,2 Acres) $2,184,000 100% 100% $2,184,000 Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) $1,462,500 10096 100% $1,462,500 Season's Park (7 Acres) $1,365,000 10096 100% $1,365,000 Chateau Park (6.75 Acres) $1,316,150 100% 100% $1,376,250 8th Street Park (4 Acres) $780,000 100% 10096 $780,000 Champion Park (6 Acres) $570,000 100% 100% 5570,000 Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) $97,500 100% 10096 597,500 Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) 548,750 10096 100% $48,750 Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) $48,750 100% 100% $48,750 Community Parks (s) Heroes Park (30 Acres) $5,850,000 100% 100% $5,850,000 Tully Park (18.5 Acres) $3,601,500 100% 100% $3,607,500 Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres) $3,607,500 100% 700% $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°.8 $10035,000 Totat.ltilra*U*" $35,184,450 .: $35,144,4.50 Fee -Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 Impact Fee Fund Balance (a) FY 2006 Beginning Fund Balance $600,150 100% 100% $800,150 Grand Total ° - $36,017,100 - $33,995 133 ,433 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright. (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. (3) $195,0001acre in land and development costs. (4) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/O6, 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. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX Q, 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 irnprovement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. Exhibit 6. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 Note: (1) May not total due to rounding. Source: City of Meridian, Colliers International SOISe and Sun Valley, Year -End Real Estate Marker Review, 2005 and Impact Fee Study Team. << pa.re Percent . of Total r Raeside.'",:,: 45370 Single Family 42,040,244 82% Multifamily 2,426,214 5% Nonresidential , 6,544,830 13% Total (1) 51,011,293 100% Currently, 87 percent of total square footage in Meridian is comprised of residential development and the balance (13 percent) is nonresidential development impact fee calculation. Exhibits 7 through 9 present the impact fee calculation based on the improvement costs in Exhibits 3 through 5. Fees are calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of service costs by total residential units and nonresidential square feet. Again, since Idaho law mandates the use of the Capital Improvement Plan approach, fees calculated under the Current Service Standard approach serve only as a conservative douhle-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, f,. alatii oc of Irgpaiq, fees Current Value for Police Infrastructure $2,725,273 Current Land Use Percentage (2) Residential 87% Nonresidential 13% Costs by Land Use Category Residential $2,376,438 Nonresidential $348,835 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830 Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded) $106 ti��lia�a�=��ei �quar��Id�i' a $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 & CONSULTING APPENDIX (3, (AGE 5 Exhibit 8 below calculates the current investment in fire improvements under the Current Service Standard approach. Exhibit a. Calculation of Fire Impact Fees Note: (1) See Exhibit 4• Current Fire Assets. (2) See Exhibit 6. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006, Source: City of Meridian and impact Fee Study Team Calculation of linpact Fees' Current Value for Fire Infrastructure (1) $9,282,534 Current Land Use Percentage (z) Residential S7% Nonresidential 13% Costs by Land Use Category Residential $8,094,370 Nonresidential $1,188,164 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square Feet) 6,544,830 Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $362 Nonresidenhal (per square -foot). $0.18 As of 2006, the City has $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot invested in fire improvements. Exhibit 9 below displays the current parks and recreation investment per residential unit. parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Exhibit 9, Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Note: (1) See Exhibit 5. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, Source. City of Meridian and impact Fee study Team. lr' "tt Fee C.Alcuition Current Value for Parks & Recreation (1) $35,995,433 Current Land Use Percentage Residential 100% Nonresidential 0% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $35,995,433 Nonresidential $0 Current Land Use Residential (total dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in squarefeet) N/A Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residerpal,(W dvvelling04, »; . $1,612 Nonresidentrd1(per square fool[) KIA The City's current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $1,612 per residential unit. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6 APPENDIX E. Detailed Demographic Analysis The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act defines "Land Use Assumptions" as a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 20 -year period. The 2006 and 2016 current and forecasted residential land uses for the City of Meridian are based on COMPASS' demographic area as calculated in the Community Choices Forecast.- Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03121106. The basis for the City's nonresidential square footage was Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year -End Real Estate Market Review, 2005. This report is located in Appendix G. This appendix details the calculations and assumptions used to arrive at current and future residential units and current and future nonresidential square footage. This appendix should be read in conjunction with the main report text, which summarizes the study team's approach to the demographic data analysis. Residential Data COMPASS produces two types of demographic estimates/forecasts: Trend Forecasts and the Community Choices Forecast. COMPASS explains that "the goal of [the Trend] forecast was to allocate future growth based on prevailing residential patterns and densities... Since Trend is based on current development (everything built to date) and on-going development (approved and preliminary development proposals), Trend will be adjusted each year to reflect changing pattern."' The second forecast, the Community Choices Forecast, "does not reflect theway the region has been growing, instead it incorporates a vision for how we would like to grow."2 In other words, this forecast allows for changes in the Trend forecast reflecting the way in which the community desires to grow. This forecast takes into account denser growth within existing areas of impact, higher density development around transit corridors, and open space between communities. The study team has chosen to use the Community Choices Forecast data because we believe it provides a more accurate vision of the future and it has been adopted by COMPASS as the preferred growth forecast used in the regional long-range transportation plan. The COMPASS document is entitled Community Choices Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, last updated on March 21, 2006. ' Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions abmet COMPASS Forecasts, Ibid. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 1 The document cited on the previous page provides detailed data on population, households and jobs by three Meridian -specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). The Community Choices forecast was updated this year and, as opposed to the Trend forecast that is updated annually, the Community Choices forecast is slated for its next update in July 2010. Current and future households. As stated in the main report text, to estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from the aforementioned COMPASS document. Because data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), COMPASS states that the demographic area does not "match either city limits or areas of impact boundaries"3 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs are only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian's area of impact contains many of the same TAZs that are in COMPASS' Meridian demographic area. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the study team has chosen to use COMPASS' data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact. The maps on the following pages portray the current City limits and COMPASS' demographic areas. 3 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts, BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PACE 2 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3 q i . .. will .i City of Meridian,.. __..... - FUture Land Use Map ..,. T...;. ^,;.........< __:; • ,. . -+''' :�:'w' WE "'•'.:}�,�, ,: ".�!�. .lam ..,. �I_ • L ,I, .�I— b'r`a, .. "3..,N`�_ .Y '.. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3 f_ AdaCounry DemographicAr?as 1008006-- COMV Line Mia: — RuadFmtures r., wataFmtures BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 4 The data below reflect the aggregated Traffic Analysis Zones that create the COMPASS -defined demographic areas in the report Community Choices Forecast; Households, Population andEmployrraent by Demographic Areas and TraiW_ cAnalysis Zones. These data were the basis for current and future residential estimates/forecasts. -- 5,3;1,1.1 . . 1a 3r7� i,Irr< 6739, 1M 3_n 5,660: 349.. a ui 20,CSN�. 2d,721� lap is.aa: _ ;N:,, _ tat• _c:.�:w 432. 1.817. i0.716F.2 19:'? -- SO 49 5.977 �6 21.94:: '---�'4d::p�. 1$-0� .?.315• 12AM 44.`4,1'.'. 14 5Z8 t3.fr_5 27 X:... --say, 4t ia.d: 7344. MA 49 1`16 CCS- 3RY2 f�7:6� 34,A49i 14,?d2. �" Y7.iu"N,� �3E3' x.261 761 ?32: 9.'Ffi! 1.25'i` 7.9: i 667. - 1.116, �_...._ 2,726' _-. �y 1,2F2 168 74'1 753' n 1.T M. At 1 ro19r .. 9,793 3.1r>4. 1.5',3- . ITwyr._......_._....._.. 541904 .._.._... __...._.3? < ..684,3,r ..SlP,@t.. _ _.._ 3T, _-_ x7r AL­,; 'JeiMdmmitifrludesducuWMidmpbymAnr tl�emo4PEUVf'iAUA'�rgl!��n17ro9.16m#4U'pY Cph$IA9.4 dgCUAKYiC 4"9AIAiUA�' ChgVred 6vreca6; HOUdIkWd6 P4yAM!!gA fildPRiplOJrAkY3 b�Qd1A09f�pldc /ifAM b1d lglne QdlipaAr:YAW1�XN1 WOIIt5YRd4 Lp61ldC 712 i��. 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 calctdate data for 2016 (necessary for the Capital Improvement Plan approach)." Annual percent change = ((ln(new popfllation)4n(old population))/number of years BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 5 The final table portrays how the study team arrived at 2006 and 2016 residential data. Residential Calculation for 2006 and 2016 Source! COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. Twenty-year projection data. The table on the following page lists COMPASS' forecasts to 2030 for all the demographic areas in Ada and Canyon Counties. Twenty-year forecasts are necessary to include in this report to meet the requirements of the State Statutes. However, these data are not used in the calculation of impact fees, since the timeline of the CIP is only 10 years. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6 Annual Annual Percent Change Percent Change 2005 2006 (2Q05u201'0.) 2010 2075:Q16 (2075-2020). 2020 Population 62,997 66,029 4.8% 80,136 103,285 127,102 23.1% 114,479 Households 21,330 22,334 4.7% 26,992 34,747 35,469 2.1% 38,552 Jobs 19,498 20,514 5.2% 25,299 30,818 31,988 3.5% 36,660 Source! COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. Twenty-year projection data. The table on the following page lists COMPASS' forecasts to 2030 for all the demographic areas in Ada and Canyon Counties. Twenty-year forecasts are necessary to include in this report to meet the requirements of the State Statutes. However, these data are not used in the calculation of impact fees, since the timeline of the CIP is only 10 years. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6 The table below presents the annual percent change between. 2025 and 2030, which is used to estimate residential data in 2026. Residential Calculation for 2026 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. The demographic data in 2026 are as follows: 128,772 persons, 43,329 households and 43,647 jobs. Nonresidential Data Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year -Enol 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 Match 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 Fit CONSULTING APPENDIX E, GAGE 8 A,�nual 'Porcenfi, Change 2025 2026.. - 0015.2030) ti 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 Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. The demographic data in 2026 are as follows: 128,772 persons, 43,329 households and 43,647 jobs. Nonresidential Data Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year -Enol 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 Match 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 Fit CONSULTING APPENDIX E, GAGE 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 319 square feet per employee in 2006 (6,544,830 / 20,514).5 5 This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time. The 319 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENaix 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 iu 2016 (31,888) is multiplied by the square footaga 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 Total SFT per Colliers Report Including units over (all buildings greater 10,000 SFT than 10,000 SFT) (see below for calculation) 5,170,416 6,544,830 Calculation of Total Current 5FT 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 SFT per Employee Employment 2006 SFT (2006 Employment/ 2006 SFT) 20,514 6,544,830 319 2016 2016 SFT Employment (2016 Employment • SFT per Employee) 31,888 10.173,758 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIx E, PAGE 11 APPENDIX F. Communities in Motion Irw 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 Communities in Motion: Regional Lon Range Transortation Plan considers future transportation needs for Ada, Canyon, Genn, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties — a diverse region with cities ranging in size from less than 100 residents to more than 200,000. Commuting from Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties into Ada and Canyon counties has increased over the past 20 years. In 2000, more than half of Boise County's working population commuted into Ada or Canyon County. For Gem County, that percentage was 37 Percent. Other travel pressures exist. Recreational travel is affecting Boise County, while Payette County faces heavy truck traffic along U.S. 95. But the traffic problems of today will pale in comparison to the problems in 2030. Why? In part, because of population growth. The six -county region had slightly over 500,000 residents in 2000 according to the United States Census. By 2030, the population may swell to nearly 1 million or more. Jobs will increase as well and the location of these jobs will be critical. Many of the new Gem County residents make the commute into Treasure Valley via S.H. 16, Imagine that commute in 2030, when Gem County's population could double. Growth and what it means for our region's future is the reason for Communities in Motion. Growth Scenarios This section relates to Question #1 on the comment form COMPASS and the Communities in Motion planning process made an extensive effort to look at how our region might develop. Using input from the public, agencies, elected officials and others, COMPASS developed two growth scenarios: Trend and Community Choices. The Trend scenario reflects our future if we keep developing as we have over the past 40 years. Under Trend, much of the residential growth is at three units or so per acre. Growth will continue at current densities and will occur at the urban ,fringe, eventually consuming most of the land between the current cities. Community Choices, the preferred alternative in the draft plan, is a growth alternative that consumes less land, leaves more open space, offers housing choices and fosters the use of alternative transportation. Community Choices clusters growth inside the areas of impact, and emphasizes higher densities and mixed -uses with ]obs, shopping and services closer to homes. Trend ommun' Choices 125,400 acres 42,200 acres 72% single family 55% single family 20% new homes at transit density 52% new homes at transit density 20.7 Million Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel 19.6 Million Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel This table compares these two scenarios. Both scenarios provide for the same amount of growth. Community Choices: • Provides a greater diversity of housing choices, such as patio homes, town homes, and apartments ■ Increases the number of new homes at transit density, encouraging effective alternatives to driving ■ Cuts 1 million daily vehicle miles of travel, easing traffic congestion and reducing Biel 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, walling 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 ways — a real benefit when the streets are congested. 2) Scheduled fixed -route services (buses operating on specific streets) that tie into the guideway systems. For most of the region covered by Communities in Motion, there is no bus service for the general population. Community Choices would increase transit services more than 10 fold. It would increase peak hour frequency to 15 minutes, expand Saturday services and add Sunday services. Commuter bus services would be implemented to Elmore, Payette, Gem and Boise counties. A rail or other fixed - guideway service would be implemented between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Boise with a bus rapid transit service between Eagle and Boise. Since most of the growth under Trend would be at densities that could not effectively support scheduled bus services it was not practical to propose a major expansion of services. Under Trend, there would be less than 400 hours of scheduled bus service per day, within the Treasure Valley area. Service would not exist on Sundays and would be greatly reduced on Saturdays. Even on weekdays, the service only would operate 12 hours per day, with a 30 - minute interval in peak hour (6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m.) service. Roadways This section relates to Question #3 on the comment form Roadway improvements will take place on regional corridors. These corridors are described in Chapter 4. Highlights: ■ S.H. 16 will be a major north - south expressway by 2030, connecting Gem County and 1-84 ■ 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 (Cl -.Linden) will be widened and have enhanced access management. It could be an expressway from Caldwell to McDermott Road or further east. ■ 1-84 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 relates to Questions #2 and #3 on the comment form A realistic plan acknowledges financial realities. The federal government requires that the long-range plan include investments that reasonably close to our estimated revenues. Furthermore, we can't claim the entire pot for new projects. At least half the transportation funding will, go into operations and maintenance. So when you look at the corridors in Chapter 47 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 Roadwa "..:, .. . 'V Unfunded $628,600,000 Annual Unfunded $25,144,000 Annual share/household $71 ransit;p f,1; ..a. .:._ .x.,.. Unfunded: $1,098,890,000 nnual Unfunded $43,955,600 nnjual share/household $125 Unfunded $1,727,490,000 Annual Unfunded (25 $69,099,600 ear eriod) 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 Comrnunitier in Motion it :means we are willing to accept Trend. 4 APPENDIX G. Collier's Year -Enol Real Estate Market Review 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 verystrong population growth ratethrough- out the valley and continued historic low unemployment, the market is not only showing strength, but the growth is healthy and sustainable. The office market has remained strong in downtown Boise. Class Avacancies were under 7% throughout 2005. The strong office market is positioned to finish absorbing new condominium space in the mixed-use Bolo development and the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, which is presently over 35% leased, and will be completed mid -year. The retail market can be described as strong and stable, with vacancies staying around 11 %over the last two years. While unanchored shopping centers have experienced some difficulties during 2005, activity remains strong around anchored centers. The Treasure Valley Marketplace at the Karcher interchange in Nampa will continue to be the big retail project in the valley during 2006 and 2007, with major tenants Costco,Target,and Kohl's already committed. The past year was an incredible year for multi -family real estate investment transactions, with over one million square feet and $69 million dollars in consideration. Cap rates for multi -family investment transactions inched down to 6.4% as Boise approached national rates. The investment market demand for industrial, retail, and office properties will continue to be high in 2006, as itwas lastyear with local cap rates still above national rates, butthis margin is rapidly shrinking. One of the most dramatic changes from 2004to 2005 occurred in the industrial market, with vacancies tightening and prices starting to rise in the fourth quarter after two years of stagnant growth. One of the biggest harbingers of 2006 was the announcement of the sale of one of the former 7ilog buildings in Nampa to Micron, a 160,000 squarefoot building which will even further tighten the marketvacancy. 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,ali signs point to an equally good if not even better year. We at Colliers lookforward to working with you again this year to provide you with superior real estate services. The Boise market experienced declines iLl-office vacancies and constant absorption throughout 2005. Vacancies in downtown Boise have finally dropped below the ten percent (8.1% Downtown and 9.5% Downtown Periphery) barrier that it has been flirting with for the last year and a half, and class A direct vacancies have tightened to 6.7%. Leasing activity has been solid in the downtown area and is expected to remain strong in the downtown and selected suburban areas during the first 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. 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 law 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. () `V� JIIA )1 r VA(AN (-'Y 11A] r55�s1>t`� ( 5, _J - Office loveiittsry iiy Submarket 0 Southeast 0 Southwest U West Bench 9% 4'0J°18% ® Northwest 0 Eaale 2% 196 r—I(I'll""'! ® Meridi, DCentral Benchgoj0 1396 w 35% 30% 2596 ❑ Dovrntown Periphery ®Downtown 16% 29% Office Vacancy by Stibrnarkelt $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 Average Office As.k ng Rates by Claris 4- - c `e afi X0`0 FFA' O° dip 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 Downtown 3,351,714 263,044 Downtown Periphery 1,931,440 171,564 Central Bench 1,501,206 155,142 Northwest 157,293 30,629 Southeast 1,045,982 94,930 Southwest 433,063 63,002 West Bench 2,131,175 171,917 Eagle 262,005 65,770 Meridian 956,962 162,974 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). 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. 15,971 12.075 13 "Vacancy Rate includes sublease space Direct Vacancy Rate (excluding sublease space) = 10.096 All Classes $15.19 $15.28 $13.59 Class 1.4' $18.67 $16.27 $15.50 Class 'Fand'c $14.20 $14.04 $13.50 * One '8' building vacancy listed a r $22.00 Vacancy by Submarket 279,015 55 8.3% 183,639 50 9.5% 155,142 57 10.3% 30,629 5 19.5% 94,930 28 9.1% 63,002 19 14.5% 311,782 81 14.6% 65,770 14 25.1% 167,936 30 17.5% SOURCE: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Full Service Asking Rates by Building Ciass $13.30 $16.50 $16.50 1 $15.24 $20.74 $17.67 $15.52 n/a $13.30 $17.67 $15.92 $16.50 n/a $16.13 $20.17 $13.67 n/a $18.20 $16.20 $17.21 $14.26 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Office Services. h a George Iliff wayne5laug ter CralgTribken LewManglos 208.472.2858 208.472.2853 208.472.2842 208.472.2841 �+ ivi t:n�n�rii rvai. With ongoing residential growth expect6d-In the southwest and western Treasure Valley through 2006, retail -oriented commercial real estate will remain active and growing through 2006. Fears of a housing bubble in the Boise residential market have been largely ameliorated and that should secure a certain amount of retail growth over the next several years. 2005 saw the beginning phases of a full overpass and interchange at Karcher Road in the city of Nampa and the development of the 65 -acre Treasure Valley Marketplace northeast of the interchange, 2005 saw the opening of a new Edward's Cinema, P.F. Chang's, Ann Taylor Loft, Joseph A. Banks, and numerous other new tenants as part of the BODO redevelopment in downtown Boise. 2005 also saw the explosion of unanchored strip centers throughout the Treasure Valley. While most have been successful to date, there are warning signs that this segment of the market could encounter some setbacks in 2006. 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 $13.44 in July and currently average $13.70. This is just slightly higher than 2004 year-end estimates of $13,61. Top average asking rents are being seen in the North End of Boise (518.25) 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. i'�:��t�a5 ii��a:�i:,-, � �.-;� ��11sPs:ay�t•4c�t U Garden City II meridian 5%18% � Nampa ® Eagle 4%. L_ - 8% C] west ��� ® Central Ben Bench/Mall 1 01y 25% North End 2% Southwest Q Northeast 11 % 4% El Southeast 13% Retail Vacalicy pjatC:s & Asking Ftents 25.096 $25.00 Vacancy Rate 0Average Rent 20.096 I $20.00 C1 $'15.00 10.0% I F� . �� i7 5.096 $lU.OU 0.095 $5.00 r 6�� �t II ` {, ar�eha t Absorption Ranking by 5ubntaritet 04 Soo rP9 tip �0, od d �hN `hy F`d� �hiy GP,� rfh� GP d P ®ph eST 9d i" � r 1" C� 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. Activity will be the strongest in Canyon County, at the Treasure Valley Marketplace and the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club developments. Including the anchor retailers, over 800,000 square feet of retail will be under construction by year's end. With the success of BoDo in downtown Boise, look for more mixed-use projects to be announced with retail office and residential components. Meridian will have at least two new projects with Kohl's anchoring one of the developments. Expanded DeCQUkber 2005 Retail! Statistics SUBIVARKETINVENTORY Central Bench 1,024,018 SF 135,058 13.2% V,,V,AP] r• 51 ` AVERAGE $10.10 ' 20 Expanded DeCQUkber 2005 Retail! Statistics SUBIVARKETINVENTORY Central Bench 1,024,018 SF 135,058 13.2% LOW $4.00 RENTS HIGH $17.00 AVERAGE $10.10 ' 20 North End 199,010 9,503 4.8% $18.00 $18.50 $18.25 6 Northwest 442,037 98,891 22.4% $8.00 $15.35 $12.91, 7 Southeast 1,294,713 190,857 14.70% $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 Ea le 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 Him 809,397 10,325.051 73,004 9.0% $ 7.00 $8.58 $28.00 $19.74 $12.45 $13.70 15 16.0% 8.0% a� O. 11.6% 10.0% 10.2% 10.2% 8,8% 8.9% Percentage 1lacay't 12.8% 10.9% 11.6% 10.1% 10.8% 11.1 9.9% 9.0% 4,0% 1 9 '9 oa "o"'op 'aQ "1o� `'ate "oma "ao - -$ ro 0o °o o a o ma o a 1, u' s r COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Retail Services Brook Blakeslee Mike grdb� n Lew Goldman 208.472.2835 208.472.2866 208.472.2847 011 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. 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 theValley,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. Industrial Iratre11it)?y hV SubR1a1•i:et Il Eagle 0.79% ❑ Caldwell 8.38% 0 West Bench 18.89%' © Southwest 3.58% ❑ Southeast 9.54% 0 Garden City .3.57°l0 . ID Meridian 10.16% 0 Nampa 19.790,,: 0Airpor 11340v Central Bench Northwest 7.90% 0.16% ❑ Downtown 2.61%. [] North End 0 Downtown 0.22% Periphery 2.94% Average Industrial Asking ,,Rites by Subrneirt at F ¢��{a�0� cQe{tiQ foo hoar yQa ���w0 Cha Ga��pe� tea. o� 35% 30% 2596 2095 15% 10% 5°c 0 0c Industrial Vacancy Rate by Submarket 7. 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, With tightening vacancies and a limited variety of available industrial lease space, speculative building and build -to -suit Airport Central Bench Downtown Downtown Periphery North End Northwest Southeast Southwest West Bench Caldwell Eagle Garden City Meridian Nampa 'All rents quoted as monthly triple -net 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. Decernber Zoos Industrial statistics At A Glance INVENTORY SF ING1011 AVERAGE RENT* (NNN MONTHLY) $0.43 2,607,843 313,700 12.0% -11.0% 1,816,896 113,756 6.3% -5.9% $0.53 600,141 61,412 10.2% 2.5% $0.20 675,810 77,775 11.5% 3.0% $0.36 50,186 15,000 29.9% 29.9% $0.32 37,801 0 0.0% 0.0% n/a 2,193,491 107,707 4.9% 3.0% $0.49 823,906 84,048 10,2% -9.20/a $0.43 4,343,351 283,792 6.5% -0.896 $0.48 1,927,555 117,900 6.1% -1.2% $0.17 182,740 21,064 11.5% -3.0% $0.57 843,200 16,400 1.9% -13.3% $0.35 2,335,668 415,469 17.8% -15.5% $0.55 4,550,688 625,879 13.8% 4.7% $0.35 22,989,276 $0.42 >V Unit: lULLICK4, IN I tKNA I IUNAL COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Industrial Services Steve Foster Devin Pierce Jeremy Wolf 208.472.2834 208.472.2862 208.472.2829 Total Boise MSA (Ada and Canyon counties) investment transaction volume in 2005 maintained a similar level of activity as was witnessed in 2004, Forty-six transactions totaling $169,716,465 in consideration were tracked in 2005, compared with forty-nine and $153,497,710 changing hands during 2004. While overall volume stayed reasonably constant between 2005 and 2004, there was a significant shift in the distribution of investment transactions, with multi -family transaction volume increasing by 72% from 2004 levels. These dramatic gains in multi- family transactions were offset by 22% and 20% declines in transaction dollars among office and retail respectively. Capitalization rates were also level, with rates averaging 8.0% during 2005 compared with rates at 8.1% in 2004, Data gathered by Colliers International from the sale of forty-six investment properties in the Boise MSA during 2005, above $500,000 in consideration, was used to compile the following statistics, Properties that sold with no income stream were excluded from this analysis. 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. 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). -.:I r11 VI I h':1'q„.V I I . . 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. 7nri4 Vaar_�wr1 inia,sr+nor rtif C�3�rimxri� at+un�ea: �ULuerc_� IN 1 ERNATIONAL, LANGSTON & ASSOCIATES, MOUNTAIN STATES APPRA15AL APPENDIX H. Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement Plans GENERAL FUND PARKS and REC'IREATI€ NDEPARTMENT OVERVIEW The City's goal is a park system that features large multi -use community parks located so that no resident will be further than a Haile from a park. These parks will provide a -vide 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 Peads" with the parks as pearls and the trail system the string. Supplementing this system will be neighborhood parks and mini parks maintained by private horneowner groups. PLANNINGBACKGROi1ND 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 rnanagetnent and opei atiorm • July 2002 — City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan - This document provides policies and direction on how the City should grow and develop. June 2043 ­ Park Impact Fee 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 System 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. •ars Minimum 2o,auu equate feet Quarter•m He Small one lot parks designed to provide a small playground and open space within a sueavison_ Development and malntenance Is generally the responsibilily of the land developer and homeower associations. >orhood Park Geven to fifteen acrss One-half mile Small porhv designed for Mn -Supervised, non -organized recreation activites. They have a combination of playground and park activities_ Gaillwatty developed by land developer and maintalned by homeowner associations. runny Parka Fifteen to thirty acres One to two miles Larger parks that provide active and structured recreation opportunities. They have parking, restroom, and picnic facilities, -Urban Parks Mlmnklm fifty acres Eribro City Large parks that have apace for playgroundo,opurts flc1d3, picnic areas. reslrooms, pathways, and specialaed far4ftios such as skate parks, aquatic Iacifilies, tannis courts. or indoor recreallon facillties. 12 S MOOD PARKS URBAN 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 i acre Chateau Park 6-75 arras Developed in 2802, grass areas and playground equipment 6th Street Park 4 acres Grass areas and playground equipment Total 10 3/4 acres Storey Park 1 b 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 16,5 acres New park with playground cquipmenl, tennis courts, ball fields and picnic facilities "total 52 apses Meridian Settlers Park 26 acres devip New park with playground, gall fields and picnic facilities 32 acres undevlp Park with be 5a acres, currently half is developed Total 26 acres Grand Total .T5 acres Fuller Park 25 acres Park land owned and operated by the Western Ada Settlers Park 1/2 acre Recreation District Storey Park Swimming Pool 1 acre located within Storey Park Private Neighborhood Parks 50+ acres Small parks owned & operated by homeowners assns City Gott 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. 13 PROJECTS IN PROCESS AND CAI'CI'AL 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. Door itiorls City $$25,000 to purchase park land and $70,000 of time and labor are included in park costs and to develop park laud, Exprxiod cuyt,s to finish shown later in this report as revenue. on-going projects and new projects are budgeted PROjECTSPROuss Developed■ Yea iclassIfIcation No me Size NEIGHBORHOOD Autumn Faire 7 aorss ■ $+390,000 Located in _ku-t—umn Fair® subdivision, parcel provided by PARKS developer. Tha park Is scheduled k, be curnpluiad in 2000. Kiwanis Park 9 acres $630.000 Close to Mt View High Schnnt, completed in partnership with ftbreakers Kiveanis. The City will provide on-going Ww0. is valr; maintenance and develop the park irrigation lake and $76A00 irrigation System and green up the Park_ The Kiwanis Club $277,004 will build the restroom and shelter buildings. Champion Park 6 acres $420.000 Located In the Park Stone subdivision near Eagle Fid and East Ustick Fload. Completion is acheduled for 2005. Police Station Park 5 acres $350,000 Located west of the Meridian Police Station on 5709,600 Watortower Ave. Slated for ON training Facility and remote cat radag tracking, COMMUNITY PARKS Lachsa Falls Park 30 acres `&2,100,000 Located along Ten Mlle Road between McMillian Road and Chinden Boulevard, Scheduled for completion in 2010 McDermott 30 acres $2,100,000 Located near the northeast corner of Cherry Lane and Cherry Ln Park WDermatt Road- This Is in the 01(ya Impact area rather (Borvp property) then In the City. City sewer and water are not currently avallabio so develgxnent hair not i itartad- The park is slated to be the site of the Meridian Lions Rodeo Grounds ftim Station Pack and an ice-skating link. URBAN Settlers Park 58 aures $5,510.000 58 acre park located at the corner of Meridian Road and 817®,04@ Ustick. The park development has been divided into two phaseA. Tlw rlrtA phase 113 cofrlplete, the second phase is scheduled to be completed in 20016. The second phase Autumn =akeYas will be rornplstFxl by Ivkvidlan Youth Adventure Island at Settlers Park $1.000,000 Handicapped accessible- playground located in Settlers park sawom phase I of the playground is complete, final completion is scheduled for 2006, 3aplars Pane Yea 9Y.600.Wo $1,2.91,300 $=low 13652,69} 55410.000 Ww0. is valr; Yes $76A00 $d7?.Wa $277,004 $836,60[1 etar deck Park Yee 5709,600 551AAD $750,800 lite{ V,w PerkYM$11 040 $149.200 9x90844 3420,006 ftim Station Pack Yes $10.Wo 817®,04@ $17D.o00 S350.0m Autumn =akeYas $11 ,000 $103.000 sawom 3+150.000 Lar�Lga Fates Yes 3147,000 $51 D,000 $481,000 $4811=0 8461,(100 :x2.100,000 MaDwmoll • Chany Ldrn PAn Yes $403,400 S10,000 $wow $871),000 $674.Wo $670000 '92159MW ro tenniol park $75,000 $75.0W S40" Park 32e6.R95 $W01W 93061865 00wmawn Trees $4aao 946.600 7,.5 We park wnprnldiecl Yas Va7,940, 5707.500 Park Lard Pwcha4a Ain0 Yet 821$0,000 S,T OM& $250,wo MO.= $?50,000 S254.rU $1,450.0100 Da FWP Park Lard Yes 67401600 $700,010, 3700.000 $2,100.000 Park aepaltm&9 Maw 83 k3ioq 5690.000 5650.069 Rea,eat:on Comer Yes $SW,tOW 5500A0o Papr4ray Landecaein0 $75:000 $75.000 TOTALS 55.619.194300 WNBgA,ppD UA $192rTJq.S The parkland purehase fund is to accumhlare mlincy to purchase park land as it come:; available. The $250,000 equates to about 10 acres. Starting in fiscal year 2008 $700.000 per year is budgeted it) develop 10 acres of parte land per year. 14 FUNDING There are three sources ()f funding available for park capital clevelrrprnent. general re.::entre from the governmental activities, park irrlpac°t fees, and partnerships and donations. Panic Impact tees are collecled 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 them. 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 tees 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 year2004, and will most likely do the same in fiscal year 2005. The calculation of the fee will he aaddre5secl annually or at a minimum every other year and the amount may be changed. General fund revenue has to come from the gencral tax funds used try 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%n by donations. Donations come from developers, partnerships with community organizations, or volunteer fund raising efforts. IMPACT FEES $1,146,069 $27,851 $347,915 $481,090 $773,554 3968,564 $3,742,443 DONATIONS $60,000 $82,962 $111.816 $323108 $567,000 $228,391 $399,500 $1,772,771 Based on projections for sales of residential housing permits and the park 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, $435,7(x) for Kiwanis Park, $960,000 for Loehsa Falls PAL C3t;AW0 7pTRL $8,982,W soccer fields, $260,800 for Champion Park., $157,500 donation of 7.5 acre parcel, and $340,00 for the do- favi Ety and remote car racing track near the .police station. The capital improvement plan for the same time period is $14,201,-431. This rneans 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. PRIORITIES The Parks and Recreation 17epar tmertt' S goal is 4 developed acres of parkland per 1000 population. At the end of fiscal year 2004 the Cite wlis 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 ache per capita goal. CRALLENGE� 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 -tithe purchases, not on-going operating, expenses. GRANDTOTAL 874,201,431 16 977,447 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 0524,300, If the City were at its goal acreage of 4 per 1€101), assurtting 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 pur:Nue donations and partnership agreements as well allyl grant funding that might be available_ It is almost imperative that donations anis i.nipact fees pay for park dc.vclopntent while general fund dollars are reserved for the on-going mainte:n<ance, and operations of the developed parks. 16 .,TOTAL atlmaOedAesldeatial 2,000 9.800 ;F B3_ 1467 1,077 1,028 Hnusmg Permits Peek Impact Fee 5667 8687 ff1117 S6fi7 $667 Ipf1PACT BEES W�$!639,988 $i,=,792 $i.�34M 51,200,8` .,1'�22,56i g97 �T6 71436 $68 fi B 6a 5EtJ'+ $7526484 OONATIOAIS ®MUM 00,60 U4.104, DD 1, DO _ 7D.Dr,6ADB�1 DGD d 71 I SB3 GENERALFUND 182, 4,3 _ - _ $4.081,7U $4 391792 PRIORITIES The Parks and Recreation 17epar tmertt' S goal is 4 developed acres of parkland per 1000 population. At the end of fiscal year 2004 the Cite wlis 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 ache per capita goal. CRALLENGE� 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 -tithe purchases, not on-going operating, expenses. GRANDTOTAL 874,201,431 16 977,447 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 0524,300, If the City were at its goal acreage of 4 per 1€101), assurtting 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 pur:Nue donations and partnership agreements as well allyl grant funding that might be available_ It is almost imperative that donations anis i.nipact fees pay for park dc.vclopntent while general fund dollars are reserved for the on-going mainte:n<ance, and operations of the developed parks. 16 HRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW The City of Meridian hired its first full -tithe employee in 1977. By the end of 2005 the Meridian Fire Department will have 47 full time employees. In the 1950's a rural. district was formed to serve the area outside the city limits. The rural district and the City .conibilled forces to serve a 54 square mile _jurisdiction that stretches from the south channel of the Boise river to the north, Labe Hazel to the south, Cloverdale Road to the cast and McDermott Road to the west. The rural fire district taxes pity for approximately 25% Of tlic with city taxes paying for 750. 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 a fourth one planned to come on line in the fall of '2005, Fire Station #1 is a three bay fire station and includes the administrative offices.. Fire . Stations #2, 0, and #4 are two bay stations. Fire Station #I is staffed with 12 firefighters, stations 92 and 43 have !) firefighters while plans for station #4 call for a staff of 12. The increase in staff for station #4 is due to the City's plan to st,ut adding a paramedic to each shift. Current cost to build a new fare 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 $1.50,000. Land for Fire Station #4 was donated by tate developers of Thousand Springs. The cost of a fire engine is around $500.000. Fire Station #2 Fire Station # 3 1982 Pierce Engine 1986 Pierce Engine 1993 Pierce Engine 2000 Pierce Engine 2002 Pie rec Engine 2004 Pierce Enaine 2401 N. Ten Mile Road 3545 N Locust Road 17 Transfer to Fire Truck Fund ' - $100,000 • :.., ..::$1,090,000 2006 Command Vehicle $45,000 Replace Vehicle $35,000. SSQ.OGO 2007 Engine #4 $425,000 $420, 2008 Station 5 $i,D50,DDD Engine #5 $436 D0D $1`,485;000 2009 3ation #6 Land $130,500 Engine #6 $460,000 Repjace Englne $460,000,• $i,D0,5ty0 2010 Station#6 $1,115,000 Replace Engine — - $460,000,' :. _ ::$i;575606 2012 Ladder Truck 2014 Training Tower 2015 2016 2017 201 a 2020 Replace Engine $.550,000 $100", 00 GRANO 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 $1,000,000. As the table below show the cost of providing fire and first response medical services has increased steadily every year, between 25 to 30 percent not including the capital cost. "Che 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 fire 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 rural fire: district for the cost of the fire stations, Note: Only two weeks of staffing cost for Station #4 wore budgeted in fiscal year 2005. However a full year of personnel cost has been added to the table above to illustrate what the actual cost will be. 18 PRIORITES. Decisions to add stations are Nmecl on an area's population., number of calls.. and respmse Littre.. The goal is to keep response time under four to rive minutes. CHALLEN_OES 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 aml?ulan+ce service will have to respond in addition to the Meridian. Fire Department. With the lowering of IVlodicare/Medicaid rates and..escalaLing inudical 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. 19 041 ICE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW In .lune of 2002 the Meridian Police Department moved from their tiny, cramped building and mobile office trailer into a $4,000,0(X) 30,00 square foot station located at 1401 E 'WVatertower. Currently the Police Department has 69 full time. and 3 part time employees. 56 of those positions are police officers. The building was designed fax growth and no additional construction is planned. FUNDING Like the Fire Department the .Police Department has experienced growth although the percent increase.-, have not been as steep. Future capital need~ wit[ he vehicies 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 debt 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; individuals and will probably hecome 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 S-500)0- 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 make the building tax exefnpt 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. 20 CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDA110 CERTIF1CATF,S OF PARTICIPATION, SERfES 2001(LAW ENFORCEMENT Dated: August 1, 2001 Senal rvlaturities: 2002-2010 Tents Simun Des: Payment Date Pdnci al Were-( ToteJ Valance Outstanding Due MIS Interest Rate Principal Amount Six -months Interest $4,000,000 1-rTb 2.002 so S82.562.50 S92-562-50 $4,OOt1,000 7002 1 -Aug 2002 $335.000 $82.562.50 9417-562.50 $3,665,000 2002 3.5(X)4' 5335.000 55,862-50 I -Seb 2003 sa 576.700.00 576.700.X0 $1661,000 2003 $0.00 -Aug 2003 $345.000 $76.700.00 $421-700.00 $3,)20,0(10 2003 4,000% 3345,000 56.900.00 1 -Feil 2004 $0 $69,1100.0(1 $W,800,00 $3.320,000 2007 50.00 I -Aug 2004 $360,000 $,69,800.00 S 24,80O.00 $2,960,000 2004 4,W),% 5360.000 $7,200,00 1-r'cb 2005 $(M $'12121600,00 .$62,600.00 52,960.000 2005 $0.00 I -Aug 2005 $375,000 $62,600.00 5437,6WOO $2,585.000 2005 4.400% $375,000 $7,500.00 1 -Feb 2006 50 535,100.00 $$55.100.00 $2,383,000 2006 50,00 I -Aug 2006 $390,000 '055.1(10.00 $445, I ()..00 $2,195,000 2006 4.040', $390.000 $7,800,00 1 -Feb 2007 $(1 $41,.3(10.(X) $47,300.00 $2,195.000 2007 $0.00 I -Aug 2007 5405,000 $47,300.00 $452,300,00 $1,790,000 2007 4.(M% $405,000 $8.100.00 I -Feb 2008 $0 539700.00 $39,20().00 $1,790,000 2(x)8 $0,00 I -Aug 2008 $420,000 $39,200.00 $459,200.00 $1.3721,(10[1 2008 4.250% $420.0(k) $8,925.00 1 -Feb 2009 $0 530275.00 $30,275-00 $1.370,0(() 2009 so.00 1 -Aug 2009 $4400X)0 $30.275.(X1 $470..275.00 01730.(= 2009 4,250+`/0 $440,000 $9.350,00 I -Feb 2010 SO 32().925.00 $20,925.m $930,000 2010 50.00 I -Aug 2010 $455,000 $20.925.00 $475,925.40 3475,000 2010 4.500% $455-000 $10.217.50 1-I'cb 2011 s0 St0,697.50 SIO.687.50 $475,000 2011 $Wx) l -Atilt, 2011 $i4750M) $10,687,50 $495,68750 $o 2011 4.5(IOCm 5475,()00 510,07.50 WOO $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $4.000.00() $990.300.00 51,990,300.00 $4,000.000 $82,562.50 CITY AI.iMINISTRAT7ON OVERVIEW The City has several administrative and support positions. These include Planning and Zoning, Public Works and the Building DepartmenE, Finance, Billing, Information Technology, the Mayor's Office, the City Clerk, City Attorney's Office, Hurnan 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 48.000 square feet. The City's goal is to Deep 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 cost 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