Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-16 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 16, 2025 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Brian Garrett Commissioner Jessica Perreault Commissioner Matthew Stoll Commissioner Jared Smith Chairperson Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Sam Rust Commissioner Matthew Sandoval ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Commissioner Stoll, Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 1. Approve Minutes of the October 2, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Borough Village (H-2025-0037) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., located at 1250 E. Everest St. Continued to November 20, 2025 Applicant Requests Continuance A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (Inst. #105152707 Westborough Square) to update the use (from office to residential) and development plan for the site and enter into a new agreement for the subject property. B. Request: Rezone of 3.04 acres of land from the L-O to the R-15 zoning district C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of three (3) buildable lots and three (3) common/other lots on 2.81 acres of land. D. Request: Planned Unit Modification to the approved PUD (CUP-05-027) to update the development plan for the site from six (6) office buildings to 18 multi-family residential dwelling units and two (2) single-family residential dwelling units. E. Request: Director Approval of alternative compliance to UDC 11-3B-7C.1c to not provide street buffer landscaping along E. Chinden Blvd., adjacent to the site due to the location of the 10-foot wall constructed by ITD with the roadway expansion. Motion to continue to November 20, 2025 made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Perreault. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 3. Public Hearing for Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center (H-2025-0043) by Ada County Sheriff's, located at 2568 E. Lenark St. Approved Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0043 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate a quasi-public (Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training Center) in three (3) existing industrial tenant spaces on 11.13 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Motion to approve made by Commissioner Smith, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 4. Public Hearing for Meridian LUXE (H-2025-0035) by Mary Wall, located at 2350 W. McMillan Rd. Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0035 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the future land use designation from Office to Commercial. B. Request: Rezone from the L-O zoning to the C-C zoning district on 5.99 acres of land. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to create a new DA with a new concept plan. D. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Service Storage Facility in the C-C zoning district. Motion to recommend approval to City Council made by Commissioner Perreault, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher 5. Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT) (H-2025-0045) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located City Wide Recommend Approval to City Council Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0045 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT) to Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024) and the Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024), Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees Study (September 16, 2022) and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein, Amend the "List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference" including minor cleanup and ensure the most current adopted plans and studies are referenced and Amend "Appendix A. Glossary of Terms" to add//modify language. Motion to recommend approval City Council made by Chairperson Lorcher, Seconded by Commissioner Stoll. Voting Yea: Commissioner Garrett, Commissioner Perreault, Commissioner Stoll, Commissioner Smith, Chairperson Lorcher ADJOURNMENT 8:00 P.M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view upcoming Public Hearing Notices, visit https://apps.meridiancity.org/phnotices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 16, 2025. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 16, 2025, was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chairman Maria Lorcher. Members Present: Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Jared Smith, Commissioner Brian Garrett, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Matthew Stoll. Members Absent: Commissioner Matthrew Sandoval and Commissioner Sam Rust. Others Present: Tina Lomeli, Kurt Starman, Caleb Hood, Nick Napoli and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE _X Brian Garrett X Jessica Perrault Matthew Sandoval X Matthew Stoll Sam Rust X Jared Smith X Maria Lorcher - Chairman Lorcher: All right. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October 16th, 2025. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who are present this evening are at City Hall. We may have a participant on Zoom, but he can join us if -- if and when he arrives. We also have staff from the city attorney and the city clerk's office, as well as the city's planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the meeting. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with roll call. Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Lorcher: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. There are no changes to tonight's agenda, but please note that Borough Village has requested a continuance. So, if there is anyone here tonight to testify on this application we will not be taking public testimony. Could I get a motion to adopt tonight's agenda? Smith: So moved. Stoll: Second. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 2 of 42 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adopt tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the October 2, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Lorcher: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which is to approve the minutes of the October 2nd Planning and Zoning meeting. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Stoll: Move to approve. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and -- and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Lorcher: At this time I would briefly like to explain the public -- the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called only once during public testimony. The clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You may come to the microphones in Chambers or you will be unmuted on Zoom. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on screen and our clerk will help you run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on the behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will -- we will invite any others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may come forward in Chambers. If on Zoom you may press the raise hand button. Or if you are only listening on the phone press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer and a telephone, please be sure to mute those extra devices so we don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 3 of 42 questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully make a final decision or recommendations to City Council. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Borough Village (H-2025-0037) by Engineering Solutions, LLP., located at 1250 E. Everest St. A. Request: Modified Development Agreement to the existing development agreement (Inst. #105152707 Westborough Square) to update the use (from office to residential) and development plan for the site and enter into a new agreement for the subject property. B. Request: Rezone of 3.04 acres of land from the L-O to the R-15 zoning district C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of three (3) buildable lots and three (3) common/other lots on 2.81 acres of land. D. Request: Planned Unit Modification to the approved PUD (CUP-05- 027) to update the development plan for the site from six (6) office buildings to 18 multi-family residential dwelling units and two (2) single-family residential dwelling units. E. Request: Director Approval of alternative compliance to UDC 11- 3B-7C.1 c to not provide street buffer landscaping along E. Chinden Blvd., adjacent to the site due to the location of the 10-foot wall constructed by ITD with the roadway expansion. Lorcher: With that in mind we are going to open Item No. 20 -- or, excuse me, No. 2, Item No. 2025-0037, for Borough Village has requested continuance. Madam Clerk, do we have a suggested date for that continuance? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have November 20th. Lorcher: May I get a motion to continue the application? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I move to continue Item No. H-2025-0037 to the date of November 20th. F Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 4 of 42 Perreault: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue Borough Village for November 20th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center (H- 2025-0043) by Ada County Sheriff's, located at 2568 E. Lenark St. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate a quasi-public (Ada County Sheriffs Office/Training Center) in three (3) existing industrial tenant spaces on 11.13 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Lorcher: Item No. 3 on the agenda 2025-0043 is for a conditional use permit for the Ada County Sheriff to operate a training -- training office and training center and we will begin with the staff report. Nick. Napoli: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next item on the agenda is the conditional use permit for the Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center. So, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a quasi- public use in the form of the Ada County Sheriffs Office Training Center in three existing industrial tenant spaces on 11.13 acres of land in I-L zoning district. The site is located at 2568 East Lanark Street and as shown on the screen the existing zoning is I-L or light industrial and the FLUM designation is industrial. The purpose of the industrial designation is to allow for a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex space and some ancillary office uses. So, this is the existing site plan as it currently sits and the Ada County Sheriff's Office intends to use this space for offices, training space and a gym. The narrative indicates that the addition of this space would allow -- would allow for additional training to keep up with demand for new recruits and continued training. While the proposed use is not what is envisioned in the I-L zoning district, staff believes it provides an expansion of a vital service to the community near a major state highway. A minimum of one off-street parking space is required per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant is proposing to exceed this parking requirement by adding 77 new parking stalls to the property and they will be pulling a permit for this in the next stages if approved tonight and, then, access is existing off of East Lanark Street, an industrial collector. There are currently six curb cuts that lead to access to different parts of the building. The applicant is not proposing to change any of these access points that were approved back in 2006. So, staff is recommending approval of this application, has not received any written testimony and I will stand for your questions. Lorcher: Is the applicant here? Would you like to come up and speak? Hi. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 5 of 42 Navest: Good evening. My name is Matt Navest. I'm a lieutenant for the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Would you like my home address or my work address? Lorcher: Your home address -- oh, no. You know what, let's stay with work. You don't need your home address. Navest: Work address would be 7200 Barrister Drive in Boise. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Anything else you would like to add to Nick's presentation? Navest: That's it. He did a fine job. Lorcher: Okay. And so this is a new training center for your staff? Navest: Correct. Not only for our academies -- we hold three academies a year, but also for our in-service training and continuing education for our deputies and professional staff. Lorcher: And how come we use the term quasi-training or whatever it was? Quasi -- does that mean like the public can't go or is it because that -- everybody is part of the or the staff? Napoli: Madam Chair, it's a good question. So, yes, in our code really police stations, those type of precincts, those type of things, do fall into what we call a quasi-public or public space, because technically it is a public space, but there is restrictions to that that can be required by the Ada County Sheriff, so -- Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the sheriff's department? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. Thank you. Just out of curiosity. Curious. So, this says the actual space is kind of talked about as office and training space and gym. I'm curious what kind of -- like envisioning the training space, is there any outdoor training envisioned? Is there anything around that or what kind of training are we talking about? Navest: So, a majority of the training that will be done at the site will be classroom and, then, also mat room, so defensive tactics, arrest and control techniques and, then, we also have a modular wall system that we can create different floor plans with that we can teach like building search and interior building search. We can also use the parking lot to conduct like traffic stop scenarios and that type of training. Lorcher: Okay. Anything else? All right. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 6 of 42 Navest: Thank you. Lorcher: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody who would wish to testify on this application? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Mikaela Rowland. Lorcher: Mikaela, did you want to comment on the Ada County Sheriff? No? Okay. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: And you have concluded your comments, so you are good before we close the public hearing? Okay. May I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Smith: So moved. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for the Ada County Sheriff's Training Center. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I think anytime we offer or make available space for law enforcement to be able to improve their -- their job and work with the public is always a welcome thing, especially here in the City of Meridian. So, you know, it seems like a good spot. There is plenty of room. They are taking three different retail spaces to -- like he said to be able to modulate it to offer different kinds of scenarios. I don't see any challenges with this application. Anybody else would like to comment? Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: After considering all staff and applicant and public testimony I move to approve -- I move to recommend approval -- sorry. No. I move to -- Lorcher: It's a CUP. Smith: Sorry. Lorcher: You are good. Smith: Start over. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to approve File No. H-2025-0043 as presented in the staff report. 10 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 7 of 42 Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2025-0043. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Meridian LUXE (H-2025-0035) by Mary Wall, located at 2350 W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the future land use designation from Office to Commercial. B. Request: Rezone from the L-O zoning to the C-C zoning district on 5.99 acres of land. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to create a new DA with a new concept plan. D. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Service Storage Facility in the C-C zoning district. Lorcher: Okay. Moving right along. Item 4 on the agenda is application number H- 2025-0035 for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a rezone, a development agreement modification and a conditional use permit for Meridian LUXE on McMillan Road and we will begin with the staff report. Napoli: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, next item on the agenda is the Comprehensive Plan map amendment, rezone, conditional use permit and development agreement modification for Meridian LUXE. The applicant requests a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change the future land use designation from office to commercial zone from L-O to the C-C zoning district across 5.99 acres of land. A development agreement modification to remove the property from a current DA to create a new DA that includes a new concept plan and elevations and a conditional use permit for self-service storage facility in the C-C zoning district. The site is located at 2350 West McMillan Road. As shown on the screen the existing zoning is L-O or a limited office designation and the FLUM is office. This is the rezone exhibit. So, the Comprehensive Plan defines office land use designation as a low impact business area. The uses allowed in this typically include professional offices, technology and resource centers. Ancillary commercial uses may also be considered. The Comprehensive Plan also defines a commercial land use designation as a full range of uses that serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses include retail, restaurants, personal and professional service and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. This is the original -- the overall original concept plan back from 2003 as a part of the Kelly Creek Subdivision. All the residential out here is depicted -- has been constructed and this was what was contemplated for the site that's in question tonight. F-11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 8 of 42 Here is a little bit more of a closer image for that. So -- I apologize. So, it was anticipated to be 37,000 square feet of office space across ten buildings. So, this is what the previous concept plan had envisioned for this property and why it was given the L-O zoning back in 2003. So, the proposed concept plan, the applicant is proposing 18 commercial multi-tenant units across four buildings, totaling 24,336 square feet of commercial space on the western portion of the site and 41 privately owned storage condos or a self-service storage facility across five buildings totaling 54,000 square feet on the eastern portion of the site. The applicant has indicated that the primary uses for the commercial buildings is intended to be flex space. However, the C-C zoning district does allow other uses in that as well. Due to the proximity to the residential -- the existing residential surrounding the property hours of operation will be restricted from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. for all uses on the site as required in the UDC. In addition, the applicant is proposing to sell the storage portion of the site as individual units, which will require a short plat at a later time if approved. Staff is evaluating the western portion of the site using commercial parking standards and not the flex space parking standards. The commercial parking standards are one space per five -- every 500 square feet of gross floor area, which requires 49 spaces and the applicant has provided -- provided 55 which exceeds that. If it was the flex space standards it would have been one space per one thousand square feet, instead of 500, which would have only required about 25 spaces, which is why we went with the more restrictive parking in this case, because there is -- the users aren't chosen at this time. So, while the parking exceeds the minimum, staff is concerned -- this may not be enough for high intensity uses. With 18 tenant spaces that's roughly three spaces per tenant, sufficient for low office or retail uses, but inadequate for uses like restaurants, drive-throughs or indoor recreation. So, to help mitigate these concerns staff recommend restricting the following high intensity uses within the development, restaurants, drive-throughs, indoor arts, entertainment and recreation facilities. This approach is intended to enhance the site's long-term viability for ensuring tenants have adequate access for both customers and employees. Access is proposed off of McMillan Road through a single curb cut. This -- this access will require a City Council waiver. So, City Council will be deciding whether to approve that access point or not, because it is to an arterial roadway. With this they also are proposing the extension of Lolo Pass as a form of a commercial drive aisle connect with the access off McMillan Road, which is required and was contemplated in the original concept plan for the development back in 2003. It did show that extending, just not in the same location. The location did change over some of the phases of the residential phases. So, ACHD anticipates 77 trips per day for the storage and 55 for the multi- tenant commercial. The total anticipated trip generation is approximately 132 trips per day, which is considered adequate according to ACHD's standards and according to ACHD McMillan can handle the additional traffic that this would create. The applicant is providing a 25 foot landscape buffer to all existing residential uses. After the site -- or after inspecting the site staff observed the existing fence on the north boundary of the site. It's approximately four feet in height. I couldn't measure it exactly precisely, but I observed and it's not a six foot fence it does not appear and appears to be closer to the four foot in height. As a result of this staff is -- staff is recommending a four foot berm with trees that touch within five years of planting on top of the berm. Since the staff report, however, staff did talk with the applicant and the applicant did propose 12 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 9 of 42 potentially putting up an eight foot fence with vegetation meeting the UDC standards instead of the berm. Staff is open to this approach, but would like to hear public testimony tonight and what the commission thinks about potentially changing that condition in the staff report. So, staff is recommending approval with conditions, a new development agreement and provisions and has received written testimony from Laurel Bower with concerns about increased traffic, safety, noise, parking and decreased property values. In addition we received written testimony from Scott Meeks, Ora Cortez, with concerns regarding increased traffic, lack of parking within the plan that may spill out into the residential, noise, hours of operation and if approved they request a ten foot sound wall on the north boundary and hours of operation to be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. And I will stand for any questions at this time. Lorcher: I do have a few questions. So, the city is suggesting a four foot berm with trees on that northern boundary and is that to keep that four foot fence there as well? That's in addition to the four foot fence that's already there? Napoli: Madam Chair, that is correct. Lorcher: Okay. And then -- but the developer is suggesting an eight foot fence with no -- with no landscaping; is that correct? Napoli: It would still meet the UDC requirements for landscaping for -- for trees that touch within five years of planting. Correct, that would still be a requirement. Lorcher: Okay. So, they are suggesting an eight foot fence -- Napoli: In lieu of the berm. Lorcher: -- in place of the four foot fence, but still trees to have a inter-connecting canopy within five years. Napoli: Yes, ma'am. That's the conversation we had. Correct. Lorcher: Okay. Does anybody -- other Commissioners have questions for Nick before we invite the application -- applicant to come forward? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? Jones: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. It says I'm Mary Hall, but I'm not. Mary's back -- Mary Hall is back there. Lorcher: Okay. Jones: But I'm going to stand. My name is Natalie Jones and the address is 2205 Mace Road, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. F13] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 10 of 42 Jones: And I want to stand and first say thanks to Nick. He's been exceptional to work with. So, we are really grateful for how that process has gone so far. Much of what I have put in this presentation Nick has covered, so we will move through some of these slides quickly. Meridian LUXE is the development we are proposing tonight. I stand on behalf -- on behalf of the land owner. Simply a table of contents for Commissioners if you decide to go back through this presentation. Our project summary, as Nick stated, this is why I'm standing here tonight. We have got a -- we are requesting a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from office to commercial. We are looking for a rezone from limited office, L-O, to community business district C-C, while also requesting conditional use permit for the proposed storage and also a development agreement modification. As Nick shared, this is the future land use map. Our project is outlined and highlighted there in yellow and I wanted to put this on the screen to show the commercial and the office as already designated for -- on this future land use map on both sides of our property. So, you can see quite clearly that there is commission -- excuse me -- commercial and office already book ending sort of both sides of where we are. What I wish I would have put on this slide or the next slide is actually a -- an aerial view so you could see that our piece is actually the only undeveloped piece that remains on McMillan here on this stretch. So, it will be a beautiful thing to finish up what's been happening there on McMillan. So, we are excited. So, the proposed change to the future land use map designation will expand options for development here in Meridian. As Nick shared, the existing designation is office, which includes professional office, technology and resource centers. Our hope to move to the commercial will create a greater range of what we are allowed to put in those spaces, including retail, personal and professional services office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. I think this slide is important. I did a search on commercial real estate marketing platforms and you can see the slide on the left is a search in all of Meridian, Idaho, for lease for office or co-working space. So, every red flag you see there is an available current listing for office or co-working space. The slide to the right is the same search, obviously, again, in Meridian for anything for lease for flex and there is one current listing. That lease -- or that listing I don't think actually has been constructed yet. I think it's Building B and it looks beautiful. It looks like an amazing project. But if someone is searching for flex in Meridian there is clearly some limited availability out there. Here is the zoning map. Again, you can see us right there in the middle with that L-O designation and, then, again, as -- I think this ties in well to the slide that we were just on and it shows where the office is in comparison to our project. So, there is office around us and there is office that's available. So, we don't believe that there is necessarily a shortage of office, which is why we like the idea of moving this to more of a commercial and flex opportunity. So, the proposed change to the zoning designation will, again, as I mentioned expand options for development. The limited office is for office centers and adaptive reuse of residential structures with limited hours of operation. The community business district, which is our hope will allow us again to include self-storage facilities, flex space and retail and more. So, what Meridian needs. I don't pretend to stand up here and tell you as the Commissioners what the city needs, but in my observation what we could bring to Meridian that would satisfy some of the needs are, one, neighborhood retail. We know that Meridian is growing rapidly and I think there is a demand for walkable, like I said, neighborhood F14] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 11 of 42 retail. So, what we have seen in the vacancy in commercial real estate is less than one percent for retail, which tells us it's booming and there is an unmet need. We could create more retail and we could see that improve the community and, then, also last mile logistics or flex. Again we can go back to a couple of slides prior to this where there is no flex. There is no option for these small businesses. We will talk about the storage units in a minute, but you can't use storage for some of these small business purposes. So, there is a need for flex for someone who has a small business and wants a storefront, also needs a warehouse and perhaps can't go and get an industrial space in addition to office. So, that's what the flex would provide here. Expected users for the flex portion of this development. Here are a couple that I know recently have gone into flex spaces, kitchen tune up, interior design. This is a popular one where a storefront or a showroom would be beautiful to bring customers in. They see the furniture that's available, but behind that front presentation space is a warehouse where that business owner could, then, store the furniture that comes in and out before staging a space. Beard Wax manufacture, some of these very small manufacturing businesses, Clean Users, Comic Books and Games, again, someplace with a beautiful storefront that invites people to come in, but a place in the back for not only an office, but for storage and warehousing. Wood floor installer, showroom, warehouse and promotional products. So, all of these small businesses would really benefit and these are exactly those businesses that are looking currently for flex space. The conditional use permit requests for storage condos, the integration of these luxury -- I think that's important to mention. These are luxury stories -- excuse me -- storage condos. These aren't your typical 90 square foot storage units that you have seen a lot here in Idaho, but it does fit the zoning intent. It benefits the community. We know it will be well managed and beautiful. The storage specifically will be owner occupied within this commercial development. It serves local businesses and hobbyists and contractors. So, like I said, you can't run a business out of these storage units. However, those -- those that just need storage or perhaps someone who has boats or cars or specific hobbies, this would be a perfect solution for them if they don't have enough room in their homes. You -- you understand. And it's architecturally integrated with the surrounding uses and the flex that we are bringing. Those will marry really nicely together, which we will see in the renderings coming up. So, why we think this conditional use fits in Meridian? It is low traffic, which we will talk about. I understand the neighbors are concerned and we will address that for sure. It's low impact and it will be quiet operations. It does support small business, local ownership and investment and, then, it will be visually appealing. Nick shared this. This was the 2003 approved site plan. This is the 2025 proposed site plan. Nick showed another version of this. So, the flex is to the west. The storage is to the east. So, traffic -- I imagine we will have some -- some others stand up and talk about this and I'm happy to address what I know about it. So, Nick shared that the 132 daily trips that was shared in the traffic study, 77 of those were attributed to the storage units, but I think what's really important to point out is that that rate assumes an average storage -- storage unit size, as I mentioned, of those small 90 square foot units. So, if we put the 90 square foot units into the square footage we are proposing for this storage project we would actually have 550 units. So, what we are proposing is simply 41 larger luxury storage condos. So, if we -- if we run the math off the number of units, then, we actually get down to six trips per day. So, I know sometimes that's -- it feels 15 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 12 of 42 scary to have maybe storage, but if you really look at these numbers and imagine 41 individual owners, hopefully, that eases a little concern about the traffic coming in and out. They won't be the 550 units that are used for this initial calculation. Hopefully that makes sense. Parking. Nick did mention that we have met the standard and I think 49 spots were required. As it sits right now there are 55 parking spaces, but this site plan does allow us to adjust, so we could reduce the drive aisle width. We can move that center parking island to the south and, then, I have highlighted a couple of places where we could put additional parallel parking. Again, I understand the neighbor's concern. They don't want overflow into the residential. We don't want that either. So, we could potentially put another seven or eight parking spots here, which only increases the delta between what's required and what we are able to provide here. So, again, we have got the opportunity here to create more parking. Privacy and compatibility. Nick mentioned this as well. We did talk and go through an option. We would like to replace the existing five foot fence. We know it's five feet. With a ten foot fence -- or, excuse me, an eight foot fence. Sorry. Didn't mean to scare anybody. An eight foot fence. So, that would be the buffer between the residential and the commercial. I believe it would end on the east side where the pathway would connect. I don't have a specific slide on the pathway, but we did also incorporate the ten foot path on the front of this project as is required. So, we are excited about that. Here are the renderings. This is what we want the site to look like. So, these two in particular are on the flex. The larger photo would be from within the parking lot. So, this is looking into these spaces. You can see they are quite lovely. And, then, the picture on the bottom would be from McMillan. So, again, it definitely has that retail feel. It's got those man doors that, obviously, welcome neighbors to come in and, then, the slide here -- this is the storage, so you can see that they marry again nicely with the flex you are continuing with those colors and those materials. Both of these images are from McMillan. So, this is what you would see if you were looking onto the project. So, project summary. City benefits. Hopefully I have touched on most of the concerns that have -- that you Commissioners may have, as well as the neighbors, but we really believe that this project meets the growth needs for the city. We think it drives the local economy. It does support small businesses. It creates jobs. We think it's low impact and high function and we are really excited about it. We hope you are too. I will stand for questions. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. Thank you. Are there any restrictions that you are intending on imposing on the actual storage unit uses? If I'm -- I want to do construction or something as, you know, build -- build things inside of my -- you know, my unit. Are there restrictions or -- or noise mitigation for say if I want to run a drill for -- or, you know, saws or something for a significant period of time? I was curious about what your -- Jones: That's a great question. I probably would have to defer to Mary on this one. I know she can stand and speak to that. But, yes, I think that there are clearly some F16] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 13 of 42 restrictions to the uses that we put in there. I don't want to misspeak and say that I know for sure, but I would love to allow Mary to come up and speak to that. Lorcher: Want Mary to answer the question? Smith: That would be great. Yes. Lorcher: Please state your name and address for the record. Burnett: Brian Burnett. 1125 West Two Rivers Lane, Eagle, Idaho. I'm the co- developer on this, but we just finished the high end storage units Eagle LUXE, instead of Meridian LUXE, on Highway 16 and, yes, we have covenants and restrictions, just like the ones in Eagle, and you are not allowed to run a business out of it, so you can store things in it. Most people are going to make it -- honestly make them into man caves and hang out there. They are probably going to store their high end cars and their high end boats, but -- and we do have -- we do have covenants. I don't have a copy of them on me, but they do restrict people from having -- operating businesses. This is why we know there is a demand for flex, because we have got so many people come to us and say we need to run our business out of there and we really can't, so the convents restrict business usage, unless it's just to store. So, if we get a pool guy and he wants to store supplies in there and come and get them that's fine, but he can't run a business and he can't have customers come in and have customer facing and so it really limits the ability to do any -- we don't allow production there. We had some food truck guys that wanted to go in there and vent them and he had to stop that, so we kind of try to restrict any -- any type of business activity that is, you know, building things, especially if there is noise. I think we used the city's noise ordinances in the covenants, so that for the neighbors and everything, so it's in the CC&Rs. I don't have a copy of those, but we would be happy to taken them if there is certain business you don't want in there. But that's strictly why we have the flex next to it. Smith: Thank you. Yeah, Madam Chair. My -- my thought was storing a boat in there and say I want to modify something on the boat or something like that, is -- are there any limitations, even as a hobbyist or using certain power tools or something like -- you know. Burnett: Yeah. There is -- Commissioner, there is no restriction against power tools and doing things on your own personal things. We do have restrictions I know in the existing one, because a lot of car enthusiasts will start like a mechanic shop and start pulling in their buddies' cars and so we have covenants against that where people are operating on cars that aren't theirs, even if it's just as changing oil. So, definitely restrictive covenants. They are designed to be super high end, so -- Smith: Thank you. 17 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 14 of 42 Lorcher: Just out of curiosity, without putting you into a corner, what do you expect the -- the retail price for one of these car -- or, you know, storage condos would be? Just ballpark. Burnett: The ones, you know, down on Highway 16 -- so those we have kind of a -- we have a lot of different sizes. Lorcher: Okay. Burnett: Again, we have a lot of different features. These will have water and sewer in them, so like I said, they end up being a man cave. They can put a toilet in there. They can't put a shower or anything that -- where you can live in it -- make it a livable dwelling. Usually there is a car lift. They are about 180 dollars a square foot. So, anywhere -- depending on size -- from 68,000 dollars up to 300,000 dollars if you want to put two together and have 2,000 feet; so -- Lorcher: Okay. Burnett: Yeah. So, pretty expensive. Lorcher: All right. Burnett: But they are priced -- they are expensive and so you usually don't get people who are breaking the rules and trying to run, you know, small businesses out of them. Lorcher: Right. Okay. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I have two or three questions if that's okay. Lorcher: Sure. Perreault: Okay. So, curious if this is accessible by large trucks and how large those trucks might be. It seems like it's kind of a tight angle to get in there and I would imagine people are going to have furniture delivered. Maybe you have a stager that wants to bring some pretty sizable vehicles in to make deliveries. Can you -- can you share about that, how that access will work? Lorcher: Yeah. Go ahead. Burnett: Sure. I will take that on. It's restricted. The one that we have an Eagle, you know, we have people who want to do storage units and just store furniture and we don't let any semis in there. It's basically just box trucks. So, you know, the smaller box Fl-81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 15 of 42 trucks, almost like a U-Haul you would rent to pack your furniture in and leave. So, it's restricted to that. I don't think you -- the access inside of here, even to get into that flex space, will not allow larger trucks to get in there. Perreault: And so the same for -- same for the commercial condo users, then, they are not going to be bringing in large delivery vehicles? Burnett: That's correct. Perreault: I want to chat about the entrance on McMillan. You didn't address this, but has ACHD -- you are making a request to -- to close off that access. Has ACHD limited that on a right-in, right-out and can you share with us why you want to close that access off? Burnett: I would probably refer to Mary, the engineer, for that. Lorcher: Come on up. We got plenty of room. Jones: This is a team effort. Lorcher: Absolutely. If you could just state your name and address for the record that would be great. Wall: Mary Wall. 5636 North Portsmouth Avenue in Boise. I'm not clear on your question. You -- you said closing off that access? Perreault: Yes. Our staff report says that there is a request to close the access from McMillan. Wall: No, not to close it. To -- to -- to -- to allow it. Perreault: To allow it. Wall: For you guys to allow it. ACHD -- Perreault: I apologize. You closed it. Wall: -- is -- is good with the access -- Perreault: Uh-huh. Wall: -- the one access. They had us line it up with Palantine Way across the street and based on their numbers and everything I -- it is not going to be a restricted access. 19 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 16 of 42 Perreault: Okay. So, is there -- has there been any consideration made of having Lolo -- Lolo Pass Way be just emergency access only and have all other access come in from McMillan? Wall: We haven't talked about that, because they had asked for it to be a continuous road. Part of -- when we started working on the development and working with city staff they wanted the continuation -- the connection to the north, as well as to McMillan Road. So, we haven't talked about that. We did design it, so that it was like people wouldn't be so inclined to go up into the neighborhood. So, we did -- did try to do that, try to discourage people from wanting to go through the neighborhood to get to anything in the commercial area, other than the neighbors maybe wanting to come down. Perreault: Thank you. Just one more question. Wall: Okay. Perreault: Some of the testimony has -- has addressed limited hours of delivery, limited hours of operation. Is that something that you would consider putting in the DA? I assume the commercial condo users probably close up by 8:00. So, can you address that, please? Burnett: Yeah. I don't see a problem with that -- with restricted hours. I don't think anybody's going to -- or there isn't any reason for anything. We -- we are already restricting it for high uses and high traffic, like restaurants and things shouldn't be in there. It should be interior design studios, you know -- you know, customer facing where two customers pull up, show them their stuff, they leave, you show them the back -- into the house where they have product. So, I don't -- I don't see a problem with that. I don't think -- I don't think that's a big deal. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Stoll: Madam Chair, if I may. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Just to follow up on the issue of noise with the storage condos. So, there is nothing that you have in place or proposing to have in place to limit somebody that's working on their car from working on their car at 1:00 a.m. at their location? Jones: I think the entire project is limited -- I think currently from -- is it 6:00 to 6:00? Or 6:00 -- Lorcher: 6:00 to 11:00. Jones: To 11:00 p.m. And I think what Commissioner -- oh, boy. F20] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 17 of 42 Perreault: Perreault. Jones: Perreault -- was saying that someone else wrote in and said they want to restrict those hours from 8:00 to 8:00. Stoll: Does that apply to the -- Jones: That's a request. Stoll: But that applies to the flex space. I'm talking about the storage units that are privately owned, some used by hobbyists and wanting to work on their cars. Is there any limitation on them -- Lorcher: Hanging out until -- Stoll: -- hanging out, music blasting, working on the car loudly. Burnett: I mean, Commissioners, I don't believe -- I believe in the Highway 16 storage that we built there are hours of operation and after those hours you have to have your doors closed. You know, most of the time if the door is closed -- these door are, obviously, highly insulated. These are all completely insulated units with fire barrier walls, so you can have water and sewer and all that and the pipes don't freeze. So, AR -- I'm not going to say soundproof, but when you close the doors you probably can't hear inside the units. So, we would probably do that through the CC&Rs to restrict anything after 6:00 o'clock at night or 8:00 o'clock at night to be your doors closed if you are inside of your unit. That's probably how I would solve that. Wall: You also said that CC&Rs comply with the city -- Burnett: Correct. And, then, the CC&Rs do comply with the noise ordinances that you guys already have in the city. So, if there is a problem and someone's using their storage unit too late and there is a complaint we will, obviously, have to address that. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, who is the primary enforcement entity there? It sounds like there might be a staff person on site for the storage condos, but after hours is it -- is there like an association? Burnett: Correct. There is a homeowners association that will control that section of it, the storage unit section, and there will be an active on-site person, of course, until they are all sold on the facility site and a property management company that will -- you know, that helps us, obviously, sell them and, then, manages the homeowners 21 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 18 of 42 association and all the rules and regulations and landscapes and all that will be included in there, so it will all be maintained by the HOA. Lorcher: All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have Brian Burnett. Lorcher: Okay. Lomeli: Oh, that -- Daniel Fisher. Lorcher: Good evening, Mr. Fisher. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Fisher: Daniel Fisher at 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive in Meridian. So, our street Apgar Creek abuts right to the north end of the project. I live very close to the corner of Apgar Creek Drive and the proposed through street Lolo Pass Road, which is a very quiet residential street right now Apgar Creek Drive. I would like to pose the question regarding the land around the Kelly Creek -- our end of Kelly Creek Subdivision, how many times the land -- or how many acres of the land around our subdivision has followed the city's comprehensive use map? The answer is none. All of the land that abuts our street or on the east end -- excuse me -- the west end of our street, since it was developed, has -- the Comprehensive Plan map has been thrown out the window. The development agreements for Lochsa Falls have been tossed every single time. What have we ended up with? We ended up with high density apartments at the end, which now draws traffic down Apgar Creek Drive, which wasn't going to be a problem. Well, guess what, the traffic is crazy and getting out on Goddard Creek Drive onto McMillan -- I have got to speak fast because they only have three minutes -- is a nightmare and you are going to put another street very close to Goddard Creek Drive, which is already very tenuous getting out onto McMillan with that two way traffic and you guys know how busy McMillan is. It is dangerous. It is absolutely dangerous. And to put a through street to Lolo Pass onto Apgar Creek Drive with truck traffic is absolutely insane. Now, it might not be semi-truck traffic, but you know how big a box truck can be? Do you know how heavy a box truck can be? Pretty dang heavy and pretty dang dangerous and they are going to feed out right onto our street Apgar Creek Drive and they are going to go left, right, extremely dangerous. In fact, I would say reckless to allow a through street from a business park with storage, with warehouses, with whatever you want to call them -- man caves with -- with things going on at all hours. Is -- it's ridiculous. It's -- it's -- we need to stick with the -- stick with the plan. Stick with the plan. Because light office -- quiet light office -- oh, it might have a few more trips during the day, but it's not going to be people at all hours working on cars, working on whatever and, then, truck traffic going right out onto Lolo Pass Road -- it's -- it's just ridiculous. It's not safe. So, I would ask you to, please -- Ms. Perreault, you made some very good points regarding the safety and the viability of this. It's -- it's absolutely ridiculous. So, stick with the plan. Thank you. F22] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 19 of 42 Lorcher: Thank you very much. Madam Clerk? Lomeli: Madam Chair, we have Penny Fisher. Lorcher: Good evening. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. P.Fisher: Sure. It's Penny Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive, Meridian. As he stated before -- my husband stated before, we live on the corner of Apgar and Goddard. There are two homes before you hit the proposed drive through on Lolo Pass on both sides. So, there are four homes and it's a corner. When they -- when we were first presented this as on site they presented the entire area being luxury condos. With -- that entrance they told us was going to be a drive through, but it would be kind of like an emergency access to only those people with keys or -- so very limited usage and that the main entrance would be on McMillan. So, that's how it was presented the whole entire thing. So, we were like okay. Since that time they have now, as you can see, cut it in half, so now we only want this. We are going to put flex spending -- or flex commercial. They did not present it to us as commercial when we originally were spoken on it. So, this to me I feel like is a bait and switch. Tell the landowners, the homeowners around this area to use it, we will use condos, you know, storage units. Since, then, even on Ten Mile -- if you go up Ten there is already another luxury condo being built within --just around the corner and so at this point I don't think that this is the best use of land because of the fact that the commercial is there and it will bring the traffic directly into -- again, there is -- it's directly surrounded by homes all around it. The west is Goddard Creek, which also is residential. We do have the commercial on both ends, like you guys do have on the committee and as I have driven around Meridian there is no real commercial in the middle of a residential area. I believe -- and I could be wrong, but light office is what it's zoned for and I believe that would be the best use is keeping it as light office, especially as that's how it was presented originally and it's changed since it was presented to us. Lorcher: Mrs. Fisher -- P.Fisher: Yes. Lorcher: -- are you telling me that at the neighborhood meeting that they just had, what, two weeks ago, they -- they didn't have it -- P.Fisher: It was not -- it was a month ago -- Lorcher: Within the last -- P.Fisher: Yeah. The first homeowners -- they presented -- they were going to do the entire site condos. Lorcher: Right. F23] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 20 of 42 P.Fisher: There was no commercial in it and the way they presented it is the traffic would come in from McMillan on an existing thoroughfare, because right now if you drive in there it's -- there are some homes on that and some businesses that were there, but it's just open, there is no -- so, really, there is no access to and from in there, because it's just -- Lorcher: Right. P.Fisher: -- it's dirt. So, they said they would put the main entrance onto McMillan and, then, that -- because we were worried -- because it's -- there is homes. There is a home, a sidewalk, the street, sidewalk and a home and so we are like asking about that and they did prevent it -- present it to us that that would be closed off and the only access to and from would be the people that owned the condos, but the main source would be on McMillan. Lorcher: And this was your last neighborhood meeting, not your -- P.Fisher: We have only had one. Lorcher: Okay. P.Fisher: We have only had one and that was how it was presented -- Lorcher: For this design. P.Fisher: This design was not, no. I do have a copy of the original design. I have took a picture of it. That was how it was presented to us. After -- I don't know how many weeks. There are other people that will have the exact dates after we got a letter in the mail saying that they were told that they had to change it and include the flex commercial -- Lorcher: Okay. P.Fisher: And that's -- so, then, they said, okay, the storage units are only going to be on this side, not the other. Lorcher: Right. P.Fisher: So, when it was presented to us originally it was only condos. There was no commercial whatsoever. Lorcher: Okay. All right. Just wanted to clarify. P.Fisher: Uh-huh. F24] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 21 of 42 Lorcher: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mrs. Fisher before we ask her to sit down? All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk. Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. The next person signed up is Doug Pill. Lorcher: Good evening. Pill: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Doug Pill. I live at 4520 West Brennan in Boise. A couple of notes. I just -- I think Nancy did her -- Natalie did a wonderful job expressing the value proposition of the project for the community. Small business will -- will -- is needed. Meridian is -- we are identified as growing. Whenever I attend Meridian City Chamber of Commerce meeting it's all small business. Those are the folks that are thriving and growing in this community. Along with that I just wanted to touch on the developer himself Brian Burnett. I have done a number of projects with Brian throughout the Treasure Valley and here in the community. There is no better developer. When Brian tells you he is going to do something he gets it done. He is the best developer neighbor that I have ever dealt with in this community and others. He listens. He goes above and beyond. City needs a four foot berm with a four foot fence. It's going to cost him more to put in an eight foot fence, but at the end of the day it's going to be esthetically better and so those are the types of things that he does for his projects and his neighbors. So, thank you. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Lomeli: Next person signed up as Rod -- is it Ludlow? Lorcher: Thank you for coming tonight. If you can state your name and address for the record that would be great. Ludlow: I will. My name is Rodney Ludlow. I'm the home owner of 2347 West Apgar Creek Drive. Our house is located on the corner lot of Apgar and the private drive Lolo Pass. So, that Lolo Pass will pass right adjacent to our house. I understand that development is part of the -- is part of growing and part of the development in Meridian is which I agree with. It should grow. My understanding for community development is to have a soft transition from family homes to light commercial to commercial development. This new property abuts our house. The developer of the property called our neighborhood meeting on April 28th, 2025, and presented a preliminary improvement plan for the 5.51 acres. The planners develop luxury storage condos, including -- including extending the private drive of Lolo Pass from the Kelly Creek neighborhood into this development and installing a security gate for limited access. At that time all of the attending neighbors accepted this plan with a few minor comments and requests. Later a letter was sent out on May 30 modifying the plan and -- that was presented. The letter informed us that they wanted to modify the current zoning from L-O to C-C, which accepts a much broader range of commercial business, longer business hours, some up to 24 hours. This plan revision included extending Lolo Pass Drive through to McMillan. I am against rezoning this property. My main concern is -- is 25 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 22 of 42 the new plan extends the private drive of Lolo Pass through the new development and connects to the main artery of McMillan Road. The point that I wanted to make sure that was understood -- the new connection would create the fifth entrance into Kelly Creek Subdivision, four of them connected to McMillan. If Lolo Pass were extended to McMillan Road this connection is within 50 to 60 yards of the main subdivision entrance on Goddard Creek, which is divided and has a water feature. My request to this Council is to table the rezoning until the development can provide more specific plan of Lolo Pass, its designation that -- and is designated as emergency secure access to the new property and not connected to McMillan Road direct. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Ludlow: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Ryan Shipp. Lorcher: Good evening. Shipp: Good evening. Ryan Shipp. 2358 West Apgar Creek Drive. Lorcher: Okay. Shipp: Meridian, Idaho. Bill actually hit on a lot of the points I was going to bring up. One of the reasons we moved into this neighborhood was the family friendly -- friendly atmosphere provided. We currently have -- I'm on the corner of Lolo Pass and Apgar Creek. Lolo Pass being the proposed route. We currently have kids in the neighborhood always outside playing. I have a five year old here. I have raised two other kids in this house. I would just like to -- to point out that Apgar Creek already has so many entrances to the main roads and adding another one isn't going to change the traffic that's already -- or, I'm sorry, adding another one is only going to add traffic that's already there. That's all I had. Lorcher: Okay. Shipp: Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you very much for your testimony. Lomeli: Madam Chair, the next person is Case Doorn. Sorry. Doorn: Hello. Lorcher: Hi. Doorn: Good evening. Yeah. My name is case Doorn. I live at 2371 West Apgar Creek. So, on the other corner of Apgar and Lolo and -- yeah. If I'm -- it sounds like I'm F26] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 23 of 42 repeating other people it's because I am, so -- yeah. Basically Plan A was light office. So that's great. Right? Projects all transition from residential to commercial. Low traffic onto McMillan and in our neighborhood. Again, April 28th we had the neighborhood meeting. It was presented as all commercial condos. We talked about the access to Lolo. It was fire egress only. Gated. We talked about entrance into McMillan and it was suggested that it would have that very low traffic number that they propose. But, obviously, you can see, right, this plan changed. They added the commercial flex space. They added the Lolo Pass throughway and based on the -- whatever approach they are using to the traffic study there is a huge range, between six to 44. 1 would agree there is -- traffic is already a significant issue on Goddard Creek and McMillan. As you are on Apgar Creek we already get traffic that's merging into our neighborhood to cut around the traffic, you know, again, just south of this neighborhood is a school and creates significant traffic. So, what else? We talked about comments. So, any neighborhood comments I'm sure were, hey, let's keep it light office, let's not go to commercial. I don't know who provided any comments regarding we want more or different commercial space in lieu of the commercial condos. Speaking for myself if -- you know, you could maybe convince the condos were all right in the original plan, but in this plan with the mixed use commercial I -- I think it needs to be reconsidered significantly. What else? Public comment. So, again, I would -- my comment would be to reject this plan to actually do an actual traffic study to understand these intersections and traffic, both from the south side and Goddard Creek. In terms of the overall site plan, if you look at where the retail is and where the commercial space is, there is plenty of it on all four corners of our development, on the other side of -- the other road over there. Sorry. Not Ten Mile, but Linder. And, then, also as we look at, you know, the map that they proposed, it was interesting that they portrayed it still as light office. So, it wasn't shown as red. If you would zoom out more, show it all as red, you would see a lot of red, because we have plenty of that. Let's see here. Yeah. So, in their presentation they were talking about why this was such a great development and -- because it was going to be low traffic, low impact, light operations. As we have been kind of digging through this, obviously, not quite true, so -- Lorcher: One question before you leave. What school is near your community? Doorn: Well, we have -- Lorcher: Is it Willow Creek? Doorn: There is a -- there is an elementary to the south of us in the next neighborhood over in Bridge. Hunter. Lorcher: Bridge. Hunter. Okay. So, that's on McMillan. And is there one north of you? Doorn: Yeah. There is Willow Creek in our neighborhood -- Lorcher: In your neighborhood. F27] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 24 of 42 Doorn: And Sawtooth. And there is Rocky -- Lorcher: Right. those are on Linder. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have Tami Hinderaker? Lorcher: We try. Hindraker: I'm Tami Hindraker. I'm at 5015 North Lolo Pass Way. I think it's a beautiful project. There is need for business. This is a terrible location. If you are okay if I use your presentation? Would that be okay? So, previous -- I don't know how to go backwards. So, she used the word that we are book ended. This is Ten Mile. So, you have got a major road there and you have got Linder, which is another major road. Your book ended completely by neighborhood. So, we are talking about making a commercial environment. In this neighborhood within three houses we have three special needs children. We have multiple older population that has -- we have had people walking the neighborhood with dementia that we have had to help out. The numbers and the reality boots on the ground are never the same. I'm a veterinarian. I can tell you that from experience. So, what -- what is going to happen with an entry on and off -- you see a lot of accidents on that road and whether or not it says that McMillan can handle this traffic as it is right now it cannot. It takes me three to five minutes to get out of that neighborhood and sometimes it is an extremely sketchy turn. We are talking about across the street directly from this you are actually taking North Palantine Way directly into a commercial property directly sharing the road that has immediate access to Hunter Elementary School. So, that is another huge thing for school busses. They are running their time frames way too long to be surrounded by a -- by houses. I have seen their -- I mean it's a beautiful project. It's not -- you know, we have even looked into doing a project similar to this. This is not the location for it. This is going to have an extremely detrimental -- despite good intentions this is going to be extremely detrimental to our neighborhood and unsafe. We don't have -- this is a -- we have already had issues with changing zoning because of it creating a massive amount of traffic through our neighborhood. We have people standing out on the corner telling people to slow down. We have had multiple near misses with special needs children and now we are asking for both flex and industrial traffic. These are huge condos. It's unreasonable to think that we are not going to have large trucks, trailers, boats pulling through the neighborhood. Maybe it's not at a high rate, but even -- even one child being harmed by this is too many and we are not talking about a soft transition into a commercial zone, we are talking about literally both of the neighbors that are directly next to that are going -- and all of us -- this is going to be the new thoroughfare and an exit from McMillan off when there are traffic backups. So, we have those accidents. They come off into our neighborhood to try to avoid that traffic. So, great project, terrible location. It just can't happen. Thank you. Lorcher: Thank you. Lomeli: Madam Chair, I have Eric Hindraker: F28] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 25 of 42 E.Hinraker: Hello. I'm Eric Hindraker. I'm also at 5015 North Lolo Pass Way. We are just a few houses down from the proposed development. So, we are reiterating a lot of what's already been stated. But I also am just in favor of keeping it of a soft transition. Keeping the L-O zoning. I really want to address what the developer said about being booked in on the -- book-ended on both sides by commercial. It is single family home on all four sides. So, currently this is already an island. It's not commercial, but even light office is a somewhat commercialized zoning. So, you go all the way to commercial. It would be surrounded on four sides by single family homes and the other thing that hasn't really come up is that self-storage is an industrial development, so they are asking for a conditional use permit on top of their commercial zoning, which would actually be an industrial use surrounded on all four sides by single family homes. So, my concern -- I know there is -- there has been comments about this is not for business use. But my main concern is that it sounds like there is no limitation on people coming in working on cars, doing their woodworking, doing -- playing loud music if they like. I realize there is CC&Rs, but those are more of a suggestion. I just think it's going to be unfairly enforced by the neighbors having to file complaints. The HOA isn't going to be monitoring at midnight. They are not going to be enforcing late into the evening, so it's going to be up to the neighbors to be trying to enforce the rules, which I think is unfair. Other issues. I know it's been brought up that this has lower traffic than standard storage, but it also has roof lines that are nearly twice as tall. So, esthetically, we are turning this into a high roof line industrial esthetic, rather than the already proposed just lower use, earlier closing and just more esthetic L-O use and I guess as long as I have a minute I would also just say that one of my biggest concerns is having access into the neighborhood. So, even if this did push forward if it could be with the condition that that's an emergency access that would definitely be my vote as well. Lorcher: Thank you very much. Lomeli: Madam Chair, no one else has signed up. Lorcher: Is there anybody on Zoom that would like to make any comments? No? Lomeli: Madam Chair, one person is online, but they are not raising their hand. Lorcher: All right. Anybody else in Chambers that would like to make any comments? Would the applicant like to come forward? Oh, did you raise your hand? I'm sorry. Come on up. Sorry. Turned my head too soon. Good evening. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Abernathy: Good evening. My name is Tiffany Abernathy and I live at 2235 West Apgar Creek Drive. My house backs to the end where the storage units will be. I'm a -- I'm a nurse by -- I am a nurse. So, I see a lot of the things that go on and what developments do for families. It can be great. It can bring a lot of benefits -- income for families and that type of stuff. But I also have two children that are disabled and they like to run out into the roads. I see people speeding down Apgar Creek all the time and that is a huge concern and to see an increase in traffic coming in because of a 29 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 26 of 42 development of businesses would be very concerning for me with two children that are development delayed. So, I would just request that the city look at this and take into account all aspects. Thank you. Lorcher: Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else in Chambers that would like to make a public comment? Would the applicant like to come forward and -- Lomeli: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Oh. I'm sorry. One more time. Lomeli: Someone online did raise their hand. Lorcher: Oh, start and stop. All right. Person online if you can state your name and address for the record. Martinez: Hi. My name is Serge Martinez and it's 2311 West Apgar Creek Drive. Thanks a lot for taking my concern. I would like to mention that last year as we speak I agree with all the neighbors, who was -- had a chance to speak and give their concerns. Last year we actually had an accident right on the Apgar Creek Drive, because of the traffic and because of the rezoning previously we had -- we had condos right next to our -- condo apartments next to our one single houses and as a result of avoiding the traffic on McMillan lots of neighbors -- lots of people trying to cut their traffic and as a result actually we were -- our car got hit actually on the right -- right on the street. So, I'm also very concerned about the rezoning and I think it's a very bad idea to have that rezoning. So, I would advise to keep it as a L-O zone or if it's going to be this project will go into effect to have Lolo Pass Drive as only emergency exit. Thank you. Lorcher: All right. Thank you. Madam Clerk, anyone else? Lomeli: Madam Chair, no. Lorcher: All right. Anybody else in Chambers before we ask the applicant to come forward? I'm looking once and twice. All right. Please come on up. Thank you. Burnett: Ryan Burnett. 1125 West Two Rivers Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. Commissioners, public, I agree with all these people who have come up here and testified. I did submit a plan that was complete storage units at the beginning. First I -- let me take this back. I just want to go through -- oh, wait. Maybe I'm going the wrong way. I want to go through some facts. Nope. Where is the old plan? The original plan. The original plan of L-O zoning with the light office. You will see that they had a major access going into the residential. That access will be there no matter if it's commercial or not. I know one of the neighbors said that we -- it would probably be great if we had a traffic impact study. The traffic impact study will show you, because we do have one that we have submitted with the file, that the traffic for storage and flex space is lower than any commercial designation. It is not an industrial designation. I'm building them F30] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 27 of 42 on Highway 16 right now, which has ten times the traffic of McMillan and only two lanes. McMillan has a center lane that you can pull out into. I have the landowner Kelly Fulfer here that developed the entire area and has lived there for 30 years. There is actively Superior Construction. A construction company is on this site with massive semis and equipment until the last three, four months when we decided to do this project. So, we are used to pulling in and out of here with massive semis. I agree with them. So, my original plan was just storage condos. I only have one access off of Highway 16. They did not require me, because the traffic is so low, to improve Highway 16 and/or have an alternate second access. So, I have a fire access. So, when I came to the neighbors I assume that the -- that ACHD would be the same as ITD and they will allow me to put -- the city would like the concept of this high end storage condos, the lowest traffic impact that you can put on a piece of property and that I could fire restrict the access going into the neighbors. So, that was the original plan we submitted. Through working with Nick and the people that Nick said neighbors that did not come to my neighborhood meeting, apparently there were several that were requesting commercial, that they thought the area should have -- be commercial. Nick can speak to that. So, he took on many phone calls and asked me if there was any way we would modify this project to create some jobs and create some commercial. I believe we had -- at the beginning we even had a nursery that wanted to go -- wanted to go in the front. So, we modified this plan for the city. We called the city. The city said you do not need to put out a new neighborhood meeting, because you are within the time frame, but we felt to be good neighbors we would send out what the city was suggesting that we do to our site plan and the ACHD with working with them said no matter what the traffic count is they did not want fire access, because we were moving from just storage units to have some flex place or commercial, which in the old designation or the original zoning, how it is right now, is going to require that access to go through anyways. So, my original plan was what I presented to these neighbors. Like Doug Pill said, I'm a man of my word. That's what I wanted to happen to this property. That's what I think is the best use. I was only accommodating the neighbors that called in, the city's requirements and my requirements from the government agencies like ACHD. If we could go back to the original site plan. If ACHD would let me fire access restrict the neighborhood and just build condos and I could do a similar layout I would be more than fine to do that. So, that is how we got here. But -- so, those are the facts. Everything that they have said is true, but as I was going through the process, the government agencies -- you know, that's what you do when you are a developer is work to try to make neighborhoods happy, government agencies, police and fire, everybody and so that's how it morphed into the plan that we have, with a little bit of input from everybody and we tried to do the best plan that we could. Lorcher: Right. Burnett: I'm fine with going back to the original storage condos, like I have on Highway 16, with the absolute lowest impact and fire restricted access on the north. If the city will allow that, the fire department will allow that and -- and ACHD I would be fine with that. 31 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 28 of 42 Lorcher: All right. So, stay there. Nick, do you have any comments as far as why the plans have changed as you were in discussions with Brian? Napoli: Yes, Madam Chair. To address some of Brian's comments, for one if this was all storage we would be recommending denial tonight. I will put that out there, because the L-O zone as it currently sits would create jobs and employment, which is why part of the plan was changed. I did receive calls from several neighbors, none of which are in attendance tonight, after the first neighborhood meeting that they had. Many of them were not happy with more storage. On top of that our City Council has not -- not -- has not been in favor of more storage here in the city, as we already have quite a bit. Employment is somewhere that the city is lacking in the valley. We are the center of the valley. Employment is extremely important to the city. The comp plan calls this as limited office, which is why we worked with the developer to find a hybrid where we could have some employment, as well as some of this storage. So, that's where we ended up with the plan that we are at now. As far as with that, if it was all storage staff would be recommending denial tonight, because it provides zero employment. So, if that answers your question. Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have -- oh. Go ahead, Brian. Burnett: I -- I do believe this is the right product. There is a -- I mean just like Natalie mentioned, we will be building flex in Star. There is a massive demand for flex for small businesses that can't buy their own building, can't find anything to rent, they need an office front. They are not high traffic, high impact. They are the same as office. The storage on the right side of this is the lowest impact you could have. We do have a traffic study. It's not industrial. I think this is a phenomenal plan. Do I wish I could restrict the access going north into the subdivision? I do. I don't think we need it. I think the turnaround and the traffic going onto McMillan would be fine. There is three lanes with a center lane. So, obviously, that's a city and fire and ACHD thing. I don't know if our traffic impact study can support that like it did for me on Highway 16, but if -- if that's -- that's the biggest concern I'm all for it. Lorcher: In your packet ACHD wrote a letter and that I think probably satisfies their traffic impact study. They are not going to require one. They are not going to do one, because they already know what the impact of the volume here is, so -- but they are also required -- requiring you not -- not requesting -- requiring you to have pull through on Lolo Pass Lane -- or road, so -- Burnett: Regardless of what the development is. Lorcher: Regardless. Since 2003 when Kelly Creek Subdivision came about it was always said this road will be extended at a future time. So, that's never been a question regardless of how the neighborhood's grown around that. Burnett: That's correct. And I think the confusion is just the traffic. These -- this is the lowest traffic impact, the storage units definitely. If you think about someone going F32 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 29 of 42 those storage units will probably be utilized on Saturday and Sunday and so it is the lowest impact. It's lower than what it is originally zoned and I think it will create less traffic and the safety of those kids and I do not think people will use that access as much as McMillan. It will -- I will make that entrance beautiful and make it the main entrance and, you know, we can even -- you can kind of see on the drawing that we can kind of stub it into where that -- that entrance looks a little bit more narrower, you put curbs in it and people refrain from using it. So, there is certain things we can do, but I'm definitely willing to work with ACHD and the neighbors, you know, to make it -- even signage that maybe we can restrict it that no trucks go back there. None of the box trucks are allowed to go -- go through there. We could put signs up. I'm willing to work with them. Like I said, my original plan was the lowest impact on the neighbors. Lorcher: Right. Well -- and I mean the fact that ACHD asked you to align with Palatine Way -- you are not a straight shot. You have to kind of zigzag through your proposed site plan in order even to get to Lolo Pass. So, it's almost like it's a secret special -- you have to know it's there. Burnett: Correct. You visually don't just see through the project at the -- at the other exit, so -- and it is -- it is -- it does look smaller. It is kind of hidden in the back corner and, you know, like I said, I do -- I do think this is a great plan. We do create the developments. You can go look at them. Highway 16. 1 think it's absolutely beautiful and trying to, you know, make this the best that I can and I don't agree with the traffic, because -- well, one, I live on Eagle Road, so McMillan is great and, second, you know, Kelly Fulfer has lived there for 30 years. His family homesteaded this property and we have been driving semi trucks in there for 30 years until three months ago. Lorcher: Right. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Brian? Smith: Madam Chair, I have a question. It could also be for staff. Nick. Maybe even Caleb. I understand the requirement from ACHD. I guess I'm curious as to why ACHD wants that kind of through lane so close to Goddard. It feels like that's normally something that -- of the type that they would oppose this kind of setup from my experience. It doesn't quite -- why that was stubbed in the first place, because that stub, it's there, but -- Napoli: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, it's a good question. So, not only ACHD, but the city code, you know, requires stub streets, which is how we get connectivity over time throughout the city, because it has been piecemeal over a long time is where we have gotten today. So, this stub street was stubbed here with the concept plan as shown previously or the office development, you know, at that time, correct, they actually show two accesses to McMillan, which nowadays definitely not, as the traffic on McMillan has increased. But having that second access point it was stubbed. City code does ask for those to be extended and it's actually not a public road, it will be a private commercial drive aisle, so it won't be -- actually Lolo Pass won't be extending as a public street. It will be private. It will be a commercial drive aisle. So, it actually won't be a public street as it goes through their site and with that you already 33 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 30 of 42 know -- when they did this in 2003, you know, the exact placement of it, the offset requirements, those type of things, it does change with development over time and since 2003, 22 years, you know, ACHD actually was the one that requested -- at first the city was against the access to Palantine, after some conversations with the developer and ACHD aligning it south with -- that access south of McMillan on Palantine and, then, connecting it to Lolo Pass, it still requires a City Council waiver, because our code asks for it to be restricted. Staff can't support that based off of the city code. However, that's where we ended up and they are requesting City Council waiver for that access to McMillan, so -- Burnett: I just have one more comment. I know that one -- the only other question I didn't answer from a gentleman and we did have it at the neighborhood meeting -- is that, you know, we have got houses from 24 feet to 30 feet high. These are actually about 23 feet high. They are lower than houses. So, just in case you are worried about your site picture, they are smaller than houses. Lorcher: And, then, you have the canopy. Burnett: Correct. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioner Smith. Smith: Yeah. I have just one follow up. I just -- for my -- and I won't dig too deep on this, because this is kind of venturing in the academic now less relative. Was Goddard not there when this was originally stubbed or was it there -- again -- it's -- it's purely just to me the proximity of the -- of Goddard to kind of where this connection is just seems odd, but I can always also pick your ear outside of this application as well. Lorcher: I'm sure Goddard was created when Kelly Creek went in in 2003, because that was a farm -- or a construction company or whatever he was doing there for the last 30 years; right? I mean I'm just speculating. I don't know for sure, but based on what's been happening on McMillan to me that -- that street was probably created as an entryway, because we are -- what did you say, the family's name of Fisher -- Burnett: Fulfer. Lorcher: Fulfers. Were already managing that land forever. Burnett: Correct. Smith: Nick, do you have -- Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith, so, yeah, as far as that, correct, Goddard Creek as you can see on the original concept plan it's actually outside of this part of Kelly Creek Subdivision, but it was existing at the time. As far as the actual construction date of Goddard Creek I would need to get back to you on the specific information on F34] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 31 of 42 when it was constructed, but, correct, all of the landscape buffers actually on the west side of Goddard Creek are part of the Kelly Creek neighborhood HOA's responsibility to maintain. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I don't mean to keep pushing this topic, but the years I have been doing this we have allowed for emergency access only in numerous situations. So, just trying to understand the difference. Is it because this is coming into a commercial area, not a residential area, that that emergency access only would not be allowed? I mean I can think of a ton of situations where that has been permitted. So, I just want to understand that a little bit better. Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, if you don't mind me giving a little stab at that. I think some of the -- and at the heart of some of the -- even revisions that have been talked about tonight from the original concept that the applicant brought to what you see today is we want -- not only the jobs that Nick mentioned, but also just the neighborhood serving types of uses. If you don't have that connectivity to the -- to the neighborhood what we don't want is people turning left out onto McMillan to, then, turn left into this site when they live on Apgar Creek or somewhere really close. So, that connectivity provides access and so some of those neighborhood serving uses that I'm hoping for, if approved, go in here. So, there is something that I can walk to to get -- again, that service that me or my family may need. So, that's the concept anyways. We are in academia a little bit. But that's why it was put there and why we are still pushing for that is so you don't have to push more traffic onto McMillan, you can actually access them from the neighbors. Again, I'm hopeful that some of these folks in here will go and use the businesses that eventually -- whether they are office uses or the proposed businesses tonight or whoever goes in there, but that's the concept and why emergency access doesn't really meet that requirement for having neighborhood connectivity, it's all part of -- and if I may just two more quick things. The -- the office use here was actually a use exception back in 2003, that that original developer asked for for that reason to have these -- again, the concept was neighborhood serving uses and the other thing that I will continue to address the Commission here, but also with one eye look towards the neighbors -- it sounds like there is an existing issue out there on Apgar Creek Drive and I can offer to help with some of that. Commissioner Smith is well aware of this, but we work -- I work -- part of my job is to work with Ada County Highway District. They have residential traffic calming that they can do some of that cut through volume speed analysis. So, irregardless of what happens with this project, contact me, the Ada County Highway District, we can have them put some hoses out, look at the existing potential cut through and speeding issues there on Apgar and see what might happen with that. There will -- I don't want to get into all that now and, you know, take -- take over this meeting, but things like speed humps and things like that, but you would have F35] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 32 of 42 to consent to that as a neighborhood, but they can at least start there with doing that some -- some of that evaluation, so -- thank you. Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. That answered my question. Thank you, Caleb. Lorcher: Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: This is more for Caleb or -- so, anyway, the requirement to not have an emergency access onto Lolo Pass Way is that being required -- requested by ACHD or Meridian staff? Hood: Madam Chair, yeah, this might be better for Nick, Commissioner Stoll. I will speak again from the city's perspective. I just addressed that. I do not know what is in ACHD's staff report I'm sorry, I did not look at that. Napoli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Stoll, it's a good question. So, yes, and I like Caleb -- the city -- correct, it was stubbed there. We do want it as a through street. However, it is your purview to -- if you guys want to recommend it as a fire access only you guys can -- ultimately City Council is going to be the decision maker on that as you guys are recommending tonight on this, but ACHD did want it as a through street as well. So, the city -- I talked with ACHD on it. They never even contemplated as a emergency access only, because it was a local street and there was potential that it could have been stubbed as a continuous local street down to McMillan, but with the proposed development continuing the local street onto that property it was better served as a commercial drive aisle and not a local street all the way to McMillan. Stoll: Thank you. Lorcher: Any other questions for Brian before we close the public hearing? All right. Thank you very much. All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Smith: So moved. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Meridian LUXE. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. F36] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 33 of 42 Perreault: So, I think the developer's put a lot of thought into this and tried to look at things from every angle, which is always appreciated, because we see a lot of developers who don't do that. So, all in all as a concept I'm -- I'm okay with the concept, but I would prefer to recommend to City Council definitely that there is limited hours of delivery and operation in the DA. Council can determine what that will be. Would definitely take the applicant up on additional parking spaces as much as they are -- as they are capable of adding, just not knowing who those end users are going to be on the commercial condos, I think that will be beneficial. I -- I drive past the similar concept at the corner of Linder and Ustick where they are -- there are about a thousand square foot commercial condos there. I rarely see that parking lot full, so I am not anticipating it being crazy. That's a very similar project to what you are going to see real estate offices, chiropractor offices, things like that. I am not concerned -- and this is rare for me to say -- I am not concerned about the neighborhood being able to access these. In this particular case I don't have a problem with asking the neighbors to drive around and get back on McMillan to access these. There is a lot of times when -- I mean I'm a big fan of connectivity and always have been. So, my preference is to recommend to Council that emergency access only be implemented on Lolo Pass Way if, of course, ACHD is going to permit it. I mean we don't have control over what they will limit the applicant on, so -- Lorcher: Okay. Thank you. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I think I'm generally aligned with Commissioner Perreault. I think -- I think the problems that I do have or the kind of questions I do have around this development aren't with the applicant at all, it's with the requirements from the city and ACHD and that would exist with any development and so I'm trying to be -- you know, if I can remove those variables -- the development on its own in -- in kind of a vacuum, if we can kind of put it there temporarily is -- it's a pretty good project. I think it's a really good project actually. I am not super concerned about the amount of traffic toward the commercial -- or, sorry, toward the -- the condos, the commercial I think that's really very highly varied, but I don't think any -- the restrictions that Nick put in place -- or staff put in place I'm not too concerned about that. I agree with you, maybe limiting the operating hours, you know, with things like, you know, board games -- things that were mentioned. I'm a bit of a nerd myself and so I know board game places -- sometimes you have a game night or something, so it's like 8:00 to 8:00 might be a little restrictive. I more just want to say that for -- if City Council looks at the transcript or watches the video, that, you know, there is probably a happy medium somewhere in there. So, I don't want to be too restrictive, but I think, you know, in my mind 8:00 to 10:00 or something like that feels more appropriate. All in all that's -- you know, leave that to City Council. As for Lolo Pass I think listening to staff and the applicant a little bit I have been convinced to not want it necessarily fire restricted or emergency restricted. I would still support a motion that requested that. I think with the applicant's intention to F37] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 34 of 42 try to limit the desirability of that direction and staffs point about connectivity, I don't love that it was -- because it was an obvious -- I don't love that it was stubbed in the first place necessarily there. Again, I don't know what I would do with a magic wand, but I think this is kind of making the best of a -- kind of odd layout and I agree with Caleb, have it on my notes really highlighted, ACHD traffic study traffic calming. I think there are other issues may be happening on Apgar that can be resolved after working with ACHD, city transportation commission, et cetera. So, I'm generally supportive of this. The only area where I'm a little bit, you know, like -- I would like maybe some more conversation if any of the other Commissioners give their feedback of whether or not we want to emergency access restrict that Lolo Pass Drive. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioner Stoll. Stoll: Yeah. Madam Chair, I like the project overall as far as the concept. I have driven by that area for 22 years wondering what was going to happen with that location, especially as development continued on. Now, it seems to be -- have that answer. So, overall I like the design. I think it's needed and appropriate. I understand staffs point on connectivity, especially given my past life and I'm very supportive of that concept, except in this situation. Given that things have changed as far as the type of land use or the use that's going to be -- is being proposed. I am only in favor of restricting it to emergency access on Lolo, so my vote that's going to have -- that's going to be a requirement. I also would encourage staff not to wait for the neighborhood to request your -- request of ACHD to do their studies. Let's just get it done and look at it. I have heard enough testimony that there is problems there. So, that's my thoughts. Lorcher: Okay. Mr. Garrett, any thoughts? Garrett: Yeah. I'm -- generally I like the concept. I'm not as concerned about the fire exit or the regular exit. These -- the uses are very limited in daytime uses and as going to -- being the owner of a storage condo I see it once a month. So, I just don't see those types of things being heavy -- heavy impact on the neighborhood. As far as the other uses on the flex space, I can't speak to that. I just have to go with what the industry studies are. But I think that from the concept I don't have any problems with it at all. I know that -- I drive on McMillan on a regular basis and I know the traffic. Hell, where isn't traffic bad in Meridian now. It's a fact of life and -- but we all know that we don't want freeways everywhere either, so I mean we just have to live with it and -- and do the best we can. Lorcher: As far as my thoughts are concerned, the -- as Brian said, the lowest impact of -- of commercial use you can have are these storage condos and when you go to City Council, because of their aversion to storage in general, you might want to come up with some different words. You know, they are luxury suites that are different than going to Store-It; right? You are not having people put their stuff in. If somebody's spending 350,000 dollars on a storage unit they are not putting their grandma's furniture in there for, you know, a couple of months. So, it's a little bit different concept. Thank you for creating landscape and buffers between Apgar and the -- and the facility. I like F38] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 35 of 42 the fact that Palatine or Palatine Way is not a straight shot. I disagree with my fellow Commissioners, I do think it should be open access, because I don't like taking left turns. So, in order for me -- if I'm in Kelly Creek I would have to come out to Goddard, then, come out to McMillan and take a left if I was going to use any of this flex space or be a fancy person and get one of these storage unit or condo suites or I would have to go all the way to Linder and come around. This gives the opportunity for the people within not only your street, but your entire community to be able to use these services. It might be a dentist, it might be an orthodontist, it might be Edward Jones, it might be a cabinet builder or an interior designer. It's not going to be In-N-Out. It's not going to be a drive-through. It's not -- if it's -- maybe we can keep it open for 10:00 o'clock so that Commissioner Smith can play Dungeons and Dragons all night, so -- but I -- you have to be careful what you wish for, because if another concept comes in here that might create more volume, then, the conversation we are having tonight gets even greater. This developer so far has -- is willing to do what it takes to make sure that your neighborhood is safe, that your neighborhood is esthetically appealing, that it's going to limit their accessibility to it, but also be able to have you use the services that are provided as well. There is -- the frontal facings of storage units have gotten much more sophisticated. I was driving down Ustick today, I think there was one that had like a nice kind of gray wall with beautiful trees in front of it and you wouldn't even know if it was there if the words weren't on the side of the road. So, we are going to make a motion tonight and this will go to City Council, so you will have a chance to voice your concerns again. So, this is not their final step of all of these things and in between that time the developer will work with the city to be able to come up with a plan and all of that information is public on our website, so you can be able to see those changes as they go through the process. So, does anybody have a motion? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: More statements regarding the fencing. My preference would be a four foot berm -- berm with a four foot fence, rather than an eight foot fence. I just think there is also some security that that adds. It does give, in my opinion, a better look to the -- you know, there is the 25 foot landscape there, but it just makes it look -- look a little bit, you know, nicer. It's not a hill I'm going to die on, but that's -- that would be my preference and recommendation. And I do agree with you about City Council's aversion to storage condos. There are five storage -- or, excuse me, five storage unit facilities within a mile and a half of this location. Lorcher: Right. Perreault: So, it's very concentrated there. So, thank you for that. Lorcher: Yeah. I don't think developers would build them if there wasn't a need for them either. So, our community continues to grow and we all have too much stuff, so I guess we need storage, so -- would anybody like to make a motion? 39 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 36 of 42 Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2025-0035 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2025, with the following modifications and recommendations. To consider limiting the hours operation or delivery within the DA at City Council's determination. To require the applicant to add additional parking where possible. And to discuss the possibility of closing off the Lolo Pass Way entrance on the north side and create emergency access only entrance and, then, recommend that there be a four foot berm with a four foot fence on that residential boundary. Garrett: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2025-0035 to City Council. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for all coming tonight. I encourage your president of your HOA to get a hold of the City of Meridian to talk about mitigation for traffic along Apgar Way or Creek, so that your neighborhood can continue to be safe. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT) (H- 2025-0045) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located City Wide A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT) to Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024) and the Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024), Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees Study (September 16, 2022) and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein, Amend the "List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference" including minor cleanup and ensure the most current adopted plans and studies are referenced and Amend "Appendix A. Glossary of Terms" to add//modify language. Lorcher: All right. We have one more item on the agenda tonight, which is H-2025- 0045. It's a Comprehensive Plan text amendment from the City Planning Division and as soon as Carl is ready we will begin. Anderson: All right. Good evening, Madam Chair -- Lorcher: Good evening. F40 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 37 of 42 Anderson: -- Members of the Commission. My name is Carl Anderson. I'm a long range associate planner here at the City of Meridian. Tonight before you I have a -- I'm presenting a city-initiated text amendment to the city's Comprehensive Plan and I will briefly cover the four items that are contained within this request. So, the first item before you is an adoption -- the city is recommending to adopt Ada county's capital improvement plan and development impact fee studies from 2024 for EMS and jail services. The city has been working with Ada county as they are going through their process to conduct their capital improvement plan development impact fee studies. This is an item that was presented before City Council on June 17th by city staff outlining what that process would look like. This is, essentially, that step to be -- that's outlined in the memo that's attached to your staff report with an attachment B1. So, this is the public hearing that would be required to adopt these capital impact fees and development impact fees into the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, so that the city can collect development impact fees on behalf of Ada county for these services as identified. Idaho Code requires that if we are going to be collecting impact fees that these documents be included within the Comprehensive Plan. I will back up really quick. So, this table here does show what some of those impact fees would be. This does not -- this would not be the final step in the city's process to collect those impact fees. An ordinance would need to be adopted by the city and once that is -- that stuff's complete, then, the authorizing authority would be there to collect those impact fees. The second item here is to adopt by reference the City of Meridian's development impact fees and capital improvement plan. Similarly under Idaho State Code for entities that conduct comprehensive planning under Idaho State Code, they need to incorporate these documents within the city's Comprehensive Plan in order to collect development impact fees. Should this item and the previous item just discussed be recommended for approval they would be included in the city's list of adopted plans or incorporated plans and studies by the City of Meridian and within the table which I will cover here next. So, the third item that the city is recommending amendment to -- some of this is grants, some of these are items that were presented to the Commission earlier this year when we are amending the city's area of city impact and I will go over those. Some new ones are -- the first here is to amend the title from adopted to incorporated. It's a little bit of semantics, but this is, in essence, not for those plans or studies that may not be necessarily adopted, but are referenced herein and are incorporated and necessary for the city's planning efforts, but still included. On the city's side we are looking at potentially updating some city's websites to track those resolution numbers for when those items are adopted and tracking them in that manner. Additionally we are recommending adding a note to city lead planning efforts to ensure most recent version plan or study is what has been included in the city's Comprehensive Plan, so that we are not necessarily having to conduct a Comprehensive Plan text amendment for every single one of those items once a new plan is amended. That note is added to those city led documents and so it's referring to the most recent version as adopted, which would be by resolution and so the way that would work is that -- as we are doing now when we have kind of a list of them we bring them all forward to clean that up in the future. Additionally -- so, this is similar to what we talked about earlier this year, but adopt -- update the reference -- excuse me -- update the reference, the most current plans or studies, within that table. So, we are referring to the most recent plans. There are F41 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 38 of 42 several items that are underlying and strike through in your attachments showing what the most current version of those items are. We are adding four new ones for you. First one here being Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, City of Meridian planning document here led by the Public Works Department from 2018. Again, City of Meridian's development impact fee study would be included, as well as Ada County EMS and jail capital improvement plans and development impact fee studies. Future additions that the Commission may see are the addition and update to the eastern Treasure Valley election plan. The plan still makes reference to the prior version. There is a more recent version. Part of the reason that this has not been recommended to be brought forward at this time is this is something that the staffs understanding is that Council has not yet had their eyes on and staff's recommendation that once the Council has had an opportunity to review those changes, then, it be brought forward before being brought into the plan. Similarly, Meridian City Council is working with Meridian Development Corporation, MDC, on the update to their development Destination Downtown plan. It's possible that when that effort is complete that we would, then, come back and update the plan as well. But the version that we are still referencing is the prior version of the destination downtown plan. Also you will notice that one of those is being deleted -- there were duplicates of this item, so we are deleting the duplicate. And, finally, as again some housekeeping here, but amending the glossary as attached to the Comprehensive Plan. The first item here is adding a clarification to the capital improvement program. So, the capital improvement program the language program I do believe is some of vestigial prior efforts towards capital improvement planning referred to this as program and I believe this is a carry forward from higher comprehensive plans. You will notice in the staff report that while it was not noticed this way, the Commission may wish to amend the language program to plan to be consistent with both state code and the language that we are proposing here today as well. That would need -- if the Commission is desirous of doing -- so, you would need to include that within your motion. But the text that's being added is the City of Meridian refers to capital improvement plan as the comprehensive financial plan. That's a practice that is reflected in the -- excuse me -- in the attachment for the city's development impact fees and amended capital impact fees and, finally, we are adding a reference for impact fees. This was pulled from the city's development back fee study to be consistent with those planning documents and also to provide reference for what impact fees are and what they do. All noticing requirements for tonight's application have been met. Staff has not received any public comment, either written or phone call, and the agency comments that have been received were from Public Works Department and they are not opposed to this request. With that I'm happy to stand for questions that the Commission may have. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment and -- Lorcher: Commissioners, do we have any questions or -- questions or comments for Carl? Perreault: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. F42] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 39 of 42 Perreault: Could you go back to the last slide and am I reading correctly -- oh, sorry. The next one. Am I reading correctly that the CFP is the vehicle being used to identify the capital improvement program -- essentially CFP is the vehicle that's being used, right, to -- to make those determinations. I mean I understand what the CFP is, but am I understanding this correctly that there isn't another document called the capital improvement program and that it would just be the CFP that would be linked to this and how does that work, because the CFP is constantly changing, so is it -- is it being adopted? I mean typically we don't adopt the CFP as an -- as an actual financial tool at budget time. So, how is that going to work? Anderson: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault. So, this is staffs understanding -- and my institutional knowledge is somewhat, but when reviewing the documents that was adopted by ordinance for the development impact fee study and capital improvement plan amendments for the city, it does make reference to the practice that the City of Meridian does operate under, which is our capital financial plan also serves as the capital improvement plan. I don't know -- and this is where Caleb may jump in here as well to provide some clarification. But the document that would be adopted within the comprehensive plan is the attachment, not the necessarily regularly, as you mentioned, amended CFP. Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault -- and, Commissioner Perreault, I would almost put it the other way. It's just hard. It's just -- yeah, I said it, just do stuff. I would almost state it the other way. So, our CFP has more than the CIP for the impact fees; right? But we put the CIP in our CFP, but it has things that change on a yearly basis based on department needs and whatnot. So, the CFP is larger than the CIP. The CIP, though, is incorporated as part of the CFP is how I would phrase that I guess. Smith: Madam Chair? Lorcher: Commissioner Smith. Smith: I apologize if this is -- I just -- my blood sugar's low or something. But the terminology capital improvement program to plan, could you -- could you just kind of clarify. Is it -- has it been the improvement program and you were asking if we want to change that plan to conform with the other language? Anderson: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Smith. So, in order to be consistent with all the other terminology, because there are several running around, vetting it again we would have changed program to plan. We missed it and it was not noticed that way. We would recommend changing it -- program to plan in order to be consistent with the practice and also with state code. Program I do believe is from prior practice. Lorcher: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Perreault: Madam Chair? F43] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 40 of 42 Lorcher: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Is there -- is this done at regular intervals? Is there -- is there planned intervals at which these are -- that we are updating the CFP or the -- comp plan and adding these? Is it because we are like, you know, 2025 and we did it five years ago and we have five more years, is that kind of the timing of this? But there is, obviously, some documents that have a couple years age. So, I'm just curious the timing. Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, no, there isn't a true -- timing is just sort of as needed. In fact, Carl's working on the next one now, so you will probably see something here in the next -- next year sometime anyways. You know, the county's requests kind of -- some of these are a little more administrative kind of cleanup things that probably wouldn't have risen to the level of a separate standalone application, but it's like, well, while we are at it let's just go ahead and sort of add these other scrivener type of cleanup things to the Comprehensive Plan. We do look at and have a program, though, internally with all departments to send the applicable policies in the Comprehensive Plan annually. Here are the policies in the comp plan. Is this still what you are doing, what we should be doing? Do we need to look at updating any of them? So, there is a calendar to this, but we don't have a set schedule of when we do comp plan text amendments. Lorcher: All right. To move forward. Carl, you are the applicant in this particular scenario; correct? Anderson: Yes, Madam Chair, that's correct. Lorcher: So, we are in public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anybody else that are in Chambers that wish to testify? Lomeli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Lorcher: Or on Zoom? Lomeli: No one has signed up. Lorcher: Okay. So, were there any follow-up thoughts that you wanted to provide before we close the public hearing? Anderson: No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Lorcher: All right. May I get a motion to close the public hearing, please? Garrett: So moved. Smith: Second. F44 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 41 of 42 Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to close the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment -- Hood: Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt. I don't know if they want to say anything, but -- Lorcher: I looked at them and they didn't -- Hood: They would nod -- they shook their head? Okay. Sorry to interrupt. Lorcher: Is it good? Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I think this is an administrative tool to be able to comply with things as they change in our city and impact fees and programs and plans and to keep the language all together. I'm -- you know, you said this is the first step. It goes to City Council after this to -- to go forward. I don't see any challenges in here that were obvious that would make me not want to approve this amendment. Garrett: I concur. Lorcher: So, with that did you want to say anything? Smith: You are good. Lorcher: Okay. So, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend File No. H-2025-0045 as presented during the hearing of October 16th with no changes. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to -- Smith: Madam Chair? I think there was the request to change program to plan for language conformity. Lorcher: It was in the -- wasn't it in the -- Smith: Sorry to interrupt the motion, I just wanted to make sure we -- again, sorry, maybe I'm -- Lorcher: It was in the report, wasn't it? Smith: It was in, but we were asked to because it wasn't noticed of-- F45 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 16,2025 Page 42 of 42 Lorcher: Okay. Considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend File No. H-2025-0045 as presented during the hearing of October 16th, with the request to change plan -- program to plan to conform to other documents published. Stoll: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to approve the text amendment. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Lorcher: I will take one more motion. Stoll: Move to adjourn. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, everyone. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED 11 106 12025 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK F46 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the October 2, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission October 2,2025 Page 4 of 4 C. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 228 single-family residential building lots, 41 common lots and 16 other lots on 51.5 acres of land in the proposed R-15 district with Private Streets in a gated portion of the development. D. Request: Planned Unit Development with a request for deviations to certain street side and rear yard building setback and to allow more than 100 dwelling units in a gated community with requests for common driveways accessed from a private street and a private street connection to an arterial street. Lorcher: Item No. 3 on the agenda is Item No. 2025-0061 for Apex -- is it Cadence? On Locust Grove. Madam Clerk, do we have a suggested date for the continuance for this application? Way: Yes, Madam Chair. November 6th. Lorcher: Okay. May I get a motion to continue this application for November 6th. Smith: So moved. Rust: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to continue application 2025-0061 for November 6th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Lorcher: And with that I will take one final motion. Stoll: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn. Smith: Second. Lorcher: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:02 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. ) APPROVED _10_1_17_1_25 MARIA LORCHER - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E K IDIAN:--- iuAn Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline h2 Planning and Zoning October 16, 2025Commission Meeting Zoning MapAerialFLUM Zoning MapAerialProposed FLUM Existing and w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center (H-2025-0043) by Ada County Sheriff's, located at 2568 E. Lenark St. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0043 A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to operate a quasi-public (Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training Center) in three (3) existing industrial tenant spaces on 11.13 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. 9 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 16, 2025 ITEM # 3 PROJECT NAME: Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Center ,(H-2025-0043) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark X (Please Print) HOA? if yes) wr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ` �% 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/16/2025 Legend DATE: !. Project Location 1 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of impact m }= City Limits FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis 208-884-5533 �j L1V nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Mathew Navest SUBJECT: H-2025-0043 - Ada County Sheriff's Office Training Ed� TFFM � l Center � LOCATION: Located at 2568 E. Lanark Street in the _ SW 1/4 of Section 9,T.3N.,R.IE. 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Conditional Use Permit(CUP)is requested to operate a quasi-public(Ada County Sheriff's Office/Training Center)in three(3)existing industrial tenant spaces on 11.13 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. B. Recommendation Staff: Approval with conditions C. Decision Commission: City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview ■ COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Industrial - Proposed Land Use(s) Quasi-Public(Ada County Sheriff s Office/Training) - Existing Zoning I-L(Light Industrial) VII.A.2 II. Adopted FLUM Designation General Industrial VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 7/29/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 9/2/2025 Site posting date 10/6/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District • Comments Received Yes; Staff Report - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Lanark Street;Collector Road - ITD Comments Received Yes;No comment Meridian Public Works Wastewater • Distance to Mainline Existing at site • Impacts or Concerns None Meridian Public Works Water • Distance to Mainline Existing at site • Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions for comments received or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 1: Service Impact Summary ImpactService • • Ready O O O O O O O O O Marginal O Caution O �ooa a o\``e �aAy a� oQ' oo� 0\0 a� hr horo Qa �o City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview This property is designated Industrial on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). The purpose of the Industrial designation is to allow a range of uses that support industrial and ui. commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units,light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and office uses. In some cases,uses may include processing, manufacturing,warehouses, storage units, and industrial support activities. The applicant proposes to occupy three(3)tenant spaces of an existing industrial building for a quasi-public use. The Ada County Sheriff s office intends to use the space for offices,training space, and a gym. The narrative indicates that the addition of this space would allow for additional training to keep up with the demand needed for new recruits and continue training. Comprehensive Plan Goals: "Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and economic vitality." (3.06.02) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and should add to the livability and economic vitality of the community. In addition, it will provide additional emergency services close to State Highway 55. "Monitor and adjust the amount and mix of industrial, commercial, and office areas needed to meet the employment needs of the City."(3.06.01B) The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area; however, the desire for industrial uses will be diminished. While the nature of the use is not industrial, the Ada County Sheriff's Office will be employing more of their employees at this location, which generates employment. "Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging non- industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing, distribution,flex-space, and base- employment."(3.07.01 D) The proposed use is a non-industrial use requesting a CUP to occupy an industrial land use area approved for industrial users. However, due to the nature of the proposed use, staff are supportive of allowing the quasi public use near a major corridor in State Highway 55. Table 4: Pro aect Overview Description Details History CZC-05-032,CZC-06-134 Acreage 11.13 Acres B. History The subject property contains a multi-tenant industrial building that was constructed in 2006. Since its construction,the subject tenant spaces have changed several times to different industrial users. The applicant is now proposing a quasi-public use which requires a conditional use permit in the I-L zoning district. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis ■ C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed quasi-public use is a conditional use in the I-L zoning. The I-L zoning and FLUM designation is meant to provide opportunities for business and employment,which typically includes light manufacturing,research and development,warehousing, and distribution. This use adheres to Policy 3.07.02B,which promotes a mix of land uses that ensures connectivity,livability, and economic vitality. While there are not any other quasi- public users in the area,the addition of a new Ada County Sheriff's office and training facility will allow for better services to residents in the city and in the county. Additionally, the proposed use will allow the Ada County Sheriff's Office to keep up with demand for new recruit training and further advancement of training for existing officers. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposal meets the dimensional standards in the I-L for setbacks, landscape buffers, landscape requirements and maximum building height. However,the site plan needs to be modified to allow for a 25-foot drive aisle on the southern portion of the parking being added. This should be revised with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. 3. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A. Public recreation and community centers. The use shall meet the standards in accord with section 11-4-3-2, "arts, entertainment or recreation facility, indoors and outdoors",of this chapter. The applicant is not proposing a public recreation or a community center with this application. B. Public or quasi-public office. The use shall meet the standards for office use in accord with the district in which the use is located. The applicant is in compliance with this standard. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): The site has already been approved under permit CZC-06-134 and no additional improvements will be required. In addition,staff is not requiring parking lot landscaping to be installed with this application as UDC 11-313-8 allows loading areas in the I-L zoning to be exempt from this standard. This will allow future user to remove the parking if they deem necessary. The applicant shall apply for alternative compliance with their certificate of zoning compliance application. 2. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 2,000 square feet(s.f.) of gross floor area. The applicant is proposing to exceed the parking requirements by adding 77 new parking stalls on the rear of the property. However,the drive aisle dimensions on the proposed new parking do not meet the requirements in the UDC. The applicant will be required to revise this and bring it into conformance with UDC 11-3C-6. In addition, staff is not requiring parking lot landscaping to be installed with this application as UDC 11-313-8 allows loading areas in the I-L zoning to be exempt from this standard. This will allow future user to remove the parking if they deem necessary. City of Meridian I Department Report IIl. Staff Analysis ■ ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is not depicted on the plans and shall be shown with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. 3. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): The approved building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the industrial building as shown in Section VII.As stated throughout this report, these elevations have already been approved through the administrative process and the building is already existing. The submitted elevations are for supplementary purposes only. 4. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No additional fencing is being proposed with this application. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Access is existing off E. Lanark Street, an industrial collector. There are currently six(6)curb cuts that lead to access to different parts of the building. The applicant is not proposing to change any of these access points. These access points were approved with CZC-06-134. 2. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): There is existing 5-foot-wide attached sidewalks along E. Lanark Street Avenue that meet UDC standards.Any damaged curb, gutter, or sidewalk is required to be replaced. F. Services Analysis 1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15. 2. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. 3. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Both the Plan and the UDC establish policy and regulations for extending and connecting to City utilities. Goal 3.03.03G of the Plan mandates urban infrastructure be provided for all IV. new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. All utilities for the proposed development are required to be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-21. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with the site plan,landscape plan, and building elevations approved with CZC-05-032, including the modifications listed below. 2. The proposed project shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-30,Public or Quasi-Public Use. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 3. The site plan shall be revised to provide a 25-foot-wide drive aisle along the southern portion of the proposed parking area. This revision shall be included with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 4. The applicant shall apply for a certificate of zoning compliance and alternative compliance applications prior to submitting for a building permit for the site modifications. 5. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6 A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. 6. Prior to occupying the space,the applicant shall obtain either a tenant improvement or certificate of occupancy fast track approval from the Building Division. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) v' The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district for the proposed use. Therefore, Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide additional emergency services, employment, training opportunities near State Highway 55, which will contribute to the mix of uses desired in the MU-NR Comprehensive designation as desired. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity but may moderately change the character of the area due to the limited I-L zoning within the City. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Staff finds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Stafffinds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Stafffinds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not Applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not Applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not Applicable. v1. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit per the provisions included in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ EXHIBITS A. Project 1 to Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend ''W j ■ Project Location Area of Impact • Analysis PINE .. 2. Zoning Map LegendWC-C RUT �-Ionrq�l Project Locotion a .0 Area of Impact • Analysis 1 � PINE FRANKL-INN ■■■� , ■i■ IIP�■ �■ii■1.ii■illy i13i:�.� F 1.7-LJ iiP �f 111U■■■4 84 City of •ian I Department ReportExhibits 3. Future Land Use Legend nnulle PH • D - Project • �Inl . . l n uullrResidential - • - • 0 -a of Im 0 ' r - iii =n - • - • YfLryT� Ll,'fiALS ��1 PINE ---_—,--. 1 �A � FRANKL-IN Low Density �► Residential LI 4. �,i [Illllll�n unrl- �* �ianC i1111►l��L« � sa - Planned Development Map ■�l� llrrHmnlllll 1 Iluull� - .. �V'1 \ li\1111111/hi.r.rr� Project Location •Are• • •• Q r �1M!hU i� •�-rllnf�glll G.�:n n*nu !i 4 f• City Limits Planned Parcels �� a ul»�ly . ■�� +, ���:� 0 Analysis —PINE ��i4�lllil rllt\Nwulilr011u I 'll■5 'lll 1!■ 11p FRANKL-IN ��■■i ■■■■■II■■■■ ■■■■■�■■■■■■ �►► ill. ,�� �� ' �� 1111 City of Meridian -/, Report V11. Exhibits B. Subject Site Photos Y- � r -J City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Score; 31 93rd Percentile Location In City L'-nits Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of"-e+;, t GREEN Pathways V1fithin 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit V1fithin 1/4 mile of future transit route "E_A44 Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (#of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either High School or College within 2 miles OR S€hooI Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Eithera Regional Park within 1 mile 4R a Communit-. Parr Walkability Park within 112 mile OR a Neighborhood Park with;- GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ A Site Plan(date: 9/4/2025) Al MERIDIAN BUSINESS CENTER 1 I � I Mlli'iil l m � ni OVERALL ME PLAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ E. Landscape Plan (date: 9/4/2025) EL l - �C _. R uniui S7mKT IP-141VATv WEST ADDITION LANDSCAPE PLAN SEE SHEEP LI FOR PLANT SCHMULE, — — LANDo•'•P3C DZTAMfi.&NOTE L2 I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ 9 S�- FrAmNm NEW H 4z 5 S, ---=�-- 7 7- L"SCAPE PLAN --e"A 0 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits F. Building Elevations , .. -. ' -6OVr"&bVA7 ON r.,rNar HALF- W r-9EVA7UN HEST SEVAT1bl G5T R"ATUP I17 L _ 333m PAST HALF-NORTH ELEVATION �3' '• .. Yn _... mn A4 rb ' Wm RUE-MOM mKVA-Tm City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ e , e ..n •9 ' �T• —03 7fj w � ®® WI�d�¢p�SQW��.y 3 r+NEB AOGIIIW-1VE87 MHw]R 9EYA710X sai u— City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Meridian LUXE (H-2025-0035) by Mary Wall, located at 2350 W. McMillan Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2025-0035 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the future land use designation from Office to Commercial. B. Request: Rezone from the L-0 zoning to the C-C zoning district on 5.99 acres of land. C. Request: Development Agreement Modification to create a new DA with a new concept plan. D. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Service Storage Facility in the C-C zoning district. 27 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 16, 2025 ITEM # 4 PROJECT NAME: Meridian LUXE (H-2025-0035) wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark x (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 94, AiOc lo 1\od 2 rZ V 3 D �h( ed F [S�\Lr 2 az P 4 � (Z1 gz W A(,P-�\ (Pc M�r�Cis a 5 c(S Z v GJ. 61-�V-env 6 z w 6t)-s ell v (4 fD rM LQ z � LU 46'4,4rt C4 ISO. $ 10 JA 6 214 N 644x l,�q�rl a�,r, Me,ri-jl AV` 11 22�5 W PAM b Ut 1), 12 a2 la, �G V- a 13 14 E ��. � ( Zvi COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C'" �fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/16/2025 Legend DATE: C- Project Location City Limits 0 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission Area of Impact 0 Analysis FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org PPF APPLICANT: Mary Wall F SUBJECT: H-2025-0035 L AMeridian Luxe LOCATION: Located at 2350 W. McMillan Road in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 26, TAN.,R.I W. F I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The applicant requests a comprehensive plan map amendment to change the future land use designation from Office to Commercial; Rezone from the L-0 zoning to the C-C zoning across 5.99 acres of land;A development agreement modification to remove the property form the current DA to create a new DA that includes a new concept plan and elevations; and a conditional use pen-nit for a Self Service Storage facility in the C-C zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers - While staff is supportive of the revised site plan,concerns remain regarding the adequacy of parking for the commercial spaces. The applicant has proposed 55 parking spaces,which exceeds the minimum requirements of the UDC; however,with 18 commercial tenant spaces,this equates to only three spaces per tenant,potentially insufficient for higher intensity uses The Applicant has indicated that the intention is for the majority of the tenant spaces to be Flex Space,but no users or uses have been confirmed for the development. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall evaluate whether the parking is adequate for the proposed development. - The Applicant seeks City Council waiver to the access point off of McMillan Road. ACHD is supportive of this access point and has required it to align with N. Palatine Way on the south side of McMillan Road. C. Recommendation Staff- Approval with a Development Agreement and Conditions. Planning and Zoning Commission: Pending D. Decision City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview I1. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Residential - Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-tenant Commercial and Self-Service, Storage - Existing Zoning L-O VII.A.2 Proposed Zoning C-C Adopted FLUM Designation Office VII.A.3 Proposed FLUM Designation Commercial Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date 4/29/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 4/28/2025 Site posting date 10/1/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District iV.0 • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access McMillan Road:Arterial Street - • Traffic Level of Service McMillan Road: Better than"E" - ITD Comments Received Yes;No Comment Meridian Fire • Distance to Station 0.8 miles; Station#5 • Response Time 5 minutes - Meridian Public Works Wastewater IV.B • Distance to Mainline Sewer Available at Site r • Impacts or Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Meridian Public Works Water IV.B • Distance to Mainline Water Available at Site • Impacts or Concerns None Note: See section IV. City/Agency Comments&Conditions for comments received or see the public record. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure l: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S0426438550 Date Retrieved:2025/9/19 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infiii Indicator: 2,180 Surrounding Area 124 7% Not city ®1,733. City Limits 2,870 9 ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:13.4°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 10,000 20,000 30,000 2.00 ��. 2,500 Single-family L 2,000 Residential 1.50 Parcel Diversity (A1.00 1,500 U N 1,000 0 Parcel Count 0.50 500 *Average Acres 0.00 8 0.12 0 a R-2 R-4 h-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 10.00 v �8.08 Residential Net Density 5.00 0 5.49 =O 04.09 4,70 2.53 0.00 Dwelling Units 1 Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour JVPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service ` McMillan Road 700-feet Minor Arterial 598 Better than 'E" k Acceptable level of service for a three-lane minor arterial is"E"(7 0 VPH)- City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ Figure 3: Service Impact Summary ImpactService • • Ready O O O O O O O O O O Marginal Caution O �ooa a o\``e �aAy a� oQ' F a", hr horo Qa �o City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics ■ IH. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject property falls within the office Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation of the comprehensive plan. However,the applicant requests an amendment to the comprehensive plan to redesignate the subject property as commercial and rezone it to the C-C zoning district. The comprehensive plan defines the office land use designation as low-impact business areas. The uses allowed in this include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may also be considered. In developments where multiple office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common area, such as a plaza or green space. The comprehensive plan defines the commercial land use designation as a full range of uses that serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services, and office uses,as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi- family residential may be allowed in some cases,but should be careful to promote a high quality of life. According to the applicant's narrative, the demand for office space in the Treasure Valley has changed significantly since the property was given L-O zoning in 2003. This limits the viable development opportunities available in the office FLUM designation. Due to this,the applicant is requesting that the land use be changed from office to commercial. The concept plan proposes eighteen(18)commercial multi-tenant units across four(4)buildings and forty-one(41)privately owned storage condos(self-service, storage facility) across five(5) buildings. The applicant believes that the Treasure Valley continues to experience demand for retail,flex space, and storage,which are the main uses proposed for the site. By changing the FLUM and Zoning designations,the applicant believes it will be more flexible, allowing the developer to accommodate the changing commercial real estate trends in the Treasure Valley. In addition,the narrative discusses that the neighbors'primary concern is traffic and that the layout of the site will minimize the impacts to the neighbors while also blending in with the commercial character of the McMillan corridor. ACED anticipates seventy-seven(77)trips per day for storage and fifty-five(55) for the multi-tenant commercial. The total anticipated trip generation is approximately 132 trips per day,which is adequate according to ACHD's standards. The initial plan that was brought to the city was entirely storage,which staff was not in favor of due to no employment being created. However,through several rounds of revisions the applicant proposed a mix of multi-tenant commercial units and self-service storage which provides more opportunity for employment to generated within the development. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History AZ-03-13;DA Inst#103181095; PBA-2025-0008 Phasing Plan One(1)Phase Physical Features An irrigation line for the Kelly Creek Subdivision runs on the west boundary of the site. In addition,the Kelly Creek pump station will be required to remain on the site which the applicant has indicated will be the case. Acreage 5.99 Acres B. History The subject property was annexed as a part of Kelly Creek Subdivision in 2003. The property was given the L-O zoning consistent with the FLUM designation. However,the property was not City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ included in the plat for Kelly Creek Subdivision and has remained as a residential use. A property boundary adjustment was completed earlier in 2025 to consolidate an illegal parcel that was created at some point through the county. C. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): If approved,the six(6)existing residential structures shall be removed, and the well and septic system abandoned in accord with the UDC. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The applicant is requesting a modification to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation from office to commercial and seeks a rezone with Community Business District(C-C) zoning. According to the applicant's narrative,the property would be developed as eighteen (18)commercial multi-tenant units and forty-one(41) storage condos (self-service, storage). The applicant has indicated that the primary use for the buildings is intended to be Flex Space; however,the C-C zoning district allows for others uses as well that could occupy the tenant spaces. The applicant also proposes to sell the storage units as individual condominium units,requiring the submission of a short plat application after the first building permit is issued by the city. Due to the proximity to residential areas,the hours of operation will be restricted to 6 am to 11 pm for both uses. Currently,the Office designation does not permit storage use or retail commercial use such as those proposed.However, a change to the Commercial designation would allow development under the C-C zoning. The applicant asserts the C-C zone is compatible with adjacent residential and will provide a variety of neighborhood-serving uses to the area. Staff concurs, noting the proposed concept plan aligns with the intended neighborhood serving uses envisioned in the area while also incorporating storage. Additionally,while the proposed use does not provide a large amount of employment,it is providing employment and a relatively low-impact use in the area. As mentioned above,the applicant intends for the majority of the multi-tenant commercial units to be used as Flex Space for users needing office space and warehousing. However, concerns persist with the amount of parking for the multi-tenant commercial section of the development. As a result,staff is recommending the following uses be restricted to prevent parking from overflowing into the neighboring residential area: Restaurants,Drive Throughs,Indoor Arts,Entertainment, and Recreation Facilities. As mentioned above,the applicant indicated that the neighbor's main concern was traffic in the area. The proposed uses are estimated to have 132 vehicle trips per day, according to ACHD,which is significantly below the threshold that would trigger a traffic impact study. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-213-3 for the C-C zoning district. There is no minimum front,rear or interior side setbacks required in the C-C district;however,required street landscape buffers act as a setback where applicable as building encroachment within buffers is not allowed. Additionally,where adjacent to existing residential, a twenty-five(25)foot landscape buffer acting as a setback is required. The proposed development complies with the minimum standards. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-34: Storage Facility, Self-Service a. Storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a self-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. The applicant is proposing the storage facility/building to be for storage condos, which will be for personal storage use and not for business purposes. b. On site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Chapter 3,Article E, "temporary use requirements", of this Title. The applicant will comply with this if and when this happens at the facility. c. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five(25)feet. The applicant meets this standard. d. The storage facility shall be completely fenced,walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road,chainlink shall not be allowed as fencing material. The storage building will have enhanced architecture, and the roll-up doors will screened from public view. This is not a typical storage building as it will be used for storage condos, which is a more specialized and heightened use. The applicant is also proposing fencing with a combination of the buildings that will screen the storage. However, the proposed fencing shall be revised to be closed vision and it shall be placed along the perimeter where building are not present. In addition, staff is recommending the applicant provide a four(4)foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five(5)years ofplanting. e. If abutting a residential district,the facility hours of public operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m. The applicant shall conform with this standard. £A minimum twenty-five-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided where the facility abuts a residential use,unless a greater buffer width is otherwise required by this title. Landscaping shall be provided as set forth in subsection 11-3B-9.0 of this Title. The applicant has provided a twenty-five(25)foot landscape buffer to all residential uses in compliance with this standard. However, staff is recommending the applicant provide a four(4)foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five (5)years of planting. g. If the use is unattended,the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-16, "self-service uses", of this Title shall also apply. The applicant will comply with these standards. h. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes as determined by the Fire Marshal. The fire department has reviewed the concept plan and has deemed the site to have adequate access. i. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The applicant is not proposing outdoor storage on the site. j. The site shall not be used as a"vehicle wrecking or junk yard" as herein defined. The applicant will comply with this standard. k. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material,the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand(1,000)feet from a hospital. Not applicable. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ UDC 11-4-3-18: Flex Space a. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise a minimum of thirty(30)percent of the structure and/or tenant space in the C-C zoning district. The applicant will comply with this standard. b. Light industry and warehousing shall not comprise more than seventy(70)percent of the tenant space in the C-C zoning district. The applicant will comply with this standard. c. In the C-C, C-G and M-E Districts,roll-up doors and loading docks shall not be visible from a public street. Roll-up doors or loading docks are not visible from any public street. d. Retail use shall not exceed twenty-five(25)percent of leasable area in any tenant space. The applicant will comply with this standard. e. At a minimum,one(1)parking space shall be provided for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. The applicant has provided parking to meet the commercial parking standards of one (1)space every five hundred(500)square feet of gross floor area. This is primarily due to the variety of uses that will be able to occupy these spaces and all of them may not be Flex Space. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Based on the concept plan,the applicant appears to comply with the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-19. The applicant has positioned no more than 50% of the total off-street parking between building facades and abutting streets. Additionally,the buildings on the southern portion of the site exceeds the 30%building frontage requirement. 2. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. McMillan Road,an arterial street. This buffer shall be landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-213-3. The concept plan shows the required landscape buffer along W. McMillan Road meeting this requirement. The landscaping will be evaluated with the certificate ofzoning compliance and shall be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7C. ii. Parking lot landscaping Landscaping is required to be provided along all parking areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8. The proposed concept plan meets the minimum requirements. The western parking landscape shall be dimensioned with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses A 25-foot wide buffer is required to the residential land use to the north as set forth in UDC Table 11-2C-3 and 11-4-3-34F, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313- 9C. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ The subject property is bordered by residential to the east and north, which necessitates a twenty-five(25)foot landscape buffer to the adjacent residences. The applicant has provided the twenty-five(25)foot buffer meeting the requirements for the buffer width. The updated landscape plan does not meet the vegetation coverage requirement; however, staff will confirm this with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. In addition, the applicant has provided a minimum of five (5)feet the western property boundary in compliance with this standard. Since the neighboring property to the west is a Kelly Creek HOA owned common lot, a twenty-five(25)foot landscape buffer is not required. However, after inspecting the site and existing fencing along the north boundary of the site,staff has observed the existing fencing is approximately four(4)feet in height.As a result,staff is recommending the applicant install a four(4)foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five(5)years ofplanting. iv. Tree preservation A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. The applicantprovided a tree mitigation plan that requires 280 caliper inches to be mitigated. The applicant is proposing to add an additional 69 trees for the site landscaping. However, this does not account for the entire 280 caliper inches that is required by code. The applicant shall plant additional trees to meet the 280 caliper inches or apply for alternative compliance with a proposal that is equal to or better than planting the adequate number of trees required for mitigation. This shall be revised with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. v. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape buffers along W. McMillan Road. vi. Pathway landscaping Pathway landscaping shall comply with the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. The applicant must provide a landscape strip at least five(5) feet wide along both sides of the pathway. To enhance design flexibility,variations in the strip's width are encouraged to allow trees to be planted farther from the pathway,reducing the risk of root damage. However,the landscape strip must maintain a minimum width of two(2)feet to ensure proper pathway maintenance. The strips shall be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. The applicant is proposing two different pathways in the development, the first being the ten (10)foot multi-use pathway along McMillan Road and the second being the extension of the micro pathway on the east boundary of the site and connecting it to McMillan Road. The applicant is in compliance with these standards. 3. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Nonresidential parking analysis Staff is analyzing the western portion of the site to the commercial parking standards and not Flex Space standards due to uncertainty of the types of users that will occupy the commercial multi-tenant portion of the site. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area for the multi-tenant commercial portion of the site,as per the Unified Development Code(UDC). The applicant is proposing 24,336 square feet of commercial space,which necessitates a minimum of 49 parking spaces. The current site plan provides 55 parking spaces,thus exceeding the base UDC requirement. However, staff remains concerned that the proposed parking supply may be insufficient to adequately serve the intended commercial uses. The plan includes eighteen(18)tenant spaces,which translates to an average of only three(3)parking spaces per tenant. This allocation may be adequate for low-intensity office or retail uses,but would be insufficient for more parking-intensive tenants, such as restaurants, drive-throughs, or indoor recreational uses,which typically require significantly more customer and employee parking. To help mitigate these concerns,staff recommends restricting the following high- intensity uses within this development: Restaurants,Drive-Throughs,and Indoor Arts,Entertainment, and Recreation Facilities. This approach will enhance the site's long-term viability by ensuring tenants have adequate access for both customers and employees. Self-service storage facilities require parking calculations only for the office/clubhouse portion of the development.As a result,the applicant is only required to provide on(1) parking stall to meet the UDC requirements. The applicant has provided two (2)parking stalls, exceeding this requirement. ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Bicycle parking is depicted on the concept plan in compliance with these standards. 4. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Goals 5.01.02C and 2.09.03A of the comprehensive plan promote area beautification and community identity through heightened design standards providing distinct and engaging identities. The Architectural Standards Manual requires modulation in the surface plane at no less than 50 ft. intervals. There should be at least 2 pedestrian-scale architectural features and physical distinctions to anchor the building. There should be at least two different field materials,with at least one accent material. In response,the developer is proposing multi-tenant commercial buildings on the western boundary of the site with a mix of materials,which include EIFS,brick,metal panels, and glazing. Additionally,the developer is proposing five(5) storage buildings on the eastern portion of the site with a mix of materials including EIFS,metal panels, glazing on end caps, and a brick veneer. The applicant has worked with staff of the building elevations to make the commercial and storage buildings have an overall consistent design that will also integrate with the surrounding residential. The applicant shall submit the architectural standards manual City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ checklist with the design review application to ensure compliance with these standards. Staff and the applicant will continue to work together on the elevations during this submittal. 5. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The submitted concept plan shows fencing in portions of the site around the proposed storage.. The applicant shall revise their plan to use closed vision fencing instead of open vision fencing and provide fencing along the perimeter of the storage where buildings are not present.. In addition, after inspecting the current conditions of the site, staff is recommending a four(4) foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five (5)years ofplanting on the north boundary of the site adjacent to the existing residential. The applicant shall include the revised fencing details with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance. E. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goal 6.01.0213 emphasizes reducing the number of access points onto arterial streets by utilizing strategies such as cross-access agreements, access management, and the creation of frontage and backage roads,while also improving connectivity between local and collector streets. Access is proposed off W. McMillan Road(an arterial street)through a single curb cut. The applicant has proposed to align the single access with N. Palatine Way on the south side of McMillan. In addition,the applicant will be extending LoLo Pass Way as a commercial drive aisle to connect with W. McMillan Road. This access point requires a council waiver, as UDC 11-3A-3 requires access points to collector and arterial roadways to be restricted. In addition,ACHD is supportive of this access point on McMillan Road and has required it to align with N. Palatine Way on the south side of McMillan Road. ACHD has indicated that the proposed trip generation based on the proposed uses is 77 trips for the self-service storage and 54.45 trips per day for a strip retail plaza. This brings the estimated trip generation to approximately 132 trips per day. It is important to note that the applicant relayed that the largest concerns from the neighbors were traffic running through the existing subdivision(Kelly Creek). With the estimated trips per day from ACHD,the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should carefully determine whether the proposed development is appropriate,given the trip generation and proximity to existing residences. 2. Multiuse Pathways,Pathways, and Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-5, Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-81 11- 3A-17): The applicant proposes to extending the ten foot(10)multi-use pathway along McMillan to connect the existing pathways. This is consistent with the pathway master plan. However, ACHD requires the pathway to be parallel with the road and will not allow for it to meander. This shall be revised with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. In addition,the applicant is proposing to connect a five-foot(5)Mirco pathway that was stubbed from the Kelly Creek Subdivision on the eastern boundary of the site to W. McMillan Road. The applicant has provided a pedestrian connection throughout the site to allow for residents, customers, and employees to access the commercial multi-tenant portion of the site. This is an adequate pedestrian connection,but where the pedestrian connection crosses through vehicular driving surfaces,it is required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. In addition, staff is recommending the sidewalk running north and south follow City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ■ the proposed commercial drive aisle. This will require additional sidewalk to be installed on the curved portion on the north end of the site. This shall be revised with the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): There is an existing irrigation ditch that was piped on the western property boundary. Additionally,the existing pump for Kelly Creek Subdivision is on the subject property and shall remain. The applicant shall maintain the irrigation pipe and coordinate with the irrigation district for any changes to the irrigation network. 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I S): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required and are available to be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21 and Goals 3.03.03G& 3.03.03F.Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter, and sidewalks are required to be provided with development. 1V. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer. A certificate of zoning compliance application shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. The new DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines rezone is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the site plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section Vlll and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. c. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s) shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for this site. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ d. All existing structures shall be removed from the property prior to issuance of the first building permit. e. Hours of operation shall be restricted from 6 am to 11 pm for the entire development. £ Comply with the specific use standards for a Self Service Storage Facility and for all prospective uses going into the multi-tenant commercial buildings in UDC 11-4-3. g. A short plat application shall be submitted after the approval of the building permits to condo the storage buildings. Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the short plat application has been finalized. h. The applicant shall install a four(4)foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five(5)years of planting in the landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residential. i. The multi-tenant commercial portion of the site is allowed to develop with all the uses listed in UDC 11-213-2 except for the following: Drive Throughs,Restaurants, Self- Service Storage, and Indoor Arts,Entertainment, and Recreation Facilities. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Lighting details shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with these standards. 2. The site and landscape plan shall be revised as follows prior to the submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application: - Continue the pedestrian sidewalk along the commercial drive aisle along the curve on the northern portion of the site to make a more direct path for pedestrians. - Provide vegetation coverage calculations for the landscape buffers along streets and adjacent to the residential. - The applicant shall install a four(4) foot berm and provide a barrier that allows trees to touch within five(5)years of planting in accord with UDC 11-3B-9. - Dimension the western parking lot landscaping buffer. - Revise the ten(10)foot multi-use pathway to eliminate the meander and make it straight per ACHD's conditions of approval. - Revise the fencing to provide eight(8)foot closed vision fencing along the perimeter of the storage area where the building are not present. 3. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed wall prior to submitting a building permit application. The design of the site and structures shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19; the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 4. The applicant shall provide an updated landscape plan showing accurate tree mitigation for the 280 caliper inches that are being removed,or they shall apply for alternative compliance with equal to or greater than means of mitigation. 5. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 6. Staffs failure to cite all relevant UDC requirements does not relieve the applicant from compliance. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 7. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6. A time extension may be requested asset forth in UDC 11-513-617. B. Meridian Public Works YYastr�rikrr + Emma W 5ewcr AvaUblrat Site Serv4tes • StwerShed E111m>tgd Prokd See apinkmae 5ewei FRU's WART I7K%climng pA14nrt • Project Cwnistem Yes with WW Master PLinji'MilkY Plan + Impactsns + + see nobacworkiS+t!y1morccc11di11om 9Pater + DtLume in 11L AH Walrr Awilahle at+.tlf SurwKIPS • Esllmmud ProWl Sy appligtipn water ERU's Project con-O e'd Yes rath water Mal.W rtw • ctVCo*mrns J None- NiON-PLAT CONDITIO 15 ►1 M IC 4X fWK%1lFP-%ET%F'-T {site PPrA1rComd'cli�aAPp"" I -A IL uelk that will dimeLlntiauem he tlsed fflav be pnnpelly ahandnreda"nrAnSIO me-'A'C11 M41r11Ct1+n%1"Jrd+RIblCw PNPnJin1%tCnrd M the 1d114Lo DvILIlrlrlhoril 4 Wmer Rei4N1wm(IIIR'RF the 1)meloper.thm1et.(K iw4 lNj FjnKine2r,sha11 wide a imicTrlvnl wLkkcwng wktlun ihac 111�ar1Y C{ia11mkL u4112;14 Llw dC.VIUprlKnl_and hock 1ho-will gonirtle in N 118ed.{Ti 11,'ovide i eoo+rd of Ih#ir tlhsndEmmenl if w ei is are W W abandoned.theproj4m Lr.ntm 4r lhett rgxce cntati;c musl contact d►e IDW-R CArMNClwatgY fYL1l4 tiL1i 5C4'uun(;aYtm Ski■nct.11}-drk%4XAoKiso'0-287.49721 BL•FORC any stink is dme to ilmummissiin as existing well(even if it is 6diry od thal *9*911 is ICr1 duck 19 11 dgep).Wa+L1f vP CLanri5uwabL11 with WWI M01 he sullmi and to dr Cil►•pnar w any work bring done to derommissioo the well.Failure to ComeriV Litale with IL)WR may rVislt in adAunurl,ragk pad.;xprxle tLwdl4,cmisslLM thr well. City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ a Fnraser no p.`rmamlmrlL kSrLxluli•L 11Rtik.Ira�lle�,bwldrngr►.exKwwr►.uarb mreeplxie LL slls.frnc�* uk Glllart6m LALhc&t.hglbl.palls,e1L.ralt bW11 uiLlklo LIOL ublll4:A&, L AppheaoL,s%Lill rcypwnihW 1ST m4eem ail laad,eapnit rtgklnamenrs n14%kwld cowdin,re with Ark plaxntiti Ifihm ark airy gwAiekrrk yew+ermd aY rtrmnrrnF Ln pardlel ruq mru rmn 30A UmerrrCrN.SMLl r�I!Kmld be iw Ira death 1011 livid cdgc n1 rasartkrhr Sri r4r lwe5—1 ;he L)11*gra<rn to ye—-.I-nr 4L-4'4'K 0 th"C—6F, a SchkLi and waist rLrhnlnK 10 perAlIL:1lrquirs 1111n 1i18Udsarlr►rn1 %Mod should be no kesl Lhm Nril from edge of carmcnl S Vclrn nittal fit k%Lcicd K uh ill la5do-caprd arras hold[of ibt blwldlep 6. 510a1 IhL•5oudu:asi corneroflhc six will be tcquirrd so'bc olvLwdpmcififnol.ikud. 7. 1:fturiigrhri r Uuia i'114 zft. :ills.115 wevct hm"L%ale alllrwed Ln tkmbli o 16 few!I&wt Fri Lure spun die ewLire evneLnenL.i %'c it nose I6550l;Ltair on dlc pAwF.k6diknoll!Y.Thr frrKe nh&W oer run poralkl wiLh Lhr waAct ecraee mid be•ithia Lhe L19rdrul.The smler3homkd be M 1%aMl I if fmrn a iwral M fenrt N. 61,..a ha,re ihL zihl.h?iha upm gale aL all time.IY mole orldc IULlmm hoa Lk CiLy ML La 6YL Amm kill IhC 1 6115}Phil 4- 1?1i ahm w-miY La lk im Lhe cm Lie eWmewir Ib Pnwrolwsetlwr>.e+w'Iaapl4eO14"11hrnf rail .1rVOclles 11.NioniOC.77 EmrthtMMU fir roarin;,hy&WL IalCralx and waler mace& EasamenLx sMW L->dlend up mthe iteW of en die hyde,inl:+`a14Y eivILLY wd W besolLd•L Crmeeal CmdRiess of 4ppriwal I Appltcaehl irhahL e&iniw waace mill i a iri l simr and Lourmi mikl1kc Public SAe L. Depwrntal a Per Men&m CiLw CadF I NKY'L Lhe applscmi shall be rL6pmrsrbLo Lo ut"t rZ a er MLd xatler m amiss nr and Ihwhllrlk lhiw ilk-y6rpt-ri"t h"hl1ca31 mmy Ix chpldr F"a mm hen4�me ag"mionr foe mf amuctwe 6'7rbarlcerricnl per W'('N-6- J. iltc appluant slrLkll pros idr L!Ltetelllhsrts)fist all pmbllr wrtgrr•erll er nrails oweidc of puhlie nµ i eF vuq 1mclw&all wine*set%Iccs aril Irvdrw*5. Sewer.SYNOF easMkLrl mina king on 4weT dClrb ken cl'I1-'.1t(L akc,p rrqulre o Nt li FaWrAcril, h a 40 M ra+ itivel,and;i.?n 11 a a<R ea3emenl. Easum no pellr►nest sir purrs S bees.tymkws.bvildwlgs-carllow.wish rexeprarle rralln,rvltres,lnfilllarlmo Ih"Ac%.Ilfhm pules,rk.litt bull[W1tttllk Lbe Whilty iaelheml !ioblttll m""ulcd 6 awcnrcat lvri mhe farm IL%ailubk from hbltr Wads?.a Icga1 iksrrlplian FrePmicd by im Ldahm Llcenhed hafe►uunat LWrd Sul;e)w.*HO solid.11716wlr she mica of Lhc emwrmcmL rsnmke i EX HIDIT#1 and an x 1-2-s I I"map knish bleJaring�s1aril di sentt-i I mwked EXHIBIT Di rJ1 Jn WO ElLIL11 4AJN13iUMLLU be L_ak'rl,U151"WbA SALLI b A Pro"ii.i"Land SWVII" e.W +1f7T REf-{]RU a- The ChLy of Mnkil&s hglmhlcs&at ptzmNwl -d tmgttl`w svLelas be a pp6ed Ls}a ycm-rulleLl solvtc ofiYalky guilt-1 I-SD-61 'Flrr an"WL 4hO111d Lye keyllin'd W.uiL 2m4 ratiaie f alyd=Of v411 wpAct Air slti p7rrripy a4=, if it rilrrfacr nt WO R3W%!15 r"We"'OPWL a 4lnlOe'ph mlr eonrieeli.*Lkt 1 r_11LdJ"w Ud sks Oi [hal l Lit htlmred IF a>wrlp IL-Pditld 4 wicedm n aklk,teA. Lk&"lW%!r w;' r�zpgngsble fir k h4 lzymam eyfar5yp5yanCms for dh4 momrrKm wzm Larar to pod l4 rserl5 1- I. _1oprrrehi pimr apphnal 3- Arty strunures t.a.:r,allowa w rcmmn shall ba Sllb M and e4AwiLlan and possihkr reassi�nrneiyl q#satins mddl r- 1 :1 k in Loraj*l e l ilk MCC 6- All imgr7, 1, canal&Lowml5_or drains-culus4veof naival L+aLrrw,av5 m. ierxcuog. "pi rill t2,.1•.:!.I,IFWgm and Carxldurlwrlo Like arCa helm kulklikl'd:a%h-qI IV addrYned per UDC I L-LX-{>. in piv6 irkg skeeh L■ork.ON ap hOMLdials ekWKPI.%k Idl IdahoC'.+lr a'--1-'ko-7 mild aaV irihc r xpplirAIi:Lm Lx rcgWalion City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ 1. Ann +roll.rhal-ill noL Lt AHVILit W be Iak-d H1 LL,r he iwlpleely al lr sl s:cL.rd.dr 1s1 ld;lh&Well f'rlMU.L.ln 3ad;Wdl kLdrs adntienlui,A by Lhc LOW WpaLv ffl oe u Aer kcWunL e%. ilk Ovk r1 iwi',Farru.Yr,Mall PN-*v i lla1m4m addn-valLy wlwlhcl where"Wry f ia.Lld1K'6C%Ip 16e dc•5•a lryini EL and 3fra,how Lhc,r ui 11 cpnuuu414 he Paid,w prrn•LLI4 rroo,d 4f Heir dlLaudumt.rnr. #I. hFF)r dmii E is%fdr f}'1 =w r T"R 1yI$prow;—.'0411 W Trupncil f-pm sent"per OvF 1]rdm,lra SreLm r1.1-4 end 9 1 r Camel CryLnal fhrenel l lealal4 kw nbAkki mmmnl Praw ores dud rnslLt HEMI;I" "11. u_ All Inpra•s m -1.1 IIt d:w ptbrc life,rattly iid k-Auh hell be rmplmd prior in aeauaaey of the slrwcruros 10.ApoLehr sn.il1 be I,Aul lcd ro pdv NWre WtWisd,e,C6pLxrt1 pLO tnleU-aridauaordo" iasP+c1 ion 4�m as drverminad daring ihv pion LrL'ic-pru-m!;.pridx 1ST rht iwallare 041 Pisa nlppnr.a1 Lzacr. 11.Tr shslL Ur L116:lsspam4bili94 of k wOiti11 taensunilral ill dckrlogmm kruucecomplw wily) LIL,AmcrL s%ILlL Rrxtb1 L6Lt An and d6e Fb.i•luus,uu ALL 12.-A`pl,licairil♦A 11 b'ITWWm hlr far oppligminu WA comAgret+rilh sn�Sestionw4 lknanLinu NdL mir 9rL ruquinA by Lw Army Caipf Or£nmmemL 13 31vxxWM,hall vmohhnnll rimAk,L krwlou x;th Lbe W"Jiael Pow f f&m. 14.470mpa on IcH rczuhlg L"16r sul�miLicd m tht Mendi.Er1 BuiLdcns D erA&M rn&)F Rd buiWiajc pednF rr{'L'I+1r1�eM1{1,xakYcd btickFll,*'i4.`nt ftlaslilL uwJd pr nlrkp fill mrLtnal. 15.Thr&-slzn rmpwrrshall k rrqunid Do warifr Lha1 rho cJmvi cenderlruc ck+V ons Am W a m it ml anL of I-(act dbovr Lhr Imgh4sL rwrb+1 ill 4td IN&Kn,md,<aner rkvawrn 111ie nw4fturr 1K..11,EW hNI{,m ea4ti'a11.M a[Lhe cnui spra€s cif holrrrs is A lend I•Poor obin+'e �� 1 16.11Lr apphcamm de51 m cLLCrde"Lhull be respnnwt4c far Lr16ptvio m ni all IrrLgmwn anh w dra"wyrr Wliry wubin ibis pT;*nE AM do nod fail w%kfr k iLmisdjrffkw ufsn imgnion 4Adcl er k[31U. 111cdesl�a:'1LpnnL`4'rshull proLrdecnrullraion 1111L1�futdiveLhaxe bcert Insnallcd m a,madance sw iris 1hr approved&%ip plans This crnifuuors.Fi11 br rsquiLed befare s eciufir6me of c1L.:uPWl L'r WLWd IIOf amp daLULUara YL IdWn LHc p►aj= 17 AL d%q+pr qk: -1)of IN p jCU.1111'API)lr:JFIL t11.111 Ih rc'+p4PUNC to tubrak record drawings per Lbe!klv ud',1. J.m{uLoCAIJ sramLu,ds. Mmk 1i bmd draw Iocs murt be nimit ed and ab,peo,ed prkw 1.5'I ...tic'OF 11"niiGaim Vf rxcal G\ f%lr iiPi rrlv+id lrl rr hyi1NA d Lr prsrMI 19.A skLLI; a; :n wwb npad 4r1yc rlLdud d rn LLe M1rcm%4rvclrrlr1 TA-ans �ervek Iighe p1w IR�Ypr4kIL.,.1,:I.4 I I.4d In uclHM h-{-o he lnlj�o%vdna151';44m ml,(or wrrcvl Lglimg A omnL Phk 64WhdMd•ran be OvW a1 ILLL4 wrw Trhmdgnc11+'rxdL,'nklw m?Eu lsm'�d'r7:. 111.TheDLy c4NIci J1ar wgwrti.ttWL Lbc uW.IWT pose LLrt 1'11y dpetfLxmdWx NLLKL-Y in elle rnwlum of l2_5%ofthe u,lal a:nrL%1ngjWm ppb dmr afl L1LSurnp6rk-gcrvwW.s91ar 2nil mists wnfmhli yLm prim 10 fin.Ll p,1,L,s1 F+raoarc Tint%sumo w,M be wr1llyd br s I ilrr 11eM et..1 c3L1m1ra iwL ldcd by 1hr rn+ncr w pie C-ill Thr wmt,eon be pc,ered in 1hr form pf sL Irm oc'a1,1,Jvn4r gfcaed-n_can depL n OFbw d Ap.phkum MUA rile in aPM1VMM i u SLMeLk.AKW11idu bt tmrld cu Lhe Cvrrlmu.11La rk%vloprncnl AapFimams w0lb dr Flcmc ca,roce 11.s1d DC%C aprrdrnt 5e -ice F,a mods Idfallld"ar 1LX7-"11. 2fi TILc Cw v of hleridiaa rvip�res dwt Line owner rxm Go-db:CLay s s oer'any WELLly in 1lw=1>ML aF 21j%a-f Lhc Load roe s LiYm o=for a]I como Led scw m wales and rLtiLf r illfrdtafuuojre!er dungian of we y.un Tlli-curers w is he teri Facd by a Gar iura cowl ritimme pLr h kW bk Lha owner La IL-Cil1 ilk,urcly cm he pwanh in Lb.9 m of um irrevacab1e LrlLer a,f small,cub detrrLid orhamd Appkeanl nkww filc as 2Miemma fa kwaL .wl icheau be folnd on the ['4mmum ry L%,w1 rpmeno Dupaairn ma x4aAc PlaMld[Ldlrl Land i}�rdppmmL SLwiW Fqr rdnrr lhkorn liivn a f1ul'=l 1. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions ■ C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) Miranda Gold.Wvr , e)pn# AC Alexis fdtho p comr lsstw t ,on K.e15t Goltlthorpe,Gomrn�ss.o�er Dare McKinney.Gommiss4ww Ai mw�— pa#rida Mkssm.Commi%%ow r Development Meets Requires Revisions to meet X No 'ACHfPoliciesIf yes, Area RoadWisy Level of ■ Planned Livable Street Performance Measures service Improvc%irrwrits holds pl a n ned Yes Is Transit Available? V. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant's proposal to rezone 5.99 acres of land to the C-C zoning district from the L-O zoning district is consistent with the comprehensive plan with the provisions listed in the Development Agreement in Section IV. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment to the C-C zoning district and conceptual development plan generally complies with the purpose statement of the C-C district in that it City of Meridian I Department Report 1. F44 will provide a broader mix or retail, office, and service uses on the eastern portion of the site while also allowing for the self-storage use through a conditional use permit. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare as the proposed uses are providing adequate transition to the existing residences and are anticipated to generate 132 trips per day. In addition, the hours of operation will be restricted to 6 am to 11 pm for all uses on the property. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Stafffinds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Not Applicable. B. Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the C-C zoning district for the proposed use. Therefore, Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide additional employment, services, and recreation opportunities for residences in the area. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Stafffinds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use with the conditions imposed will be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity but may moderately change the character of the area due to existing residential surrounding the property. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. This is because the proposed uses are compatible with existing residential surrounding the property due to a relatively low estimated traffic generation and enhanced landscape buffers to the residential. In addition, staff is recommending the installation of a four(4)foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five (5)years of planting. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: Not Applicable. 10. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, Not Applicable. 11. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. Not Applicable. C. Comprehensive Plan(UDC 11-513-71)) Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Staff finds the proposed amendment to Commercial is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed development will provide employment and help provide a transition from McMillan Road to existing residences. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Staff finds that the proposal to change the FL UM designation from Office to Commercial will allow for the last remaining parcel on the McMillan frontage in the immediate area to redevelop. The applicant cited a change in market demand since the parcel was annexed into the city, however, the comprehensive plan calls for employment in this area which is why the site plan encompasses multiple uses. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings ■ 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section III. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Stafffinds the proposed amendment will be compatible with existing residential surrounding the property due to a relatively low estimated traffic generation and enhanced landscape buffers to the residential. In addition, staff is recommending a four(4)foot berm with a barrier that allows trees to touch within five (5)years ofplanting. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are currently available to this site.ACHD has determined the traffic along W.McMillan Road will have sufficient capacity to allow for the addition of these uses in the area. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Stafffinds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section III and the subject findings above, Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map,Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, and Development Agreement Modificaiton per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ■ � 1 • "", LU s ..ui ! - �•{MCMILLAN il �•_�_ � lrgnllli lollrloj•• `�`�rE' i I�lo _ _ ���•� _ a1 IIIIn11ar■••III •� �*� . .IIO p,f .rru■11.• G►p Iy� �+r{ ;,,;;,; 'r �i _ • u mlunasl/•■• p�I turnlm�=t ahf/ji r.- �•.nu..•... ...:.......►`�No � I IInlllllllr•I rlq,�- ��•anl4rr0 rn iliE•:unmlm nnuum �• . • •• • nlo11lo1nntMl��1#+r•r i�pnlrlorp �G9��n11mw� E<�E!^iuuiiniiii iii iii ql .�■ f�►��L lnlrrru• +• lun■rur= r Iu #+t i�'■1 nn n►� ��Illlouur n Illgr r r::EIA alf� � �?: •Irrulrlm �i �:� �i • o�EIEE►ate ri.� tram nrw�I �' 11111111: � 0. - In#n• ■nu w ���- : nElr91 llll/ ,y�► ��'����0. Iloilo-aa �lllOnlll- II�r pet►� QI� � ���rnrlllolrr ! �?�,� ► vR�i�• J ;Yi IRIII .I1rr1 11 rlo ■rlorin rlollnr 1►m t .,-y< M. �Inlir1i {I,1 ■■ -��nurnrr #.near rnu�■■run - lIl•rl a �� I �=�=rIlo Ilor:11i ■rlrIlmrlr ii rlolau��� F� C C •ri a p �u+• nr■ ullrin • , a 11 Iiiililnnn.1 111 ailrrm l■Irr rr■~• �_ .nmllrr till J� . - nlouq olonum w e:n Iloilo��#run nnu�Il '- m Ilia ur rru r-■n■■■ursrr - .0 raf3numunray�Ilnlr• In»�y ur■ IIIIr�r r E- •IlrnW Ilrll'. � In rI Elil■�Irlrr�: 11► ■ � 'Ill IF r..Z -ql�l�► ''��=�1111nu1 nnr� a E�/Iir ll Z m ■■ �..� _■ • r -__ rHlaJ�a nnu111 Ilan a uirl+r #nu�U1111L wn r F rC monnnm _ •i•� Ina-�nnnnn man: 1■_ a=�• � •our! -Imm nnnu MCMIL-L-AN Cplurnaa� ► m .r►1flnuUl HIMn1111r111. rin!!IN �• ` rl r --ll4 µll6i■9I j tort do nllw urr!ir Q ♦♦ Inn ■ �a _ nmm Ir NOrmH� �'� vnl� Ill► uu;�1�n n•:_�. �rjir sr lin 1 ����11611 art r •I �. ► , ♦+.n,` ?n111111 mul �---,nun � n11 ! ►������L♦ �• �#fir num1 nmca- =- � ■■.■ ri �i fir�nurn- .iunnn�',�I� • ■•y /IIIlo a IlFlur�� oral n - �1 /fl J�I — .�i`i- noun Fy r n p, i� f� �u�EiE•�A�Q frr��r l lu►� lruumm eunln nlr l sr ■ ♦ EEE�• t. ♦�p � r rrrrr r ulnnlr u1n�l�}u In nn• nee:• r �Irq � � �� y1Eq �pr►rrM�:�nl.!r i uunnnnr.-uncnunllln■uru {.` • r / Qri C rxfrunni=- m■unu■ru� •ap r'r r $now IIn�►�■an n,Irr 1 p:1 •�,:� d r�i.� rrrrr� -- - ■■o■,. r■ �� ■■: lr� y q,rfrrl * •E: Ir■•; ••9::��E�.I�'.*.:''.=.:a•r O,. �/,�^�!■- L - 11E •� -."■ 1 ::',:m■r�7lr eon i5rnm�� r f!rO■-.. ���� •, ■rIw: ■nul�'IIII■1� lrnnlr:: I•yli.a/irnfri�� �Ilillrr a��•un ■ �.• !ram`■n■nni�rl.Inur_■.�rrrM.unmu m III �p 111111 i1 '1 f N un "Z' rrllrrq,!,a'����finlrr� ir,r~iiY1 III m wur� pm miff 111■r!i nnngi ■f - pur-�■■ rr.�- ■�r1oi1111r �.�■ !j�IIEf VI� e � a�I���� 'r.i:'ii'■■■ Iloilo#ri►� Ifr'•1s i sa�a+ is _ _ Irrlf■�■:iiliiu:i ] Ill:, �n��- -�1l ln! 1 ■■k �r v m'.ru T +-F ■.■ t liI- 1 � # } 3 11 f11111 lilwl Flllf { I11 � 1 rAr1� 1711111E 1111111E IIJI } �ti IEI 1111■ aEL 17!l11 • t �IIL1���` 111. 'Lwool E1111r �i�■111111 : +* • • y iiiA_�JHIS woo E■[F11 L1�EI 1111 `r 11F .r ■■oE1111 IN 9 IJ1 10 �. r •' • 11�� 111 } i • i## Nt J1�111�— E1E■ 11 111E 11 i 11 1 will E' E 1111 ■r} 11141ty 11-E a■■ 1 t E1 Ell �1lRr1 JJi r 1� RAI ■.■ —i la—, If■I 4 W ICY RualanC591 1_r MEN i + HIM �= FI111 11;I1111 119111FI + *•!1 11111� 7E■ 111111 x 1 F rlrl_ II141 � EENEL1111 * s t 1 11r 7111l—■11 5 !■EEEf111rr 1= Mill +1 - 1lidiulli i1 Itsit% ■rDEE■—► + • � . ,�;aiiia� -i 1r1:■■� ��h�,■: Ilil��wEl t ■+1 _� EI1i1111 4'xIi1L'ItlIh111r4.4111■■■Ell { _( • ' • = 11 f1 !-IIIt111111�•ME1■ in 11 �PA 14f :�111#I IFII t u1E[I111 ■1 + 1r11: -11111JIIli„ 11Ua..E Eta.■ar EIn ■ �ky�,`�? ikFli[e —1LI1 OUR 1 11rm. III11 Irl • + s t 1i46 1 1rIl16`:.1�apt 111u 1r1�j. �Im -1I_ir}h DurkNilN4f u.i IicxiJ.'utixl INN i I cPakni4'rriarl irk sill 4 _ * =fll— i —L J�� ■' ■_E—i SNL =�1 I�• �11—=1JIE■I '1mill r11 + [;iPL re}a Room - son I 1111111E #11 -- �=x=_�� Lil1 11 � � ■.ILI 1 11 ��++ Eft 11111111FL ,= —'" Ifs•� ** * '��_ '. ■ 11+111� �- 1111E C �Iill ' iR::�*�SIIH1 * ; r111 : ;ill Iamb I'm rra - 1 1 111E I11 11111E r. ' -rr r 4. Planned Development Map � mtr Legend C Project Location 0 ;::Area of Impact T City Limits m Planned Parcels OAnalysis - -•� R` ,[ice ® ;I - ® ® - ®�13 T M EE ApGTFFQ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 50 B. Subject Site Photos AN No �M � r r _-- - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ .. _�_ _.,_t_'-•-_ -_ _ .,_ _..r•�. .�t.. �. ._ _ _ _. _ � -gin'€-�=� -°�- DepartmentCity of Meridian 10 C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL SO4 64 855R SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY 10verall Score: 37 181st Percentile 1 . ■ 1 F F Location In City Limits r Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floadplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 t=rvs GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min, GREEN Emergency Services police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways W thin 114 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 114 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration(4 of lanes in master streeis GREEN plan) matches existing (4 of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 112 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Eithera Regional park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkability park within 1I2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within GREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ D. Site Plan(date: 9/15/2025) LECEM ---------- - Z. IF W"LLAN ()PRajAvmARYsFrEm-AN SPLO City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 9/15/2025) 71�EE PRG77EGT10N NO7Qe. IJ7f FCR Aax. X X ... `l Cell i r inimmi ME U.0 F �MIi1GATI0H PLAN MY19AY17N FL4N /� t1�wrn��cera e . . . . . . NOf FCR d -------- I log AIL AIL "IME -------------- t —— — — rX ��. - � g � AN LDSCAPE PLM-ARUOfE `—_—_—_ — T .�.,•.w•••••.,_ ... X 9Y wcx..os ..s I GLMI.//Ir4.M[ F City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ GGNS-Puc:�N TWnW� C611 a. aw I --—------------------------ w*w m.-;7ll ---------------------------------------------- 2 LANDSCAPE PLAN AREA TWO � UW-7 'nz k-1-0 h9-- --.np 22 Z— City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Building Elevations d. 9/15/2025) i City of Meridian `r - i ; ■fir Flex Spaces-View from Parking Lot Flex Spaces-View from McMillan Road Departmentpo Storage Building -View from McMillan Road r � L� Storage Building -View from McMillan Road Flex Spaces -View from Parking Lot DepartmentCity of Meridian po G. Rezone Legal Description&Exhibit Map LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR FULFER KIELLY Z 9RIEH13A TRUST PARCEL-A"REMNE A parem Of mr1d,for the purposes of ramning,tacam in the SWI9 of"SE 114 of Sw*m 26.Tgwem%11ip 4 PhVkh,Fie 1 Wast,Raise MendFan.Crag of Wenjien,Add County.:ala►wti and twir tq kwVw derEe Bea as rollo vs' BASIS OF ft"ING i ne South ks of Nr9 WfY4 of ssjd Sechdrl 26.da wed fraoa f6e,nd nxvr+rrnevrls snd ta4sri as Nc%rjb ema,35'Vekkd w,Vh vie&.iJaxe be rmanLyner s mundbD be 2625 59A?f MGFNNING at a bra"idp morwrrrwo hwk V the saijmv em€tinter W aertl 5I=14; T harlce,r,wri 00'39'3 T'F a51 T disranorr pf 5G CO reel in a Vil lath mbar marking" 5ouihesst oxnor of Fuller Sltdrsnsuin No.3 as raoar*d in Urre of wt War&01 Ada G�,mty rt Fta[Book 9-2 al Page 1 W4 Tlienoe,calwnwN North 00'313 11'East a dlslanw 0 320.00 feet along—Fair lirmc rA mid r-ulFP.r iubdimis-m No.3 to a W-i h rebar r arkpV the Southwest czww 4f`0sr Su6dim&iew,{ta 4 as reoaedatl in she o"ial records of Ada County in Prat Sook 92 al P3Qa 10906: Them*,km nng surd E ml line and pepng the homidary at mo Fuller Srbdlsneron Na-4 Me fcaowing 3 courses,South W 2'14'Epst a dlglamce 0r 869 96 Feet; T henae,NAh$0'3 r4K E a:i a r�sonoa of 4313 dA feel to a 51B-ind5 rPbw Thence,SGUM CC"32 14`'ibesl a d-stanoe o{215 81 F&M to a V2-ind,rnhae Them.NwW[g 90d Fuller 5uWrviaon Ha 4 tcundary and snntrnl wr g South 90'32'14 Vdt*[a diakbe;e or 178 581eat10 a W9,4ich rebiv ors the North ngrrt-of-way brie of W A4rmilian Rd: Thencs,aarrtlnung South 00'3U'14-Wes[a disaame or 3G.no r2et to paint colts w*m with said South lino of the SE I A mx1 thh_rrnMiFla OF tiad W.Mi MHtsn Rd: theme,arang&M cninddoN lino.North 09°2615Pv*a4 a fti4rrte al 7W.50"to Ire FOwr OF RIEGPNNWG. said Paroai con1mmV ZW1)46 squaffafaetar 5 99 avgs.m.4?mQd leas and is suq,rcl,0 211 c,mbng 4�nmmems enrllw rghb-Df-ways of re curd or impucd END JF DESCRIPWN. lAALD Kwrl N 8orens4jr;.P t$ 111 Rp Timberline Surveying 3f6 S.i(imall Ave.Suitc YU7 ` r am CelrtweH,Ibaho 93205 r {20al45&5667 Page 1 of I �4 U,M2S.Adr,23M-4E2-22W M011116.Ad&hv JH[£4f 6W-Z ME.,Rt City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits ■ G m/:= to-swl -3m © ¥ -4 . - ` ` j R 2 - _ w PO k Al �d § �tl� k?!3 •� � � 6 | \ g g § Lzu ![ ■ � }§ } k�o � � e 3 $ ) ] § �� / b ! 2 J � � � ■ � \ ■ .k2 � ■ m m � ! - £ ` I A i+dn «��� ■ ; !! City of Mell*pI Department Report Vttxƒi! � E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission MDA, RZ0035 CPMA, CUP,-2025-H DEVELOPMENTMERIDIAN LUXE 2025October 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary•Renderings•Traffic, Parking & Privacy•Site Plans••Expected Users•What Meridian Needs•Proposed Change to Zoning•Zoning Map•Current CRE Availability•Proposed Change to FLUM•Future Land Use Map•Project Summary• The PROJECT SUMMARY ModificationAgreementDevelopment•condosstorageproposedforPermitUseConditional•C)-(CDistrictBusinessCommunitytoO)-(LOfficeLimitedfromRezone•CommercialtoOfficefromAmendmentMapPlanCo mprehensive•:approvalsfollowingtherequestingisapplicant FUTURE LAND USE MAP PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) .usespublic-quasiandpublicappropriateaswellasuses,officeandservices,professionalandpersonalretail,includemayusesDesired.visitorsandresidentsareaserve tousescommercialofrangefullaprovide:CommercialDESIGNATIONFLUMPROPOSED.centersresourceandtechnologyoffices,professionalincludewouldusesThese.areasbusinessimpact-lowforopportunitiesprovide:OfficeDESIGN ATIONFLUMEXISTING WILL EXPAND OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENTDESIGNATION CURRENT COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY FLEXOFFICE MERIDIAN ZONING MAP PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE ZONING DESIGNATION .moreandstores,retailspace,flexfacilities,storageserve-selfincludeusesallowedAdditional.zoneOfficeLimitedcurrentthebeyondusesallowabletheexpandsDistrictBusin essCommunity.usesserviceandoffice,retail,ofmixbroaderandscaleLarger:DistrictBusinessCommunityDESIGNATIONZONINGPROPOSED.operationofhourslimitedwithstructuresresidentialofreuseadaptiveandcentersOffice: OfficeLimitedDESIGNATIONZONINGEXISTING EXPAND OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENTWILL WHAT MERIDIAN NEEDS . parcels located - well in speculative for economics good — land available limited demand active show listings area Meridian . rising is space logistics mile - last for demand base, consumer growing a expansions manufacturing/tech regional With : bays) oriented - service fulfillment, commerce - e warehouses, - (small / logistics mile - Last - 2 . shopping neighborhood quality for need unmet to points combination that — rising been have rents asking Meridian), in % 1 < vacancy retail show (repo?s tight extremely is Meridian in vacancy Retail . amenities to close housing retail everyday for demand local steady creating increases), yearly strong 2020 since growth digit - (double rapidly growing is population Meridian’s : retail Neighborhood - 1 •EXPECTED USERS Promotional Products • Hard Wood Floor Installer • Comic Books/Games • Beard Wax Manufacturer • Interior Design • Kitchen Tune Up The integration of Luxury Storage Condos aligns with Meridian City goals, fits the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR STORAGE CONDOS landscapingquality design and -Visually appealing: High•investmentSupports small business: Local ownership & •operationsimpact, quiet -traffic, low-Compatible use: Low•Why it fits:Architecturally integrated with surrounding uses•Serves local businesses, hobbyists & contractors•occupied storage condo units within the commercial development-Owner•managed.-zoning intent, benefits the community, and will be well 2003 APPROVED SITE PLAN TRAFFIC derived estimate.-the ACHDfar lower than —related traffic is only about 6 trips/day -estimated storageWe’re proposing 41 large storage condos, so using actual unit counts the which for our total building area equates to roughly 550 conventional units. generation rates assume an average storage unit size of 90 sq ft, -lower. units) per ACHD methodology; however, actual traffic is expected to be The traffic study estimates 132 daily trips (77 attributable to the storage PARKING north flex building frontage.additional parallel parking stalls along the 8 -accommodate approximately 7and realigning island spaces to aisle widths adjacent to the flex parking for modifications, including reducing drive deemed necessary, the site layout allows UDC. Should additional parking be parking requirement established by the parking spaces, exceeding the minimum The proposed site plan provides 55 PRIVACY & COMPATIBILITY protecting residential character while maintaining an attractive project edge.The fence, combined with landscaping, will provide a visual and noise buffer, •fence along the residential/commercial boundary.foot privacy -To ensure a clear separation between uses, we propose installing an 8• FLEX RENDERINGS STORAGE RENDERINGS •PROJECT SUMMARY & CITY BENEFITS and property values.Community Value: Convenient services that enhance neighborhood livability •site layout.Low Impact & High Function: Minimal traffic, ample parking, and adaptable •architecture.demand flex/retail space with modern, attractive -Ready Design: High-Market•diversifies tax base.Drives Local Economy: Supports small businesses, creates jobs, and •population, and meets the demand for Storage Condos.Meets Growth Needs: Flexible commercial space for Meridian’s expanding w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT) (H-2025- 0045) by City of Meridian Planning Division, located City Wide Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2025-0045 A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT) to Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024) and the Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024), Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees Study (September 16, 2022) and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein, Amend the "List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference" including minor cleanup and ensure the most current adopted plans and studies are referenced and Amend "Appendix A. Glossary of Terms" to add//modify language. F62 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 16, 2025 ITEM # 5 PROJECT NAME: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT) (H-2025-0045) I wish to testify Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing (mark x (Please Print) HOA? if yes) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT REPORT REPORT HEARING DATE: 10/16/2025 I 0 44 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 1 FROM: Carl Anderson, as � Long-Range Associate Planner ■■■■ 208-884-5533 cnderson@meridiancity.org ■■■■� APPLICANT: City of Meridian ■`=1= Planning Division SUBJECT: H-2025-0045 Legend 2025 Comprehensive Plan Text AOCI Amendment County — ss LOCATION: Citywide Line Future Road I. SUMMARY A. Summary The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT). The proposed CPAT request would accomplish the following: 1. Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study(May 24, 2024) and Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study(May 24,2024); 2. Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees study(September 16,2022), and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein; 3. Amend the"List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference"including minor cleanup and ensure the most current adopted plans and studies are referenced; and 4. Amend Plan"Appendix A. Glossary of Terms"to add/modify language. B. Issues/Waivers None C. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long range Division Page 1 of 10 63 II. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Process &Notification Details Description Details Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Preapplication Meeting date 9/4/2025 Neighborhood Meeting N/A Site posting date N/A Agency Notice 9/23/2025 Notification Published in newspaper 9/30/2025 Notification mailed to property N/A N/A N/A owners within 300' Nextdoor PSA 9/25/2025 III. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Project Overview&Request The City of Meridian is initiating an amendment to the text of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan (Plan)to adopt by reference the Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) and impact fee studies for the Ada County Jail and EMS. The amendment will also include the adoption by reference of the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees study(September 16, 2022),and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein. Also included are minor amendments to Plan policy text, amending the "List of Adopted Plans and Studies By Reference" as well as the"Appendix A. Glossary of Terms"to add/modify language. Each of the proposed amendments are further described in sections IIIA.1 —IIIA.4. A.1 Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study(May 24,2024) and Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study(May 24,2024) The City of Meridian has been receptive in working with Ada County and Ada County Emergency Medical Services District("District")to implement countywide development impact fees. More specifically,the County and District are desirous of adopting a countywide development impact fees to partially fund the coroner,jail, and EMS related capital improvements associated with new development. The background of this work is further described in Attachment B.1 to this report. The subject request will complete"step 2"as outlined in the memorandum("memorandum") dated June 17,2025 (Attachment B.1). "Step 1"as outlined in the memorandum has been complete as evidenced by Attachments AA and A.6.Additionally,as identified as"step 2a"in the memorandum,the Ada County/Ada Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee has forwarded its written comments to the City which may be found in Attachment A.3. As the subject intergovernmental agreements were approved,the request is to consider the CIPs in accordance with the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act„ outlined in"step 2b"and"step 2c"as identified in the subject memorandum. The CIPs themselves may be found at the following links for further review: LINK:EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study LINK:Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee StudX City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 2 of 10 64 Should future impact fees be adopted,the maximum supportable development impact fees for Jail and EMS services are as follows: Table 2: Ada County Proposed Impact Fees Jail Paramedics Residential—Single-Family(per unit) $516 Residential—Single-Family(per unit) $175 Residential—Multi-Family(per unit) $357 Residential—Multi-Family(per unit) $121 Nonresidential(per 1000 square foot) Nonresidential(per 1000 square foot) *Retail $944 *Retail $273 *Office $364 *Office $105 *Industrial $163 *Industrial $47 *Institutional $361 *Institutional $104 Please refer to page 6 on each of the subject(Jail&EMS)Capital Improvement Plans and Development Impact Fee Studies (Attachments A5 and A7; linked above). Should the City choose to adopt the subject CIPs, impact fees will not be immediately collected as there are additional actions that would need to take place which are further expanded upon in the memorandum. Staff are not proposing to adopt the CIP for the coroner-related facilities at this time, as these are not explicitly delineated in Idaho Code section 67-8203(24)(f). It is staff s understanding that the County intends to work with the legislature3 next session to reference coroner facilities in the statute. Should the subject CIPs be adopted by the City,they would be adopted by reference and included in the table titled"List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference". See also section A3 of this staff further detailing proposed amendments to the subject table. A.2 Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees study(September 16, 2022),and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein Under Idaho State Law, governmental entities (such as the City of Meridian),that undertake comprehensive planning pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6501,must incorporate the capital improvement plans as an element of the County Comprehensive Plan. The City of Meridian is proposing to incorporate capital improvement plans and impact fee studies by reference in the 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Should this request be approved,the Development Impact Fee Study and amended CIP as adopted by Ordinance 22-2004 (Attachment A.8)will be included the table titled"List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference". See also section A.3 of this staff further detailing proposed amendments to the subject table. A.3 Amend the"List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference" The 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan(the Plan) is integrated with a series of plans and studies which are listed as"being adopted by reference"by the City, are enumerated on page C of the Plan itself,and Exhibit A.9 of this report. Each of these planning efforts support and contribute to the Plans overall vision and planning requirements. The intent of this update is primarily conduct a cleanup to the plan and ensure that the subject table and related planning efforts remain current. The proposed amendments are enumerated below and found in Attachment A.9. The first item initially proposed is to reword the Title of the Table from"List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference"and remove the wording"adopted"and replace with"incorporated". This is intended to reflect that it is possible that not all plans listed have been formally adopted, primarily City led planning efforts,but are still integral to the Plan and are thus incorporated with the plan. City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 3 of 10 65 Similar to the Plan itself, many of these planning efforts are regularly updated to remain current and responsive to the existing conditions and needs of residents. The City has identified that there are multiple plans/studies listed which are no longer the most current plan/study of its scope. Plans of note include, and may not be limited to (plans/studies are linked to the text below): UPDATE—Existing: • Meridian Water Master Plan o The current version of this plan is the 2025 Water Master Plan, completed in February of 2025. The prior version of this plan is listed as the City of Meridian Water Master Plan (2018). • Ada County Hazard Mitigation Plan o The current version of this plan is the 2022 Ada County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, completed in April 2023. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as Ada County Hazard Mitigation Plan(2017). • City of Meridian Collection System Master Plan o The most current version of this plan is the 2023 Collection System Master Plan Update completed in November of 2023 and approved by the State of Idaho in 2024. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as the City of Meridian Collection System Master Plan(2017). • City of Meridian Strategic Plan o The most current version of this plan is the City of Meridian Strategic Plan 2020-2025. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as the City of Meridian Strategic Plan(2016- 2020). • City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan o The Most current version of this plan is the City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update 2023. The prior version of this plan is listed in the table as the City Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan(2015). • Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan o The current version of this plan is the 2024 Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Transportation Plan with the lead agency being ACHD. The prior version of this plan is listed as the Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan(2012). • Meridian Water Conservation Plan o The current version of this plan is the 2023 Meridian Water Conservation Plan. The prior version of this plan is listed as the Meridian Water Conservation Plan(2011). UPDATE—Addition: • Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility Plan(2018) o The current version of the plan is the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility (2018). This plan is conducted was conducted for the City of Meridian by Brown and Caldwell. The identified primary purpose of this document is to prepare and evaluate treatment system expansion alternatives and recommended options and planning level costs to guide the City in future capital improvements planning. The secondary purpose of the document is to prepare the documentation necessary for the City to present for regulatory authority approval. • Development Impact Fees Study(2022) o The current version of the study is the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study and Amended CIPs as prepared by DP Guthrie, LLC. Please refer to Attachment A.9 and Section A2 of this report for further background on the subject study. • EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 4 of 10 66 o The current version of the study is the EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study as prepared by TischlerBise, May 2024. Please refer to Attachments A.3, A4, and AS and Section Al of this report for further background on the subject study and CIP. • Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study o The current version of the study is the Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study as prepared by TischlerBise,May 2024. Please refer to Attachment A.3, A.4, and A.5 and Section Al of this report for further background on the subject study and CIP. Future Potential Action: • Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan o The current version of this plan is the Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan 2023-2024 Update. The prior version of this plan is listed as the Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan(2012). Be advised that staff are not recommending the inclusion of this Plan,until such time Council has had the opportunity to review the most current version of the plan. • Destination Downtown o The current Destination Downtown Plan was adopted by the Meridian Development Corporation in 2024. (Note: The 2024 Destination Downtown Plan is not located on MDC's website and therefore has not been linked herein). The prior version of this plan was completed in 2010.Staff are not recommending the inclusion of this Plan, as Council is currently reviewing the updated Destination Downtown Plan. This plan may be brought forward to be included in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan at a future date. A.4 Amend Plan"Appendix A. Glossary of Terms"to add/modify language. As a minor cleanup to the Plan, staff are recommending an amendment to"Appendix A. Glossary of Terms"to add/modify language. The specific modifications are as follows: • The following amendment is intended to reflect the City of Meridian's practice of the Comprehensive Financial Plan(CFP)being the Capital Improvements Plan(CIP). This is intended to provide guidance on any needed future interpretation. The addition is shown as green,underlined text below. Please also refer to Attachments A8 and A10 for a review of the text amendment as proposed. While not as originally drafted and noticed,the Commission may wish to further modify the definition below to amend all references from the existing language of"Program"to "Plan". This amendment would further improve consistency and reduce potential confusion. o Capital Improvement Program-A process of identifying and budgeting for the public facilities that a jurisdiction will need to construct in order to serve existing and anticipated development. Capital improvement programming is typically done in five-year increments with annual updates.A Capital Improvement Program(CIP)must address the type of project,the location of the project,the cost of the project,the source of funds to finance the project,the agency or department responsible for the project, and the time frame for completion of the project. Capital Improvement Programs are a primary tool of most growth management programs. The City of Meridian refers to the Capital Improvements Plan, as the Comprehensive Financial Plan(CFP). (Appendix A. Glossary of Terms) • NEW-In order to provide clarity for future use of the Plan related to the practice of collecting impact fees, as well as to further inform the proposed amendments herein, staff are recommending the inclusion of the term"Impact Fee". The proposed term was pulled City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 5 of 10 ■ Appendix A8 to remain consistent with existing City documentation. See below for the proposed amendment and Attachment A10 for additional information. o Impact Fees-Are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements,not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need,benefit, and proportionality. (Appendix A. Glossary of Terms) B. Comprehensive Plan Analysis B.1 Future Land Use Map Designation (https://meridiancity.org/community-development/planning/comprehensive plan/future-land-use- mi Staff Review: This application does not include any modifications to the future land use map. As such,no specific analysis is provided for the proposed changes. B.2 Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://meridiancioy.orglimplementationtable.aspx) Staff Review: The Following policies are found to be relevant to the proposed amendment: 2.05.01D Coordinate planning efforts and strategic growth of the City with other service providers and local decision-makers. Staff Review: The City of Meridian regularly endeavors to coordinate planning efforts and strategic growth of the City with other service providers. The proposed amendments to the Plan further support this policy through the adoption of the Ada County's CIP and Development Impact Fee Studies to facilitate the provision of services to residents in both Ada County and the City.Additionally,the incorporation of supporting plans and studies into the Plan furthers this policy. 3.01.0111 Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate the community's needs and growth trends. Staff Review: The update to the Plan as proposed services to accommodate the community's needs and growth trends. The proposed amendments to the Plan further support this policy through the adoption of the Ada County's CIP and Development Impact Fee Studies to facilitate the provision of services, accommodating growth trends and needs of the community. Additionally,the incorporation of supporting plans and studies into the Plan furthers this policy to ensure that the Plan and supporting documents remain relevant. 3.01.01E Coordinate with the City of Nampa, Canyon County, Star,Eagle,Kuna,Boise, and Ada County on land use,transportation, and emergency services. Staff Review: The proposed adoption of Ada County's CIP and Development Impact Fee studies for EMS and Jail services support this policy and reflect the ongoing coordination between the City of Meridian and Ada County. 3.02.01 Develop and implement master plans for all public facilities, services, and safety to guide the growth of the City. Staff Review: The proposed amendments as described in Section A of this report support the implementation of the City's and partner agencies,master plans pertaining to guiding growth and the provision of public facilities, services and safety. 3.03.03A Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 6 of 10 sa Staff Review: This policy is generally enforced during the development review process. The proposed amendment to ensure that the most recent plans and studies are incorporated into the Plan further the advancement of this policy. B. Municipal Code&Unified Development Code(UDC)Analysis Comprehensive plan amendments-Title 11 Chapter 5B Section 7. Staff Review: The following contains a review of Meridian City Code,Title 11,Chapter 5B Section 7 which requires all Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be processed as detailed below. The following are not exhaustive of the aforementioned standards and contain only those standards found to be relevant to this request. 11-5B-7 11-513-7. C.Process. 1. Comprehensive plan amendment initiated by the city. The Planning and Zoning Commission may propose to amend the comprehensive plan following notice and public hearing procedures in article A, "general provisions", of this chapter and the hearing procedures in Idaho Code § 67-6509. Staff Review: A request to amend the text of the Meridan Comprehensive Plan has been submitted and is subject to the notice and public hearing procedures outlined in Article A"general provisions"of the required chapter and the hearing procedures of Idaho Code § 67-6509.Note: A Neighborhood meeting is not required and has not been held on this request,due to the request being City wide. 4.Amendments to the text component of the Plan may be submitted at any time. Amendments to the text of the comprehensive plan may be recommended by the Commission consistent with section 11-5A-6 of this chapter. Staff Review: The subject amendment is an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and is subject to section 11-5A-6 of the Meridian UDC. 5.The commission,prior to recommending the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the comprehensive plan to the Council, shall conduct at least one(1)public hearing in accordance with article A, "General Provisions", of this chapter and in accordance with the procedures in Idaho Code § 67-6509. Staff Review: As part of their review and prior to recommending an amendment to the Plan, a public hearing has been noticed for the October 16,2025,Planning& Zoning Commission meeting. 11-5B-7.D. Required Findings. Staff Review: The required findings may be found in Section V"Findings"of this staff report. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Comments from outside agencies and City of Meridian Departments associated with this application and received by October 06, 2025, are summarized below. Interagency comments can be found on Laserfiche at the link below and within Exhibit C: https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=413618&dbid=0&Mpo=MeridianCitX A. Meridian Public Works 1. Wastewater Modeling Review:No changes in public sewer infrastructure shown in record. Any changes must be approved by public works City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 7 of 10 69 (https://eplanreview.meridiancity.org/Proj ectDoxWebUIlproj ectllndex?Proj ectID=28504 &tab=correctionsTab) 2. Water Modeling Review: Distance to Mainline—Water available at site; Impacts of Concerns—No changes to public water infrastructure shown in record. Any changes must be approved by public works. This includes hydrants or the abandonment of water mains. (https://eplanreview.meridiancity.org/Proj ectDoxWebUI/proj ect/Index?Proj ectID=28504 &tab=correctionsTab) V. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan(UDC 11-513-71)) Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Staff Finding: Stafffinds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the elements of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and which contribute to all eighteen (18) elements required by Idaho State Statute. Stafffinds the amendment maintains this consistency as no changes are substantive to policy. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0045. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans as proposed to be updated. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment as described herein provides an improved guide to the future growth and development of the City by facilitating the provision of services to the Community and ensuring that supporting plans and studies remain up to date and relevant. Stafffinds that the proposed amendment provides an improved and current guide to future growth and development with the City. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0045. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans as proposed to be updated. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Stafffinds the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Maintenance of the Plan is directed by policy within the Plan and the State ofldaho. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0045. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plan as proposed to be updated. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. Staff Finding: Stafffinds the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code, as no development proposed and no policies in the Comprehensive Plan are being modified. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0045. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Staff Finding: Stafffinds the proposed amendment is compatible with existing land uses, as no development proposed and no policies in the Comprehensive Plan are being modified. The City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 8 of 10 70 proposed amendment as described herein provides an improved guide to the future growth and development of the City by facilitating the provision of services to the Community and ensuring that supporting plans and studies remain up to date and relevant. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0045. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans as proposed to be updated. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed Plan will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. This amendment maintains the relationship between service planning and reflects coordination with partner agencies in service planning. This amendment will further the implantation ofplanning efforts related to growth and ensuring that service capabilities are not overburdened. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025-0045. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans as proposed to be updated. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Staff Finding:A map amendment is not proposed as part of this Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City as it facilitates the provision of services to the Community and ensuring that supporting plans and studies remain up to date and relevant to the community. Evidence includes the application, supporting materials submitted, and the staff report with all exhibits for case file H-2025- 0045. Evidence also includes the 2019 Comprehensive Plan and all associated policies, studies and plans as proposed to be updated. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. B. Commission: Pending C. City Council: Pending City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 9 of 10 71 VII. EXHIBITS: A. Application Packet& Supporting Materials A.1 Application A.2 Memorandum: September 05, 2025 A.3 Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee —Minutes August 7,2025 A.4 Ada County Emergency Medical Service District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvements Plan for District System Improvements (Agreement No. 30708) A.5 EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study—May 24,2024 A.6 Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvement Plans for County System Improvements(Agreement No. 30465) A.7 Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study—May 24,2024 A.8 Meridian Development Impact Fees Study(Ordinance 22-2004) A.9 "List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference"—Draft Amendment A.10"Appendix A. Glossary of Terms"—Draft Amendment B. Supplemental Documents B.1 Intergovernmental&Joint Powers agreement—Memo to Council—Dated: June 17, 2025 City of Meridian I Planning Department—Long Range Division Page 10 of 10 72 Exhibit A Application Packet & Supporting Materials F73 Exhibit A.1 Hearing Date: October 16, 2025 Project Name: 2025 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Assigned Planner: Carl Anderson Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment(CPAT)for the following: 1)Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study(May 24, 2024) and Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study(May 24, 2024); 2)Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees Study(September 16, 2022) and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein; 3)Amend the"List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference" including minor cleanup and ensure the most current adopted plans and studies are referenced; and 4)Amend "Appendix A. Glossary of Terms"to add/modify language. Location: Citywide F74 Application Information IDIAN City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Suite 102 Meridian, ID 83642 I D A H O Building Services - PH: 887-2211 / FAX: 887-1297 Planning - PH: 884-5533 / FAX: 888-6854 Project Name Application Number Application Status 2025 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment - H-2025-0045 In Progress Project Address No address found. Applicant Name Address Phone Fax Email CARL 33 E. BROADWAY AVE. canderson@meridiancity.or ANDERSON, MERIDIAN, ID 83642 g CITY OF MERIDIAN Contacts Name Address Phone Fax Email Carl Anderson 33 E. Broadway Ave. canderson@meridiancity.or Meridian, ID 83642 g Carl Anderson 33 E. Broadway Ave. canderson@meridiancity.or Meridian, ID 83642 g Carl Anderson 33 E. Broadway Ave. canderson@meridiancity.or Meridian, ID 83642 g Application Information Question Answer Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment- CPAT CHECKED Is this City Initiated? Yes Address Verification Permit Number LDAV-2025-0740 Other Type of Use Proposed N/A General Location City Wide Current Land Use N/A Total Acreage N/A Prior Approvals (File Numbers) N/A Traffic Study Required per ACHD No What was the date of your pre-application meeting? 09/04/2025 Pre-Application Permit Number(ex: PREAPP-2021-0001) PREAPP-2025-0109 Verified submittal standards and checklist items CHECKED Verify that all drawings/documents will be uploaded in Project Dox as CHECKED Individual PDF's I have read and accept the above terms CHECKED Your signature Carl Anderson 75 Page 1 of 2 H-2025-0045 09/ Hearing Information No hearings found. 76 Page 2 of 2 H-2025-0045 09/ Exhibit A.2 MEMORANDUM E IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT September 5, 2025 TO: Mayor & Council Planning &Zoning Commission CC: Bruce Freckleton, Community development Director Caleb Hood, Deputy Director Brian McClure, Long Range Planning Supervisor FROM: Carl Anderson, Long Range Associate Planner RE: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment The City of Meridian Planning Division is applying for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (CPAT). The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment is intended to accomplish the following: 1) Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May24,024) and Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024); 2) Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees Study (September 16, 2022) and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated therein; 3) Amend the "List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference" including minor cleanup and ensure the most current adopted plans and studies are referenced; and 4) Amend "Appendix A. Glossary of Terms" to add/modify language. Supporting documentation and materials are included as part of this request and may be further detailed in the subsequent staff report. Sincerely, Carl Anderson I Long Range Associate Planner City of Meridian I Community Development Department Phone: 208.489.0328 canderson@meridiancity.org Community Development. 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 El Phone 208-884-5533 ■ Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Please see the following supporting documents included with this request: A. Ada County/ Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee— Minutes August 7, 2025 B. Ada County Emergency Medical Service District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvements Plan for District System Improvements (Agreement No. 30708) C. EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study— May 24, 2024 D. Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvement Plans for County System Improvements(Agreement No. 30465) E. Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study— May 24, 2024 F. Meridian Development Impact Fees Study (Ordinance 22-2004) G. "List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference"— Draft Amendment H. "Appendix A. Glossary of Terms"— Draft Amendment Page 2 78 Exhibit A.3 ADA COUNTY/ADA COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 200 W.Front Street Shelly Buchanan-Chair LeeJoe Lay Boise,Idaho 83702 David Yorgason-Vice Chair Mike Wardle P.(208)287-7900 Nicolette Kimmel Michael McCurry F.(208)287-7909 Shelly Buchanan The purpose of the Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee is to assist the elected leadership of these jurisdictions in the adoption, implementation and updates to the Ada County Development Impact Fee Studies and Capital Improvement Plans. The Committee also make recommendations on how the funds collected from development impact fees should be used and when assumptions or studies need to be updated. MINUTES for August 7, 2025, 4:00 P.M. VIRTUAL OR IN PERSON MEETING The meeting will be conducted at 200 W Front Street,Development Services Office and/or via WebEx Video Conference. If you would like to participate by phone or video,please contact Leon Letson. He can be reached at 1letson0adacounty.id.org or(208)287-7950. I. CALL TO ORDER- II. ROLL CALL&INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Members Guests Staff X Chris Findlay X Mike Wardle X Leon Letson,Staff X Nicolette Kimmel LeeJoe Lay X David Yorgason X Michael McCurry X Shelly Buchanan III. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. Review of Ada County CIPs for adoption into the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Staff presented the Ada County CIPs for the Jail, Coroner, and EMS. The Committee noted that the methodology used appeared sound and the proposed fee amounts seemed appropriate. There was additional discussion surrounding the CIP for the Coroner, with Committee member Yorgason noting concern he had heard from some of the partner cities on whether or not Idaho State Code allowed for this public service as being eligible for the collection of impact fees.Staff shared discussions they had also had around this issue and some efforts Ada County would be making during the next legislative session to bring clarity to this issue. The Committee unanimously supported collecting this impact fee, but stated they would not want to see delays on the collection of the other impact fees if the Coroner impact fee continued to be debated. Mike Wardle moved to approve. David Yorgason seconded.Approved 6-0. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: VII. ADJOURNMENT- A. Next Scheduled Meeting: TBD,4:00 p.m. 79 Docusign Envelope ID: BA7D20D4-FF43-4A5F-B344-F63EF9A79AAB Exhibit A.4 AGREEMENT NO. 30708 ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS [Idaho Code§§ 67-8204A&67-2328] Parties to Agreement: Ada County Emergency Medical District Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Services District Attu:Director 370 N. Benjamin Ln. Boise, Idaho 83704 City of Meridian City City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 THIS ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ("Agreement") is entered into this date of April 22, 2025 ("Effective Date") by and between the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District ("District") and the City of Meridian ("City") as an intergovernmental agreement as provided for in Idaho Code § 67- 8204A. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration hereby acknowledged by the Parties to this Agreement, the Parties hereby mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows: SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS For all purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the definitions as herein provided in this Section unless the context of the term clearly requires otherwise: 1.1 Act: Means and refers to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, Chapter 82, Title 67, Idaho Code as it may be amended or restated from time to time. 1.2 Advisory Committee: Means and refers to the Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee, which shall serve as the development impact fee advisory committee pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8205(3) to prepare and recommend the Capital Improvements Plan ("CIP") and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PAGE 1 F80 Docusign Envelope ID:BA7D20D4-FF43-4A5F-B344-F63EF9A79AAB 1.3 Agreement: Means and refers to this Ada County Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvements Plan for District System Improvements. 1.4 Board: Means and refers to the Board of the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District. 1.5 Capital Improvements Plan and/or CIP: Means and refers to the May 24, 2024 EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study,which was prepared for the District and adopted by the Ada County Board of Commissioners. 1.6 City: Means and refers to City of Meridian, Idaho, Party to this Agreement. 1.7 City Council: Means and refers to the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 1.8 District: Means and refers to the Ada County Medical Services District, Party to this Agreement. 1.9 Party/Parties: Means and refers to the District and/or the City, as the Parties in this Agreement, depending upon the context of the term used in this Agreement. 1.10 Service Area: Means and refers to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67- 8203(26). Said Service Area shall encompass the entirety of Ada County, including all the incorporated cities. 1.11 System Improvements: Means and refers to capital improvements to public facilities designed to provide service to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67-8203(28). SECTION 2 PURPOSES&AUTHORITY 2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a structure that will enable,but not require,the City to adopt the CIP.The CIP is intended to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development,protect the public health,safety,and general welfare of residents countywide, and to further the best interests of the Parties. 2.2 Idaho Code § 67-2328 authorizes public agencies in Idaho to exercise jointly any power, privilege, or authority authorized by the Idaho Constitution, statute, or charter. The Parties, each being a public agency, hereby agree to exercise jointly their respective powers, privileges, and authorities in accordance with Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code. 2.3 Idaho Code § 67-8204A provides that the District and City have authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purpose of developing joint plans for capital improvements. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PAGE 2 F81 Docusign Envelope ID: BA7D20D4-FF43-4A5F-B344-F63EF9A79AAB 2.4. The District is responsible for providing emergency medical services on a countywide basis. 2.5. The District is experiencing considerable growth and development, and the District's ability to provide emergency medical services is affected by said development. 2.6 The District has provided the City with the CIP, which was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 67-8208 in consultation with the Advisory Committee as provided in Idaho Code §§ 67-8205 and 67-8206(2). 2.7 The Ada County Board of Commissioners has adopted the CIP in accordance with Idaho Code §§ 67-8206(3) and 67-8208(1). 2.8 The District has requested that the City adopt the CIP in accordance with the Act, and the City is willing to consider said request. The Parties acknowledge and agree,however,that the City Council cannot and shall not be bound by this Agreement to adopt the CIP. 2.9 That by reason above stated, the Parties have determined it is necessary and desirable to enter into this Agreement. SECTION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3.1 Advisory Committee. The Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall serve as the development impact fee advisory committee pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8205(3) to prepare and recommend the CIP and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. 3.1.1 Administration and Staffing. The District,in cooperation with Ada County,shall provide for the administration and staffing of the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee members shall be appointed in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 67-8205. 3.1.2 Charge. The Advisory Committee is charged with the responsibilities set forth in Idaho Code § 67-8205(4). 3.1.3 Written Comments. The District shall cause the Advisory Committee to file its written comments concerning the CIP with the City on or before June 30, 2025, to provide the City with ample time to consider the CIP prior to the termination of this Agreement. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PAGE 3 82 Docusign Envelope ID:BA7D20D4-FF43-4A5F-B344-F63EF9A79AAB SECTION 4 SERVICE AREA 4.1 Idaho Code § 67-8203(26) provides that the Parties can identify a geographic area by an intergovernmental agreement in which specific public facilities provide services to development within that geographic area on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. 4.2 The CIP and this Agreement define the Service Area as the entirety of Ada County, including all the incorporated cities. SECTION 5 COSTS SPECIFIC TO DISTRICT 5.1 The District shall pay the following costs: 5.1.1 All costs associated with the Advisory Committee; and 5.1.2 All District costs associated with drafting this Agreement and any amendment or termination of the same; and 5.1.3 All costs associated with the District's performance of this Agreement; and 5.1.4 All legal costs and fees associated with any action brought by a third party concerning the validity of the CIP or this Agreement. SECTION 6 CITY COUNCIL ACTION 6.1 After the Advisory Committee files its written comments concerning the CIP with the City in accordance with the Act and Section 3.1.3 of this Agreement, the City shall consider the adoption of the CIP in accordance with the Act. 6.2 If the City adopts the CIP, the City agrees to consider the possibility of adopting a City ordinance concerning the countywide development impact fees delineated in the CIP, but only after (a) the Parties negotiate and agree on a new intergovernmental agreement for that purpose and(b) all the incorporated cities in Ada County have adopted(1)the CIP and (2) the ordinances necessary to implement countywide development impact fees. 6.3 The Parties acknowledge and agree that: 6.3.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring the City to adopt the CIP; and ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PAGE 4 83 Docusign Envelope ID: BA7D20D4-FF43-4A5F-B344-F63EF9A79AAB 6.3.2 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring the City to adopt an ordinance implementing countywide development impact fees. SECTION 7 INDEMNIFICATION 7.1 To the extent permitted by law, District shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless for all claims, losses, actions, damages, judgements, costs, and expenses arising out of or in connection with any acts or omissions of the District related to the CIP or this Agreement. In the event of such claim,District shall defend such allegations,and District shall bear all costs,fees,and expenses of such defense, including,but not limited to,all attorney fees and expenses,court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses. SECTION 8 TERM/TERMINATION/AMENDMENT 8.1 Term. This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2029, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 8.2 of this Agreement. 8.2 Party Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon ninety (90) day notice in writing to the other Party. 8.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of the Parties. SECTION 9 NOTICE AND DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS 9.1 Notices. All notices,requests or demands to a Party hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given or served upon the other Party by US Mail or email addressed as set forth below. 9.2 Contact Information. The contact information for purposes of notice to and/or the delivery of documents to the District is as follows: Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Attn: Director 370 N. Benjamin Ln. Boise, Idaho 83704 With Copy to: Ada County Prosecutor's Office Attn: Chief Civil Deputy 200 W. Front Street,Room 3191 Boise, Idaho 83702 adacountyprosecutor@adacounty.id.gov ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PAGE 5 84 Docusign Envelope ID: BA7D20D4-FF43-4A5F-B344-F63EF9A79AAB 9.3 The contact information for purposes of notice to and/or the delivery of documents to the City is as follows: City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 SECTION 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 10.1 Third Party Beneficiaries. Each Party to this Agreement intends that this Agreement shall not benefit or create any right or cause of action in or on behalf of any person or legal entity other than the Parties hereto. 10.2 Electronic and Non-Electronic Signatures: The District and City may execute this Agreement using handwritten signatures or electronic signatures, in accordance with Idaho's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The Parties acknowledge and agree that both signature methods are equally valid and binding for the purposes of this Agreement. 10.3 Severability. Should any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, parties, or circumstances, for any reason be declared illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein. 10.4 Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of Idaho. Venue shall be Ada County, Idaho. 10.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements,promises,or inducements made by either Party, or agents of either Party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both Parties. 10.6 Time of the Essence. Time shall be of the essence for all events and obligations to be performed under this Agreement. 10.7 Attorneys' Fees. If either Party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. 10.8 Assignment. No Party may assign this Agreement or any interest therein. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PAGE 6 85 Docusign Envelope ID:BA7D20D4-FF43-4A5F-B344-F63EF9A79AAB IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year written above. Board of the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District DocuSigned by: By: A180� 4/22/2025 1 3:25 PM MDT Rod Beck, Commissioner DocuSigned by, By: �/✓ 4/23/2025 1 12:06 PM MDT Ryan Davidson, Commissioner DocuSigned by: ���--By: 4/22/2025 1 3:58 PM MDT Thomas Dayley, Commissioner ATTEST: DocuSigned by: 4/23/2025 1 4:16 PM MDT Trent Tripple, Ada County Clerk City of Meridian By: Mayor Ro . Simison 6-24-2025 ATTEST: SEAL Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-24-2025 ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PAGE 7 86 Exhibit A.5 ` Co 4 T 0F �q EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Submitted to: Ada County, Idaho May 24, 2024 Prepared by: TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 999 W Main St Suite 100 Boise, ID 83702 800.424.4318 www.tischlerbise.com F87 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study [Page intentional blank] i TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING F881 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Impact Fee Study Ada County, Idaho ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................1 Idaho Development Impact Fee Enabling Legislation...............................................................................2 Summary of Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fees..................................................3 Methodologiesand Credits...................................................................................................................3 FeeMethodologies...............................................................................................................................4 CapitalImprovement Plan ....................................................................................................................5 CapitalImprovement Plan ............................................................................................................................7 CapitalImprovement Plan ....................................................................................................................9 Funding Sources for Capital Improvements .......................................................................................10 Emergency Medical Services Development Impact Fee Analysis...............................................................11 Cost Allocation for EMS Infrastructure...................................................................................................12 EMS Level of Service and Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................13 EMSFacilities ......................................................................................................................................13 EMSLand ............................................................................................................................................14 EMSVehicles.......................................................................................................................................15 EMSEquipment...................................................................................................................................15 Share of the Development Impact Fee Study.....................................................................................16 EMS Capital Improvements Needed to Serve Growth............................................................................17 EMSFacilities ......................................................................................................................................17 EMSLand ............................................................................................................................................18 EMSVehicles.......................................................................................................................................19 EMSEquipment...................................................................................................................................20 EMS Development Impact Fee Credit Analysis.......................................................................................20 EMS Input Variables and Development Impact Fees..............................................................................21 Cash Flow Projections for EMS Maximum Supportable Impact Fee.......................................................22 Proportionate Share Analysis......................................................................................................................23 Implementation and Administration ..........................................................................................................24 Appendix A. Land Use Definitions...............................................................................................................26 ResidentialDevelopment........................................................................................................................26 Nonresidential Development Categories................................................................................................27 Appendix B. Demographic Assumptions.....................................................................................................28 Population and Housing Characteristics.................................................................................................28 Base Year Population and Housing Units................................................................................................29 Population and Housing Unit Projections...............................................................................................32 Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area.............................................................................34 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections .......................................................................35 VehicleTrip Generation ..........................................................................................................................39 ii TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING F89 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Residential Vehicle Trips by Housing Type .........................................................................................39 Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors.........................................................................................40 NonresidentialVehicle Trips...................................................................................................................41 VehicleTrip Projections ..........................................................................................................................42 Appendix C. Emergency Medical Services Call Volume Density Heat Map................................................45 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Fgol Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ada County, Idaho, retained TischlerBise, Inc. to calculate the impact fees to be imposed on new development to meet the new demands generated for public facilities in the County. It is the intent of Ada County to evaluate and establish impact fees for EMS facilities. This report presents the methodologies and calculations used to generate current levels of service and maximum supportable impact fees. It is intended to serve as supporting documentation for the evaluation and establishment of impact fees in Ada County. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the County's compliance with Idaho Statutes as authorized by the Idaho Legislature. Consistent with the statutory authorization for development impact fees (Idaho Code 67-8202(1-4)), it is the intent of Ada County to: 1. Collect impact fees to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to serve new growth and development; 2. Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development; 3. Establish minimum standards for the adoption of development impact fee ordinances by government entities; 4. Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to pay no more than their proportionate share of the cost of public facilities needed to serve new growth and development and to prevent duplicate and ad hoc development requirements; Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth's fair share of capital facility needs. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three key elements: need, benefit and proportionality. • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. 1 TischlerBise F91 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study TischlerBise evaluated possible methodologies and documented appropriate demand indicators by type of development for the levels of service and fees. Local demographic data and improvement costs were used to identify specific capital costs attributable to growth. This report includes summary tables indicating the specific factors, referred to as level of service standards, used to derive the impact fees. The geographic area for the EMS impact fees is countywide.These facilities provide a countywide benefit and are services not provided by the cities within Ada County. IDAHO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Idaho. All requirements of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act(hereafter referred to as the Idaho Act) have been met in the supporting documentation prepared by TischlerBise. There are four requirements of the Idaho Act that are not common in the development impact fee enabling legislation of other states. This overview offers further clarification of these unique requirements. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, "development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development." Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) [see 67-8208]. The CIP requirements are summarized in this report,with detailed documentation provided in the discussion on infrastructure. Third,the Idaho Act also requires documentation of any existing deficiencies in the types of infrastructure to be funded by development impact fees[see 67-8208(1)(a)]. The intent of this requirement is to prevent charging new development to cure existing deficiencies. In the context of development impact fees for Ada County, the term "deficiencies" means a shortage or inadequacy of current system improvements when measured against the levels of service to be applied to new development. It does not mean a shortage or inadequacy when measured against some "hoped for" level of service. TischlerBise used the current infrastructure cost per service unit (i.e., existing standards), or future levels of service where appropriate, multiplied by the projected increase in service units over an appropriate planning timeframe,to yield the cost of growth-related system improvements.The relationship between these three variables can be reduced to a mathematical formula, expressed as A x B = C. In section 67- 8204(16), the Idaho Act simply reorganizes this formula, stating the cost per service unit (i.e., development impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development (i.e., A = C _ B). By using existing infrastructure standards to determine the need for growth-related capital improvements, Ada County ensures the same level-of-service standards are applicable to existing and new development. Using existing infrastructure standards also means there are no existing deficiencies in the current system that must be corrected from non-development impact fee funding. 2 TischlerBise 92 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. Basically, local government must consider various types of applicable credits and/or other revenues that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development.The development impact fee methodologies and the cash flow analysis have addressed the need for credits to avoid potential double payment for growth-related infrastructure. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS Development impact fees can be calculated by any one of several legitimate methods. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for each facility type. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation,and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development impact fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating development impact fees, and how each method can be applied. Cost Recovery or Buy-In Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities. Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation.The incremental expansion method documents the current level of service (LOS)for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as park land acres per 1,000 residents). This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community. Plan-Based Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Facility plans identify needed improvements, and land use plans identify development. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit of development(e.g., single family detached unit). 3 TischlerBise 93 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of "credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of "credits," each with specific and distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the calculation of development impact fees.The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations.This could occur when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the impact fee calculation.The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is imposed. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a facility fee program. FEE METHODOLOGIES Of the fee methodologies discussed above, the incremental expansion method and the cost recovery method are used to calculate EMS impact fees for Ada County. Where capacity is sufficient to serve current demand the incremental expansion method documents the current Level of Service(LOS)for each type of public facility. While the cost of the impact fee study is captured through the cost recovery method. Additionally, Ada County anticipates working with the cities to collect the EMS impact fee countywide. The following table summarizes the method(s) used to derive the impact fee for each type of public facility in Ada County. Figure 1. Summary of Impact Fee Methodologies Fee Category Service Area Cost Incremental Plan-Based Cost Recovery Expansion Allocation EMS Stations, Impact Fee Person&Vehicle EMS Countywide EMS Land, EMS Vehicles,7 Study and EMS Equipment Trips 4 TischlerBise 94 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The EMS development impact fee is based on the existing level of service provided for EMS facilities.The development impact fee is calculated for residential and nonresidential development. Figure 2 shows that to serve projected growth at current levels of service, EMS will need to provide 12,215 square feet of new facility space, 1.59 acres of land, 6.0 new vehicle units, and 41.9 new equipment units over the next ten years. Figure 2. EMS Summary of Demand for Projected Growth Station Space 12,215 square feet $7,096,915 Station Land 1.59 acres $516,750 Apparatus 6.0 vehicles $2,123,508 Equipment 41.9 units $796,100 Total $10,533,273 Listed in Figure 3 are the capital improvement plans for facility expansion for the next ten years. The planned expansions are consistent and exceed growth-related needs to continue providing the current level of service. Figure 3. EMS Capital Improvement Plan 10-Year Growth-Related Capital Plan Unit Cost per Unit I Total Cost New Facility Space Station: Floating Feather/Horseshoe Bend 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: Federal Way/Amity 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: Fairview and Cloverdale 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: Lake Hazel/Five Mile 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: 10 Mile/Franklin 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Subtotal 16,230 square feet $9,429,630 New Facility Land 5 New Stations(1-1.5 acres per station) 1 7.5 acres $325,0001 $2,437,500 Subtotal 7.5 acres $2,437,500 New Apparatus Ambulance w/required capital equipment 1 10 vehicles 1 $353,9181 $3,539,177 Subtotal 10 vehicles $3,539,177 New Equipment Portable radios 20 units $7,644 $152,886 Mobile/station radios 20 units $8,298 $165,952 Subtotal 40 units $318,838 Station Cost $11,867,130 Apparatus Cost $3,539,177 Equipment Cost $318,838 Grand Total $15,725,145 5 TischlerBise 95 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fees by Type of Land Use Figure 4 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable development impact fees by type of land use for Ada County.The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represents new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The County may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However,a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. The fees for residential development are to be assessed per housing unit based on type. For nonresidential development, the fees are assessed per square foot of floor area (for illustrative purposes the nonresidential fee is listed per 1,000 square feet of development). Nonresidential development categories are consistent with the terminology and definitions contained in the reference book,Trip Generation 111n Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These definitions are provided in the Appendix A. Land Use Definitions. Importantly, the Ada County Paramedics provide a countywide service and benefit. Thus, the impact fee study has calculated the maximum supportable fee based on a countywide level of service. In this case, Figure 4 lists the maximum amounts for all development within Ada County. Figure 4. Summary of Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fees—Countywide DevelopmentEMS Maximum Supportable Residential(per housing unit) Single Family Multifamily Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Retail Office Industrial Institutional 6 TischlerBise 96 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT The following section provides a summary of the Capital Improvement Plan depicting growth-related capital demands and costs on which the fees are based. First, Figure 5 and Figure 6 lists the projected growth over the next ten years in Ada County.Overall,there is an estimated 23 percent increase in residential development (125,397 new residents and 50,296 new housing units) and an 18 percent increase in nonresidential development (43,283 new jobs and 16.9 million square feet of development). Further details on the development projections are provided in Appendix B. Demographic Assumptions. 7 TischlerBise 97 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure S.Ten-Year Projected Residential Growth Base Year Total Population 1 544,5901 568,015 591,946 602,628 613,310 623,991 634,673 645,355 653,566 661,776 669,987 125,397 Percent Increase 4.3% 4.2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 23.0% Housing Units Single Family 182,342 190,171 198,180 201,750 205,321 208,891 212,462 216,033 218,774 221,515 224,256 41,914 Multifamily 37,833 39,417 41,005 41,716 42,426 43,137 43,847 44,558 45,110 45,662 46,215 8,382 Total Housing Units 220,175 229,588 239,185 243,466 247,747 252,028 256,309 260,591 263,884 267,177 270,471 50,296 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis Figure 6.Ten-Year Projected Nonresidential Growth Base Year Total Ada County 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Jobs[l] Retail 43,787 44,612 45,437 46,262 47,086 47,910 48,734 49,557 50,367 51,177 51,986 8,199 Office 130,780 133,132 135,483 137,835 140,186 142,538 144,889 147,241 149,556 151,872 154,187 23,407 Industrial 35,745 36,388 37,030 37,673 38,315 38,958 39,600 40,242 40,875 41,507 42,139 6,394 Institutional 29,356 29,884 30,413 30,943 31,472 32,003 32,533 33,064 33,588 34,113 34,639 5,283 Total 1 239,6681 244,016 248,364 252,712 257,060 261,408 265,756 270,104 274,386 278,669 282,951 43,283 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 41,938 42,327 42,715 43,104 43,492 43,880 44,268 44,656 45,037 45,419 45,800 3,862 Office 21,670 22,392 23,114 23,836 24,558 25,280 26,002 26,724 27,434 28,145 28,856 7,186 Industrial 41,668 42,078 42,487 42,896 43,305 43,715 44,124 44,533 44,936 45,339 45,741 4,073 Institutional 25,911 26,096 26,281 26,467 26,652 26,838 27,023 27,209 27,392 27,576 27,760 1,849 Total 1 131,1881 132,893 134,598 136,302 138,007 139,712 141,417 143,121 144,800 146,479 148,1571 16,970 [11 COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [21 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 8 TischlerBise F98 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act requires Capital Improvement Plans to be updated regularly, at least once every five years (Idaho Code 67-8208(2)). This report projects revenue and fees based on 10- year forecast in an effort to provide the public and elected officials with illustrative guidance of probable growth demands based on current trends however, per Idaho Code, it is expected that an update to all Capital Improvement Plans included in this study will occur within five years. FUNDING SOURCES FOR CURRENT DEFICIENCIES The majority of the CIP relates to the construction of five new stations, followed by new apparatus, acquiring land for future stations, and new equipment. In addition, it is estimated that$1,000,000 will be required for maintenance and repair of existing facilities over the next five years. Because replacement and addressing existing deficiencies are not eligible to be funded with impact fees, these costs will need to be funded by other sources, such as property taxes, in accordance with Idaho Code 67-8207(iv)(2)(h). The Board of Ada County Commissioners retain discretion and authority to fund deficiencies through the county's annual CIP budget process, accumulate savings annually in a construction fund, budget annually for one-time projects using unspent fund balance, or through the deferred maintenance budget annually appropriated to the Operations Department for these sorts of expenses. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The EMS development impact fee is based on the existing level of service provided for EMS facilities.The development impact fee is calculated for residential and nonresidential development. Based on the 10- year growth projections,the following infrastructure is projected over the next ten years: • 12,215 square feet of new facility • 1.59 new acres of land for facilities • 6.0 new vehicle units • 41.9 new equipment units • $10,533,000 total cost to Ada County The projected demand is consistent with the Ada County EMS expansion plans.Currently,the department is exploring options for new stations and ambulances and will need more radios for staff hired to occupy the new stations over the next ten years. These projections are consistent with the EMS departments Capital Improvement Plan shown in Figure 7. 9 TischlerBise F991 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 7. EMS Capital Improvement Plan 10-Year Growth-Related Capital Plan Unit Cost per Unit I Total Cost New Facility Space Station: Floating Feather/Horseshoe Bend 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: Federal Way/Amity 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: Fairview and Cloverdale 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: Lake Hazel/Five Mile 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Station: 10 Mile/Franklin 3,246 square feet $581 $1,885,926 Subtotal 16,230 square feet $9,429,630 New Facility Land 5 New Stations(1-1.5 acres per station) 1 7.5 acres $325,0001 $2,437,500 Subtotal 7.5 acres $2,437,500 New Apparatus Ambulance w/required capital equipment 1 10 vehicles 1 $353,9181 $3,539,177 Subtotal 10 vehicles $3,539,177 New Equipment Portable radios 20 units $7,644 $152,886 Mobile/station radios 20 units $8,298 $165,952 Subtotal 40 units $318,838 Station Cost $11,867,130 Apparatus Cost $3,539,177 Equipment Cost $318,838 Grand Total $15,725,145 FUNDING SOURCES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS In determining the proportionate share of capital costs attributable to new development, the Idaho Development Fee Act states that local governments must consider historical, available, and alternative sources of funding for system improvements (Idaho Code 67-8207(2)). Currently,there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the County to fund growth-related projects for the infrastructure included in this study. Furthermore,the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset the growth-related capital costs to the County for EMS facilities. Evidence is given in the specific chapters of this report that the projected capital costs from new development will be offset by the development impact fees collection as long as the program is collected in the entire service area. Thus, no credits are needed in the impact fee calculation to offset double collection for growth-related capital costs. 10 TischlerBise Flool FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study DEVELOPMENTEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The EMS Development Impact Fee is based on the cost per service unit method specified in Idaho Code 67-8204(16), also referred to as the incremental expansion method elsewhere in this report. The EMS components included in the impact fee analysis are: • EMS facilities • EMS land • EMS vehicles • EMS equipment • Share of the development impact fee study The residential portion of the fee is derived from the product of persons per housing unit by housing type multiplied by the net capital cost per person. To calculate nonresidential development impact fees, nonresidential vehicle trips are used as the demand indicator. Trip generation rates are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. Office and institutional land uses trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for EMS facilities from nonresidential development and thus are the best demand indicators. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately reflect the demand for service. If employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, EMS Development Impact Fees would be too high for office and institutional development. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, the development impact fees would be too high for industrial development. (See the Appendix for further discussion on trip rates and calculations.) Specified in Idaho Code 67-8207(2), local governments must consider historical,available, and alternative sources of funding for system improvements. Currently, there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the County to fund growth-related projects for EMS facilities. Furthermore,the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset all growth-related capital costs for EMS facilities. Evidence is given in this chapter that the projected capital costs from new development will be entirely offset by the development impact fees. Thus, no general tax dollars are assumed to be used to fund growth-related capital costs, requiring no further revenue credits. 11 TischlerBise Foll FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study COST ALLOCATION FOR EMS INFRASTRUCTURE Both residential and nonresidential developments increase the demand for EMS services and facilities.To calculate the proportional share between residential and nonresidential demand, calls for service data from the Ada County Paramedics is analyzed. Shown at the top of Figure 8, 54 percent of calls are to residential locations, 23 percent to nonresidential locations, and 23 percent are classified as traffic calls. Base year vehicle trips are used to assign traffic calls to residential and nonresidential land uses. This results in 4,534 additional residential calls (1,138,874 residential vehicle trips / 2,087,130 total vehicle trips x 8,310 traffic calls for service) and 3,775 additional nonresidential calls (948,256 nonresidential vehicle trips/2,087,130 total vehicle trips x 8,310 traffic calls for service). After this adjustment 67 percent of calls are attributed to residential development and 33 percent are attributed to nonresidential development.These percentages are used to attribute facilities to respective demand units. Later in Appendix C, Figure 43 shows a call volume heat map to indicate areas of higher demand. Figure 8.Ada County EMS Calls for Service Annual Calls Land Use for Service oo o a Residential 19,510 54% Nonresidential 8,310 23% Traffic 8,310 23% Total 36,129 100% Base Year Land Use Vehicle Trips %of Total Residential 1,138:874 55% Nonresidential 948256 45% Total 2,087,130 100% Adj.Calls for Land Use Service Residential 24,044 Nonresidential 12,085 Total 36,129 100% Source:Ada County Paramedics 12 TischlerBise 102 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS LEVEL OF SERVICE AND COST ANALYSIS The following section details the level of service calculations and capital cost per person for each infrastructure category. EMS FACILITIES Listed in Figure 9, there is a total of 63,229 square feet occupied by the Ada County Paramedics. The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facilities is found by applying the calls for service data percentages.As a result,42,079 square feet are attributed to residential demand and 21,150 square feet is attributed to nonresidential demand. The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed square footage to the base year population and nonresidential vehicles trips.As a result,there is 77.3 square feet per 1,000 residents and 22.3 square feet per 1,000 vehicles trips. The anticipated construction cost of a new station ($581 per square foot) is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit. This results in a cost of$44.91 per person and $12.96 per vehicle trip (77.3 square feet per 1,000 persons x$581 per square foot=$44.91 per person). Figure 9. EMS Facility Level of Service&Cost Analysis Square Replacement Facility Feet Cost Administration Building-Benjamin 24,351 $14,147,931 Station#13 -Gekeler 3,246 $1,885,926 Station#15 -Bannock 700 $406,700 Station#17-Ridenbaugh 2,224 $1,292,144 Station#18-Overland 3,246 $1,885,926 Station#22 -Chinden 3,246 $1,885,926 Station#23 -Glenwood 6,294 $3,656,814 Station#25 -Featherly Way 2,432 $1,412,992 Station#28-McMillan 3,246 $1,885,926 Station#33 -Boise Ave 725 $421,225 Station#34-Pine 4,137 $2,403,597 Station#36-Linder 3,246 $1,885,926 Station#37-Meridian Co-Location 2,890 $1,679,090 Station#38-Dawes Place 3,246 $1,885,926 Total 63,229 $36,736,049 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonres Proportional Share 67% 33% Share of Square Feet 42,079 21,150 2023 Population/Nonres.VehicleTrips 544,590 948,256 Square Feet per 000Persons/Vehicle Cost Analysis Residential Nonres Squa re Feet per 1,000 Persons/Vehi cl e Tri ps 1 77.31 22.3 Average Cost per Square Foot[1] 1 $581 $581 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $44.911 $12.96 [1]Square footage cost estimate from Ada County Paramedics 13 TischlerBise 103 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS LAND Listed in Figure 10, there is a total of 8.09 acres occupied by the Ada County Paramedics. The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facilities is found by applying the calls for service data percentages. As a result, 5.4 acres are attributed to residential demand and 2.7 acres are attributed to nonresidential demand. The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed acreage to the base year population and nonresidential vehicles trips.As a result,there is 0.010 acres per 1,000 residents and 0.003 acres per 1,000 vehicles trips. The anticipated cost to purchase more land is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit. This results in a cost of$3.25 per person and $0.98 per vehicle trip (0.010 acres per 1,000 persons x$325,000 per acre =$3.25 per person, rounded). Figure 10. EMS Land Level of Service&Cost Analysis Facility Acres lCurrent Value Administration Building-Benjamin 1.50 $487,500 Station#13 -Gekeler 0.50 $162,500 Station#15 -Bannock 0.02 $6,500 Station#17-Ridenbaugh 0.14 $45,500 Station#18-Overland 0.16 $52,000 Station#22 -Chinden 0.17 $55,250 Station#23 -Glenwood 1.00 $325,000 Station#25 -Featherly Way 0.06 $19,500 Station#28-McMillan 0.32 $104,000 Station#33 -Boise Ave 0.02 $6,500 Station#34-Pine 1.00 $325,000 Station#36-Linder 1.67 $542,750 Station#37-Meridian Co-Location 0.78 $253,500 Station#38-Dawes Place 0.75 $243,750 Total 8.09 $2,629,250 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonres Proportional Share 67% 33% Share of Acres 5.4 2.7 2023 Population/Nonres.VehicleTrips 544,590 948,256 Acres per 1,000 ii Cost Analysis Residential Nonres Acres per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 1 0.0101 0.003 Average Cost per Acre[1] 1 $325,0001 $325,000 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $3.251 $0.98 [1]Anticipated costs from Ada County Paramedics 14 TischlerBise 104 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS VEHICLES Listed in Figure 11, the EMS vehicle fleet consists of 31 vehicles. The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facility is found by applying the calls for service data percentages. As a result, 20.6 units are attributed to residential demand and 10.4 units are attributed to nonresidential demand.The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed units to the base year population and nonresidential vehicles trips. As a result,there is 0.038 units per 1,000 residents and 0.011 units per 1,000 vehicles trips. The average cost per unit is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit. This results in a cost of$13.45 per person and $3.89 per vehicle trip (0.038 units per 1,000 persons x$353,918 per unit=$13.45 per person, rounded). Figure 11. EMS Vehicle Level of Service&Cost Analysis Total Vehicles Units Cost per Unit�Replacement Cost Ambulances 1 31 $353,9181 $10,971,458 Total 31 $10,971,458 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonres E onalShare 67% 33% Fleet 20.6 10.4 pulation/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 544,590 948,256 Units per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips I 1 1 Cost Analysis Residential Nonres Units per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 0.038 0.011 Average Cost per Unit $353,918 $353,918 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $13.451 $3.89 Source:Ada County Paramedics EMS EQUIPMENT Per the Idaho Act, capital improvements are limited to those improvements that have a certain lifespan. As specified in 67-8203(3) of the Idaho Act, "'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." Listed in Figure 12 is EMS equipment that have a useful life often or more years qualifying to be impact fee eligible. The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facility is found by applying the calls for service data percentages.As a result, 144 units are attributed to residential demand and 73 units are attributed to nonresidential demand.The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed units to the base year population and nonresidential vehicles trips. As a result, there is 0.265 units per 1,000 residents and 0.077 units per 1,000 vehicles trips. 15 TischlerBise 105 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study The average cost per unit is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit.This results in a cost of$5.04 per person and $1.46 per vehicle trip (0.265 units per 1,000 persons x $19,000 per unit= $5.04 per person, rounded). Figure 12. EMS Equipment Level of Service&Cost Analysis Total Equipment Units �Cost per Unit�Replacement Cost Portable Radios 93 $7,644 $710,921 Mobile/Station Radios 62 $8,298 $514,451 Cardiac Monitor 31 $28,000 $868,000 Gurney 31 $67,000 $2,077,000 Total 217 $4,170,372 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonres Proportional Share 67% 33% Share of Equipment 144 73 2023 Population/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 544,590 948,256 Units per 000 Cost Analysis Residential Nonres 2023 Population/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 0.265 0.077 Average Cost per Unit $19,000 $19,000 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $5.041 $1.46 Source:Ada County Paramedics Note: Equipment w/10-Year useful life SHARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY Under the Idaho enabling legislation, Ada County is able to recover the cost of the study through the collection of future fees. The total cost of the study has been evenly attributed to the four infrastructure categories, resulting in the EMS category share being $16,370. An impact fee study must be completed every five years, so the attributed cost is compared to the five-year projected increase. As a result, the cost per person is$0.14 and the cost per vehicle trip is$0.10. Figure 13. EMS Share of the Development Impact Fee Study Share of Residential Nonresidential Study Cost Share Share $16,370 67% 33% Residential Five-Year Capital Cost Growth Co! Population Increase per Person $10,894 79,401 Nonresidential Five-Year Capital Cost Growth Cost Vehicle Trip Increase per Vehicle Trip $5,476 56,847 $0.10 16 TischlerBise 106 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH Needs due to future growth were calculated using the levels of service and cost factors for the infrastructure components. Growth-related needs are a projection of the amount of infrastructure and estimated costs over the next ten years needed to maintain levels of service. EMS FACILITIES The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new EMS facilities. Shown in Figure 14, over the next ten years, there is a need for 12,215 square feet. The average cost per square foot is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($7,096,915). Figure 14. Projected Demand for EMS Facilities Infrastructure I Level of Service Cost/unit Residential 77 per 1,000 persons EMS Facilities Square Feet $581 Nonresidential 1 221 1 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for EMS Facilities Year Population Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total I Vehicle Trips Square Feet Square Fei Square Feet Base 2023 544,590 948,256 42,096 21,146 63,242 Year 1 2024 568,015 959,629 43,907 21,399 65,306 Year 2 2025 591,946 971,000 45,757 21,653 67,410 Year 3 2026 602,628 982,369 46,583 21,906 68,489 Year 4 2027 613,310 993,737 47,408 22,160 69,568 Year 5 2028 623,991 1,005,103 48,234 22,413 70,647 Year 6 2029 634,673 1,016,467 49,060 22,667 71,727 Year 7 2030 645,355 1,027,830 49,885 22,920 72,805 Year 8 2031 653,566 1,039,020 50,520 23,170 73,690 Year 9 2032 661,776 1,050,206 51,155 23,419 74,574 Year 10 2033 669,987 1,061,389 51,789 23,668 75,457 Ten-Year Increase 125,397 113,134 9,693 2,522 12,215 Projected Expenditure $5,631,633 $1,465,282 $7,096,915 Growth-Related Expenditures for EMS Facilities $7,096,915 17 TischlerBise ,o, FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS LAND The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new EMS acres. Shown in Figure 15, over the next ten years, there is a need for 1.59 acres The average cost per acre is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($516,750). Figure 15. Projected Demand for EMS Land Infrastructure I Level of Service Cost/unit Residential 0.010 per 1,000 persons EMS Land Acres $325,000 Nonresidential 0.003 1 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for EMS Land Year Population Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total I �Vehicle Tr Acres Acres Acres Base 2023 544,590 948,256 5.44 2.84 8.28 Year 1 2024 568,015 959,629 5.68 2.87 8.55 Year 2 2025 591,946 971,000 5.91 2.91 8.82 Year 3 2026 602,628 982,369 6.02 2.94 8.96 Year 4 2027 613,310 993,737 6.13 2.98 9.11 Year 5 2028 623,991 1,005,103 6.23 3.01 9.24 Year 6 2029 634,673 1,016,467 6.34 3.04 9.38 Year 7 2030 645,355 1,027,830 6.45 3.08 9.53 Year 8 2031 653,566 1,039,020 6.53 3.11 9.64 Year 9 2032 661,776 1,050,206 6.61 3.15 9.76 Year 10 2033 669,987 1,061,389 6.69 3.18 9.87 Ten-Year Increase 125,397 113,134 1.25 0.34 1.59 Projected Expenditure $406,250 $110,500 $516,750 I Growth-Related Expenditures for EMS Land $516,750 18 TischlerBise ,o$ FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS VEHICLES The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new EMS vehicle units. Shown in Figure 16, over the next ten years, there is a need for 6.0 units. The average cost per unit is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($2,123,508). Figure 16. Projected Demand for EMS Vehicles Infrastructure I Level of Service Cost/unit Residential 0.04 per 1,000 persons EMS Vehicles Units $353,918 Nonres i denti a I 1 0.01 1 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for EMS Vehicles Year Population Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total I Vehicle Trips Units Units Units Base 2023 544,590 948,256 20.6 10.4 31.0 Year 1 2024 568,015 959,629 21.5 10.5 32.0 Year 2 2025 591,946 971,000 22.4 10.6 33.0 Year 3 2026 602,628 982,369 22.8 10.8 33.6 Year 4 2027 613,310 993,737 23.3 10.9 34.2 Year 5 2028 623,991 1,005,103 23.7 11.0 34.7 Year 6 2029 634,673 1,016,467 24.1 11.1 35.2 Year 7 2030 645,355 1,027,830 24.5 11.3 35.8 Year 8 2031 653,566 1,039,020 24.8 11.4 36.2 Year 9 2032 661,776 1,050,206 25.1 11.5 36.6 Year 10 2033 669,987 1,061,389 25.4 11.6 37.0 Ten-Year Increase 125,397 113,134 4.8 1.2 6.0 Projected Expenditure $1,698,806 $424,702 $2,123,508 Growth-Related Expenditures for EMS Vehicles 0: 19 TischlerBise Flog] FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS EQUIPMENT The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new EMS equipment units. Shown in Figure 17, over the next ten years, there is a need for 41.9 units. The average cost per unit is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($796,100). Figure 17. Projected Demand for EMS Equipment Infrastructure I Level of Service Cost/Unit Residential 0.27 per 1,000 persons Equipment Units $19,000 Nonresidential 1 0.08 1 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for Equipment Year Population Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total I �Vehicle Trips Units Units Units Base 2023 544,590 948,256 144.3 73.0 217.3 Yea r 1 2024 568,015 959,629 150.5 73.8 224.3 Year 2 2025 591,946 971,000 156.8 74.7 231.5 Year 3 2026 602,628 982,369 159.6 75.6 235.2 Year 4 2027 613,310 993,737 162.5 76.5 239.0 Year 5 2028 623,991 1,005,103 165.3 77.3 242.6 Year 6 2029 634,673 1,016,467 168.1 78.2 246.3 Year 7 2030 645,355 1,027,830 171.0 79.1 250.1 Year 8 2031 653,566 1,039,020 173.1 80.0 253.1 Year 9 2032 661,776 1,050,206 175.3 80.8 256.1 Year 10 2033 669,987 1,061,389 177.5 81.7 259.2 Ten-Year Increase 125,397 113,134 33.2 8.7 41.9 Projected Expenditure $630,800 $165,300 $796,100 Growth-Related Expenditures for Equipment 00 EMS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CREDIT ANALYSIS Currently,there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the County to fund growth-related projects for EMS facilities. Furthermore, the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset growth- related capital costs for facilities. Evidence is given in this chapter that the growth-related projected capital costs from new development will be almost entirely offset by the development impact fees. As a result, no revenue credit is necessary in the impact fee calculation. 20 TischlerBise Fol FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EMS INPUT VARIABLES AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Figure 18 provides a summary of the input variables (described in the chapter sections above) used to calculate the net cost per person and vehicle trip. The residential EMS Development Impact Fees are the product of persons per housing unit by type of dwelling unit multiplied by the total net capital cost per person.The nonresidential fees are the product of trips per 1,000 square feet multiplied by the net capital cost per nonresidential vehicle trip. The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represent new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facilities.The County may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. Figure 18. EMS Input Variables and Maximum Supportable Impact Fees ComponentFee Cost Cost , EMS Facilities $44.91 $12.96 EMS Land $3.25 $0.98 EMS Vehicles $13.45 $3.89 Equipment $5.04 $1.46 1 mpact Fee Study $0.14 $0.10 Gross Total $66.79 $19.39 Net Total $66.79 $19.39 Residential SupportablePersons per Maximum Housing Type Hous Residential(per housing unit) Single Family 2.62 Multifamily 1.81 Nonresidential DevelopmentVehicle Trips Maximum . .. Nonresidential(per 1,000 square feet) Reta i 1 14.06 Off ce 5.42 Industrial 2.44 Institutional 5.39 21 TischlerBise Fill] FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR EMS MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEE This section summarizes the potential cash flow to Ada County if the EMS Development Impact Fee is implemented at the maximum supportable amounts. The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this chapter and the development projections discussed in Appendix B. The summary provides an indication of the impact fee revenue generated by new development. Shown at the bottom of the figure, the maximum supportable EMS impact fee is estimated to generate $10.5 million in revenue while there is a growth-related cost of $10.5 million. Thus, the impact fees offset all growth-related capital costs. Importantly,the level of service has included demand from within the cities of Ada County.To ensure that the County captures the full potential revenue of the impact fees an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is necessary for the Cities to collect the County impact fees on its behalf. Those revenues would be remitted to the County periodically. In the case there are no IGAs, the County will collect $1 million in unincorporated areas (9.6 percent of the countywide growth-related capital costs). Figure 19. Projected Revenue from EMS Maximum Supportable Impact Fees Infrastructure Costs for EMS Facilities Total Cost I Growth Cost EMS Stations $7,096,915 $7,096,915 EMS Land 516,750 $516,750 EMS Vehicles $2,123,508 $2,123,508 Equipment $796,100 $796,100 Impact Fee Study, $32,740 $32,740 Total Expendituresl $10,566,0131 $10,566,013 Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue OfficeSingle Family Multifamily Retail - per uni per uni per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2023 182,342 37,833 41,938 21,670 41,668 25,911 1 2024 190,171 39,417 42,327 22,392 42,078 26,096 2 2025 198,180 41,005 42,715 23,114 42,487 26,281 3 2026 201,750 41,716 43,104 23,836 42,896 26,467 4 2027 205,321 42,426 43,492 24,558 43,305 26,652 5 2028 208,891 43,137 43,880 25,280 43,715 26,838 6 2029 212,462 43,847 44,268 26,002 44,124 27,023 7 2030 216,033 44,558 44,656 26,724 44,533 27,209 8 2031 218,774 45,110 45,037 27,434 44,936 27,392 9 2032 221,515 45,662 45,419 28,145 45,339 27,576 10 2033 224,256 46,215 45,800 28,856 45,741 27,760 Ten-Year Increase 41,914 8,382 3,862 7,186 4,073 1,849 Projected Revenue $7,334,992 $1,014,188 $1,054,248 $754,536 $191,431 $192,299 Projected Revenue=> $10,542,000 Projected Expenditures=> $10,566,000 Non-Impact Fee Funding=> $24,000 22 TischlerBise 112 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS Development impact fees for Ada County are based on reasonable and fair formulas or methods. The fees do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the County in the provision of system improvements to serve new development. The County will fund non-growth-related improvements with non-development impact fee funds as it has in the past. Specified in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act(Idaho Code 67-8207),several factors must be evaluated in the development impact fee study and are discussed below. 1) The development impact fees for Ada County are based on new growth's share of the costs of previously built projects along with planned public facilities as provided by Ada County. Projects are included in the County's capital improvements plan and will be included in annual capital budgets. 2) TischlerBise estimated development impact fee revenue based on the maximum supportable development impact fees for the one,countywide service area; results are shown in the cash flow analyses in this report. Development impact fee revenue will entirely fund growth-related improvements less funding from other sources (i.e., federal and state grants). 3) TischlerBise has evaluated the extent to which new development may contribute to the cost of public facilities. 4) The relative extent to which properties will make future contributions to the cost of existing public facilities has also been evaluated in regards to existing debt. Outstanding debt for growth's portion of already constructed facilities will be paid from development impact fee revenue, therefore a future revenue credit is not necessary. 5) The County will evaluate the extent to which newly developed properties are entitled to a credit for system improvements that have been provided by property owners or developers.These"site- specific" credits will be available for system improvements identified in the annual capital budget and long-term Capital Improvements Plans. Administrative procedures for site-specific credits should be addressed in the development impact fee ordinance. 6) Extraordinary costs, if any, in servicing newly developed properties should be addressed through administrative procedures that allow independent studies to be submitted to the County. These procedures should be addressed in the development impact fee ordinance. One service area represented by Ada County is appropriate for the fees herein. 7) The time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times has been addressed. All costs in the development impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the annual evaluation and update of development impact fees. 23 TischlerBise 113 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study IMPLEMENTATIONADMINISTRATION The Idaho Act requires jurisdictions to form a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The committee must have at least five members with a minimum of two members active in the business of real estate, building, or development.The committee acts in an advisory capacity and is tasked to do the following: • Assist the governmental entity in adopting land use assumptions; • Review the capital improvements plan, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; • Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; • File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the capital improvements plan and report to the governmental entity any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development impact fees; and • Advise the governmental entity of the need to update or revise land use assumptions,the capital improvements plan, and development impact fees. Per the above, the County formed a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee (DIFAC). TischlerBise and County staff met with the DIFAC during the process and provided information on land use assumptions, level of service and cost assumptions, and draft development impact fee schedules. This report reflects comments and feedback received from the DIFAC. The County must develop and adopt a capital improvements plan (CIP)that includes those improvements for which fees were developed. The Idaho Act defines a capital improvement as an "improvement with a useful life of ten years or more, by new construction or other action,which increases the service capacity of a public facility." Requirements for the CIP are outlined in Idaho Code 67-8208. Certain procedural requirements must be followed for adoption of the CIP and the development impact fee ordinance. Requirements are described in detail in Idaho Code 67-8206. The County has a CIP that meets the above requirements. TischlerBise recommends that development impact fees be updated annually to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index like the RSMeans or Engineering News Record (ENR).This index can be applied against the calculated development impact fee. If cost estimates change significantly the County should evaluate an adjustment to the CIP and development impact fees. Idaho's enabling legislation requires an annual development impact fees report that accounts for fees collected and spent during the preceding year(Idaho Code 67-8210). Development impact fees must be deposited in interest-bearing accounts earmarked for the associated capital facilities as outlined in capital improvements plans.Also,fees must be spent within eight years of when they are collected (on a first in, first out basis) unless the local governmental entity identifies in writing (a) a reasonable cause why the 24 TischlerBise „4 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study fees should be held longer than eight years;and (b)an anticipated date by which the fees will be expended but in no event greater than eleven years from the date they were collected. Credits must be provided for in accordance with Idaho Code Section 67-8209 regarding site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for system improvements that have been included in the development impact fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits against development impact fees. Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the County's fees. The general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in CIP and development impact fee calculations. If a developer constructs a system improvement that was included in the fee calculations, it is necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees in the area that benefits from the system improvement.The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on TischlerBise's experience, it is better for a reimbursement agreement to be established with the developer that constructs a system improvement. For example, if a developer elects to construct a system improvement, then a reimbursement agreement can be established to payback the developer from future development impact fee revenue. The reimbursement agreement should be based on the actual documented cost of the system improvement, if less than the amount shown in the CIP. However,the reimbursement should not exceed the CIP amount that has been used in the development impact fee calculations. 25 TischlerBise 115 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study APPENDixA. LAND USE DEFINITIONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT As discussed below, residential development categories are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey.Ada County will collect impact fees from all new residential units. One-time impact fees are determined by the number of residential units. Single Family Units: 1. Single family detached is a one-unit structure detached from any other house, that is, with open space on all four sides. Such structures are considered detached even if they have an adjoining shed or garage.A one-family house that contains a business is considered detached as long as the building has open space on all four sides. 2. Single family attached (townhouse) is a one-unit structure that has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures. In row houses (sometimes called townhouses), double houses, or houses attached to nonresidential structures, each house is a separate, attached structure if the dividing or common wall goes from ground to roof. 3. Mobile home includes both occupied and vacant mobile homes, to which no permanent rooms have been added. Mobile homes used only for business purposes or for extra sleeping space and mobile homes for sale on a dealer's lot,at the factory,or in storage are not counted in the housing inventory. Multifamily Units: 1. 2+ units (duplexes and apartments) are units in structures containing two or more housing units, further categorized as units in structures with "2, 3 or 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 19, 20 to 49,and 50 or more apartments." 2. Boat, RV, Van, etc. includes any living quarters occupied as a housing unit that does not fit the other categories(e.g., houseboats, railroad cars,campers,and vans). Recreational vehicles, boats, vans, railroad cars, and the like are included only if they are occupied as a current place of residence. 26 TischlerBise 116 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES Nonresidential development categories used throughout this study are based on land use classifications from the book Trip Generation (ITE, 2021). A summary description of each development category is provided below. Retail: Establishments primarily selling merchandise, eating/drinking places, and entertainment uses. By way of example, Retail includes shopping centers, supermarkets, pharmacies, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, automobile dealerships, and movie theaters. Office: Establishments providing management, administrative, professional, or business services. By way of example, Office includes business offices, office parks, and corporate headquarters. Industrial: Establishments primarily engaged in the production and transportation of goods. By way of example, Industrial includes manufacturing plants, trucking companies, warehousing facilities, utility substations, power generation facilities, and telecommunications buildings. Institutional: Public and quasi-public buildings providing educational, social assistance, or religious services. By way of example, Institutional includes schools, universities, churches, daycare facilities, hospitals, health care facilities, and government buildings. 27 TischlerBise 117 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study APPENDix B. DEMOGRAPHIC AssuMPTIONS The data estimates and projections used in the study's calculations are detailed in this section. This chapter includes discussion and findings on: • Household/housing unit size • Current population and housing unit estimates • Residential projections • Current employment and nonresidential floor area estimates • Nonresidential projections • Functional population • Vehicle trip generation and projections POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying household sizes and, consequently, a varying demand on County infrastructure and services. Thus, it is important to differentiate between housing types and size. When persons per housing unit (PPHU) is used in the development impact fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per household (PPHH) is used in the development impact fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. Thus,TischlerBise recommends that fees for residential development in Ada County be imposed according to persons per housing units. Based on housing characteristics, TischlerBise recommends using two housing unit categories for the Impact Fee study: (1) Single Family and (2) Multifamily. Each housing type has different characteristics which results in a different demand on County facilities and services. Figure 20 shows the US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates data for Ada County. Single family units have a housing unit size of 2.62 persons and multifamily units have a housing unit size of 1.81 persons. Additionally,there is a housing mix of 83 percent single family and 17 percent multifamily. The estimates in Figure 20 are for household size calculations. Base year population and housing units are estimated with another, more recent data source. TischlerBise 28 �IsCAL I [CONOMI, I PLAPNNINC, 118 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 20.Ada County Persons per Housing Unit Housing Housing Type � -M. Units . . . . Single Family[1] 415,557 158,890 153,711 2.70 83% Multifamily[2] 59,917 33,161 31,014 1.93 17% Total 475,474 192,051 184,725 2.57 [1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates The US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates data for incorporated Ada County is shown in Figure 21.Single family units have a housing unit size of 2.59 persons and multifamily units have a housing unit size of 1.80 persons.Additionally, there is a housing mix of 81 percent single family and 19 percent multifamily. Figure 21. Incorporated Ada County Persons per Housing Unit Housing M.. . . . . . . Single Family[1] 363,946 140,266 135,502 2.69 81% Multifamily[2] 58,871 32,691 30,619 1.92 19% Total 422,817 172,957 166,121 2.55 [1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates The US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year-Estimates data for unincorporated Ada County is shown in Figure 22. Single family units have a housing unit size of 2.77 persons and multifamily units have a housing unit size of 2.23 persons. Additionally, there is a housing mix of 98 percent single family and 2 percent multifamily. Figure 22. Unincorporated Ada County Persons per Housing Unit Housing Type . . . . . Single Family[1] 51,611 !18,624 18,209 2.83 98% Multifamily[2] 1,046 470 395 2.65 2% Total 52,657 094 18,604 2.83 [1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types Source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates BASE YEAR POPULATION AND HOUSING UNITS Available through the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), the base year 2023 population in Ada County is estimated to be 554,590 residents shown in Figure 23. PPHU factors for TischererBIse 29 1 IS(4L I ECONOMIC I PLANNING F1191 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Incorporated and Unincorporated Ada County were used to estimate base year housing units for the whole County. The housing unit mix for Ada County was then applied to the total giving an estimated 182,342 single family units and 37,833 multifamily units. Figure 23.Ada County Base Year Population and Housing Units Base Year Population [1] 544,590 Housing Units[2] Single Family 182,342 Multifamily 37,833 Total Housing Units 220,175 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model [2] U.S.Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, TischlerBise analysis Available through COMPASS, the base year 2023 population in unincorporated Ada County is estimated to be 63,510 residents shown in Figure 24. PPHU factors for unincorporated Ada County were used to estimate base year housing units. The housing unit mix was then applied to the total giving an estimated 22,444 single family units and 566 multifamily units. Figure 24. Unincorporated Ada County Base Year Population and Housing Units Ada County Base Year Unim . .. 2023 Population [1] 63,510 Housing Units[2] Single Family 22,444 Multifamily 566 Total Housing Units 23,011 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model [2] U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, TischlerBise analysis The population estimate for unincorporated Ada County from COMPASS was subtracted from the population estimate for the whole of Ada County to find the estimated base year population for incorporated Ada County. Shown in Figure 25 the estimated population is 481,080. PPHU factors for incorporated Ada County were used to estimate base year housing units. The housing unit mix was then applied to the total giving an estimated 159,898 single family units and 37,266 multifamily units. TischlerBise 30 1 IS(4L I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 120 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 25. Incorporated Ada County Base Year Population and Housing Units Ada County Base Year Incorporated Population [1] 481, 880 Housing Units [21 Single Family 159,898 Multifamily 37,266 Total Housing Units 197,164 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model [2] U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, TischlerBise analysis �"'� TischlerBise 31 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 121 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS The residential projections are based on a review of COMPASS published estimates, impact fee studies from cities and fire districts within Ada County,and PPHU factors. Impact fee studies comprising the main six cities within Ada County were used to affirm growth trends for whole county projections. From the 2023 base year housing unit totals, Ada County is projected to increase by 50,296 housing units over the next ten years. Additionally,there is a projected increase of 125,397 residents over the next ten years, a 23 percent increase. Figure 26.Ada County Residential Development Projections Base Year Total Population 1 544,5901 568,015 591,946 602,628 613,310 623,991 634,673 645,355 653,566 661,776 669,987 125,397 Percent Increase 4.3% 4.2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 23.0% Housing Units Si ngl a Fa mi ly 182,342 190,171 198,180 201,750 205,321 208,891 212,462 216,033 218,774 221,515 224,256 41,914 Multifamily 37,833 39,417 41,005 41,716 42,426 43,137 43,847 44,558 45,110 45,662 46,215 8,382 Total Housing Units 220,175 229,588 239,185 243,466 247,747 252,028 256,309 260,591 263,884 267,177 270,471 50,296 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis From the 2023 base year housing unit totals for incorporated Ada County,there is a projected increase of 44,844 new housing units over the next ten years. Additionally,there is a projected increase of 110,415 residents in incorporated Ada County, a 23 percent increase. Figure 27. Incorporated Ada County Residential Development Projections Ada County Base Year I Total Incorporated Population 1 481,0801 502,024 523,414 532,767 542,119 551,471 560,823 570,174 577,281 584,388 591,495 110,415 Percent Increase 4.4% 4.3% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 23.0% Housing Units Si ngl a Fa mi ly 159,898 166,853 173,967 177,075 180,183 183,291 186,399 189,507 191,866 194,226 196,586 36,688 Multifamily 37,266 38,822 40,383 41,072 41,761 42,450 43,139 43,828 44,359 44,891 45,423 8,156 Total Housing Units 197,164 205,676 214,350 218,147 221,944 225,741 229,538 233,334 236,226 239,117 242,008 44,844 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis TISCh CIS@ 32 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 122 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study From the 2023 base year housing unit total for unincorporated Ada County, there is a projected increase 5,453 new housing units over the next ten years. Additionally,there is a projected increase of 14,982 residents in unincorporated Ada County, a 23.6 percent increase. Figure 28. Unincorporated Ada County Residential Development Projections Ada County Base Year I Total Unincorporated Population 1 63,5101 65,991 68,532 69,861 71,190 72,520 73,850 75,181 76,284 77,388 78,492 14,982 Percent Increase 3.9% 3.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 23.6% Housing Units Single Family 22,444 23,318 24,213 24,675 25,138 25,600 26,063 26,526 26,908 27,289 27,671 5,227 Multifamily 566 594 622 644 665 687 708 730 751 771 792 226 Total Housing Units 23,011 23,912 24,835 25,319 25,803 26,287 26,772 27,256 27,658 28,061 28,464 5,453 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis Tisch Base 33 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 123 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA The impact fee study will include nonresidential development as well. Available through COMPASS Job projections from the Traffic Analysis Zone Model (TAZ) and Communities in Motion 2050 there are an estimated 239,668 jobs in Ada County in 2023.These job projections are broken down by industry leading to an estimated 43,787 retail jobs, 130,780 officejobs,35,745 industrial jobs,and 29,356 institutional jobs in the base year. Base year nonresidential floor area estimates are based on Ada County GIS nonresidential parcel data. There is an estimated 131 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in Ada County. Retail and industrial sectors account for the greatest share with approximately 32 percent each. Institutional accounts for 20 percent, and office accounts for 17 percent of the total. Figure 29.Ada County Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Base Year %of Base Year %of •• Jobs[1] Total Sq.Ft.[2] Total Retail 43,787 18% 41,938,153 32% Office 130,780 55% 21,670,098 17% Industrial 35,745 15% 41,668,221 32% Institutional 29,356 12% 25,911,213 20% Total 239,668 100% 131,187,685 100% [1]COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050 [2] Source:Ada County GIS parcel data The job and nonresidential floor area estimates were further broken down into incorporated and unincorporated areas. Incorporated Ada County has an estimated 230,704 jobs in 2023. These job projections are broken down by industry leading to an estimated 42,925 retail jobs, 125,936 office jobs, 34,547 industrial jobs, and 27,296 institutional jobs in the base year. Additionally, there is an estimated 127 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in incorporated Ada County. Retail accounts for the greatest share at 32 percent. Industrial accounts for 31 percent, institutional accounts for 19 percent,and office accounts for 17 percent of the total. Figure 30. Incorporated Ada County Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area •. County Base Year %of Base Year %of Incorporated Jobs[1] Total Sq.Ft. [2] Total Retail 42,925 19% 41,286,649 32% Office 125,936 55% 21,370,261 17% Industrial 34,547 15% 39,887,518 31% Institutional 27,296 12% 24,605,169 19% Total 230,704 100% 127,149,597 100% [1]COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050 [2] Source:Ada County GIS parcel data TischlerBise 34 �IsCAL I [CONOMI, I PLANNING 124 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Unincorporated Ada County has an estimated 8,964 jobs in 2023.These job projections are broken down by industry leading to an estimated 862 retail jobs, 4,844 office jobs, 1,198 industrial jobs, and 2,060 institutional jobs in the base year. Additionally, there is an estimated 4 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in unincorporated Ada County. Industrial accounts for the greatest share at 44 percent. Institutional accounts for 32 percent, retail accounts for 16 percent, and office accounts for 7 percent. Figure 31. Unincorporated Ada County Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area 7Retail Base Year %of Base Year %of Jobs[1] Total Sq.Ft.[2] Total 862 10% 651,504 16% 4,844 54% 299,837 7% 1,198 13% 1,780,703 44% Institutional 2,060 23% 1,306,044 32% Total 8,964 100% 4,038,088 100% [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion [2] Source:Ada County GIS parcel data EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA PROJECTIONS Job projections for the industry sectors are calculated with the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE)square feet per employee averages shown in Figure 32. For retail industries the Shopping Center land use factors are used;for office the General Office factors are used;for industrial the Light Industrial factors are used;for institutional the Hospital factors are used. Figure 32. Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Employment Density Factors Employment ITE � Demand Emp per Sq.Ft. Industry Code Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 2.12 471 Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3.26 307 Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 1.57 637 Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2.86 350 Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) Tisch-er-Ise 35 1 IS(4L I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 125 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Job and nonresidential growth projections over the next ten years for Ada County are shown in Figure 33. It is estimated there will be an increase of 43,283 jobs, an 18 percent increase from the base year.The majority of the increase comes from the office sector(54 percent). The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee factors to the job growth. In the next ten years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 17 million square feet (rounded), a 13 percent increase from the base year. The office sector has the largest share of this growth at 42 percent. Figure 33.Ada County Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Base Year Total Jobs[l] Retail 43,787 44,612 45,437 46,262 47,086 47,910 48,734 49,557 50,367 51,177 51,986 8,199 Office 130,780 133,132 135,483 137,835 140,186 142,538 144,889 147,241 149,556 151,872 154,187 23,407 Industrial 35,745 36,388 37,030 37,673 38,315 38,958 39,600 40,242 40,875 41,507 42,139 6,394 Institutional 29,356 29,884 30,413 30,943 31,472 32,003 32,533 33,064 33,588 34,113 34,639 5,283 Total 1 239,6681 244,016 248,364 252,712 257,060 261,408 265,756 270,104 274,386 278,669 282,951 43,283 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 41,938 42,327 42,715 43,104 43,492 43,880 44,268 44,656 45,037 45,419 45,800 3,862 Office 21,670 22,392 23,114 23,836 24,558 25,280 26,002 26,724 27,434 28,145 28,856 7,186 Industrial 41,668 42,078 42,487 42,896 43,305 43,715 44,124 44,533 44,936 45,339 45,741 4,073 Institutional 25,911 26,096 26,281 26,467 26,652 26,838 27,023 27,209 27,392 27,576 27,760 1,849 Total 131,1881 132,893 134,598 136,302 138,007 139,712 141,417 143,121 144,800 146,479 148,1571 16,970 [11 COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [21 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 TISCh BI$e 36 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 126 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Job and nonresidential growth projections over the next ten years for incorporated Ada County are shown in Figure 34. It is estimated there will be an increase of 41,040 jobs, an 18 percent increase from the base year.The majority of the increase comes from the office sector(55 percent). The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee factors to the job growth. In the next ten years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 16.1 million square feet (rounded), a 13 percent increase from the base year. The office sector has the largest share of this growth at 43 percent. Figure 34. Incorporated Ada County Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Ada cur l�ii Total Incorporated i i Jobs[l] Retail 42,925 43,696 44,466 45,236 46,004 46,772 47,539 48,306 49,059 49,811 50,561 7,636 Office 125,936 128,198 130,458 132,715 134,970 137,223 139,474 141,723 143,933 146,138 148,339 22,403 Industrial 34,547 35,168 35,787 36,407 37,025 37,643 38,261 38,878 39,484 40,089 40,693 6,146 Institutional 27,296 27,786 28,276 28,765 29,254 29,742 30,230 30,718 31,197 31,675 32,152 4,856 Total 1 230,7041 234,848 238,987 243,123 247,254 251,381 255,505 259,624 263,673 267,712 271,744 41,040 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 41,287 41,650 42,013 42,375 42,737 43,099 43,460 43,821 44,176 44,530 44,883 3,597 Office 21,370 22,065 22,758 23,451 24,144 24,835 25,526 26,217 26,895 27,572 28,248 6,878 Industrial 39,888 40,283 40,678 41,072 41,466 41,860 42,253 42,646 43,032 43,418 43,802 3,915 Institutional 24,605 24,777 24,948 25,119 25,291 25,461 25,632 25,803 25,970 26,138 26,305 1,699 Total 1 127,1501 128,774 130,397 132,018 133,637 135,255 136,872 138,487 140,074 141,657 143,2381 16,088 [11 COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [21 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 TischlerBise 37 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 127 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Job and nonresidential growth projections over the next ten years for unincorporated Ada County are shown in Figure 35. It is estimated there will be an increase of 2,244 jobs, a 25 percent increase from the base year.The majority of the increase comes from the office sector(45 percent). The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee factors to the job growth. In the next ten years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 881,000 square feet, a 22 percent increase from the base year. The office sector has the largest share of this growth at 35 percent. Figure 35. Unincorporated Ada County Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Ada County �ase Year Unincc 2023 2024 20 i 2031 2032 20330M.. . Jobs[1] Retail 862 916 971 1,026 1,082 1,138 1,194 1,251 1,308 1,366 1,425 563 Office 4,844 4,934 5,025 5,120 5,216 5,315 5,415 5,518 5,623 5,734 5,849 1,005 Industrial 1,198 1,220 1,243 1,266 1,290 1,314 1,339 1,365 1,391 1,418 1,446 248 Institutional 2,060 2,098 2,137 2,177 2,218 2,260 2,303 2,347 2,391 2,438 2,487 427 Total 1 8,9641 9,168 9,377 9,589 9,806 10,027 10,251 10,480 10,714 10,957 11,208 2,244 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 652 677 703 729 755 781 808 835 862 889 917 265 Office 300 327 356 384 414 444 475 507 539 573 608 308 Industrial 1,781 1,795 1,809 1,824 1,839 1,855 1,871 1,887 1,904 1,921 1,939 158 Institutional 1,306 1,319 1,333 1,347 1,361 1,376 1,391 1,406 1,422 1,438 1,456 150 Total 1 4,0381 4,119 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,457 4,545 4,634 4,726 4,821 4,920 881 [11 COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [21 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 TischlerBise 38 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 128 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS BY HOUSING TYPE A customized trip rate is calculated for the single family and multifamily units in Ada County. In Figure 36, the most recent data from the US Census American Community Survey is inputted into equations provided by the ITE to calculate the trip ends per housing unit factor. A single family unit is estimated to generate 10.66 trip ends and a multifamily unit is estimated to generate 5.42 trip ends on an average weekday. Figure 36. Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type Households by Structure Type Tenure by Units Vehicles Single Multifamily Total Vehicles per in Structure Available' Family HH by Tenure Owner-Occupied 289,778 129,602 1,468 131,070 2.21 Renter-Occupied 85,906 24,109 29,546 53,655 1.60 Total 375,684 153,711 31,014 184,725 2.03 Housing Units3 158,890 33,161 192,051 HouseholdsPersons in Trip., Vehicles by Trip Average Local Trip National Trip Housing Type Single Family 415,557 1,157,628 324,995 2,118,200 1,637,914 9.43 Multifamily 59,917 137,129 50,518 199,334 168,231 4.54 Total 475,474 1,294,757 375,513 2,117,534 1,806,1A5 1.Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046,2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032,2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 3. Housing units from Table B25024,2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 4.Total population in households from Table B25033,2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 5.Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2021). For single-family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72).To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were divided by 19 and the equation result multiplied by 19. For multi-family housing(ITE 221),the fitted curve equation is(2.29*persons)-81.02(ITE 2017). 6.Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2021). For single-family housing (ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.93).To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by 34 and the equation result multiplied by 34. For multi-family housing (ITE 221),the fitted curve equation is(3.94*vehicles)+293.58(ITE 2021). 7.Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition(2021). TischlerBise 39 �IsCAL I [CONOMI, I PLAPNNINC, 129 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, so to not double count trips, a standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip. For example,the out-bound trip from a person's home to work is attributed to the housing unit and the trip from work back home is attributed to the employer. However, an additional adjustment is necessary to capture County residents' work bound trips that are outside of the County. The trip adjustment factor includes two components. According to the National Household Travel Survey, home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends).Also, utilizing the most recent data from the Census Bureau's web application "OnTheMap",17 percent of Ada County workers travel outside the County for work. In combination,these factors account for 3 percent of additional production trips(0.31 x 0.50 x 0.17=0.03).Shown in Figure 37, the total adjustment factor for residential housing units includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (3 percent of production trips)for a total of 53 percent. Figure 37. Residential Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters Employed Ada County Residents(2020) 212,011 Residents Working in Ada County(2020) 175,359 Residents Commuting Outside of Ada County for Work 36,652 Percent Commuting Out of Ada County 17% Additional Production Trips 3% Standard Trip Adjustment Factor 50% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 53% Source:U.S.Census,OnTheMap Application,2020 TischlerBise 40 �IsCAL I ECONOMie I PLANNINC, 130 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS Vehicle trip generation for nonresidential land uses are calculated by using ITE's average daily trip end rates and adjustment factors found in their recently published 11t"edition of Trip Generation.To estimate the trip generation in Ada County, the weekday trip end per 1,000 square feet factors listed in Figure 38 are used. Figure 38. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Factors Demand Industry code Land Use Unit per Dmd Unit I per Employee Reta 11 820 Sho i ng Center 1,000 S Ft 37.01 17.42 Off!ce 710 General Office 1,000 S Ft 10.84 3.33 Industrial 110 L ght Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.87 3.10 Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 S Ft 10.77 3.77 Source: Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,11th Edition(2021) For nonresidential land uses, the standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to office, industrial, and institutional land uses. A lower vehicle trip adjustment factor is used for retail uses because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their primary destination. In Figure 39, the Institute for Transportation Engineers' land use code, daily vehicle trip end rate, and trip adjustment factor is listed for each land use. Figure 39. Daily Vehicle Trip Factors ITE Daily Vehicle Trip Adj. Daily Vehicle Land Use Codes Residential (per housing unit) Single Family 210 10.66 53% 5.65 Multifamily 220 5.42 53% 2.87 Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Retail 820 37.01 38% 14.06 Office 710 10.84 50% 5.42 Industrial 110 4.87 50% 2.44 Institutional 610 10.77 50% 5.39 Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021);'National Household Travel Survey, 2009 TischererBise 41 1 IS(4L I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 131 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study VEHICLE TRIP PROJECTIONS The base year vehicle trip totals and vehicle trip projections are calculated by combining the vehicle trip end factors,the trip adjustment factors, and the residential and nonresidential assumptions for housing stock and floor area. Countywide, residential land uses account for 1,138,874 vehicle trips and nonresidential land uses account for 948,256 vehicle trips in the base year shown in Figure 40. Through 2033, it is projected that daily vehicle trips will increase by 374,018 trips with the majority of the growth being generated by single family (63 percent) and retail (15 percent) development. Figure 40.Ada County Vehicle Trip Projections Base Year Total .. Residential Trips Single Family 1,030,196 1,074,429 1,119,675 1,139,848 1,160,022 1,180,195 1,200,368 1,220,542 1,236,029 1,251,516 1,267,003 236,807 Multifamily 108,679 113,228 117,791 119,832 121,873 123,915 125,956 127,997 129,583 131,170 132,756 24,077 Subtotal 1,138,874 1,187,658 1,237,466 1,259,681 1,281,895 1,304,110 1,326,324 1,348,539 1,365,612 1,382,685 1,399,759 260,884 Nonresidential Trips Retail 589,810 595,277 600,742 606,204 611,664 617,121 622,576 628,029 633,398 638,762 644,120 54,310 Office 117,452 121,365 125,278 129,191 133,103 137,016 140,929 144,841 148,694 152,547 156,400 38,948 Industrial 101,462 102,459 103,456 104,452 105,449 106,445 107,442 108,438 109,419 110,399 111,380 9,918 Institutional 139,532 140,528 141,524 142,522 143,521 144,520 145,520 146,521 147,509 148,498 149,489 9,957 Subtotal 948,256 959,629 971,000 982,369 993,737 1,005,103 1,016,467 1,027,830 1,039,020 1,050,206 1,061,389 113,134 Vehicle Trips Grand Total 2,087,130 2,147,286 2,208,466 2,242,050 2,275,632 2,309,212 2,342,791 2,376,368 2,404,632 2,432,892 2,461,148 374,018 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition (2021) TISCh CIS@ 42 PISCA� I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 132 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study In incorporated Ada County, residential land uses account for 1,010,441 vehicle trips and nonresidential land uses account for 926,099 vehicle trips in the base year shown in Figure 41. Through 2033, it is projected that daily vehicle trips will increase by 337,251 trips with the majority of the growth being generated by single family (61 percent) and retail (15 percent) development. Figure 41. Incorporated Ada County Vehicle Trip Projections Ada County Base Year Total Inc..,. Residential Trips Single Family 903,389 942,688 982,879 1,000,440 1,018,000 1,035,559 1,053,117 1,070,675 1,084,006 1,097,336 1,110,670 207,281 Multifamily 107,051 111,521 116,004 117,983 119,963 121,942 123,921 125,899 127,427 128,954 130,481 23,429 Subtotal 1,010,4411 1,054,210 1,098,883 1,118,423 1,137,962 1,157,500 1,177,038 1,196,575 1,211,433 1,226,289 1,241,151 230,710 Nonresidential Trips Retail 580,647 585,754 590,856 595,953 601,044 606,131 611,213 616,291 621,280 626,259 631,228 50,580 Office 115,827 119,591 123,351 127,107 130,859 134,608 138,353 142,095 145,772 149,442 153,103 37,277 Industrial 97,126 98,089 99,050 100,011 100,970 101,929 102,887 103,843 104,784 105,722 106,658 9,532 Institutional 132,499 133,423 134,346 135,268 136,189 137,110 138,029 138,948 139,851 140,752 141,651 9,152 Subtotal 926,099 936,857 947,603 958,338 969,063 979,778 990,482 1,001,177 1,011,687 1,022,174 1,032,640 106,541 Vehicle Trips Grand Total 11,936,5391 1,991,066 2,046,486 2,076,761 2,107,025 2,137,278 2,167,520 2,197,752 2,223,120 2,248,464 2,273,791 337,251 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition (2021) 43 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 133 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study In unincorporated Ada County, residential land uses account for 128,434 vehicle trips and nonresidential land uses account for 22,157 vehicle trips in the base year shown in Figure 42. Through 2033, it is projected that daily vehicle trips will increase by 36,772 trips with the majority of the growth being generated by single family (80 percent) and retail (10 percent) development. Figure 42. Unincorporated Ada County Vehicle Trip Projections Ada County Base Year Total Unincorl.. Residential Trips Single Family 126,807 131,741 136,796 139,409 142,022 144,636 147,251 149,866 152,023 154,180 156,338 29,532 Multifamily 1,627 1,707 1,787 1,849 1,911 1,973 2,035 2,097 2,157 2,216 2,275 648 Subtotal 128,4341 133,448 138,583 141,258 143,933 146,609 149,286 151,964 154,179 156,396 158,613 30,180 Nonresidential Trips Retail 91163 9,523 9,886 10,251 10,619 10,990 11,363 11,739 12,118 12,503 12,893 3,730 Office 1,625 1,774 1,927 2,084 2,244 2,408 2,575 2,746 2,922 3,106 3,297 1,672 Industrial 4,336 4,370 4,406 4,442 4,479 4,517 4,555 4,594 4,635 4,677 4,721 385 Institutional 7,033 7,105 7,178 7,254 7,331 7,410 7,491 7,573 7,658 7,746 7,838 805 Subtotal 22,157 22,772 23,397 24,031 24,673 25,325 25,985 26,652 27,333 28,032 28,749 6,592 Vehicle Trips Grand Total 150,5911 156,220 161,980 165,288 168,606 171,934 175,271 178,616 181,512 184,428 187,363 36,772 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition (2021) 44 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 134 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study APPENDIX C. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CALL VOLUME DENSITY HEAT . . Shown below in Figure 43 is a heat map showing call volume density for Ada County EMS. Red and yellow areas indicate higher call volume. The heat map illustrates areas where station space will be needed to address future demand from growth. Figure 43. EMS Call Volume Density 410 UPPER DEER FLAT I z --- SLATERS FBI I I dam. I i 45 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING [135] Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Below in Figure 44 is the 10 Year planned placement of future stations to maintain the current level of service and accommodate growth. Figure 44. EMS Future Station Placement E3 s 0 y< tS E3 E3 E7 46 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 136 Docusign Envelope ID: FABOAEE2-4DO7-4387-AC1B-A977DEDE1013 Exhibit A.6 AGREEMENT NO. 30465 ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS [Idaho Code §§ 67-8204A & 67-23281 Parties to Agreement: Ada County County Ada County Board of Commissioners 200 W.Front Street, Third Floor Boise, Idaho 83702 City of Meridian City City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 THIS ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ("Agreement") is entered into this date of April 8, 2025 ("Effective Date")by and between Ada County ("County") and the City of Meridian("City") as an intergovernmental agreement as provided for in Idaho Code § 67- 8204A. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration hereby acknowledged by the Parties to this Agreement, the Parties hereby mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows: SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS For all purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the definitions as herein provided in this Section unless the context of the term clearly requires otherwise: 1.1 Act: Means and refers to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, Chapter 82, Title 67, Idaho Code as it may be amended or restated from time to time. 1.2 Advisory Committee: Means and refers to the Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee, which shall serve as the development impact fee advisory committee pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8205(3) to prepare and recommend the Capital Improvements Plans ("CIPs") and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS —PAGE 1 [137] Docusign Envelope ID: FABOAEE2-4DO7-4387-AC1B-A977DEDE1013 1.3 Agreement: Means and refers to this Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvements Plans for County System Improvements. 1.4 Capital Improvements Plans and/or CIPs: Means and refers to, collectively, the May 24, 2024 Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study and the May 24, 2024 Coroner Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study, all of which were prepared for and adopted by the County. 1.5 City: Means and refers to City of Meridian, Idaho, Party to this Agreement. 1.6 City Council: Means and refers to the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 1.7 County: Means and refers to Ada County, Idaho, Party to this Agreement. 1.8 Party/Parties: Means and refers to the County and/or the City, as the Parties in this Agreement, depending upon the context of the term used in this Agreement. 1.9 Service Area: Means and refers to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67- 8203(26). Said Service Area shall encompass the entirety of Ada County, including all the incorporated cities. 1.10 System Improvements: Means and refers to capital improvements to public facilities designed to provide service to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67-8203(28). SECTION 2 PURPOSES&AUTHORITY 2.1 The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a structure that will enable,but not require,the City to adopt the CIPs. The CIPs are intended to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development, protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of residents countywide, and to further the best interests of the Parties. 2.2 Idaho Code § 67-2328 authorizes public agencies in Idaho to exercise jointly any power, privilege, or authority authorized by the Idaho Constitution, statute, or charter. The Parties, each being a public agency, hereby agree to exercise jointly their respective powers, privileges, and authorities in accordance with Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code. 2.3 Idaho Code § 67-8204A provides that the County and City have authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purpose of developing joint plans for capital improvements. 2.4. The County is responsible for providing coroner-and jail-related services on a countywide basis. ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS —PAGE 2 138 Docusign Envelope ID: FABOAEE2-4DO7-4387-AC1B-A977DEDE1013 2.5. The County is experiencing considerable growth and development, and the County's ability to provide coroner- and jail-related services are affected by said development. 2.6 The County has provided the City with the CIPs,which were prepared in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 67-8208 in consultation with the Advisory Committee as provided in Idaho Code §§ 67-8205 and 67-8206(2). 2.7 The Ada County Board of Commissioners has adopted the CIPs in accordance with Idaho Code §§ 67-8206(3) and 67-8208(1). 2.8 The County has requested that the City adopt the CIPs in accordance with the Act, and the City is willing to consider said request. The Parties acknowledge and agree, however,that the City Council cannot and shall not be bound by this Agreement to adopt the CIPs. 2.9 That by reason above stated, the Parties have determined it is necessary and desirable to enter into this Agreement. SECTION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3.1 Advisory Committee. The Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall serve as the development impact fee advisory committee pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8205(3) to prepare and recommend the CIPs and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. 3.1.1 Administration and Staffing. The County shall provide for the administration and staffing of the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee members shall be appointed in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 67-8205. 3.1.2 Charge. The Advisory Committee shall serve as an advisory committee to the Ada County Board of Commissioners and City Council and is charged with the responsibilities set forth in Idaho Code § 67-8205(4). 3.1.3 Written Comments. The County shall cause the Advisory Committee to file its written comments concerning the CIPs with the City on or before June 30, 2025,to provide the City with ample time to consider the CIPs prior to the termination of this Agreement. ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS —PAGE 3 139 Docusign Envelope ID: FABOAEE2-4DO7-4387-AC1B-A977DEDE1013 SECTION 4 SERVICE AREA 4.1 Idaho Code § 67-8203(26) provides that the Parties can identify a geographic area by an intergovernmental agreement in which specific public facilities provide services to development within that geographic area on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. 4.2 The CIPs and this Agreement define the Service Area as the entirety of Ada County, including all the incorporated cities. SECTION 5 COSTS SPECIFIC TO COUNTY 5.1 The County shall pay the following costs: 5.1.1 All costs associated with the Advisory Committee; and 5.1.2 All County costs associated with drafting this Agreement and any amendment or termination of the same; and 5.1.3 All costs associated with the County's performance of this Agreement; and 5.1.4 All legal costs and fees associated with any action brought by a third parry concerning the validity of the CIPs or this Agreement. SECTION 6 CITY COUNCIL ACTION 6.1 After the Advisory Committee files its written comments concerning the CIPs with the City in accordance with the Act and Section 3.1.3 of this Agreement,the City shall consider the adoption of the CIPs in accordance with the Act. 6.2 If the City adopts the CIPs, the City agrees to consider the possibility of adopting a City ordinance concerning the countywide development impact fees delineated in the CIPs, but only after (a) the Parties negotiate and agree on a new intergovernmental agreement for that purpose and (b) all the incorporated cities in Ada County have adopted (1) the CIPs and(2)the ordinances necessary to implement countywide development impact fees. 6.3 The Parties acknowledge and agree that: 6.3.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring the City to adopt the CIPs; and ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS —PAGE 4 F140] Docusign Envelope ID: FABOAEE2-4DO7-4387-AC1B-A977DEDE1013 6.3.2 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring the City to adopt an ordinance implementing countywide development impact fees. SECTION 7 INDEMNIFICATION 7.1 To the extent permitted by law, County shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless for all claims, losses, actions, damages, judgements, costs, expenses arising out of or in connection with any acts or omissions of the County related to the CIPs or this Agreement. In the event of such claim, County shall defend such allegations,and County shall bear all costs, fees, and expenses of such defense, including,but not limited to, all attorney fees and expenses,court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses. SECTION 8 TERM/TERMINATION/AMENDMENT 8.1 Term. This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2029, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 8.2 of this Agreement. 8.2 Party Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon ninety (90) day notice in writing to the other Parry. 8.3 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of the Parties. SECTION 9 NOTICE AND DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS 9.1 Notices. All notices,requests or demands to a party hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given or served upon the other party by US Mail or email addressed as set forth below. 9.2 Contact Information. The contact information for purposes of notice to and/or the delivery of documents to the County is as follows: Ada County Development Services Attn: Director 200 W. Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 dswebportalcontactus@adacounty.id.gov With Copy to: Ada County Prosecutor's Office Attn: Chief Civil Deputy 200 W. Front Street,Room 3191 Boise, Idaho 83702 adacountyprosecutor@adacounty.id.gov ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS —PAGE 5 F141] Docusign Envelope ID: FABOAEE2-4DO7-4387-AC1B-A977DEDE1013 9.3 The contact information for purposes of notice to and/or the delivery of documents to the City is as follows: City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 cjohnson@meridiancity.org SECTION 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 10.1 Third Party Beneficiaries. Each Party to this Agreement intends that this Agreement shall not benefit or create any right or cause of action in or on behalf of any person or legal entity other than the Parties hereto. 10.2 Electronic and Non-Electronic Signatures: The County and City may execute this Agreement using handwritten signatures or electronic signatures, in accordance with Idaho's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The Parties acknowledge and agree that both signature methods are equally valid and binding for the purposes of this Agreement. 10.3 Severability. Should any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, parties, or circumstances, for any reason be declared illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein. 10.4 Choice of Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the state of Idaho. Venue shall be Ada County, Idaho. 10.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements,promises,or inducements made by either Party, or agents of either Parry, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both Parties. 10.6 Time of the Essence. Time shall be of the essence for all events and obligations to be performed under this Agreement. 10.7 Attorneys' Fees. If either Parry brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. 10.8 Assignment. No Parry may assign this Agreement or any interest therein. ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS —PAGE 6 F142] Docusign Envelope ID: FABOAEE2-4DO7-4387-AC1B-A977DEDE1013 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year written above. Board of Ada County Commissioners DocuSigned by: By: 4/8/2025 1 4:16 PM MDT � Rod Beck, Commissioner DocuSigned by: 4/9/2025 1 2:14 PM MDT By: Ryan Davidson, Commissioner FDocuSigned by::By: �---0* 4/10/2025 1 12:21 PM MDT Thomas Dayley, Commissioner ATTEST: ZDocugned by: Si 4/10/2025 2:38 PM MDT Trent Tripple, Ada County Clerk City of Meridian By: Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-24-2025 ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-24-2025 ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CONCERNING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR COUNTY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS —PAGE 7 F143] Exhibit A.7 CO OF14 Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Submitted to: Ada County, Idaho May 24, 2024 Prepared by: TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 999 W Main St Suite 100 Boise, ID 83702 800.424.4318 www.tischlerbise.com 144 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study [Page intentional blank] i Tischlergise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING [145] Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Impact Fee Study Ada County, Idaho ExecutiveSummary .......................................................................................................................................1 Idaho Development Impact Fee Enabling Legislation ...............................................................................2 Summary of Capital Improvement Plans and Development Impact Fees.................................................3 Methodologiesand Credits ...................................................................................................................3 FeeMethodologies................................................................................................................................4 CapitalImprovement Plan.....................................................................................................................5 Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fees by Type of Land Use.............................................6 CapitalImprovement Plan.............................................................................................................................7 CapitalImprovement Plan.....................................................................................................................9 Funding Sources for Capital Improvements........................................................................................10 Jail Development Impact Fee Analysis.........................................................................................................11 Cost Allocation for Jail Infrastructure......................................................................................................12 Jail Level of Service and Cost Analysis .....................................................................................................13 JailCapacity Analysis............................................................................................................................13 JailAncillary Facilities ..........................................................................................................................13 JailBeds................................................................................................................................................14 Share of the Development Impact Fee Study......................................................................................15 Jail Capital Improvements Needed to Serve Growth ..............................................................................16 JailAncillary Facilities ..........................................................................................................................16 JailBeds................................................................................................................................................17 Jail Development Impact Fee Credit Analysis..........................................................................................18 Jail Input Variables and Development Impact Fees.................................................................................18 Cash Flow Projections for Jail Maximum Supportable Impact Fee .........................................................19 Proportionate Share Analysis ......................................................................................................................20 Implementation and Administration...........................................................................................................21 Appendix A. Land Use Definitions ...............................................................................................................23 ResidentialDevelopment.........................................................................................................................23 Nonresidential Development Categories ................................................................................................24 Appendix B. Demographic Assumptions .....................................................................................................25 Population and Housing Characteristics..................................................................................................25 Base Year Population and Housing Units.................................................................................................26 Population and Housing Unit Projections................................................................................................29 Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area..............................................................................31 Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections........................................................................32 VehicleTrip Generation...........................................................................................................................36 Residential Vehicle Trips by Housing Type..........................................................................................36 Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors.........................................................................................37 ii TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 146 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Nonresidential Vehicle Trips....................................................................................................................38 VehicleTrip Projections...........................................................................................................................39 Tischlergise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 147 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ada County, Idaho, retained TischlerBise, Inc. to calculate the impact fees to be imposed on new development to meet the new demands generated for public facilities in the County. It is the intent of Ada County to evaluate and establish impact fees for jail facilities.This report presents the methodologies and calculations used to generate current levels of service and maximum supportable impact fees. It is intended to serve as supporting documentation for the evaluation and establishment of impact fees in Ada County. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the County's compliance with Idaho Statutes as authorized by the Idaho Legislature. Consistent with the statutory authorization for development impact fees (Idaho Code 67-8202(1-4)), it is the intent of Ada County to: 1. Collect impact fees to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to serve new growth and development; 2. Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development; 3. Establish minimum standards for the adoption of development impact fee ordinances by government entities; 4. Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to pay no more than their proportionate share of the cost of public facilities needed to serve new growth and development and to prevent duplicate and ad hoc development requirements; Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth's fair share of capital facility needs. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three key elements: need, benefit and proportionality. • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. 1 TischlerBise 148 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study TischlerBise evaluated possible methodologies and documented appropriate demand indicators by type of development for the levels of service and fees. Local demographic data and improvement costs were used to identify specific capital costs attributable to growth. This report includes summary tables indicating the specific factors, referred to as level of service standards, used to derive the impact fees. The geographic area for the jail impact fees is countywide. These facilities provide a countywide benefit and are services not provided by the cities within Ada County. IDAHO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION The Enabling Legislation governs how development fees are calculated for municipalities in Idaho. All requirements of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act(hereafter referred to as the Idaho Act) have been met in the supporting documentation prepared by TischlerBise. There are four requirements of the Idaho Act that are not common in the development impact fee enabling legislation of other states. This overview offers further clarification of these unique requirements. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, "development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development." Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) [see 67-8208]. The CIP requirements are summarized in this report, with detailed documentation provided in the discussion on infrastructure. Third,the Idaho Act also requires documentation of any existing deficiencies in the types of infrastructure to be funded by development impact fees [see 67-8208(1)(a)]. The intent of this requirement is to prevent charging new development to cure existing deficiencies. In the context of development impact fees for Ada County, the term "deficiencies" means a shortage or inadequacy of current system improvements when measured against the levels of service to be applied to new development. It does not mean a shortage or inadequacy when measured against some "hoped for" level of service. TischlerBise used the current infrastructure cost per service unit (i.e., existing standards), or future levels of service where appropriate, multiplied by the projected increase in service units over an appropriate planning timeframe, to yield the cost of growth-related system improvements.The relationship between these three variables can be reduced to a mathematical formula, expressed as A x B = C. In section 67- 8204(16), the Idaho Act simply reorganizes this formula, stating the cost per service unit (i.e., development impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development (i.e., A = C - B). By using existing infrastructure standards to determine the need for growth-related capital improvements, Ada County ensures the same level-of-service standards are applicable to existing and new development. Using existing infrastructure standards also means there are no existing deficiencies in the current system that must be corrected from non-development impact fee funding. 2 TischlerBise 149 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. Basically, local government must consider various types of applicable credits and/or other revenues that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development.The development impact fee methodologies and the cash flow analysis have addressed the need for credits to avoid potential double payment for growth-related infrastructure. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS Development impact fees can be calculated by any one of several legitimate methods. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for each facility type. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating development impact fees involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating development impact fees, and how each method can be applied. Cost Recovery or Buy-In Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities. Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation.The incremental expansion method documents the current level of service (LOS)for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as park land acres per 1,000 residents). This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community. Plan-Based Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. Facility plans identify needed improvements, and land use plans identify development. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit). 3 TischlerBise Fol FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of "credits" is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of "credits," each with specific and distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the calculation of development impact fees.The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations.This could occur when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the impact fee calculation.The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is imposed. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a facility fee program. FEE METHODOLOGIES Of the fee methodologies discussed above, the incremental expansion method and the cost recovery method are used to calculate jail impact fees for Ada County.Where capacity is sufficient to serve current demand the incremental expansion method documents the current Level of Service (LOS) for each type of public facility. While the cost of the impact fee study is captured through the cost recovery method. Additionally,Ada County anticipates working with the cities to collect the jail impact fee countywide.The following table summarizes the method(s) used to derive the jail impact fee in Ada County. Figure 1. Summary of Impact Fee Methodologies Fee Category Service Area Cost Incremental Plan-Based Cost Recovery Expansion Allocation Jail Countywide Impact Fee Study Jail Facilities Person&Vehicle Trips 4 TischlerBise F1511 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The jail development impact fee is based on the existing level of service provided for jail facilities. The development impact fee is calculated for residential and nonresidential development.To serve projected growth at current levels of service,the jail will need to provide 16,555 square feet of new ancillary facility space and 178 new jail beds over the next 10 years. Listed in Figure 2 are the capital improvement plans for facility expansion for the next 10 years. The planned expansions are consistent with growth-related needs to continue providing the current level of service. Important to note is that of the total $16 million ancillary facility costs, only $12.5 million will be captured by the impact fees. The CIP also includes non- growth-related projects which will be funded with non-impact fee revenue. Figure 2.Jail Capital Improvement Plan 10-Year Jail 10-Year General Fund Capital Improvement Plan Square Feet Total • Other Pod E Expansion (294 beds) 39,984 $32,843,108 $19,936,000 $12,907,108 Pod E Locker Rooms 3,000 $2,464,219 $2,464,219 $0 Warehouse 10,562 $6,967,817 $6,967,817 $0 Second Secured Entrance 6,719 $6,352,666 $6,352,666 $0 New Booking Room 1,000 $270,229 $270,229 $0 Kitchen Remodel 4,609 $4,992,463 $0 $4,992,463 Camera Installation - $1,322,421 $0 $1,322,421 Restroom& Locker Room Remodel $138,831 $0 $138,831 Jail Management System Upgrade - $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 Total 65,874 $59,351,755 $35,990,932 $23,360,823 Growth-Related Pod Expansion $19,936,000 Pod Expansion Revenue $19,936,000 Growth-Related Pod Expansion Funding Gap $0 Growth-Related Anc. Facility Expansion $16,054,932 Anc. Facility Expansion Revenue $12,499,025 Growth-Related Anc.Facility Funding Gap $3,555,907 5 TischlerBise 152 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BY TYPE OF LAND USE Figure 3 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable development impact fees by type of land use for Ada County. The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represents new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The County may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However,a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. The fees for residential development are to be assessed per housing unit based on type. For nonresidential development, the fees are assessed per square foot of floor area (for illustrative purposes the nonresidential fee is listed per 1,000 square feet of development). Nonresidential development categories are consistent with the terminology and definitions contained in the reference book,Trip Generation 111n Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These definitions are provided in the Appendix A. Land Use Definitions. Importantly, the Ada County Jail provides a countywide service and benefit. Thus, the impact fee study has calculated the maximum supportable fee based on a countywide level of service. In this case, Figure 3 lists maximum amounts for all development within Ada County. Figure 3. Summary of Maximum Supportable Development Impact Fees -Countywide DevelopmentJail Maximum Supportable Residential (per housing unit) Single Family Multifamily Nonresidential(per 1,000 square feet) Retail ' Office Industrial Institutional 6 TischlerBise 153 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study IMPROVEMENTCAPITAL The following section provides a summary of the Capital Improvement Plan depicting growth-related capital demands and costs on which the fees are based. First, Figure 4 and Figure 5 lists the projected growth over the next ten years in Ada County.Overall,there is an estimated 23 percent increase in residential development (125,397 new residents and 50,296 new housing units) and an 18 percent increase in nonresidential development (43,283 new jobs and 16.9 million square feet of development). Further details on the development projections are provided in Appendix B. Demographic Assumptions. 7 TischlerBise 154 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 4.Ten-Year Projected Residential Growth Base Year Total 2026 2027i i30 2031 2032 2033 Population 1 544,5901 568,015 591,946 602,628 613,310 623,991 634,673 645,355 653,566 661,776 669,987 125,397 Percent Increase 4.3% 4.2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 23.0% Housing Units Single Family 182,342 190,171 198,180 201,750 205,321 208,891 212,462 216,033 218,774 221,515 224,256 41,914 Multifamily 37,833 39,417 41,005 41,716 42,426 43,137 43,847 44,558 45,110 45,662 46,215 8,382 Total Housing Units 220,175 229,588 239,185 243,466 247,747 252,028 256,309 260,591 263,884 267,177 270,471 50,296 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis Figure S.Ten-Year Projected Nonresidential Growth Base Year Total Jobs[l] Retail 43,787 44,612 45,437 46,262 47,086 47,910 48,734 49,557 50,367 51,177 51,986 8,199 Office 130,780 133,132 135,483 137,835 140,186 142,538 144,889 147,241 149,556 151,872 154,187 23,407 Industrial 35,745 36,388 37,030 37,673 38,315 38,958 39,600 40,242 40,875 41,507 42,139 6,394 Institutional 29,356 29,884 30,413 30,943 31,472 32,003 32,533 33,064 33,588 34,113 34,639 5,283 Total 1 239,6681 244,016 248,364 252,712 257,060 261,408 265,756 270,104 274,386 278,669 282,951 43,283 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 41,938 42,327 42,715 43,104 43,492 43,880 44,268 44,656 45,037 45,419 45,800 3,862 Office 21,670 22,392 23,114 23,836 24,558 25,280 26,002 26,724 27,434 28,145 28,856 7,186 Industrial 41,668 42,078 42,487 42,896 43,305 43,715 44,124 44,533 44,936 45,339 45,741 4,073 Institutional 25,911 26,096 26,281 26,467 26,652 26,838 27,023 27,209 27,392 27,576 27,760 1,849 Total 131,1881 132,893 134,598 136,302 138,007 139,712 141,417 143,121 144,800 146,479 148,1571 16,970 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [2]Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 8 TischlerBise 155 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act requires Capital Improvement Plans to be updated regularly, at least once every five years (Idaho Code 67-8208(2)).This report projects revenue and fees based on a 10- year forecast in an effort to provide the public and elected officials with illustrative guidance of probable growth demands based on current trends however, per Idaho Code, it is expected that an update to all Capital Improvement Plans included in this study will occur within five years. FUNDING SOURCES FOR CURRENT DEFICIENCIES The majority of the CIP relates to the expansion of the Ada County Jail. A number of specific upgrades, replacements, and expansions to existing Jail facilities have also been proposed for fiscal year 2025 and beyond. In addition, it is estimated that$2,500,000 will be required for maintenance and repair of existing facilities over the next five years. Because replacement and addressing existing deficiencies are not eligible to be funded with impact fees,these costs will need to be funded by other sources,such as property taxes, in accordance with Idaho Code 67-8207(iv)(2)(h). The Board of Ada County Commissioners retain discretion and authority to fund deficiencies through the county's annual CIP budget process,accumulate savings annually in a construction fund,budget annually for one-time projects using unspent fund balance, or through the deferred maintenance budget annually appropriated to the Operations Department for these sorts of expenses. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The jail development impact fee is based on the existing level of service provided for jail facilities. The development impact fee is calculated for residential and nonresidential development. Based on the 10- year growth projections,the following infrastructure is projected over the next ten years: • 16,555 square feet of new ancillary facility • 178 new jail beds • $32,435,000 growth-related costs to Ada County The projected demand is consistent with the Ada County Jail expansion plans. Currently,the department is exploring options for several expansions within the jail including a warehouse expansion and locker rooms for future Pod E. These projections are consistent with the Jail's Capital Improvement Plan shown in Figure 77. Important to note is that of the total$16 million ancillary facility costs,only$12.5 million will be captured by the impact fees. Also, there are four capital projects which are addressing non-growth- related project,thus not impact fee eligible. 9 TischlerBise 156 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 7.Jail Capital Improvement Plan 10-Year Jail 10-Year I General Fund ImprovementCapital .. Other Pod E Expansion (294 beds) 39,984 $32,843,108 $19,936,000 $12,907,108 Pod E Locker Rooms 3,000 $2,464,219 $2,464,219 $0 Warehouse 10,562 $6,967,817 $6,967,817 $0 Second Secured Entrance 6,719 $6,352,666 $6,352,666 $0 New Booking Room 1,000 $270,229 $270,229 $0 Kitchen Remodel 4,609 $4,992,463 $0 $4,992,463 Camera Installation - $1,322,421 $0 $1,322,421 Restroom& Locker Room Remodel - $138,831 $0 $138,831 Jail Management System Upgrade - $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 Total 65,874 $59,351,755 $35,990,932 $23,360,823 Growth-Related Pod Expansion $19,936,000 Pod Expansion Revenue $19,936,000 Growth-Related Pod Expansion Funding Gap $0 Growth-Related Anc. Facility Expansion $16,054,932 Anc. Facility Expansion Revenue $12,499,025 Growth-Related Anc.Facility Funding Gap $3,555,907 FUNDING SOURCES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS In determining the proportionate share of capital costs attributable to new development, the Idaho Development Fee Act states that local governments must consider historical, available, and alternative sources of funding for system improvements (Idaho Code 67-8207(2)). Currently, there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the County to fund growth-related projects for the infrastructure included in this study. Furthermore, the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset the growth-related capital costs to the County for jail facilities. Evidence is given in the specific chapters of this report that the projected capital costs from new development will be offset by the development impact fees collection as long as the program is collected in the entire service area. Thus, no credits are needed in the impact fee calculation to offset double collection for growth-related capital costs. 10 TischlerBise 157 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study DEVELOPMENTJAIL ANALYSIS The Jail Development Impact Fee is based on the cost per service unit method specified in Idaho Code 67- 8204(16), also referred to as the incremental expansion method elsewhere in this report. The jail components included in the impact fee analysis are: • Jail ancillary facilities • Jail beds • Share of the development impact fee study The residential portion of the fee is derived from the product of persons per housing unit by housing type multiplied by the net capital cost per person. To calculate nonresidential development impact fees, nonresidential vehicle trips are used as the demand indicator. Trip generation rates are highest for commercial developments, such as shopping centers, and lowest for industrial development. Office and institutional land uses trip rates fall between the other two categories. This ranking of trip rates is consistent with the relative demand for jail facilities from nonresidential development and thus are the best demand indicators. Other possible nonresidential demand indicators, such as employment or floor area, do not accurately reflect the demand for service. If employees per thousand square feet were used as the demand indicator, Jail Development Impact Fees would be too high for office and institutional development. If floor area were used as the demand indicator, the development impact fees would be too high for industrial development. (See the Appendix for further discussion on trip rates and calculations.) Specified in Idaho Code 67-8207(2), local governments must consider historical, available, and alternative sources of funding for system improvements. Currently,there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the County to fund growth-related projects for jail facilities. Furthermore, the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset all growth-related capital costs for jail facilities. Evidence is given in this chapter that the projected capital costs from new development will be entirely offset by the development impact fees. Thus, no general tax dollars are assumed to be used to fund growth-related capital costs, requiring no further revenue credits. 11 TischlerBise 158 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study COST ALLOCATION FOR JAIL INFRASTRUCTURE Both residential and nonresidential development increases the demand for jail services and facilities. To calculate the proportional share between residential and nonresidential demand calls for service data from the Ada County Sheriff is analyzed.This call report represents the need for law enforcement services throughout Ada County including calls to which City police departments responded. Shown at the top of Figure 88, 32 percent of calls are to residential locations, 12 percent to nonresidential locations, and 56 percent are classified as traffic calls. Base year vehicle trips are used to assign traffic calls to residential and nonresidential land uses. This results in 41,125 additional residential calls (1,138,874 residential vehicle trips/ 2,087,130 total vehicle trips x 75,367 traffic calls for service) and 34,242 additional nonresidential calls (948,256 nonresidential vehicle trips/2,087,130 total vehicle trips x 75,367 traffic calls for service). After this adjustment, 63 percent of calls are attributed to residential development and 37 percent are attributed to nonresidential development.These percentages are used to attribute facilities to respective demand units. Figure 8. Countywide Law Enforcement Calls for Service M- - - - - Residential 42,779 32% Nonresidential 15,958 12% Traffic 75,367 56% Total 134,105 100% Vehicle Land Use Trips %of Total Residential 1,138,874 55% Nonresidential 948,256 45% Total 2,087,130 100% Adj.Calls Land Use for Service %of Total Residential 83,905 Nonresidential 50,200 Total 134,105 100% Source:Ada County Sheriff's Office 12 TischlerBise F1591 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study JAIL LEVEL OF SERVICE AND COST ANALYSIS The following section details the level of service calculations and capital cost per person for each infrastructure category. JAIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS Shown in Figure 99 is an analysis of the Ada County share of square footage and jail beds.The Ada County Jail houses inmates awaiting transfer to the Idaho State Prison and pretrial hearings. Of the 200 currently held for these reasons, 10 of them are from outside of Ada County.These 10 out-of-county prisoners are then divided by the operational capacity of the jail to get the out of county utilization of 1 percent (10 out-of-county inmates/949 operational capacity= 1 percent out-of-county utilization). Figure 9.Ada County Jail Capacity Analysis Ada County Jail Jail Operational Capacity 949 County Inmates Awaiting Transfer/Hearing 200 Portion of Awaiting Inmates Out-of-County(5%) 10 Portion of Jail Capacity • JAIL ANCILLARY FACILITIES Listed in Figure 1010, there is a total of 87,956 square feet of ancillary facilities at the county jail, 87,710 square feet being attributed to Ada County demand (99 percent). The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the facilities is found by applying the calls for service data percentages. As a result, 54,877 square feet are attributed to residential demand and 32,833 square feet are attributed to nonresidential demand.The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed square footage to the base year population and nonresidential vehicles trips. As a result, there is 100.8 square feet per 1,000 residents and 34.6 square feet per 1,000 vehicles trips. The average cost per square foot is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit.This results in a cost of$76 per person and $26 per vehicle trip(100.8 square feet per 1,000 persons x$755 per square foot= $76 per person, rounded). 13 TischlerBise 160 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 10.Jail Facility Level of Service&Cost Analysis Total Ada County Ada County Facility Square Feet � Portion 99% � Replacement Cost Medical Unit 24,607 24,361 $20,010,220 Work Release 12,980 12,980 $5,612,125 Juvenile Detention 49,012 49,012 $40,258,763 ASCO Vehicle Maintenance 1,357 1,357 $366,634 Total 87,956 87,710 $66,247,743 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonres Proportional Share 63% 37% Share of Square Feet 54,877 32,833 2023 Population/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 544,590 948,256 ��Square Feet per � Cost Analysis Residential Nonres Square Feet per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 100.8 34.6 Average Cost per Square Foot $755 $755 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $761 $26 Source:Ada County Sheriff's Office ,JAIL BEDS Listed in Figure 61, the jail operational capacity is 949 occupied beds, 940 of which are utilized by Ada County(99 percent).The proportionate share between residential and nonresidential demand of the beds is found by applying the calls for service data percentages. As a result, 588 beds are attributed to residential demand and 352 beds are attributed to nonresidential demand.The current level of service is found by comparing the attributed beds to the base year population and nonresidential vehicles trips. As a result, there are 1.08 beds per 1,000 residents and 0.37 beds per 1,000 vehicles trips. The average cost per bed is combined with the current levels of service to find the capital cost per demand unit. This results in a cost of $121 per person and $41 per vehicle trip (1.08 beds per 1,000 persons x $112,000 per bed = $121 per person, rounded). 14 TischlerBise 161 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 61.Jail Bed Level of Service&Cost Analysis Operational CapacityFacility Jail 9491 100%1 940 $105,280,000 Total 949 940 $105,280,000 Level-of-Service Standards Residential Nonres Proportional Share 63% 37% Share of Beds 588 352 2023 Population/Nonres.Vehicle Trips 544,590 948,256 Beds per 000 0: Cost Analysis Residential Nonres Beds per 1,000 Persons/Vehicle Trips 1.081 0.37 Average Cost per Bed [2] 1 $112,0001 $112,000 Capital Cost per Person/Vehicle Trip 1 $1211 $41 [1]Jail population model forcasts 100%utilization by the beginning of 2024 [2] Based on Pod E expansion of 294 beds at$32,843,108 including contingencies and FFE SHARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY Under the Idaho enabling legislation, Ada County is able to recover the cost of the study through the collection of future fees. The total cost of the study has been evenly attributed to the four infrastructure categories, resulting in the Jail category share being $16,370. An impact fee study must be completed every five years, so the attributed cost is compared to the five-year projected increase. As a result, the cost per person is$0.13 and the cost per vehicle trip is $0.11. Figure 72.Jail Share of the Development Impact Fee Study Share of Residential Nonresidential Study Cost Share Share $16,370 63% 37% Residential Five-Year Capital Cost 11 Growth Co! Population ncrease per Person $10,242 79,401 Nonresidential Five-Year Capital Cost Growth Cost Vehicle Tr ip Increase per Vehicle Trip $6,128 56,847 15 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 162 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study JAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVE GROWTH Needs due to future growth were calculated using the levels of service and cost factors for the infrastructure components. Growth-related needs are a projection of the amount of infrastructure and estimated costs over the next ten years needed to maintain levels of service. JAIL ANCILLARY FACILITIES The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new jail ancillary facilities. Shown in Figure 83, over the next ten years, there is a need for 16,555 square feet.The average cost per square foot is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($12,449,025). Figure 83. Projected Demand for Jail Ancillary Facilities Infrastructure I Level of Service Cost/Unit And Ilary Jai I Residential 100.8 per 1,000 persons Square Feet $755 Facilities Nonresidential 34.6 per 1,000 veh.trips Growth-Related Need for Ancillary Jail Facilities Year Population Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total I- Vehicle Trips Square Feet Square FE Square Feet Base 2023 544,590 948,256 54,894 32,809 87,703 Year 1 2024 568,015 959,629 57,255 33,203 90,458 Year 2 2025 591,946 971,000 59,668 33,596 93,264 Year 3 2026 602,628 982,369 60,744 33,989 94,733 Year 4 2027 613,310 993,737 61,821 34,383 96,204 Year 5 2028 623,991 1,005,103 62,898 34,776 97,674 Year 6 2029 634,673 1,016,467 63,975 35,169 99,144 Year 7 2030 645,355 1,027,830 65,051 35,562 100,613 Year 8 2031 653,566 1,039,020 65,879 35,950 101,829 Year 9 2032 661,776 1,050,206 66,707 36,337 103,044 Year 10 2033 669,987 1,061,389 67,534 36,724 104,258 Ten-Year Increase 125,397 113,134 12,640 3,915 16,555 Projected Expenditure $9,543,200 $2,955,825 $12,499,025 Growth-Related Expenditures for Ancillary Jail Facilities $12,499,025 16 TischlerBise 163 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study JAIL BEDS The current levels of service are combined with the population and vehicle trip projections to illustrate the need for new jail beds. Shown in Figure 94, over the next ten years,there is a need for 178 beds.The average cost per unit is multiplied by the need to find the projected capital need from growth ($19,936,000). Figure 94. Projected Demand for Jail Beds Infrastructure I Level of Service Cost/Unit Jail Facilities Residential 1 1.08 Beds per 1,000 persons Nonresidential 0.371 per 1,000 veh.trips $112,000 Growth-Related Need for Jail Facilities Year Population Nonres. Residential Nonresidential Total I I Beds Beds Beds Base 2023 544,590 948,256 588 351 939 Yea r 1 2024 568,015 959,629 613 355 968 Year 2 2025 591,946 971,000 639 359 998 Year 3 2026 602,628 982,369 651 363 1,014 Year 4 2027 613,310 993,737 662 368 1,030 Year 5 2028 623,991 1,005,103 674 372 1,046 Year 6 2029 634,673 1,016,467 685 376 1,061 Year 7 2030 645,355 1,027,830 697 380 1,077 Year 8 2031 653,566 1,039,020 706 384 1,090 Year 9 2032 661,776 1,050,206 715 389 1,104 Year 10 2033 669,987 1,061,389 724 393 1,117 Ten-Year Increase 125,397 113,134 136 42 178 Projected Expenditure $15,232,000 $4,704,000 $19,936,000 Growth-Related Expenditures for Jail Facilities . 000 17 TischlerBise 164 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study JAIL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CREDIT ANALYSIS Currently,there are no dedicated revenues being collected by the County to fund growth-related projects for jail facilities. Furthermore, the maximum supportable impact fees are constructed to offset growth- related capital costs for facilities. Evidence is given in this chapter that the projected capital costs from new development will be entirely offset by the development impact fees. As a result, no revenue credit is necessary in the impact fee calculation. JAIL INPUT VARIABLES AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Figure 105 provides a summary of the input variables (described in the chapter sections above) used to calculate the net cost per person and vehicle trip. The residential Jail Development Impact Fees are the product of persons per housing unit by type of dwelling unit multiplied by the total net capital cost per person.The nonresidential fees are the product of trips per 1,000 square feet multiplied by the net capital cost per nonresidential vehicle trip. The fees represent the highest supportable amount for each type of applicable land use and represents new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The County may adopt fees that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service. Figure 105.Jail Input Variables and Maximum Supportable Impact Fees ComponentFee Cost Cost , Jai I Beds $121.00 $41.00 Jail Ancillary Facilities $76.00 $26.00 Impact Fee Study $0.13 $0.11 Gross Total $197.13 $67.11 Net Total $197.13 $67.11 Residential SupportablePersons per Maximum Housing Type H Residential(per housing unit) Single Family 2.62 Multifamily 1.81 AMi Nonresidential DevelopmentVehicle Trips Maximum ... Nonresidential(per 1,000 squE2.44 kN Reta i 1 Off ce Industrial Institutional 18 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 165 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS FOR JAIL MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEE This section summarizes the potential cash flow to Ada County if the Jail Development Impact Fee is implemented at the maximum supportable amounts. The cash flow projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this chapter and the development projections discussed in Appendix B. Shown at the bottom of Figure 16, the maximum supportable jail impact fee is estimated to generate $32.2 million in revenue while there is a growth-related cost of$32.4 million. Thus, the impact fees are able to offset all growth-related capital costs (note: the difference is the result of rounding in the calculations). The impact fee revenue is compared to the total Jail CIP to illustrate the non-impact fee funding needed to complete the plan. Importantly,the level of service has included demand from within the cities of Ada County.To ensure that the County captures the full potential revenue of the impact fees an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is necessary for the Cities to collect the County impact fees on its behalf. Those revenues would be remitted to the County periodically. In the case there are no IGAs, the County will collect $3.1 million in the unincorporated areas (9.4 percent of the countywide growth-related capital costs). Figure 116. Projected Revenue for Jail Impact Fees Infrastructure Costs for Jail Facilities Total Cost Growth Cost Jail Beds $32,843,108 $19,936,000 Jail Ancillary Facilities $21,047,395 $12,499,025 Impact Fee Study $32,740 $32,740 Total Expenditures $53,923,243 $32,467,765 Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue OfficeSingle Family Multifamily Retail per uni per uni per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2023 182,342 37,833 41,938 21,670 41,668 25,911 1 2024 190,171 39,417 42,327 22,392 42,078 26,096 2 2025 198,180 41,005 42,715 23,114 42,487 26,281 3 2026 201,750 41,716 43,104 23,836 42,896 26,467 4 2027 205,321 42,426 43,492 24,558 43,305 26,652 5 2028 208,891 43,137 43,880 25,280 43,715 26,838 6 2029 212,462 43,847 44,268 26,002 44,124 27,023 7 2030 216,033 44,558 44,656 26,724 44,533 27,209 8 2031 218,774 45,110 45,037 27,434 44,936 27,392 9 2032 221,515 45,662 45,419 28,145 45,339 27,576 10 2033 224,256 46,215 45,800 28,856 45,741 27,760 Ten-Year Increase 41,914 8,382 3,862 7,186 4,073 1,849 Projected Revenue $21,627,749 $2,992,275 $3,645,458 $2,615,726 $663,897 $667,499 Projected Revenue=> $32,213,000 Projected Expenditures=> $53,923,243 Non-Impact Fee Funding=> $21,710,243 19 TischlerBise 166 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study PROPORTIONATESHARE ANALYSIS Development impact fees for Ada County are based on reasonable and fair formulas or methods. The fees do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the County in the provision of system improvements to serve new development.The County will fund non-growth-related improvements with non-development impact fee funds as it has in the past. Specified in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act(Idaho Code 67-8207),several factors must be evaluated in the development impact fee study and are discussed below. 1) The development impact fees for Ada County are based on new growth's share of the costs of previously built projects along with planned public facilities as provided by Ada County. Projects are included in the County's capital improvements plan and will be included in annual capital budgets. 2) TischlerBise estimated development impact fee revenue based on the maximum supportable development impact fees for the one, countywide service area; results are shown in the cash flow analyses in this report. Development impact fee revenue will entirely fund growth-related improvements less funding from other sources (i.e.,federal and state grants). 3) TischlerBise has evaluated the extent to which new development may contribute to the cost of public facilities. 4) The relative extent to which properties will make future contributions to the cost of existing public facilities has also been evaluated in regards to existing debt. Outstanding debt for growth's portion of already constructed facilities will be paid from development impact fee revenue, therefore a future revenue credit is not necessary. 5) The County will evaluate the extent to which newly developed properties are entitled to a credit for system improvements that have been provided by property owners or developers.These"site- specific"credits will be available for system improvements identified in the annual capital budget and long-term Capital Improvements Plans. Administrative procedures for site-specific credits should be addressed in the development impact fee ordinance. 6) Extraordinary costs, if any, in servicing newly developed properties should be addressed through administrative procedures that allow independent studies to be submitted to the County. These procedures should be addressed in the development impact fee ordinance. One service area represented by Ada County is appropriate for the fees herein. 7) The time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times has been addressed. All costs in the development impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the annual evaluation and update of development impact fees. 20 TischlerBise 167 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study IMPLEMENTATIONADMINISTRATION The Idaho Act requires jurisdictions to form a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The committee must have at least five members with a minimum of two members active in the business of real estate, building, or development. The committee acts in an advisory capacity and is tasked to do the following: • Assist the governmental entity in adopting land use assumptions; • Review the capital improvements plan, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; • Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; • File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the capital improvements plan and report to the governmental entity any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the development impact fees; and • Advise the governmental entity of the need to update or revise land use assumptions,the capital improvements plan, and development impact fees. Per the above, the County formed a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee (DIFAC). TischlerBise and County Staff met with the DIFAC during the process and provided information on land use assumptions, level of service and cost assumptions, and draft development impact fee schedules. This report reflects comments and feedback received from the DIFAC. The County must develop and adopt a capital improvements plan (CIP)that includes those improvements for which fees were developed.The Idaho Act defines a capital improvement as an "improvement with a useful life of ten years or more, by new construction or other action, which increases the service capacity of a public facility." Requirements for the CIP are outlined in Idaho Code 67-8208. Certain procedural requirements must be followed for adoption of the CIP and the development impact fee ordinance. Requirements are described in detail in Idaho Code 67-8206. The County has a CIP that meets the above requirements. TischlerBise recommends that development impact fees be updated annually to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs by means of an index like the RSMeans or Engineering News Record (ENR).This index can be applied against the calculated development impact fee. If cost estimates change significantly the County should evaluate an adjustment to the CIP and development impact fees. Idaho's enabling legislation requires an annual development impact fees report that accounts for fees collected and spent during the preceding year (Idaho Code 67-8210). Development impact fees must be deposited in interest-bearing accounts earmarked for the associated capital facilities as outlined in capital improvements plans. Also, fees must be spent within eight years of when they are collected (on a first in, first out basis) unless the local governmental entity identifies in writing (a) a reasonable cause why the 21 TischlerBise 168 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study fees should be held longer than eight years;and (b)an anticipated date by which the fees will be expended but in no event greater than eleven years from the date they were collected. Credits must be provided for in accordance with Idaho Code Section 67-8209 regarding site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for system improvements that have been included in the development impact fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits against development impact fees. Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the County's fees. The general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in CIP and development impact fee calculations. If a developer constructs a system improvement that was included in the fee calculations, it is necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees in the area that benefits from the system improvement.The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on TischlerBise's experience, it is better for a reimbursement agreement to be established with the developer that constructs a system improvement. For example, if a developer elects to construct a system improvement, then a reimbursement agreement can be established to payback the developer from future development impact fee revenue. The reimbursement agreement should be based on the actual documented cost of the system improvement, if less than the amount shown in the CIP. However,the reimbursement should not exceed the CIP amount that has been used in the development impact fee calculations. 22 TischlerBise 169 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study APPENDixA. LAND USE DEFINITIONS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT As discussed below, residential development categories are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Ada County will collect impact fees from all new residential units. One-time impact fees are determined by the number of residential units. Single Family Units: 1. Single family detached is a one-unit structure detached from any other house, that is, with open space on all four sides. Such structures are considered detached even if they have an adjoining shed or garage.A one-family house that contains a business is considered detached as long as the building has open space on all four sides. 2. Single family attached (townhouse) is a one-unit structure that has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures. In row houses (sometimes called townhouses), double houses, or houses attached to nonresidential structures, each house is a separate, attached structure if the dividing or common wall goes from ground to roof. 3. Mobile home includes both occupied and vacant mobile homes, to which no permanent rooms have been added. Mobile homes used only for business purposes or for extra sleeping space and mobile homes for sale on a dealer's lot,at the factory,or in storage are not counted in the housing inventory. Multifamily Units: 1. 2+ units (duplexes and apartments) are units in structures containing two or more housing units, further categorized as units in structures with "2, 3 or 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 19, 20 to 49, and 50 or more apartments." 2. Boat, RV, Van, etc. includes any living quarters occupied as a housing unit that does not fit the other categories(e.g.,houseboats, railroad cars,campers,and vans). Recreational vehicles, boats, vans, railroad cars, and the like are included only if they are occupied as a current place of residence. 23 TischlerBise „o FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES Nonresidential development categories used throughout this study are based on land use classifications from the book Trip Generation (ITE, 2021). A summary description of each development category is provided below. Retail: Establishments primarily selling merchandise, eating/drinking places, and entertainment uses. By way of example, Retail includes shopping centers, supermarkets, pharmacies, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, automobile dealerships, and movie theaters. Office: Establishments providing management, administrative, professional, or business services. By way of example, Office includes business offices, office parks, and corporate headquarters. Industrial: Establishments primarily engaged in the production and transportation of goods. By way of example, Industrial includes manufacturing plants, trucking companies, warehousing facilities, utility substations, power generation facilities, and telecommunications buildings. Institutional: Public and quasi-public buildings providing educational, social assistance, or religious services. By way of example, Institutional includes schools, universities, churches, daycare facilities, hospitals, health care facilities, and government buildings. 24 TischlerBise 171 FISCAL I ECONOMIC. I PLANNING Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study APPENDixB. DEMOGRAPHic • The data estimates and projections used in the study's calculations are detailed in this section. This chapter includes discussion and findings on: • Household/housing unit size • Current population and housing unit estimates • Residential projections • Current employment and nonresidential floor area estimates • Nonresidential projections • Functional population • Vehicle trip generation and projections POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying household sizes and, consequently, a varying demand on County infrastructure and services. Thus, it is important to differentiate between housing types and size. When persons per housing unit(PPHU) is used in the development impact fee calculations, infrastructure standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per household (PPHH) is used in the development impact fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all housing units will be occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards. Thus,TischlerBise recommends that fees for residential development in Ada County be imposed according to persons per housing units. Based on housing characteristics, TischlerBise recommends using two housing unit categories for the Impact Fee study: (1) Single Family and (2) Multifamily. Each housing type has different characteristics which results in a different demand on County facilities and services. Figure 127 shows the US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates data for Ada County. Single family units have a housing unit size of 2.62 persons and multifamily units have a housing unit size of 1.81 persons. Additionally,there is a housing mix of 83 percent single family and 17 percent multifamily. The estimates in Figure 127 are for household size calculations. Base year population and housing units are estimated with another, more recent data source. Tiscl llerBise 25 FISCAL I ECp NOMIC I PLANNING 172 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 127.Ada County Persons per Housing Unit Housing Housing Type Persons Units . . . . Single Family[1] 415,557 158,890 153,711 2.70 83% Multifamily[2] 59,917 33,161 31,014 1.93 17% Total 475,474 192,051 184,725 2.57 [1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates The US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates data for incorporated Ada County is shown in Figure 138. Single family units have a housing unit size of 2.59 persons and multifamily units have a housing unit size of 1.80 persons. Additionally, there is a housing mix of 81 percent single family and 19 percent multifamily. Figure 138. Incorporated Ada County Persons per Housing Unit Housing .• HousingType Units . . . . Single Family[1] 363,946 140,266 135,502 2.69 81% Multifamily[2] 58,871 32,691 30,619 1.92 19% Total 422,817 172,957 166,121 2.55 [1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates The US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year-Estimates data for unincorporated Ada County is shown in Figure 149. Single family units have a housing unit size of 2.77 persons and multifamily units have a housing unit size of 2.23 persons. Additionally, there is a housing mix of 98 percent single family and 2 percent multifamily. Figure 149. Unincorporated Ada County Persons per Housing Unit Housing HousingType M.. . . Units � 'i . . . . Single Family[1] 51,611 18,624 18,209 2.83 98% Multifamily[2] 1,046 470 395 2.65 2% Total 52,657 19,094 18,604 2.83 [1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes [2] Includes all other types Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates BASE YEAR POPULATION AND HOUSING UNITS Available through the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), the base year 2023 population in Ada County is estimated to be 554,590 residents shown in Figure20. PPHU factors for 7]SChleraise 26 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 173 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Incorporated and Unincorporated Ada County were used to estimate base year housing units for the whole County. The housing unit mix for Ada County was then applied to the total giving an estimated 182,342 single family units and 37,833 multifamily units. Figure 20.Ada County Base Year Population and Housing Units Base Year Population [1] 544,590 Housing Units [2] Single Family 182,342 Multifamily 37,833 Total Housing Units 220,175 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model [2] U.S.Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, TischlerBise analysis Available through COMPASS, the base year 2023 population in unincorporated Ada County is estimated to be 63,510 residents shown in Figure 151. PPHU factors for unincorporated Ada County were used to estimate base year housing units.The housing unit mix was then applied to the total giving an estimated 22,444 single family units and 566 multifamily units. Figure 151. Unincorporated Ada County Base Year Population and Housing Units Ada County Base Year Unini • .• 2023 Population [1] 63,510 Housing Units[2] Single Family 22,444 Multifamily 566 Total Housing Units 23,011 [1]COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model [2] U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, TischlerBise analysis The population estimate for unincorporated Ada County from COMPASS was subtracted from the population estimate for the whole of Ada County to find the estimated base year population for incorporated Ada County. Shown in Figure 162 the estimated population is 481,080. PPHU factors for incorporated Ada County were used to estimate base year housing units. The housing unit mix was then applied to the total giving an estimated 159,898 single family units and 37,266 multifamily units. TISCh BISe 27 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 174 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Figure 162. Incorporated Ada County Base Year Population and Housing Units IncorporatedAda County Base Year Population [1] 481, 880 Housing Units [21 Single Family 159,898 Multifamily 37,266 Total Housing Units 197,164 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model [2] U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, TischlerBise analysis T[schlerBise 28 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 175 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS The residential projections are based on a review of COMPASS published estimates, impact fee studies from cities and fire districts within Ada County, and PPHU factors. Impact fee studies comprising the main six cities within Ada County were used to affirm growth trends for whole county projections. From the 2023 base year housing unit totals, Ada County is projected to increase by 50,296 housing units over the next ten years. Additionally,there is a projected increase of 125,397 residents over the next ten years, a 23 percent increase. Figure 173.Ada County Residential Development Projections Base Year Total Population 1 544,5901 568,015 591,946 602,628 613,310 623,991 634,673 645,355 653,566 661,776 669,987 125,397 Percent Increase 4.3% 4.2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 23.0% Housing Units Si ngl a Fa mi ly 182,342 190,171 198,180 201,750 205,321 208,891 212,462 216,033 218,774 221,515 224,256 41,914 Multifamily 37,833 39,417 41,005 41,716 42,426 43,137 43,847 44,558 45,110 45,662 46,215 8,382 Total Housing Units 220,175 229,588 239,185 243,466 247,747 252,028 256,309 260,591 263,884 267,177 270,471 50,296 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis From the 2023 base year housing unit totals for incorporated Ada County,there is a projected increase of 44,844 new housing units over the next ten years.Additionally, there is a projected increase of 110,415 residents in incorporated Ada County, a 23 percent increase. Figure 184. Incorporated Ada County Residential Development Projections Ada County Base Year I Total Population 1 481,0801 502,024 523,414 532,767 542,119 551,471 560,823 570,174 577,281 584,388 591,495 110,415 Percent Increase 4.4% 4.3% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 23.0% Housing Units Si ngl a Fa mi ly 159,898 166,853 173,967 177,075 180,183 183,291 186,399 189,507 191,866 194,226 196,586 36,688 Multifamily 37,266 38,822 40,383 41,072 41,761 42,450 43,139 43,828 44,359 44,891 45,423 8,156 Total Housing Units 197,164 205,676 214,350 218,147 221,944 225,741 229,538 233,334 236,226 239,117 242,008 44,844 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis TischlerBise 29 FISCAL I ECONOMJC I PLANNING 176 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study From the 2023 base year housing unit total for unincorporated Ada County, there is a projected increase 5,453 new housing units over the next ten years.Additionally, there is a projected increase of 14,982 residents in unincorporated Ada County, a 23.6 percent increase. Figure 195. Unincorporated Ada County Residential Development Projections Ada County Base Year I Total Population 1 63,5101 65,991 68,532 69,861 71,190 72,520 73,850 75,181 76,284 77,388 78,492 14,982 Percent Increase 3.9% 3.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 23.6% Housing Units Si ngl a Fa mi ly 22,444 23,318 24,213 24,675 25,138 25,600 26,063 26,526 26,908 27,289 27,671 5,227 Multifamily 566 594 622 644 665 687 708 730 751 771 792 226 Total Housing Units 23,011 23,912 24,835 25,319 25,803 26,287 26,772 27,256 27,658 28,061 28,464 5,453 Source:COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;City& Fire District Impact Fee Studies; TischlerBise analysis TischlBi erse 30 FISCAL I ECONOMJC I PLANNING 177 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA The impact fee study will include nonresidential development as well. Available through COMPASS Job projections from the Traffic Analysis Zone Model (TAZ) and Communities in Motion 2050 there are an estimated 239,668 jobs in Ada County in 2023.These job projections are broken down by industry leading to an estimated 43,787 retail jobs, 130,780 office jobs,35,745 industrial jobs,and 29,356 institutional jobs in the base year. Base year nonresidential floor area estimates are based on Ada County GIS nonresidential parcel data. There is an estimated 131 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in Ada County. Retail and industrial sectors account for the greatest share with approximately 32 percent each. Institutional accounts for 20 percent, and office accounts for 17 percent of the total. Figure 206.Ada County Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Base Year %of Base Year %of •- Jobs[1] Total Sq.Ft.[2] Total Retail 43,787 18% 41,938,153 32% Office 130,780 55% 21,670,098 17% Industrial 35,745 15% 41,668,221 32% Institutional 29,356 12% 25,911,213 20% Total 239,668 100% 131,187,685 100% [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050 [2] Source:Ada County GIS parcel data The job and nonresidential floor area estimates were further broken down into incorporated and unincorporated areas. Incorporated Ada County has an estimated 230,704 jobs in 2023. These job projections are broken down by industry leading to an estimated 42,925 retail jobs, 125,936 office jobs, 34,547 industrial jobs, and 27,296 institutional jobs in the base year. Additionally, there is an estimated 127 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in incorporated Ada County. Retail accounts for the greatest share at 32 percent. Industrial accounts for 31 percent, institutional accounts for 19 percent,and office accounts for 17 percent of the total. Figure 217. Incorporated Ada County Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area 7Retai Base Year %of Base Year %of • - Jobs[1] Total Sq.Ft. [2] Total 42,925 19% 41,286,649 32% 125,936 55% 21,370,261 17% 34,547 15% 39,887,518 31% Institutional 27,296 12% 24,605,169 19% Total 230,704 100% 127,149,597 100% [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050 [2] Source:Ada County GIS parcel data T[schl rBise 31 FISCAL I ECp NOMIC I PLANNING 178 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Unincorporated Ada County has an estimated 8,964 jobs in 2023. These job projections are broken down by industry leading to an estimated 862 retail jobs, 4,844 office jobs, 1,198 industrial jobs, and 2,060 institutional jobs in the base year. Additionally, there is an estimated 4 million square feet of nonresidential floor area in unincorporated Ada County. Industrial accounts for the greatest share at 44 percent. Institutional accounts for 32 percent, retail accounts for 16 percent, and office accounts for 7 percent. Figure 228. Unincorporated Ada County Base Year Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area 7Retail Base Year %of Base Year %of Jobs[11 Total Sq. Ft. [2] Total 862 10% 651,504 16% 4,844 54% 299,837 7% 1,198 13% 1,780,703 44% Institutional 2,060 23% 1,306,044 32% Total 8,964 100% 4,038,088 100% [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion [2] Source:Ada County GIS parcel data EMPLOYMENT AND NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA PROJECTIONS Job projections for the industry sectors are calculated with the Institution of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) square feet per employee averages shown in Figure 239. For retail industries the Shopping Center land use factors are used; for office the General Office factors are used; for industrial the Light Industrial factors are used; for institutional the Hospital factors are used. Figure 239. Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Employment Density Factors Industry .. Retail 820 1 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 2.12 471 Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3.26 307 Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 1.57 637 Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2.86 350 Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021) T[Sc 1ler -ise 32 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 179 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Job and nonresidential growth projections over the next ten years for Ada County are shown in Figure 30. It is estimated there will be an increase of 43,283 jobs, an 18 percent increase from the base year.The majority of the increase comes from the office sector(54 percent). The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee factors to the job growth. In the next ten years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 17 million square feet (rounded), a 13 percent increase from the base year. The office sector has the largest share of this growth at 42 percent. Figure 30.Ada County Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Base Year Total A.. Jobs[l] Retail 43,787 44,612 45,437 46,262 47,086 47,910 48,734 49,557 50,367 51,177 51,986 8,199 Office 130,780 133,132 135,483 137,835 140,186 142,538 144,889 147,241 149,556 151,872 154,187 23,407 Industrial 35,745 36,388 37,030 37,673 38,315 38,958 39,600 40,242 40,875 41,507 42,139 6,394 Institutional 29,356 29,884 30,413 30,943 31,472 32,003 32,533 33,064 33,588 34,113 34,639 5,283 Total 1 239,6681 244,016 248,364 252,712 257,060 261,408 265,756 270,104 274,386 278,669 282,951 43,283 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 41,938 42,327 42,715 43,104 43,492 43,880 44,268 44,656 45,037 45,419 45,800 3,862 Office 21,670 22,392 23,114 23,836 24,558 25,280 26,002 26,724 27,434 28,145 28,856 7,186 Industrial 41,668 42,078 42,487 42,896 43,305 43,715 44,124 44,533 44,936 45,339 45,741 4,073 Institutional 25,911 26,096 26,281 26,467 26,652 26,838 27,023 27,209 27,392 27,576 27,760 1,849 Total 131,1881 132,893 134,598 136,302 138,007 139,712 141,417 143,121 144,800 146,479 148,1571 16,970 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [2]Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 Tisch B S@ 33 F15CA+ I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 180 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Job and nonresidential growth projections over the next ten years for incorporated Ada County are shown in Figure 241. It is estimated there will be an increase of 41,040 jobs, an 18 percent increase from the base year.The majority of the increase comes from the office sector(55 percent). The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee factors to the job growth. In the next ten years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 16.1 million square feet (rounded), a 13 percent increase from the base year. The office sector has the largest share of this growth at 43 percent. Figure 241. Incorporated Ada County Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Ada County Base Year � Total Incorporated i Jobs[l] Retail 42,925 43,696 44,466 45,236 46,004 46,772 47,539 48,306 49,059 49,811 50,561 7,636 Office 125,936 128,198 130,458 132,715 134,970 137,223 139,474 141,723 143,933 146,138 148,339 22,403 Industrial 34,547 35,168 35,787 36,407 37,025 37,643 38,261 38,878 39,484 40,089 40,693 6,146 Institutional 27,296 27,786 28,276 28,765 29,254 29,742 30,230 30,718 31,197 31,675 32,152 4,856 Total 1 230,7041 234,848 238,987 243,123 247,254 251,381 255,505 259,624 263,673 267,712 271,744 41,040 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 41,287 41,650 42,013 42,375 42,737 43,099 43,460 43,821 44,176 44,530 44,883 3,597 Office 21,370 22,065 22,758 23,451 24,144 24,835 25,526 26,217 26,895 27,572 28,248 6,878 Industrial 39,888 40,283 40,678 41,072 41,466 41,860 42,253 42,646 43,032 43,418 43,802 3,915 Institutional 24,605 24,777 24,948 25,119 25,291 25,461 25,632 25,803 25,970 26,138 26,305 1,699 Total 1 127,1501 128,774 130,397 132,018 133,637 135,255 136,872 138,487 140,074 141,657 143,2381 16,088 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [2]Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 34 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMJC I PLANNING 181 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study Job and nonresidential growth projections over the next ten years for unincorporated Ada County are shown in Figure 252. It is estimated there will be an increase of 2,244jobs, a 25 percent increase from the base year.The majority of the increase comes from the office sector(45 percent). The nonresidential floor area projections are calculated by applying the ITE square feet per employee factors to the job growth. In the next ten years, the nonresidential floor area is projected to increase by 881,000 square feet, a 22 percent increase from the base year. The office sector has the largest share of this growth at 35 percent. Figure 252. Unincorporated Ada County Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections Ada County �ase Year Total- Unincc Jobs[1] Retail 862 916 971 1,026 1,082 1,138 1,194 1,251 1,308 1,366 1,425 563 Office 4,844 4,934 5,025 5,120 5,216 5,315 5,415 5,518 5,623 5,734 5,849 1,005 Industrial 1,198 1,220 1,243 1,266 1,290 1,314 1,339 1,365 1,391 1,418 1,446 248 Institutional 2,060 2,098 2,137 2,177 2,218 2,260 2,303 2,347 2,391 2,438 2,487 427 Total 1 8,9641 9,168 9,377 9,589 9,806 10,027 10,251 10,480 10,714 10,957 11,208 2,244 Nonresidential Floor Area(1,000 sq.ft.)[2] Retail 652 677 703 729 755 781 808 835 862 889 917 265 Office 300 327 356 384 414 444 475 507 539 573 608 308 Industrial 1,781 1,795 1,809 1,824 1,839 1,855 1,871 1,887 1,904 1,921 1,939 158 Institutional 1,306 1,319 1,333 1,347 1,361 1,376 1,391 1,406 1,422 1,438 1,456 150 Total 1 4,0381 4,119 4,201 4,285 4,370 4,457 4,545 4,634 4,726 4,821 4,920 881 [1] COMPASS(Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho)Traffic Analysis Zone Model;Communities in Motion 2050;TischlerBise analysis [2]Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 2021 35 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMJC I PLANNING 182 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS BY HOUSING TYPE A customized trip rate is calculated for the single family and multifamily units in Ada County. In Figure 263, the most recent data from the US Census American Community Survey is inputted into equations provided by the ITE to calculate the trip ends per housing unit factor. A single family unit is estimated to generate 10.66 trip ends and a multifamily unit is estimated to generate 5.42 trip ends on an average weekday. Figure 263. Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type Households by Structure Type Tenure by Units Vehicles Single Multifamily Total Vehicles per in Structi Available' Family HH by Tenure Owner-Occupied 289,778 129,602 1,468 131,070 2.21 Renter-Occupied 85,906 24,109 29,546 53,655 1.60 Total 375,684 153,711 31,014 184,725 2.03 Housing Units3 158,890 33,161 192,051 HouseholdsPersons in Vehicles by Trip Average Local Trip National Trip Housing Type � per Unit7 Single Family 415,557 1,157,628 324,995 2,118,200 1,637,914 9.43 Multifamily 59,917 137,129 50,518 199,334 168,231 4.54 Total 475,474 1,294,757 375,513 2,317,534 1 1,806,145 1.Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046,2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032,2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 3. Housing units from Table B25024,2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 4.Total population in households from Table B25033, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. 5.Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2021). For single-family housing(ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72).To approximate the average population of the ITE studies, persons were divided by 19 and the equation result multiplied by 19. For multi-family housing(ITE 221),the fitted curve equation is(2.29*persons)-81.02(ITE 2017). 6.Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation(ITE 2021). For single-family housing (ITE 210),the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.99*LN(vehicles)+1.93).To approximate the average number of vehicles in the ITE studies,vehicles available were divided by 34 and the equation result multiplied by 34. For multi-family housing (ITE 221),the fitted curve equation is(3.94*vehicles)+293.58(ITE 2021). 7.Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition(2021). Taschler-ise 36 FISCAL I ECp NOMIC I PLANNING 183 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, so to not double count trips, a standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip. For example,the out-bound trip from a person's home to work is attributed to the housing unit and the trip from work back home is attributed to the employer. However, an additional adjustment is necessary to capture County residents' work bound trips that are outside of the County. The trip adjustment factor includes two components. According to the National Household Travel Survey, home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of out-bound trips (which are 50 percent of all trip ends). Also, utilizing the most recent data from the Census Bureau's web application "OnTheMap", 17 percent of Ada County workers travel outside the County for work. In combination,these factors account for 3 percent of additional production trips (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.17=0.03). Shown in Figure 4, the total adjustment factor for residential housing units includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends) plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (3 percent of production trips) for a total of 53 percent. Figure 34. Residential Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters Employed Ada County Residents(2020) 212,011 Residents Working in Ada County(2020) 175,359 Residents Commuting Outside of Ada County for Work 36,652 Percent Commuting Out of Ada County 17% Additional Production Trips 3% Standard Trip Adjustment Factor 50% Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 53% Source:U.S.Census,OnTheMap Application,2020 Tiscl llerBise 37 FISCAL I ECp NOMIC I PLANNING 184 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE TRIPS Vehicle trip generation for nonresidential land uses are calculated by using ITE's average daily trip end rates and adjustment factors found in their recently published 11th edition of Trip Generation.To estimate the trip generation in Ada County, the weekday trip end per 1,000 square feet factors listed in Figure 35275 are used. Figure 3527. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Factors DemandEmployment ITE Industry code Land Use Unit per Dmd Unit I per Employee Reta 11 820 Shoppi Ing Center 1,000 Scl Ft 37.01 17.42 ❑ffice 710 General Office 1,000 S Ft 10.84 3.33 Industrial 110 L ght Industrial 1,000 S Ft 4.87 3.10 Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 S Ft 10.77 3.77 Source: Trip[generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,11th Edition(2021) For nonresidential land uses, the standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to office, industrial, and institutional land uses. A lower vehicle trip adjustment factor is used for retail uses because this type of development attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their primary destination. In Figure 286, the Institute for Transportation Engineers' land use code,daily vehicle trip end rate, and trip adjustment factor is listed for each land use. Figure 286. Daily Vehicle Trip Factors ITE Daily Vehicle Trip Adj. Daily Vehicle CodesLand Use Residential(per housing unit) Single Family 210 10.66 53% 5.65 Multifamily 220 5.42 53% 2.87 Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet) Retail 820 37.01 38% 14.06 Office 710 10.84 50% 5.42 Industrial 110 4.87 50% 2.44 Institutional 610 10.77 50% 5.39 Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021); 'National Household Travel Survey, 2009 TiSc 11er_ise 38 FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 185 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study VEHICLE TRIP PROJECTIONS The base year vehicle trip totals and vehicle trip projections are calculated by combining the vehicle trip end factors, the trip adjustment factors, and the residential and nonresidential assumptions for housing stock and floor area. Countywide, residential land uses account for 1,138,874 vehicle trips and nonresidential land uses account for 948,256 vehicle trips in the base year shown in Figure 297. Through 2033, it is projected that daily vehicle trips will increase by 374,018 trips with the majority of the growth being generated by single family (63 percent) and retail (15 percent) development. Figure 297.Ada County Vehicle Trip Projections Base Year Total Residential Trips Single Family 1,030,196 1,074,429 1,119,675 1,139,848 1,160,022 1,180,195 1,200,368 1,220,542 1,236,029 1,251,516 1,267,003 236,807 Multifamily 108,679 113,228 117,791 119,832 121,873 123,915 125,956 127,997 129,583 131,170 132,756 24,077 Subtotal 1,138,874 1,187,658 1,237,466 1,259,681 1,281,895 1,304,110 1,326,324 1,348,539 1,365,612 1,382,685 1,399,759 260,884 Nonresidential Trips Retail 589,810 595,277 600,742 606,204 611,664 617,121 622,576 628,029 633,398 638,762 644,120 54,310 Office 117,452 121,365 125,278 129,191 133,103 137,016 140,929 144,841 148,694 152,547 156,400 38,948 Industrial 101,462 102,459 103,456 104,452 105,449 106,445 107,442 108,438 109,419 110,399 111,380 9,918 Institutional 139,532 140,528 141,524 142,522 143,521 144,520 145,520 146,521 147,509 148,498 149,489 9,957 Subtotal 948,256 959,629 971,000 982,369 993,737 1,005,103 1,016,467 1,027,830 1,039,020 1,050,206 1,061,389 113,134 Vehicle Trips Grand Total 2,087,130 2,147,286 2,208,466 2,242,050 2,275,632 2,309,212 2,342,791 2,376,368 2,404,632 2,432,892 2,461,148 374,018 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition (2021) B se 39 Tisch F15CA+ I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 186 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study In incorporated Ada County, residential land uses account for 1,010,441 vehicle trips and nonresidential land uses account for 926,099 vehicle trips in the base year shown in Figure 308. Through 2033, it is projected that daily vehicle trips will increase by 337,251 trips with the majority of the growth being generated by single family (61 percent) and retail (15 percent) development. Figure 308. Incorporated Ada County Vehicle Trip Projections Ada County Base Year Total Inc..,. Residential Trips Single Family 903,389 942,688 982,879 1,000,440 1,018,000 1,035,559 1,053,117 1,070,675 1,084,006 1,097,336 1,110,670 207,281 Multifamily 107,051 111,521 116,004 117,983 119,963 121,942 123,921 125,899 127,427 128,954 130,481 23,429 Su btota 1 1,010,441 1,054,210 1,098,883 1,118,423 1,137,962 1,157,500 1,177,038 1,196,575 1,211,433 1,226,289 1,241,151 230,710 Nonresidential Trips Retail 580,647 585,754 590,856 595,953 601,044 606,131 611,213 616,291 621,280 626,259 631,228 50,580 Office 115,827 119,591 123,351 127,107 130,859 134,608 138,353 142,095 145,772 149,442 153,103 37,277 Industrial 97,126 98,089 99,050 100,011 100,970 101,929 102,887 103,843 104,784 105,722 106,658 9,532 1 nsti tuti ona 1 132,499 133,423 134,346 135,268 136,189 137,110 138,029 138,948 139,851 140,752 141,651 9,152 Subtotal 926,099 936,857 947,603 958,338 969,063 979,778 990,482 1,001,177 1,011,687 1,022,174 1,032,640 106,541 Vehicle Trips Grand Total 11,936,539 1,991,066 2,046,486 2,076,761 2,107,025 2,137,278 2,167,520 2,197,752 2,223,120 2,248,464 2,273,791 337,251 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition (2021) 40 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 187 Ada County, Idaho 2024 Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study In unincorporated Ada County, residential land uses account for 128,434 vehicle trips and nonresidential land uses account for 22,157 vehicle trips in the base year shown in Figure 319. Through 2033, it is projected that daily vehicle trips will increase by 36,772 trips with the majority of the growth being generated by single family (80 percent) and retail (10 percent) development. Figure 319. Unincorporated Ada County Vehicle Trip Projections Ada County Base Year Total Unincorl 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Residential Trips Single Family 126,807 131,741 136,796 139,409 142,022 144,636 147,251 149,866 152,023 154,180 156,338 29,532 Multifamily 1,627 1,707 1,787 1,849 1,911 1,973 2,035 2,097 2,157 2,216 2,275 648 Subtotal 128,434 133,448 138,583 141,258 143,933 146,609 149,286 151,964 154,179 156,396 158,613 30,180 Nonresidential Trips Retail 9,163 9,523 9,886 10,251 10,619 10,990 11,363 11,739 12,118 12,503 12,893 3,730 Office 1,625 1,774 1,927 2,084 2,244 2,408 2,575 2,746 2,922 3,106 3,297 1,672 Industrial 4,336 4,370 4,406 4,442 4,479 4,517 4,555 4,594 4,635 4,677 4,721 385 Institutional 7,033 7,105 7,178 7,254 7,331 7,410 7,491 7,573 7,658 7,746 7,838 805 Subtotal 22,157 22,772 23,397 24,031 24,673 25,325 25,985 26,652 27,333 28,032 28,749 6,592 Vehicle Trips Grand Total 150,5911 156,220 161,980 165,288 168,606 171,934 175,271 178,616 181,512 184,428 187,363 36,772 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition (2021) 41 TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING 188 Exhibit A.8 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY; ADOPTING AN AMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; REPEALING AND REPLACING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-7-12(E)(2) CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES; VOIDING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS,AND ORDERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,pursuant to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, the City of Meridian ("City") has established fire impact fees, police impact fees, and park and recreation impact fees ("Impact Fees")to fund certain public facilities needed to serve new growth and development; and, WHEREAS,the City retained DP Guthrie LLC ("Consultant") to prepare a study to evaluate the need to update the Impact Fees in accordance with the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act; and, WHEREAS,the Consultant prepared the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study ("Study"), attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes an amended capital improvements plan ("Capital Improvements Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Study and amended Capital Improvements Plan fully comply with the requirements set forth in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act; and, WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Advisory Committee ("Committee"), pursuant to Meridian City Code section 10-7-11, considered the Study, amended Capital Improvements Plan, and updated Impact Fees; and, WHEREAS, the Committee recommended that the City Council accept the Study, adopt the amended Capital Improvements Plan, and implement the updated Impact Fees; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 9, 2022, to consider the Study, the amended Capital Improvements Plan, and an ordinance authorizing updates to the Impact Fees; and, WHEREAS, the City Council found that the Study and amended Capital Improvements Plan fully comply with the requirements and processes set forth in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act; and, WHEREAS,the City Council found that the recommended updates to the Impact Fees fully comply with the requirements and processes set forth in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act; 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAG1 I 189 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein as findings of the City Council. Section 2. That the Study is hereby accepted. Section 3. That the amended Capital Improvements Plan, as set forth in the Study, is hereby adopted. Section 4. That Meridian City Code section 10-7-12(E)(2) shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety as follows: 2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated, paid, and accepted pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as follows. Impact Fee Schedule Effective February 1, 2023 Residential Square Feet of Climate- Park and Police Fire Total Fees Controlled Floor Area Per Recreation Facilities Facilities Individual Dwelling Unit Facilities 1,200 or less $1,946.00 $190.00 $470.00 $2,606.00 1,201 to 1,700 $3,006.00 $294.00 $726.00 $4,026.00 1,701 to 2,500 $4,119.00 $402.00 $995.00 $5,516.00 2,501 to 3,200 $4,935.00 $482.00 $1,192.00 $6,609.00 3,201 or more $5,544.00 $542.00 $1,339.00 $7,425.00 For a building with more than one dwelling unit, the floor area per individual dwelling unit shall be calculated by dividing the total climate-controlled floor area of the building, less ancillary building space,by the total number of dwelling units in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms, fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas. 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 2 1 90 Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Building Park and Recreation Police Fire Total Facilities Facilities Facilities Fees Commercial (includes all $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52 buildings in a shopping center; all stand-alone retail buildings; and all restaurants and bars) All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15 Section 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict with this ordinance are hereby voided. Section 6. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be February 1, 2023, which shall be no sooner than thirty(30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 22nd day of November , 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 221d day of November, 2022. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGI 3 1 1 1 STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004 The undersigned, William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public. DATED this b day ofx -.; 2022. F William L.M.Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004 An ordinance accepting the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study; adopting an amended capital improvements plan;repealing and replacing Meridian City Code section 10-7-12(E)(2)concerning development impact fees; voiding conflicting ordinances and resolutions; and providing an effective date of February 1, 2023. The full text of the ordinance is available in the City Clerk's Office at Meridian City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho. Impact Fee Schedule Effective February 1, 2023 Residential Square Feet of Climate- Park and Police Fire Total Fees Controlled Floor Area Per Recreation Facilities Facilities Individual Dwelling Unit Facilities 1,200 or less $1,946.00 $190.00 $470.00 $2,606.00 1,201 to 1,700 $3,006.00 $294.00 $726.00 $4,026.00 1,701 to 2,500 $4,119.00 $402.00 $995.00 $5,516.00 2,501 to 3,200 $4,935.00 $482.00 $1,192.00 $6,609.00 3,201 or more $5,544.00 $542.00 $1,339.00 $7,425.00 For a building with more than one dwelling unit, the floor area per individual dwelling unit shall be calculated by dividing the total climate-controlled floor area of the building, less ancillary building space, by the total number of dwelling units in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms, fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas. 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 4 192 Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Building Park and Recreation Police Fire Total Facilities Facilities Facilities Fees Commercial (includes all $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52 buildings in a shopping center; all stand-alone retail buildings; and all restaurants and bars) All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 5 193 EXHIBIT A 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 6 Fl 94 q.C E IDIAN�� d, RZI !AHO Development Impact Fees Study prepared by DP Guthrie LLC September 16, 2022 195 September 16, 2022 Mr.Todd Lavoie Chief Financial Officer City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Development Impact Fees Report Dear Mr. Lavoie, DP Guthrie LLC is pleased to provide the 2022 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian. After collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee,this draft report summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements to be funded by development impact fees, along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible Comprehensive Financial Plan. It has been a pleasure working with you. Also, I am grateful to City staff for engaging with quality information and insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian. Sincerely, Dwayne Guthrie, PhD,AICP DP Guthrie LLC F1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................1 UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDAHO IMPACT FEE ACT.......................................................................................................................1 PROPOSEDIMPACT FEES..................................................................................................................................................................2 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES................................................................................................................................4 PARKIMPROVEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................................4 LANDFOR PARKS............................................................................................................................................................................6 RECREATIONBUILDINGS...................................................................................................................................................................8 REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION..........................................................................................................................................................9 PROPOSED AND CURRENT IMPACT FEES..............................................................................................................................................9 FORECAST OF REVENUES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ........................................................................................................................10 COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR PARKS AND RECREATION...........................................................................................................11 POLICE IMPACT FEES.......................................................................................................................................................... 12 PROPORTIONATESHARE ................................................................................................................................................................12 EXCLUDEDCOSTS.........................................................................................................................................................................13 CURRENT USE AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY..........................................................................................................................................13 POLICE FACILITIES,SERVICE UNITS,AND STANDARDS...........................................................................................................................13 POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.....................................................................................................................................................15 REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION........................................................................................................................................................15 POLICEDEVELOPMENT FEES...........................................................................................................................................................15 PROJECTED REVENUE FOR POLICE FACILITIES......................................................................................................................................17 COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR POLICE...................................................................................................................................18 FIREIMPACT FEES.............................................................................................................................................................. 19 EXISTING STANDARDS FOR FIRE FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................................19 FIREINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.........................................................................................................................................................21 REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION........................................................................................................................................................21 CURRENT AND PROPOSED FIRE IMPACT FEES.....................................................................................................................................22 PROJECTED REVENUE FOR FIRE FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................................24 COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FIRE FACILITIES........................................................................................................................25 FEE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION..................................................................................................................26 COSTOF CFP PREPARATION...........................................................................................................................................................26 DEVELOPMENTCATEGORIES...........................................................................................................................................................26 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................27 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................................................28 SERVICEAREAS............................................................................................................................................................................28 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS................................................................................................................................................28 PROPORTIONATESHARE ................................................................................................................................................................29 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT............................................................................................................30 DEMAND INDICATORS BY DWELLING SIZE..........................................................................................................................................31 .LOBS AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................................................34 APPENDIX B: CHANGES IN STANDARDS AND COST FACTORS.............................................................................................36 Fl 97 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Executive Summary Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need, benefit, and proportionality. • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid should not exceed a development's proportionate share of the capital cost. As documented in this report,the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the projects identified in this study taken from Meridian's Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, DP Guthrie LLC determined service units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth-related capital costs. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth "an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth." The enabling legislation calls for three integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA)for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan,which the City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The LUA(see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition,the CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with service units by residential size thresholds. The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility type (i.e., parks/recreation, police, and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards,the projected need for improvements to accommodate new development,the updated DIF compared to current fees, revenue projections and funding strategy for growth-related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian. Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements,which have been met by the City of Meridian, as documented in this study. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, "development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as DP Guthrie LLC 198 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT new growth and development." Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see 67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report, with more detailed information maintained by City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third,the Idaho Act states the cost per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types of applicable credits that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b) review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d)file periodic reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study. Proposed Impact Fees Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian's 2022 impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are made during the adoption process, DP Guthrie LLC will update the impact fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions. Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components Type of Impact Service Incremental Expansion CostAllocation Fee Area (current standards) Parks and Park Improvements, Recreation Citywide Land for Parks,and Residential Facilities Recreation Centers Functional Population and Inbound Vehicle Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings Trips to Nonresidential Development Fire Buildings, Functional Fire Facilities Citywide Apparatus, Population Communications& and Jobs Equipment DP Guthrie LLC 2 Fl-991 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2022 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian. As discussed in Appendix A, DP Guthrie LLC recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, based on climate- controlled space. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area, less ancillary building space, by the total number of dwellings in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms,fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas. For nonresidential development, Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Citywide Service Area Park and Police Fire Proposed Current Increase Proposed Recreation Facilities Facilities Total Total to Current Facilities (2022) (2019) Ratio Residential(perhousing unit)by5puare Feet of 0imate-Controlled FloorArea 1200 or less $1,946 $190 $470 $2,606 $1,095 $1,511 2.38 1201 to 1700 $3,006 $294 $726 $4,026 $1,909 $2,117 2.11 1701 to 2500 $4,119 $402 $995 $5,516 $2,483 $3,033 2.22 2501 to 3200 $4,935 $482 $1,192 $6,609 $2,943 $3,666 2.25 3201 or more $5,544 $542 $1,339 1 $7,425 $3,4331 $3,992 12.16 Nonresidential(perspuare footofbuildinp) Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52 $0.88 $1.64 2.86 All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15 $0.46 $0.69 2.50 DP Guthrie LLC 3 F200] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Parks and Recreation Impact Fees The 2022 impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure standards for improved acres of parks, acquire additional land for future parks, and expand floor area of recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area. Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development. Park Improvements Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR1,the updated infrastructure standard is 2.66 acres per 1,000 residents based on Meridian's projected population in 2023 and completion of Phase 2 improvements to Discovery Park by the end of Fiscal Year 2023. Projected need for park improvements is shown at the bottom of Figure PR1. From 2023 through 2032, Meridian will improve 87 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately$35.76 million. DP Guthrie LLC 4 F201] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure PR1: Improvements Standard and Need for Improved Acres Location Improved Acres Discovery Park 63.19 Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.20 Settlers Park 57.74 Heroes Park 30.13 Fuller Park 23.20 BearCreak Park 18.82 Tully Park 18.68 Storey Park&Bark Park 17.85 Gordon Harris Park 11.13 Hillsdale Park 9.54 Reta Huskey Park 8.92 Jabil Soccer Fields 8.40 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50 Seasons Park 7.13 Chateau Park 6.70 Renaissance Park 6.53 Champion Park 5.98 Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.60 8th Street Park 2.78 Meridian Pool Park 1.31 City Hall Plaza 0.90 Centennial Park 0.40 Generations Plaza 0.24 Tota 1 370.85 Allocation Factors for Parks Improvements Cost per Acre $411,000 Residential Proportionate Share 100% Service Units Population in 2023 139,249 Infrastructure Standards for Park Improvements Improved Acres Residential(per person) 0.00266 Park Improvement Needs Year Population Improved Acres Base 2022 Year 1 2023 139,249 370.8 Year2 2024 145,028 386.2 Year3 2025 151,006 402.2 Year4 2026 154,310 411.0 Years 2027 157,614 419.8 Year10 2032 171,903 457.8 2023-2032Increase 32,654 87.0 Growth Cost of Parks=> $35,757,000 DP Guthrie LLC 5 F202] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Land for Parks In the 2019 study, land for additional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was documented. In the 2022 study, land for additional parks is 26%of the growth cost for parks & recreation. Additional land for parks is estimated to cost$150,000 per acre. City staff obtained supporting documentation for the land cost factor from local appraisals,with input from the DIF Advisory Committee. As shown in Figure PR2,the current infrastructure standard for park land is 3.14 acres per 1,000 residents. In comparison to inventory of improved parks,the table below includes the following changes: 1. Phase 3 acreage added to Discovery Park 2. Inserted West Regional Park site 3. Deleted Jabil Soccer Fields (not owned by Meridian) 4. Deleted Heritage Middle School Ballfields (not owned by Meridian) At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for park land. To maintain the current standard over the next ten years, Meridian will acquire 120.5 acres of land for future parks, which is expected to cost approximately $18.08 million. DP Guthrie LLC 6 F203] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure PR2: Land Standard and Need for Park Sites Park Sites Land Area(acres) Discovery Park 77.69 Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.20 Settlers Park 57.74 West Regional Park 47.16 Heroes Park 30.13 Fuller Park 23.20 Bear Creak Park 18.82 Tully Park 18.68 Storey Park&Bark Park 17.85 Gordon Harris Park 11.13 Hillsdale Park 9.54 Reta Huskey Park 8.92 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50 Seasons Park 7.13 Chateau Park 6.70 Renaissance Park 6.53 Champion Park 5.98 8th Street Park 2.78 Meridian Pool Park 1.31 City Hall Plaza 0.90 Centennial Park 0.40 Generations Plaza 0.24 Total 418.51 Allocation Factors for Park Land Land Cost per Acre $150,000 Residential Proportionate Share 100% Service Units Population in 20221 133,470 Infrastructure Standards for Park Land Park Sites(acres) Residential(per person) 0.00314 Park Land Needs Year Population Park Sites(acres) Base 2022 133,470 418.5 Year 1 2023 139,249 436.6 Year2 2024 145,028 454.7 Year3 2025 151,006 473.5 Year4 2026 154,310 483.9 Years 2027 157,614 494.2 Year10 2032 1 171,903 539.0 2022-20321ncrease 38,433 120.5 Growth Cost of additional Park Land=> $18,075,000 DP Guthrie LLC 7 F204] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Recreation Buildings Figure PR3 lists floor area for parks and recreation buildings in 2022, including the maintenance shop, which is consistent with approach used for public safety facilities. As shown in their respective sections of this report,the building inventories for fire and police include support facilities for administration and training. City staff provided the cost estimate of$670 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current standards, Meridian will need 22,827 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost approximately$15.29 million. Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings Existing Buildings Square Feet Meridian Homecourt 51,303 Parks Maintenance Shop(1700 E Lanark) 15,264 Pool Building 8,505 Meridian Community Center 4,200 Tota 1 79,272 Allocation Factors for Parks&Recreation Buildings Recreation Building Cost per Square Foot $670 Residential Proportionate Share 100% 2022 Meridian Population 133,470 Square Feet Residential(per person) 0.59 Building Needs Year Population Square Feet Base 2022 133,470 79,272 Year 1 2023 139,249 82,704 Year 2 2024 145,028 86,137 Year3 2025 151,006 89,687 Year4 2026 154,310 91,650 Years 2027 157,614 93,612 Year6 2028 160,919 95,575 Year7 2029 164,223 97,537 Year8 2030 167,527 99,500 Year9 2031 169,715 100,799 Year 10 2032 1171,903 102,099 Ten-Yrincrease 38,433 22,827 Growth Cost for Parks& Recreation Buildings=> $15,294,000 DP Guthrie LLC 8 F205] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected growth costs, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Proposed and Current Impact Fees At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs for parks and recreation facilities due to growth. In addition to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park impact fee fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of$66,826,219 divided by the projected increase in population from 2022 to 2032,yields a cost of$1,738 per service unit. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per dwelling. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian. Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule 2022 Input Variables Growth Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Quantity Over Cost Factor Growth Cost Units Ten Years per Unit (rounded) Park Improvements acres 87.0 $411,000 $35,757,000 Additional Park Sites(land) acres 120.5 $150,000 $18,075,000 Parks&Recreation Buildings sq ft 22,827 $670 $15,294,000 Total=> $69,126,000 Professional Services Cost=> $7,680 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> ($2,307,461) Net Growth Cost=> $66,826,219 Population Increase 2022 to 2032 38,433 Cost per Service Unit $1,738 Residential impact Fees(per dwelling) Proposed Proposed to Square Feet of Climate- Persons per Parks& Current Increase Current Controlled Space Housing Unit Recreation Fees Ratio Fee 1200 or less 1.12 $1,946 $781 $1,165 2.49 1201 to 1700 1.73 $3,006 $1,361 $1,645 2.21 1701 to 2500 2.37 $4,119 $1,770 $2,349 2.33 2501 to 3200 2.84 $4,935 $2,098 $2,837 2.35 3201 or more 3.19 $5,544 $2,447 1 $3,097 1 2.27 DP Guthrie LLC 9 F206] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive almost$68 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down,there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and impact fee revenue. The revenue projection assumes the average single-family dwelling has 2501 to 3200 square feet of climate-controlled space and the average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square feet of floor area. Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue Ten-Year Growth Cost=> $66,826,219 Parks&Recreation Impact Fee Revenue Single Family Multi family $4,935 $3,006 Year per housing unit per housing unit Hsg Units Hsg Units Base 2022 41,617 9,427 Year 1 2023 43,217 10,227 Year 2 2024 44,767 10,877 Year3 2025 46,117 11,427 Year 4 2026 47,317 11,827 Year 5 2027 48,265 12,231 Year 6 2028 49,212 12,634 Year7 2029 50,160 13,038 Year8 2030 51,107 13,441 Year9 2031 51,836 13,752 Year 10 2032 1 52,565 114,062 Ten-Yr 1 ncrease 10,948 4,635 Projected Revenue=> $54,030,000 $13,930,000 Total Revenue=> $67,960,000 DP Guthrie LLC 1O F207] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to existing development. Existing parks and recreation buildings are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Expansion of buildings may include support facilities for administration and maintenance. City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year UP for Parks and Recreation Needed Planned I mproved Acres 87.0 93.2 Land for Parks(acres) 120.5 120.5 Recreation Building Sq Ft 22,827 22,800 FY Description Amount units Cost 2023 Parks&Recreation Building Design $1,500,000 2024 Parks&Recreation Building Construction 22,800 square feet $13,776,000 2025 Graycliff Park Design $185,000 2026 Graycliff Park Construction 11.5 acres $4,541,500 2026 West Regional Park Design $500,000 2027 West Regional Park Construction 47.2 acres $18,899,200 20271r7is—c—overy Park Phase 3 D- 11 111 2028 jlDiscovery Park Phase 3 Construction11 1 • MargaretAldape Park 1- 994 111 2030 MargaretAlclape Park Phase 1 Construction20.0 acres $7,226,000 2031 2032 2023-32 Additional Park Sites 120.5 acres $18,075,000 Total=> $71,656,200 Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $66,826,219 DP Guthrie LLC F208] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Police Impact Fees The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards for police buildings. Proportionate Share In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1,functional population was used to allocate public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is like the U.S. Census Bureau's "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction. Functional population also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2019 functional population data for Meridian,the cost allocation for residential development is 72%while nonresidential development accounts for 28%of the demand for police and fire infrastructure. Figure P1: Functional Population Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety Demand Units in 2019 Demand Person Residential Hours/Day Hours Population* 114,161 1 61% Residents Not Working 69,079 20 1,381,580 39% Resident Workers** 45,082 23% Worked in City** 10,148 14 142,072 77% Worked Outside City** 34,934 14 489,076 Residential Subtotal 2,012,728 Residential Share=> 72% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 69,079 4 276,316 Jobs Located in City** 49,856 20% Residents Working in City** 10,148 10 101,480 80% Inflow Commuters 39,708 10 397,080 Nonresidential Subtotal 774,876 Nonresidential Share=> 28% * 2019 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. TOTAL 2,787,604 ** 2019 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs. DP Guthrie LLC 12 F209] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Excluded Costs Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. The City's CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and equipment that do not meet the minimum useful life requirement in Idaho's Impact Fee Act. Current Use and Available Capacity In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian has determined that police building space will require expansion to accommodate future development. Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development. Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire Department,floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police. For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average-weekday, vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and nonresidential development, along with FY23 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services, as documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of$660 per square foot (provided by City staff). The cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY23 service units,the standard in Meridian is 0.33 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development, Meridian's standard is 0.09 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development, on an average weekday. DP Guthrie LLC 13 F210] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards Police Buildings Square Feet Admin Building 33,000 Scenario Village 11,637 Police Pricinct-N 11,223 PSTC(half) 7,250 TOTAL 63,110 Source: Cityof Meridian Police Department. Police Buildings Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share(based on 72% 28% functional population) Growth Indicator Population Avg WkdyVeh Trips to Nonres Dev Service Units in FY23 i 139,2491 195,281 Square Feet per Service Unit 0.331 0.09 DP Guthrie LLC 14 F211] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Police Infrastructure Needs Idaho's development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3, projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles. Meridian will need 13,745 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten-year, growth-related capital cost of police buildings is approximately$9.07 million. Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Buildings-Residential 0.33 Sq Ft per person Buildings-Nonresidential 0.09 Sq Ft pertrip Police Buildings Cost $660 per square foot Infrastructure Needed Veh Trips to Police Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings(sq ft) Base 2022 Year 1 2023 139,249 195,281 63,110 Year 2 2024 145,028 198,832 65,317 Year 3 2025 151,006 202,497 67,599 Year 4 2026 154,310 206,064 69,000 Years 2027 157,614 209,871 70,423 Year 6 2028 160,919 213,623 71,841 Year7 2029 164,223 217,451 73,265 Year8 2030 167,527 221,295 74,692 Year9 2031 169,715 225,340 75,772 Year10 2032 1 171,9031229,423176,855 2023-2032 Increase 32,654 34,142 13,745 Growth Cost of Police Buildings=> $9,072,000 Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian's legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Police Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per development unit is also shown in the table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions. DP Guthrie LLC 15 F212] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT For nonresidential development,trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2022). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with nonresidential development within Meridian,trip ends (entering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using a basic 50%adjustment factor. In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act). Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit 2022 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Growth Quantity Cost Factor Growth Cost Units Over Ten Years per Unit (rounded) Police Buildings square feet 13,745 $660 $9,072,000 Professional Services Cost=> $7,680 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> $0 Cost Allocation Net Growth Cost=> $9,079,680 Residential 72% Nonresidential 28% Allocated Cost by Land Use Residential $6,537,370 Nonresidential $2,542,310 Growth 2022 to 2032 Cost perService Unit Residential(persons) 38,433 $170 Nonresidential 37,601 $67 (vehicle trips) Residential Impact Fees(per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Persons per Proposed Police Current Proposed Increase to Current Space Housing Unit Facilities Fees Fees Ratio 1200 or less 1.12 $190 $56 $134 3.39 1201 to 1700 1.73 $294 $98 $196 3.00 1701 to 2500 2.37 $402 $128 $274 3.14 2501 to 3200 2.84 $482 $152 $330 3.17 3201 or more 3.19 $542 $177 $365 3.06 Nonresidential Impact Fees(square foot of building) Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Adjustment Proposed TripEnds per Factors Proposed p Police Current Type KSF Facilities Fees Increase to Current Ratio Fees Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) 37.01 50% $1.23 $0.24 $0.99 5.13 All Other 5.76 50% $0.19 $0.05 $0.14 3.80 DP Guthrie LLC 16 F213] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Projected Revenue for Police Facilities Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately$9.08 million (see the upper portion of Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately$9.1 million in police development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and development fee revenue. The revenue projection assumes the average single-family dwelling has 2501 to 3200 square feet of climate-controlled space and the average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square feet of floor area. Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities=> $9,079,680 Police Impact Fee Revenue Single Family Multi family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office&Other Services $482 $294 $190 $1,230 $190 $190 per housing unit per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Year Hsg Units Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2022 41,617 9,427 11,740 6,570 5,270 7,360 Year 2023 43,217 10,227 11,950 6,690 5,360 7,490 Year2 2024 44,767 10,877 12,170 6,810 5,460 7,630 Year3 2025 46,117 11,427 12,380 6,940 5,560 7,760 Year 4 2026 47,317 11,827 12,610 7,060 5,660 7,900 Year5 2027 48,265 12,231 12,840 7,190 5,760 8,050 Year6 2028 49,212 12,634 13,070 7,320 5,860 8,190 Year7 2029 50,160 13,038 13,300 7,450 5,970 8,340 Year8 2030 51,107 13,441 13,540 7,580 6,080 8,490 Year9 2031 51,836 13,752 13,790 7,720 6,190 8,640 Year10 2032 52,565 14,062 14,030 7,860 6,300 8,800 Ten-Yrincrease 10,948 4,635 2,290 1,290 1,030 1,440 Projected Revenue=> $5,280,000 $1,360,000 $435,000 $1,587,000 $196,000 $274,000 Total Projected Revenues(rounded)=> $9,132,000 DP Guthrie LLC 17 F214] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Impact fees will contribute approximately$9.1 million for Phase 3 of the Public Safety Training Center. Other revenue sources will be required to fund the additional cost of police facilities over the next ten years. Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Police Needed Planned Building Sq Ft 13,745 17,000 FY Description Amount Units Cost 2023 2024 2025 Public Safety Training Center Phase 3 17,000 square feet $11,220,000 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Total=> $11,220,000 Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $9,079,680 DP Guthrie LLC 18 F215] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Fire Impact Fees DP Guthrie LLC recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development. Existing Standards for Fire Facilities Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police Department,floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. Based on service units in FY23,the standard for fire buildings is 0.52 square feet per person and 0.52 square feet per job. Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings Fire Stations Square Feet Fire Admin Space(City Hall) 13,511 Fire Station#1(540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 Fire Station#6(1435 W Overland Rd) 10,299 Fire Station#7(2385 Lake Hazel Rd) 10,299 Fire Station#8(4250 N Owyhee Storm Ave) 10,299 Fire Station#5(6001 N Linder Rd) 7,360 PSTC(half) 7,250 Fire Station#4(2515 S Eagle Rd) 7,077 Fire Station#3(3545 N Locust Grove) 7,040 Fire Station#2(2401 N Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 Training Tower @ Station#1 6,523 Fire Safety Center(1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 TOTAL 99,872 Allocation Factors for Fire Stations Residential Share 72% Functional Nonresidential Share 28% Population Population in 2023 139,249 Jobs in 2023 53,547 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations Square Feet Residential(per person) 0.52 Nonresidential(perjob) 0.52 DP Guthrie LLC 19 F216] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase equipment with a useful life of at least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department. Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was allocated 72%to residential and 28%to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every additional resident will require Meridian to spend approximately$75 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately$74 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles Fire Apparatus and Equipment Code Total Cost Engines FE $6,178,923 Ladder Truck LT $4,400,000 Pickup Trucks PT $590,975 Other Vehicles OV $431,296 Communications&Equipment CE $2,244,978 TOTAL $13,846,172 Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications Residential Share 72% Functional Nonresidential Share 28% population Population in 2022 133,470 Jobs in 2022 52,602 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications Apparatus and Communications Residential(per person) $74.69 Nonresidential(perjob) $73.70 DP Guthrie LLC 20 F217] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Fire Infrastructure Needs The City's Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian,fire facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development, Meridian will expand fire buildings by 21,741 square feet and spend approximately$3.63 million to purchase additional fire vehicles and equipment. Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Fire Buildings-Residential 0.52 Sq Ft per person Fire Buildings-Nonresidential 0.52 Sq Ft perjob Fire Buildings Cost $864 per square foot Fire Apparatus/Communications-Residential $74.69 Cost per person Fire Apparatus/Communications-Nonres $73.70 Cost perjob Facilities Needed Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and Year Jobs Stations Communications Base 2022 $13,846,172 Year 1 2023 139,249 53,547 99,872 $14,347,471 Year 2 2024 145,028 54,514 103,361 $14,850,391 Year3 2025 151,006 55,496 106,961 $15,369,281 Year4 2026 154,310 56,496 109,190 $15,689,784 Years 2027 157,614 57,514 111,428 $16,011,613 Year6 2028 160,919 58,552 113,676 $16,334,917 Year7 2029 164,223 59,607 115,933 $16,659,474 Year8 2030 167,527 60,680 118,200 $16,985,357 Year9 2031 169,715 61,774 119,901 $17,229,431 Year 10 2032 1 171,9031 62,8881 121,6131 $17,474,979 Increase 32,654 9,341 21,741 $3,628,807 Cost of Fire Stations=> $18,784,000 Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications=> $3,629,000 Total Growth Cost=> $22,413,000 Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian's legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees,there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. DP Guthrie LLC 21 F218] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thousand square feet of floor area are also documented in the Land Use Assumptions. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. Proposed nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2022 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). DP Guthrie LLC 22 F219] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities 20221nput Variables Cost Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Growth Quantity Factor Growth Cost Units Over Ten Years per Unit (rounded) Fire Buildings square feet 21,741 $864 $18,784,000 Fire Apparatus dollars $3,629,000 Total=> $22,413,000 Professional Services Cost=> $7,680 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> $0 CostAllocation Net Growth Cost=> $22,420,680 Residential 1 72% Nonresidential 128% Allocated Cost by Land Use Residential $16,142,890 Nonresidential 1 $6,277,790 Growth 2022 to 2032 Cost perService Unit Residential(persons) 38,433 $420 Nonresidential(jobs) 10,286 $610 Residential impact Fees(per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Persons per Proposed Fire Current Proposed Increase to Current Space Housing Unit Facilities Fee Fees Ratio 1200 or less 1.12 $470 $258 $212 1.82 1201 to 1700 1.73 $726 $450 $276 1.61 1701 to 2500 2.37 $995 $585 $410 1.70 2501 to 3200 2.84 $1,192 $693 $499 1.72 3201 or more 3.19 $1,339 $809 $530 1.66 Nonresidential Impact Fees(square foot of building) Jobs per1,000 Proposed Fire Current Proposed Type Increase to Current Sq Ft Facilities Fee Fees Ratio Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) 2.12 $1.29 $0.64 $0.65 2.02 AIIOther 11.58 1 $0.961 $0.411 $0.55 2.34 DP Guthrie LLC 23 F220] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities Over the next ten years,fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire infrastructure, which is approximately$22.42 million (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately$22.65 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. The revenue projection assumes the average single-family dwelling has 2501 to 3200 square feet of climate-controlled space and the average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square feet of floor area. Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities=> $22,420,680 Fire Impact Fee Revenue Single Family Multi family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and Other Services $1,192 $726 $960 $1,290 $960 $960 Year per housing unit per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Hsg Units Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2022 41,617 9,427 11,740 6,570 5,270 7,360 Year 1 2023 43,217 10,227 11,950 6,690 5,360 7,490 Year2 2024 44,767 10,877 12,170 6,810 5,460 7,630 Year3 2025 46,117 11,427 12,380 6,940 5,560 7,760 Year4 2026 47,317 11,827 12,610 7,060 5,660 7,900 Year5 2027 48,265 12,231 12,840 7,190 5,760 8,050 Year6 2028 49,212 12,634 13,070 7,320 5,860 8,190 Year7 2029 50,160 13,038 13,300 7,450 5,970 8,340 Year8 2030 51,107 13,441 13,540 7,580 6,080 8,490 Year9 2031 51,836 13,752 13,790 7,720 6,190 8,640 Year 10 2032 52,565 14,062 14,030 7,860 6,300 8,800 Ten-Yrincrease 10,948 4,635 2,290 1,290 1,030 1,440 Projected Revenue=> $13,050,000 $3,370,000 $2,200,000 $1,660,000 $990,000 $1,380,000 Total Projected Revenues(rounded)=> $22,650,000 DP Guthrie LLC 24 F221] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire building space by 21,741 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately$6.63 million. The total cost for planned projects is approximately$25.42 million. The growth needs funded by impact fees is approximately$22.42 million over ten years. Other revenues will be required to fully fund the Fire Department's CFP. Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities Needed Planned Building Sq Ftl 21,741 1 21,741 Apparatus and Equipmentl $3,629,000 1 $6,632,469 FY Description Amount Units Cost 2023 2024 Fire Station#1 Vehicle $686,834 2025 Radios 16 $160,000 2025 Ladder Truck @Fire Station#6 1 $2,200,000 2026 Additional Cardiac Monitors $140,000 2026 Additional Fire Station Design $720,000 2027 Additional Fire Station Construction 12,000 square feet $9,648,000 2027 Additional Fire Station Engine $686,834 2027 Hydraulic Extrication Tool 2 $250,000 2027 Thermal Imaging Cameras 5 $70,400 2028 Ladder Truck @Fire Station#10 1 $2,200,000 2028 SCBAs for new apparatus $140,000 2030 Additional Battalion Chief Vehicle 1 $98,401 2023 to Building Design $720,000 2032 2023 to Expand Fire Buildings 9,741 square feet $7,696,100 2032 Total=> $25,416,569 Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $22,420,680 DP Guthrie LLC 25 F222] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Fee Implementation and Administration Consistent with best practices and Idaho's enabling legislation, Meridian updates capital improvements and development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory Committee,then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly,the City should redo the fee calculations. Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible, tracking funds according to first in,first out accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure. Cost of CFP Preparation As stated in Idaho's enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. A minor cost of$7,680 per infrastructure type was added to the 2022 Meridian impact fee study. Development Categories Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building,the average size threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate- controlled floor area for the entire building, excluding ancillary space for community rooms,fitness centers, management office and maintenance areas, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment complexes and some residential development provide common areas for use by residents, such as exercise rooms and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not subject to additional impact fees. Section 67-8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential building,that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to residential buildings, DP Guthrie LLC recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to additional impact fees. The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density(i.e.,jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area), as documented in Appendix A. "Commercial" includes retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial development. All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). DP Guthrie LLC 26 F223] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian's impact fee study. For residential development, impact fees are based on average persons per housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the average number of jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable,the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian's elected officials for their consideration. Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience, DP Guthrie LLC recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements. DP Guthrie LLC 27 F224] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian's 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho's enabling legislation 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." Service Areas To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees,the City of Meridian has evaluated collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the entire incorporated area. DP Guthrie LLC recommends one citywide service area for Meridian impact fees. Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines "service area" as: "Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles, or both." The City's adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as modified over time. Summary of Growth Indicators Population, housing unit,jobs and nonresidential floor area are the "service units" or demand indicators that will be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are consistent with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan, which is more general and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be periodically updated (e.g., every 5 years). Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19 data. In Meridian, the fiscal year begins on October l't Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing units and nonresidential floor area, as shown in Figure Al. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than projected,fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated,the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development. DP Guthrie LLC 28 F225] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years,the impact fee study assumes Meridian's population increases at a growth rate of approximately 2.56% per year. Over the next ten years,jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 1.8% per year, which is from the Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2020 to 2050. Figure Al: Annual Development Projections Meridian Land Use Assumptions 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population —Housing Units Jobs Nonresidential Square Feet(in thousands) Proportionate Share The term "proportionate" is found throughout Idaho's Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67- 8202(2) states the intent to, "Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;" DP Guthrie LLC 29 F226] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(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..." Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho's Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1). "All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. In the following sections, DP Guthrie LLC describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential development. Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a "long-form" questionnaire. Instead,the U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds make fees more proportionate, while facilitating construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.84 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with two or more units average 2.19 year-round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes,which have two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.75 year- round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. DP Guthrie LLC recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit. DP Guthrie LLC 30 F227] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics Units in Structure Persons House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Unit* 95,564 32,685 2.92 33,703 2.84 86% 3% All Other** 11,920 5,364 2.22 5,440 2.19 14% 1% Subtotal 107,484 38,049 2.82 39,143 2.75 3% Group Quarters 303 TOTAL 107,787 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024, B2503Z B25033, and B26001. * Single unit includes attached and detached. ** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes. Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, DP Guthrie LLC recommends residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro-Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, DP Guthrie LLC derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control total for Meridian (i.e., 2.75 persons per housing unit). Figure A3: Persons by Bedroom Range Recommended Multipliers(2) Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing (1) Units(1) Housing Unit Mix 0-1 53 43 1.33 3.0% 2 384 205 2.02 14.3% 3 1,5801 684 2.49 47.7% 4+ 1,6421 501 3.53 35.0% Tota 1 3,6591 1,433 2.75 1 100.0% (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for ID PUMA 701(2016-2020 5-year database). (2) Recommended persons per housing unit are scaled to make the average derived from PUMS survey data match the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.75 persons per housing unit). DP Guthrie LLC 31 F228] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, DP Guthrie LLC used the 2018 Ada County Assessor's residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e.,two,three, and four or more bedrooms). DP Guthrie LLC recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, DP Guthrie LLC derived the estimated average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1200 square feet or less) has an estimated average of 1.24 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate- controlled space),the average is 3.53 persons per housing unit. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area, less ancillary building space, by the total number of dwellings in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms, fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas. In each impact fee worksheet,the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.84 divided by 3.14. Figure A2 indicates an average of 2.84 persons per single-family unit in Meridian and 3.14 is the fitted-curve value for dwellings with 2501 to 3200 square feet, which is the middle range for single-family units. DP Guthrie LLC 32 F229] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure A4: Persons by Square Feet of Living Space Average square feet for 2 to 4+ Survey of Construction Meridian Averages per Housing Unit Fitted-Curve Values bedrooms in Meridian was derived Square Feet(rounded) Bedrooms Sq Ft(rounded) Persons Sq Ft Range Persons from Ada County Assessor 1,100 0-1 1,000 1.33 1200 or less 1.24 residential database (units 1,800 2 1,500 2.02 1201 to 1700 1.91 constructed 2014 to 2018). 2,200 3 2,100 2.49 1701 to 2500 2.62 Average persons per housing unit by bedroom range is based on 3,400 4+ 2,900 3.53 2501 to 3200 3.14 2016-2020 ACS PUMS data for ID 2,700 <=Wt Avg=> 2,400 3201 or more 3.53 PUMA 701. Recommended Square Feet Ranges are similar to Boise size thresholds. Persons per Housing Unit in Meridian, ID 4.00 3.50 y = 1.98841n(x) - 12.493 R2= 0.9651 3.00 2.50 3 x 2.00 Gl C. c 1.50 N v a 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Square Feet of Living Area DP Guthrie LLC 33 F230] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Jobs and Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development. DP Guthrie LLC uses the term 'jobs"to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure A5, color shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes used by DP Guthrie LLC to derive average weekday vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, DP Guthrie LLC averaged Light Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing(ITE 150)to derive an average of 1,239 square feet per industrial job. The prototype for future commercial development is an average-size Shopping Center(ITE code 820). Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 471 square feet per job. For institutional development, such as schools, daycare and churches,the impact fee study assumes an average of 1,012 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is Assisted Living (ITE 254). For office and other services, an average-size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 307 square feet per job. Figure A5: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends ITE Land Use/ Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit PerEmp 110 Light I ndustrial 1,000SgFt 4.87 3.10 1.57 637 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 4.75 2.51 1.89 528 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.71 5.05 0.34 2,953 254 Assisted Living 1,000 Sq Ft 4.19 4.24 0.99 1,012 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.77 3.77 2.86 350 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.75 3.31 2.04 490 710 General Office 1,000SgFt 10.84 3.33 3.26 307 760 Research& Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.08 3.37 3.29 304 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 1 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 37.01 17.42 2.12 471 857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 1 42.46 32.21 1.32 759 Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 1 3.29 4.08 0.81 1,239 * Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,11th Edition(2022). DP Guthrie LLC 34 F231] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure A6 indicates 2019 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type of nonresidential, are from Meridian's Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau's online web application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel information obtained from Ada County. Figure A6: Jobs and Floor Area Estimates 2019 Jobs(1) Commercial(2) 13,237 26.6% Industrial(3) 8,983 18.0% Institutional(4) 4,934 9.9% Office&Other Services(5) 22,702 45.5% TOTAL 49,856 100.0% (1) Jobs in 2015 from Work Area Profile, OnTheMap,U.S. Census Bureau web application. (2) Major sectors are Retail and Accommodation/Food Services. (3) Major sectors are Construction, Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and Trans portation/Wareho using. (4) Major sectors are Educational Services and Public Administration. (5) Major sectors are Professional/Scientific/Technical Services and Health Care. DP Guthrie LLC 35 F232] 9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Appendix B: Changes in Standards and Cost Factors Figure 131 summarizes changes to infrastructure standards and cost factors from the 2019 impact fee study to the 2022 update. For most public facilities, infrastructure standards have increased slightly over time, with the exception of park improvements. Since 2019, population has increased faster than acres of improved parks. Major changes accounting for the proposed impact fee increase are higher cost factors and the recommendation to acquire additional park sites using impact fees, based on the 2022 standard of 3.14 acres per thousand residents. In the 2019 study, land for additional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was documented. In the 2022 study, land for additional parks is 26%of the growth cost for parks & recreation. Figure B1: Comparison of Standards and Cost Factors Public Infrastructure Standard Cost Factor 2022 to 2019 Facility 2019 2022 Measure 2019 2022 Units Cost Ratio Park Improvements 2.91 2.66 acres perthousand $241,000 $411,000 per acre 1.71 residents Park Land(new) * 3.14 acres perthousand $61,000 $150,000 per acre 2.46 residents square feet per square foot of Recreation Centers 0.49 0.59 $225 $670 2.98 per person building Police Buildings square feet Residential 0.26 0.33 per person per square foot of Police Buildings square feet per $333 building 1.98 Nonresidential 0.06 0.09 vehicle trip Fire Buildings-Residential 0.44 0.52 square feet per person per square foot of 1.61 building Fire Buildings- square feet g Nonresidential 0.46 0.52 perjob Fire Apparatus, Communications& $74.69 per person 1.21 Equipment-Residential Fire Apparatus, Communications& $64.46 $73.70 perjob 1.14 Equipment Nonresidential * In the 2019 study,land foradditional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was documented. In the 2022 study,land foradditional parks is 26%of the growth costfor parks&recreation. DP Guthrie LLC 36 F233] AD#308122AD# LEGAL NOTICE SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO.22-2004 An ordinance accepting the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study;adopting an amended capital improvements plan;repealing and replacing Meridian City Code section 10-7-12(E)(2)concerning development impact fees; voiding conflicting ordinances and resolutions; and providing an effective date of February 1,2023.The full text of the ordinance is available in the City Clerk's Office at Meridian City Hall,33 E.Broadway Ave.,Meridian,Idaho. Impact Fee Schedule Effective February 1,2023 Residential Square Feet of Climate- Park and Police Fire Total Fees Controlled Floor Area Per Recreation Facilities Facilities Individual Dwelling Unit Facilities 1,200orless $1,946.00 $190.00 $470.00 $2,606.00 1,201 to 1,700 $3,006.00 $294.00 $726.00 $4,026.00 1,701 to 2,500 $4,119.00 $402.00 $995.00 $5,516.00 2,501 to 3,200 $4,935.00 $482.00 $1,192.00 $6,609.00 3,201 or more $5,544.00 $542.00 $1,339.00 $7,425.00 For a building with more than one dwelling unit,the floor area per individual dwelling unit shall be calculated by dividing the total climate-controlled floor area of the building,less ancillary building space,by the total number of dwelling units in the building.Ancillary floor area includes community rooms,fitness centers,management offices,and maintenance areas. Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Building Park and Recreation Police Fire Total Facilities Facilities Facilities Fees Commercial(includes all $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52 buildings in a shopping center; all stand-alone retail buildings; and all restaurants and bars) All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15 November 27,2022 308122 F 34 ADVERTISING PROOF IDAHO ( y—jz> PRESS c/o ISj Payment Processing Center Local Newer Wortl,F-1 oldi.� MER MIA&W PRESS Em.nerr PO BOX 1570, BOISEWEEKLY WMessenger Pocatello,ID 83204 /ndex Ph. (541) 331-6473 Fax: (907)452-5054 ACCOUNTBILLING DATE: NO: 11/23/22 21410 1 MERIDIAN, CITY OF 33 E. BROADWAYAVENUE MERIDIAN, ID 83642 AD# DESCRIPTION START STOP TIMES AMOUNT 308122 ORD 22-2004 11/27/22 11/27/22 1 $104.67 Payments: Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check Amount Discount: $0.00 Gross:$104.67 Surcharge: $0.00 Paid Amount:$0.00 Credits: $0.00 Amount Due:$104.67 We Appreciate Your Business! 308122 F235] Exhibit A.9 LIST OF IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS The following table lists existing tools which will be utilized to implement the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. These tools are already approved through City ordinance, but may require updates to most effectively implement this Plan. Meridian's online City Code is maintained by a third party and is available via the City's website. ToolsList of Implementation Tool Link City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual (2016) https://meridiancity.org/designreview Meridian City Code(2019) https://meridiancity.org/CityCode Unified Development Code(Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances,Title 11 of Meridian City Code) (2019) https:Hmeridiancity.org/UDC LIST OF PLANS AND STUDIES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following table lists plans that are adopted by reference by incorporated in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan by reference.Tie most current ...aj.— a...endment dates are reflected-on t1hils table. Sites listed without a www.meridiancity.org domain are not maintained or operated by the City. List of Plans and Studies Incorporatc By Reference Plan Lead Agency Link Meridian Arts Commission Strategic Plan (2019)* Meridian Arts Commission https://meridiancity.org/mac/ Meridian Environmental Programs Plan (2019)* City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/environmental/ Welcome to Meridian Signage Plan (2019)* City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/WelcomePlan Communities in Motion 2050 (2022) COMPASS https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Existing Conditions Report(2022)* City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org&gDpplan Meridian Water Master Plan-(2GW(2025)* City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/WaterMPSummary Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan (2018) Ada County Highway District https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Valley Connect 2.0(2018) Valley Regional Transit https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Ada County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan{2017-�-(2022) Ada County https://meridiancity.org/AdaHazardPlan www.meridiancity.org/compplan 236 List of Plans and StUL By Reference Plan Lead Agency Link City of Meridian Collection System Master Plan (2017) City of Meridian httl2s:Hmeridiancity.org/CollectionMPSummary (2022)* City of Meridian Strategic Plan 2020- City of Meridian httl2s:Hmeridiancity.org/StrategicPlan 2025)* Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan(281�(2023)* City of Meridian httl2s:Hmeridiancity.org/masterplan Downtown Meridian Street Cross-section Master Plan City of Meridian httl2s:Hmeridiancity.org/StreetPlan (2014)* Meridian Historic Preservation Plan (2014)_ Meridian Historic Preservation https:Hmeridiancity.org/HistoricPlan Commission Downtown Meridian Neighborhood Transportation Ada County Highway District/City of httl2s:Hmeridiancity.org/transportation Plan(2012) 2i 024)* Meridian Eastern Treasure Valley Electric Plan (2012) Idaho Power https:Hmeridiancity.org/ElectricPlan Airport-Overland Corridor Study(2011) ACHD and City of Nampa https:Hmeridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Meridian Water Conservation Plan{2011- 2( 023)* City of Meridian httl2s:Hmeridiancity.org/water/conservation Destination Downtown (2010) Meridian Development Corporation https://meridiancity.org/downtown Meridian Pathways Master Plan (2010)* City of Meridian https:Hmeridiancity.org/pathways Meridian Rail-With-Trail Action Plan (2010)* City of Meridian https:Hmeridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning ACHD Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan Ada County Highway District https:Hmeridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning (2009) US-20/26 Corridor Study(2006) Idaho(ITD)Transportation Department httl2s://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan Ada County Highway District/City of https://meridiancity.org/TransportationPlanning (2005)* Meridian Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (2007)* City of Meridian https://meridiancity.org/TMISAP Destination Downtown (2010) Meridian Development Corporation httvs!#rnerid6anc*tv.ara owntown Fields Subarea Plan (2021)* City of Meridian https:Hmeridiancity.org/Fields Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility Plan (2018)* City of Meridian Link EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Ada County Link Fee Study Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Ada County Link Fee Study 2022 Development Impact Fees Study* City of Meridian Link * Or the most recent version of the plan/study, if applicable. www.meridiancity.org/compplan 237 Exhibit A.10 APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Area of City Impact-Also known as the City's planning area.It refers to the Capital Improvements Plan, as the Comprehensive is the land area surrounding the limits of each City, negotiated Financial Plan (CFP). between each individual City and the county in which it lies. Each City has comprehensive planning authority for its Area of City Compatible- Land uses capable of existing together without Impact, but until annexation occurs,zoning and development conflict or ill effects. entitlement is handled by the county. Conditional Use -A utilization of land having characteristics V) Buffer-An area within a property or site, generally adjacent to such that it may be allowed in a particular zoning district only and parallel with the property line, either consisting of existing after review by the Commission and Council, and granting of �- natural vegetation or created by the use of trees, shrubs, berms approval imposing conditions deemed necessary to make the o and/or fences and designed to limit views and sounds from proposed use compatible with other uses in the area. the development tract to adjacent parties and vice versa.Also 0 commonly used when describing a transitional use, typically Conditional Use Permit-Permit issued to allow a conditional use. 0 office, between residential and commercial or industrial. Q Cross-Access Agreement- An agreement between adjacent x_ Building Code - Legislative regulations that prescribe the property owners in which internal connections are provided C materials, requirements, and methods to be used in the between parking areas in order to improve traffic flow on the Q construction, rehabilitation, maintenance,and repair of buildings. street by minimizing the number of access points needed. Q The City of Meridian, per state statue, has adopted the Uniform Cross-access agreements are typically obtained incrementally — Building Code(UBC),developed by the International Conference as a condition of approval for new development.The first one of Building Officials. to develop will be required to make an irrevocable offer of cross-access to the adjacent parcel and must design the parking Capital Improvement Program - A process of identifying lot to accommodate the access. When the adjacent owner and budgeting for the public facilities that a jurisdiction will wishes to develop,they will be conditioned to reciprocate with need to construct in order to serve existing and anticipated a similar cross-access agreement and complete the access. development. Capital improvement programming is typically o done in five-year increments with annual updates. A Capital Density-The rate of residential development intensity, generally U Improvement Program (CIP) must address the type of project, described as a ratio of residential units per acre of land. the location of the project, the cost of the project, the source of funds to finance the project, the agency or department Density Bonus-Incentives given for dedication of land to the responsible for the project, and the time frame for completion public for parks, schools, or other public facilities. E of the project.Capital Improvement Programs are a primary tool of most growth management programs.The City of Meridian Employment Area -An employment area provides a job and U employer base large enough to generate agglomeration of www.meridiancity.org/comppIan 238 ideas and innovation, are dense enough to promote a cohesive factors that determine whether or not a substance is hazardous: and integrated environment with efficient transportation, ignitability(i.e.,flammable), reactivity, corrosiveness,and toxicity and include a focus on supporting Meridian families with family-wage jobs. The minimum size of an employment area ImPact Fees-Are one-time payments used to construct system is 25 acres, it must provide 1,000 jobs with at least 70% that improvements that serve multiple development projects or are neither retail or service, and include a minimum of 10 even the entire iurisdiction. By lay, impact fees can only be employers. Employment area boundaries align with COMPASS used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance traffic analysis area (TAZ) boundaries. Other verifiable data costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfX may be used in substitute for developing areas. three kev tests: need, benefit and proportionality. Fair Housing Act— Fair Housing Title VIII of the Civil Rights Implementation Plan—The implementation plan will serve as a F Act of 1968, enacted to prohibit housing discrimination based roadmap for the City's success over a period of five years.It will on race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, sex, and/or also serve as a tool to communicate the City's intentions to the o familial status. community, focus the direction of its financial resources and employees, and ensure that short-term goals and objectives N Fire Flow—The minimum number of gallons per minute that are met in a timely fashion to ensure attainment of the City's are needed to fight a fire in a structure, for two continuous overall vision. Q hours through fire plugs in the near proximity of the structure. x Fire flow requirements are established by the national Uniform Infill Development — Development on vacant parcels, or Fire Code and are a factor in the City's Insurance Services redevelopment of existing parcels to a higher and better use Q Office (ISO) rating. that is surrounded by developed property within the City of Q Meridian. Floodway— Drainage and irrigation channels and adjacent land areas that must be reserved to discharge flood waters Last Mile—the last leg of a transportation movement from a cL from a 100-year flood. Development is prohibited in this area. transportation hub, such as a bus stop, to final destinations likes places of employment or residence. Solutions vary, but Green Building—Also known as green construction or sustainable examples include various ride sharing systems such as car, building, is the practice of creating structures and using bicycle, or scooters, and on-demand services. a processes that are environmentally responsible and resource- E efficient throughout a building's life-cycle: from siting to Linear Open Space — This type of open space is longer than �j design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, wide, typically publicly accessible, generally found along and demolition. canals, creeks, or linking pedestrian-oriented points of interest, ZZ and includes tree canopy and other active or passive natural .Q) Hazardous Waste—Waste that poses substantial or potential features offset from multiuser connectivity such as pathways. ]�i threats to public health or the environment. There are four >_ ftZ www.meridiancity.org/comppIan 239 Placemaking — The process and philosophy that capitalizes Walkable — Development that contains a comprehensive on a local community's assets, inspiration, and potential,with network of sidewalks and multiuse pathways. Development the intention of creating quality public spaces that promote tends to be compact, and diverse, providing varied and plentiful people's health, happiness, and well-being. destinations for walking and cycling; destinations tend to be within 1/4 of a mile from dwellings without crossing arterial-arterial Public Facilities and Services—See Urban Services. intersections. Environment is safe and aesthetically pleasing, with open space interspersed throughout development. Quality of Life—Quality of life refers to the day living enhanced by wholesome food and clean air and water, enjoyment of unfettered open spaces and bodies of water, conservation of wildlife and natural resources, security from crime, and protection from radiation and toxic substances. It may also be used as a measure of the energy and power a person is o endowed with that enable him or her to enjoy life and prevail over life's challenges irrespective of the handicaps he or she may have. ° 0 Reclaimed Water — Former wastewater (sewage) that has x been treated to remove solids and certain impurities, and then used in sustainable landscaping irrigation or to recharge Q groundwater aquifers.This is done for sustainability and water Q conservation, rather than discharging the treated wastewater to surface waters such as rivers and oceans. Sometimes called recycled water. a� Urban Service Planning Area—Priority planning area where City of Meridian sewer and water facilities and most other services and utilities are available or planned in officially adopted plans. Q E Urban Services—Services provided by the City of Meridian or U established jurisdictions within the City of Meridian, including City of Meridian water, fire protection by Meridian City-Rural Fire District, City of Meridian parks and recreation facilities, City of Meridian police protection, public sanitary sewers owned ,� by the City of Meridian, public transit, schools, storm drainage >_ ftZ facilities, and urban standard streets and roads. U www.meridiancity.org/comppIan 240 This page left intentionally blank— www.meridiancity.org/compplan 241 Exhibit 6 Supplemental Documents F242] Exhibit B.1 CJ/(1EN MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Work Session From: William L. M. Nary, City Attorney and Meeting Date: June 17, 2025 Kurt Starman, Deputy City Attorney Presenter: Kurt Starman, Deputy City Attorney Estimated Time: 15 minutes Topic: Consider Approving Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreements with Ada County and the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Concerning Countywide Development Impact Fees Recommended Council Action: Consider approving Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreements ("Agreements") with Ada County ("County") and the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District ("District") concerning the capital improvements plans ("CIPs") that are necessary to implement countywide development impact fees. Background: The County and District wish to adopt countywide development impact fees to partially fund coroner-,jail-, and EMS-related capital improvements associated with new development. The proposed fees,which total $750 per single-family housing unit,would be similar to the development impact fees collected by the Ada County Highway District. Unlike ACHD, however, the County and District cannot collect development impact fees within the incorporated cities without each city's participation. In order to proceed, every incorporated city must: (1) enter into intergovernmental agreements with the County and District; (2) adopt the CIPs; and (3) adopt an ordinance. Based on that,the City Council has discussed a four-step implementation plan, as follows: 1. Enter into Agreements with the County and District that only address the CIPs at this time. The Agreements do not require the City to adopt the CIPs, nor do they require the City to adopt countywide development impact fees. Rather,the City would simply agree to consider the CIPs. 2. If the Agreements are approved, the City would then consider the CIPs in accordance with the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. The basic steps are as follows: a. The Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee would forward its written comments to the City in accordance with the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. b. The Planning and Zoning Commission would conduct a public hearing concerning the CIPs and forward its recommendation to the City Council. F243] c. The City Council would conduct a public hearing and make its determination. If adopted, the CIPs would be added to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City would not require an application fee to process the Comprehensive Plan amendment given the City's direct involvement. 3. If the City adopts the CIPs, it would then pause until all the other cities have adopted (a) the CIPs and (b) the ordinances necessary to collect countywide development impact fees. 4. If all the other cities timely adopt the CIPs and necessary ordinances,the City would then consider adopting an ordinance to collect countywide development impact fees.A successor intergovernmental agreement would also be necessary at that time.As noted above, however, the City would not be obligated to adopt countywide development impact fees. Approval of the Agreements would be consistent with "step one" of the implementation plan. The City Council has been receptive to working with the County and District on countywide development impact fees but has noted some reservations about a coroner-related fee, since coroner-related facilities are not explicitly delineated in Idaho Code section 67-8203(24)(0. If the City Council determines it does not wish to consider the CIP concerning coroner-related facilities, it is recommended that the City Council refrain from acting on the Agreements at this time so that staff can make modifications as needed. The Agreements could then be placed on a future consent agenda for final action. Agreements included on the agenda as potential action items: - Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvements Plans for County System Improvements - Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental and Joint Powers Agreement Concerning Capital Improvements Plans for District System Improvements F244] E IDIAN;--- Applicant Presentation 2025 Comprehensive Plan Text October 16, 2025Planning & Zoning Commission 0045-2025-H Amendment Overview 4. Amend Plan “Appendix A. Glossary of Terms” to add/modify language. are referenced; and minor cleanup and ensure the most current adopted plans and studies 3. Amend the “List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference” including incorporated therein; (September 16, 2022), and Amended Capital Improvements Plan as 2. Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Impact Fees study Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024); and Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024) 1. Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Adopt by reference the Ada County Emergency Medical Service Capital amendment. adopted after the ordinance would need to be To collect an impact fee an the Comprehensive Plan . included as an element of impact fee CIPs be Idaho Code requires Meridian Comprehensive Plan. and impact fee studies into the the County’s EMS and Jail CIPs The request would incorporate *Institutional$361 *Institutional$104*Industrial$163*Industrial$47*Office$364*Office$105*Retail$944*Retail$273Nonresidential (per 1000 square foot)Nonresidential (per 1000 square foot)Family (per unit)-Multi–Residentia l $357Family (per unit)-Multi–Residential $121Family (per unit)-Single–Residential $516Family (per unit)-Single–Residential $175JailParamedicsTable 2: Ada County Proposed Impact Fees 2024)County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study (May 24, 2024) and Ada Adopt by reference the City of Meridian Development Studies by Reference”. table titled “List of Adopted Plans and 2004 (Attachment A.8) will be included the -amended CIP as adopted by Ordinance 22Development Impact Fee Study and Should this request be approved, the Plan. as an element of the County Comprehensive incorporate the capital improvement plans 6501, must -to Idaho Code Section 67undertake comprehensive planning pursuant entities (such as the City of Meridian), that Under Idaho State Law, governmental Capital Improvements Plan as incorporated thereinImpact Fees study (September 16, 2022), and Amended The 2019 Meridian Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) is integrated with a Amend the “List of Adopted Plans and Studies by Reference”Destination Downtown Eastern Treasure Valley Electric PlanFuture additions may includeJail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee StudyEMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee StudyDevelopment Impact Fees Study (2022)Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility Plan (2018)Include the following planning documents:Update reference to most current of a plan/studyversion of the plan/study is referenced. Add note to City led planning efforts to ensure the most recent Amend the title from “Adopted” to “Incorporated”.reference”. series of plans and studies which are listed as “being adopted by Amend Plan “Appendix A. Glossary of Terms” to add/modify language.Terms)(Appendix A. Glossary of Financial Plan (CFP).Improvements Plan, as the Comprehensive The City of Meridian refers to the Capital primary tool of most growth management programs. project. Capital Improvement Programs are a project, and the time frame for completion of the the agency or department responsible for the project, the source of funds to finance the project, of project, the location of the project, the cost of the Improvement Program (CIP) must address the type year increments with annual updates. A Capital -fiveimprovement programming is typically done in serve existing and anticipated development. Capital that a jurisdiction will need to construct in order to identifying and budgeting for the public facilities A process of -Capital Improvement Program o A. Glossary of Terms) (Appendix need, benefit, and proportionality.to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject used for capital improvements, not operating jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be development projects or even the entire improvements that serve multiple payments used to construct system time -Are one-Impact Fees NEW* o Notification & Comment Nextdoor PSA9/25/2025300’property owners within Notification mailed to N/AN/AN/AnewspaperNotification Published in 9/30/2025Agency Notice9/23/2025Site posting dateN/ANeighborhood MeetingN/AdatePreapplication Meeting 9/4/2025DescriptionDetailsDateZoning Posting Planning & Posting DateCity Council Modeling Review. Wastewater Modeling Review & Water -Public Works Agency CommentsNonePublic Comments: Comments Request and Next Steps City Council HearingNext Steps0045. -2025-Amendment, Hproposed Comprehensive Plan Text Staff recommends approval of the 