Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-06 SpecialCITY OF MERIDIAN / ADA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP /MEETING AGENDA Monday, November 6, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. Ada County Court House Building Ada County Commissioners BOCC Conference Room 3rd Floor 200 West Front Street Boise, Idaho 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Judy Peavey-Derr Fred Tilman Rick Yzaquirre -Chairman 2. Negotiation of an Amendment to the Area of City Impact Agreement to provide for the Collection of Meridian's Development Impact Fees within the Area of Impact: Meridian City Council / Ada County Commissioner Special Joint Meeting -November 2, 2006 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meeting shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodations for disabilities related to documents and / or hearings, please contact the Ada County Commissioners Office at 287-7000 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. . ~~ ,,~~ CITY OF ~~ ~ ~ ~~. C~~~'l~~'IG~1G"YI ~ ~~~ ~ IDAHO /~ tiF C~~~R°lu. Tae~suae V,~Y SINCE 1903 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS City Attorney/HR 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) Fax 884-8723 Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 /fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533/fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678/fax 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500/fax 895-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211/fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191/fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242/fax 884-1159 NOTICE OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ADA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS N®TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian and the Ada County Commissioners will hold a Special Joint Meeting at Ada County Commissioners B®CC Conference Room on the 3rd Floor of the Ada County Court House Building, 2001/!1. Front Street, Boise, Idaho, on Monday, November 6, 2006 at 11:0® am. The Meridian City Council and the Ada County Commissioners will have discussions regarding negotiation of an amendment to the Area of City Impact agreement to provide for the collection of Meridian's development impact fees within the Area of Impact with the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 2nd day of Novem~r, 2006. ~~ VIIILLIAM G. BERG, \`\~tlltlllltll!lrl/gyp// .~~~ ~®~~ A ~ ~~ ~°r ~ ~~ '; / E,~ - CLERK~~' ~, ~'~ 4g, e~ ~~~~'>rrrrarl tl It ttt-'~~~~~~ Meridian City Council / Ada County Commissioner Special Joint Nesting -November 6, 2006 All materials presented at public meeting shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodations for disabilities related to documents and 1 or hearings, please contact the Ada County Commissioner's Office at 287-7000 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. CITY FALL 33 EA$T IDAHO AVENUE 1VIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled paper Meridian Ci Council Special Jolntf Workshop Meetlna November 6.2006 The Meridian City Council Special JointlWorkshop Meeting was called to order at 11:00 A.M. on Monday, November 6, 2006 at the Ada County Courthouse by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wan:lle and Joe Gorton. Members Absent: Charlie Rountree. Staff Present: Ted Baird, Doug Strong, Pete Friedman and Will Berg. Ada County Commissioners Present: Fred Tilman, Judy Peavey-Derr and Rick Yzaguirre. Others Present: Scott Cook, Geny Armstrong and Richard Cook. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Joe Gorton O Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3. Negotiation of an Amendment to the Area of City Impact Agreement to provide for the Collection of Meridian's Development Impact Fees within the Area of Impact: Yzaguirre: Thank you all for joining us today. I guess our purpose here today is to begin a negotiation in the area of impact to allow you to collect impact fees in Ada County. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman we sent you a letter dated September 5~' and - Yzaguln"e: (Inaudible). Okay, Mayor, I am sorry go ahead. D® Weerd: We sent you a letter dated September 5~' or I am sorry, the letter was not dated September 5~', that Is what day we passed our own ordinance requesting consideration of collecting area of impact fees or impact fees for our area of impact. I am still asl®ep. W® passed it on September 5~' and it is effective on December 15t and I have asked that Ted Baird, our Deputy City Meridian City Council Special JoIntNVorksttop Meeting November 8, 2006 Page 2 of 16 Attorney kind of walk you through the process. We did go through a very vigorous process for our own internal prospects and we appreciate your staff that raised several questions (inaudible) in the past and so we really wanted to make sure that this time as we update them that we answ®r all of those concerns while we went through our own process. Ted, I will turn it over to you if that is okay? Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mayor De Weerd and Members of the City Council. I have prepared a topic outline that I will pass around for items for us to discuss today. I just wanted to start with a brief overview and let you know that we have totally redone our impact fee program in Meridian. W(th that October 5~' letter, you were sent a copy of our ordinance and a copy of our consultants' report where they revised the methodology. We simplified things quite a bit and we were very pleased with the work that our Impact Fee Committee and our consultants did. We end®d up with a schedule in that and I will hand it out. One of the main goals was that our impact fee statute, our methodology be fully compliant with state law and we spent a lot of time on the capital improvements plan and here is just a handout that shows the various places in the report and the consultant and that we have complied with all state requirements with our capital improv®ments plan. The third and last handout that I will give you is our actual impact fee schedule and what we ended up with. We increased our parks' impact fee on residential units for a total of $1,138 per single family residentlal unit. We instituted new impact fees for fire and police services. Fire impact fee in the amount of $377 per residential unit and $.25 per square foot on commercial dev®lopment and police $85 per residential unit and $.06 per square foot for non-residential. Total impact fees for residential would be $1,600 per residential unit and $.31 for non-residential per square foot. That is sort of the summary of what we ended up with. The report gives the details on how we got there, so we would like at the end of this meeting have direction from you for us to work with your staff so they can review our ordinance, review our methodology and we are pretty confident that when they are done with that review they will agr®e with us that we have done our job and that it is acceptable. So with that what we would Ilke to talk about today (inaudible) related to a collection agr®ement. Now, you are all aware of course that you do collect far Boise for their parks' impact fee. I have reviewed their collection agreement and what we would like to do is something a little simpler than what Boise did. Boise talks an awful lot about (inaudible) development standards and things of that nature and as we go down here we really are not going to be developing parks likely and the area of impact will be in a property acquisition mode, so most of the parks would not be developed until they are brought into-the area of impact. So, we are hoping to have a more simplified collection agreement than what you currently have in place with Boise. So, if you want to refer to the Item No. 2 in my outline. These are some of the issues that we would like to have a discussion amongst the policy makers today about what issues, topics will be discussed and negotiated in that agreement. First and probably the most practical thing is where is the fee collected? One of your county residents goes to your Building Department for a permit and are you going to collect the fee for Meridian City Gouncil Spec(al JointMforkshop Meeting November 6, 2006 Page 3 of 16 the City of Meridian or are you going to require them to take a trip down and get a receipt to show that they (inaudible) as a check off item. I know that Mayor De Weerd has some thoughts on that. Maybe this would be a good time to throw that open for discussion? De Weerd: Well I only had thoughts on it - we had hoped at one time when we are building our city hall that we would have some kind of (inaudible) Ada County kiosk or customer service center or counter, so I guess it was just my opportunity to suggest that we have something within our new facility. I know that you might have plans at the Pine Street location (inaudible) whenever that happens; we could offer something within the city hall. But, that was my only point is to say you know West Ada County is very desirous of a location that is a little closer to home. Baird: (Inaudible--) and of course for you and the County is customer service, not making people driving more than one place. Yzaguirre: That was the point I was just going to make. (Inaudible) and encourage a one stop shop. I don't know, Gerry, what are your feelings as far for information process? Armstrong: Right now it is a fairly everything here and make it simple clear in here to collect the fee arrangement. simple, forward process that we just collect , but to have people to drive from that area s (inaudible) work out some kind of an (Inaudible discussion) Yzaguirre: So, we should collect here and then forward the money for them? Bird: Mr. Chairman. Gerry is there permit from the County and be payin pay it at the same time, wouldn't you? any time they would not be collecting a g their impact fees separate? You would Armstrong: That is how we do it. Bird: I know that is how we do it. Peavey-Derr: So, in other words it is where you - Bird: It is wherever you get your pem~it is where you would have to pay it. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Yzaguirre: Yes. Meridi8n City Council SpeGal Jolnt/Workshop Meefing November 6, 2006 Page 4 of 18 De Weerd: We know you take customer service very serious and I understand that. We would hope that at some point they could do their business there as well and not have to go two places, but again, we still have that offer out there. Yzaguin'e: Well, the need is not going to go away. It is only going to get bigger, so we need to keep thinking about that. Peavey-Derr: Well, Mr. Chair if I might ask you -just to go back a little bit. I understand your methodology having gone through ACHD impact fees and it gave a whole new appreciation for collection and distribution. Are you asking us to also interpret this as the fees are being paid? In other words is it going to be our staff explaining to your customers in essence that the impact fees are going to be spent in their area and so on and so forth? Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner. We would certainly encourage your staff to refer any questions to the City of Meridian to our fe® administrator and we would be happy to do that interpretation. It is just our understanding that your staff would need to be comfortable with what we have done before we enter into this collection agreement. Part of what Boise has in their collection agreement and one that we are suggesting is that we include an indemnification provision that if there is any challenge to the ordinance it is all on us - no liability. We are happy to take that on. If you are happy to collect It for us, we are happy to take whatever burdens are associated with that. Peavey-Derr. The other thing is it going to be allocated for a zone where it is collected it will be spent? Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner. This is one of th® things that our consultant did that simplifies It considerably. Our entire city and the area of impact is one sort of zone. It is a little dill®rent from the traiflc !n that North Meridian residents benefit and South Meridian Parks -afire occurs in South Meridian, all of the rural fire districts are going to go if it is a significant enough event -the same kind of cross use of our police force with the Ada County Sheriff, so we think the benefit has been proven to be throughout the entire area of impact and so what that means to you is for your residents paying that fee, if they are presumed to benefit from our parks, Meridian parks, Meridian Police and Meridian Fire and they would also benefit from any Increases in the capital improvements (inaudible) paid for. Peavey-Derr: All right. Thank you. Baird: So, the feedback I am hearing, Mr. Chair and Commissioners and Council is that this agreement should be drafted so there is a single point of collection here at the Courthouse, when a county permit is pulled and we wilt work out the details about how that would be transmitted to the city, any auditing requirements that we might want to put in there. But, the reality is the trend has been down in Meridian City Council Special JointNYorkshop Meefing November 6, 2006 Page 5 of '16 permits. We are not talking about a whole lot of permits -just because folks want our sewer and to get our sewer they would have to annex and I just don't think we are talking about a huge burden for your staff to collect those fees for us. So, getting back to the - I think we talked about the parks. i wanted to discuss a little bit about the police and fire and make sure that the Commission is comfortable with those new fees. It is new for us. It is probably new for you. The capital improvements plans are detailed in our report. They scrubbed it pretty well, both the impact fee committee and the consultants about what is impact fee eligible and what is not, so that what is in there is only growth related - - we are comfortable with what we have got is very defensible and if you have got any questions about that we would be happy to address th®m, but - Peavey-Derr: Mr. Chairman there is some objective to paying this because they say our taxes; their taxes should cover police and fire by simply being annexed into, how do you justify this in a court? Baird: Well, Mr. Chair and Commissioner the impact fee statute basically provides the (inaudible) fvr us to do that. The operations have certainly paid for taxes and we are prohibited from collecting any impact fee to pay for those operations as capital facilities only and we clearly done ev®rything the state statute tells us we need to do to prove that this is only for growth related capital improvements and beyond that we basically would be defending our ordinance in court if we had to do that. Peavey-Dem I guess there is a certain expectation that when you come into a city by annexation, you are going to be paying higher taxes, therefore, that fee is covered and isn't an impact. Baird: Okay, Mr. Chair and Commissioner I am sure a consultant would b® more artful in explaining this. I don't profess to be the huge impact fee guru like he is, but I think what we are saying is that by the time the area of impact residents would be annexed, they have already taken advantage the benefit of those capital improvements and they are not going to have to pay more when they get annexed, certainly for the capital improvements. I do agree with your presumption that they will probably be paying mare taxes on an annexation, but it is that benefit that they receive through the facilities that are built with our capital improvements plan that they receive whether they are annexed or not. I think that is the argument and that is the reason that we are collecting an area of impact because those residents are receiving the benefits of those services. Yzaguirr®: Go ahead. I don't think you have her convinced yet, but go ahead. Peav®y-Derr: Well, it is not a matter of convincing, I just want to be on solid ground if we are doing the collecting that there isn't -and indemnification helps, but I can see somebody contesting this in court one day even though you followed all of the rules. Meridian City Council Special JolntnNarkshop Meeting Nov®mber 6, 2006 Page 8 of 7 B Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners there certainly is an appeals procedure that it would go through internally before we would ever get to court and that appeal procedure is outlined In our ordinance and the fee administrator can make a determination if somebody did come -- and Doug Strong is our fee administrator and if somebody did come and try and make that case, we would certainly listen to what they have to say. Peavey-Derr: I can see on the parks. That is totally understandable in my opinion. I don't see it on the fir® and the police, bu# that is another matter. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Yzaguirre: Yes Mayor. De Weerd: I gu®ss (inaudible) to that and Judy and you have a big thick package (inaudible--) of our Information in that. When they looked at our Capital Improvement Plan they look®d at wha# it would take to serve the entire area of impact and most capital improvements that would be necessary to serve that area and so the capital expenditures that these impact fees cover are really in anticipation of serving that whole area within that time period. So, as those costs are incurred, we would pay through the impact fees for the capital improvement aspect of it, the maintenance is what the taxes covered. So, they are just paying their proportional share of that growth related cause and effect in the capital aspect of it. I think the process that we went through really stepped out all of those different factors and we have the Building Contractor's Association and the Association of Realtors on our impact f®e committee. So, we had all the different angles to look at and we even got a letter of support from those entities for this particular fee we are collecting. Peavey-Derr: I can see this fee then being applied to schools, which is the more primary example, I would think. De Weerd: Well, fees can't be charged for schools, but - Peavey-Derr. Well, I know but there is a direct correlation to n®w growth and schools, easily saying. So, the case for impact fees for schools is a real legitimate case in my feeling. De Weerd: I totally agree with you. Also, in our Fire Department we have a joint powers of agreement with the Rural District, so our department serves that little area anyway. So, it is kind of paying for those capital improvement needs and serving those different service radiuses. Baird: Mr. Chair other Issues that would need to be addressed in the collection agreement and again using Boise as the model that has been deemed acceptable -area of Impact needs to have representation on various boards and Meridian City Council Special JoInUWorkshop Meeting Novemb®r 6, 2006 Page 7 of 18 commissions. We already have an area of impact representative on our Planning and Zoning Commission. We will check our membership list of our impact fee committee and if we don't already have area of impact representation we will have someone appointed. We would be happy to agree to that. The agreement writh Boise requires a Parks Commission member be from the area of impact and we are questioning whether that is really necessary in this case if all were in an area of impact was in acquisition mode - I thinks our Parks Commission has a wide variety of representation and we would be seeking input from you as to whether that Is something that you are going to require and certainly if it is we would be happy to accommodate that, but we want to have those issues addressed in that agreement. I will put that issue on the table and see if there is any discussion. Yzaguin-e: Maybe you could give us a little bit of a background as to who serves on your Parks Commission right now? Mayor, would you mind? De Weerd: Right now we have - Yzaguirre: Are we represented, I guess, would be my question more specifically? De Weerd: Right now we just have city residents that are on there. Perhaps you have some area of impact representation through our youth members. We have youth council members that are participants and they are not all in Meridian city. So, they do have an opportunity for a voice, but as Ted has explained much of the parks development you know we are looking at land acquisition at this point and not necessarily park development. Yzaguirr®: So, I guess you are sugg®sting that we would be represented on th® impact (inaudible) committee, but not the parks and that would cover (inaudible)? De Weerd: Yes, that was his point. Baird: And with that, Mr. Chair to give you some comfort I think are Parks Commission, we already have some land that is in our area of impacts and they are looking at future development of that, whether it happens before annexation or not is an open question, but they certainly are aware of the benefits of acquiring land in the area of impact, so even if there is not an area of impact representative I think those issues would be addressed by the existing makeup of our Parks Commission. If you are comfortable with that, we would ask that you direct staff to allow us to draft the agreement with the representation that we've outlined under subsection 2.C in the outline that I passed out today. So, Mr. Chair with that what we are really looking for, again, is direction to move forward to have the staff (inaudible) review of our ordinance and our methodology to prepare a draft agreement based on the issues that we discussed today and set a timeline for benchmarks of when those reviews will be completed; when we Meridian City Council special JointlWorkshop Meeting November 6, 2008 Pege 8 of 18 start the public hearing process; individual hearings of course would have to take place a# our respective Planning Commissions and City Councils in order to amend the area of Impact agreement. It is only a text amendment so w® don't have to hold it like you would do with a map every six months so we can proceed. With that I will open it up for questions, discussion. Yzaguirre: Any questions? Tilman: I just have a couple I guess and I am curious about - I know this is a new concept of including fire and police in the idea of an area of impact and impact fee in that area, which the area of impact is the r®sponsibility of the county to provide service within that area. So, I know that in the past you have had a precedent of saying the parks was a good connection, but I am just qu®stion(ng I guess a little bit and I look forward to having the legal review by our folks to make sure that we do have the legal authority to do what you are suggesting. I am not saying I am oppos®d to it, but it does bring up an interesting concept that if the city police do not provide service out in the area that is the responsibility of the county, the sheriff how do you justify an impact fee for police? I am just throwing these things out. I hope that our attorneys will come up with a good legal review of these things. Another question that comes up that I hope w® can (inaudible) review this - I understand our collecting fees in an area of impact and how do we deal with the fact that if we got these fees collected and another city comes in and annexes that area of impact that you collect the fees for, haw do we deal with that? I mean, the law does allow that as it can happen, so I am just wondering if we would want to address some of those kinds of things and would that have to be paid back? Would it have to be paid to the other city? I don't know. It is just some of the things that run through my mind. I am curious about, again, if you are talking about the city being all one zone, I am not sure how that is going to work with -- mayb® it does, I am just throwing out some things here, too that if you have got people on the south side of Meridian that you are charging an impact fee for and you are building parks or fire stations or whatever on the north side, which you guys are getting pretty spread aut as far as size, I don't know. How do you justify that and maybe there is and I apologize, I haven't had a chance to read the full study to understand what you are saying and that your experts maybe have addressed these issues, but just on the surface that those are some of the things that come to mind. First of all, I certainly do think we need to move forward and I think we need to work collectively with the cities, you folks (inaudible-) and find a way to deal with growth and the idea that growth should pay for itself. I think you will find that we are in certain agreement with that, but I think we have to make sure that we are doing this in a thoughtful, legal manner so that we don't get (inaudible) and have a bigger hassle than we need to have. Again, I guess I would ask our legal staff to help me understand legally. If we collect - I guess that we would have to craft an ordinance that we would be the one collecting the ordinance (inaudible) and w® would have an agreement that would simply just turn that over to you, the city. But, it seems like we the county would have to be the one. We have the Meridian City Council Special JoinWVorkshop Meeting November 6, 2006 Page 9 of 16 authority to collect that impact fee within that area of impact and we would then give it to you on the basis that it is almost contractually that you agreed to provide the service in that area at some futur® date. We are not sure how you would craft and maybe the Boise City language already addresses that, I am not sure, but it seems like we would almost have to have -this is going to be the county's ordinance and we are going to collect the impact fee and what I think I heard you say is you want us to accept the data on the new research that supports the collection of the fee as a basis for us to pass the ordinance to collect the fee and then basically tum it over to the city. Is that essentially right? Baird: Mr. Chair if I could address the Commissioner's questions in reverse order? Yes that is what we are asking you to do. We are using the model that has been established with the City of Boise, where the county and it essentially adopts the impact fee ordinance and it accepts the methodology that it contained in the record. It is that methodology that I believe answers the third question about the lack of the zones. Bell®ve me the questions w®re asked when we were going through the process from the Impact Fee Committee because we have got a lot of representation. We have got a situation now wher® the South Meridian area is underserved with parks south of the freeway. But, the presumptions that were made by our consultant who is an economist - we had an economist an ther®. We had financial representation. We had legal representation. We had a good team put together and they really worked it hard and by the time that they were done, we were convinced that the South Meridian residents benefit from the services that are provided north of the fr®eway and I have heard our Chief Ron Anderson when he was in the City of Nampa, I heard him explain when they were going through the same question about impact fees, about the joint response and haw It Is a system wide benefit that we are looking at, not just within city limits, but within the area of impact. So, I think that when you do have a chance to review the consultant's report, I am hoping that you will get a better comfort level with that because we think we have done that work and that it's there. With regard to your second question about should we collect fees and if that particular residence or zone doesn't end up coming to Meridian, but would go to Eagle, for exampl®, we could certainly set up a mechanism for a refund of those fees, probably a dir®ct refund to the permit holder or the resident rather than a transfer to the other municipalities. The impact fee (inaudible) from the state also has a refund provision that are incorporated into our ordinance that if we collect It and don't spend it within the period of time that we said we would spend it, we are required to give refunds. So, th® refunds are the reality for th® fee administrator. I think we have been lucky that we haven't and that we have been able to spend it. We haven't - I have been with Meridian for two years now and have no challenges to our current ordinance. But, we are breaking new ground with the fire and the police. As I just mentioned, Nampa already has fire and police impact fees in place in addition to their parks and they have their own Highway Department as well. So, they have got a huge impact fee collection going on ov®r there. I am not familiar with what they are doing with their county collection, but there might be something there to look into to report back where Meridian Clay Council Special JointNVorkshop Meeting November 6, 2006 Page 10 of 18 Canyon County has comfort with collecting these types of fees in the area of impact and I would be happy to look into that for you. Then Fred to get to your first question about a comfort level that area of Impact residents benefit from paying police and fire impact fees. I wish we had our police and fire folks here today. I think Mayor De Weerd has tried to comment on how they do benefit and maybe at this paint I would just suggest that we allow you an opportunity to read and digest and see what your position is at that point. Peavey-Den: Mr. Chairman. Can you tell me if Boise currently has fire and police? They don't do they? Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners. Boise City currently only collects for parks. They have hired our consultant to actually look at fire. I don't know if they are looking at police. So, they ar® certainly investigating and this seems to be a trend. So, the policy that you set here will probably be a precedent for you. Yzagulrre: Qkay. Any other questions? De Weercl: Mr. Chairman. Yzaguirre: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Just on page 14 and 16, you can find a list of some of those capital improvements. You will see in that list that it is really facilities that are going to serve that entire area. We have and fire really know they need to serve these areas because they do have some overlap in the circle radiuses and those are - I don't think we have a map that clearly delineates that, but certainly as you look at this and if you have further questions about how some of these future stations will serve, we can send you that kind of information if you would find that helpful and the police as well. in the capital improvements, again, we go and look at the entire area of impact and what it will take to serve the entire area of impact and that is why we feel that it is justified to look outside our current city boundaries as that growth occurs so that they are paying a proportional share for the facilities that are needed to serve them through mutual aid until we get out there, but will serve them once they are annexed Into the city. So, again, I think the report itself is very comprehensive and should answer a lot of your questions, but we can get you further information if you do need that. Peavey-Derr: Mr. Chairman. On page 14 #hey are including the firing range - whywould that be any different to pay an impact fee fvr the existing areas? Why is the firing range a capital improvement that is necessary? It isn't common standard within your everyday operating budget. De Weerd: In the past we have been able to send mutual aid far joint facilities, but (inaudible) is getting to such a size that you can't get any (inaudible) and again those are the kind of things that we can hav® and I don't know if that Median City Council Special JointNUorkahop Meeting November 8, 2008 Page 11 of 18 {inaudible) is not already included in this report in front of you. But as you get through those and you find some of those questions, just let us know and we can get you back information to substantiate that. Bair: Mr, Chair and Commissioners. You will notice in the middle of that graph on the top of page 14 it talks about the growth related portion and the economist -- a portion of only 31 percent of that facility as being growth related, so - Peavey-Derr: Well, it Is kind of like a cost of doing business, though, if you have a firing range and all of your police force isn't up to speed with their firing capabilities or none of them are. So, it is a cost of doing business and you have to have cars and I notice in here command vehicle -that is the cost of doing business. So, I don't understand the rationale. Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners those questions wer® asked at our Impact Fee Committee and I took a hard long look at that and one thing that you will notice is not included with the polic® are police vehicles because the state statute requires capital facilities have a five year life span. Our police cars don't last far five years. We were able to prove to the Committee that the command vehicles do. We use th®m and use them up and usually I think it is an 8 to 10 year lifespan -the same with fire engines. Our fire engines are included because as we grow new ones are required and they do have a useful life of more than 10 years. So this item, bell®v® me, there was a much longer list when we started and it was scrapped pretty well by the Committee and I think that question that you have asked is address®d with a portion of only 31 percent of that cost to grow. That is acknowledging that, in fact, that is a cost of our current doing business In verse percentag® and would be supported by general tax funds. I think it is just acknowledging as we grow that facility might need to expand and that is why it has been proportioned at 31 percent. So, if you take a hard look at this, particularly the representatives from the (inaudible), they were very critical at first and by the time that we were finished with the product that is in front of you we did have consensus. Wardle: Mr. Chair. One of the things within the study is the level of service within the City of Meridian (inaudible) what our police and fire was based on a number of factors and to kind of address your citywide zone. The l=ire Department measures response times to its calls and is improving upon those response times by adding stations in growth areas. In addition to that, the Police Department looks at officers per square mile and the need for those growths obviously as the Incorporated ar®a becomes more dense and so we would need additional officers and facilities and so that is part of the methodology in there that should hopefully look at more of a system wide function as opposed to zoning those into north, south or east and west. Yzaguirre: Thanks Shaun. Any other discussion, questions? Meridian City Council Special JointM/orkshop Meting November 6, 2006 Page 12 of 16 (Speaker unknown): Mr. Chair. Yzaguin'e: Yes, sir. (Speaker unknown): I wonder if we move forward with this are you still under contract with the consultants so that there could be some type of neighborhood meeting or present this information again to answer questions because I see this being a v®ry somewhat technical discussion and trying to answer questions of folks? Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioners our consultants, the contract for the work that they had done has been completed, but we told them from the get go that we were looking to have this collected with an area of impact and so they have been aware of it and perusing the report and I am sure with direction from our City Council that we would certainly be able to engage them. I wish they were here today, for example. Peavey-Derr: I don't mean to be - I am just very curious. I spent four years on impact fees, so I - Baird: Tom Pippin, the consultant just makes it so simple. It is simple division. You find out who is coming and you find out what you need to serve them and you divide the amount by the number of people and there is your fee. But, he is also able to answer those in depth questions, the policy questions and how did he arrive at things. So, I think we would be happy to make him available to answer those questions. Peavey-Derr: Will they be coming back to town? Baird: They are in the area. They are doing anoth®r project for the City of Meridian and consulting with Boise and helping Nampa retool theirs - so, yes. Peavey-Derr: So, it wouldn't be difficult since they are in the area to schedule a meeting with them? Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner I think we would make that available at your convenience. Peav®y-Derr: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Yzaguirre: Mayor. De Weerd: I guess, too that once you had a chance to read the report It might answer a lot of these questions and again if i# doesn't if you can let us know what Merldlan City Council Special JointNVorkshop Meeting November 6, 2006 Page 13 of 16 your questions are then we can respond. If you still need to, then we will ask the consultants to come on in and walk you through our process because of a lot of these questions. They are very good questions and they are questions that our Committee has spent a great deal of time on and so we know they have already been discussed. Peavey-Derr: I am sure they hav®. Thank you though. Yaaguirre: Did you have a question, Mr. Commissioner? Tilman: I guess just trying to move along here. Do we have any idea (inaudible) asking for a timeline on when we can have this move forward? How much time we might need - Peavey-Derr: December 1 ~ you said it was going into effect. De Weerd: Yes, our collection is effective December 1St but that is our own terms. Tilman: I was asking if I could ask from our staff, how much tim® they need to have to be able to review this information -also our legal staff to be able to determine how (inaudible) some sense of getting back to this Commission some of the questions that have been raised to you so that we can move forward? That is the question that I was trying to ask. Armstrong: I believe that there is probably some time that the Prosecuting Attorney's Office is going to need to -well, and this Is Just off the top of my head (inaudible) 45 days to review some of this information and during that time we can try and field some of the questions that the Board has end put that into what the PA's Office would be looking at. Yzaguirre: Well, it seems to me that a motion from our side of the table would be appropriate and (inaudible) far all the services and for legal to review this and along with that establish a timeline that can be met with a public hearing schedule to present - Peavey-Derr. Mr. Chairman just because it is December 1St doesn't mean it has to take place - Y~aguirre: That would be for the city (inaudible). The area of impact would be (inaudible--). (Speaker unknown): Mr. Chairman, Commissioners I think one of the things that would be helpful for the cities would be for the city staff to sit down with (inaudible) agreement with the staff because I know that you are just In the Process of finishing up the work on the Boise impact fees and materials and at Meridian City Council Special JatnWVorkshop Meeting November 6, 2006 Page 14 of 16 least we can get a sense of kind of the outline and some of the other data requirements so if there is anything that we can do to help you move this along might be valuable for us. Yzaguirre: Okay. (Speaker unknown): We will direct staff as soon as we can on that. Yzaguirre: Having said that, I think a formal motion would be appropriate directing our staff to do that review. Peavey-Derr: I would so move and also, though too, to include in that motion that we try and have a meeting scheduled again, an update in 45 days - at I®ast that period of time. Yzaguirre: Is that a motion? Peavey-Derr: Yes. Tilman: Well, in the motion too, I think what would be nice to do is to review the impact fee ordinance that has been presented and also to negotiate a collection agreement or at least review that collection agreement (inaudible) and I think you presented a copy of that collection agreement. So, that is what we would be asking our legal staff to review for us. I will second that motion. Yzaguirre: Everybody clear on the motion? Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. ALL AYES. MQTION CARRIED. Yzaguirre: Anything else that we can do for you today? De Weerd: Mr. Chairman so as I understand It we will need to meet again after the 45 days? Peavey-Derr: We will have some kind of stuff back to us and we will be able to make a decision in 45 days - no mare than 45 days and in the meantime have the staffs work together. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. This is an unrelated request, but we came about a month ago and talked about a North Meridian area of impact (inaudible). Could we get a timeline on what that process is? (Inaudible discussion) S. Cook: That is on the four square mile area of impact? Meridian City Council Special JoinWVorkshop Meeting November 8, 2006 Page 15 of 16 D® Weerd: And the area that it is related to. Do you have a timeline on that? S. Cook: I r®ally don't. It is one of those assignm®nts that I received here not too long ago and we just have to find (inaudible) where we can and - Yzaguirre: Do you have something specific? S. Cook: Well, Richard and I have talked about it and trying to relieve some of the workload that i have so that I can concentra#e on that (inaudible) any speclflc timelines (inaudible) and trying to reshuffle some of the staff within our department so that they can start picking up som® of the workload there. Yzaguirre: We will let you know. We wil! get an answer to that and I will follow up with that and give you some kind of a timeline. Anything else? De Weerd: Just a quick reminder. You have a flyer on our party we are holding next week and we would love to have you attend -and we will certainly celebrate the roots of our past and the Creamery facility, but it will tell you how We are integrating some of the historical value there into our new facility and into the present. Also, just a heads up that w® will be in front of you possibly within those 45 days too, again for the South Meridian area -just want to give you this as a heads up and look forward to meeting you again and I appreciate your time. Yzaguirre: This is the impact area expansion request? Is that what this is? De Weerd: This Is just our study areas. Friedman: Thank you Mayor, Commissioners the city is currently involved in doing a specific plan for the South Meridian study area, which is illustrated on this map and we will be making an application to the city for a comprehensive plan amendment in December, taking it through our Planning and Zoning Commission in February or March and then onto the City Council, so once we get that adopted we will probably be coming back to you with an area of impact expansion. So, the Mayor wanted me to make sure you are aware of that. De Weerd: Mr. Chair I guess I would like to know - we would like to keep you as well informed as possible moving you along through our steps -- so just that we will be getting information and gluing it to your staff as well as yourselves just to keep you in the loop. We have been trying to do that as w® study this area because we know there are some contentious pieces to it. Peavey-Derr: Thank you very much. VVe appreciate your cooperation. The city has been great. Meridian City Council Special JointJWorkshop Meeting November 8, 2006 Page 18 of 16 Yzaguirre: Anything else? Thank you all for coming. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:00 P.M. {TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~ L~'e TAMMY D ~ ~ ERD, M/~lfsO +'+++fr,, , r, ~,.~ ,~-t ~~. .: ~o ,~ ., ,y ~`'~ atNl€l 7 c~~ ~ DATE APPROVED IAM G. BERG, JR , CI CLERK November 3, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 6, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 2 REQUEST Negotiation of an Amendment to the Area of City Impact Agreement to Provide for the Collection of Meridian's Development Impact Fees within the Area of Impact AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached Contacted• Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Clfy of Meridian. ~~-6-06 DISCUSSION TOPIC OUTLINE; COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES IN MERIDIAN AREA OF CITY IMPACT 1. Overview of new Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance• a. Rigorous process recently undertaken by Staff, Committee, and Consultant to arrive at an Ordinance and methodology that are fully compliant with State Law. b. Parks fees are collected on residential permits. c. Police and Fire fees are collected on residential and commercial permits. d. Service area defined as entire city limits and area of impact (no sub- areas for fee collection). 2. Discussion of issues related to the proposed collection agreement• a. Collection of Fees: Should collection point be Meridian Building Department or County Courthouse? b. Development of Capital Facilities within AOI: i. Parks: AOI residents are presumed to benefit from development of parks in city limits. ii. Park Development Standards: City recommends that the collection agreement not address development standards, since real property acquisition is the only activity likely to occur within the AOI at this time. If City does propose to develop a park in the AOI, we can negotiate an amendment to the agreement to address development standards, maintenance, operations, etc. iii. Police, Fire and RFD issues: AOI residents benefit from increased capacity delivered via mutual aid agreements. c. AOI representation on Meridian Boards and Commissions: i. Meridian Planning and Zoning commission has AOI representation. ii. Meridian will appoint AOI representative to Impact Fee Committee for financial accountability. iii. Question necessity of appointing an AOI rep to Parks Commission. 3. Seek Direction from Commissioners for Coun Staff to work with Meridian Staff on: a. Review and approval of Meridian's Impact Fee Ordinance. b. Negotiation of the Collection agreement based on input from issues discussed today. c. Set timeline for action items and public hearings. l~ -~-o~ Idaho Impact Fee Act CIP Requirements See, Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. (a) ~ general description of all existing public faabaes • and their existing deficenciu within the service azea or azeas of the goveznmrntal entity • and a reasonable estimate of all costs and a plan to develop the funding resources related to curing the existing deficiencies o including, but not limited to, the upgrading, updating, impzoving, expanding or replacing of such facilities to meet existin needs and us e; (b) A commitment by the govemmrntal rndty to use other available souzcu of revenue to cure existing system deficlenriu where practical; (c) An analysis of the total capadty, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capadty of existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified pzofessional pLvuter or by a qualified engineer licensed to perfoan engineering services in this state; (d) A description of the land use assumptions by the govemmrnt entity; (e) • A definitive table establishing the spedfic level or quantity of use, consumption, grneration or discharge of a service unit for each category of system improvements • and an equivalenry or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to vazious types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial; (t) A desuiption of all system improvements and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service azea based on the approved land use assumptions, to provide a level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact fee ozdinancc; (g) The total number of service units necessitated by and attributable to new devclopmrnt within the service azea based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; (h) The projected demand Eor system improvements required by new sezvice units projected oyez a zeasonable period of time not to exceed twenty (20) years; (i) Identification of all sources and levels of funding available to the governmental entity for the financing of the system improvements; ~) If the proposed system improvements include the improvement of pub&c fadlitiu under the jurisdiction of the state of 1 Idaho or another govemmental entity, then an agreement between govemmental entities shall speclfy the reasonable share of , funding by each unit, provided the govemmrntal entity authorized to impose development impact fees shall not assume more t than its reasonable share of funding joint imptovetnenta, nor ahall the agreement pemut exprndituze of development impact feu by a govemmrntal entity which is not authorized to impose development impact fees unless such expendituze is pursuant to a developer agreement under Section 67-8214, Idaho Code; and (k) .~ schedule setting forth estimated dates for commencing and completing construction of aU improvements identified in the ca ital im rovemrnts lan. a ReporGSecdon '' Ex}ubtts 3, 5, and 7 (existing faciliti also see Appendix D. See "Other Funding Sources" page 27. Requtremrnt addressed in IF ordinance. See Fund balance discussion on page 11. ~ppendtx F ~uzrrnt Asset tables and supporting text Exhibits 3, 5, and 7. ',lso noted in Appendix D. see p. 5, Other fee calculation onsiderations. ix}ubtts 4, 6, and 8 regazding Capital mprovemrnts Plans. ee Exlubtta 1 and 2. ice CIPs 2006 - 2016, Exhibits 4, G, nd 8. ee "Other Funding Sources" Page 7. feadtan may obtain an IGA with ,da County to collect impact fees in to county (t.e., azea of impact). :e CIPs 2006-2016, Exhibits 4, G, td 8. /l b- 06 EXHIBIT A FEE SCHEDULE Except for such hnpact 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: Residential Non-Residential Fire Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential Farks Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential Total Fees: Residential Non-Residential $85.00 per Dwelling Unit 85: °.° $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per square foot , 06 $ 0.06 per square foot $377.00 per Dwelling Unit X77, °--° $300.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.25 per square foot , 2~r' $ 0.20 per square foot $1,384.00 per Dwelling Unit ~~?~ ~ $1,215.00 per Dwelling Unit $ N/A per square foot NSA, $ N/A per square foot $ l , 846.00 per Dwelling Unit 1600. ~° $1,600.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.31 per square foot . 3t $ 0.26 per square foot This Fee Schedule shall be in effect between ~ C-e!'yi. •6~1i~- ~ , 2006, and December 31, 2007. On January 1, 2008 and on January 1~` of each year thereafter in which an lZUpact Fee is in effect, the amount of the Impact Fee shall be automatically adjusted to account for inflation increases in the cost of providing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to serve new growth and development utilizing an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McCrraw Hill's Engineering News Record. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from electing to maintain athen-existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fee or from electing to waive the inflation adjustment for any given fiscal year, or years. Any such action to determine an inflation factor shall be by the City Council resolution. IMPACT FEE EXHIBIT SCHEDULE Page 1 of 1 Folice Impact Fee ~ ~~1~rG~ L Schedule: CQ ~ ;'S''c K`~',ti't Wit' `~{ µ ~~~ 11~~.~~K~ Study Area ~~~V ~D r/ ti NOTES REGARDING AOI NEGOTIATIONS WITH ADA COUNTY FOR MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE COLLECTION A. The Objectives: 1. Obtain County Approval of Meridian's Impact Fee Ordinance. 2. Negotiate an agreement with the County to collect impact fees on development in the Meridian Area of City Impact. B. Amendments to AOI Agreement necessary to achieve the objective: 1. Add to section 9-4-3 Applicable Plan Policies and Ordinances: "Title 10 Chapter 7 of the Meridian City Code, also known as the Meridian City Impact Fee Ordinance No. 06-1255 dated September O5, 2006 shall be applicable within the Meridian City Area of Impact." 2. Add to section 9-4-4 Coordination of Plan Amendments, Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Applications: "Development of Parks, Police, and Fire Capital Facilities: Development of parks, police, and fire capital facilities by the City of Meridian the Meridian area of city impact shall be subject to the provisions of the Agreement for Collection of Meridian City Impact Fees for Development in the Meridian Area of City Impact, agreement No. ,dated , which is hereby adopted by Ada County and made a part hereof by this reference." C. Steps in the Process: The Nov 6 meeting is the first step required to begin the renegotiation process. 2. At the end of the initial meeting, we should request that the Commissioners direct County staff to work with us to review our Impact Fee Ordinance and methodology for compliance with state law and to reach acceptable terms for a collection agreement. 3. After our Impact Fee Ordinance has been approved by Ada County and the collection agreement finalized, both the Meridian City Code and the Ada County Code need to be amended by Ordinance to reflect the two changes to the Area of Impact Agreement set forth in section B, above. All applicable notice and hearing requirements will apply. Specifically, Idaho Code 67-6526 requires the notice and hearing provisions from 67-6509 which require a hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission before the City Council holds a hearing on the Ordinance approving the amendments to the AOI agreement. The County needs to follow a similar process. D. The Impact Fee Collection Agreement: (Consider the following provisions, based on the Boise City/Ada County collection agreement that has been in place since 1995). (However, see questions below - Development in Meridian's area of City Impact is very different from what has occurred in Boise -primarily because we have controlled access to our sewer system. Additional guidance from Meridian Mayor and Council is needed before we propose speck terms of the Meridian/Ada collection agreement1: - 1. Collection of Fees and Withholding of Permits: The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance will apply within the Area of Impact, and the County will not issue a building permit unless the applicant has provided documentation that the impact - _- ees required by the Meridian Ordinance have been paid or waived. (Question whether the applicant is required to travel to the Meridian Building Department to pay the applicable fee, or whether Ada County will collect it on our behalf an_d forward it to Meridian. The former allows us greater control over making sure that fees are collected, but the latterprovides better customer service or Ada ~ - County residents1. 2. Adoption of the Parks Plan• Procedure for Developing Parks in the Meridian City Area of Impact: The Meridian Parks and Recreation Action Plan would apply to the development of parks within the Area of City Impact, and that the County would agree to take necessary steps to adopt that plan. Include provisions to allow for mutual _review and approval by both jurisdictions!,. (Question whethe~+ Meridian will ever develop a park that is not in city limits. I think our argument should be that residents in the area of impact will use and benefit from the parks being developed throughout Meridian within cif limits, so that is why we are collecting the~ees~.! 3. Maintenance of Devel~ed Parks in the Area of Im act• Boise's agreement provides that Ada County maintains and controls parks developed in the Area of Impact. ;(See question in #D2, above. Having acity-owned park maintained anc~ operated by the count may not be a desirable situation1. 4. Police Capital Improvements:_ (Question whether at is appropriate to collect a~a impact fee forpolice~acilities when the AOI is served the Ada County Sher. 5. Fire Ca itU al Improvements': (Need to analyze City/RFD issues to determine -- - ~pp~ prc ~teness collecting Fire impac~ee in AOl. Better argument here thah 6. Area of Im ap ct Representation: Boise's agreement requires at least one seat on the Impact Fee Committee and the Parks Commission be a resident in the Area of Impact. ,(Argue that for Meridian, perhaps only require AOI re resentation o~ ---- the Impact Fee Committee and not the Parks Commission1.l E. Proposed format for Initial Meeting with Ada County: Overview of new Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance• a. Rigorous process undertaken by Staff, Committee, and Consultant to arrive at an Ordinance and methodology that are fully compliant with State Law. b. Refer to exhibit demonstrating compliance with CIP requirements. c. Parks fees are collected on residential permits. d. Police and Fire fees are collected on residential and commercial permits. e. Refer to fee schedule. 2. Discussion of issues related to the proposed collection agreement see; questions stated under item D above)' a. Collection of Fees: City preference to collect at our building department vs. County preference to collect at Courthouse. b. Development of capital facilities within AOI: i. Parks and Police: Not likely to occur. ii. AOI residents presumed to benefit from development of parks in city limits. iii. Since AOI is patrolled by Ada County Sheriff, should AOI residents pay a police impact fee? iv. Park Development Standards: Does the collection agreement really need to address development standards if we build a park in the AOI (or can we simply state that if City does propose to develop a park in the AOI, we will negotiate an amendment to the agreement to address development standards, maintenance, operations, etc)? v. Fire and RFD issues. c. AOI representation on Meridian Boards and Commissions: i. Meridian will appoint AOI rep to Impact Fee Committee for financial accountability. ii. Question necessity of appointing an AOI rep to Parks Commission. 3. Seek direction from Commissioners to work with County Staff on• a. Review and approval of Meridian's Impact Fee Ordinance. b. Negotiation of the Collection agreement based on input from issues discussed in item #E2, above. 4. At conclusion of staff work outlined in item E3 above both jurisdictions should commit to uursue the notice and hearing procedures necessary to amend the AOI Agreement (see item C3 above Page 1 of 1 Will Berg From: Tammy de Weerd Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:46 PM To: Ted Baird; Bill Nary; Will Berg; Doug Strong; Ron Anderson; Bill Musser; Anna Canning; Peter Friedman Subject: RE: Joint Meeting With Ada County Commission re Impact Fee Collection in AOI Attachments: Notes re Amendments to AOI Agreement for Impact Fee Collection.doc My comments are in red From: Ted Baird Sent: Sat 11/4/2006 12:52 PM To: Tammy de Weerd; Bill Nary; Will Berg; Doug Strong; Ron Anderson; Bill Musser; Anna Canning; Peter Friedman Subject: Joint Meeting With Ada County Commission re Impact Fee Collection in AOI Attached are my notes on a suggested approach to the request to negotiate, and a proposed list of topics for the Meeting on Monday morning. Please provide whatever feedback you can in the short timeframe before the meeting. 11 /6/2006 NOTES REGARDING AOI NEGOTIATIONS WITH ADA COUNTY FOR MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE COLLECTION A. The Objectives: Obtain County Approval of Meridian's Impact Fee Ordinance. 2. Negotiate an agreement with the County to collect impact fees on development in the Meridian Area of City Impact. B. Amendments to AOI A Bement necess to achieve the ob'ective: 1. Add to section 9-4-3 Applicable Plan Policies and Ordinances• "Title 10 Chapter 7 of the Meridian City Code, also known as the Meridian City Impact Fee Ordinance No. 06-1255 dated September O5, 2006 shall be applicable within the Meridian City Area of Impact." 2. Add to section 9-4-4 Coordination of Plan Amendments Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Applicafions• "Development of Parks, Police, and Fire Capital Facilities: Development of parks, police, and fire capital facilities by the City of Meridian the Meridian area of city impact shall be subject to the provisions of the Agreement for Collection of Meridian City Impact Fees for Development in the Meridian Area of City Impact, agreement No. ,dated ,which is hereby adopted by Ada County and made a part hereof by this reference." C. Steps in the Process• The Nov 6 meeting is the first step required to begin the renegotiation process. 2. At the end of the initial meeting, we should request that the Commissioners direct County staff to work with us to review our Impact Fee Ordinance and methodology for compliance with state law and to reach acceptable terms for a collection agreement. Request a timeline After our Impact Fee Ordinance has been approved by Ada County and the collection agreement finalized, both the Meridian City Code and the Ada County Code need to be amended by Ordinance to reflect the two changes to the Area of Impact Agreement set forth in section B, above. All applicable notice and hearing requirements will apply. Specifically, Idaho Code 67-6526 requires the notice and hearing provisions from 67-6509 which require a hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission before the City Council holds a hearing on the Ordinance approving the amendments to the AOI agreement. The County needs to follow a similar process. Can the public hearings be ioint? D. The Impact Fee Collection Agreement• (Consider the following provisions, based on the Boise City/Ada County collection agreement that has been in place since 1995_ ). (However, see questions below - Development in Meridian 's area of City Impact is very d~erent from what has occurred in Boise -primarily because we have controlled access to our sewer system. Additional guidance from Meridian Mayor and Council is needed before we propose speck terms o the Meridian/Ada collection~eemen ~: Collection of Fees and Withholding of Permits: The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance will apply within the Area of Impact, and the County will not issue a building permit unless the applicant has provided documentation that the impact fees required by the Meridian Ordinance have been paid or waivedl (Questtoz~ whether the applicant is required to travel to the Meridian Building Departmend to pay the applicable fee, or whether Ada County will collect it on our behalf anal forward it to Meridian. The former allows us greater control over making sure that fees are collected, but the latter provides better customer service for Adaj ,County residents). A gz•eat reason to vrovide a kin.ck ~s• ~~„t,_~f,.~:,,~, ~ ;,,..~ ~ ._ ~.; -- - - ~• ~H~cice~s wtL t e county closer to where they live. 2. Adoption of the Parks Plan• Procedure for Developing Parks in the Meridian Citv Area of Impact The Mendian Parks and Recreation Action Plan would apply to the development of parks within the Area of City Impact, and that the County would agree to take necessary steps to adopt that plan. Include provisions to allow for mutual review ~d ~ proval by both juri~ ictions'I t~k our argumend Merzdzan will ever develo a ark that is not to ct lamzts estzon whetheza Should be that residents to the area of tmpact will use and benefit from the parks+ being developed throughout Meridian within city limits, so that is why we are collecting the fees). We have land in the oYVn ~f~~,~,,,,.t ~ ..,..,,...... ~ _ _ _ -. - - -'--"----- w,cG LL //GL /L wvarrant development However, at this point AOI residents rnn and ~h „~ - •~, a --- ~~ ar - 3. Maintenance of Develo ed Parks in the Area of Im act: Boise's agreement provides that Ada County maintains and controls parks developed in the Area of Impact. (See question in #D2, above. Having a chy-owned park maintained anaj operated by the county may not be a desirable situation). ] cas7 ~~nda~-~r~~a ,.,z„~J circumstance. 4. Police Cavital Imvrovements• (question whether it is appropriate to collect c impact fee for police facilities when the AOI is served by the Ada County Shet would imagine that our police answer a number of calls outside our area that would iustifv. I wouldn't push this if there is concern as this battle is not as important as the others. 5. Fire Cavital Improvements (Need to analyze City/RFD issues to determine] appropriateness of collecting Fire impact fee in AOl. Better argument here ty forpolice)._ This is very appropriate as many ofthe newer substations are clo, Area of Impact Representation: Boise's agreement requires at least one seat on the Impact Fee Committee and the Parks Commission be a resident in the Area of Impact. (Argue that for Meridian, perhaps only require AOI representation orb -- the Impact Fee Committee and not the Parks Commissions ! Sounds good. E. Proposed format for Initial Meeting with Ada County: Overview of new Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance• a. Rigorous process undertaken by Staff, Committee, and Consultant to arrive at an Ordinance and methodology that aze fully compliant with State Law. b. Refer to exhibit demonstrating compliance with CIP requirements. c. Pazks fees are collected on residential permits. d. Police and Fire fees are collected on residential and commercial permits. e. Refer to fee schedule. Z. Discussion of issues related to the ro osed collection a Bement see questions stated under item D above), a. Collection of Fees: City preference to collect at our building department vs. County preference to collect at Courthouse. This is not an issue to aet hung up on however as I stated above it is an oUporlunity to express interest 1n having a W Ada service counter or `kiosk' that would allow better access to county services closer to home. b. Development of capital facilities within AOI: i. Pazks and Police: Not likely to occur. We do own land in the AOI that is undeveloped at this DOint ii. AOI residents presumed to benefit from development of parks in city limits. iii. Since AOI is patrolled by Ada County Sheriff, should AOI residents pay a police impact fee? iv. Pazk Development Standazds: Does the collection agreement really need to address development standazds if we build a pazk in the AOI (or can we simply state that if City does propose to develop a pazk in the AOI, we will negotiate an amendment to the agreement to address development standazds, maintenance, operations, etc)? v. Fire and RFD issues. c. AOI representation on Meridian Boards and Commissions: Meridian currently has an area of impact representative on our lanninQ commission. i. Meridian will appoint AOI rep to Impact Fee Committee for financial accountability. ii. Question necessity of appointing an AOI rep to Pazks Commission. 3. Seek direction from Commissioners to work with County Staff on• a. Review and approval of Meridian's Impact Fee Ordinance. b. Negotiation of the Collection agreement based on input from issues discussed in item #E2, above. c. Set timeline for actions items t - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 4. At conclusion of staff work outlined in item E3 above both 'utisdictions should commit to pursue the notice and hearing_procedures necessary amend the AOI Agreeement (see item C3 abovel Can a joint public hearin¢ be an option? - Formatted• No underline { -- - .- This re4uesdagenda item is specific to impact fees only is this a text char a only Can we ask about tune frames for the AOI adiustments for the request submitted regarding the N.Mendian Area -next steps and e;<ve a heads up/update on the S Meridian reauest~ .~ T.4 CITY OF C~~~err~l~-n _. IDAHO q. rt::\%):7t °)Cv Tltt; \SUFit V •'VU~Y E ~~3 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd October 5, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Joseph W. Borton Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle Ada County Board of County Commissioners Ada County Courthouse CITY DEPARTMENTS 200 West Front Street City Attorney/HR Boise, ID 83702 703 Main Street 898-5506 (City Attorney) 898-5503 (HR) Imo; Request to Negotiate Fax 884-8723 Meridian City Impact Fee Ordinance/Area of City Impact Agreement Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234/fax 895-0390 Chairman Yzaguirre and Members of the Commission: Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 /fax 898-5501 Pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code §67-6526, the Mayor and Council of the City of Meridian hereby request that the Ada County Commissioners negotiate an Area of Planning City Impact Agreement in order to reflect Ada County's recognition of the City's 660 E. Watertower Lane suite 202 Impact Fee Ordinance as part of the Ada County Code. 884-5533/fax 888-6854 Police On September 5, 2006, the City of Meridian adopted Ordinance 06-1255, amending the 1401 E. Watertower Lane City's Impact Fee Ordinance(Meridian City Code Chapter 7, Title 10), following the 888-6678 /fax 846-7366 notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §67-8206. The Ordinance Public Works represents a total overhaul of the City's impact fee program to assure full compliance 660 E. Watertower Lane ~~ the requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act. In addition to revising the park suite zoo impact fee, the Ordinance adds new impact fees for fire and police capital 898-5500/fax 898-9551 improvements. - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 County recognition of the City's amended Impact Fee Ordinance is necessary to ensure 887-2211 /fax 887-1297 the City implements adopted plans for meeting the park, police and fire needs of Area - Wastewater of City Impact residents and ensures that new growth will pay its fair share for needed 3401 N. Ten Mile Road facilities. 888-2191 /fax 884-0744 - water Pursuant to the requirements of Idaho Code §67-6526 (d), the City of Meridian asks 2235 N.W. 8th Street that negotiations germane to this request commence within thirty (30) calendar days of 888-5242 /fax 884-1159 the date of this letter. CITY I-IALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled patxtr Ada County Board of County Commissioners October 5, 2006 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call Ted W. Baird, Deputy City Attorney at 898-5506. Sincerely, l Tammy Wee Mayor cc: Members of the Meridian City Council Doug Strong Impact Fee Advisory Committee Ted Argyle (w/enclosure) Ax Yewer (w/ enclosure) Mark Pecchenino (w/enclosure) Enclosures: Ordinance 06-1255 Ordinance Amendment Support Materials CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. Ot~ • ~ 2~ BY TILE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNT'REE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE 1VIiJNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, BY REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, AND BY ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS T$E MERIDIAN YIVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE Il1~POSITION, COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT OF A POLICE IMPACT FEE, A FIRE IlVIPACT FEE, AND A PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING AUTHORITY, INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLIS$MENT OF SEPARATE IlVIPACT FEE FUNDS FOR EACH OF SUCH IlMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS, REFUNDS, CREDITS AND WAIVERS RESPECTING SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, APPLICABILITY AND APPEALS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABII.TTY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City")may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Pazks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Research and Consulting, Galena Consulting and Spink Butler, LLP (collectively, "Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections for the period 2006 to 2026 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, dated August 28 , 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; detern~5nes the costs necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees asset forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the Ciry standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 1 of 23 WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses fox determi~aing the impacts of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, including review and reliance on that certain City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, July 2002 (Resolution 02-382), as amended by Resolution Nos.: 03- 401 and 03-409 (Parks and Recreation System Plan-Action Plan); 04-454; and 06-505 (North Meridian Area) and that certain amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City on ~'c~ f~~+ b~er ,~' , 2006 (Resolution No. 06 - ,~Z 8 ) (collectively, the "Comprehensive Plan"), the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Ymprovements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS, in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans prepared by Consultant and adopted by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for additional police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts vn such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the reasonable impacts of new growth and development on existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements, and the reasonable costs of Capital Improvements necessary to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to accommodate the additional demands and impacts of new growth and development; and WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 2 of 23 the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Capital Improvements Plans have been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and in accordance with the procedural. requirements of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans have been presented to and reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss, review and heaz public comments on the proposed Impact Fees set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and pazks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council. The existing Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby repealed and a new Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the Ciry Code is hereby adopted as follows: IlMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 3 of 23 TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SECTION 10-07-OI Legislative Findings 10-07-02 Authority, Applicability, and Effective Date 10-07-03 Intent 10-07-04 Definitions 10-07-OS Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees 10-07-06 Payment of Impact Fees 10-07-07 Impact Fee Fund; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid 10-07-08 Exemptions From Impact Fees 10-07-09 Credits; Reimbursements 10-07-10 Appeals 10-07-11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee 10-07-12 Miscellaneous Provisions 10-07-01-Legislative Findings The City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho finds that: (a) Based on the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City pursuant to• Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including but not limited to the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general governmental goal of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and its area of City impact, it is necessary that the City's Public Facilities for: (1) park and recreation Public Facilities; and (2) public safety Public Facilities for law enforcement and fire to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and its area of City impact. (b) New residential and nonresidential growth and development imposes and will impose increasing and demands upon the Public Facilities. (c) The revenues generated from new residential and nonresidential growth and development often do not generate sufficient general funds to provide the necessary improvements of these Public Facilities to accommodate new gmwth and development. (d) New growth and development are expected to continue, and will place ever- increasing demands on the City to provide and expand the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. (e) The City has planned for the improvement of the Public Facilities in the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. (f) The creation of an equitable Impact Fee system would enable the City to impose a Proportionate Share of the costs of needed improvements to the Public Facilities to IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 4 of 23 accommodate new growth and development, and would assist the Ciry in implementing the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (g) In order to imple"meat an equitable Impact Fee system for the Public Facilities, the City retained BBC Research & Consulting to prepare an Impact Fee Study for these types of facilities. The resulting document titled "The City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated August ~, 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), recommended for approval by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, is on file in the office of the city clerk of the City of Meridian. (h) The Impact Fee Study is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and uses the Levels of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for these Public Facilities. (i) The Impact Fee Study sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of new growth and development on the Public Facilities, and determines the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such Public Facilities created by new growth and development. (j) The Impact Fee Study uses a calculation methodology in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be generated by new growth and development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be available to pay for System Improvements, including taxes, assessments, user fees, and intergovernmental transfers, and included consideration of the following factors: 1. The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; 2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; 4. The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; 5. The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; 6. Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; AViPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 5 of 23 7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of linpact Fees paid at different times; and 8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (k) The maximum allowable Impact Fees described in this Ordinance are based on the Impact Fee Study, and do not exceed the costs of System Improvements for the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development that will pay the Impact Fees. (1) The police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities included in the calculation of Impact Fees in the Impact Fee Study will benefit all new growth and development throughout the City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City and the area of city impact as a single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting and spending the Impact Fees collected. (m) There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of development covered by this Ordinance and the Impact Fees that such development will be required to pay. (n) This Ordinance creates a system by which Impact Fees paid by new growth and development will be used to finance, defray or to provide Capital Improvements for the Public Facilities in ways that benefit the development for which Impact Fees were paid. (o) This Ordinance creates a system under which Impact Fees shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies in Public Facilities, or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to pay for routine operation or maintenance of those Public Facilities. (p) This Ordinance is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, concerning Impact Fee Ordinances. 10-07-02 - AuthoritK Applicability, and Effective Date (a) This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Title 50, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the authority granted to the Cityby Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (b) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the City and to any unincorporated areas of the City within the City's area of city impact where the City has executed an intergovernmental agreement with Ada County for purposes of collection or expenditure of Impact Fees pursuant to Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code, and other applicable laws of the State of Idaho. (c) This Ordinance is effective ~$Ce~n6-Cis- r , 2006 (the "Effective Date"), which Effective Date is at least thirty (30) days subsequent to the passage, approval and IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 6 of 23 publication, according to law, of Ordinance No. ~~~" ~Z SS ,which adopted the provisions hereof. (d) Applications for Building Permits received by the City prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendments hereto, adopting Impact Fees or amending or adopting any methodology by which Impact Fees are calculated, will be exempt from that portion of this Ordinance, or amendment enacted after such Building Permit application, if a valid Building Permit has been issued or construcrion has coznnnenced prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendment. For Building Permits that expire or are revoked after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the Feepayor shall be entitled to a refund ofpreviouslypaid Impact Fees as provided further in Section 10-07-07, Meridian Code, provided that in the case of reapplication for Building Permit, the Impact Fee in effect at that time shall be paid. (e) Notwithstandingnny other provision of law, Development Requirements for System Improvements shall be imposed by the City only by way of Impact Fees imposed pursuant to and in accordance with Section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, and this Ordinance. 10-07-0 -Intent (a) The intent of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City and its area of city impact. (b) The intent of this Ordinance is to be consistent with those principles for allocating a fair share of the cost of Capital Improvements to Public Facilities to serve new growth and development in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be interpreted, construed and enforcal in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (c) The intent of this Ordinance is that Impact Fees should be charged, collected, and expended for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of such categories of Public Facilities, which Capital Improvements are included in approved Capital Improvements Plans that list the Capital Improvements that maybe funded with Impact Fees. (d) The intent of this Ordinance is to ensure that: Public Facilities are available to serve new growth and development; new growth and development bears a Proportionate Share of the cost of police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities; to ensure that such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of the Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities required to serve new growth and development; and to ensure that the funds collected from new growth and development are used far Capital Improvements for Public Facilities that benefit new growth and development. (e) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to collect any monies from new growth and development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for Capital Improvements to Public Facilities created by such new growth and development. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 7 of 23 (fl It is not the intent of this Ordinance that the Impact Fees be used to remedy any deficiency in police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements existing on the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or ever be used to replace, rehabilitate, maintain and/or operate any Public Facilities. (g) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that any monies collected from an Impact Fee deposited in an Impact Fee fund ever be commingled with monies from a different fund, or ever be used for Capital Improvements that are different from those for which the Impact Fee was paid. (h) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that Impact Fees be used for: (1) Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (2) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements. (3) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, envirorunental or regulatory standards. (~4) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development to provide better service to existing Development. (5) Administrative and operating costs of the City unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans used to determine Impact Fees by a surcharge imposed by ordinance on the collection of an Impact Fee, which surcharge shall not exceed a Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plans. (6) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-04 -Definitions (a) "Affordable Housing" means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Service Area. (b) "Building Permit" means an official document or certificate by that name issued by the City authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (c) "Capital Improvements" means improvements with a useful life often (10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a Public Facility. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 8 of 23 (d) "Capital Improvements Element" means a component of a comprehensive plan. (e) "Capital Improvements Plan" means a plan adopted pursuant to this Chapter that identifies Capital Improvements for which Impact Fees may be used as a funding source. (:~ "City" means the City of Meridian, Idaho. (g) "City Council" means the legislative body of the City of Meridian, Idaho. (b) "Developer" means any person or legal entity undertaking development, including a party that undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to Sections 50-1301 through 50- 1334, Idaho Code and 11-6, Meridian Code. (i) "Development" means any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. (j) "Development Approval" means any written authorization from a Governmental Entity which authorizes the commencement of a Development. (k) "Development Requirement" means a requirement attached to a Development Approval or other governmental action approving or authorizing a particular Development including, without limitation, a rezoning, which Development Requirement compels the payment, dedication or contribution of goods, services, land and/or money as a condition of approval. (i) "Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling Unit includes a Multifamily building, a mobile home, a Manufactiued I-Iome, a Modular Building and/or a motel/hotellrooming house. (m) "Extraordinary Costs" means those costs incurred as a result of Extraordinary Impact: (n} "Extraordinary Impact" means an impact which is reasonably determined by the City to: result in the need for police, fire, and parks and/or recreation System Improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the Impact Fees to be generated from the Project; yr result in the need for police, fixe, parks and recreation System Improvements that are not identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (o) "Fee Administrator" means the official appointed by the Mayor with the City Council approval to administer this Chapter. (p) "Feepayor" means a person who pays yr is required to pay an Impact Fee or the Feepayor's Successor in Interest. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 9 of 23 (c0 "Governmental Entity" means any unit of local government that is empowered by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, to adopt an Impact Fee ordinance. (r) "Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed as a condition of Development Approval. to pay far a Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements needed to serve Development. The term does not include a charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review or inspection costs associated with permits required for Development. (s) "Impact Fee Study" means the document entitled the "City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July 3, 2006, prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the City. (t) "Land Use Assumptions" means a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area ever at least a twenty (20) year period. (u) "Level of Service" means a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for Public Facilities. (v) "Manufactured Home" means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling made, is eight (8) feet or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or mare in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq. (w) "Modular Building" means any building or building component, other than a Manufactured Home, which is constructed according to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. (x) "Multifamily" means a building or portion thereof, containing two (2) or more Dwelling Units, excluding attached single-family townhouse units located on individual lots. (y) "Owner" means the person holding legal title to real properly, including the local, state or federal government or any subdivision thereof. IlVIPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 10 of 23 (z) "Person" means an individual, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, estate, partnership, association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other entity. (aa) "Present Value" means the total current monetary value of past, present or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money. (bb) "Project" means a particular Development on an identified parcel of land. (cc) "Project Improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the Project. (dd) "Proportionate Share" means that portion of the cost of System Improvements determined pursuant to Section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and Section 10-07-05, Meridian Code, which reasonably relates to the service demands for Public Facilities of a Project. (ee) "Public Facility(ies)" means: (1) parks open space and recreation areas, and related Capital Improvements; and (2) public safety facilities, including law enforcement and fire facilities. (~ "S ervice Area" means the territory within the limits of the City and the City's area of city impact. (gg) "Successor in Interest" means a Person who gains legal title in real property for which an Impact Fee is paid or a credit is approved pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance. (hh) "System Improvements," in contrast to Project Improvements, means Capital Improvements to Public Facilities that are designed to provide service to a Service Area including, without limitation, the type of improvements the City has the authority to make as described in Section 50-1703, Idaho Code. (ii) "System improvement costs" means costs incurred for construction or reconsh action of system improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in Section 50-1702(h), Idaho Code, to provide additional public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. For clarification, system improvement costs do not include: (i) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities other than capital improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans; (ii) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements; (iii) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 11 of 23 (iv) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to provide better service to existing development; (v) Administrative and operating costs of the governmental entity unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans, as provided in Section 67-8208, Idaho Code; or (vi) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the governmental entity to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-OS - Imvosition and Comuutation of Impact Fees (a) Any application for a Building Permit enabling the construction, and in the case of construction that does not require a Building Permit, anybuilding that takes place on or after the Effective Date of this Chapter shall be subject to the imposition of Impact Fees in the manner and amount set forth in this Chapter. The methodology adapted for the purpose of determining police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees shall be based upon the assumptions set forth in the Impact Fee Study. (b) Impact Fees shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential and nonresidential Development in the Service Area for which a Building Permit is required and shall be payable prior to the issuance of any Building Permit (or installation permit in the case of a Manufactured Home) fvr a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential building. Except as otherwise provided herein, after the Effective Date of this Chapter, no Building Permit shall be issued until the Impact Fees described in this Chapter have been paid, unless the Development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Section 10-07-08 or approved credits are used to cover the Impact Fee, as set forth in Section 10-07-09. The Fee Administrator shall have the authority to withhold a Building Permit or stop construction, as the case maybe, until the appropriate Impact Fee has been collected. (c) A Feepayor required by this Chapter to pay an Impact Fee may choose to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to either the Fee Schedule or subsections (d) through (f) below. If the Feepayor chooses to have the amount of such Impact .Fee determined pursuant to subsections (d) through (f) below, such Impact Fee shall be subject to the adjustment described in Section 10-07-09, if applicable. Ifthe Project is a mix ofthose uses listed on the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fees shall be determined by adding up the Impact Fees that would be payable for each use as if it were a freestanding use pursuant to the Fee Schedule. (d) Individual assessment of Impact Fees is permitted in situations where the Feepayor can demonstrate by cleaz and convincing evidence that the established Impact Fee is inappropriate for the Proj ect. Written application for individual assessment shall be made to the Fee Administrator at anytime prior to receiving Building Pemut(s). Late applications for individual assessment of Impact Fees may be considered far a period of sixty (60) days after IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Fage 12 of 23 the receipt of a Building Permit only if the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable prior to receipt of a Building Pernut and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. Such independent Impact Fee calculation study for the Feepayor's Development shall be prepared at the Feepayor's cost by a qualified professional and contain studies, data and other relevant information and be submitted to the Fee Administrator for review. Any such study shall be based on the same methodology and the same Level of Service standards, improvements and costs used in the Impact Fee Study, and must document the methodologies and assumptions used. The City may hire a professional consultant to review any independent Impact Fee calculation study on behalf of the City, and may charge the reasonable costs of such review to the Feepayor. (e) Any independent Impact Fee calculation study submitted by a Feepayor may be accepted, rejected or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating Impact Fees. The City shall not be required to accept any study or documentation the City reasonably deems to be inaccurate or unreliable, and shall have the authority to request that the Feepayor submit additional or different documentation for consideration in connection with review of any independent Impact Fee calculation. If such additional or different documentation is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the Impact Fees due in connection with Feepayor's proposed Development than the applicable Impact Fees set forth in subsection the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fee due under this Chapter shall be calculated according to such documentation. (~ The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision establishing the Impact Fees in connection with the individual assessment within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The decision shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fees, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fees are intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the following factors considered: (1) The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; (2) The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; (3) The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contn`butions; (4) The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; (5) The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; IlVIl'ACT FEE AMENDIVIENT ORDINANCE Page 13 of 23 (8) Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; (7) The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and (8) The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (g) Certification of the Impact Fee for a Project may be applied for in the following manner: (1) Written application may be made to the Fee Administrator not later than sixty (60) days after Development Approval by the City Council. Late applications for certification of the Impact Fee will not be considered unless the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable until after the time had run and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. (2) The Fee Administrator shall provide the Feepayor with a written Impact Fee certification for the Proj ect within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The certification provided by the Fee Administrator shall establish the Impact Fee for the Project in question, so long as there is no material change to the Project as identified in the certification application or the Impact Fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of factors considered, and shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fee, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the factors considered, which factors are identified in subsection (f) above. (h) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of an individual assessment or certification shall be made to the City as provided further in this Chapter. (i) The City recognizes that there maybe circumstances where the anticipated fiscal impacts of a proposed Development are of such magnitude that the City may be unable to accommodate the Development without excessive or unscheduled public expenditures that exceed the amount of the anticipated Impact Fees from such Development. If the City determines that a proposed Development would create such an Extraordinary Impact on the City's police, fire, and/or parks and recreation Fublic Facilities, the City may refuse to approve the proposed Development. In the alternative, the City may calculate a pro rata share per Dwelling Unit, or square feet of nonresidential buildings, of the Extraordinary Impact and charge a reasonable Extraordinary Impact Fee that is greater than would ordinarily be charged. IlVIPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 14 of 23 ~) If the City discovers an error in its Impact Fee formula that results in assessment or payment of more than a Proportionate Share, City shall, at the time of assessment on a case by case basis, adjust the Impact Fee to collect no more than a Proportionate Share or discontinue the collection of any Impact Fees until the error is corrected by ordinance. 10-07-06 - Payment of Impact Fees (a) After the Effective Date of this Chapter all Feepayors shall pay the Impact Fees as provided by this Chapter to the Fee Administrator following application for a Building Permit and prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for a Dwelling Unit, or nonresidential building. (b) All Impact Fees paid by a Feepayor pursuant to this Chapter shall be promptly deposited in the Impact Fee Fund described in Section 10-07-07. 10-07-07 - Irnuacf Few Funds: Refunds of Impact Fees Paid (a) There is hereby establishal a police Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all police Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring police Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of police Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (b) There is hereby established a fire Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all fire Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring fire Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of fire Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (c) There is hereby established a parks and recreation Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all parks and recreation Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring parks and recreation Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of parks and recreation Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (d) Each fund shall be an interest-bearing account which shall be accounted for separately from other Impact Fee funds and from other City funds. Any interest or other income earned on monies deposited in a fund shall be credited to such fund. Expenditures of Impact Fees shall be made only for the category of System Improvements for which the Impact Fees were collected and as identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (e) Except as otherwise provided herein, monies from each fund, including any accrued interest, shall be limited to the financing of acquisition, expansion, and/or improvement of Capital Improvements, or for principal and interest payments on bonds or other borrowed revenues used to acquire, expand or improve such Capital Improvements, necessaryto serve new growth and development. Impact Fees in each fund shall be spent within eight (8) years from the date such Impact Fees were collected on a first-in/first-out (FIFO) basis. The City IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 15 of 23 may hold the Impact Fees longer than the prescribed time period if the City identifies, in writing: (1) a reasonable cause why the Impact Fees should be held longer; and (2) an anticipated date by which the Impact Fees will be expended but in no event longer than eleven (11) years from the date the Impact Fees were collected. (fl The Fee Administrator shall prepare quarterly and annual reports to be provided to the Advisory Committee and the City Council, which reports shall: (1) Describe the amount of all Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility; and (2) Describe the percentage of tax and revenues other than Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility, (g) Funds shall be deemed expended when payment of such funds has been approved by the City. The Feepayor or Successor in Interest shall be entitled to a refund of the Impact Fee if (1) service is available but never provided; (2) a Building Permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is revoked or abandoned; (3) the City, after collecting the Impact Fee when service is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected Impact Fees; or (4) the Feepayor pays an Impact Fee under protest and a subsequent review of the Impact Fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the Impact Fee paid exceeded the Proportionate Share to which the City was entitled to receive. (h) When the right to a refund exists, within ninety (90) days after the City determines that a refund is due, the City shall provide written notice of entitlement to a refund, to the Owner of record and the Feepayor who paid the Impact Fees at the address shown on the application for Development Approval, or to a Successor in Interest who has notified the City of a transfer of the right or entitlement to a refund and who has provided to the City a mailing address. When the right to a refund exists, the City shall also publish the notice of entitlement to a refund within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the eight (8) year period after the date that the Impact Fees were collected. Such published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Impact Fee Refund." (i) A refund shall include interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate provided for in Section 28-22-104, Idaho Code, from the date on which the Impact Fee was originally paid. ~) In order to be eligible for a refund, a Feepayor, Successor in Interest or Owner of record shall file a written application for a refund with the Fee Administrator within six (6) months of the time such refund becomes payable under subsection (e) above, or within six (6) months of publication of the notice of entitlement to a refund, whichever is later. If a Successar in Interest claims a refund of Impact Fees, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been transferred to the claimant prior to issuing the requested refund. Refunds shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the date on which the Fee Administrator determines that a sufficient proof of claim for a refund has been made. IlVIPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 16 of 23 (k) Any person entitled to a refund shall have standing to sue for a refund under the provisions of this Chapter if there has not been a timely payment of a refund as provided herein. 10-07-08 -Exemptions from Impact Fees (a} The following types of land Development shall be exempted from payment of the Impact Fees imposed by this Chapter: (1) Rebuilding or replacing a Dwelling Unit or the same amount of square feet of a nonresidential structure on the same lot and existing on the Effective Date of this Chapter provided that the rebuilt or replaced Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure does not increase the need for police, fire, and parks and recreatlon Public Facilities. If such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure was destroyed, such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure must be rebuilt or replaced and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of destruction. (2) Construction of an unoccupied, detached accessory structure, or addition of uses related to a Dwelling Unit unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements. (3) Remodeling or repairing a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential structure in a manner that does not increase the need for police or fire or parks and recreation Public Facilities. (4) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot. (b) An Impact Fee will be assessed for installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home unless the Feepayor can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (1) that a Modular Building or Manufactured Home was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter; or (2) that an Impact Fee has been paid previously for the installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home on that same lot or space. (c) Developments determined by the City Council that provide Affordable Housing may be exempt from the Impact Fee requirement, provided that the exempt Development's Proportionate Share of System Improvements is funded through a revenue source other than Impact Fees. (1) Current housing affordability guidelines published bythe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") shall be used to deterurine whether Dwelling Units in the Development qualify as Affordable Housing. IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 17 of 23 (2) Affordable Housing Projects are required to demonstrate that they will provide Dwelling Units to eligible families based on HUD income and family size guidelines. (3) Providers of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units must demonstrate a long- term commitment to provide Affordable Housing for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. (d) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination shall be made as provided fiuther in this Chapter. 10-0?-09 -Credits: Reimbursements (a) No Feepayor shall be required to construct, fund or contribute any Capital Improvement to meet the same need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed. All System Improvements constructed, funded or contributed for police, fire, and pazks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed, over and above those required by the City in connection with new development, shall result in either a credit on future Impact Fees or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) for such excess to be paid by future Development that benefits from such System Improvements. However, no credit or reimbursement shall be provided for: (1) Project Improvements; (2) any construction, funding or contribution not agreed to in writing by the City prior to commencement of such construction, funding or contribution; and (3) any construction, funding or contribution of a type of Capital Improvements not included in the calculation of the applicable Impact Fee. (b) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project pursuant to Section 10-07-OS (d) through (f), credit shall be given for the Present Value of all tax and user fee revenue generated by the Feepayor within the Service Area and used by the City for System .Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected. If the amount of such credit exceeds the Impact Fee for a Proj ect, the Feepayor shall receive a credit on future Impact Fees. (c) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project, credit or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) shall be given for the Present Value of any construction of System Improvements or con~iburion of land or money required by the City from the Feepayor for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected, including System Improvements paid for through local improvement district assessments. (d) If credit or reimbursement is due to the Feepayor, the City and Feepayor shall enter into a written agreement, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction, funding or contribution. The written agreement shall include, without limitation: a description of the construction, funding or contribution of System Improvements including, in the case of real property, a legal description of the real property; description as to how the System Improvements are to be valued; the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of IlVIPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page l 8 of 23 reimbursement; instructions as to how the Capital Improvements should be provided to the City to ensure full transfer of ownership; and the circumstances under which the credit or reimbursement is deemed effective. To assist in such reimbursement, the City shall continue to collect Impact Fees from other Developers whose proposed Developments will benefit from such construction, funding or contribution, and will promptly transfer such funds to the Feepayor. If a Successor in Interest claims a reimbursement or credit, the Fee Adrninistrator may require written documentation that such rights have been conveyed to the claimant prior to issuing the requested reimbursement or credit. (e) Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of Impact Fees of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected in connection with any new growth and development until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use approved credits is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the applicable Impact Fee otherwise due from the Feepayor and shall note in the City records the amount of credit remaining, if any. Upon request of the Feepayor, the City shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. If the credit has not been exhausted within eight (8) years of the date of issuance of the first Building Pemut for which an Impact Fee was due and payable, or within such other time period as may be designated in writing by the City, such credit shall lapse, unless a refund of the remaining credit is applied for as set forth in Section 10-07-07(j) above. (fl Approved credits or reimbursement shall only be used to reduce the amount of the Impact Fee of the category for which the Impact Fee is otherwise due, and shall not be paid to the Feepayor in cash or in credits against any other monies due from the Feepayor to the City. (g) Credit for land dedications shall, at the Feepayor's option, be valued at: (1) one hundred (100) percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as sho~vcm in the records of the Ada County Assessor; or (2) that fair market value established by an MAI appraiser reasonably acceptable to the Gity in an appraisal paid for by the Feepayor. Credit for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the City based on complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates submittal by the Feepayor to the City, which estimates shall be revised as actual costs become available. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if the City determines that such information is inaccurate orunreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs reasonably acceptable to the City as a more accurate measure of the value of the oi~ered System Improvements to the City. (h) Approved credits for land dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form reasonably acceptable to the City at no cost to the City, and has been accepted by the City. Approved credits for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall generally become effective when: (1) all required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and (2) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Gity. Approved credits for the construction of System 1MPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 19 of 23 Improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the Feepayor posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit or escrow agreement in the amount and under terms reasonably acceptable to the City. (i) Credit may only be transferred by a Feepayor that has received credit to such Feepayor's Successor in Interest. The credit may be used only to offset Impact Fees for the same category for which the credit was issued. Credits shall be transferred by any written instrument clearly identifying which credits are being transferred, the dollar amount of the credit being transferred, and the System Improvements for which the credit was issued. The instrument of transfer shall be signed by both the transferor and transferee, and a copy of the document shall be delivered to the Fee Administrator for documentation of the transfer before the transfer shall be deemed effective. 10-07-10 - A peals The decisions of the Fee Administrator may be appealed as provided below: (a) Any Feepayor who is or may be obligated to pay an Impact Fee, may appeal a decision made by the Fee Administrator in applying this Ordinance to the City Council's designee. Such decisions that may be appealed include: (1) The applicability of an Impact Fee to the Development. (2) The amount of an Impact Fee to be paid for the Development. (3) The availability, amount or application of any credit. (4) The amount of any refund, reimbursement or credit. A Feepayor may pay an Impact Fee under protest in order to obtain a Development Approval or Building Permit(s) and, by paying such Impact Fee, shall not be estopped from exercising the right of appeal provided herein, nor shall the Feepayor be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deems to have been illegally collected. Upon final disposition of an appeal, the Impact Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with the. decision rendered and, if necessary, a refund paid. (b) In order to pursue an appeal, the Feepayor shall file a written notice of appeal with the City Council's designee within fifteen (1 S) days after the date of the decision being appealed, or the date on which the Feepayor submitted a payment of Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such written application shall include a statement describing why the appellant believes that the decision was in error, together with copies of any documents that the appellant believes supports the claim. (c) The City Council's designee shall notify the Feepayor of the hearing date on the appeal, which notice shall be given no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall hear the appeal within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written notice of IlVIPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 20 of 23 appeal. The appellant shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The Fee Administrator who made the decision under appeal shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of the decision. The burden ofproof in any such hearing shall be on the Feepayor to demonstrate that the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, reimbursement or refund was not properly calculated by the City. (d) The criteria to be used by the City Council's designee shall be whether: (1) the decision or interpretation made by the Fee Administrator; or (2) the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the appellant, more accurately reflects the intent of this Ordinance that new growth and development in the City pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements for Public Facilities necessary to serve new development. The City Council's designee may affirm, reject or revise the decision of the Fee Administrator, providing written findings of fact and conclusions, within fifteen (15) days after hearing the appeal. The City Council's designee shall modify the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, refund or reimbursement only if there is substantial evidence in the record that the Fee Administrator erred, based upon the methodologies contained in the Impact Fee Study, this Ordinance and/or the Capital Improvements Plans. The decision of the City Council's designee shall be final. (e) A Feepayor may request that the City enter into mediation by a qualified independent parry to address a disagreement related to the Impact Fee for new growth and development. If both parties agree to mediation, costs for the independent mediation service shall be shared equally by the Feepayor and the City. Mediation may take place at any time during an appeals process and any tune limitation relevant to an appeal shall be tolled. 10-07-11 -Impact Fee Advisory Committee The City has established an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall continue to be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Two (2) or more members of the Advisory Committee shall be active in the business of development, building or real estate, and two (2) members shall be appointed to the Advisory Committee who are not employees or officials of the City. The Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council and is established to: (1) Assist the City in adopting Land Use Assumptions; (2) Review the Capital Improvements Plans, and proposed amendments, and file written comments; (3) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plans; (4} File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the Capital Improvements Plans and report to the City any perceived inequities in,implementing the Capital Improvements Plans or imposing the Impact Fees; and IIVIPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 21 of 23 (5) Advise the City of the need to update or revise Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements plans and Impact Fees. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee, upon request, all financial and accounting information, professional reports in relation to other development and implementation of Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plans and periodic updates of the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-12 -Miscellaneous Provisions (a) As used in this Chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates; the word shall, will or must is always mandatory; the word may is permissive; and the word should indicates that which is recommended, but not required. (b) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any Development for which a lawful Building Pernut was issued prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance. (c) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a Developer to construct reasonable Project Improvements in conjunction with a Project. (d) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the ability of the Gity to enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided in Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code. (e) The Impact Fees described in this Chapter, and the administrative procedures of this Chapter shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years to ensure that: (1) the demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such Impact Fees are still valid; (2) the resulting Impact Fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire, and/or parks and recreation System Improvements required to serve new growth and development; (3) the monies collected in any Impact Fee fund have been and are expected to be spent for System Improvements of the type for which such Impact Fees were paid; and (4) such System Improvements will benefit those Developments for which the Impact Fees were paid. (~ Violation of this Chapter shall be subj ect to those remedies provided in the Meridian City Code. Knowingly fiarnishing false information to any oi~icial of the City charged with the administration of this Chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this Chapter including, without limitation, the famishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed Development, shall be a violation of this Chapter. ($) 'The captions used in this Chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this Chapter. IlVIPACT FEE AMENDMENT' ORDINANCE Page 22 of 23 (h) If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this tdinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho Impact Fee Act, Sections 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions shall be deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect. (i) This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days subsequent to this Ordinance's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon Title 10, Chapter 7, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be repealed. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this S'~ day of ,a ~h~. ~ , 2006. APPROVED" by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ~~ da of ~Pi~J~fi/~iv~-ritJ y 2006. APPROVED: MAYOR ~ de WEERD \``,\\~\~~~~~u n i i n~rn,~~~~'f'~ ~ ~ ATTEST: .~` '~ '% ? ~pc~,~ , .~ ~ ~" T ': fi WILLIAM G. BERG, ., CITY CL~ ~' ~~ i ~ 1 ,~~ ~ IMPACT FEE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Page 23 of 23 Final Report August 28, 2006 City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans Prepared for City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Prepared by BBC Research St Consulting Tom Pippin and Laura Doze 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850 Denver, CO 80209-3827 In Associatlon with Spink Butler, LLP JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan 251 E. Front Street, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83702 Gatena Consulting Anne Wescott 1214 South Johnson Street Boise, ID 83705 1 1 ~ZFsST;A)~CH SL CANSL7LTIlvG i ;~ ALENA C~ LTING Table of Contents Report Background and Objectives ............................................................................................................ l Definition of Impact Fees ................................................................................................................2 Land Use and Demographics ..........................................................................................................6 Residential Data ................................... . 6 .. ...................................................................................... .. Nonresidential Data ...................................................................................................................... ..9 Impact Fee Calculation Considerations ... . 10 . .................................................................................... Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans ........................................................................... 10 Mechanics of Fee Calculations ...................................................................................................... 19 City Participation ......................................... 23 ................................................................................. Cash Flow Analysis ............................... 26 ........................................................................................ Other Funding Sources ................................................................................................................. 27 Implementation Recommendations ....... 28 ....................................................................................... Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 30 Dist of Exhibits Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian ..................................8 Exhibit 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development .................................................... .10 Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 .............................................................. .13 Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 .............................................................. .14 Exhibit 5. Current Fire Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ...................................................................15 Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ..................................................................16 Exhibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, City of Meridian, 2006 ........................................17 Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006-2016 ........................................ 18 Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 .................................................................................. 19 Exhibit 10. Police Impact Fee Calculation ................................................. 20 .................................... Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation ........................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 12. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation .............................................................. 22 Exhibit 13. City Participation -Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 .......................... 23 Exhibit 14. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan .................................. 24 Exhibit 15. City Participation -Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 .............................. 24 Exhibit 16. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan ..................................... 25 Exhibit 17. City Participation -Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................................... 25 Exhibit 18. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation CIP, 2006 to 2016 ....................... 26 Exhibit 19. Projected Cash Flows -CIP Methodology ................................................................... 26 Exhibit 20. Summary of Impact Fees ............................................................................................ 30 Exhibit 21. City Participation Summary, 2006 to 2016 ................................................................. 31 BBC RESEARCH SZ CONSULTING FINAL REPORT- I Ta61e of Contents Attachments: Appendix A-Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances Appendix B -Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Appendix C -Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist Appendix D -Current Service Standard Approach Appendix E -Detailed Demographic Analysis Appendix F -Communities in Motion Appendix G -Collier's Year-End Real Estate Market Review Appendix H -Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement Plans BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT- II This report regarding impact fees for the City of Meridian (Meridian or City) is organized into the following sections: ^ An overview of the report's background and objectives; ^ A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; ^ An overview of land use and demographics; ^ A step-by-step calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach; ^ A calculation of the City's monetary participation in those capital improvements defined as requiring repair, replacement or an upgrade, and the City's pro rata share of partially growth-related capital improvements; ^ A cash flow analysis; ^ A list of implementation recommendations; and ^ A brief summary of conclusions. Each section follows sequentially. We have also attached several appendices with supporting documentation: Appendix A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances; Appendix B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist; Appendix D. Current Service Standard Approach; Appendix E. Detailed Demographic Analysis; Appendix F. Cor~tmunities in Motion report; Appendix G. Colliers' Year-End Real Estate Market Review; and Appendix H. Meridian FY 2005 CIP. Background and Objectives The City of Meridian (City) hired BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) in April 2006 to calculate impact fees for police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. BBC was assisted by two Idaho-based subcontractors: JoAnn Butler and Sharon Gallivan of Spink Butler, LLP and Anne Wescott of Galena Consulting. Spink Butler interpreted the requirements of the Idaho Code, updated the City's impact fee ordinance and assisted in all phases of the project. Ms. Wescott inventoried Meridian's current police, fire, and parks and recreation assets; established capital improvement replacement costs; helped the City refine their Capital Improvement Plans; and assisted in all phases of the project. This document presents the maximum allowable fees based on the City's demographic data and infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the City's monetary participation; examines the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount; and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 1 Definition of Impact Fees Impact fees are generally defined as one-time assessments used to recover the capital costs borne by local governments due to new growth and development. Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act), attached as Appendix A, which specifically gives cities, towns and counties the authority to levy impact fees. The Idaho Code defines an impact fee as "... a payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development."' Purpose of impact fees. The Impact Fee Act repeats the legislative finding that "... an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfaze of the citizens of the state of Idaho."Z Idaho fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law.3 Some of those restrictions include: ^ Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth;4 ^ Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 8-yeaz time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable cause;5 ^ Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development;G ^ Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund.' ~ See Section 67-8203(9), Idaho Code. "System improvements° aze capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a useful life of 10 yeazs or mote) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities include: parks, open space and recreation azeas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law enforcement, fire, emergenry medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (28), Idaho Code. See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code. s As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a defensible impact fee. To meet substantive due process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of "rough proportionality." Adequate consideration of the factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2) ensure that tough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Develapmesat Corp. v. South jorclata, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollars a City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374 (1994). ° See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203(29), Idaho Code. ' See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. 6 See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code. See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH bT CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 2 In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following: ^ Establishment of and consultation with a development impact fee advisory committee (Advisory Committee);s ^ Identification of all existing public facilities; ^ Determination of a standardized measure (or service unit) of consumption of public facilities; ^ Identification of the current level of service that existing public facilities provide; ^ Identification of the deficiencies in the existing public facilities; ^ Forecast of residential and nonresidential growth;9 ^ Identification of the growth-related portion of City Capital Improvement Plans;10 ^ Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement funding sources;" ^ Implementation of recommendations such as impact fee credits, how impact fee revenues should be accounted for, and how the impact fees should be updated over iz time; ^ Preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same;13 and ^ Preparation and adoption of an ordinance authorizing impact fees pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same.14 The proposed update to the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance, which is the ordinance that will amend the City's municipal code, is attached as Appendix B. A checklist for ordinance requirements is found in Appendix C. How should fees be calculated? State law requires the City to implement the Capital Improvement Plan methodology to calculate impact fees. The City weld implement fees of any amount not exceeding the maximum fees calculated by the CIP approach. This methodology requires the Ciry to describe its service area, forecast the land uses, densities and population that will occur in that service area over the next 20 years, and identify the capital improvements that will be needed to e See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code. ' See Section 67-8206(2), Idaho Code. '° See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. "See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. 'Z See Sections 67-8209 and G7-8210, Idaho Code. " See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. 14 See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 3 serve the forecasted growth at the same level of service found in the existing community. 15 This list and cost of capital improvements, along with a time schedule for commencing and completing the construction of all capital improvements, constitutes the capital improvement element to be adopted as part of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan.'G Only those items listed on the CIP aze eligible to be funded by impact fees. Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements plan." To ensure that impact fees are adopted and spent for capital improvements in support of the community's needs and planning goals, the Impact Fee Act establishes a link between the authority to charge impact fees and certain planning requirements of Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The local government must have adopted a comprehensive plan per LLUPA procedures, and that comprehensive plan must be updated to include a current capital improvement element.1e This study considers the planned capital improvements for the period between 2006 and 2016 that will need to be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particulazly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a "proportionate share" of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. "Proportionate shaze" is defined as "...that portion of the cost of system improvements ...which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project.i19 Practically, this concept requires Meridian to carefully project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and defensible impact fee schedules. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees: are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital improvements by the development being chazged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such improvements; and are "earmarked" so as to benefit those that pay the impact fees. 15 As a compazison and benchmark for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC also calculated the City's current level of service by quantifying the City's current investment in capital improvements for each impact fee category, allocating a portion of these assets to residential and nonresidential development, and dividing the resulting amount by current housing units (residential fees) or current squaze footage (nonresidential fees). By using current assets to denote the current service standazd, this methodology guazds against using fees to correct ex'~r' ~ deficiencies. The calculation of the City's current level of service is found in Appendix D and this investment in capital improvements for police, fire, and pazks and recreation is referenced throughout this report. 16 See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code. "Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. See Appendix A for a description of the requirements of the Impact Fee Act for the capital improvements plan. 1 e See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Cade. 19 See Section 67-8203(23), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 4 There are vazious approaches to calculating impact fees and to crediting new development for past and future contributions made toward system improvements. The Impact Fee Act does not specify a single type of fee calculation, but it does specify that the formula be "reasonable and fair." Impact fees must take into account the following: ^ Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system improvements; ^ Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; ^ That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by Meridian to system improvements; and ^ All other available sources of funding such system improvementsZO Through data analysis and interviews with City staff, BBC and Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital asset needed to serve growth. The total projected capital improvements needed to serve growth are then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting amounts divided by growth projections from 2006 to 2016. This is consistent with the Impact Fee Act.21 However, only residential development is charged parks and recreation impact fees since households are the primary consumers of park services. Among the advantages of the CIP approach is its establishment of a spending planZZ to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: ^ The allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is "a standazd measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit's of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvement."24 The service units chosen by the study team aze all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential development square feet. w See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Z' The impact fee that can be charged to each service unit (in this study, residential dwelling units and nonresidential squaze feet) cannot exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements for system improvements attributable to new development to provide an adopted service level by the total number of service units attributable to new development. See Sections 67-8204(16), G7-8208(10 and 67-8208(1)(g~, Idaho Code. " An example of a spending plan, Meridian Pazks Capital Improvements Plan FY 2005, may be found in Appendix J. '~ See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. 24 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 5 ^ A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a "conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial.s25 In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data and, as a result in this study, impact fees aze allocated between aggregated residential (i.e., all forms of residential housing) and nonresidential development (a11 nonresidential uses including retail, office, agricultural and industrial). Land Use and Demographics In calculating the impact fees, it was necessary to allocaxe capital improvement costs to both residential and nonresidential development. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of projected new households and nonresidential square footage added from 2006 through 2016. Pursuant to Idaho State law, we gathered data on 20-yeaz land use assumptions in Meridian, including population, households and employment. See Appendix E for the 20-year forecasts to 2026. However, the impact fee calculations in this report aze based on the next 10 years of land use data to maintain consistenry with Meridian's CIP planning horizon. Residential data. The primary data sources for residential unit counts and squaze footage numbers are the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS); the City of Meridian; the U.S. Census Bureau; and the National Association of Homebuilders. Appendix E provides COMPASS' demographic spreadsheets and details any calculations performed by the study team to arrive at current or projected residential data. :s See Section 67-8208(1)(e), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 6 Current and future households. To estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from COMPASS' 2006 document entitled Community Choicer Forecast: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21/06. This document provides detailed data (from 2005 to 2030 in five year increments) on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub azeas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). However, data aze collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and COMPASS states that the demographic azea does not "match either city limits or azeas of impact boundazies„z6 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs are only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian's azea of impact contains many of the same TAZs that aze in COMPASS' Meridian demographic area. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the srudy team has chosen to use COMPASS' data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the azea of impact.Z' See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the derivation of the current and future household numbers and COMPASS' Community Choices Forecast spreadsheet. Single family/multifamily distribution. Communities in Motion was the basis for the allocation of future housing units between single family and multifamily units. Communities in Motion is the Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Treasure Valley to 2030. The Communities in Motion working group collaborated with COMPASS to estimate housing units by type in the Treasure Valley. This report forecasts that Treasure Valley will eventually be 55 percent single family and 45 percent multifamily housing units (see Appendix F). Afret discussing this land use allocation goal with Anna Canning and Steve Siddoway from the City's Planning Department, the study team concluded that this distribution would likely not be achieved within the time frame of the 10-year CIPs used in the impact fee calculations. Therefore, in the interim, we believe it is appropriate for the allocation of future housing units in Meridian to be based on trend data from the Communities in Motion report in Appendix F (72 percent single family and 28 percent multifamily). This housing type distinction is only necessary for calculating residential square footage, a precursor to fee calculations, as discussed below. The impact fees in this report are equivalent for single family and multifamily units. Current and future square footage. In order to distribute the costs for capital improvements to new residential and nonresidential development, a precursor to the calculation of impact fees, it was necessary to estimate the current and future total square footage of residential and nonresidential units in the City. 25 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts. ~~ Because the City anticipates negotiations with Ada County for an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for Ada Counry to collect impact fees within the azea of impact (A01) on behalf of Meridian. An example of an IGA for the wilection of pazk impact fees by Ada Counry for the benefit of Boise Ciry within Boise's AOI is found in Appendix F. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, pAGE 7 In addition, square feet data aze used to calculate the growth-related percentage of certain capital improvements that aze only partially necessitated by growth. The particular capital improvements referenced in this study that are only partially growth-related are the fire training tower, fire and police command vehicle, ladder fire truck and the firing range. The calculations of the growth-related percentage of these capital improvements is found on page 11. Based on national data, BBC used figures of 2,097 square feet for single family units and 1,063 square feet for multifamily units. These estimates reflect the average of national annual median square foot figures from 1999 to 2004 and represent the best available data. Exhibit 1 below presents the number of current (2006) and projected (2016) single family and multifamily units, and respective square footage estimates. Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Reside~ial Development, City of Meridian Total in Total in Difference 20U6 2006 2016 to 2016 Housing Units ~~~ Single Family 20,053 25,537 5,485 Multifamily 2,282 9,931 7,649 Total Housing Units 22,334 35,469 13,134 Square Feet (Z) Single Family (units * 2,097 sq.ft.) 42,040,244 53,539,312 11,499,069 Multifamily (units * 1,063 sq.ft.) 2,426,219 10,559,390 8,133,171 Total Square Feet 44,466,463 64,098,703 19,632,240 Notes: (1) COMPASS for housing units and Communttles /n Motlon for allocation of housing un'Rs between single family and multifamily. (2) National Association of Homebuilders 5-year trailing averege for square footage. Source: COMPASS,CommunllyCholcesForemst:Households,PopulatlonandEmploymentbyDemographicAreasandTro/ficAnalyslsZones(Fxcel worksheet, Updated 3/21/200, National Association of Homebuilders, Chomderistla of New Single Family Nomes (1987-2004), City of Meridian, Communitlesln Motlon and Impact Fee Study Team. Currently, there are an estimated 22,334 housing units in the City of Meridian, 20,053 of which are single family units and 2,282 of which are multifamily units. By 2016, the residential housing stock is projected to have increased by 59 percent (13,100 households) for a total of over 35,000 units. '~ National Association of Homebuildecs, average of median figures from 1999-2004, Chasacteyistics afNew Single F¢mily Hennes 1987-2004. BBC RESEARCH bT CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 8 Nonresidential data. Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-Encl Real Estate Market Review, 2005, tabulates existing office, retail and industrial square footage for cities in the Treasure Valley. The report, located in Appendix G, discusses various submazkets in the Valley, including the City of Meridian, and lists current nonresidential square footage, vacancy rates, building counts, mazket rents, etc. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to azrive at a base number of nonresidential squaee feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected nonresidential square footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed with Colliers, the Year-End Real Estate Market Review square footage count only includes buildings greater than 10, 000 square feet. To adjust for this underestimate of nonresidential square feet, the study team obtained City data on the squaee footage of new commercial development since 2003. The City's data aze not a cumulative total of all square footage in the City; rather the data only reflect the squaee footage of new permitted nonresidential units. The study team calculated the percentage of new units since 2003 that were less than 10,000 square feet in size. As of March 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City's newly permitted nonresidential units were less than 10,000 square feet. Knowing this, Colliers tabulation represents 79 percent of the actual nonresidential squaee feet in Meridian. By dividing Colliers squaee footage by 79 percent, the study team arrived at the current total of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the current nonresidential square feet. Future nonresidential development. No data exist for exact 2016 projections of nonresidential square footage in Meridian. Therefore, $BC developed a defensible method for calculating future nonresidential squaee footage. COMPASS' document, Community Choices Forecast.• Households; Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Tra, ffzc Analysis Zones, provides data on current and future jobs in Meridian. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage to 2016. Currently, there are 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the squaee footage by the number of jobs in 2006 produces a ratio of 319 squaee feet per employee in 2006 29 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2016. Therefore, assuming the ratio of squaee feet to employee remains constant, the study team used this ratio, as described above, to project nonresidential squaee footage forwazd. The estimated number of jobs in 2016 (31,888) is multiplied by the squaee footage per employee (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square feet in 2016. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the future nonresidential square feet. :s `This ratio of squue footage per employee may change over tune, and can be adjusted in future impact fee updates. The 319 squaze feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 9 Exhibit 2 below shows the current and projected nonresidential development square feet. Exhibit 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development Nonresidential Sgwere Feet Total in 2006 6,544,830 Total in 2016 ~l~ 10,173,758 Difference (2006 to 2016) 3,628,928 Note: (1) Assumes that nonresidential square footage grows In proportion to employment (319 square feet per employee). Source: COMPASS, Community Choices Foremsl: Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones (Excel worksheet, Updated 3/21/2006), Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Using the methodology described above, the increase in nonresidential square footage from 2006 to 2016 is approximately 3.6 million square feet. Impact Fee Calculation Considerations The fees calculated under the CIP approach were based on the following. ^ City investments in police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements projected to be built from 2006 through 2016; ^ An allocation of investment to residential and nonresidential development, based on new residential dwelling units and nonresidential square footage; and ^ A fee calculation that involves dividing the appropriate share of capital improvements by projected residential units and nonresidential square feet. Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to "...project demand for system improvements required by new service units ... over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years."30 The impact fee study team recommends a 10-year time period based on the City's best available capital planning data. 3° See Section 67-8208(1)(h). BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 10 The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth over the'next 10 yeass at existing service levels. Equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more is also impact fee eligible under the Impact Fee Act.31 The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the "CIP Value" in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. Because impact fees are calculated for three impact fee categories in this study (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation), 33 percent of the srudy's cost is included in all calculations. Additionally, for the parks and recreation CIP (the only fee category with a fund balance), the City's current parks and recreation impact fee fund balance is subtracted from the total CIP value. The existing fund balance will be used to pay for a portion of the future capital improvements and will therefore decrease the amount needed to be collected from future impact fees. In the study team's judgment, the City is obligated to expend this existing fund balance on pre-planned growth-related capital improvements before spending future impact fee receipts on newly identified projects in the following CIPs sz The forward-looking 10-year CIPs for the fire, police, and pazks and recreation departments each include some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth (e.g., the fire training tower, fire and police command vehicle, fire ladder truck and the firing range). The study team met with each department to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. The four capital improvements mentioned immediately above are calculated to be 31 percent growth- related. The 31 percent ratio is calculated by dividing the accumulated new square footage between 2006 and 2016 (residential and nonresidential) by the total squaze footage in 2016 3s This percentage is attributed to growth under the philosophy that growth caused the need for such facilities and vehicles, and this growth also necessitates building a proportionately larger facility to accommodate additional personnel (which would otherwise not be necessary with the existing population). The firing range, fire ladder truck, training tower and command vehicle should be sized according to population and peak period demand. The City needs to size these facilities and vehicles to be able to accommodate the demand created by the current residents and the demand of future residents. It should be understood that growth will be paying only a portion of the cost of these facilities. The City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of these partially growth-related capital improvements with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. As discussed later in this report, the value of this City participation investment is approximately $14.7 million over the next ten years, or approximately $1.5 million per year. This investment includes $11.9 million of discretionary funding in connection with purely non-growth- "The Advisory Committee has discussed the extent to which "equipment," as opposed to "land and buildings," can be considered capital improvements eligible for impact fee consideration. Some Advisory Committee members expressed discomfort with personal property being impact fee eligible, but the Impact Fee Act allows a broad range of improvements to be considered as "capital" improvements, so long as the improvements have useful life of at least 10 years and also increase the service capacity of public facilities. See Sections 67-8203 (28) and 50-1703, Idaho Code. ea "Collected development impact fees must be expended within eight (8) years from the date they were collected, on a first- in, first-out (FIFO) basis ...:' See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. Funds collected prior to July 1, 2006, must be expended within five (5) years from the date they were collected, on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. 33 T'he residential squaze footage is described in Exhibit 1 and the nonresidential squaze footage is described in Exhibit 2. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REI~ORT, PAGE 11 related improvements, and $2.8 million of capital improvements, portions of which are not growth- relatedand therefore must be funded from the City's General Funds. These funds could come from City revenues, donations, grants or other partnerships. It should also be noted that certain CIP capital improvements are listed in the following exhibits as zero percent growth-related because City staff relayed that the proposed capital improvements were actually either entirely repair and replacement of existing facilities of represented an upgrade in service levels not triggered by new growth. These non-growth-related capital improvements aze listed, nonetheless, in the CIP because municipalities often use the CIP for planning purposes, not just to calculate impact fees. Meridian may find this inclusion in the CIP exhibits useful. Levels of service. Levels of service (sometimes referred to in this study as "service level(s)") must be defined in the capital improvement element of the Comprehensive Plan, and is the basis for establishing additional service capacity need in any system that serves new development. "Level of service" is "... a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities."" Service levels need to be stated in quantifiable, specific terms, since they measure the benefit new development receives for payment of impact fees. The capital improvement element must clearly identify existing public facilities and service levels and identify any shortfalls in service levels, if at all. Any such shortfall or "deficienry" that Meridian intends to overcome for both existing and new development cannot be funded with impact fees. Likewise, the cost of raising the service level for existing and future development beyond the current service level is ineligible for impact fee funding. If Meridian desires to use impact fees to achieve a higher service level for new development than existing service levels, Meridian must, outside of impact fees, raise the money to bring the existing community to that higher service level as well. This restriction has a general effect of restraining the setting of unreasonably high standards and fees solely for new development. All of the capital improvement costs in the CIPs on the following pages represent improvements that are needed for growth to maintain the current level of service. The Ciry maybe operating at a less than desirable level (i.e., operating with deficiencies). In the future, the City may plan to increase the level of service. If this is the case, any capital improvements that increase the current level of service aze not impact fee eligible and have been purposely excluded from the calculations. Specifically, the police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. The police department's targeted level of service, however, is one officer per 3.75 square miles. Therefore, the department is operating at a deficienry of .75 officers per square mile. The department does intend to increase the current level of service to the 3.75 officers per square mile. Because this is an increase in the level of service, any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. ~` See Secrion 67-8203(17), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 1 Z The fire department, on the other hand, is not currently operating at a deficient level of service. The current and targeted level of fire service is to respond to 90 percent of all calls within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standazd 1710. The fire department plans on continuing this level of service; therefore, all growth-related capital improvements in the CIP represent a continuation of the current level of service and aze impact fee eligible. Akin to the fire department, the pazks and recreation department is not currently operating at a deficient level of service. The total number of currently developed acres is 183.92, which equates to 2.78 acres per 1,000 population. At 2.78 acres per 1,000 population, and a projected 2016 population of 105,411 (including area of impact), the pazks department needs to add 109 acres over 10 years to keep the current service standazd (2.78 x 105.4 = 293 acres minus the existing 183.92 acres = 109 acres). Current police assets. As is evident, the provisions of the Impact Fee Act significantly limit the City's use of impact fees. This is particulazly true for police service because most costs of serving new development involve adding police officers or patrol vehicles that are not impact fee eligible, even though the demand for added personnel and vehicles might be a direct result of new development. Exhibit 3 lists the current police assets. The police department is currently operating with one officer per 4.5 square miles based on the current employment of 70 officers and 14 support staff. Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets Source: City of Meridian Police Department. Type of Capital Improvement Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) Animal Shelter Police Communications Equipment (22 Radios) K-9 Training Facility K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) The one officer per 4.5 square mile service standazd equates to a current investment of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential squaze foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Police Capital Improvement Plan. Exhibit 4 on the following page lists the fitture capital improvements that are necessary to maintain the current level of service (i.e., one officer per 4.5 square mile) for future residential units and nonresidential development. Capital improvements not included in the fee calculation include any investments that assist in the augmentation of the service level to the point of reaching the goal of one officer per 3.75 squaze miles. The exhibit presents $1.3 million of future capital improvements that aze eligible for inclusion in the police impact fee calculation. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "CIP Value" times the "Growth-Related Portion" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 13 Exhibit 4. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 207635 CIP Growth-Related Sfiared~Fadllty Amount to Type of Capitallmprovement Value times P(Htlon Mmes (9btn fee) equals Include in~Fees Infrastructure (2006 to 2016) Firing Range- Semi-Enclosed Building $2,000,000 31% 100% 8626,374 PatrolFadlltyExpanslon 8157,248 10096 100% $157,248 Animal Sheher Expansion 8140,000 100% 100% 8140,000 Flying Range Land (2S Acres)It1 8275,000 31% 100% $86,126 Police Substation In Flre Station #6 to 81,470,000 100% 5% $73,500 Police Substation In Flre Station #71~ 81,470,000 100% S% 873,500 Police Communicatlons Equipment (14 Radios) $63,280 100% 100% 863,280 Police Substaton in Flre Station #S (;1 $1,120,000 100% S% $56,000 Command Vehkle l4j $200,000 31% SO% $31,319 Tota12006-2016 CIP - '- ~ 56,893,528 ~-~ :,:' . ~ ''~ ,, ~.--;r o.~ f1,30Z,347 Fee•Related Research Impact Fee Study 832,500 100% 33% 810,833 ~'LrandTotal ~ f6y428,028 -.. .. ~ ~ f1,j18;190 Note: (1) Cost per acre of land is $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre at this point in time. (Z) Total cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Staton #5. Fadlitles are shared with the fire department (3) Total cost does not indude land for Fire Staton #S; land has already been purchased. Facility is shared with fire department (4) Command Vehicle Is shared with the fire department Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The police CIP in Exhibit 4 includes five percent of the growth-related costs of three new fire stations. This modest cost allocation is intended to pay for a small police office in each fire station where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. Similazly, the police CIP includes 50 percent of the growth-related cost of a new command vehicle that will be shared equally with the fire department, and should therefore bare a proportionate shaze of the cost. Finally, the Impact Fee Act allows the inclusion of equipment in the impact fee calculation, as long as the useful life of such equipment is 10 years or more. The police department has quantified the number of additional radios needed from 2006 to 2016 to support new officers required by new growth, and asserts that, based on historic usage, the department uses radios for 10 years or more before retiring these radios. The cost per acre for the firing range ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land that is priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. as Most of the capital improvements on the police CIP, as in the other CIPs in this study, aze allocated 100 percent to new growth. There was discussion among the Advisory Committee members as to whether these capital improvements, which are in use throughout the service azea or in the case of pazks, potentially in use by all residents of the service azea, should be completely allocated to new growth. There will be incidental benefits to elcisring development in connection with capital improvements paid for by new development (and vice versa). These incidental benefits will not undermine the impact fee scheme. See Section 67-8204(23), Idaho Code. The Advisory Committee may want to discuss this issue further and either leave the fee as proposed or recommend that the fee be adjusted downward to accommodate any unknown incidental benefit. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 14 Current fire assets. The fire department responds to 90 percent of all calls for service within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). This is consistent with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710, and is the department's current and future level of service. Exhibit 5 presents the current fire assets. Exhibit 5. Current Fire Assets "Typed€ Capital Improvement Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 sq. ft. Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 sq. ft Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 sq. ft. Fire Station # 4 (251 S S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft. Land for Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr)1,744 sq. ft. Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) 1986 Pierce Engine (306) 1993 Pierce Engine (304) 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 2006 Pierce Engine (30T) 2000 International Water Tender (320) 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) 1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) Equipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls 16 Vehicle Radios 4 Base Station Radios Source: CRy of Meridian Fire Department. The current level of service equates to a current investment of $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). BBC RESEARCH SZ CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 15 Fire Capital Improvement Plan. The fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies. The fire department plans on continuing this level of service, responding to 90 percent of all calls for service within five minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and four minutes in transit). Therefore, all growth-related capital improvements in the CIP represent the continuation of the current level of service and are impact fee eligible. Exhibit G reflects the future fire capital improvements needed to maintain the current level of fire service. Exhibit 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2076 CIP' Growth Shared Facility Amountta Typeof Capital Improvement V01ue 8mes - Portion times (% in fee) equals Indudein Fees Buildings Flre Station #S (r7 $1,120,000 100% 95% $1,064,000 Flre Station #6 (~ $1,470,000 100% 95% $1,396,500 Flre Station #7 Cl) $1,470,000 100°!0 95% $1,396,500 Training Tower $480,000 31% 700% $150,330 Vehicles 3 New Engines (One per Station #S through #7) $1,230,000 100% 100% $1,230,000 IadderTruck $760,000 31% 100% $238,022 AdditlonalStaffdehlcles $67,500 100°k 100% $67,500 Additional Squad Vehicles $65,000 100% 100°k $65,000 CommandVehide~7 $200,000 31°lo SO% $31,319 Equipment Additional Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $190,000 100% 100% $190,000 Additional Base Radios $75,900 700°k 100% $15,900 Additional Vehicle Radios $72,051 100% 700% $12,051 Additonal Vehicle Extrication Equipment $60,000 0% 100% $0 Additional SCBA $57,000 0% 100% $0 Additional Thermal Imaging Cameras - $45,000 ___ 0~° 700% $0 Totallnfrastructure $7,242;451 _~, 35,857,122 Foe-Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 1 i(„o 33%a $10,833 _ GrarrdTgtal _. 57.274,957: '-, ~. ,. ' _._- t -- 55,867,955 f Notes: (1) Total cost does not include land for Flre Station #5; land has already been purchased. Fadlily is shared with police departrnent (2) Total cost of land for station is $350,000, based on recent land purchase for Fire Station #5. Facilities are shared with the police departrnent (3) Command Vehicle fs shared with the police department Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with Fire Chief 4/10/06 and Impact Fee Study Team. The City is expected to purchase $7.3 million dollars in fire capital improvements, $5.9 million of which is impact fee eligible from 2006 to 2016. This amount includes 95 percent of the growth- related costs of three new fire stations (the remaining 5 percent reflects the cost of police offices in the station). Fifty percent of the growth-related cost of a new command vehicle will be shared with the police department, which should thus bare a proportionate share of the cost ~ ~` There was some discussion within the Advisory Committee that setting the CIP value, for a fire truck, for example, at iu brand new replacement cost, is not appropriate because the City could buy used trucks. We believe the consensus of the Committee was that the City's polity to purchase new equipment would rnntinue. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 16 Current parks and recreation assets. The total number of currently developed pazk acres is 183.92, which equates to a service standard of 2.78 acres per 1,000 population. Exhibit 7 lists the City's current parks and recreation assets that aze responsible for the 2.78 acres per 1,000 population service standard. Exhibit 7. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2006 Type of Capital Improvement Paths St Trails Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) Neighborhood & Mini-Parks Kiwanis Park (11.2 Acres) Bainbridge Park (7.5 Acres) Season's Park (7 Acres) Chateau Park (6.75 Acres) 8th Street Park (4 Acres) Champion Park (6 Acres) Centennial Park (0.5 Acres) Generations Plaza (0.25 Acres) Cox Monument (0.25 Acres) Community Parks Heroes Park (30 Acres) Tully Park (18.5 Acres) Bear Creek Park (18.5 Acres) Storey Park(15 Acres) Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (53 Acres) Source: City of Meridian Parks and Recrnadon Department The level of service for pazks and recreation equates to a current investment of $1,612 per residential unit (see Appendix D for calculation). BBC RESEARCH SZ CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 17 Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. Currently, Meridian's 10-year population growth would justify slightly more than 109 acres of new parks and recreation capital improvements at the current 2.78 developed acres per thousand population level of service, as described on page 13 37 Any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level aze not included in the fee calculation. Exhibit 8 below lists the future capital improvements necessary to maintain the current level of pazks and recreation service in the future. Exhibit 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 20163s _ __ --- CID Grower Shared Fadlity ~ Amountto Type of Capkallmprovement Value times Potdon [Imes (9aln fee) equalt Inrlude(n.Fees Pathways & Trent Pathway Landscaping and Improvements (Fl' 2010) $75,000 0% 700% $0 Neighborhood & Minf-Parks (D (~ 4 New Neighborhood Parks (7S Arns Each) 82,550,000 100% 100% $2,550,000 communLLy Parks (s) 7 New Communiy Park (33 Ayes) $6,435,000 100% 100% $6,435,000 Hero's Park Development (Shelter, Playgrounds, Tennb Courts) $500,000 700% 100% $500,000 Storey Park-Acqufsi[far and Development of 1.44 Acres (4) $554,200 5095 100% $277,100 Large Urban Parks (s) 1 New Large Urban Park (45 Acres) $8,775,000 100% 100% 88,775,000 Meddlan Settler's Park -Final Phase Development $425,000 100% 100% $425,000 Parks Amenitles Community Center 810,000,000 0% 100% $0 Aquatks Center $1,500,000 0% 100% 80 Equipment 2 Mowers (7 Replacement and 7 Additional Mower) 5730,.000 ~ 1 ~% SO _,. _ Totaldriffidstrticturc ~ :_ ~_ 530,944,`L00~ _ . :-" ~ ~ ,<. v 51$:962,100 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $32,500 100% 33% $10,833 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance (~ FY 20068eginning FUnd Balance _ _ ~ $800,150 700% 700% ~ $80_0,150 _ ~Grend Total _ __.. ~. . _530,776,550 " '"' °' ' _ Sd8,17Z,7B3. Note: (i) Land to be donated through development agreement and thus a likely source of impactfee credits. (2) $85,000 per acre in development costs based on recent City construction h'utory. (3) 8195,000/acre in land and development costr ($110,000/acre average plus $SS,OOD In development msts). (4) Addition to existing park -acquired to retain connectivity to future growth/neighborhoods. (5) Uncommitted Park ImpaU Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, City of Meridian. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvemem Plan, personal Interview with parks and recreation staff and Impact Fee Study team. Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $30.2 million, of which over $18.2 million is impact fee eligible. ~' At the end of fiscal yeaz 2004, the City was at a service level of 1.92 developed acres per thousand population. The increase in the level of service in the short time since 2004 is a result of several donations. Although some of the pazk acres are not developed today, the Finance Department advised the study team that the City has allocated funds to develop these pazk acres by the end of this yeaz, which will bring the service level to 2.78 developed acres per thousand population. '~ The CIP breaks down the types of parks facilities (i.e., pathways and trails; neighborhood and mini-pazks; community pazks; and lazge urban parks. However, the calculation for impact fees (see page 23) lumps all pazks facilities together. There has been some discussion by the members of the Advisory Committee to the effect that the impact fee calculations should also be broken down into four parts, i.e., and the added together for the total pazks impact fee. The Advisory Committee should discuss. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 18 Mechanics of Fee Calculations Impact fees are calculated using the costs summarized in Exhibits 4, 6 and 8 and the demographic information from previous exhibits. As required by the Impact Fee Act, prior to fee adoption, the Advisory Committee must consider the following factors: ^ the means by which existing system improvements have been financed (for example, if grant money has been consistently used to finance system improvements, it maybe reasonable to postulate that this will continue in the future); ^ the extent to which new development will contribute to financing system improvements through (past and future) taxes, assessments and contributions; ^ the extent to which new development has provided system improvements, without charge, for other properties in the service area; ^ extraordinary costs incurred by the City in serving new development; and ^ the availability of other sources of funding for system improvements (e.g., local improvement district assessments, general tax levies) 39 ^ Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend that the City Council adjust the maximum allowable impact fee.40 Future land use assumptions. Exhibit 9 displays the City's incremental increase (from 2006 to 2016) in square footage distributed between residential and nonresidential land uses. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate capital improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. Exhibit 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2076 Note: (1) May nottotal due to rounding. Source: City of Meridian and impact Fee Study Team. Square Percent Land Use Category Feet ofTota) I~Resrldential _ 19,632,240 '` 8~9!a;; Single Family 11,499,069 49~/a Multifamily 8_,133,171 35% i.Nonresidential _ 3,628,92.8 ~ 16o/a Total ~~~ 23,261,168 100/a 39 See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. ~ These factors aze to be considered while the Ciry is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits may be calculated on aproject-by-project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH 13 CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 19 In 2016, the City's residential development is expected to increase by 19,632,240 squaze feet, and the nonresidential development is estimated to increase by 3,628,928 squaze feet. Therefore, the future allocation of land uses is projected to be 84 percent residential and 1G percent nonresidential. The study team has calculated all impact fees per residential unit, regazdless of unit type, and per nonresidential square foot, regazdless of type. The study team does not recommend imposing fees at a more detailed level of analysis (i.e., fee differentials for single family and multifamily units and differentials for commercial, agricultural and industrial squaze footage). In our judgment, such distinctions aze unwarranted by empirical evidence. After allocating costs to the appropriate land-uses, impact fees for residential and nonresidential development are calculated by dividing the residential service costs by new residential units, and by dividing nonresidential service costs by new nonresidential square footage. police impact fees. Exhibit 10 presents police impact fees of $85 per residential unit and $0.06 per nonresidential square foot. This represents the maximum allowable impact fee under Idaho's Impact Fee Act. Exhibit 1 O. police Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Fxhibk 4. Police Capkal Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Fxhibk 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. source: City of Meridian and Impact rce Study Team. Calculation of Impact Fees Future Value of Police Capital Improvements ~~~ $1,318,180 Future Land Use Percentage (Z) Residential 84% Nonresidential 16% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $1,112,544 Nonresidential $205,636 Growth to 2016 Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) . Residential (per dwelling unit) _ ___ _ $85 ~Nont+esirlential _(per sggare foot _ __ __ __ _$Q.06' The study team used the current service standazd as a benchmark to double check the forwazd- looking CIP approach. The team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts aze quite similaz to Meridian's current investment in police infrastructure ($106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot -see Appendix D). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10-Yeaz Police CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate shaze of new capital improvements. One reason that the CIP-based fees aze lower than the City's current level of investment is that Meridian's K-9 Facility is not planned for expansion as growth occurs. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 20 Fire impact fees. Exhibit 11 calculates the impact fees for fire capital improvements based on the future growth projections and anticipated future capital improvement costs described in earlier exhibits. Exhibit 11. Fire Impact Fee Calculation. Notes: (1) See Fxhibk 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Exhibk 9. Distrlbudon of Land Uses, 2006 to 2076. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Calculaation of Impact Fees Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements ~~~ $5,867,955 Future Land Use Percentage (z) Residential 84% Nonresidential 16% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $4,952,554 Nonresidential $915,401 Growth to 2016 Residential (in dwelling units) 13,134 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) 'Residential (per dwelling unit) $377 tNonresidentiai (per sg;uare foot) ~ _$0.25..; The maximum allowable impact fees for fire capital improvements total $377 per new residential unit and $0.25 per new nonresidential squaze foot. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts aze quite similar to Meridian's current investment in fire infrastructure ($362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot). It is to be expected that the maximum allowable fees slightly exceed this current level of investment. Natural cost increases in providing the same level of service and the addition of several new types of infrastructure triggered by growth, but not wholly applicable to growth, increase the future investment in fire infrastructure. The anticipated construction of the fire training tower is, in part, responsible for higher fire fees as compazed to the current investment in Appendix D. The fire training tower is a large capital improvement unlike any current fire investment. Because growth has triggered the need for this facility, a portion of the cost of the fire training tower is impact fee eligible. Current investment does not reflect any such type of lazge improvement, which explains why the fees under the CIP approach aze higher. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 21 Parks and recreation impact fees. Parks and recreation impact fees are shown in Exhibit 12, which is based on Exhibit 8 and demographic projections. Pazks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Exhibit 72. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Ezhibft 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investmentr required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See FxhibR 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2006 to 2016. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Calcuiafiion of Impact Fees Future Value of Parks St Recreation Capital Improvements (~) Future Land Use Percentage Residential Nonresidential Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential Nonresidential Growth to 2016 Residential (total dwelling units) Nonresidential (in square feet) $18,172,783 100% 0% $18,172,783 $0 13,134 3,628,928 Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded) Iflesidential!{per dwelling unit) $1,384' ~NonrgsidenSial (per. square faot),_ __ _ N/A; The maximum allowable impact fee for pazlts and recreation capital improvements is $1,384 for any new residential unit. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amount is quite similar to Meridian's current investment in parks and recreation infrastructure ($1,612 per residential unit). These similaz amounts suggest that Meridian's 10-Yeaz Parks and Recreation CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. The current parks and recreation impact fee, as of June 1, 2005, totaled $763.16 for a single family unit and $694 per multifamily unit. If the City adopts the new fees at the maximum amount shown in the exhibit above, the fees would increase 81 percent for single family units and 99 percent for multifamily units. An increase in fees of this magnirude is not uncommon and is justifiable if the . nexus between the new development and future capital improvements remains intact. It is the study team's belief that the analysis of demographic data and Capital Improvement Plans has been thorough and that the rational nexus required by law has been maintained. It should also be noted that a portion of the fee difference is due to the dramatic increase in the cost of parkland in Meridian. The City's current parks impact fee, for example, is based on an assumed land price and subsequent development cost significantly less than the $110,000 and $85,000 per acre, respectively, reflected in F,xhibit 8. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 22 City Participation Because not all the capital improvements listed in the CIPs are 100 percent growth-related, the City would assume the responsibility of paying for the portion of the capital improvements that are not attributable to new growth. These payments would come from existing funds, donations and/or ongoing revenue sources that are not tied duectly to growth. To arrive at the City participation amount, the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility amount need to be subtracted from the total CIP value. Exhibits 13 through 18 calculate the City's participation between 2006 and 2016. The participation amount includes the cost of purely non- growth-related improvements, and portions of growth-related improvements that are attributable to repair, replacement, or upgrade, and not impact fee eligible. Exhibit 7 3. City Partidpation -Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2076 CFP Amount to Shared City Value ~~~ less Include in Fees. ~''~'~ less :.Facility Amount (2) equals Participation (3) $6,928,028 - $1,318,180 - $3,978,667 = $1,631,181 Note: (1) Directly from Exhibit 4. Police capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 201 B. (2) calculated from Exhibit 4. Police Capkal Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) Uty Participation amount is equal to the amount of repair/replacement/upgrade capital improvements and the non-growth amount required by the UP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. If the City adopts the maximum police fees as calculated in this report, the City would potentially be responsible for approximately $1.6 million in police capital improvements. The City's participation would ensure that police service levels in Meridian do not decline. Again, the City's participation amount does not include ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs that will also be borne by the City and not paid by impact fees ai Exhibits 14, 16 and 18 on the following pages further analyze the City's participation amount by sepazating the City's total participation amount into two categories: the purely non-growth improvements total, and the non-growth improvements total attributed to portions of impact fee eligible improvements. °i There was some discussion in the Advisory Committee meetings of phasing-in the amount of the impact fees over a number of monehs or yeazs. The Advisory Committee may decide to recommend this course. However, the City would be required to fund (using sources other than impact fees) an amount equal to the difference between the total adopted impact fee and the amount of the phased impact fee. The concept of phasing-in the impact fees over time should not be confused with the °effective date° of the impact fee ordinance. By law, the ordinance will not be effective for a grace period of thirty (30) days following adoption. Some Committee members have raised the possibility of extending this grace period; this should be discussed by the entire Advisory Committee. BBC RESEARCH ~ CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 23 It should be noted that the participation amount associated with purely non-growth unprovements is discretionary. The City can choose not to fund these capital improvements (although this could result in a decrease in the level of service if the deferred repairs or replacements were urgent). However, the non-growth-related portion of improvements that are impact fee eligible must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. Exhibit 14. Analysts of City Partidpation, Police Capital Improvement Plan Dollar Amount Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $0 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $1,631,181 Total $1,631,181 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. To maintain the current level of service, one officer per 4.5 square miles, the City must contribute $1.6 million between 2006 and 2016. The City must contribute this amount since the capital improvements reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. At the time this study was completed, no police capital improvements were purely non-growth. Therefore, the City must fund the entirety of the calculated participation amount. Exhibit 15 presents the City's participation in fire capital unprovements, comprised of capital improvements that are repair, replacement or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Exhibit 1 S. City Partldpatlon -Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016 CIP Amount to Shared Citji' Value less Include in Fees less Facility.Amount equals Participation $7,274,951 - $5,867,955 - $324,667 = $1,082,329 Note: (1) Directly from Fxhibk 6. Fire Capkal Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (2) Calculated from Fxhibk 6. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2008 to 2016. (3) Cky Partldpation amount is equal to the amountfor repair/replacement(upgrade and the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Based on the maximum fire impact fees calculated in this report, the City's participation amount could total just over $1 million. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 24 Exhibit 16 below distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that aze repair, replacement, or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Exhibit 76. Analysts of City Partidpatlon, Fire Capital improvement Plan Dollar Amount Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $162,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $920,329 Total $1,082,329 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. In the above analysis, the City has the discretion to contribute $162,000 toward capital improvements that aze purely non-growth-related. In order for the impact fee study to maintain its integrity, however, the City must contribute approximately $920,000 to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. Exhibit 17 outlines the dollaz amount that the City should contribute, in addition to impact fee receipts, to parks and recreation capital improvements between 2006 and 2016. Exhibit 77. City Partidpatlon -Parks and Recreatlon Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 207 6 CIP Amount to Shared City Value ~~) less Include in Fees ~~) less Facility Amount (2) equals participation (3'~' $30,176,550 - $18,172,783 - $21,667 = $11,982,100 Note: (1) Directly from Fxhibk e. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2076. (Z) Calculated from Fxhibk 8. Parks and Recreation Capkal Improvement Plan, 2006 to 2016. (3) Cky Partidpation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacemenUupgrade ctnd the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 25 Exhibit 1 S distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are purely non-growth-related (discretionary funding) and improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Exhibit 78. Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capiital Improvement Plan Dollar Amount Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $11,705,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $277,100 Total $11,982,100 Source: Impact Fee Study Team. Of the $12 million of calculated City participation, $11.7 million is discretionary because the associated capital improvements have been defined as purely non-growth-related. However, $277,000 of the City's participation is required in order for the impact fee analysis to remain whole. Cash Flow Analysis It is important for the City to assess revenues that would be generated by the maximum allowable impact fees as presented in this study, prior to further consideration by the Advisory Committee. Exhibit 19 below displays the impact fee cash flow from 2006 to 2016, using the fees calculated by the CIP methodology. Exhibit 79. Projected Cash Flows -CIP Methodology Projected Cash Flow 200T 2011 20'16 Projected New Residential Units 7,313 6,567 13,134 Projected New Nonresidential Square Feet 362,893 1,814,464 3,628,928 Cumulative Cash Flow $2,537,077 $12,685,386 $25,370,771 Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. If impact fees were adopted at the maximum amounts, the City would collect just over $25 million in impact fee revenues from 2006 though 2016. This amount is mathematically designed to finance the entire growth-related portion of Meridian's CIP. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 26 Other Funding Sources Impact fees are just one of several funding sources for capital improvements. No one source is likely to fund all of the identified public facility needs. The Ciry must be committed to addressing and alleviating deficiencies in service levels and addressing the expansion of service levels through exploration in connection with the following, without limitation, possible funding sources: ^ General Fund: The City's General Fund takes in revenues and makes expenditures for the ongoing operation of City functions. General Obligation Bonds: With these bonds, the City borrows money for public facility development to be repaid with funds generated by an increase in property taxes. These voter-approved (two-thirds of all voters required) bonds establish an increase in property taxes for a period of time (typically 20 - 30 years) necessary to repay the bonds. The money raised can only be used for capital improvements and cannot be used for maintenance. ^ Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds maybe issued based on leasehold values of land, facilities and operating entities that create a specific cash flow used to repay the bonds. Voter approval is required. ^ Certificates of Participation: With this option, the Ciry would sell COPS to a lending institution in rerurn for a loan used to make improvements in connection with a public facility. The lender would securitize the loan by taking title to the facility prior to the repayment of the COPS. The loan is repaid from revenue generated by the facility or from the City's general operating budget. This option is subject to judicial approval. ^ Grants: Grants are available from a variety of sources, including private foundations and government resources. ^ Joint Public/Private Partnership: This approach to funding would entail the Ciry entering into a working agreement with aquasi-public or private entity to help fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 27 Implementation Recommendations As the City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Improvement Plans and impact fees, we also offer the following information for your consideration. Please note that this information will be included in the City's impact fee enabling ordinance (Appendix B). Capital Improvements Plan. Should the Advisory Committee recommend this study to the City Council and should the Ciry Council adopt the study, the Finance Department should revise the City's existing Capital Improvement Plans using the information in this study. The existing City Capital Improvement Plans for these departments is attached to the study as Appendix H. A revised capital improvement plan would then be presented to the City for adoption as an element of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the procedures of the Local Land Use Planning Act az Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City should review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance (Appendix B) for adoption as reviewed and recommended by the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is in a unique position to work with and advise several depaztments and the City Council to ensure that the capital improvement plans and impact fees are routinely reviewed and modified as appropriate. Impact fee service area. Some municipalities have fee differentials for various city zones under the assumption that some azeas utilize more or less current and future capital improvements. The study team, however, does not recommend the City assess different fees by dividing the City into zones. Police, fire, and pazks and recreation capital improvements inherently serve asystem-wide function. If, for example, a serious accident occurs in one part of the City, the fire department may call on engines and equipment from other stations to assist. Therefore, it is more appropriate not to differentiate fees based on Ciry zones. In practice, all areas of the City have an equal demand on the infrastructure because the parks, fire, and police department function most efficiently on a system- wide basis. Donations. If the City receives donations for capital improvements listed on the CIP, the City must account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for anon- or partially growth-related improvement, the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is for, a growth-related project in the CIP, the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Grants. If a grant is expected and regular, the grant amount should be reflected upfront in the fee calculations, meaning that the impact fees will be lower in anticipation of the contribution. If the grant is speculative or uncertain, this should not be reflected up-front in the fee calculations since the Ciry cannot count on those dollars as it undergoes capital planning. {- See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208(1). BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 28 The rational nexus is still maintained because the unexpected higher fund balance, due to the receipt of a grant, is deducted from the calculations as a "down payment on the CIP" when the fee study is updated. Credit/reimbursement. If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of agrowth-related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category or, at the developer's choice, be reimbursed from impact fees collected in the future.43 This prevents "double dipping" by the City. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they made the City aware of the construction or contribution. If credit or reimbursement is due, the City must enter into an agreement with the fee payor that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement.44 City participation. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City of Meridian may choose not to adopt the CIPs as stated in this report, in which case the City will need to prepaze revised capital improvement plans for review and adoption. Impact fee accounting. The Ciry should continue to maintain an Impact Fee Fund (already established for the existing parks and recreation fees) separate and apart from the General Fund. All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital improvements. The City's General Fund should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest eaznings, and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital improvements not related to growth. Spending policy. The City should establish and adhere to a written polity governing its expenditure of monies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for City operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth. In cases when growth-related capital improvements are constructed impact fees aze an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capital improvements are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth, cost sharing between the General Fund and Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures. The City is expected to grow very rapidly over the 10-yeaz span of the CIPs. Therefore, the fees calculated in this study should be updated annually as the City invests in additional infrastructure beyond what is listed in this report, and/or as the City's projected development changes significantly. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. ;3 See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code. {+ See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH bi CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, RAGE 29 Summary Using the CIP methodology, the state mandated approach, BBC calculated the total (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation) maximum defensible impact fee for residential units at $1,846 and $0.31 per nonresidential square feet as seen in Fxhibit 20 below. This maximum fee is being presented to the Advisory Committee for its review and consideration in light of starutorily identified factors. Exhlblt 20. Summary of Impact Fees Source: Impact Fee Study Team. Impact Fee Category Police Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $85 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.06 Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $377 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.25 Parks r5t Recreation Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,384 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A Total Fees , I Residentiab (per dwelling. unit) $1,846'. Nonresidential Viper sgua[e foots $0.31 I. It is the study team's assessment that the City could reasonably charge impact fees of any amount up to the $1,846 per residential unit and $0.31 per nonresidential square foot. This amount is sufficient to pay for the growth-related portions of Meridian's Capital Improvement Plans. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 30 Summary of City participation. Exhibit 21 below summarizes the total amount the City is required to contribute and the amount the City could contribute discretionarily over the next 10 years to police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. Exhibit 27. Clty Partidpatlon Summary, 2006 to 2076 Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. City Fee Category Participation Discretionary Amount (Purely Non-Growth Improvements) Police $0 Fire $162,000 Parks Si Recreation $11,705,000 Total $11,867,000 Required Amount (Partially Non-Growth Improvements) Police $1,631,181 Fire $920,329 Parks ~ Recreation $277,100 Total $2,828,610 !Grand Total $14,695,6~U The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt fees at the maximum amount, will be approximately $2.8 million. The required $2.8 million reflects the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. The amount attributable to capital improvements defined as purely non-growth equals nearly $11.9 million; the City can choose not to fund this total amount, however, service levels could decrease. If the City plans to fund all repair, replacement or upgrade capital improvements in addition to the required amount, the City will need approximately $14.7 million over the next 10 years. This equates to $1.5 million per year that the City will have to finance by drawing from the General Fund, donations or other revenue sources. However, fairness and maintaining the integrity of the impact fee system require the City to fund just over $280,000 pet year in non-growth-related capital improvements that are impact fee eligible BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING FINAL REf~ORT, PAGE 31 APPENDIX A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances IDAHO TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHANTER 82 Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances 67-8204. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCES. Governmental entities which comply with the requirements of this chapter may impose by ordinance development impact fees as a condition of development approval on all developments. (1) A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements determined in accordance with section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Development impact fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. (2) A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities adopted in the development impact fee ordinance of the governmental entity that are applicable to existing development as well as new,growth and development. The construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new of existing public facilities for which a development impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new development. (3) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify the point in the development process at which the development impact fee shall be collected. The development impact fee may be collected no earlier than the commencement of construction of the development, or the issuance of a building permit or a manufactured home installation permit, or as may be agreed by the developer and the governmental entity. (4) A development impact fee ordinance shall be adopted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section G7-8206, Idaho Code. (5) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process whereby the governmental agency shall allow the developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the proportionate share of development impact fees under the guidelines established by this chapter which shall be set forth in the ordinance. The individual assessment process shall permit consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee. The decision by the governmental agenry on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee, including an explanation of factors considered under section G7-8207, Idaho Code, and shall specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX A, RAGE 1 (6) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide a process whereby a developer shall receive, upon request, a written certification of the development impact fee schedule or individual assessment for a particular project, which shall establish the development impact fee so long as there is no material change to the particular project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the impact fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code. The certification shall also specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (7) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision for credits in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8209, Idaho Code. (8) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision prohibiting the expenditure of development impact fees except in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8210, Idaho Code. (9) A development impact fee ordinance may provide for the imposition of a development impact fee for system improvement costs incurred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the system improvements. (10) A development impact fee ordinance may exempt all or part of a particular development project from development impact fees provided that such project is determined to create affordable housing, provided that the public polity which supports the exemption is contained in the governmental entity's comprehensive plan and provided that the exempt development s proportionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than development impact fees. (11) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide that development impact fees shall only be spent for the category of system improvements for which the fees were collected and either within or for the benefit of the service azea in which the project is located. (12) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for a refund of development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8211, Idaho Code. (13) A development impact fee ordinance shall establish for a procedure for timely processing of applications for determination by the governmental entity regazding development impact fees applicable to a project, individual assessment of development impact fees, credits or reimbursements to be allowed or paid under section 67-8209, Idaho Code, and extraordinary impact. (14) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify when an application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted to be made by a developer or fee payer. An application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted sufficiently in advance of the time that the developer or fee payer may seek a building permit or related permits so that the issuance of a building permit or related permits will not be delayed. (15) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for appeals regarding development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8212, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 2 (16) A development impact fee ordinance must provide a detailed description of the methodology by which costs per service unit are determined. The development impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in section 67-8208(1)(fl, Idaho Code, by the total number of projected service units described in section 67- 8208(1)(8), Idaho Code. If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the projected new service units described in section 67-8208(1)(8), Idaho Code, by the total projected new service units described in that section. (17) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for various land uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to pay a project s proportionate shaze of system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development project s proportionate share of system improvement costs, except as provided in section 67-8214(3), Idaho Code. (18) After payment of the development impact fees or execution of an agreement for payment of development impact fees, additional development impact fees of increases in fees may not be assessed unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes. In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the additional development impact fees to be imposed, aze limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units or change in scope of the development. (19) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any development to double payment of impact fees. (20) A development impact fee ordinance shall exempt from development impact fees the following activities: (a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupanry within two (2) years of its destruction; (b) Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units; (c) Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on the same lot, provided that the number of service units does not increase; (d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; (e) Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of service units; and BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 3 (fl Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements. (21) A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (a) That a modulaz building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of the development impact fee ordinance; or (b) That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle on that same lot or space. (22) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process for dealing with a project which has extraordinary impacts. (23) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for the calculation of a development impact fee in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A development impact fee shall not be deemed invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners or developers within the service azea other than the person paying the fee. (24) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a description of acceptable levels of service for system improvements. (25) Any provision of a development impact fee ordinance that is inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void and that provision shall have no legal effect. A partial invalidity of a development impact fee ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance that are consistent with the requirements of this chapter. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 4 APPENDIX 6. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIItD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, WARDLE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, BY REPEALING EXISTING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, AND BY ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE IlYIPOSITION, COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT OF A POLICE IlVIPACT FEE, A FIRE IlVIPACT FEE, AND A PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING AUTHORITY, INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLLSHMENT OF SEPARATE IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR EACH OF SUCH IlVIPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS, REFUNDS, CREDITS AND WAIVERS RESPECTING SUCH IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING GENERAL PROVISIONS, APPLICABILITY AND APPEALS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Pazks and Recreation Depaztment on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Reseazch and Consulting, Galena Consulting and Spink Butler, LLP (collectively, "Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections for the period 2006 to 2026 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepazed by BBC Research and Consulting, dated July _, 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; determines the costs necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees asset forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standazds referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, including review and reliance on that certain City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, July 2002 (Resolution 02-382), as amended by Resolution Nos.: 03-401 and 03-409 (Pazks and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 1 Recreation System Plan-Action Plan); 04-454; and 06-505 (North Meridian Area) and that certain amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City on , 2006 (Resolution No. ~ (collectively, the "Comprehensive Plan"), the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS, in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans prepared by Consultant and adopted by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for additional police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the reasonable impacts of new growth and development on existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements, and the reasonable costs of Capital Improvements necessary to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities to accommodate the additional demands and impacts of new growth and development; and WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 2 which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Capital Improvements Plans have been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, and in accordance with the procedural requirements of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans have been presented to and reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss, review and hear public comments on the proposed Impact Fees set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council. The existing Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby repealed and a new Title 10, Chapter 7, of the Meridian the City Code is hereby adopted as follows: TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SECTION 10-07-01 Legislative Findings 10-07-02 Authority, Applicability, and Effective Date 10-07-03 Intent 10-07-04 Definitions 10-07-OS Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees 10-07-06 Payment of Impact Fees 10-07-07 Impact Fee Fund; Refunds of Impact Fees Paid 10-07-08 Exemptions From Impact Fees 10-07-09 Credits; Reimbursements 10-07-10 Appeals 10-07-11 Impact Fee Advisory Committee 10-07-12 Miscellaneous Provisions IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 3 10-07-01 - Legislative Findings The City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho finds that: (a) Based on the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City pursuant to Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, including but not limited to the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the general governmental goal of protecting the health, safety, and general welfaze of the citizens of the City, and its area of City impact, it is necessary that the City's Public Facilities for: (1) park and recreation Public Facilities; and (2) public safety Public Facilities for law enforcement and fire to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and its azea of City impact. (b) New residential and nonresidential growth and development imposes and will impose increasing and demands upon the Public Facilities. (c) The revenues generated from new residential and nonresidential growth and development often do not generate sufficient general funds to provide the necessary improvements of these Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development. (d) New growth and development are expected to continue, and will place ever-increasing demands on the City to provide and expand the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. (e) The City has planned for the improvement of the Public Facilities in the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. (f) The creation of an equitable Impact Fee system would enable the City to impose a Proportionate Shaze of the costs of needed improvements to the Public Facilities to accommodate new growth and development, and would assist the City in implementing the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (g) In order to implement an equitable Impact Fee system for the Public Facilities, the City retained BBC Reseazch & Consulting to prepaze an Impact Fee Study for these types of facilities. The resulting document titled "The City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July ~ 2006 (the "Impact Fee Study"), recommended for approval by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, is on file in the office of the city clerk of the City of Meridian. (h) The Impact Fee Study is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and uses the Levels of Service set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for these Public Facilities. (i) The Impact Fee Study sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of new growth and development on the Public Facilities, and determines the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such Public Facilities created by new growth and development. (j) The Impact Fee Study uses a calculation methodology in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 4 generated by new growth and development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be available to pay for System Improvements, including taxes, assessments, user fees, and intergovernmental transfers, and included consideration of the following factors: 1. The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; 2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; 4. The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; 5. The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; 6. Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; 7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and 8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (k) The maximum allowable Impact Fees described in this Ordinance are based on the Impact Fee Study, and do not exceed the costs of System Improvements for the Public Facilities to serve new growth and development that will pay the Impact Fees. (1) The police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities included in the calculation of Impact Fees in the Impact Fee Study will benefit all new growth and development throughout the City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City and the area of city impact as a single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting and spending the Impact Fees.collected. (m) There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between the development impacts created by each type of development covered by this Ordinance and the Impact Fees that such development will be required to pay. (n) This Ordinance creates a system by which Impact Fees paid by new growth and development will be used to finance, defray or to provide Capital Improvements for the Public Facilities in ways that benefit the development for which Impact Fees were paid. (o) This Ordinance creates a system under which Impact Fees shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies in Public Facilities, or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to pay for routine operation or maintenance of those Public Facilities. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 5 (p) This Ordinance is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, concerning Impact Fee Ordinances. 10-07-02 - Authority Ap licability, and Effective Date (a) This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Title 50, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (b) The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all of the territory within the limits of the City and to any unincorporated areas of the City within the City's area of city impact where the City has executed an intergovernmental agreement with Ada County for purposes of collection or expenditure of Impact Fees pursuant to Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code, and other applicable laws of the State of Idaho. (c) This Ordinance is effective (the "Effective Date"),which Effective Date is at least thirty (30) days subsequent to the passage, approval and publication, according to law, of Ordinance No. ,which adopted the provisions hereof. (d) Applications for Building Permits received by the City prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendments hereto, adopting Impact Fees or amending or adopting any methodology by which Impact Fees are calculated, will be exempt from that portion of this Ordinance, or amendment enacted after such Building Permit application, if a valid Building Permit has been issued or construction has commenced prior to the effective Date of this Ordinance, or amendment. For Building Permits that expire or are revoked after the Effective Date of this Ordinance, the Feepayor shall be entitled to a refund of previously paid Impact Fees as provided further in Section 10-07-07, Meridian Code, provided that in the case of reapplication for Building Permit, the Impact Fee in effect at that time shall be paid. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Development Requirements for System Improvements shall be imposed by the City only by way of Impact Fees imposed pursuant to and in accordance with Section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, and this Ordinance. 10-07-03 -Intent (a) The intent of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City and its area of city impact. (b) The intent of this Ordinance is to be consistent with those principles for allocating a fair share of the cost of Capital Improvements to Public Facilities to serve new growth and development in compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code. (c) The intent of this Ordinance is that Impact Fees should be charged, collected, and expended for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of such categories of Public Facilities, which Capital Improvements are included in approved Capital Improvements Plans that list the Capital Improvements that may be funded with Impact Fees. IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 6 (d) The intent of this Ordinance is to ensure that: Public Facilities are available to serve new growth and development; new growth and development bears a Proportionate Share of the cost of police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities; to ensure that such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of the Capital Improvements to such Public Facilities required to serve new growth and development; and to ensure that the funds collected from new growth and development are used for Capital Improvements for Public Facilities that benefit new growth and development. (e) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to collect any monies from new growth and development in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for Capital Improvements to Public Facilities created by such new growth and development. (f) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that the Impact Fees be used to remedy any deficiency in police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements existing on the Effective Date of this Ordinance, or ever be used to replace, rehabilitate, maintain and/or operate any Public Facilities. (g) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that any monies collected from an Impact Fee deposited in an Impact Fee fund ever be commingled with monies from a different fund, or ever be used for Capital Improvements that are different from those for which the Impact Fee was paid. (h) It is not the intent of this Ordinance that Impact Fees be used for: (1) Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (2) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements. (3) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. (4) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing Development to provide better service to existing Development. (5) Administrative and operating costs of the City unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans used to determine Impact Fees by a surcharge imposed by ordinance on the collection of an Impact Fee, which surcharge shall not exceed a Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plans. (6) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-04 -Definitions IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 7 (a) "Affordable Housing" means housing affordable to families whose incomes do not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Service Area. (b) "Building Permit" means an official document or certificate by that name issued by the City authorizing the construction or siting of any building. (o) "Capital Improvements" means improvements with a useful life of ten (10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a Public Facility. (d) "Capital Improvements Element" means a component of a comprehensive plan. (e) "Capital Improvements Plan" means a plan adopted pursuant to this Chapter that identifies Capital Improvements for which Impact Fees may be used as a funding source. (fl "City" means the City of Meridian, Idaho. (g) "City Council" means the legislative body of the City of Meridian, Idaho. (h) "Developer" means any person or legal entity undertaking development, including a party that undertakes the subdivision of properly pursuant to Sections 50-1301 through 50-1334, Idaho Code and 11-6, Meridian Code. (i) "Development" means any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. ~) "Development Approval" means any written authorization from a Governmental Entity which authorizes the commencement of a Development. (k) "Development Requirement" means a requirement attached to a Development Approval or other goven~imental action approving or authorizing a particular Development including, without limitation, a rezoning, which Development Requirement compels the payment, dedication or contribution of goods, services, land and/or money as a condition of approval. (1) "Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling Unit includes a Multifamily building, a mobile home, a Manufactured Home, a Modular Building and/or a moteUhoteUrooming house. (m) "Extraordinary Costs" means those costs incurred as a result of Extraordinary Impact. (n) "Extraordinary Impact" means an impact which is reasonably determined by the City to: result in the need for police, fire, and parks and/or recreation System Improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the Impact Fees to be generated from the Project; or result in the need for police, fire, parks and recreation System Improvements that are not identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. M'ACT FEE ORDINANCE - 8 (o) "Fee Administrator" means the official appointed by the Mayor with the City Council approval to administer this Chapter. (p) "Feepayor" means a person who pays or is required to pay an Impact Fee or the Feepayor's Successor in Interest. (~ "Governmental Entity" means any unit of local government that is empowered by Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, to adopt an Impact Fee ordinance. (r) "Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed as a condition of Development Approval to pay for a Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements needed to serve Development. The term does not include a charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review or inspection costs associated with permits required for Development. (s) "Impact Fee Study" means the document entitled the "City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan," dated July 3, 2006, prepared by BBC Research & Consulting for the City. (t) "Land Use Assumptions" means a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a twenty (20) year period. (u) "Level of Service" means a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for Public Facilities. (v) "Manufactured Home" means a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq. (w) "Modular Building" means any building or building component, other than a Manufactured Home, which is constructed according to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. (x) "Multifamily" means a building or portion thereof, containing two (2) or more Dwelling Units, excluding attached single-family townhouse units located on individual lots. (y) "Owner" means the person holding legal title to real property, including the local, state or federal government or any subdivision thereof. (z) "Person" means an individual, corporation, governmental agency, business trust, estate, partnership, association, two or more persons having a j oint or common interest, or any other entity. IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 9 (aa) "Present Value" means the total current monetary value of past, present or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money. (bb) "Project" means a particular Development on an identified parcel of land. (co) "Project Improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the Project. (dd) "Proportionate Share" means that portion of the cost of System Improvements determined pursuant to Section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and Section 10-07-05, Meridian Code, which reasonably relates to the service demands for Public Facilities of a Project. (ee) "Public Facility(ies)" means: (1) parks open space and recreation areas, and related Capital Improvements; and (2) public safety facilities, including law enforcement and fire facilities. (1:~ "Service Area" means the territory within the limits of the City and the City's area of city impact. (gg) "Successor in Interest" means a Person who gains legal title in real properly for which an Impact Fee is paid or a credit is approved pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance. (hh) "System Improvements," in contrast to Proj ect Improvements, means Capital Improvements to Public Facilities that are designed to provide service to a Service Area including, without limitation, the type of improvements the City has the authority to make as described in Section 50- 1703, Idaho Code. (ii) "System improvement costs" means costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of system improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in Section 50-1702(h), Idaho Code, to provide additional public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. For clarification, system improvement costs do not include: (i) Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities other than capital improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans; (ii) Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new Capital Improvements; (iii) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; (iv) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to provide better service to existing development; (v) Administrative and operating costs of the governmental entity unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plans, as provided in Section 67-8208, Idaho Code; or M'ACT FEE ORDINANCE - 10 (vi) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the governmental entity to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. 10-07-OS -Imposition and Computation of Impact Fees (a) Any application for a Building Permit enabling the construction, and in the case of construction that does not require a Building Permit, any building that takes place on or after the Effective Date of this Chapter shall be subject to the imposition of Impact Fees in the manner and amount set forth in this Chapter. The methodology adopted for the purpose of determ;n;ng police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees shall be based upon the assumptions set forth in the Impact Fee Study. (b) Impact Fees shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential and nonresidential Development in the Service Area for which a Building Permit is required and shall be payable prior to the issuance of any Building Permit (or installation permit in the case of a Manufactured Home) for a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential building. Except as otherwise provided herein, after the Effective Date of this Chapter, no Building Permit shall be issued until the Impact Fees described in this Chapter have been paid, unless the Development for which the permit is sought is exempted by Section 10-07-08 or approved credits are used to cover the Impact Fee, as set forth in Section 10- 07-09. The Fee Administrator shall have the authority to withhold a Building Permit or stop construction, as the case may be, until the appropriate Impact Fee has been collected. (c) A Feepayor required by this Chapter to pay an Impact Fee may choose to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to either the Fee Schedule or subsections (d) through (fl below. If the Feepayor chooses to have the amount of such Impact Fee determined pursuant to subsections (d) through (f) below, such Impact Fee shall be subject to the adjustment described in Section 10-07-09, if applicable. If the Project is a mix of those uses listed on the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fees shall be determined by adding up the Impact Fees that would be payable for each use as if it were a freestanding use pursuant to the Fee Schedule. (d) Individual assessment of Impact Fees is permitted in situations where the. Feepayor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the established Impact Fee is inappropriate for the Project. Written application for individual assessment shall be made to the Fee Administrator at any time prior to receiving Building Permit(s). Late applications for individual assessment of Impact Fees may be considered for a period of sixty (60) days after the receipt of a Building Permit only if the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable prior to receipt of a Building Permit and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. Such independent Impact Fee calculation study for the Feepayor's Development shall be prepared at the Feepayor's cost by a qualified professional and contain studies, data and other relevant information and be submitted to the Fee Administrator for review. Any such study shall be based on the same methodology and the same Level of Service standards, improvements and costs used in the Impact Fee Study, and must document the methodologies and assumptions used. The City may hire a professional consultant to review any independent Impact Fee calculation study on behalf of the City, and may charge the reasonable costs of such review to the Feepayor. IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 11 (e) Any independent Impact Fee calculation study submitted by a Feepayor may be accepted, rejected or accepted with modifications by the City as the basis for calculating Impact Fees. The City shall not be required to accept any study or documentation the City reasonably deems to be inaccurate or unreliable, and shall have the authority to request that the Feepayor submit additional or different documentation for consideration in connection with review of any independent Impact Fee calculation. If such additional or different documentation is accepted or accepted with modifications as a more accurate measure of the Impact Fees due in connection with Feepayor's proposed Development than the applicable Impact Fees set forth in subsection the Fee Schedule, then the Impact Fee due under this Chapter shall be calculated according to such documentation. (fl The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision establishing the Impact Fees in connection with the individual assessment within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The decision shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fees, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fees are intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the following factors considered: (1) The cost of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; (2) The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; (3) The extent to which the new growth and development will contribute to the cost of System Improvements through taxation, assessment, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to the cost of System Improvements through Developer or landowner contributions; (4) The extent to which the new growth and development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; (5) The extent to which the new growth and development should be credited for providing System Improvements, without charge to other properties within the Service Area; (6) Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new growth and development; (7) The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of Impact Fees paid at different times; and (8) The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, transfers, and special taxation. (g) Certification of the Impact Fee for a Project maybe applied for in the following manner: (1) Written application may be made to the Fee Administrator not later than sixty (60) days after Development Approval by the City Council. Late applications for certification of the Impact Fee will not be considered unless the Feepayor makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable until after the time had run and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 12 (2) The Fee Administrator shall provide the Feepayor with a written Impact Fee certification for the Project within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application is submitted. The certification provided by the Fee Administrator shall establish the Impact Fee for the Project in question, so long as there is no material change to the Project as identified in the certification application or the Impact Fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of factors considered, and shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the Impact Fee, shall specify the System Improvement(s) for which the Impact Fee is intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of the factors considered, which factors are identified in subsection (f) above. (h) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of an individual assessment or certification shall be made to the City as provided further in this Chapter. (i) The City recognizes that there may be circumstances where the anticipated fiscal impacts of a proposed Development are of such magnitude that the City may be unable to accommodate the Development without excessive or unscheduled public expenditures that exceed the amount of the anticipated Impact Fees from such Development. If the City determines that a proposed Development would create such an Extraordinary Impact on the City's police, fire, and/or parks and recreation Public Facilities, the City may refuse to approve the proposed Development. In the alternative, the City may calculate a pro rata share per Dwelling Unit, or square feet of nonresidential buildings, of the Extraordinary Impact and charge a reasonable Extraordinary Impact Fee that is greater than would ordinarily be charged. (j) If the City discovers an error in its Impact Fee formula that results in assessment or payment of more than a Proportionate Share, City shall, at the time of assessment on a case by case basis, adjust the Impact Fee to collect no more than a Proportionate Share or discontinue the collection of any Impact Fees until the error is corrected by ordinance. 10-07-06 - P~ment of Impact Fees (a) After the Effective Date of this Chapter all Feepayors shall pay the Impact Fees as provided by this Chapter to the Fee Administrator following application for a Building Permit and prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for a Dwelling Unit, or nonresidential building. (b) All Impact Fees paid by a Feepayor pursuant to this Chapter shall be promptly deposited in the Impact Fee Fund described in Section 10-07-07. 10-07-07 -Impact Fee Funds; Refimds of Impact Fees Paid (a) There is hereby established a police Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all police Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring police Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of police Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 13 (b) There is hereby established a fire Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all fire Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring fire Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of fire Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (c) There is hereby established a parks and recreation Impact Fee fund into which shall be deposited all parks and recreation Impact Fees for the purpose of ensuring parks and recreation Impact Fees collected pursuant hereto are designated for the accommodation of parks and recreation Capital Improvements reasonably necessary to serve new growth and development that paid the Impact Fee. (d) Each fund shall be aninterest-bearing account which shall be accounted for separately from other Impact Fee funds and from other City funds. Any interest or other income earned on monies deposited in a fund shall be credited to such fund. Expenditures of Impact Fees shall be made only for the category of System Improvements for which the Impact Fees were collected and as identified in the Capital Improvements Plans. (e) Except as otherwise provided herein, monies from each fund, including any accrued interest, shall be limited to the financing of acquisition, expansion, and/or improvement of Capital Improvements, or for principal and interest payments on bonds or other borrowed revenues used to acquire, expand or improve such Capital Improvements, necessary to serve new growth and development. Impact Fees in each fund shall be spent within eight (8) years from the date such Impact Fees were collected on afirst-in/first-out (FIFO) basis. The City may hold the Impact Fees longer than the prescribed time period if the City identifies, in writing: (1) a reasonable cause why the Impact Fees should be held longer; and (2) an anticipated date by which the Impact Fees will be expended but in no event longer than eleven (11) years from the date the Impact Fees were collected. (fl The Fee Administrator shall prepare quarterly and annual reports to be provided to the Advisory Committee and the City Council, which reports shall: (1) Describe the amount of all Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility; and (2) Describe the percentage of tax and revenues other than Impact Fees collected, appropriated or spent for System Improvements during the preceding quarter or year, as applicable, by category of Public Facility. (g) Funds shall be deemed expended when payment of such funds has been approved by the City. The Feepayor or Successor in Interest shall be entitled to a refund of the Impact Fee if: (1) service is available but never provided; (2) a Building Permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is revoked or abandoned; (3) the City, after collecting the Impact Fee when service is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected Impact Fees; or (4) the Feepayor pays an Impact Fee under protest and a subsequent review of the Impact Fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the Impact Fee paid exceeded the Proportionate Share to which the City was entitled to receive. (h) When the right to a refund exists, within ninety (90) days after the City determines that a refund is due, the City shall provide written notice of entitlement to a refund, to the Owner of record and the Feepayor who paid the Impact Fees at the address shown on the application for IlVII'ACT FEE ORDINANCE - 14 Development Approval, or to a Successor in Interest who has notified the City of a transfer of the right or entitlement to a refund and who has provided to the City a mailing address. When the right to a refund exists, the City shall also publish the notice of entitlement to a refund within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the eight (8) year period after the date that the Impact Fees were collected. Such published notice shall contain the heading "Notice of Entitlement to Impact Fee Refiind." (i) A refund shall include interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate provided for in Section 28-22-104, Idaho Code, from the date on which the Impact Fee was originally paid. G) In order to be eligible for a refund, a Feepayor, Successor in Interest or Owner of record shall file a written application for a refund with the Fee Administrator within six (ti) months of the time such refund becomes payable under subsection (e) above, or within six (ti) months of publication of the notice of entitlement to a refund, whichever is later. If a Successor in Interest claims a refund of Impact Fees, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been transferred to the claimant prior to issuing the requested refund. Refunds shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the date on which the Fee Administrator determines that a sufficient proof of claim for a refund has been made. (k) Any person entitled to a refund shall have standing to sue for a refund under the provisions of this Chapter if there has not been a timely payment of a refund as provided herein. 10-07-08 -Exemptions from Impact Fees (a) The following types of land Development shall be exempted from payment of the Impact Fees imposed by this Chapter: (1) Rebuilding or replacing a Dwelling Unit or the same amount of square feet of a nonresidential structure on the same lot and existing on the Effective Date of this Chapter provided that the rebuilt or replaced Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure does not increase the need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. If such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure was destroyed, such Dwelling Unit or nonresidential structure must be rebuilt or replaced and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of destruction. (2) Construction of an unoccupied, detached accessory structure, or addition of uses related to a Dwelling Unit unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements. (3) Remodeling or repairing a Dwelling Unit or a nonresidential structure in a manner that does not increase the need for police or fire or parks and recreation Public Facilities. (4) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot. (b) An Impact Fee will be assessed for installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home unless the Feepayor can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (1) that a Modular Building or Manufactured Home was legally in place on the lot or space IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 15 prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter; or (2) that an Impact Fee has been paid previously for the installation of a Modular Building or Manufactured Home on that same lot or space. (c) Developments determined by the City Council that provide Affordable Housing may be exempt from the Impact Fee requirement, provided that the exempt Development's Proportionate Share of System Improvements is funded through a revenue source other than Impact Fees. (1) Current housing affordability guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") shall be used to determine whether Dwelling Units in the Development qualify as Affordable Housing. (2) Affordable Housing Projects are required to demonstrate that they will provide Dwelling Units to eligible families based on HUD income and family size guidelines. (3) Providers of Affordable Housing Dwelling Units must demonstrate along-term commitment to provide Affordable Housing for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. (d) Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination shall be made as provided further in this Chapter. 10-07-09 -Credits; Reimbursements (a) No Feepayor shall~be required to construct, fund or contribute any Capital Improvement to meet the same need for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed. All System Improvements constructed, funded or contributed for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements for which an Impact Fee is imposed, over and above those required by the City in connection with new development, shall result in either a credit on future Impact Fees or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) for such excess to be paid by future Development that benefits from such System Improvements. However, no credit or reimbursement shall be provided for: (1) Project Improvements; (2) any construction, funding or contribution not agreed to in writing by the City prior to commencement of such construction, funding or contribution; and (3) any construction, funding or contribution of a type of Capital Improvements not included in the calculation of the applicable Impact Fee. (b) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Proj ect pursuant to Section 10-07-OS (d) through (f), credit shall be given for the Present Value of all tax and user fee revenue generated by the Feepayor within the Service Area and used by the City for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected. If the amount of such credit exceeds the Impact Fee for a Proj ect, the Feepayor shall receive a credit on future Impact Fees. (c) In the calculation of Impact Fees for a Project, credit or reimbursement (at the Feepayor's option) shall be given for the Present Value of any construction of System Improvements or contribution of land or money required by the City from the Feepayor for System Improvements of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected, including System Improvements paid for through local improvement district assessments. IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 16 (d) If credit or reimbursement is due to the Feepayor, the City and Feepayor shall enter into a written agreement, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction, funding or contribution. The written agreement shall include, without limitation: a description of the construction, funding or contribution of System Improvements including, in the case of real property, a legal description of the real property; description as to how the System Improvements are to be valued; the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement; instructions as to how the Capital Improvements should be provided to the City to ensure full transfer of ownership; and the circumstances under which the credit or reimbursement is deemed effective. To assist in such reimbursement, the City shall continue to collect Impact Fees from other Developers whose proposed Developments will benefit from such construction, funding or contribution, and will promptly transfer such funds to the Feepayor. If a Successor in Interest claims a reimbursement or credit, the Fee Administrator may require written documentation that such rights have been conveyed to the claimant prior to issuing the requested reimbursement or credit. (e) Approved credits may be used to reduce the amount of Impact Fees of the category for which the Impact Fee is being collected in connection with any new growth and development until the amount of the credit is exhausted. Each time a request to use approved credits is presented to the City, the City shall reduce the amount of the applicable Impact Fee otherwise due from the Feepayor and shall note in the City records the amount of credit remaining, if any. Upon request of the Feepayor, the City shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. If the credit has not been exhausted within eight (8) years of the date of issuance of the first Building Permit for which an Impact Fee was due and payable, or within such other time period as may be designated in writing by the City, such credit shall lapse, unless a refimd of the remaining credit is applied for as set forth in Section 10-07-07(j) above. (fl Approved credits or reimbursement shall only be used to reduce the amount of the Impact Fee of the category for which the Impact Fee is otherwise due, and shall not be paid to the Feepayor in cash or in credits against any other monies due from the Feepayor to the City. (g) Credit for land dedications shall, at the Feepayor's option, be valued at: (1) one hundred (100) percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the Ada County Assessor; or (2) that fair market value established by an MAI appraiser reasonably acceptable to the City in an appraisal paid for by the Feepayor. Credit for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the City based on complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates submitted by the Feepayor to the City, which estimates shall be revised as actual costs become available. The City shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if the City determines that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs reasonably acceptable to the City as a more accurate measure of the value of the offered System Improvements to the City. (h) Approved credits for land dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the City in a form reasonably acceptable to the City at no cost to the City, and has been accepted by the City. Approved credits for contribution or construction of System Improvements shall generally become effective when: (1) all required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the City; and (2) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed incompliance with all applicable requirements of the IlV)PACT FEE ORDINANCE - 17 City. Approved credits for the construction of System Improvements may become effective at an earlier date if the Feepayor posts security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit or escrow agreement in the amount and under terms reasonably acceptable to the City. (i) Credit may only be transferred by a Feepayor that has received credit to such Feepayor's Successor in Interest. The credit may be used only to offset Impact Fees for the same category for which the credit was issued. Credits shall be transferred by any written instrument clearly identifying which credits are being transferred, the dollar amount of the credit being transferred, and the System Improvements for which the credit was issued. The instrument of transfer shall be signed by both the transferor and transferee, and a copy of the document shall be delivered to the Fee Administrator for documentation of the transfer before the transfer shall be deemed effective. 10-07-10 -Appeals The decisions of the Fee Administrator maybe appealed as provided below: (a) Any Feepayor who is or may be obligated to pay an Impact Fee, may appeal a decision made by the Fee Administrator in applying this Ordinance to the City Council's designee. Such decisions that maybe appealed include: (1) The applicability of an Impact Fee to the Development. (2) The amount of an Impact Fee to be paid for the Development. (3) The availability, amount or application of any credit. (4) The amount of any refund, reimbursement or credit. A Feepayor may pay an Impact Fee under protest in order to obtain a Development Approval or Building Permit(s) and, by paying such Impact Fee, shall not be estopped from exercising the right of appeal provided herein, nor shall the Feepayor be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemed to have been illegally collected. Upon final disposition of an appeal, the Impact Fee shall be adjusted in accordance with the decision rendered and, if necessary, a refund paid. (b) In order to pursue an appeal, the Feepayor shall file a written notice of appeal with the City Council's designee within fifteen (15) days after the date of the decision being appealed, or the date on which the Feepayor submitted a payment of Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such written application shall include a statement describing why the appellant believes that the decision was in error, together with copies of any documents that the appellant believes supports the claim. (c) The City Council's designee shall notify the Feepayor of the hearing date on the appeal, which notice shall be given no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall hear the appeal within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written notice of appeal. The appellant shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The Fee Administrator who made the decision under appeal shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of the decision. The burden of proof in any such hearing shall be on the IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 18 Feepayor to demonstrate that the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, reimbursement or refund was not properly calculated by the City. (d) The criteria to be used by the City Council's designee shall be whether: (1) the decision or interpretation made by the Fee Administrator; or (2) the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the appellant, more accurately reflects the intent of this Ordinance that new growth and development in the City pay its Proportionate Shaze of the costs of System Improvements for Public Facilities necessary to serve new development. The City Council's designee may affirm, reject or revise the decision of the Fee Administrator, providing written findings of fact and conclusions, within fifteen (15) days after hearing the appeal. The City Council's designee shall modify the amount of the Impact Fee, credit, refund or reimbursement only if there is substantial evidence in the record that the Fee Administrator erred, based upon the methodologies contained in the Impact Fee Study, this Ordinance and/or the Capital Improvements Plans. The decision of the City Council's designee shall be final. (e) A Feepayor may request that the City enter into mediation by a qualified independent party to address a disagreement related to the Impact Fee for new growth and development. If both parties agree to mediation, costs for the independent mediation service shall be shazed equally by the Feepayor and the City. Mediation may take place at any time during an appeals process and any time limitation relevant to an appeal shall be tolled. 10-07-11-Impact Fee Advisory Committee The City has established an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall continue to be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Two (2) or more members of the Advisory Committee shall be active in the business of development, building or real estate, and two (2) members shall be appointed to the Advisory Committee who aze not employees or officials of the City. The Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council and is established to: (1) Assist the City in adopting Land Use Assumptions; (2) Review the Capital Improvements Plans, andproposed amendments, and file written comments; (3) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plans; (4) File periodic reports, at least annually, with respect to the Capital Improvements Plans and report to the City any perceived inequities in implementing the Capital Improvements Plans or imposing the Impact Fees; and (5) Advise the City of the need to update or revise Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans and Impact Fees. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee, upon request, all financial and accounting information, professional reports in relation to other development and implementation of Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plans and periodic updates of the Capital Improvements Plans. IlVIPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 19 10-07-12 -Miscellaneous Provisions (a) As used in this Chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates; the word shall, will or must is always mandatory; the word may is permissive; and the word should indicates that which is recommended, but not required. (b) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any Development for which a lawful Building Permit was issued prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance. (c) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a Developer to construct reasonable Project Improvements in conjunction with a Project. (d) Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the ability of the City to enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided in Section 67-8204A, Idaho Code. (e) The Impact Fees described in this Chapter, and the administrative procedures of this Chapter shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years to ensure that: (1) the demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such Impact Fees are still valid; (2) the resulting Impact Fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire, and/or parks and recreation System Improvements required to serve new growth and development; (3) the monies collected in any Impact Fee fund have been and are expected to be spent for System Improvements of the type for which such Impact Fees were paid; and (4) such System Improvements will benefit those Developments for which the Impact Fees were paid. (fl Violation of this Chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in the Meridian City Code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the City charged with the administration of this Chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this Chapter including, without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed Development, shall be a violation of this Chapter. (g) The captions used in this Chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this Chapter. (h) If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho Impact Fee Act, Sections 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions shall be deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall continue in fitll force and effect. (i) This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days subsequent to this Ordinance's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon Title 10, Chapter 7, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be repealed. IlViPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 20 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2006. APPROVED: MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK 1MPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 21 EI~~IT A FEE SCHEDULE 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: Police Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential Fire Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential Parks Impact Fee Schedule: Residential Non-Residential Total Fees: Maximum Allowable Fee Advisory Committee (Full Cosf Recovery Fee) Recommendation $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $85.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.06 per squaze foot $ 0.06 per squaze foot $377.00 per Dwelling Unit $300.00 per Dwelling Unit $ 0.25 per squaze foot $ 0.20 per squaze foot $1,384.00 per Dwelling Unit $1,215.00 per Dwelling Unit $ N/A per squaze foot $ N/A per squaze foot Residential $1,846.00 Non-Residential $ 0.31 $1,600.00 $ 0.26 This Fee Schedule shall be in effect between , 2006, and December 31, 2007. On January 1, 2008 and on January 1$` of each yeaz thereafter in which an Impact Fee is in effect, the amount of the Impact Fee shall be automatically adjusted to account for inflation increases in the cost of providing police, fire, and pazks and recreation Public Facilities to serve new growth and development utilizing an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from electing to maintain athen-existing police, fire, and pazks and recreation Impact Fee or from electing to waive the inflation adjustment for any given fiscal year, or years. Any such action to determine an inflation factor shall be by the City Council resolution. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - 22 At~PENDIX C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist V ~ b ~ ~ O .~ ~ 0 b ~ ~ O H O •~ y Cn ~.r Ar a ,. .~ ,~ ,~ q~q n y A -O p ~ ~' M ~ y ~ a o ~, u 0 v: bA ~ w °' ~ ~ `~ ~, a " O w ~ ~ .N ~ N ~ yO.~ ~ '0 U "O c ~ °'°' ~"j U 'b ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ '~ °' w pyE 'O a. a ~ ~v ,-, A ~~c~ N ~` b ~ c5 ., ca -O ~^ ~ ~. ~ .a W per"., w a~ i+ ~ M N~ ~~ ~0 ~°° ~ ~~U~ a+ '~ Y N H °' a o °' ~ a ~, ~ a ~ a. U ~ s~ ~' '~p ~ cd w cd ~ ~~ ~~ N d ~ o. N d y ~ m C~ ~` bA :~ ~ ~, d ~c .: G ~ vi U ~ c~ O y U 'q b N .~ ..O W O ~ y . O y a .~ ~ ~ 'i7 "'"' O a+ '~ O ,~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ u by -O ~ p~~y ~ al O L' y ~ s~. O ~ O u ~ O q . ~ ~j d ^~ ~ ~ `+' ~ O b O ~u ~ y ~' ~ O y tl~ ~ t7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W L'i ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ {, a ~+ ~ " ^~^y M O ~ H ~ a ~ ~~ W a.+ p+ ~ ~ U ~ b j ~ "~ O ~ ~ q oP~ b0 ',ra b A ~ i+ cV Ki ~. .~ 71 m ~O' ~ -pC m ~ aAi ~ ~ ~ y ~ o ~" tOi y m ~ cd O D+ p ~ ~ cva JD, ~., ~ O w '~ HV a O N a~ '~ ~' y O w w O ~~ O ^t~i ~O y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 N ~ V p+ ~a ~" ~ pi ~ n ~ ~ b y ~ .O ~ ~; ~ ca b bA ~ ~ . H GG N ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ y~~. YO ~ cd y y by y cdd ~ ~ O" s-~ y O a~ i,, i ~ T~ U y ~ •-SA. p. O q p. ~ 00 ~ ~j p ~ ' ' .~ .~ ~ p .n ~ ~ ~ H O ~ ~ o .~ ~ b ~ ~ a. 'O ~ c~ ~, ~ ~ .~ H u aNi ~O ~ ~ yO ~ D. '~ • y y~ ~ .D id N ~ id ~ ~ . era ~. ~ 3 O TS a {~ ~ CJ fd Y O ~ y w ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ '~ • ~ o.~' a ~ ~' o °.~ ' ~ v a O U +' ~ O y ~ v O ~ fa ~ "~ o y ~ a o •~ '~ a v p+ G~ O y L~ O ~ .L] .~ ~~ ,~ ~ w .o v ~ U ~ ~ q o w O N y G~ c~ w~ ~ oa~~ g ;~o ~ acv ~~ ~ ~ ~ G O ' A ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ' p J R "G ~ Q ~ ~ ( ~' ~ N ~ y cd j j~ 1~ ~ y y cd ^~7 O ~ N ~ • y ~ ~ N ~ F'~ ~ ~ t _'4 • • ~ U a ~ 0 as ~.~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~ ~ld ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ O N ' O N y V~ pp :% cd ~ V ~ ;,~ ~ ~ ~ C% N .~ ~ ~ '~w~+ ^ V p-I ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, v ~, ~ Q 'd U ~ .~~r /~ ~i ~ ~ r N O O N N V od C% a+ p O ~ q ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ,~ A ~ ~ ,~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 'd . '~ , 'w vp, q ,~ '~ +N' ~ q p O q ~ ~ p, ~+ ..~ n t~ -a~ ~n ~ 6E di C id "~ ~ p., y p ~, v.~ ~ N U 1-I 'i ^^ ~ ti a~ w ~'i w ~, ~ yp ~ ~ ^~^ a3 ~ ti ~ O O a ~ ,~ ~ p c~ ~ ~ +~ ~, y G a. ~~ .~ o ~ a Y "'w O LI ~~~ ~ 'd YO M B ~ Yi fA N Y p p a~ N •~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . .`.~ ~ ~+' C O p ~ ~ ~ p eq ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ „~D ~3 ~, ~ 53 b ~° O ,~ N O ~ ~ a.+ '~ ~ C7 q L~+ 'C . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . o ~ N ~ ~ ~ ' N ~ y, .~ ~ b w , ~ ~ ~ b p ~ w p N y ~ y ..d gp'~ ~ a~~ •~q7~ A ~ Q p ~ ~ 'p ~ cd~ N ..~ A ~i ~ d p ~ ~ LCC ~ ti O p y p D( Oa w ~ D. `~ q'~p O ~ ~ .~ 'O p.~ u ~ ~ ~ ~+ C p ti ~' w a~ t +y 0 ~ ~ ~ b ~ i7 ..w y ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~ yyy C ~ ~ 1 w a [ ti . 7 . ~ y ~G ~ w ~ L'~ y~ ~ y G i7 AI~I~ENDIX D. Current Service Standard Approach The Current Service Standazd approach was used to calculate the City's current investment in capital improvement. This approach is only shown for comparison purposes and serves as a double check against the CIP approach in the main report. If the current investment in improvements were considerably lower than the calculated fees in the body of the main report, then the City would need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. If this were the case, it is likely projects were attributed to growth at an inaccurately high percentage, or, alternatively, some of the growth projects have elements of repair, replacement or upgrade that have not been identified. On the other hand, if the current investment in improvements were considerably higher than the fees calculated under the CIP approach, the City would also need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. In this case, it is likely the City would need more future improvements to maintain current levels of service, or the City did not allocate enough of the capital improvements to growth. The Current Service Standazd methodology utilizes the current distribution of residential and nonresidential squaze footage in the City as a basis for allocating improvement costs. This conservative allocation is based upon the theory that current investment reflects the current level of service provided by the City, and this current level of service should be maintained in future growth. In order to evaluate the City's current capital improvements, BBC and Galena Consulting met with City staff to review the replacement costs and equity percentages (portion owned) of current capital improvements. If the equity percentage for any project is less than 100 percent, this indicates that the project is debt financed and the loan has not yet been retired. For the portion of current improvements that is not yet owned in its entirety, taxes aze used to pay the debt service payments. This prevents "double dipping" so that growth would not pay twice for improvements with taxes and impact fees. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth at existing service levels. The cost of the fee study is also eligible for inclusion into the calculation for all fee categories. All current capital improvement exhibits include 33 percent of the fee srudy cost since the total cost is shazed between three impact fee categories (police, fire, and pazks and recreation). BBC RESEARCH SZ CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1 Exhibit 3 below presents the total replacement value of current police assets. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "Replacement Value" times the "Equity Percentage" times the "Shared Facility" percentage. Exhibit 3. Current Police Assets, 2006 ' Replacement Equity Sh ared baclllty Amount to Type of Capital Improvement Velue t7mes Pef~cn (~) tlmes ~ (% In fee) equg7s Include In Fees -... ~~ Infrastructure Police Station (1401 E Watertower) $4,000,000 45% 100°•6 $1,800,000 Animal Sfieker $140,000 100% 100% $140,000 Police Communicatlons Equipment (22 Radios) $99.440 100% 1004b $99,440 K 9 Training Fadlity $400,000 100%' 100°.5 $4~.~ m K-9 Trolning Fadlity Land (2.5 Aces) $275,000 100, t o0~6 _ ~ _ _ , $27s,ooo - - _ _ - t - - ~} 414 4Q0 ,. ~~,*• t~ ~~` h' ~ ~ ~ 52,714.440 _ ~. Tota}Inkastruc ure _..`- _._ _.. .,.. _. -~_ _. . _. ,~ ._ Fee-Related Rmearch ImpaciFeeStudy $32,500 too_° 33 a $10,833_ _ ~ 946;940 54 ` 52,725.,273' ," rand Total _ , _ -. - - '.. _ _ _ _ _ f__~_ __ _ _ - _. . _ ~. ~. - -_..w.. _........«,..a ~. t m ..o.,-,.~r_ the [itv awns the capital Note: (1)Equitypercentagereneasaencsem~rpop~~G~~..~~..~y.,,...7-_._---...-.--~_-.~ _ improvement outright. (2) Cost per aa2 of land assumed to be 5110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The cost per acre for the K 9 Training Facility ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. Exhibit 3 lists approximately $4.9 million in replacement costs for the City's police improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more. Under the Current Service Standard approach (not allowed as the fee calculation methodology in Idaho), $2.7 million would be impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 2 Exhibit 4 presents the current capital improvements identified by City staff for the fire department. Exhibit 4. Current Fire Assets, 2006 Rtplacettient - Equity Sharrd Fdd7lty Aamndt to Type ot.CapitallmproveYhant ' - Value Ylmrs -., PercenW el~i rimes 9 (%Irifee) equalr Includeip,Ftes - FacBitJes -- FireStation 81 (540 E Frenldin Rd)11,700 sq. R ~ $1,851,642 100% 100% $1,851,642 Fire Station ~ 3 (3545 N. Locus[ Grove) 7,040 sq. R (n $1,114,150 100% 100% $1,114,150 Fire Station 42 (2401 N. Ten MBe Rd) 6,770 sq. fL (~1 $1,071,420 100% 100% $1,071,420 Fire Station ;g 4 (2515 5. Eagle Rd) 7,077 sq. ft R1 $1,120,017 100% 100% $1,120,017 Land for Station S 5 (N. Linder Rd) $357,000 100% 100% $357,000 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfleld Dr)1,744 sq, ft Cll $167,000 100% 100% $167,000 Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 1986 Pierce Engine (306) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 1993 Pierce Engine (304) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2000 Pierce Engine (302) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2002 Pierce Engine (301) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 8410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2006 Pierce Engine (307) $410,000 100% 100% $410,000 2000 International Water7ender (320) $240,000 100% 100% 8240 pOp 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 1998 Dodge Squad Vehicle (342) $65,000 10046 100% $65,000 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) $65,000 100% 100% $65,000 Equlpmerrt Optlcom Trefflc Signal Controls 8200 Opp 1~% 100% S2~r000 16 Vehicle Radios $64,272 100% 100% 564,272 4 Base Station Radios - $21,200 100% 100% $21,200 Tota( Infrastructure. _ '_~-~ _ %'.59,271 701 ~;$+-r~ a 's"#Y~r, ~ ,J., <, ~ ;~ ~ 59,271,707 Fee Related R~~soarch ' Impact fcti~Study d Totel_ 832,500_ 5$ 304 201 1_00% 33% _ $10,833 ~ a _ , , _ X9,282;534 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. tf the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital Improvement outright. (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estimated average per acre. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The City has approximately $9.3 million invested in fire improvement. Under the Current Service Standard approach, neazly all of the current investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre for fire facilities ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollaz amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 3 Exhibit 5 shows the City's current parks and recreation assets. Exhibit 5. Current Parks and Recreatlon Assets, 2006 - Raplademerrt - Equity ~ Shared Facility - Amoulitt0 (k:ofCaplUllalmprovemrnt ,Value. t(Mef Percerrtagei~)•,:.tlmes (96~infee).,_. egtrals InclUdetn~Fees. Paths dr Tra0s ~) Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) 8233,200 10096 100% 8233,200 Kiwanis Park to Fagle Road (2 Aces) $220,000 10096 100% 8220,000 Blackstone Pathway(1.SOAVes) $165,000 100% 100% $185,000 Sutherland Farm Pathway(1.1 Ayes) $121,000 10096 100% 5721,000 Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) 8110,000 100% 100% 8110,000 Loast Grove Pathway (1.0 Ave) $110,000 100% 100% $110,000 Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Ayes) 827,500 10096 100% 827,500 Neighborhood § Mint-Parks (a) IOwanis Park (11.2 Ayes) 82,184,000 10096 100% $2,184,000 Bainbridge Park (7.5 Aces) $1,462,500 10x16 100% 81,462,500 Season's Park (7 Ayes) 81,365,000 10096 100% 81,365,000 Chateau Park (6.75 Aces) $1,316,250 10096 10096 81,316,250 8th Street Park (4 Ayes) 878(1,000 100% 100% 8780,000 Champion Park (6 Acres) $570,000 100% 100% 8570,000 Cemennlal Park (0.5 Aces) 897,500 100% 100% 897,500 Generations Plaza (0.25 Aces) $48,750 100% 100% 848,750 Cox Monumem (0.25 Ayes) 848,750 100% 100% 848,750 community Parks ts) Heroes Park (30 Acres) 85,850,000 100% 10098 $5,850,000 Tully Park (18.5 Ayes) 83,607,500 100% 100% 83,607,500 Bear creek Park (183 Aces) $3,607,500 100% 10096 $3,607,500 Storey Park (15 Ayes) 82,925,000 100% 100% 82,925,000 Urban Parks (s) Meridian SettleMs Park Developed (53 Aver) 810,335,000 100% 10 0% 810,335,000 _ _ Tata(Ih¢astnwture l - - - S35 18`4;450 ~' j'!:`; - ~~~~ _ ~ 6. ~'~-+, ~'-535,184,450 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study 832,500 10096 3396 810,833 Impact Fee Fund Balance (a) FY 2006 Beginning Fund Balance $800,150 10~D6 100% SSOO,ISO _ '- .. ~Gratid.lrotal: _..- ,:': -`i. 5361017.100 ~-=- ~ ;. ~ ^:.~• -:.. _ 5,-`, 335,895:333 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. ff the equity percentage is 1 ~ percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright. (2) Cost per acre of land assumed to be $110,000, reflecting an estlmated average per acre. (3) 8195,000/acre in land and development costs. (4) Uncommitted Park Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 2/28/06, city of Meridian. Source: CRy of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. The Ciry's replacement cost for the current pazks and recreation improvements totals approximately $36 million. Under the Current Service Standazd approach, neazly the entire current amount of investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre ($110,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $110,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 4 Exhibit 6 displays the City's current distribution of square footage between residential and nonresidential land uses, based on the demographic exhibits in the main report. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. Exhibit 6. DisMbution of Land Uses, 2006 Note: (1) May nottotal due to rounding. source: City of Meridian, Colllen Intematlonal Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Es[ate Market Rev/ew, 2005 and Impact Fee Study Team. Square Rercent land ,Use Caltegary. Feet of Total ., ~Ftesic~_~ntial _ ._ ,~4,~4E6,463_:. 87°f~ Single Family 42,040,244 82% Multifamily 2,426,219 5% ~Na;t esi~nl ~ 6 54~4,~ 13aYo~~ Total (~) 51,011,293 100% Currently, 87 percent of total square footage in Meridian is comprised of residential development and the balance (13 percent) is nonresidential development. Impact fee calculation. Exhibits 7 through 9 present the impact fee calculation based on the improvement costs in Exhibits 3 through 5. Fees are calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of service costs by total residential units and nonresidential square feet. Again, since Idaho law mandates the use of the Capitol Improvement Plan approach, fees calculated under the Current Service Standard approach serve only as a conservative double-check to validate the fee levels calculated under the CIP approach. Exhibit 7. Calculation of Police Impact Fees Noce: (1) See ExhibR 3. Current Police Assets. (2) See EzhibR 6. D'ub4bution of Land Uses, Zl><16. source: City of Merid'wn and Impact Fee Study Team. Calculation of Impact Fees Current Value for Police Infrastructure (~~ $2,725,273 Current Land Use Percentage (z) Residential 87% Nonresidential 13% Costs by Land Use Category Residential $2,376,438 Nonresidential $348,835 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830 Impact Fees b Land Use (rounded) ~der~~p~;dwei~{n~ un~j ~: , b1~06 ~ nresi4'~>~$I~~'f~€~~~fot9i~ `~ t ° ;-_~' y 50.05 Under the Current Service Standard approach, the City has a current investment in police improvements of $106 per residential unit and $0.05 per nonresidential square foot. BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 5 Exhibit 8 below calculates the current investment in fire uprovements under the Current Service Standard approach. Exhibit 8. Calculation of Fire Impact Fees Note: (1) See Fxhibft 4. Current Fire Assets. (2) See fxhibR 6.Oistribution of Land Uses, 2006. source: City of Meridian and Impad Fee study Team Calculation of Impa F s -, . Currerrt Value for Fire Infrastructure (~) $9,282,534 Current Land Use Percentage (z) Residential 87% Nonresidential 13% Costs by Land Use Category Residential $8,094,370 Nonresidential $1,188,164 Current Land Use Residential Cn dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresidential (in square feet) 6,544,830 Impad Fees by Land Use (rounded) esider~tval (per, dw~ll~ri~ unit) X362 QS1 t ' ;. r s ~e.fo ~ , : - X0.1 .. As of 2006, the City has $362 per residential unit and $0.18 per nonresidential square foot invested in fire improvements. Exhibit 9 below displays the current parks and recreation investment per residential unit. Pazks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Exhibit 9. Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Note: (1) See ExhibR 5. Current Parks and Recrea8on Assets. source: City of Meridian and Impad Fee study Team. I Fee Calcultlon Curre~rt Value for Parks St Recreation ~~) $35,995,433 CIlrTellt Land Use Perc~tage Residenrtal 100% Nonresidential 0% Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residelrtial $35,995,433 Nonresidential $0 CurretR Land Use Residential (total dwelling units) 22,334 Nonresiderrtial (in squarefeet) N/A I Fee Land Use (rounded) s~c)ef-~Ual '~ ' nit) ''~' _ '~ $1 612 r ; The Ciry's current investment in pazks and recreation improvement is $1,612 per residential unit. BBC RESEARCH Sz CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6 APPENDIX E. Detailed Demographic Analysis The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act defines "Land Use Assumptions" as a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 20-year period. The 2006 and 2016 current and forecasted residential land uses for the City of Meridian are based on COMPASS' demographic area as calculated in the Community Choices Forecast.• Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, updated 03/21/06. The basis for the City's nonresidential square footage was Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005. This report is located in Appendix G. This appendix details the calculations and assumptions used to arrive at current and future residential units and current and future nonresidential square footage. This appendix should be read in conjunction with the main report text, which summarizes the study team's approach to the demographic data analysis. Residential Data COMPASS produces two types of demographic estimates/forecasts: Trend Forecasts and the Community Choices Forecast. COMPASS explains that "the goal of [the Trend] forecast was to allocate future growth based on prevailing residential patterns and densities...Since Trend is based on current development (everything built to date) and on-going development (approved and preliminary development proposals), Trend will be adjusted each year to reflect changing pattern."' The second forecast, the Community Choices Forecast, "does not reflect the way the region has been growing, instead it incorporates a vision for how we would like to grow."Z In other words, this forecast allows for changes in the Trend forecast reflecting the way in which the community desires to grow. This forecast takes into account denser growth within existing areas of impact, higher density development around transit corridors, and open space between communities. The study team has chosen to use the Community Choices Forecast data because we believe it provides a more accurate vision of the future and it has been adopted by COMPASS as the preferred growth forecast used in the regional long-range transportation plan. The COMPASS document is entitled Community Choices Forecast.• Households, Population and Employment by Demographic Areas and Traffic Analysis Zones, last updated on March 21, 2006. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questaons about COMPAS Forecasts. z Ibid. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 1 The document cited on the previous page provides detailed data on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub azeas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). The Community Choices forecast was updated this yeaz and, as opposed to the Trend forecast that is updated annually, the Community Choices forecast is slated for its next update in July 2010. Current and future households. As stated in the main report text, to estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the srudy team used household estimates from the aforementioned COMPASS document. Because data are collected by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), COMPASS states that the demographic area does not "match either city limits or azeas of impact boundazies"3 For example, some TAZs are not within the area of impact at all, and other TAZs aze only partially in the area of impact. However, it is true that Meridian's azea of impact contains many of the same TAZs that aze in COMPASS' Meridian demographic azea. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the srudy team has chosen to use COMPASS' data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact. The maps on the following pages portray the current Ciry limits and COMPASS' demographic areas. 3 Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), FrequentlyAsked Questioru about COMPASS Forecasts. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 2 _ _ SrMI. ; ___ _ ~... City of Meridian Future Land Use M ~~ Furea¢LmrdlMe W.t^ ~amj vntoan `amuscsv.yeia.m • tw.raavean.m. t sam.rsmnanuer ~. • cwo,~aoew w,w j • nma+nwa-rar• R ~4{ME/rgntMM ~~MgdP r~ ~ ... 6bNN ` MEMd IMea Mm1hMY ~ MrsafJnln seeua~ar ..~ 4-~rovgrm+~wa~r . r*"aua.w`r j.m.nwrprwa., `.••_. gyuwvninf• N07E5 i~'+~+irn:Y~ ~ • iUWOl01g1f00WOD bOWM~9D~ 2M1ca w+•u0~ AAepmtlGlauUlt t@cB • on r r `,.~ _.. ~ I.. 1 --+t -` ` r ~ ~ 3 7 '~* ~_ ~, __ ~ a _ .. _ _ __7 '-.~ BBC RESEARCH Si CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3 BBC RESEARCH bT CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 4 The data below reflect the aggregated Traffic Analysis Zones that create the COMPASS-defined demographic azeas in the report Community Choices Forecast.• Households, Population and Employment by DemographicAreas and TrafficAnalysis Zones. These data were the basis for current and future residential estimates/forecasts. co~a~~tbr a~~n~rr~stema+tus~a, According to COMPASS' Community Choices report, the population in Meridian in 2005 was 62,997, households totaled 21,330 and there were 19,498 jobs in the demographic area. The data presented above aze all 2005 numbers. Data aze only provided for 5-year increments beginning in 2005. Therefore, the study team calculated the annual percent change between 2005 and 2010 to estimate residential data in 2006. The study team used the same approach to calculate data for 2016 (necessary for the Capital Improvement Plan approach).4 4 Annual percent change = ((In(new population)-ln(old population))/number of years BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 5 The final table portrays how the study team azrived at Z00G and 2016 residential data. Resfdentlal Calculation for 2006 and 2016 Annual', Annual Percent Change Percent Change 2005 2006 (2005-2010 2010' 2015 2016 (2015-2020) 202Q Population 62,997 66,029 4.8% 80,136 103,285 127,102 23.1% 114,479 Households 21,330 22,334 4.7% 26,992 34,747 35,469 2.1% 38,SSZ Jobs 19,498 20,514 5.2% 25,299 30,818 31,888 3.5% 36,660 Source: COMPASS Community Ciwlces Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. Twenty-year projedlon data. The table on the following page lists COMPASS' forecasts to 2030 for all the demographic azeas in Ada and Canyon Counties. Twenty-year forecasts aze necessary to include in this report to meet the requirements of the State Statutes. However, these data are not used in the calculation of impact fees, since the timeline of the CIP is only 10 yeazs. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6 H .~ ~_ r--1 N b ^`~ --~ . O .L' v h ti N ~!' O 6~ a m .-, n N .--i ~ u z J Z O ~y N V t~ ...n _ W N ~ N m FG„ ~ m The table below presents the annual percent change between 2025 and 2030, which is used to estimate residential data in 2026. Residential Calculation for 2026 Annual Percent Change 2025 2026. (2025 -203U) 2030 Population 127,163 128,772 1.3% 135,466 Households 42,761 43,329 1.3% 45,701 Jobs 42,814 43,647 1.9% 47,187 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and Impact Fee Study Team. The demographic data in 2026 aze as follows: 128,772 persons, 43,329 households and 43,647 jobs. Nonresidential Data Colliers' International Boise and Sun Valley, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, was the basis for calculating current and future nonresidential squaze footage. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial squaze footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential squaze feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected squaze footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed in the main report text, Colliers report only tabulated buildings greater than 10,000 square feet. In order to adjust the squaze footage upwazds to include smaller buildings, the study team calculated the percentage of new commercial units since 2003 that were less than 10,000 squaze feet in size. As of Mazch 2006, on average, 21 percent of the City's newly permitted commercial units were less than 10,000 square feet. The following exhibit shows the City data that were used to quantify the proportion of units less than 10,000 square feet. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 8 BBC RESEARCH Si CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 9 In the spreadsheet on the previous page, the method to calculate the percentage of units less than 10,000 squaze feet is as follows: 1) Calculate the average square footage of built units to determine if, in that particular month, the units built were, on average, 10,000 square feet or less. > New SQF column/New Commercial column = Average SQF per Unit column 2) Use an Excel formula to quickly identify the months that "qualified" as having units with an average squaze footage of 10,000 or less. > 1 = "yes" (the average of all units was 10,000 square feet or less); 0 = "no" (the average of all units was not less than 10,000 squaze feet). 3) Tabulate the total square footage of the "qualifying" months with unit averages of 10,000 square feet or less. > Total square footage of "qualifying" months = 898,780 4) Determine the proportion of total square footage that can be attributed to buildings that are 10,000 square feet or less. > 898,780 total squaze feet of "qualifying" months / 4,186,186 total squaze feet of all commercial buildings = 21 percent. Knowing that 21 percent of the City's new commercial square footage was less than 10,000 squaze feet, the study team deduced that Colliers tabulation thus represents 79 percent (100 percent -21 percent) of the actual nonresidential squaze feet in Meridian. The study team arrived at the final (2006) nonresidential squaze footage in Meridian by dividing Colliers number (5,170,416 squaze feet) by 79 percent. This method generates a total of 6,544,830 nonresidential square feet in 2006. Future nonresidential development. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage in 2016. Currently, there aze 20,514 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential squaze feet totals 6,544,830. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs produces a ratio of 319 square feet per employee in 2006 (6,544,830 / 20,514).5 5 This ratio of square footage per employee may change over tune. The 319 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 10 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2016. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to workers remains consistent, the study team used this ratio to project nonresidential squaze footage forwazd. The estimated number of jobs in 2016 (31,888) is multiplied by the square footage per employee calculated on the previous page (319). This produces a total of 10,173,758 nonresidential square feet in 2016. See the spreadsheet below for details on the calculation of current and future nonresidential squaze footage. Current Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation Current Square Footage Calculation Total SFT per Colliers Report (all buildings greater than 10,000 SFT) 5,170,416 Total SFT including units over 10,000 SFT (see below for calculation) 6,544,830 Calculation of Total Current SFT 5,170,416 (Colliers) + x (SFT total of units less than 10,000) = y (total SFT) x = .21 y (21 percent of total square footage is less than 10,000 -see City data spreadsheet) Substitute y for x 5,170,416 + .21 y = y 5,170,416 = y-.21 y 5,170,416 = .79y 5,170,416/.79 = y y = 6,544,830 6,544,830 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2005 and City of Meridian. Future Nonresidential Square Footage Calculation Future Squa 2006 Total Employment 2006 SFT 20,514 6,544,830 Calculation SFT per Employee (2006 Employment/ 2006 SFT) 319 2016 2016 SFT Employment (2016 Employment • SFT per Employee) 31,888 10,173,758 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Yeor End Real Estate Market Review, 2005, City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. BBC RESEARCH bt CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 11 AI~I~EN D IX F. Communities in Motion d E E V a v n, h` c p ~ : ~.,~ • ~_.~' .•~"'••. ,. z. t I' REGInNAI_ Lc9NG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PI:AN 2030 Communities in Motion Executive Summary VISION We envision a Treasure Valley where quality of life is enhanced and communities are connected by an innovative, effective, multi-modal transportation system. GOALS Connections -Provide options for safe access and mobility in acost-effective manner in the region. Coordination -Achieve better inter-jurisdictional coordination of transportation and land use planning. Environment -Minimize transportation impacts to people, cultural resources, and the environment Information -Coordinate data gathering and dispense better information. The Pressure of Growth The Conarreaanities in Motion: Regional L.ong- Range Transportation Plan considers future transportation needs for Ada, Canyon, Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties - a diverse region with cities ranging in size from less than 100 residents to more than 200,000. Commuting from Gem, Payette, Boise and Elmore counties into Ada and Canyon counties has increased over the past 20 years. In 2000, more than half of Boise County's working population commuted into Ada or Canyon County. For Gem County, that percentage was 37 percent. Other travel pressures exist. Recreational travel is affecting Boise County, while Payette County faces heavy truck traffic along U.S. 95. But the traffic problems of today will pale in comparison to the problems in 2030. Why? In part, because of population growth. The six-county region had slightly over 500,000 residents in 2000 according to the United States Census. By 2030, the population may swell to nearly 1 million or more. Jobs will increase as well and the location of these jobs will be critical. Many of the new Gem County residents make the commute into Treasure Valley via S.H. 16. Imagine that commute in 2030, when Gem County's population could double. Growth and what it means for our region's future is the reason for Communities in Motion. Growth Scenarios This section r~l~ates to Question #1 on `fhe . cgmment #c~rm COMPASS and the Communities in Motion planning process made an extensive effort to look at how our region might develop. Using input from the public, agencies, elected officials and others, COMPASS developed two growth scenarios: Trend and Community Choices. The Trend scenario reflects our future if we keep developing as we have over the past 40 years. Under Trend, much of the residential growth is at three units or so per acre. Growth will continue at current densities and will occur at the urban fringe, eventually consuming most of the land between the current cities. Community Choices, the preferred alternative in the draft plan, is a growth alternative that consumes less land, leaves more open space, offers housing choices and fosters the use of alternative transportation. Community Choices clusters growth inside the areas of impact, and emphasizes higher densities and mixed-uses with jobs, shopping and services closer to homes. 125,400 acres 42;.200 acres 72% single family 55% singlefarnily 20% new homes at. 52% new homes °at transit density transit density 20.7 Million Daily; 19.6 Million Daily Vehicle Mlles. of> VEhicle Miles of Travel Travel compares these two scenarios. scenarios provide for the same amount of growth. Community Choices: Provides a greater diversity of housing choices, such as patio homes, town homes, and apartments Increases the number of new homes at transit density, encouraging effective alternatives to driving Cuts 1 million daily vehicle miles of travel, easing traffic congestion and reducing fuel consumption Transportation Systems Proposed Communities in Motion focuses on two broad areas of investment: Transit and Roadways. Transit `7+iis secfiion r~l~tes Yo C~uesrii~n #2 or~fihe I~9mment foryn , The Community Choices scenario is much more likely to support transit, walking and biking. Two basic services could be feasible: 1) Fixed-guideways that could be light rail, commuter rail or bus rapid transit services. Fixed-guideways offer higher- speed transportation on separate travel 2 ways -areal benefit when the streets are congested. 2) Scheduled fixed-route services (buses operating on specific streets) that tie into the guideway systems. For most of the region covered by Communities in Motion, there is no bus service for the general population. Community Choices would increase transit services more than 10 fold. It would increase peak hour frequency to 15 minutes, expand Saturday services and add Sunday services. Commuter bus services would be implemented to Elmore, Payette, Gem and Boise counties. A rail or other fixed- guideway service would be implemented between Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian and Boise with a bus rapid transit service between Eagle and Boise. Since most of the growth under Trend would be at densities that could not effectively support scheduled bus services it was not practical to propose a major expansion of services. Under Trend, there would be less than 400 hours of scheduled bus service per day, within the Treasure Valley area. Service would not exist on Sundays and would be greatly reduced on Saturdays. Even on weekdays, the service only would operate 12 hours per day, with a 30- minute interval in peak hour (6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m.) service. Boadivayr This section.:relates o Question #3 on the comment form Roadway improvements will take place on regional corridors. These corridors are described in Chapter 4. Highlights: ^ S.H. 16 will be a major north- south expressway by 2030, connecting Gem County and I-84 ^ S.H. 44 will be improved to five lanes, including a bypass south of Middleton and frontage and backage roads ^ State Street will be a major transit corridor connecting Eagle into downtown Boise ^ U.S. 20/26 (Chinden) will be widened and have enhanced access management. It could be an expressway from Caldwell to McDermott Road or further east. ^ I-84 between Caldwell and Gowen Road will be at least three to four lanes in each direction ^ Greenhurst-Lake Hazel will be a five-lane arterial connecting Middleton Road and I-84 Interchanges, overpasses and rail crossings are part of the corridor plan. With investment in roads and transit, the future network will be 23 percent over capacity by 2030, instead of 43 percent if Trend continues. About 5 percent of the major roads are over capacity today. Financial Reality This section relates to Questions #2 and #3 on-the comme'nt'fonin A realistic plan acknowledges financial realities. The federal goven-iment requires that the long-range plan include investments that reasonably close to our estimated revenues. Furthermore, we can't claim the entire pot for new projects. At least half the transportation funding will go into operations and maintenance. So when you look at the corridors in Chapter 4, you are going to see projects that can be funded with our available resources as well as those that cannot. Funding for transportation comes from three general sources: federal funds, state highway distribution account and local funds. Chapter 5 describes the source of funds used for transportation. The bottom line is that whether federal, state or local funds are involved, most of the dollars come from some kind of tag. Funding is not equally available, either. In some counties, there are very few resources in place to build new major roads. Our region is $629 million short of funding all the roads. For transit, we are $1.1 billion short. We started with a pot of $350 million, and most of the future costs of service will be for operations and maintenance. 'What do these large numbers mean for a resident of our region? The total shortfall could be met with additional revenues of less than $200 per household per year. Another way of looking at it would be by tag or fee effort. Such sources could raise the entire $1.7 billion needed for roads and transit. More information can be found in Chapter 5. Funds Needed r ~adbuay Capitail Unfunded $628,600,000 nnual Unfunded $25,144,000 nnual share/household $71 iearasit Tiotafl -_ - Unfunded $1,098,890,000 nnual Unfunded $43,955,600 nnual share/household $125 iotatl Nlhm, Unfunded $1, 727,490,000 nnual Unfunded (25 ear rind) $69,099,600 nnual share/household (2030 base) 196 Final Thoughts A plan is not a solution. It is a guidebook. Where do we want to be? How might we get there? What are the opportunities and costs? Implementing the plan is essential so it doesn't end up as another dusty document on a shelf. Between now and the next update in 2010, we will need to focus our efforts on putting our vision and goals into effect. The Trend scenario is already occurring: If we don't move forward with Conalnunitier in Motion it means we are willing to accept Trend. 4 APPENDIX G. Collier's Year-End Real Estate Market Review i ~~ -~- ' .-F-1 .~ ~~.- ~~ l~xrt- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a- x ~~ ~ ~ _z r ~ ~ ,: ~_ ~ _ ~ r r ~~~~.~ ~1Rll ~ 'q 155y~ ~ 1~. ~~~,~9 ~, ~• ~ ~ ~ a°~ ~?d~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ' ~,~ -~ 4 ~;S f _ ,~ ~~ 'j '~ ~. .~ i-. t ~O~~I~R~ II~II~~FF~I\IIATIOIVAL ~- _ _ _ n Year-end Deal I~~tate Market Review +, " k Office Retail j Industrial ~ Investment Land ~ Sun Valley Calkers Paragon. LLC ~';. E- Ck~ I'~. i 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 ~ Boise, Idaho 83702 ~ 208.345 8000 ~ www.colliersidaho.com ~olliers International is pleased to present our 2005 year-end Rflarket Report. 2005 was a very active and productive year for commercial real estate across the Treasure Valley. It was the first full year since the 2001 downturn in which the market was in full economic recovery. UV'tth a very strong population growth ratethrough- outthevalleyand continued historic low unemployment,the market is not only showing strength, butthe growth is healthy and sustainable. The office market has remained strong in downtown Boise. Class A vacancies were under 7%throughout 2005. The strong office market is positioned to finish absorbing new condominium space in the mixed-use Bobo development and the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, which is presently over 35%leased, and will be completed mid-year The retail market can be described as strong and stable, with vacancies staying around T 1%over the last two years. While unanchored shopping centers have experienced some difficulties during 2005, activity remains strong around anchored centers. The Treasure Valley Marketplace at the Karcher interchange in Nampa will. continue to be the big retail project in the valley during 200b and 2007; with major tenants Costco,Target,andKohl's alreadycommitted. The pastyear was an incredible year for multi-family real estate investment transactions, with over one million square feet and $69 million dollars in consideration. Cap rates for multi-family investment transactions inched down` Xo 6.4% as Boise approached nationa( rates, The investment market demand for industrial, retail, and office properties will continueto be high in 2006, as itwas lastyearwith local cap rates still above national rates, butthis margin is rapidlyshrinking. One of the most dramaticc{iangesfrom 2004to 2005 occurred in the industrial market, with vacancies tightening and prices starting to rise in the fourth quarter aftertwo years of stagnant growth. One ofthe biggest harbingers of 2006 was the announcement of the sale of one of the former Zilog buildings in Mampa to Micron, a 160,000 squarefoot building which will even furthertighten the market vacancy. The residential housing market was front and. center. in the Treasure Valley ecohomy during 2005. Fears of a housingbubble burst in the valley have largely been dismissed, dueto the continued population growth that is driving demand for new housing and the current lack ofa buildable lot inventory. Lastyearwasdefinitelythebestforcommercialandresidentiairealestateinretentmemory. As westart2006,a11 signs poiritto an equally food if not even betteryear; We at Colliers lookforward to working with you again this year to provide you with superior real estate services. ~. ~~ t~eorge Iliff Managing Principal N `~ GoNiors Faragvn. LLG `~ - -_ -- __., --__ ,- Of~ce Inventory by Submarket' The Boise market experienced declines in office vacancies and constant absorption throughout 2005. Vacancies in downtown p southeast ®Southwest ©West Bench Boise have finally dropped below the ten percent (8.1% 9% 4°~ tsolo Downtown and 9.5% Downtown Periphery) barrier that it has ONarthwest ®Eagle been flirting with for the last year and a half, and class A direct jo/a ' a% ' vacancies have tightened to 6.7%. Leasing activity has been solid in the downtown area and is expected to remain strong in the ^ fv-eridian downtown and selected suburban areas during the first OCentralBench ~ sa/o quarter of 2006. The West Bench and Meridian submarkets, which 730, includes the area around the Boise Towne Square Mall, have seen the most leasing activity outside of the downtown area. One ^ Downtown anomaly in the Boise market is the lack of upward pressure on Periphery ^ Downtown 29 /o rents. Rents have been increasing at rates lower than would be 16°/u expected in an environment where there are both declining vacancies and rising construction costs. Lack of upward pressure on rents has also made it more difficult to get new office building projects off of the ground. Vacancies have tightened up dramatically in both downtown and suburban markets around Boise. The downtown central business district is currently at 8.1 % with downtown class A vacancy now at 6.7%. The vacancy rate across all submarkets is 11.5%. Eagle continues to have one of the highest office vacancy rates among non-downtown submarkets at 25.1%, in part because of high rents and the low level of new construction as a percentage of the total in that Submarket. Over the last year and a half it has been apparent that class A space downtown has been decreasing due to tenants seeking better quality space and the underlying strong economics of the valley. tl~~~,~(~~C_Y E~f11 ES 5io.oo Ss.oo So.oo 3sss 30~ 2s~a M LL_. N. ;°,' ' i ssa ~ o~ 5°,b o The only significant recent office projects have been office space ~c~°~c zcQr~~ ~~~c` Pr~Q~` Jr~,~c ry~~`'` `~~c~ ~Ae ei`a\ac ~,~~` in Bobo that was completed in the 4th quarter of 2005 and the o° ~cQ ~ec``a ~~ 5° `'°~ yae`~ ~ ~a~e 180,000 Banner Bank building which will be coming on-line in ~~'fi mid-2006. The market's ability to absorb the Banner Bank building will test whether the declining vacancies are due mostly to a lag in new space coming online, or if the market is really ready to absorb the new space. In either case, the downtown vacancy "' will more than likely stay the same or lower slightly over current ~'~ levels as the new space is absorbed in 2006, but vacancies will Szs;oo remain low from a relative standpoint. Szo.oo 2005 OFFICE OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE S~s.ao Office Vacancyby Submarket Average Office Asking Rates by Class ~~ ec1 ~r e5c .~~ ~y~ ~r ~e c O°~~~° cQ~`.~r c~`a~0~c ~°~yo~ ~~Se y°Jrs' ~~S`2,~° •~A ~e~~a~a o~ C.~ c~ o~ O 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 `Boise, Idaho 83702 ~ 205.345.9000 ~ www.colliersidaho-com YearEnd -2Q4~ _ IVI/~~;k:~T P,~ KfCd(~ E~~t~J i ~ Market asking rates for available office listings are analyzed to get a feel for what the market will tolerate. While vacancies have been tightening across the valley, quoted rental rates have only inched up slightly. Current annual full service rents average $15.52 per square foot across all submarkets, while Eagle continues to have the highest average asking prices at $20.74. Class A space in downtown Boise is averaging $18.67 which is only up slightly from July 2005's average rate of $18.44. Office spaces in the Central Bench and Northwest submarkets have the lowest asking prices at $13.59 and $13.30 respectively. All these figures are effectively higher by $1 to $3 because of inadequate tenant improvement allowances in most new buildings. If a tenant wants a deal, they must look to second generation space so as to avoid these tenant improvement costs. Increasingly, the market is seeing full service rents offered to potential tenants in which janitorial service is excluded. Colliers International monitored the gap between full service rents with those excluding janitorial service and found the over- all market difference to be $1.16 ($15.52 verses $14.36). iJtJ i Lt)~~Ih.. ~.~ A key indicator of the depth in the Boise office market in 2006 will be the rate of absorption of a new 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building in the heart of downtown. The successful leasing of this new space may signal other significant downtown building projects to move forward during 2006. One main growth feature of Boise is the rapid population expansion to smaller cities west of Boise. In these areas, several newer large suburban office and business parks will continue to see strong leasing activity, and construction in western suburban locations may lag behind demand. Demand will continue to be high in 2006 in suburban markets for businesses looking to own smaller buildings in the 2,500 - 7,500 square foot range. Varanrv by Suh~nar4at :wea iA •~ } ~ p '' e ~ 0 Downtown 3,351,714 263,044 15,971 279,015 55 8.3% Downtown Periphery 1,931,440 171,564 12,075 183,639 50 9.5% Central Bench 1,501,206 155,142 155,142 57 10.3% Northwest 157,293 30,629 30,629 5 19.5% Southeast 1,045,982 94,930 94,930 28 9.1% Southwest 433,063 63,002 63,002 19 14.5% West Bench 2,131,175 171,917 139,865 311,782 81 14.6% Ea le 262 005 65 770 65 770 14 25.1 Meridian • 956,962 ~,~ ~ s ~ 162,974 s 4,962 167,936 s 30 17.5% ~,.~ ~, •VacancyRateincludessub/eaSespace Direct Vacancy Rate (excludingsubleosespoce)=10.0% souRCE: COWERSINTERNAl70NAL Full Semvicta Asidnn Rat~ac hu Ruilrlinn t'Iace Average FuU'Service 1-. - is c,f`. ~~ _~ ~ i_ ~ , _ , , ~ - , ,, , ~ . _ . _ . - _ - . r. gasses $15.19 $15.28 $13.59 $13.30 $16.50 $1650 $15.24 $20.74 $17.67 $1552 $18.67 $16.27 $15.50 n/a $17.67 $16.50 $16.13 $20.17 $18.20 $17.21 'B'an~d'C $14.20 $14.04 $13.50 $13.30 $15.92 n/a $13.67 n/a $16.20 $14.26 One 6'buildingvacancylistedat$22.00 COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Office Services wVR~C c_UI_I_IER] INTERNATIONAL GeotcjeJllff ' Wayne5laugNter CralgTribken LeWMatrgios 208.472.2858 208.472:2$53 20$.472.2842 208.472.2841 L~ _~ C)~ a Corti€ers Paragon, LAG ~~ ~ ~ ~` I ~ ~~ _,.~., Retail Inventory by Submarket With ongoing residential growth expected in the southwest and western Treasure Valley through 2006, retail-oriented commercial p Garden City ®Meridian real estate will remain active and growing through 2006. Fears of god 18% p Nampa a housing bubble in the Boise residential market have been largely ameliorated and that should secure a certain amount of retail growth overthe next several years. 2005 saw the beginning phases of a full overpass and interchange at Karcher Road in the city of Nampa and the development of the 65-acre Treasure Valley Marketplace northeast of the interchange. 2005 saw the opening of a new Edward's Cinema, P.F. Chang's, Ann Taylor Loft, Joseph A. Banks, and numerous other new tenants as part of the Bobo redevelopment in downtown Boise. 2005 also saw the explosion of unanchored strip centers throughout the Treasure Valley. While most have been successful to date, there are warning signs that this segment of the market could encounter some setbacks in 2006. If~1~E(~~T~_,~f-tY' Colliers currently tracks 10.3 million square feet in retail centers, 10,000 square feet or larger throughout ten individual markets that include the cities of Boise, Meridian, Eagle, and Nampa. The West Bench of Boise, which includes the area around the mall, represents 25% or over 2.5 million square feet of the inventory that Colliers monitors. This area remains a center of retail activity. iIA(.Af~1CY (;,~~TCS Vacancy rates within theTreasureValley retail centers 10,000 square feet or larger have been very stable over the past six months, moving from 10.9% in July to 11.1% at the year's end. Over the past year, vacancies have shown some upward trend, increasing from 10.1% at the end of 2004. Vacancies have remained the highest in the northwest portion of Boise over the last six months, with current vacancy at 22.4%. The next highest vacancy is in Garden City at 16.8o/a. Eagle vacancy has increased slightly to 6.5% compared with 2.4% vacancy measured in July of 2005. !~SK.Ii~1G Rf~TES Asking rates overall have only increased slightly since July and have been stable over the year. Retail market asking rates averaged $13.49 in July and currently average $13.70. This is just slightly higher than 2004 year-end estimates of $13.61. Top average asking rents are being seen in the North End of Boise ($18.25) and Southeast Boise ($17.45). Nampa continues to see the highest single asking rates with a $28 rent seen near the end of 2005. The lowest retail asking rates are currently being seen in the Central Bench area of Boise, which includes the area between I-84 and I-184. ^ ,Eagle ~ 8% :.4010 ~VVest -~ ~`~ ®Central Bench _~ 10% Bench/J1Aall ~_` ~ ~~ - 250/x. ^ North End 2ga ^ southwest ^ Northeast 11 °:0 4% ®Southeast 13% Ftetap Vacanry Rates & Asking Rents s.o~a i, 10.0 Szs.oo 9zo.oo sisdo a S t o,ao ~a~~ Absorption Ranking by Submarket t= ~ 0 ~ ~ s e~,re ~~~a o~~ 04' a~'~ yo~r4 aaP orfh P~cg' rah ~Pas~ ~~PS~ a~~"o ryPSr yc~ F'~ a c,~ ~y~- 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 ~ Boise, Idaho 83702 ~ 208.345.9000 , www.colliersldaho.com v __ - `. _ Year=End ~D05 :~._ _ It is no surprisethatthe most active areas for retail during 2005 were the West Bench area in Boise, which includes the area around 2006 RETAIL OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE Boise Towne Square and Meridian. The West Bench mall area had a net absorption of over 100,000 square feet and Meridian followed closely behind with 90,000 square feet. ~?ltT'L~T(~K Activity will be the strongest in Canyon County, at the Treasure Valley Marketplace and the Wal-Mart/Sam's Club developments. Including the anchor retailers, over 800,000 square feet of retail will be under construction by year's end. With the success of Bobo in downtown Boise, look for more mixed-use projects to be \ { ) ~ ,+ <' '.VfJ~~~~il~'~~?f _~ announced with retail office and residential components. Meridian will have at least two new projects with Kohl's anchoring one of the developments. Expanded December 2005 Retail Statistics Central Bench INVENTORY 1,024,018 135,068 ' ~ 13.2% RENTS LOW HIGH AVERAGE $4.00 $17.00 $10.10 20 North End 199,010 9,503 4.8% $18.00 $18.50 $18.25 6 Northwest 442,037 98,891 22.4% $8.00 $15.35 $12.91 7 Southeast 1,294,713 190,857 14.7% $10.25 $23.00 $17.45 26~ Southwest 1,154,539 77,089 6.7% $8.00 $21.00 $13.50 19 West Bench /Mall 2,567,428 353,243 13.8% $4.50 $24.00 $12.85 36 Ea le 443,170 28,933 6.5% $11.00 $17.50 $13.58 10 Garden City 512,953 86,022 16.8% $ 8.00 $13.00 $11.73 8 Meridian 1,877,786 91,205 4.9% $7.00 $20.00 $14.00 24 Nampa • 809,397 10 325 051 73,004 9.0% $7.00 8 58 $28.00 $19 74 $12.45 13 70 15 16.0% ~ 2.o~ia Y 4 8.0% iv a 4.0% Percentage Vacant ~ 12.8% 11.6 10.9% / 10.2% 11.6% ~ 10.1% ~f 10.8% 11:1 °/a .1:0.0% 10.2% `~.:~~'~.,'' ~," 9.9% 0 8.8o/u 8.9% 9.0 /o 5:2% ~9 90 LL4, ~p~ ~Z9, FO.~ ~Q, ,~ ,9 x0 X0 X0 9.° ~9,p 00 00 0! gD Foy ~~ Foy ~~ Foy ~a `~°s- ~~ Foy 00, 00~ OOa $~ 00~ Op O~ OOS 00~ COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Retail Services ` c'° Bro°kBlakeelee Mke rstensen LeV/Goldrn~n 208.472.2835 208.472.2866. 208.472.2847 Goiliers Paragon, i..t..C: ~ 1 __- _ _. _ ._ - - Industrial Inventory by Submarket U~'ERVIEW ,.. ... - Y°~ ^ harden City _ • -~-- ~ Eagle Boise is still experiencing rapid residential and retail growth and, 0.79°b 3.67% ®Meridian as well, the industrial market continued to expand during 2005. ^Caldweli 10.75°!° After a couple of stable years, the industrial market has 8.38% ^ Nampa experienced tightening vacancies with upward pressure on prices ^ West Bench _ 19.79% ~ starting to be felt. Industries such as flooring, glass, roofing, and 1$.89.0 ~ other construction-related businesses were active seekers of ~ industrial space in the Boise market during 2005. Asking rates are p Southwest 3~rg% .,. P ^ Air ort (~ on the rise, land availability is diminishing, and overall, the Boise 11.34% Industrial market is healthy. O Southeast ~ Central sench 9S4% 7.9Q°k ^ Northwest 0,16°/a ~ D6 w~town IidVENTC.1~ti' L a + ~ ^ North End ~ Downtown !n Colliers International tracks near) 23 millions ware feet of Y q 0~z% Periphery ° 2 4/ ~ industrial properties in buildings 10,000 square feet or larger. .9 ° ~ Nampa, with 4.5 million square feet, and the West Bench area of Average Industrial Asking Rates by Submarket Boise, with 4.3 million square feet, are the largest submarkets that _ ~' Colliers monitors. ~. ~`, VAC; AMC Y ~ ~ ~ f~! ~ Meridian and Nampa have the highest industrial vacancy rates in the Valley, due primarily to three large vacant manufacturing plants. Meridian is currently at 17.8% vacancy. Key vacancies in Meridian include the formerJabil building at 357,000 square feet and 29,000 square feet in the Taylor West building. Nampa's industrial vacancy is currently at 13.8%. Vacancies include the 268,000 square feet in the former Zilog buildings; however, Micron's purchase of one of these buildings is imminent. The lowest industrial vacancy is currently in the Garden City submarket with vacancy at 1.9%. Garden City was one of the most at~tive areas of the Valley in 2005, even though its inventory is small at 800,000 square feet. 2006 INDUSTRIAL OUTLOOK AT A GLANCE f P``Q~ da `eo 3 5 °,'o 30 A 25% a~°A 15°.b.' 10 °:o So; ono ~~ P~~ , Industrial Vacancy Rate by Submarket ~ r Ga 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 `Boise, Idaho 83702 ~ 208.345.9000 ~ vwdw.colliersidaho.com L - c` O~ - ~ _ Year-anti 2g0~ I~SI`:II`Ils fi;~`fiES Average triple net asking rates on available industrial properties began to show an upturn toward the latter part of 2005, due to a reduction of supply, as well as increases in construction and land costs on new projects. Average asking rates for quality warehouse distribution space are presently in the $0.42 - $0.45 N.N.N. per square foot range. These rates should remain constant throughout the first half of 2006. ~~U T L.C.)(.9K. With tightening vacancies and a limited variety of available industrial lease space, speculative building and build-to-suit projects may be more prevalent in 2006 than in 2005. Boise is also expected to see an increase in industrial condominiums to fit the needs of an increasing number of tenants seeking medium to smaller industrial spaces in the 2,000 to 5,000 square foot range that they can own. Vacancies will tighten in 2006, due to increased interest in large spaces such as the former Jabil, Zilog, and Aluma Glass buildings that have been on the market for some time. Meridian has continued to be a center of industrial leasing activity because of the decreasing supply and limited space variety in Boise. However, as Meridian's limited vacant space becomes absorbed, Nampa will see more and more activity. Further west of Boise, industrial leasing activity is also expected to experience more activity and interest during 2006. December 2005 Industrial Statistic At A Glance "' C 'r ?r'• INVENTORY SF ~ "~.~ t e t ~ "'~ ~ ' ' ~x z e- ~~ • :6 `` ~ ~ : +~ «k AVERAGE .RENT". (NNN MONTHLI~ Airport 2,607,843 313,700 12.0% -11.0% $0.43 Central Bench 1,816,896 113,756 6.3% -5.9% $0.53 Downtown 600,141 61,412 10.2% 2.5% $0.20 Downtown Periphery 675,810 77,775 11.5% 3.0% $0.36 North End 50,186 15,000 29.9% 29.9% $0.32 Northwest 37,801 0 0.0% 0.0% n/a Southeast 2,193,491 107,707 4.9% 3.0% $0.49 Southwest 823,906 84,048 10.2% -9.2% $0.43 West Bench 4,343,351 283,792 6.5% -0.8% $0.48 Caldwell 1,927,555 117,900 6.1% -1.2°h $0.17 Eagle 182,740 21,064 11.5% -3.0% $0.57 Garden City 843,200 16,400 1.9% -13.3% $0.35 Meridian 2,335,668 415,469 17.8% -15.5% $0.55 Nampa 4,550,688 625,879 13.8% 4.7% $0.35 r }_f ~ ~ , ;: ,~.. 22,989,276 a '~ • : ~ ~ .; ~ ~ $0.42 ¢Allrentsquotedasmonthlytriple-net ~~..R~G I.VLLICR~IIVICRNA11VItlAL COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL ~. , - ~rt , Industrial-Services ~ ~~ ,. I`~` K~ Ste4~ Fostet DeVin Pierce , Jeremy wolf 208.472.2834 208.472.2662 208.472.2829 GoRlers F'aragr,n, 1_i_C C3'JFR1s`1t 1%`~, ~-.+ Q~ ~L C N ~-.+ Q~ C Total Boise MSA (Ada and Canyon counties) investment transaction volume in 2005 maintained a similar level of activity as was witnessed in 2004. Forty-six transactions totaling $169,716,465 in consideration weretracked in 2005, compared with forty-nine and $153,497,710 changing hands during 2004. While overall volume stayed reasonably constant between 2005 and 2004, there was a significant shift in the distribution of investment transactions, with multi-family transaction volume increasing by 72% from 2004 levels. These dramatic gains in multi- family transactions were offset by 22% and 20% declines in transaction dollars among office and retail respectively. Capitalization rates were also level, with rates averaging 8.0% during 2005 compared with rates at 8.1 % in 2004. Data gathered by Colliers International from the sale of forty-six investment properties in the Boise MSA during 2005, above $500,000 in consideration, was used to compile the following statistics. Properties that sold with no income stream were excluded from this analysis. t_iFFlt_ E E~4tdE^;T~iil-l~Ji The office leasing market stayed on track during 2005 with slowly declining vacancy rates. Vacancy rates have gone down in closely monitored areas of downtown with vacancies at 8.3%. New space downtown, the 180,000 square foot Banner Bank building, will be a good test to see if the market can absorb new premium space and continue with low vacancy rates. For 2005, Colliers tracked thirteen office investment transactions with total consideration of $53,275,495. Capitalization rates ranged from a high of 12.7°/a to a low of 7.0%, with a group average of 8.9% compared with 8.4% in 2004. Boise office capitalization rates are higher than the national estimate of 7.4% and Western United States of 7.2%. Property sizes ranged from 3,017 square feet to 106,000 square feet with a total of 408,922 square feet changing hands. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $52 to $239 with a median price per square foot of $140 and a weighted average price per square foot for the entire group of $130. Office Outlook -Stable Positives -Even with decreasing vacancy rates and increased down- town absorption, there is still room for a decline in vacancy rates in 2006. In 2005, new construction costs were outpacing rent growth, but little new supply should help keep vacancy and absorption at or slightly below 2004 and 2005 levels. Negatives -Movement of office space to western parts of the Treasure Valley may have a negative effect on the downtown office market during 2006. If new class A building space coming to market in 2006 absorbs slowly, it may send negative signals to investors and lending institutions. ~ETAIl. IfL'E~TfU1EN~t Colliers tracked thirteen retail investment sales during 2005, totaling $35,653,000 in consideration. Capitalization rates ranged from a high of 9.7% to a low of 5.7%, with a group average rate of 7.9%. Boise capitalization rates for retail properties are in line with the national estimate of 7.2%. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $79 to $387, with a group average price per square foot of $190 and a weighted average price per square foot of $157. Retail investment transactions occurred primarily during the first six months of 2005 with only three monitored investment transactions meeting our analysis criteria since July first. Retail average pricing per square foot is currently higher in Boise ($190) than in Denver ($157) and Salt Lake City ($170). Retail Outlook Positive Positives -Unemployment in the Boise MSA has stabilized and remained at 3.5%, and the ,population continues to grow, which will keep up demand for service and retail businesses. Properties located near major traffic generators such as Wal-Mart and other big box centers will be the most amactive to investors. Negatives -Unanchored centers continue to be carefully scrutinized by tenants, lenders and prospective investors. The Treasure Valley market could see a slowdown in prospective building and retail transaction volume white owners work to lease new or currently under construction retail developments. One signal that investors will be watching for is if new retail developments are scaled back or put on hold. 2005 Year-End Investment Summar •i • • 13 Office 408,922 ` 31,456 _ 53,275,495 4,098,115 $156 8:8% 13 Retail 227,241: 17,480 35,653,000 2,742,538 $190 7.9% 4 Industrial 213,007 53,252 11,339,970 2,834,992 $53 8.8°l0 h 16 ` Multi-Family 1,033,638 55,532 69,448,000 3,612,188 576 6.4~Io ~ ~ ~. ~ •~. SOURCES: COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL, LANGSTON & ASSOCIATES, MOUNTAIN STATES APPRAISA 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 I Boise, Idaho 8 3702 ~ 208.345 .9000 ~ www.colliersidaho.com dl~~~[~~~ 1 ~.ilaL ihd~iE~,~ NIA r~.l i Industrial investment opportunities have been limited over the past two years with four transactions being monitored during 2005. Industrial investment sales during 2005 totaled $11,339,970 with 213,000 square feet being sold. Capitalization rates ranged from 7.6% to 11.0% with an average rate of 8.8%. Boise's capitalization rate for industrial properties is above the national estimate of 7.6%. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $45 to $88 with a transaction average of $53 and a weighted average also at $53. The median price per square foot was $52.50. Industrial Outlook -Stable Positives -Limited industrial land availability will support current rental rates, restrict new development, and push capitalization rates down. Negatives -Investors seeking industrial-type buildings or warehouses will continue to have limited selection, and those that do come on the market will require thorough analysis of comparable sales and income potential. ft~U[TI F/O1~'iILY IL,I'~1[°~if~lFS`J) For 2005, Colliers tracked the sale of 1,097 units in sixteen proper- ties with a total consideration of $69,440,000. The multi-family transaction volume for 2005 jumped considerably compared with 20041evels ($40,232,000). This is consistent with national trends in multi-family investment. Capitalization rates ranged from 8.2% to a low of 4.3% with a group average of 6.4%. Boise's multi-family capitalization rates for 2005 were just over the national estimate (6.2%). Transaction price per unit ranged from $37,500 to $98,500 with a sector average per unit price of $63,317. Transaction price per square foot ranged from $54 to $116 with a weighted average price per square foot for the entire group of $76. The same weighted average price per square foot was at $69 as of July. The second half of 2005 saw owners selling and _ _ Year--End 2005 investors purchasing smaller complexes at higher per square foot prices compared with the first six months of 2005. Multi-Family Outlook -Stable to Strong Positives -Treasure Valley jobs and population will continue to grow with continued positive national attention being directed at Boise as a quality place to live and do business. As interests continue to inch up as a result of Federal Reserve fiscal policy, many possible first-time homebuyers may not feel the immediate urgency to purchase. Increased home values may also push young families or first-time buyers into rental options. There is still room for capitalization rates to decline to national levels. Negatives -Regardless of market conditions, home ownership is still often a better choice for many consumers. t~IJTLC)f.1i<. The Boise MSA will continue to grow with Census projections putting the estimated annual growth at just over two and a half percent (2.6%) which will translate into approximately 70,000 new residents relocating to the Boise MSA by 2010. In addition, the sustained population growth in the Boise MSA will mean approximately 30,000 new households in the local economy. Economy.com ranked Boise 46th out of 387 metro areas in expected employment growth and listed Boise as below the national average in costs to do business and cost of living. With solid economic indicators and national consensus that Boise is a growth market, the only question that remains is whether real estate investment will level off at or increase above 2004 and 2005 levels. Multi-family properties should continue to be strong as more owners look to take profits and place properties on the market. With recent industrial sales and the tightening of industrial vacancies, it is unlikely that the investment market will slow to 2004 levels, where there were no monitored industrial investment transactions. 2005 National Average Cap Rate Comparison 2ooz zoos 2004 coos°' BOISE NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL BOISE .NATIONAL BOISE NATIONAL A 8.3% 9.4% 8.8% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 8.8% 7.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 8.5% 8.0°!0 7.9% 7.9% 7.2% 9.2% 9.6% 8.7°!0 8.9% n/a 8.4% 8.8% 7.6% 8.5% SZ% 9.0% 7.5% 7.6% 6.9% 6.4°!0 6.2°h Red Boise Capitalization rate is lower than national average Blue-BolseCapitalization rate6 higher than national average SOURCE COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL REAL CAPITAL ANALYrICS COWERS INTERNATIONAL Investment Services ~ RlckClarks~,ccmn davidwall ' Clieryllsiahee Brian Watt'- 208,472.2832 208:472.2844 208.472.2863 208.472:2654 Goli4ers Parn~a~~n 4_LC; k 4r C~ G C J hand 2005 was a booming year across the Treasure Valley, with increases in new home construction land development. The housing market was front and center in the valley's economic news, with recent Idaho Statesman headlines "valley's Home Sale Prices Soar" and "Building Fuels Valley Economy." This was also a year in which many were concerned that the housing market was near- ing abubble-breaking phase, but those fears have subsided because of the underlying strength of theTreasure Valley economy. FICIt)~l~l~ N-Af=tl~k1 ~l)MMf~~Y Throughout the Treasure Valley, construction activity increased. According to the Construction Monitor, Ada County home sales increased by over 40% from 2004 levels to a total of 12,222. Canyon County saw an even larger increase of 67%, with 6,264 home sales during 2005. An interesting trend in Canyon County is that new home sales (as a percent of total home sales) have decreased from 52o/a in 2003 to 31 % in 2005, while new home prices have increased by41%overthe same period. Canyon County is a more volatile market for new home developers, because consumers are choosing existing homes at higher rates. New home building in 2005 increased by 270% in Kuna, 127% in Star, and 90% in Middleton over 2004 levels. ~$~~i1151~IC; C~t11~~;L~ FE~~faS C~IMIf~d1~7Fi~C~ I[~! 1+~1)5 in housing inventory that correlates well with current Census Bureau population growth estimates of approximately 4% annually in Canyon County and 3% growth in Ada County since 2001. Concerns in the market have to do with the doubling of the price of development land and the entry into the land market of inexperienced investors with large sums of capital. The rising price and relative scarcity of new homes may start to have a negative effect on young and new homebuyers. Developers are also faced with the increased costs which include earth moving, pipe, asphalt, and the cost of materials for home building. This is one factor that has contributed to higher new home costs. Even with increased development costs, the factor that has created the most increase in finished home prices is the relative scarcity of lots and new homes. Demand created from people moving to the valley is emerging as the primary factor in higher home prices. ~)t,6T LC~tlt< Demand for homes will continue to lead a demand for the inputs, especially land. Speculators, investors and developers are all in the market chasing an ever-diminishing supply of developable land. In this market of rising land prices and ever-shorter terms, it will be important to pay attention to market fundamentals such as employment and population growth. Colliers International's Land Group has rededicated itself to success through negotiations, and is working hard to assist acquisition clients in making proflitable land purchase decisions. The top priority is selling land to the right buyers on the right terms for our listing clients. With Boise-Nampa unemployment reaching a low of 3.0% in December and continued high in-migration to the Treasure Valley,the housing market looks buoyed to avoid a housing bubble burst. The over 10,000 new homes built in Ada and Canyon counties during 2005 reflect a 6% annual growth rate i Sinela Family 4inrno Cal®c fi; . ~_ ~, ~_~~-- ~ 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 ' 7110 8648 12,222 3 059 3 750 6,264 • ` ~r: .:.~ 2,611 3,123 4,886 1,591 1,456. 1,960 • .~ ~ 36.7% 36.1% 40.0% 52.0% 38.8% 31.3% ' ~ ~ ~ $194 644 $220 618 $ 246 671 $111 97 $129 386 $157 997 SOURCE: INTERMOUNTAIN ML.S IUpw Sinelp Family 41mm~ R~~ileiinn Dnrr„FFe R.. ria.. 'nn~ _'nnc ~, . ~., . ~ Bolse x,~,_ . Garden Ea le • Star .Kuna Merldfan _ Nam a • • Caldwell ~Middleton ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~`~ r, 752 87 440 107 243 1,450 1,199 602 117 '; ~•~~ "' 687 49 479 146 230 2,388 1,151 637 68 "'~~, ~ 989 49 520 546 522 3,245 1,398 941 129 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 ~ Boise, Idaho 83702 ~ 208.345.9000 ~ www colliersidaho corn ~tJVttLG C.VN~IHULIIVIV NIVNIIVN COWERS INTERNATIONAL land Services .~. ` `1~ ~. F Johnsiarr RyanCantloli 208.472.2838 208.472.2640 C:oHiers Paragon. LLC ' . '_ ..: Y~aF=End 205 RE'~IC~E:hdTlf~'_ K~fl-. ~5 { ~~TE ~:SOl~RV1~1~d Sun Valley's mountain resort community resides in Blaine County, with a population of just over 20,000, and includes the Wood River Valley towns of Hailey, Sun Valley and Ketchum. Real estate in Sun Valley is unique, in that the area continues to be one of the premier resort destinations in the United States. ~~5~r'iEly i 111. ~E~et ~~~r~ry~i ~ I~In~i~c~ i ~~~~~a~~~ ~- - ---~ The Sun Valley residential home market has traditionally been a vacation home market; however, the last three years have brought an increased trend toward primary home purchases, giving strength to a Single Family Home segment of over $1.5 million. While the second home market was strong, with low interest rates fueling the under $1.5 million Condo/Townhome market, the valley also saw many sales in the $7 million to $10 million range in 2005. RE~l~~P~iTIP~I. +:~1~f~5~I f"~~1~_ i 1(if~~~ TF~Ef~C?5 Three primary market segments in Sun Valley are seeing new construction: in-town condominiums, high-end estates north and south of Ketchum, and subdivisions protected by codes and covenants. Developers have been encouraged to move forward with skillfully planned downtown projects as the City Council has taken a more supportive stance on the types of projects being approved. Homebuyers and those new to the area are exhibiting an increased desire to live in neighborhoods where property values are protected through rules and regulations, while the extremely wealthy are looking for estate properties and privacy. ~;~~IL')k:1~T~Al_ ~~;k~t_. E:`-~ef',~~ ~a~tJ~i!_E~t?k Condos and mid-valley single family homes will be hot properties in 2006, mainly because the majority of new construction is focused on condo projects in Ketchum and new home construction in the Golden Eagle and Valley Club areas. The coming year will also see more estate lot and estate home sales in the $5 million dollar and up range. Other issues affecting the Sun Valley real estate market in 2006 will be: 1) Airport selection and FAA approval of a new airport location to serve the Wood River Valley; 2) The formation of the Community Development Corporation tasked with helping developers and residents to devise and implement good strategies for Ketchum commercial and residential development; 3) Two local area golf courses will be completed and ready for play this year, bringing increased exposure to winter desert residents looking for a summer alternative. '._ t {~~-1V3~9=~~_ ~~`~I_ nEI~L ES td~TC ~~'JEF~VIEV~I _ -~ All commercial real estate sectors showed strength in 2005. The greatest number of lease transactions occurred in retail, both new businesses and relocation and upgrades. Ketchum is definitely seeing some interest from regional and national tenants. Hailey is growing commercially in response to the growing number of local residents moving down the valley for more affordable housing. Office leasing was also strong in Ketchum and Hailey. The light industrial sector is busy, as more mixed-use light industrial-zoned buildings are being erected in both Ketchum and Hailey. The Ketchum light industrial zoning has been modified to allow foe limited residential, and that property type is the current choice. Demand is high in Hailey, especially in Airport West, and this new construction is being quickly absorbed through leases and purchases. Ketchum's commercial core became a hot topic during the latter part of 2005, and the community has rallied behind Ketchum's comprehensive plan. From the illumination and renaming of streets to the continuity of sidewalks, the community is working hard to make Ketchum a more user-friendly town. Progress is being made through education relating to organization and resources, particularly that of creating a Community Development Corporation or `CDC' and Urban Renewal Districts. We expect to see results of Ketchum's hard work soon, with the redevelopment of the Williams Market site, a new hotel in Ketchum, new mixed- use development at McHanville, near St. Luke's Wood River Hospital, and mixed-use projects slated for mid to late 2006. The City of Ketchum is encouraging both development and historic preservation through the relaxation of building restrictions and other favorable incentives for developers, such as the implementation of Transfer of Development Rights, or'TDRs: !~ Range of Commerdal Monthly Prices Per Square Foot KETCHUM $1.35-$2.00 $1.75-$ 2.35 $1 A0-$1.50 HAILEY $1.25-$1.50 $1.25-$1.50 $0.65-$1.10 ICII L_~ COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Sun Valley Office ~`.` "" au entry ttBiigue an In Bob Mo son Bmkerage Services Brokerage Services Re;ident(al/Investment Residential Setvke3 Services 200 West Rivers Street, Suite 301 ~ Ketchum, Idaho 8330 ' 208 726.1918 ~ wwrw.colliersidaho.com +.,olliars Paragc~i ~ I_L~ I l i N r` O U .e: _. _, _ ,..: _ , , _ - _ - _ _ _- ~:. ~CoNiers Idaho i~la~a~eifier+t L ~~~_~~ George Iliff Managing Principal ~)ndustt'ial derv' ~p '"`'" ~* , - •x4~ , Steve Foster Associate Devin Pierce Associate Jeremy Wolf Associate f~- Ret~i~5 - W. Brook Blakeslee Principal, Associate Mike Christensen Associate Lew Goldman Associate ~° L~" Doug Croft Director of Finance ---~--~ ~SQrv mss:-..~~~~ti ~~ Holly Metzger Director of Marketing Cory Read Director of Research Justin Vogel Research Services Melody Johnson Marketing Graphics /Brokerage Services Katie Collins Public Relations /Listing Coordinator Investm~ttt Services ~ -~~-. - - ~_,_____ t ~ ~-_~ Rick Clark, CCIM, SIOR Principal David Wali Associate Cheryl Larabee Associate Brian Watt Transaction Coordinator ~LandSei~iices ~~'~ ''r' John Starr Associate Ryan Cantlon Associate ~°Office Se~r~~ces ~'T ~` George Iliff Principal Lew Manglos Associate Wayne Slaughter Associate Craig Tribken Associate ~q~ ~, a ayr. ,:, Paul Kenny Brokerage Services Matthew Bogue Brokerage Services Todd Conklin Residential and Investment Services Bob Morrison Residential Services 'fiance*;L ~st~c-n ~, Pete Conlon Director of Maintenance TJ.McDonough Chief Engineer Pete Rutherford Senior Site Engineer Samantha Johnson Marketing Administration Lori Kurts Marketing Graphic Coordinator ":; tt~ s' r i i' ~____~s~`~:"~ _~_ __ Chris Stroh Director ofMulti-Family Services ~`;g 'ant r Thomas Siffermann Director of Property Services Patricia A. Zoot Senior Property Manager Marcie Epperson Lake Assistant Property Manager Larissa Schienle Assistant Property Manager Megan White Lease Administrator Bree Black Lease Renewal Specialist 755 West Front Street, Sulte 300 ~ Boise. Idaho 83702 ~ 208.345.9000 1 wwwr,colliersidaho.com Your Success When the Boise and Sun Valley offices of Colliers International combine their talent, technology, and integrated real estate tools, something powerful happens. Together, we provide first-class commercial, investment and residential real estate services to businesses and private investors throughout all of Idaho. COLL,II~' RS ~~~~ri~az~,~-rio~a~~ - _ _..~ BOISE 755 West Front Street, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 208.345.9000 SUN VALLEY 200 West Rivers Street, Suite 301 Ketchum, Idaho 83340 208.726.1918 APPENDIX H. Meridian FY 2005 Capital Improvement Plans GENERAL FUND PARKS and REGREAI-'IO.'Y DEPARTMRNT" C}VERVIIrW The City's goal is a park system that features large multi-use community parks located so that no resident will be further than a mile from a park. These parks will provide a wide variety of both passive and structured (sports fields) activities for their immediate neighborhoods. deyelopment.and management and opei~tiuns. • July 2(102, -City of Meridian Compreherisiae Plan -This document provides policies and .direction on how the City should:grow and develop. The ultimate objective is to have l~ese parks linked together with a system of off-street trails. This concept is called "the String of Pearls" with the parks as pearls and the trail system the string, Supplementing this system will be neighborhood parks and mini parks maintained, by private homeowner groups. ~i~NIVII~IG 13ACKGRC}UND The City's Parks Department is relatively new. In the last four years there have been several studies that influenced the development and direction of the parks department. July ZC}Cl0 -Comprehensive Parks & Recreation System Plan -This was the original planning document that established a design for the City's park system. and established objectives for land acxluisition, park June 2(13 - Park impact Fee Ordinance - Revised based on Title fi7, Chaptex.$2 of tike Idaho Cede which authori 7.es the irnpo>sition of park development impact fees as an equitable program. foz .planning and financing park improvements needed to serve new growth and development: • August 26.~?3 -Comprehensive Park$ and Recreation System Action Plan .- Supplement to the original 2000 Comprehensive Plan, provides specific recommendations on a layout plan for parks, open space, trails and other. recreation facilities and a. strategy for funding the Plan. ark Minimum 20.000 square Iasi Quarter-mite Smell onq tot park8 d0s~ned to prc~Vlde a:small p~ygrountl and open specs vilthct a stmtlrvtsion. Oevelapmerri and matrt~narice Is generaay the responsibility of the land daveto~ and hnm r,awns,r assoctaUans. rortraobt Park Seven to iittean acres Qua-haft mile 8mallpahsa d®stgned tgr.non-SUpeMsetl, non-grganized recreatron aativitlss: Th®y Itsrve a i~nbk,atlan of pplsygrouhd ami parts aaUv Generally deve~l~i by land developer and rtiaintalned by NtomeovVner aa9gciafans. r+nhy Parks Pitkean tq thirty acres arr® to farm miles 48r9®r parka that provide agtive and structured reoreateortappattunitias. They haveparkkt®,restroom, and pkrt~ fE(aHidas. dlrban Parks pAintmum fifty aarea Entire'City Lavge parks.that ha~+a space'Forpleygraundo,optYris#IOlds, plcn~ areas, restrooms, pathways, and speaializad facitttties such es skate parks, apuat~ 1aci5iflAa, tennis Gourds or indoor recreatlon faaPtities. I2 ~+w~a u®nerauvns ra~za .Caacxe8 omen OoWniQN/!1 plaza with. seating and vuatpr feature C~4annlaf Park .5 a DoWntawn next ~ 8oys'8 Girls. City,: h~ a baslce~all court, plcn~ space, op~5 grass area and a~ provides additlonaf downtown park~g Cox ~ontanent .25 aces Small shglier ~cated at City Hall on idahq $ M~kiian Tote) 1 acre ~ORHOOD CFtateau Perk 6.75 ar:res i~relnpsd to 2002, grass areas and playgraur-d egW~nent 8th Street Paris 4 acres Grass areas andplsy~ground egt~pment 10314 acres iNITY PARKS Storey Park 15 acres Estabtlsh~l park mafUr®lendscaping, bad tiers, p~ic facitlties, and playground egtri~neni Fully Park 18.5 aces Near park wdih skate ~Ic, p~yrourxi equipment, belt fieltla, semi ptcxdc tacilites Bear Cr®ek 18;5 acres New park adN~ p~yground ~~rment, teriHa Courts, ball fields and picnk: fac~ities Total 52 arvexi~ PARKS RAeridian Settlers Park 26 acxes dpi Nawpark::Yrith.i~lay0r~nd. bail i~lds and.pkslio fadliitii§s 92 ate undevfp Parts with be 5& areas, caxr hpN is devetaped 0 26 ate ~tl Peck I.mtd c3ranU Total .7b scree FuAer Park 25 ~arses Park end. owned and. operated. by the YNestem Ada. SettleMS Park 112 acxe Reirrelition Distr~t 9torey.Park uhnrimming Porgy i ;acre loteil witi~l$lwey J'ark Private Nelghtmrhood Parks 50t sixes Small parks owned & operated by homecvmeas assns City Goif Corso 119 sores Thd Gky owne3he gC(f ~aurag liuY.:Fras ariter®tlinto e It~~ term lease with a private cxntr~ortbr the operation arxi maaetenanr.~. Thy Ie~t6e ~ fra' $8,48U per year. 13 PROJECTS IN PROCESS AND CAPITALt IMP' Based on hist©rical data and calculateotts done to establish the park impact fee amount it costs the City $25,0 to purchase park land aa~d ~?0,000 tv dev+elop park land. Expt~:teil c.~3ts to. finish tin-going projects and ttew projects aze budgeted [~OVEIVIENT.PI~AN based on those amounts.. Projects are budgeted on a three year start o finish. timeline, Donations of .time and lobar are inclrided in park costs.'and shown later in this report as revenue. ..~ ... ..'r • tVEftitf 8t]tgiOCD Autvmn Faire 7 .. $4130,000 Located h Atriritmn Faire e~ub~Viaionrparaei proylded by P'AtiKdaS ilavelbpB?. TKe ~r9c is schedufed to bra ~nplesl~ 1n.2008. Kiwanis P8t9c 9 aces $t~.t>00 Ciase tp AfitVieur Huh St~gf, tkrrnpleted in partnership mihh Gaffs ibvwanis. The tatty trod prov'~de on~oi r>A mairuertenr;e and devebp tyre park trr~atiat ~e artd tlOn system end green up itte Perk. 1'ite Kitiv~ds Glob grill build the restroom aril shatter txtt~dinga. Ghampian Park 6 etxes $42p,0~ Located in the Park Sfatta subdtYtaidn near Fop b Rd oral East Ustictc Road. COmptetian~ scheduled for 2805. Policre Statlon Park 5 acres $350;800 Located. west oP ttre A+lefidian Poles Station an watertower Ave. Slate! for drsg 6raktingia+~idy artd remote ~. backt COMMBJidITY PARKS Lochsa Fags Park 38 aa'e8 $2,1,000 Locatetti Ong Ten Mile Road between DAcktan Road and Chtridert Qvard. Scirled for camplerian in 2010 N1G®ermott 38 act $2, i 08,E Located rrear.it~e northeast rimer Of Cherry lane ark Cherry t.n t'arlt AAcDerrnon Road. This is in ttre Cdy's Impact area rather jt~rup Property) then in the Cky. City sewer and wa/a.ere flat airr~idy rtuai~ so ttevetaprnertt t1,sm rte etnrtmd. The ,perk i>3 sued to be the SNe of the Meridian tarts Rodeo C~~nds and nit foe-skatirt rink. SatYers Park 58 atx~ $5,510,000 58 acre park ( at fire tarter of MerkAan Road and Ustick; Tire park devtttopntent t~ been ~vided buo two ~. The 4rre pha~ is corrtptete, ~ aecarld phase re scheduled to be ~rhpleted in 2006. The second pipe vrill tie t;orriptett3d by'P+i-er-dian Youtli Adventure Island ~ ~ttters Park $1.000,000 Handicapped aa~s~bte'p~YBrouttd located in Settlar& Park phase i'of tfre playground ~ lei®, Rnal compbtian re schedured for 200& S~ete@re P88t Ye6 8y.1161ft~ $1,7,57,31fm 858u.Wn 8882.831 '~L$J510i0W Ktlweal3 Peck Yea 8F8,mmm $27T.~0 $2T.7NOm ,~p~mp0 PBae G88k Perk Yes ,~ $,R1,Cm0 ~ G Pic Yes $11,000 8148.200 ~mgmm ~.m~ Palms S•aTion Park Ye8 $1 D.O~ 8170.000 '81'70.000 ~{~,ptp aUiWne FAire YBS $11,800 $103,OD0 8286.OD0 ~pDO~ ~saRaas ver $la7,o~ ss?maw sae,.aoa $aelo~ $881.000 ~,reo,ooo bie0ammtt ~ f~gnt' Lgne PgA Y~ $483,4W $10,oU0 890,000 ~7'p,00m $870. 3870.mgt1 5t,l~7,400 C®ntemd®1 Pei $79~~ 8~g ~ Storey Park $238.868 $2R0m0 ~~8 D~pYSOawa ifeBe r4maom $SB ppm l.Se~ptklBnaBrerletl Van $1/39,900 3i$T~q Pic LarW P~ItaBia Ftaitl Yes $10Q,000 $250.000 $150.080 . E25.D.OOD ffi25m,8Gm d~0 d1.4S6,~ OerabpPOrkLane Y~ id760,000 $700.000 $T~,~O >~;tW~ Perk DapartiretN M~tatikLaO 8680,000 ~mp1p ReaeatbaCerdar Y~ $00,mQ0 POaluyar l~rd~plrm :.....e .e...e... .s.e....... .....,..,.e. eY..r. $75000 876.000 Ttte parkland purchase fund is to accumulate money to ptu~chase park larnd as it cor+~s available. The"$~50,~ equates to shorn 10 acres. Starting in feseai year 2408 $700,000 per year is budgeted to develop i0 acresof park land per year. 14 FUNDING 'There aze three sources of funding available for park capital development; general revenue from the governmental. activities, park impact fees, and partnerships and donations: Park impact fees are" collected when .a residential building permit is sold.. These fees can be used only to develop x7iew parks based on the underlying theory that new residents should help to pay for new parks built to serve them. The Idaho law governing the calculation of impact fees changed recently. The fee calculation factors in several variables; the amount of new park cost to be picked up by the general fund (proportionate share), the desired park acres per resident, the cost to purchase park land and the cost to develop it, the averagi" cost of a house in Meridian, and. number of persons per dwelling. Impact fees have become more and more irnpottattt as ehe resource that has allowed A+Ieridian to purchase and develop park land. The current impact fee is $b67 per residential building permit. Due to the growth. in building permits the City collected over $1.2 rnitlion in irnpact fps and fiscal year 2404, and will most likely do the same in fiscal year 2005. The calculation of the fee will be addressed annually or at. a minimum-every other year and" the atttount may be changed. General fund revenue has to come from the general tax funds used to operate )~ire, Police, anti other general gQVernment activities. From 1995 to2444 the City Spent several million dollaiis`to purchase-and develop 58 acres for a large urban park. 1?evelapment is on-going and the park is not completed: From fisca~t year 1195 through fiscal year 2~4 the City has spent $14,442,175 on purchases of park }and and park development. Of this amount 38~o has been funded by the general fund, 42°l0 by impact fees, and 20~o by dottatians. Donations come from developers, partnerships with cammutiity organizations, or volunteer fund eaising efforts. 81AP11CT FEES _ ~1 146.Ofi.9 $Z7 851 :$347«315 '$481,090 ~7~3,554 X8$6.564 .742.d4~ L10AiATWNS $60,000 $82962 $111810 $323,108. $567.000 $22&381 $399,500 $1.772.771. aRANDTOTAt. _ . Based on projections for sales of residential housing Permits and the park impact fee staying the same the City will generate $7,924,464 frown 2005 through 201{1 from impact fee revenue for new park development. Donations of $4,084,400 are exacted for the same time period. This includes; $80Q,000 for Adventureland Playground, $1,244,444 for Settlers Park youth baseball fields, $435,704 for Kiwanis Park, $l360,Od4 for Lochsa Falls PAL soccer fields, $2b();8~ far Champion Park, $187,500 donation of 7.5 acre parcel, and $340,400 for the dog facility and remote car racing track near the police station. The capital improvement plan for the same time period is $I~4,201,431. Thls means the City will need to appropriate $4,081,748 from the general fund or other sources if all projects in the capital improvement plan are completed. 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 •• Brea A9:ade1~~9i z.o9o e,se9 i.~ ~,4s7 t,o~1 r,oze e ins a9~ ~na~a F~ $ s9s7 $687 $887 fPoiPACTREEB $839.989 $7,250.782 St, $1,0.500 ,11 5978,488 $71 ,387 S9a3 7 4 DONATIONS $339,381 ~, t 61.8.."0.000 $370.009 $4.~.t,060 5.4. 11981 c~wEAnL Furao r a s4 a4s ,sa9,oez atsSOta~_$ra.~r,x~r $r5.e77.a47 PR1aRlT~s The Parks and Recreation Department's goal is 4 de~feloped acres of parkland per lUtH3 population. At the end of fiscal year 20ikI the City was at 1.92 developed acres per IU00 population. Assuming that at the same time period the City population was 50,t~l0 the City would need 20ft acres of parkland to meet the 4 acres per 1000 mark. The City has about a hundred acres of land scheduled to be developed in the next one to two years. At that time the City's population is projected to be up around 60,000. The City would be about 40 acres short of acre per capita goal. t`,~HAI,LENC'iF.S In addition to purchasing and developing park land the City has to maintain parks. Impact fees cannot be used to maintain developed park land and donations are typically far one-tune purchases, not on-going operating expenses. This means the entire costof maintenance comes from general tax dollars, In fiscal year 2004 the City spent approximately $4,900 per acre to main"taro its perks, Srnce 'the City had,abput 107 acres: of developed. park land & other Clty properties budgeted dollars for maintenance wete $524,3t1U. If the City were at its goal acreage..of 4 per 1Q00, assuming the City had apopulation of 50,000 the cost of maintenance would lie $960,000. These maintenance figures inelude only personnel and operating expense. In addition there are capital costs for equipment and vehicles. The City plans to vigorously pursue donations and partnership agreements as well any grant funding that might be available. it is almost imperative that donations and impact fees pay for. pai•1: dcvclopment while general fund dollars are reserved for the on-going maintenance and operations of the developed parks. 36 .DIRE DEP~ART.~ENT avERVI>E~v 'The Gity of Meridian hired its first full-time employee in 1977. Tiy the er~l of 2f?OS the A/Ieridian Fire Department will Gave 47 full tune employees. In the 1950's a rural district was formed to serve the area outside the city limits. The rural district and the City combined forces to serve a 54 square mile jurisdiction that stretches from the south channel of the Boise. River to the north, Lake Hazel to the. south, Cloverdale Road to the east and McDerrtaott.Raad to the west, T'he rural fire district taxes pay for approxitnately ?5% E>f tli~c aCparunent's expense with city ta!ces paying. for 75010. As the city limits expand the proportion paid for by the city is increasing. The rest of the funding comes from general fund tux revenue. C.ur~rently the City has three fire stations with a fourth one planned t~ come online in the fall of 2UU5. Fire Station #1 is a three bay fire station and includes the administrative offices. Fire Stations #2, #3, and #4 are twa bay stations. Fire Station #1 is staffed with l2 firefighters, stations #2 and #3 have 9 firefighters while plans far staxian #4 call for a staff iof I~2. The increase in staff far statign..#4 is due~to the City's plan to start adding a paramedic to each shift. Current wst t~ build a new fire station is over ~1,{HIO;~. If the Citj! has to buy the' land, versus havi>rig the land donated the cost coq sncrease by up to ~15f1,40U. Land fa"r Fire Sttdon #k4 was dr~nated by tiie. developers of Thousand Springs. The cost .af a fire engine is around . $~~,fIDO. Flr& S~tinn #1 Fir9 Statlan #2 Fire Station # 3 24t1i N. Ten Mile Road 3545 N Loot Road 1981 Piero Engine t986 Pierce Engine 183 Pi®xce Engine 20~ Pierce Engine 2ob2 Pieces F.n~lrte 17 2006 Command Vef~de ~`-~+yUv Re~a~er Veti~® _-- $35;0:: ~` 2007 Engkua#4 $425,000:': ;9 24Q$ Stati4h5 $1,050';000 Engin®#5 $43s,~;.~ $1~4S~r', ,Odtl: 2009 Satin #6 Land $i 30;500 Eng~+e ~ $460,000 Rep1a~ Engine $460,000 .:... :..,$1d~,500 2010 Station #6 31,115,0Q0 ---- --- _~.,~_w,~__ 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 CHALLENGES As the City population increases rapidly the demand for safety services also increases. The cost of building a fire station is small compared to cost to staff a fire station. Starting in fiscal year 20Q5 the City made the decision to.staff the fire stations with paramedics. 'I~e majority of fire calls are. medical and the City felt that as fire is the first on scene it would be beneficial to have medical treatment administered irtunediately. This means the cost to staff a fire station and include paramedics is edging inward As the table below show the cost of providing fire and first response medical services has increased. steadily every year, betv~ueen 25 to 3Q percent not including the capital cost. The general farad revenue for the same time period has increased at half that fate. It will become increasingly challCn~ing to fund the dollars rto keep up with the cost. The cost of building Fire Station #4 is being picked up by tlHe rural fire. department which has allowed the City to build it faster then would have been poasible otherwise, However, down the road the City might be required to repay the rural frre district for the cost of the fire stations. Note: Only two wccks of staffingcost for Station #$ wcrc budgeted in fiscal year 2{~?5. However a full year of personnel cost has been added to the table above to illustrate '+vhat the actual cost will .be. l8 ---- ---- Transfarto Fire Truck Fund $i 00,Ot10:::;;;;.°: ';1~9t! _ , ....r..,... ,,....r - - R®plaCe Engine $5x0,000 •~;:;.i~i'4ll}~" QRAND TATAL $270,500 $3,955,000 $6,095,000 "....$10,320,x00 PItI012ITES Decisions to add stations are based on an area's popiilation. number of calls, and response time. The goal is to keep response time under four to' dive minutes: GHAI..LENGES .Since rapid grpwth is occurring sirnultaneRusly in many parts of Meridian it has been challenging to fund and build stations fast enough to serve everyone. Provision of param~lic services has become a challenge f©r the City and Ada County The County has traditionally provided paramedic and ambulance services.. The City made the decision to add paramedics to fire shifts dut; to coitcetn with ambulance response times. It will .sti11 be necessary to transport patients in art ambulance whirl: means that an ambulance .service will have. to respond in:adtiitiou to the I1rleridian Fire Department. nth the lowering of Medicare%iViedicaid rates and escalating rnCClical costs operating an amliulancefparamedic service at a breakeven has become very difficult.. It will be important in tlis future that 'government' agencies ta=ork together to find the .mpst cost effective approach, W pxovide the service, l9 P~L1~E I~EP~RT,~VIENT O ~~VlEW In June of 2i}t}2 the Meridian Police Departmetat moved fmrn their tiny, cramped building and mobile office trailer into a 5~4,(}tJ0,4iNJ 3~,t;~ square foot station located at 1401 E ~Vatertower. Currently the Police llepartment has G9 full time and 3 part time emplcryees..56 of those positions are police officers. The building 1suture capital needs ~viil be vehicles and technology rather then construction. The station was funded through judicial reviet~v/confirmation. This is a process where the City is allowed to take on debt based on approval from the court system. Norma]1J+ city's can only take on debt for capital construction l'eyond a one year period through a public vote with a super majority voting for approval. However, if the need for the new facility is compelling enough it may Be allowed by judicial confirmation. Recently in Idaho this process has been challenged by private individuals and wilt probably become obsolete. The City went through a trustee and released a bond issuance: In addition to princi~ial and interest .payments the City paid bond dosing costs .tif over S3 x,000 ,furniture and fixture was designed for growth:and no additional construction is planned. FIJNDIlVG Like the Fire Department the Police Department has experienced growth although the. percent increases have not been as steep: costs of S4t)~,OUO and annual property tax of S5t},{1flfJ, The follrivving is.the lease schedule. The trustee is Wells Fargo, CHALLENGES: In addition to a citizen's challenges of the judicial review process the tax exempt status of the station was challenged resulting in Ada County charging the City property tax. The City maintains that they own the land and have a capital lease purchase agreement with Wells Fargo and essentially have ownership and control of the building, This would make the building tax exempt ~s in the case with all public Buildings, The City has rnodi~ied the wordixtg in the trust.agreement:and.hopes.to be relieved of the'tax assessme..nt iri the.future. ~~,.-.~- fi . 20 CITY OF t13ERIIDitAN, IDANO CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, SERIES 2110I .(LAW ENFQIICEIVIENT BiIILD Dated: August 1, 2t~1 Serial Maturities: ZUf12-2UIU Term Maturities: Palnnent Date Ptinci al Interest 1`ptal Balancx Oatstanding ]7ua M!S tdterest ltnte Prir~ipal Attroent Six-tenths interest $4,~Q000 1-Feb 2tR12. $i>! $82.5b2.54 ~R2,iCs2.i1'I x;990,999 ?tla2 1-Aug 2~2 $35.000 $82,i62:Sp $41Y,5~2:50 $3,b63.00D 20Q2 3.SOt}~ $335,000 $5,86250 1•Feb 2003 $0 $'7b.700.ti9 $7b,760.00 $3:bd3,000 2903 gU.~ 1-Aug 2003 535,000 $76,700.00 5421,700.00 $3;320,004 2003 4.0~~'0 $395.t1~} $5,900.00 1-Feb 2004 $0 5G4,R00.00 $64,800.t~ $3,320,000 2044 30.00 1-Aug 2004 53t~,0t10 569,840.00 $429,8.04 52.960.000 200+$ 4:000% 53C~1,90I1 $7,200.011 I-Pcb 20D5 54 SG2,f#}.00 $52.660.00 S2,9b0,9~I 2045 5.0.00 I-Aug 2905 $375,004 $62,b00.Ofl $437.6~.~ $2,585.000 2005 4.000~~ 5375,ti00 $7.500.00 -Feb 2904 $U $SS.100.00 $53.190.00 $2,183,000 2~ gp,OQ I-Aug 2006 3390,000 555,100.40 5445,100,00 $2,195.094 2006 4.04[10 $3$(};~4 $7,g~,AO 1-Feb 2~7 SSY i47,30G.IHt 54'F,:f{l4.t8I SZ,195,1H%1 2~7 $0,00 1-Aug 2907 $403.0 547,3.00 $452,3~.W $1,790,044' 2007 4.900 $405,041} $8,100.00 1 T•eb 2008 50 $39,2(10.00 $39,240.00 $1,79II,0(Hf 200$ $R00 1-Aug 2008 5420,000 $39.200. $459,20D.00 $1,370,000 20018 A.2S0°!a 5420,F~ $8,925.00 1-Feb 2009 $D $30,275.00 $311,275.00 $1,3?0,000 2004 50.E 1-Aug 2009 $444,40fl $30.273. $470.275.00 $930+D~ 2i}i~} 4.250'9'0 $4,000 $9,350.00 1-Feb 2010 50 $20,925,00 $20.925;00 $930„OW 2014 5b,~ I-Au$ 2010 $495.000 $24,925. $475:925.181 $4?5.~ .2019 4.5 5,4,SS,iH~1 $111,1.37.50 1-Feb 201] $9 St0.587.50 $10,687:50 5475,0 20lI $0,91] 1-Aug 291 l 54'AS,1~1 $!0,687.511 $485.6$7.59 30 201 [ 4.509 $$71,900 $19;b$T.50 $0.00 ~.QO 59 0 50.E 54,006,900 $990,300.00 &1,490,300. Rd.rtt~rum ¢aa.aa~ an C'ITj' ,~ DR~1II~ISTR4 TP®1V' ©VEItVIEW The City lies several administrative and support positions. These include Planning and Zoning,. Public Works and "the Building Department, Finance, Billierg, Infatmatian Technology, the Mayor's Office, the City Cierk, City Attorney's Office, Human Resources and the Gity Crauncil. Currently the Planning and Zoping Department, Public Works and the Building Department .rent afFtce space acrd the rest of the departments are !roused in City Hall located a 33 E Idaho. The current City Hall was built in 1987 and is 8,~ square feetr Tlie City`s priority now is t© build anew-.City Hsi! with space for alt of the service departlments. Space needs are estimated to be around 48,0 square feet. 'The City's goal is to keep the City Hall in the downtown dire to be a txlrnerstnne of the dawnfown.reyitali2ation movement: FUNDING Building.eosts are estimated to'be appriiximateiy $9 million. The cost will be split between the Cities general fund and the enterprise fund .as space will be split wally between emplaytres of the two funds. Each fund as adequate cash balances to pay for then portion outright,. it will not ba necessary to seek outside funding or debt. CI-IALLENGES The biggest challenge ha~_ been finding adequate space in the downtown core ftrr the building and the necessary parking. 2l