HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-17 Special Meeting MinutesMeridian City Council -Special Meeting December 17, 2013
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 5:00 p.m., Tuesday,
December 17, 2013, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, Brad Hoaglun, David
Zaremba, and Keith Bird.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Stacy Kilchenmann.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Brad Hoaglun
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and get tonight's meeting started. For the record it is
Tuesday, December 17th. My daughter's birthday. And it's a few minutes after 5:00.
We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk.
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as printed.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as printed. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Hearing on the Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on
an Impact Fee Individual Assessment Request by W.H. Moore
De Weerd: Item 3 is a hearing on the appeal of an impact -- of our administrator of the
impact fee decision. I will turn this over to Stacy.
Kilchenmann: Thank you, Madam Mayor. First I will turn it over to Ted, because Ted is
the legal mind behind the mechanics of the operation.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 2 of 30
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will refer you to a memo dated
December 17th that sort of sets forth the legal parameters for the hearing before you
tonight. I thought I'd walk you through that. This is the first time that you have actually
heard an appeal of the impact fee administrator's decision. In your meeting packet you
have the items that constitute the record that are listed on the first page of my memo.
The appellant will probably be submitting additional written materials tonight that you
can consider. The suggested order of testimony would be the appellant, who has the
burden of proof, would make his presentation and, then, the impact fee administrator
explains her decision and, then, the appellant has an opportunity for rebuttal. One thing
that I do want Mr. Nary to make sure we get on the record when Mr. Seal gets up to
make his presentation is that there is a required 15 day waiting period between the
notice of the appeal hearing and the hearing itself. We are here tonight because the
appellant has specifically requested tonight's date, so I'm going to ask them to waive
that 15 day waiting period and any other irregularities without -- with regard to notice.
And so that's all I have, unless anyone has any questions about process.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Ted?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Stacy.
Kilchenmann: So, I believe Mr. Seal goes first. Correct, Ted?
De Weerd: So used to doing staff reports first. Mr. Seal. If you will, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Seal: Yes. I don't know if I say good afternoon or good evening here. Mayor, Council
Members, first what I'd like to do is I'd like to express my appreciation to the Council, to
the Mayor, and the staff that allows us to have this heard tonight. I appreciate the help
from staff throughout this whole process. They have been -- they have been very
gracious. So, thank you. The other thing I wanted to mention before I get started with it
-- I came in this morning, because I wanted to put some stuff on the overhead projector,
but it doesn't show up particularly well, so I'm going to be doing a series of handouts.
So, I apologize if I'm going to be giving you a lot of information, but I think it will be
helpful. If I can first Ijust -- just to give you a little bit of overview, as you recall just for
the project, as just kind of a refresher, if you recall, this is a 32 acre project. It is
comprised of 48 single family homes and 220 apartment projects, one, two and three
bedroom. Within the -- within the apartment project we have a 5,200 square foot
community center with a fitness cardio, kitchen, and also game room. We have a 5,000
square foot pool. We have cabanas with the -- with the pool and fireplace and
barbecues. We have Bocce ball, which I'm not sure what that is, but I guess one of
these days I will find out. We have six ramadas, sand volleyball, playground, and
approximately two and a half acres of open area. The unique feature of this is I think, if
you may recall, was that the -- the extensive amenities that we are providing within this
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 3 of 30
project are also being able to be utilized by the single family residents. So, as I have
said in the past, we don't have that bifurcation between single family and multi-family.
So, when we started to go through the whole process and started to calculate our fees,
one thing that -- that really caught our attention up front is our park impact fees total
approximately 283,000 dollars. That's just park impact fees. We have a million and a
half dollars in fees in total. And I think what was disturbing in the process was several
things. First, we realize that there was no differentiation between a single family home
for park impact fees and say, for example, a one bedroom apartment. Now, it's that one
bedroom apartment would pay the same park impact fees as would a four or five
bedroom apart -- house. Also, there was no mechanism within the park impact fee to
recognize the fact that we were providing these amenities not only for the apartment,
but also for the single family development. We thought that was a very unique feature.
Third, we also realized that there was no mechanism there to benefit if you went above
and beyond your normal required amenity, whether you could get any credit for that.
So, hence, as a result of that, we decided to go ahead and submit for a -- for a park
impact fee protest. Now, stepping back -- and this is something that I have never done
before, as I bet the Council hasn't either. I started to look at it and I realized that it's
very difficult to quantify how many amenities you put in, what are the costs, how they
might impact or not impact a single family residence, even though they all reduce the
burden of your parks system. So, what I did is I took the approach that we would look at
the livable area and we felt that there would be a relationship between the livable area,
whether that's an apartment or a single family, and the amount of people that lived in
that livable area. So, in other words, a one bedroom apartment presumably, on
average -- and I emphasize on average -- would have less people in it than a four or five
bedroom apartment. So, we went in first and we looked at our project and we looked at
the houses -- well, I should back up. We looked at the apartments -- and I need to
correct something, because my narrative -- I used 1,008 square feet. It should be 1,088
square feet. It's the average size of our apartments for one, two, and three bedrooms.
So, the average size that's 1,088 square feet. I, then, looked at the houses and I
estimated about 2,500 square feet for a single family home. Keeping in mind that we
haven't built all the homes, but we are looking at three to four hundred thousand dollar
homes and that they presumably will be at least certainly 2,500. We are seeing much
larger homes than that. So, based on that we came up with a ratio of a -- the
apartments within Red Tail would be approximately 43 percent of the average size of a
house within Red Tail. Now, to make sure whether or not that was -- that was
comparable to the City of Meridian, then, I went the further step and I took all the homes
within Meridian that have been sold over the last year, both new homes, existing
homes, and the average size of those homes came in at 2,179 square feet. And, then,
we looked at the average size of the apartment with Meridian, including ones that are
currently under construction and we came up with an apartment size of approximately
953 square feet. Again, the ratio came into about 44 percent. So, we thought there is a
-- a decent representation between our project and the City of Meridian. We felt that
that approach was an equitable approach to look at what -- how you would allocate your
-- your impact fees between single family and multi-family. I would say you can't do it
on just the cost of amenities, but you can now look at it and say, okay, here is a
quantifiable avenue in order to determine how to allocate or how to adjust impact fees
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 4 of 30
between apartments and homes. So, we thought that that was a good basis. Now, if I
can go now to -- to the -- to Stacy, the fee administrator, I would like to respond to a few
things in that in there. One, she mentions that if the impact fees lowers for some one, it
goes up for someone else. We couldn't agree more. We think that that was an
equitable way. That's a proportionate share. If you look at, for example, within -- within
this valley, you work with ACHD. ACHD has an impact fee ordinance. They charge a
different impact fee for a medical user than they do for warehouse. I guess it goes
without saying, but because that warehouse user does not put the burden on the streets
that a medical user does. So -- so, you know, there they do make an allocation. If we
go to -- for example, down to the city of Boise -- and I will pass this out and, then, I will
respond to it.
De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan.
Seal: Okay. If you look at the city of Boise and their park impact fee -- now, it's just that
there is a difference in the impact. If you will look at down there at the bottom in the
center, they, basically, break it out between single family residents, multi-family over
800 square feet and multi-family below 800 square feet. They actually had a study
done to determine this. So, again, here is another example of an agency who is
recognizing that you -- that you want to treat it based on the proportionate share. What
is the impact. And there they recognize the apartments. I'm not suggesting that Boise
is Meridian, but I think it's representative of this community and of this valley. So, you
see another place where you're seeing where people can make adjustments. I
understand there is other cities that don't, but Boise does, and I think that speaks to it.
Then what I would like to do is -- if we can go to Stacy's letter, which is dated October 6,
and go to page two of it and I will read the first paragraph to you. The first paragraph
says: The census data tells us that, actually, there is little difference between the
number of people living in rental properties -- and that's rental properties -- compared to
single family owned residents. Based on the 2010 census, the average household size
of an owner-occupied unit in Meridian was 2.97 and the average size of a renter
occupied unit was 2.95. That is correct. And if I can show it here for you.
Bird: How come when you have numbers it's always tiny?
De Weerd: Could you make the numbers to be smaller?
Bird: Did this come from our Finance Department?
Seal: I apologize for that. I apologize. This is the 2010 census and tenure and if you
look at -- at the yellow and you looked at -- towards the center, you will see average
household size, owner occupied units, 2.95 and renter occupied units 2.97. Okay.
Now, if you go into -- which is referenced into the census, this is the American
Community Survey. Okay. This is what it's based on. And I'm not going to give you the
whole thing, but again -- and I'm sorry to keep giving you papers, but I think this is -- this
is a critical point. I will apologize, I only have one more. If you will go to number 17,
you will notice it says here is this house, apartment, or mobile home -- and I apologize
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 5 of 30
for -- owned by you or someone else. Number two, owned by you or someone in the
house. Number three, rented. If you go to the following page, which is number 18, it
says what is the monthly rent for this home, apartment, or mobile home. I can't find --
and Iwill stand to be corrected if I'm wrong and I have some other stuff here, but I won't
badger you with it. I can't find anything that differentiates between an apartment, a
house, or mobile homes or a duplex when it comes to rental. So, if you go back, for
example -- well, you can apply it now, but let's go back to 2010. We all recall that back
in 2010 there was a substantial amount of homes on the market that were rented,
because people bought them, thought they were going to make a lot of money, and
turned around and realized they couldn't and the only option they had was that. So,
what I'm saying respectfully -- and I'm not trying to denigrate the letter -- is that I think
this number is misleading that, yes, the number is correct, but it doesn't actually reflect
apartments. Again, if you go back to the city of Boise's letter, you will see that there is a
differentiation. I have not been able to find anything that truly documents where it
breaks out apartments. So, I bring that up and -- and certainly I would be glad to give
you a copy of this, but I didn't think you wanted the whole questionnaire. The fee
administrator mentions that it is difficult to design park impact fees that measure the
value of something and provides so many tangible and intangible functions
simultaneously. Again, I respectfully suggest that Boise is able to do it, Ada County is
able to do it. I believe there is a mechanism. There is a mechanism, which if you want,
equate it by square footage, to occupancy. So, I believe there is. And, finally, in the
last paragraph of the letter it mentions that the criteria used to determine appeal does --
does the appeal reflect that new growth and development of the city pays proportionate
share of park and recreational development necessary to serve new development. We
are not standing here tonight asking that we don't pay it. All we are simply saying to you
is we want to pay our proportionate share. We want to pay what's fair. We don't want
to pay what's over. And, again, that's the same system that's applied in other impact
fee ordinances. So, we are willing to pay it. Then what I'd like to do is I would like to
address the -- the consensus letter and a couple of comments here if I can. On page
two he mentions that amenities will not replicate the amenities in the Meridian parks.
We agree and there was never an intent. But, again, I think it goes back to the fact that
these amenities are reducing the burden on the park system. It should be
acknowledged. It mentions that we are a luxury apartment complex with a higher price
point. Again, I agree completely. What you as a city, respectfully, I think want to do is
encourage apartment development, quality development, to come into this community
and one way that -- that you want to do that is by charging fair for the park impact fees,
not burden them with what I think may be additional park impact fees. It mentions that
the system was designed for ease of administration and fairness. Again, I question is
fairness here. I mean how can you charge somebody who is in a one bedroom or even
a studio the same park impact fee as a single family, as a five bedroom, four bedroom
house. That doesn't seem equitable to me, respectfully. It mentions that we have three
bedrooms that are, essentially, the same size as a house. First, the majority of our units,
as well as all apartment projects are one and two bedroom apartments. When you do
get to three bedroom most people are looking for homes and even a three bedroom
apartment still is not near the size of a -- of a single family house. And, then, finally --
and Iheard this throughout this thing. Finally it talks about that reducing impact fees for
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 6 of 30
multi-family is subsidizing single family development. I would turn that around 180
degrees and I would say, too, that apartment buildings are subsidizing it for single
family. They are paying more than they should pay for it. So, again, in closing -- and I
appreciate all your interest in this -- I would say all we are asking for is that we pay our
equitable portion, that there be a recognition that there is a difference. Now, however
you want to do that, whether it's square footage or some other mechanism, but I think
the charge one shoe fits all philosophy I think is unfair and I think it puts a burden and I
think potentially puts -- discourages apartment projects -- quality projects from coming
into your city. And Ijust -- real quickly with closing -- and I mentioned this before and I
will give this -- this is just -- I talked to the impact fee review committee awhile ago. I
have a concern that what you're projecting, based on the consultant's numbers for
growth in the future may be very conservative. I know you're reducing park impact fees
in the future and I will leave this with you, because this right here indicates, for example,
the amount of projects that are currently under construction right now, not completed.
In other words, coming to next year and it's based on November's numbers. There is
790 units. Just apartment units. You're projecting in the neighborhood -- and it's on the
last page -- 693 units in total next year. Now, I understand development has to close,
but I think it's something to take in consideration and I will leave this with you. So, that
-- that concludes my presentation. I'm certainly glad to answer any questions. I hope it
hasn't been too confusing. I tried to hit on the high points. I would be glad to answer
any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Jonathan, you have mentioned several times your willingness to pay an
equitable proportion of the impact fees and what in your mind is that?
Seal: Well, Mayor, Councilman Rountree, as I put in here, I base it on the square
footage, which came up to 40 some percent. Now, I would be very candid, I'm not
expecting that that's what it's going to be. But, again, I was looking for some type of
mechanism and as I said before, this is not something I do for a living. So, I was trying
to look for some type of mechanism that I think would be objective, that you could
quantify and that people could look at and say, okay, that's reasonable. You know,
maybe there is a way of finding out on -- like Boise does -- on the number of occupants
for apartment verses home on average. I was not able to find that. I don't know if it
exists. I suppose you could find it. I know that Boise did a study on that. They
commissioned themselves. So, I don't know if that answers your question, but I think
there is an acknowledgment that there has to be an adjustment.
Rountree: And what's the value of the amenities you are providing in this development?
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 7 of 30
Seal: I would have to check for you on that, Mayor and Councilman Rountree. It would
be substantial, but I don't have the dollar amount.
Rountree: I understand that. I just wondered if you knew
Seal: Yeah. I can get that for you. In fact, I may be able to get that -- Randy, do you
know? Okay. We can certainly get that for you.
Rountree: A range that's close I'm good with.
Seal: A lot of money.
De Weerd: But I guess maybe to draw off of what Councilman Rountree just asked,
what is the amount you're doing over and above what you're required to do? So, in the
past sometimes the city looks to a piece of property or an amenity, because it would be
a public benefit and so you're reimbursed by park impact fees. So, I would imagine the
amount's over and above and we don't want a pool, by the way. So, I'm not asking for
anything.
Seal: Sure
De Weerd: But if you could give an example of what that over and above is that might
be something that Council could consider.
Seal: Mayor and Council, you know, if you look at your amenity ordinance -- I mean you
could do as simple as just a small pool, which I know you don't want. You could put
some picnic tables that are considered an amenity. You could do a bike storage. You
could do some barbecues. I mean you could go very cheap if you want. You could do
the minimum amount of landscaping. I mean that's not what we wanted. We wanted to
build a quality project here. We wanted something that would be representative of the
city and in what, for example, Winston Moore has done here, as you well know. So, it's
not that we are all terrific and we are doing this just for the kindness, but I -- so, I think it
does attract people, but maybe it's away -- maybe there is a way -- and that's why I
stepped back from that, but a way to incentivize development to put additional amenities
in. I have been up here in front of City Council before where you said, look, we want
you to have pathways from the street to the stores. We want this, so that we keep
traffic off the road. Well, this is one -- this is one opportunity to reduce the amount of
traffic that goes on the road and instead of people going to public parks they will stay
there. They stay within their community. You know, I have been up before and say we
want -- we want mixed use, we want single family, and multi-family and retail and
everything else within there, so we can keep that. We are creating somewhere that
environment, so -- but I don't know how you create that mechanism here. That's why I
step back from that.
De Weerd: Okay. That's fair.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 8 of 30
Seal: Okay.
De Weerd: I was just trying to think out loud. That's always dangerous. Additional
comments or questions from Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I will ask Jonathan. Jonathan, do you know of any other multi-family housing that
has the amenities, like a swimming pool in it, in Meridian? I'm trying to -- I think maybe
that we have got --
De Weerd: The one off of Eagle Road.
Bird: That one off of Eagle Road is the only one.
Seal: Mayor de Weerd, Councilman Bird, yeah, I think, you know, it -- it is fairly
common and I think you're going to see more of those type of amenities. But I think
what's also unusual in our particular project is that we are not only providing those
amenities for the multi-family -- and I know I'm repeating myself, but we are doing it for
the single family and so also when other people come over to visit those families they
can use those amenities. The Regency and Gramercy Park I think it is, probably have
those type of things. I didn't spend a lot of time on that, but I think more upgrading it,
but maybe to also give other developers more incentive. And, again, if somebody's on
the fence between Boise and Meridian, you know, things like this can be a real factor. I
can tell you very honestly we came so close to not doing this project. I know I have
been up here in front of you before and have said this before, that I think a lot of times
the perception is developers just are printing money out there. Well, there may have
been a time when that was the case, but it isn't anymore and we are fighting for every
dollar we can. So, when you look at a 283,000 dollar park impact fee on top of the other
fees, which we are not arguing, that hurts. That's a big fee.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Councilman Rountree.
Rountree: What was that amount you just stated, the 283,000? What portion or what
amount of that is related to the fees for your apartments?
Seal: I'm sorry, Councilman Rountree, I didn't hear that.
Rountree: What's the amount related to the apartments?
Seal: That is the apartment.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 9 of 30
Bird: That is the apartments. That is the apartment.
Rountree: All right. That's all I needed to know. Because you say total --
Seal: Yeah. I think I --
Rountree: There is more there than just the apartments.
Seal: If you see the yellow there -- I can provide it to everybody if you want. I tried to
eliminate the amount of paper here. But the yellow is the park impact fees, in addition
to everything else that we are paying.
Rountree: Okay.
De Weerd: Council, any other questions?
Bird: Not at this time.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I didn't hear Mr. Seal acknowledge the 15 day time limit and that he's agreed to
waive that, because they have actually requested this date to be heard. So, Mr. Baird
mentioned on his opening he needs to acknowledge that.
Seal: Mr. Nary, I didn't know I did, but that's fine with me. Like you say, this is a little bit
different for me. So, I don't know what the procedure is here, but whatever I need to
waive -- you know.
Nary: Thank you.
Seal: Sure.
De Weerd: It's a new one for all of us, Jonathan, so --
Seal: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Jonathan.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: I will turn this over to Stacy.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 10 of 30
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Mr. Seal, after a great deal of
consideration I have denied this request the way the apartment -- this way? The
request we have changed to remove 60 percent of the fees for the apartment portion of
this project. So, I'm going to, basically, go through the reasons that the request was
denied and just a little bit of history. Before -- we redid the impact fee plan in 2006
when the new statute allows to add police and fire. Prior to that the existing impact fee
ordinance did allow a difference on dwelling units and if you look at those numbers you
can see the single family was considered to be 2.93 person per unit and the multi-family
2.67 percent per unit. That was just a difference of nine percent. And that was based
on figures I believe probably from the 2000 census, which was before the big growth
spurt in Meridian. So, although we did agree and we did note that we will look at the
census data, there is nothing that we could find that specifically says do you live in an
apartment. Do you live in a duplex. Do you live in a four-plex. These are the best
numbers we can find and when we look at this prior, it is based on 2000 numbers, we
can see the responses and those numbers of people and the units haven't changed
much regardless of whether we had more people living in rental units in Meridian now
because of the recession than we did prior. So, just talking a little bit about the
methodology behind calculating impact fee. It's -- it's a process that takes more than
one number into calculation, so we talked a little bit about the population projections we
used and those are on a ten year window. They may seem low, because you have to
realize that they are based on ten years, not based just on one year and when we look
back at history and we look how development growth has swagged through the decade
of 2000s, you can see why we tend to be more conservative, because we have ups and
downs and so we are trying to smooth that data out. So, if the parks department --
when we looked at how to do the impact fee ordinance, as with police and fire, we do try
to keep it as clean and simple as possible, because if we put the burden on single
family, single family won't be happy. If -- you know, it just creates -- somebody's not
going to be happy the more complicated you make the process. So, again, as I said,
we try to keep it simple, but fair. We have had -- since we implemented the -- the fee
we have had over 862 multi-family dwelling units -- I think since 2005. Since 2006 when
we eliminated that little differential between the two. We also -- we met with the impact
fee committee and you will be hearing their recommendations later in January, but when
they were asked about this issue there was no interest in changing the way the fee is
calculated between the single and multi-family units and we do have representatives
from the building community, the real estate community, et cetera, as part of that board
-- as part of the advisory board. So, just -- just to respond to the specific points in the
appeal, so one was square footage. Essentially they are claiming square footage
equates to the number of people using parks and we feel like that you can't isolate
square footage as a factor in determining demand for parks. So, they are saying that 60
percent less square footage means 60 -- lower the fee by 60 percent, which that fee that
they want to forgive comes out to about 182,000 dollars. So, we don't think that the
evidence we looked at really means that square feet has a direct relationship to the
number of people living in a dwelling unit. So, we have used the data that we could find
that both of us have talked about, the 2.97 and 2.98 that show the square -- the number
of people living in a particular dwelling is close. I have some more data that I use often,
so 2010, again, they come out to be very close. The U.S. census also does something
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 11 of 30
they call the American Community Survey, which I believe is the number Mr. Seal gave
you. And, again, the owner occupied and renter occupied are very close. So, we have
seen square footage doesn't necessarily equate to the fact that you have a lot of people
living there. It can also equate to your household income and, in fact, research I did
that seems to be more a direct correlation. But it would be nice if everybody who had a
large family is automatically going to buy a large house, but those two factors don't
necessarily go hand in hand. So, then, we looked -- why -- why do people use -- use
the parks and recreation system. So, if we are saying we don't think it's strictly based
on the number of people in a household why do they use it. So, again, we looked at
household demographics, how old are the people, what's the household income,
children, recreation presence, and, then, we just looked at a few of the activities that go
on in our parks. Youth and adults work week. Youth baseball. It's huge. Youth
baseball complex. Adult and youth sport leagues and volleyball, basketball, soccer,
football. We have movie night. We very festivals. We have shelters so people can
hold family reunions and social events and gatherings. We have community events in
our parks, like the block party. All the Christmas events we just enjoyed. The Fourth of
July celebration in the park. Concerts. Fun runs. Day camps. Skateboarding. Tennis.
We can go on and on and on naming all the activities that take place in our parks. And,
finally, there is evidence that parks add value to a community regardless of who uses
them. So, simply by living in a community that has quality open space and activities
available and it's improved esthetics increases the value for all of us, including
developers, whether or not we actually set foot in the park. So, then, the other -- other
part of the appeal was that this -- this project has quality on-site amenities. Again,
research shows that since the '90s -- actually, beginning in the '80s the idea of common
shared space at open space where pools and total use playgrounds are shared has
been the wave of development and it is quite common in Meridian. I looked at a -- I
looked at several websites talking just the City of Meridian and I'm going to read a quote
from one of them that's fairly typical. It says the homes for sale in Meridian are mostly
suburban type neighborhoods offering amenities such as walking paths, community
parks, and swimming pools. And, then, we get into the question of what -- how do we
define quality. What is quality? And that becomes a very esoteric thing that you could
spend hours and hours trying to draw the line between the quality of one project and the
quality of another project. So, again, back to the point of it, trying to apply the fee
consistently. If you grant this fee reduction you have to make up 182,688 dollars and
that has to be transferred from the General Fund into the Impact Fee Fund. So, we
actually have to make a cash transfer of those funds. The ordinance -- the statute is
written to make the fee whole, so we have to treat everybody equally. So, if we are
going to reduce the fee that one group pays, we can't expect -- we can't just pass that
on to other impact fee payers. And when we do something like this we defeat the whole
purpose of impact fees that we always talk about, that growth should pay for itself and
not burden existing residents, because we will be making that 182,000 dollars up from
the General Fund. And, then, again, when we look at the whole issue that -- so, how do
we change the fee? Should we -- should we change how we calculate it? We have to
look at -- if we change the park fee do we look at fire and police impact fees, because
there is no more impact to police and fire through apartments than there are from single
residents, so do we just stop the whole process, dig back into it and change the whole
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 12 of 30
methodology? We don't think that's a good idea. So, this -- this last part is for Ted on
follow up of what you do now, unless you have questions for me.
De Weerd: Council, do you have questions for Stacy?
Bird: I do, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Stace, on police and fire we have it by the square footage and we don't on parks.
Is there a reason for that?
Kilchenmann: Fire is based on -- it is a calculation that --
Cunningham: Fire and police the square footages only apply to commercial. So, there
is a set fee for the residential.
Bird: You're right. And in multi-family is -- you consider --
Cunningham: Residential.
Bird: Residential. I don't -- but anyway. In our impact fee ordinance is there a -- a set
amount that we have to maintain in there? If we have to -- if General Fund has to make
up this for what we forgive, I don't think there is a general dollar amount set in there, is
there?
Kilchenmann: Well, when you -- when you adopt impact fee we go through a series of
calculations and we accept -- so, we are looking at the one that we did in 2006. So, we
said this is the amount of service we need to provide to maintain the service as it was.
So, we have already been charging everybody who has paid an impact fee based on
that calculation. So, it's not saying -- we are saying we need to collect a certain dollar
amount, but if we don't have the growth, for example, we wouldn't collect that amount,
but -- maybe, Ted, can you explain that more clearly?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when you see the CIPs in the
methodology it identifies what percentage are impact fee eligible and what percentage
are not impact fee eligible. For example, if you're building a community center you're
serving existing population, so they reduce that percentage and the percentage it's
reduced needs to be made up from other sources, such as donations of the General
Fund. So, in your methodology there is an acknowledgement that anything that's not
impact fee eligible will come from sources other than impact fees.
Bird: The methodology was done. In 2006 when we -- when we had more building --
residential building permits in the month of March than we did in the whole year of 2010,
2011, 2009, we kept that methodology.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 13 of 30
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, the number -- the population number
we used in 2006 was based on a ten year window, so --
Bird: But you didn't know you was going into the worst recession that we have ever
seen.
Kilchenmann: I did. No. It was conservative.
Bird: If you did you're the smartest person in Idaho.
Kilchenmann: No. It was conservative, because -- and that's why this -- the current one
is conservative and it's based on other factors besides population. It's also based on a
level of service. So, it's like I said, Steve -- Steve, are you reaching for your
microphone? No. So, when you set that service we all agreed that we needed five park
acres that -- we have five park acres in Meridian and we wanted to maintain five park
acres in Meridian. So, as we went forward we said more need to pay and that's money
into the fund, so that we always keep -- and, actually, it's a ratio for parks. Five acres.
So, everybody has been paying into the system based on that promise or agreement
that we made. So, if we turn around and say, well, some now no longer have to pay
that, we still owe all the people that already paid that we maintain the same level of
service.
De Weerd: Stacy, we used to have adiscount -- or a different rate for apartments and
when this was updated it was apparently changed to be the same. Do you recall what
the --the reasoning was behind that?
Kilchenmann: That -- that slide that I put there, the difference, and the differential was
so slight that the decision was just made that it was -- it made no sense to combine the
two. There was no -- the factors that determined why people use parks are not just
based on a number that says this many people live in an apartment or this house on this
block is only 1,000 square feet and this block is 5,000 square feet -- this house.
Because there is people -- I lived in a thousand square foot house and I use parks all
time. There is people who are single and live in 3,000 square foot houses and they
never go to the -- you know, it's -- it's just not -- we didn't feel like those two factors
correlated with each other.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: If I'm understanding the issue, it's that our rules don't allow a difference
between different types of dwelling units and that what's being suggested is that multi-
family units should pay a smaller proportion and single family units should pay a higher
proportion. In this case I would not come to the conclusion that if we reduce the cost on
the multi-families that the difference would have to come out of the General Fund. The
difference to me would come out of the single family dwellings in the same project,
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 14 of 30
where their cost would be increased, but that would be the balance and -- and I -- I
didn't feel I heard him say that that cost should come out of somebody else's pocket.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, we need to
make the decision within the current impact ordinance and there is no allowance that
would allow you to go and increase the fee on those other single family units. My
understanding -- and Mr. Seal can correct me if I'm misrepresenting, but the single
family lots have been sold to individual builders. Those fees will be paid as those
builders pull those individual permits. So, there isn't going to be a give and take,
because I don't think you're dealing with the same owners in this -- in this complex.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Ted, your comments raise a question to me. What -- what area of the
statute with respect to impact fees at the state level and our ordinances can we really
utilize in making a decision? Obviously, we can't do it arbitrarily.
Baird: You need to address the request that's been given to you and you're being
asked to make a determination that the square footage and the quality of the amenity is
more important than all the other factors that went into consideration in developing your
impact methodology. The state statute lists out a number of different factors that go into
that methodology and, quite frankly, neither side has gone into that. It's just based on
the appellant's feeling that there is an injustice here and his request to address it with
those two factors only and the city's position that we need to keep our ordinance whole
and that those two factors alone don't warrant changing the fee.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: So, for my clarification the -- the question isn't whether the impact fee
administrator followed the rules, our rules are clear that there is no distinction between
single family and multi-family and her decision was in line with that. What's being
questioned is whether our rules are fair, not whether the administrator judged
accurately. Am I right about that?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, your
opportunity to address that situation, if you feel it's important, would come next month
when you are hearing the update that's currently in process of the impact fee ordinance.
You would be changing the whole system. When we do get back to the concluding
slides here, the question that you're being asked is which version of this more
accurately represents the intent of the impact fee ordinance that development pay its
proportionate share of the system improvements that are needed for growth, whether
it's in keeping with the methodology in the ordinance or going simply on square footage
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 15 of 30
and quality of amenities. That's the question that's before you. And this language that's
also on the screen comes directly from our ordinance that in order to overcome that
burden of proof the appellant has to give you substantial evidence that in this case our
methodology is in error.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Ted, we do have a -- coming up January 21st there a consolidated public
hearing on the updates to the development impact fee and at that time they are going to
hear about the impact fee committee and their findings and different things and it would
be the Council determination, then, what that impact fee is going to be for police, fire,
and parks. I'm trying to think, because, you know, thinking along the same lines as
Councilman Zaremba, really, there is not a lot of room here to do much. I mean was
she right or was she wrong in looking at our code and what relief can be given, if any, is
-- it's pretty slim. My thinking is -- and my question to you is I think they have to pay
their fee as part of their development process at the time certain things happen. Is
there a way they can pay under protest and, then, if that fee changes and is reduced,
then, they get that portion back. But, conversely, if Council determines we want a
higher fee, you know, it's a roll of the dice possibly, but -- your thoughts on that.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, there is two
issues there that you identified.
De Weerd: Ted, is your -- is your mike on?
Baird: Yes. I will speak more directly into it. Two issues there. The first one is that the
fee is paid at the time that the building permits are pulled. If in the situation they are
disagreeing with the current fee, they can pay under protest and a refund would be
given based on the outcome of the appeal hearing. Now, next month when you change
the fees, those are going to be effective at a minimum of 30 days after you approve the
new fees. So, it's sort of mixing apples and oranges. But it does give you the
opportunity to listen to the presentation from the impact fee committee from the
consultant as to why we have had this methodology, why it's been working and why it's
recommended that we continue to not make this distinction that you're being asked to
make tonight. Madam Mayor, with my apologies, I'm going to leave the rest of the legal
questions in Mr. Nary's hands. I have a matter I need to attend to. But thank you. If
there are any last questions for me before I --
De Weerd: Any parting questions for Mr. Baird?
Baird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Ted. Jonathan, do you have additional comments in particular
in response to what staff -- if any response is needed to what staff has brought up?
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 16 of 30
Seal: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Jonathan Seal. I think there is a couple things.
You know, one of the things is -- is I know Stacy mentioned here that -- you know, about
if you adjust the fees everybody is not going to be happy. Well, I know when we pay
impact fees we are not happy when we have to pay for medical, but we also recognize
that when we do a medical building we will pay for that. If we do a warehouse we will
pay for that. So, again, we recognize -- we would rather not pay any impact fees period.
I mean we would love to do that. But we are also realistic and, yet, we recognize, okay,
we get charged a proportionate share based on the demand that we are putting
whatever the public facility is. So, again, I keep going back to that is. There is probably
many methodologies to come up with impact fees. Square footage to me is one.
Income might be another. I don't know. Again, as I said to you, I'm not the expert in
this, but I'm trying to make this as simple as possible. I also heard the comments of
Stacy that I live in a small house and I had a lot of people living in it. Well, again, I
emphasize the word on average. On average is what I'm -- I'm striving for here. On
average, yes, you can have a one bedroom apartment and have three people in it.
Probably all went to college at one time and had way too many. But on average a one
bedroom apartment is not going to put the demand. Yes, that one bedroom apartment
might go to a movie, might go to your Fourth of July thing, all the other various stuff that
you do, but that may be one person and that four bedroom house that may be five
people. So, again, I don't think that diminishes it. We are not saying that the amenities
that we are putting in our project are going to eliminate the demand for other amenities
out there, we are just saying, again, that we want to pay our proportionate share of that.
Stacy also mentioned about the 2.95 -- point 297. Again, I bring up the same thing.
There is not an acknowledgement in the census data that I can find anywhere that
differentiates between an apartment, a single family home, a duplex or a multi-home as
far as rental versus home ownership. So, to me that number is -- I say respectfully -- a
misleading number and maybe a meaningless number. You know, Boise came in and
they calculated something, so I think there is a mechanism. The way I look at it now is
we are coming to you as one individual, as one developer saying we would like
consideration on our request. I'm getting the sense now all of a sudden we are getting
pulled into this whole impact fee ordinance thing and I don't think that's ever been our
intention and my understanding is that was never what was intended. We are here
today saying give us a fair break on it. The Mayor, the City Council, the staff as always
been fair with us and I believe tonight you will also be fair with us and that's all we are
asking for. We are not asking to try to get out of the impact fees. We are not asking to
try to eliminate the fees or not pay what is our rightful share, but we don't want to pay
more than what's our rightful share for the amenities within the community. So, I think,
you know, some of the stuff is, frankly, is a little confusing the discussion here, but, you
know, I'm just trying to find something simple here and I think it's something -- whatever
happens tonight I think that Meridian needs to take a look at to be fair and not have
apartment dwellers paying more than their pro rata share of what it should be.
De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 17 of 30
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Jonathan, do you have any idea what -- in your apartment complex what the total
square footage is, livable area?
Seal: I'm sorry, what was that?
Bird: What's the livable area total square footage?
Seal: For all of them?
Bird: Yeah.
Seal: Nine -- 1,088 square feet on average.
De Weerd: No. No. No. That's the average.
Seal: Yes.
Bird: What is the total?
Seal: Oh, the total?
Bird: What does one have to multiply 1,088 by?
Seal: You know what, I think that if you --
Bird: I have a calculator.
Seal: But I can tell you here. I mean we could calculate it for you, but it's 240. But, no,
I don't have that. I'm sorry. That was one I wasn't prepared for. Okay.
Bird: Two hundred thirty-nine thousand?
Seal: Two hundred thirty-nine thousand. And, Councilman Bird, you mentioned the
same, too, that police and fire and commercial do charge on a square foot basis. You
know. And we are not here arguing for police and fire. We recognize that you can't --
you can't say, okay, a bedroom apartment should be allocated a half a police car. A
police car can be affected by a one bedroom versus a three bedroom, versus a house,
the fire department. So, we understand there you can't do an allocation. But I think you
can with the parks. Or maybe it's square footage. I don't know.
De Weerd: Any additional questions or further questions from Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 18 of 30
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Nothing other than I would like to get that -- that number of the cost of the
amenities. And I have a question for Bill. What's our timeline on this appeal? Because
I'm really not having all of this come together in an hour -- I'm not sure I want to make a
hip shot on this and --
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, I mean you
can certainly continue the matter. As you heard Mr. Baird state, if the applicant, wishes
to move forward with their project they can pay these fees under protest and get a
reimbursement if the decision is to lower the fee. The other option that exists -- and,
again, that's totally up to the application here -- is what I think, Council, you're faced with
is you have an ordinance that's been in place for six years that they are now asking you
to modify the methodology, which is very difficult six years in, versus six months in and
you're also looking at this criteria again in a month and, again, this is totally the
applicant's decision, but I mean, obviously, they can wait and pull their permits after
your next decision point if they wanted to, but that's -- obviously, that's a financial
decision they have to make under the new ordinance if you establish a new ordinance
based on the criteria. So, I recognize you have got a lot of different parts here, but you
can continue this if you wish. They can wait to move forward until your decision is final
or they are allowed to pay the fee in protest and receive a reimbursement if that's your
ultimate decision.
De Weerd: I guess, Mr. Nary, you can also say that we have a six year old impact fee
ordinance that needed to be updated and we are in the middle of that process, that this
is raising some -- some legitimate questions that need to be considered under the new
ordinance and I guess my question to you would be -- because this is -- this particular
question and scenario has happened during that process can it be deferred to be
determined through the updated process?
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, if I could -- and, Mr. Nary, if I could just interject. The
impact fee methodology has not been changed, so we have gone through a study, we
have met with the advisory committee two or three times. The advisory committee as
approved the study. They have approved the methodology. We use new capital
numbers. We use -- we use different level of service numbers. We have lowered the
parks fee in that study, because the requirement for service has gone down. If -- if at
the time you hear that and we decide to change the methodology, that can be done, but
we need to go back, we need to completely recalculate the study. So, it's not like on
January 21st we can -- if we change the methodology we are starting over again, which
certainly can be done, but it will take awhile, because we would have to reconvene the
advisory committee, they would have to look at new -- look at new methodology and
look at new service levels and go forward from that point.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 19 of 30
De Weerd: And that's true, you did hit on it. This was -- there is a recommendation
coming to the Council on the impact fees and the methodology to determine what that
impact fee is. It's still ultimately the decision of the Council.
Nary: Madam Mayor -- sorry
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Sorry. I was trying to guess when you were done. The original question was
also about the change at this particular point in time. The testimony that's been in front
of you is that when this ordinance was created back in 2007 square footage was
considered in the discussion and rejected, because the evidence at the time did not
consider that that was a valid method to determine level of service and the amount of
people using the service. It is incumbent on the appellant today, based upon that
finding that was already done and the ordinance that's been created, to bring you
evidence that it should be different and based on objective evidence. Not anecdotal
evidence. So, you do have to make a finding to -- based on what Mr. Seal has
presented to you -- that he has presented evidence to show that square footage is a
better calculation than what was originally created in the ordinance itself. Not that it's
said -- not just that it seems better, but there is evidence to support that, because that's
what the committee used to make a determination in 2007 and that's what the
committee will bring to you in January going forward and on why methodology adopts
the method it did. So, yes, going forward you could do that and you could consider
square footage, you could ask those questions, you can have the committee revisit that
if that's your direction, you're free to do that, but today the appellant's responsibility or
burden is to bring you evidence that is a better methodology and it is more accurate as
to what the intent of new growth paying for the cost of service. That's what -- that's
what -- the finding you would have to make for today's hearing.
De Weerd: Well -- and I guess the questions he did raise that Council needs to say if
the methodology that he brought in questioning in how you determine there is a
difference in the per household population based on census information, that rentals are
-- are not as good a determining factor for that as was raised, where you equate it as
apartments, homes, and trailers. So, I think there has been a question raised and that
is for City Council to determine.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, my -- my comment to that part of the equation is I'm not
convinced with either argument that one is better than the other. It seems to me that
they both -- and I appreciate Jonathan's effort and I wish he would have been here six
years ago, but you weren't doing apartments.
Seal: May not do it again.
Rountree: Yeah. But having said that, I have no trouble with that piece, but the piece I
have trouble with is saying, okay, we do have an instance where there is kind of an
above and beyond effort on the part of this development for the subjective quality piece
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 20 of 30
that we don't see every day in these kinds of developments. We don't necessarily defer
impact fees for developers, but when they do provide parks and park amenities in their
developments that are utilized by the public we reduce the amount of money that we do
collect from them in terms of impact fees; am I correct?
Nary: Not necessarily, no, Council Member Rountree. And if that's evidence that you
would like, as well as to when impact fee credits have been granted --
Bird: Credits. Yes.
Nary: I mean we could certainly provide that to you. I don't recall that there is very
many, but there has probably been some. Mr. Siddoway probably would know better
than I would.
De Weerd: More of late than --
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, the only time we have done that is
for a public park, where we have just given credit.
De Weerd: Stacy, if you can wait for just a second. Steve was going to mention
something and, then, I will call on you.
Kilchenmann: He will have it covered.
Siddoway: That's basically the point I was going to make. When park impact fees are
given it's usually for improvements in public parks, that they are dedicating to the public.
Developments often go above and beyond any requirements in providing swimming
pools or additional amenities within their subdivisions that we would never give a park
impact fee credit for.
De Weerd: Did that help?
Rountree: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Did you want to add anything?
Seal: Madam Mayor, if I can -- Councilmen. I want to make -- I'd like to clarify one
thing. I understand Mr. Nary can correct me if I am wrong. But in talking with Ted --
and, unfortunately, he's not here -- when I submitted my letter he deemed that to be a
protest. So, as I understand it we already are -- have submitted a protest on this. So,
the discussion was -- I think you talked about, you know, would we -- could we file a
protest, pay the impact fee for the park and have a protest. My understanding we have
already done that. So, I just -- if I'm wrong I stand to be corrected, but that's what Ted
and I discussed when I submitted the letter. So, I just want to go on record on that.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 21 of 30
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Yes, please. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Fulmer: Yes. Randy Fulmer. 752 East Trinidad, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fulmer: Thank you, Mayor and Council. I just wanted to make a couple of comments
for your consideration. One, I would like to submit and request that the Council here
consider some other methodology for determining park impact fees for multi-family
compared to single family. When I spoke with Adam Orr, BCS, he was the consultant
that was hired by the community impact fee committee to do the study, he stated to me
verbally that nationally there is about 2.3 persons per unit in multi-family and about 3.1
persons per unit in single family. That's about 74 percent. And I think, really, that's the
only equitable way to look at what the impact fee should be per dwelling unit is the
number of individuals that are in those dwelling units and there is data that's available to
computate that. Adam mentioned to me on the phone it could be done for the City of
Meridian. It would take some time to do that, but the data is available. I think in
contrast to the data that Stacy looked at it really just looked at rental dwellings and that's
not a fair comparison. Just a few quick comments for your consideration. Number one,
the park impact fees in the City of Meridian are greater than both the police and the fire
impact fees combined, which those are essential services. When I sat in on the
committee meetings there were really no questions asked at all in regards to the park
impact fees or the park impact budget, which is a significant budget. Number two, park
impact fees that are computated that are necessary over the next ten years are roughly
ten million dollars that are supposed to be raised via impact fees or roughly a million
dollars a year. Please take into consideration the amount of multi-family dwellings that
are currently under construction in the City of Meridian and are slated under
construction would raise in excess of a million dollars this year in fees and when you
contrast that to the amount of single family in the City of Meridian compared to multi-
family, there is roughly three times as many single family dwelling units as there are
multi-family dwelling units. So, there is going to be --
Nary: Madam Mayor. I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but this is going to get the
record for appeal very messy.
Fulmer: Okay.
Nary: This is related to the future discussion, not that appeal that's in front of you
tonight, and I don't want this record to get messier if you were to go beyond this hearing,
so --
Fulmer: Okay.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 22 of 30
Nary: -- everything you're talking about isn't related to the appeal which is in front of the
Council. This is a rebuttal opportunity for the appellant that the Mayor has granted you,
but it has to be related to what we have talked about to this point.
Fulmer: Okay.
Nary: Sorry.
Fulmer: All right. Thank you very much for the direction. But, again, I respectfully
request that the Council at these consider an equitable methodology to look at
individuals that dwell in multi-family contrast to the individual that dwell in single family --
I'm certain that there is more people that dwell in single family units than multi-family
units and, thereafter, the impact fee should be less for multi-family. And the last thing I
wanted to mention is that -- as Jonathan Seal had done, we did a significant amount of
work and due diligence in order to develop multi-family in the City of Meridian and with
all due respect if the impact fees aren't reduced we will not be able to develop more
multi-family in the City of Meridian. It just does not mathematically make sense for us.
So, I would petition the City Council consider that in regards to impact fees. Significant
revenues are generated and economic well being from development. That's all the
comments I have. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fulmer: Any other questions that I could address?
De Weerd: No. Thank you.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Oh. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would question something. I interpreted from what you said that parks are
not equivalent with the safety services and I will have to say in that regard in my
experience of having lived a lot of other places, that the way I'd put it, the communities
that I have lived in that didn't put enough money into parks spent much more than that
on police and jails and it's just -- it is part of our safety services that we provide and --
Fulmer: No, I --
Zaremba: -- and I don't think it should be short changed.
Fulmer: Right. I did not question that. I just made the comment that budget for parks
and recreation eclipses both the police and fire, which are essential services combined.
De Weerd: Well, we do follow the state ordinance and how to establish that and it's
very detailed and all the different criteria that the city has to meet that does establish a
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 23 of 30
level of service and park impact fees and the police and fire impact fees are -- are
based on maintaining that level of service and the cost associated with that, so -- and
parks and building them there is very capital intensive. So, conversely, on police and
fire it's more budget personnel intensive, so -- but there is some of the differences. But,
again, we will go into that when we open up the park impact fees for the -- the public
portion and next month when we start that as well.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just a word of caution on the statement. You talked about the impact fees,
raising them up, and, you know, you won't be doing anymore multi-family in Meridian. If
you come to a lot of these meetings where there is multi-family involved, you would
have a lot of people saying raise the fee, then, because I don't want them here. So, you
better rethink that statement when you use that, because there would be a lot of people
cheering that, unfortunately. And when we look at that we need a balance. We need
single family. We need multi-family. But there would be a lot of people who would love
to raise the fees because of that very issue, so --
Fulmer: Well, I appreciate that and I respect that. Thank you.
Hoaglun: All right. But we do appreciate your comments. They are very helpful.
Fulmer: Right. So, I guess, in short, if the impact fees for multi-family go down really
dollar for dollar, single family would go up 33 cents for every dollar that multi-family
goes down based on the average dwelling units in the city. So, thank you very much.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. So, Council, looking for your direction on this item on
our agenda. Oh, yes, please, Mr. --Winston. Mr. Moore.
Moore: Thank you.
De Weerd: If you will --
Moore: My name is Winston Moore. I reside at 11665 Thomas Drive in Boise. You
guys know me. We have been doing this for 30 or 40 years in your city. We have paid
millions of dollars of fees literally and we have never before contested or protested or
even questioned those fees. The reason that we are here tonight is, frankly, because of
me. It apparently is the ordinance, at least in my mind, that needs some fixing. If we
are talking about fairness and equitability, if you put two 220 unit apartments side by
side and one of them has a million dollars worth of park-like amenities, the other one
has nothing, you know the impact on the one without the park-like amenities is going to
be much greater on the park system than the one with the amenities. In our case you're
going to have several hundred families -- I don't know -- I won't say that they won't go to
the parks, but they are a lot less likely to go to the parks when they have a park right in
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 24 of 30
their backyard and, you know, I will just boil it down, because you have been very
gracious with your time tonight and we appreciate that. I just -- I just think that -- that
the element of fairness is absolutely lacking here when right next door to our -- well, to
my office anyway there is complex -- an apartment complex of about 60 units that have
nothing. They have garages and covered parking and that's it. If there were four of
those the same way, 240 units without any amenities, they are going to have a much
greater impact -- negative impact on the -- on the park system than ours will with a park
within the development. So, I just think that it's unfair -- I don't know the legal aspects of
it, but I think maybe -- maybe the ordinance needs fixing, but in my respectful opinion it
is absolutely unfair. Thank you for your time tonight. We appreciate it.
De Weerd: Thank you, Winston. Council, any questions?
Rountree: Winston, you have done a great job of explaining the predicament I'm
feeling. Really.
Moore: Thank you very much.
Rountree: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just to discuss this further, I mean it's a -- it's a timing issue in some ways.
You know, on January 21st we have the public hearing -- the report and public hearing
that will be brought before Council. Then Councilman Rountree mentioned -- I'm
uncomfortable making a decision on this right now based on the evidence, based on the
ordinance -- well, we are kind of locked in. This has been in place. This is how the
process works. You bring a very legitimate issue before the Council, but how do we
rectify that? We can't necessarily go against our ordinance. I -- the evidence that --
that's presented by the hearing officer is such that -- how do we do that. What I have
been trying to think of is, okay, if we are in the process of possibly changing the
ordinance and how the fee structure is calculated for the different things, okay, and it's
paid under protest and there is changes made, then, I think changes can be made, but
what those are I don't know. When that will be done, as Stacy pointed out, it could take
some time to do that, but -- so, I think the timing of everything is -- is really a conundrum
right now. If the Council wants to go to -- to do something, but maybe -- maybe
someone else has some ideas as to how to fix this.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess, Council Member Hoaglun,
listening to what you're saying one alternative you could consider is -- and, again, it still
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 25 of 30
puts some burden upon the appellant here if they want to move forward. You can move
this hearing out to either your January 21st meeting or beyond that -- again, they are
still able to pay this under protest. If you make a determination as Council in January to
either revisit the methodology, revisit the -- again, you have stated it correctly, it may put
this out a month or two or longer and there is a waiting period in the statute that's
required once you make a final decision or when the final ordinance comes, but, again,
if the appellant is, you know, wanting to move forward and pay under the protest on the
possibility that you come to a different conclusion based on the new ordinance that you
have and you have moved this beyond that, you can, then, grant that relief, because
you have -- if you -- basically, if you change the ordinance or the methodology after your
January discussion and as Stacy said, very likely the impact fee committee would have
to revisit it, there would have to be a different analysis and all those other factors that
may come into play, but, ultimately, at the end of the day if this Council or the next
Council changes the methodology in how the fees are calculated and does use what's
purported here to be square footage as a factor or the additional amenities as a factor,
and you move this further out, you can grant -- that Council can grant that relief at that
point. That's the only way I can see on this one, because of the timing of it, that you can
delay it to that point. But, again, the other option the applicant has is to withdraw the
appeal and simply wait until you make a new decision based on the new evidence and,
then, deal with the fee at that point and whatever that fee is, which may be less. Or
bring evidence to you in January that a different methodology is appropriate. So, these
are kind of your options I think you can do today.
Rountree: Question for Jonathan.
Seal: Jonathan Seal.
Rountree: Do you need resolution momentarily in order for you to continue with the
project or is this something that if we defer a final decision until after the impact fees
hearing process is over.
Seal: Mayor, Councilman Rountree, quite candidly, we will be pouring this project either
way and maybe that's not an astute thing to say, but I have always shot straight with
you, so I will shoot straight with you now. We are moving forward either way. I mean
we are more than pregnant at this point.
Rountree: Yeah. That's true.
Seal: Yeah. So, from that standpoint, yes, we are. I'm just kind of sitting here right now
and thinking sorry I started this thing. I am -- I am kind of confused at this point where
we are going and what we are doing at this point. You know, I was under the
impression that there is an impact fee ordinance protest and we submitted something
and so I guess maybe naively I was sitting here thinking, okay, there will be a decision
made and it will be a decision made on the merits of our case and all of a sudden we
are now getting into what will be decided in January, February, or March and now it
almost seems like I'm not sure where -- where the decision is going to be made and
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 26 of 30
when it's going to be made and maybe that's just my own ignorance in that, but I
thought we would -- we would have the decision -- if not tonight here shortly on our
particular thing. So, I'm kind of putting our self in a box and removed from the other
decisions that might come down the road and I thought that the impact fee ordinance
protest was a mechanism for that and it sounds tonight like maybe that's not the case.
De Weerd: Well, Jonathan, I think it's a mechanism to first look at the ordinance as
written and, you know, it's pretty straight forward. I think, though, we raise some good
points that need to be considered, but those can't be concerned that the -- an ordinance
that's already written and I think what the question is are those considerations because
we are in the middle of rewriting something that has merit that can be considered in the
update that can still retro back to your appeal. Did I explain that right? So, I think you're
caught in an in between. If we weren't in the middle of updating it, it will be hard to
substantiate the protest, but because we are it does give merit to the discussion and the
consideration of the methodology and if we need to look at that. Otherwise, you would
be retro -- under the last six years everyone that's paid an impact fee on a multi unit --
Seal: Right.
De Weerd: -- and I don't know -- I'm not going to speak for the Council, but I don't think
they want to go there.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would say that you're correct, that we have brought a lot into this and
maybe it's more than what you're asking for, but as Councilman Hoaglun said, the
timing is a little unfortunate. To me the issue is we would be required -- if we just looked
at the situation today, we would be required to find that the impact fee administrator
made an error in her decision and, frankly, I personally can't make that finding for me. I
can't speak for the others. I think she followed the rules as we have them. What you
bring up -- and the other people that have contributed, Mr. Moore and others -- is that
perhaps the rule is unfair and where it gets confusing is we can't decide that tonight.
We already have an ordinance and I think, again, Councilman Rountree's question, how
much in a hurry are you. If you must have a decision tonight I already know you won't
like my vote.
Seal: Is that a hint?
Zaremba: You know. And I probably won't like my vote. I would like to hear this
subject out, because I think you raise a very legitimate issue. But it's not one that we
can decide tonight and we already have it in the works to discuss that. So, I realize it's
confusing to you probably and everybody else that we are bringing all this in, but we are
in the process -- I'm repeating what other people have said. But the reason it's
confusing is if we had to make the decision tonight I'm not sure it's the right decision.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 27 of 30
It's not the good one for you and maybe not the right decision for what we will do in the
future, but we need to hear the discussion that's going to come up a month from now to
make that decision.
Seal: Right.
Zaremba: So, I think that's why we asked do you really have to be in a hurry
Seal: Well -- and, Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, you know, I guess I was
looking at it -- and I understand there is complexities here and I respect that. So, what
you're saying tonight doesn't surprise me. I mean I understand. If I was in your
situation I would probably be thinking the same thing. But I -- you know, what dawned
on me, too, is you look at Ada County highway impact fees, there is a mechanism to
protest it and they can reduce impact fees for an individual project. I'm not an expert at
impact fee ordinances, nor do I want to be, but I kind wonder if -- if that mechanism is
also in this, because I understand the impact fee ordinance is a state ordinance, as I
understand, or at least as I believe I understand. So, I know you're going to do what's
best. So, I will leave it at that. Yeah, this has become more complex than I expected,
honestly.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Just -- the ordinance is the problem and we should have taken care of this in
2006, to be flat truthful with you, and two of us were sitting on the Council at that time.
We -- we fell down. We didn't ask the right questions. We didn't look at it the right way.
And so I would have -- I would have no problem voting tonight on something, but I -- it's
hard to -- it's hard to find findings of facts and conclusions of law on an ordinance that
has been in place for ten years.
Moore: Mayor and Council, if I might just quickly -- we don't need a decision tonight.
It's a tough one for you folks. We appreciate your listening to us. I think that sincerely
that the ordinance needs work. I think it needs fixing. I think you will do that. It will take
some time. I would hope -- and legally I don't know about this, but I would hope that --
we will go ahead and pay the impact fee, we don't have any choice, but I would hope
that when the impact -- when the -- yeah, when the ordinance is amended that if that
new formula would result in a lower impact fee for us, that perhaps we could have a
refund. Something to think about. But we don't need a decision tonight.
Bird: Thank you.
Seal: Unless it's a good one.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor -- Madam Mayor, just one more point. This impact fee
methodology and ordinance was not done in a vacuum and it was not done by staff, it
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 28 of 30
was done by members of our building and real estate community. So, there are, what,
seven, eight people on our impact fees advisory committee and they --
De Weerd: And, Stacy, we will determine -- that like our city attorney said, I don't want
to muddy the water, because that is pertaining to the update.
Kilchenmann: Yeah. And I guess I just want to point out that it's -- they said they don't
need a decision, but I was under the same understanding as Mr. Seal that we would do
a decision tonight and that was one action and, then, move on. But it is muddy and
unusual.
De Weerd: And it's still up to Council's determination, so -- thank you, Mr. Seal.
Seal: Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.
Bird: Thank you, Jonathan.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree .
Rountree: I see two options. One deny -- to deny the protest based on lack of findings
to support differences between the two. I think there is elements of this that don't make
a finding with respect to the language of our ordinance possible. Or to leave -- leave
this protest open until such time as we resolve the issues with this information and
Jonathan's testimony as we look at redrafting the ordinance and I believe if we leave it
open the protest is there and if things change, then, either a payment is deferred or a
refund is in place or a payment is made in the amount that currently is established by
ordinance. But I think there are only two decisions I could support tonight is either
denying the protest -- and I don't think we want to go there, because I don't think you
get another chance at protest and I think you want to keep the door open for reducing
the fees -- the possibility of reducing the fees or a refund of fees. But that's my
comments on where we are -- where I think we are.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Well -- and, Mr. Rountree, I think because we are in the midst of updating
the protest is considered legitimate and -- but it is a risk. If -- if the fees goes up under
the update then -- so, the protestor can determine that following this meeting if that's the
direction that the Council goes to delay a decision on this pending the -- the outcome of
the update to our impact fee ordinance and it's -- those, in my opinion, Mr. Rountree,
are the two options on the table as our attorney has described as well. Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 29 of 30
Nary: Yes, Madam Mayor. One thing that the appellant would not be at greater risk to
pay -- if the fee were to be higher they would not be at a greater risk to pay a new fee,
because they have filed their application and paid the fees in protest under the current
ordinance. So, if the Council were to change it and it would be higher. But if the
Council were to either change the methodology or the fee just by its own methodology
as I think already was stated by the CFO, it is lower is what's coming to you in January.
If they just chose to pay that or the Council chose to lower that, they would have the
ability to do it. The only thing I would suggest is if you want to set this past it you might
want to set it to January 28th, so that way you will have heard it -- the presentation on
the 21st, you will know the direction you have given and, then, you can make a decision
on the 28th on whether to continue this matter further, because more information is
being gathered, or you make a decision. The other thing is it will be incumbent --
because half of the Council will be new people to have -- for them to go back and review
this hour and a half hearing to make sure they are able to make a decision, because
there won't be any other way to do it, you will have three new people here to help make
this decision as well.
Rountree: Good way to get their feet wet.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: They asked for it, though, you know. They ran for office and this is what
they wanted to do. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would lean towards not closing the appeal and precluding the continuation
of the protest. I think it's fair to leave those open. If -- I think Councilman Rountree was
right, if we denied the appeal tonight it's over. I don't believe there is an opportunity to
appeal the appeal. So, my preference, having heard them offer not to be in a hurry,
would be not to close it tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, then, do I have a motion?
Bird: Was that a motion?
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue this subject to our regularly scheduled meeting of
January 28th, 2014.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item. Any discussion? All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council -Special Meeting
December 17, 2013
Page 30 of 30
MOTION CARRIED: ALL A YES.
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to adjourn our special meeting.
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:39 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR TA DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
G~¢4~¢~~~D AUCUS~~ ~c
ATTEST:
Cite of
---
C '' ~~ ~ ~ , Ef IDIAN'~"
pX0
JA E t A~F; ~I~l~ y , ~~
~~~T E~ ° r +n e T ae ~S°Q~ae