HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-04I~1~ ~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, February 04, 2014 at 6:00 PM
1. Roll-Call Attendance
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Community Invocation by Mark Harris with LDS Church
4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
5. Proclamation
A. Proclamation for Skills USA
6. Consent Agenda Approved (Pg 4-7)
A. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-034 Gramercy
Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of
S. Bonito Way Between E. Blue Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Thirty-Seven (37)Residential Lots and One (1)
Common Lot on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 13-020 Gramercy
Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E. Overland Road and West of
S. Bonito Way, Between E. Blue Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal
Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056)
for the Purpose of Attaching the New Home Elevations Proposed with the
Gramercy Heights Subdivision
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-031 Knighthill
Center by Mason and Stanfield Inc. Located Southwest Corner of N. Linder
Road and W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of
Five (5) Commercial Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 9.11
Acres in the C-G Zoning District
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, February 04, 2014 Page 1 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 13-019 Knighthill
Center by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. Located Southwest Corner of N. Linder
Road and W. Chinden Boulevard Request: Modify the Recorded
Development Agreement (Inst. #106122368) to Incorporate a New Concept
Plan and Update Certain Sections of the DA Pertinent to the Proposed
Knighthill Center Subdivision
E. Final Order for Approval: FP 13-048 Baltic Place Addition by Cair Paravel,
LLC Located South of E. Franklin Road and West of E. Kalispell Street
Request: Final Plat Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on Approximately
9.41 Acres of Land in an I-L Zoning District
F. FP 14-001 Zebulon Commons Subdivision by The Traditions by Amyx II,
LLP Located South of E. McMillan Road and West of N. Eagle Road
Request: Final Plat Consisting of 38 Single-Family Residential Building
Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on 13.56 Acres of Land in an R-8
Zoning District
G. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-023 Connections Credit
Union at Ten Mile by Connections Credit Union Located Southeast Corner
of W. Pine Avenue and N. Ten Mile Road Request: Amend the Development
Agreement (Instrument #110111935) for the Purpose of Attaching a New
Concept Plan and Building Elevations
H. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Idaho Photographic Arts in
Initial Point Gallery from December 5, 2014 to January 5, 2015
I. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement between the Meridian Heights
Water & Sewer District and the City of Meridian
J. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Titan Technologies for the
"Locust Grove Water Main Extension Project" for aNot-to-Exceed Amount
of $448,020.00
K. License Agreement for Community Garden in Kleiner Park
L. Approval of award of Professional Services Agreement to Project
Engineering Consultants, Inc. for the "Rails with Trails UPRR Cutoff Arterial
Crossing Design Study" project for a Not-To-Exceeded amount of
$77,707.35.
M. Resolution No. 14-975: A Resolution Establishing an Interim Rate for the
Provision of Sewer Services to Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District
Customers until the Transition of All Water and Sewer Services is Complete
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, February 04, 2014 Page 2 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
7. Community Items/Presentations
A. Community Development: Initial Bus Route Options (Pg 7-16)
8. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None (Pg 18)
9. Action Items
A. FP 14-003 Canterbury Commons No. 2 by Heartland Homes, LLC Located
South Side of W. Pine Avenue, East of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Fifty-Seven (57) Single Family Residential Building
Lots and Nine (9) Common Lots on Approximately 11.06 Acres of Land in
an R-15 Zoning District
Continued to February 18, 2014 (Pg 18)
B. Consolidated Public Hearing on the Update to the Development Impact Fee
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Revisions to Impact Fee
Ordinance Continued to March 4, 2014 (Pg 18-57)
10. Department Reports
A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-976: A Resolution for the Appointment
of Patrick S. Oliver to Seat 5 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission Moved to Item 7B -Approved (Pg 16-18)
B. Solid Waste Advisory Commission: SWAC Report and Recommendation
Regarding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of
Meridian and Republic Services of Idaho About City Parks' Recycling
Revenue Approved (Pg 57-60)
C. Community Development: Fairview Corridor Management Strategy Update
(Pg 60-64)
D. Parks and Recreation: 2013 Kleiner Park Concession Update (Pg 64-67)
E. Finance Department: FY2014 Budget Amendment for FY2014 Grant
Carryforward Approved (Pg 67-68)
11. Ordinances
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 14-1596: An Ordinance Amending Title 10,
Chapter 7, Section 12, Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian Impact
Fee Ordinance Schedule; to Provide for an Amendment to the Police, Fire
and Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedules Continued to March 4,
2014 (Pg 68-69)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, February 04, 2014 Page 3 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
B. Ordinance No. 14-1597: An Ordinance (AZ 13-005 -Paramount Northeast)
For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In The NW '/4 Of The Ne '/4 Of
Section 25, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, And A Parcel Of Land Located In The NW '/4 Of The Ne '/4 Of Section
25, Township 4 North, Range 1 West; Establishing And Determining The
Land Use Zoning Classification Of Said Lands From RUT To C-C
(Community Business), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) And R-8
(Medium Density Residential District) Approved (Pg 69-70)
12. Future Meeting Topics
A. Hearing on an Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an
Impact Fee Individual Assessment Request Agreed to put on March 4, 2014
agenda. (Pg 70-72)
Adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -Tuesday, February 04, 2014 Page 4 of 4
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian City Council February 4, 2014
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday,
February 4, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba, Keith
Bird, Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Caleb Hood, Kyke Radek, Michael de St.
Germain, Perry Palmer, Steve Siddoway, Colin Moss, Stacy Kilchenmann, Rita
Cunningham, Mollie Mangerich and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba X Joe Borton
X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird
X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Thank you for your patience. We apologize for getting the regular meeting
started so late, but we do appreciate having you all -- all of you here to join us. For the
record it is Tuesday, February 4th. It's 6:15. We will start with roll call attendance,
Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Mark Harris with LDS Church
De Weerd: I can see it's going to be a lively evening. Item No. 3 is our community
invocation. Tonight we will be led by Mark Harris. He is with the LDS church. Please
join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of
reflection. Thank you for joining us tonight.
Harris: Our Heavenly Father, as we come before thee at the start of this City Council
meeting we remember thee and we ask for thy Spirit to be with us. We are thankful,
Father, for this wonderful country and this wonderful city in which we live and we ask
thee that we may have peace and prosperity in this area. We ask thee tonight as we
begin this meeting that we may be able to come to an accord on all these items and to
be able to do so peacefully. We also ask thee, Father, that we may be able to return
home from this meeting with a greater resolve to be better residents and citizens of this
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page2of72
great city and this great nation. We ask thee that thou may bless us with peace and
prosperity here and these things we humbly ask in the name of thy son Jesus Christ,
amen.
De Weerd: Mr. Harris, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin for leading us
tonight. Thank you so much.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we adopt the agenda with the following modifications and
amendments. On Item 6-M, the resolution number is 14-975. On Item 9-B, the
applicant has requested a continuance until February 18th, 2014.
De Weerd: That was 9-A.
Rountree: What's that?
De Weerd: 9-A.
Rountree: 9-A. Item 10-A has been requested to move to Item 7-B and the resolution
number for that item is 14-976. Item 11-A, the ordinance number is 14-1596. And Item
11-B, the ordinance number is 14-1597. And with those modifications the motion has
been made.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: Have a motion and second to approve the agenda as changed. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Proclamation
A. Proclamation for Skills USA
De Weerd: I do have a proclamation to read and I'm going to move down to the
podium. It's certainly our privilege and honor to have the students from Skills USA
come and join us every year to celebrate a lot of their accomplishments. What we are
also very excited about is this growing partnership that the city is having with some of
the projects that some of you will be or are involved in. So, it's great having you here
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 3 of 72
this evening with us. I will go ahead and ask you if you will come up as I read this
proclamation. You can stand with me. Don't all jump at once. After I read this I will see
if I can get each of you to introduce yourself and also if you will share with us what you
participate in or what you compete in and so with that said I will go ahead and read this
proclamation. Whereas the City of Meridian is proud to recognize deserving citizens of
the community, especially students, who accomplish great things on behalf of our
community and whereas Skills USA Team Renaissance willingly spent hours planning
and constructing a home within one school year in Frazier Place Subdivision where
students worked during class time and weekends for a deserving family and whereas
students in all major programs of study in architecture, drafting, residential building
construction, masonry, digital home technology integration, collaborated with the
members of the Team Renaissance to complete this home and whereas Skills USA
Team Renaissance has demonstrated their willingness to educate not only citizens of
Meridian, but also state and federal legislative officials about the meaning of Skills USA
and whereas Skills USA Team Renaissance has demonstrated the construction skills to
remodel a school district portable classroom into the family medical residency of Idaho
scheduled to be completed this year at Meridian Elementary School and whereas the
Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian acknowledge Skills USA and Team
Renaissance and the efforts of their classmates and Mr. Enger and Mr. Groves
residential construction classes in achieving their many accomplishments, therefore, I,
Mayor Tammy de Weerd, of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim Skills USA Team
Renaissance Day in the City of Meridian and call upon all citizens to celebrate the
notable accomplishments of these great students in the Skills USA Team Renaissance
team. So, please join me in congratulating this group. So, if I could present this to you,
our proclamation, and -- and also our congratulations on what you have been able to
accomplish. I do know that this project with the Meridian School District is a first of its
kind in the state. It's pretty cool that this medical clinic that is being brought to Meridian
Elementary School is the first one that has been built, but it's been built by our youth for
our youth. So, we appreciate all your team is doing and I will present this to you.
Enger: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I, myself, I'm the instructor for the building
construction class. With the joint collaboration between Meridian schools and Habitat
for Humanity, which is the Boise Valley Habitat for Humanity where we built a home for
this particular family who needed a helping hand up. The real gentleman behind the
family medical clinic we will say for the Meridian Elementary School is actually Mr.
Groves and I, actually, will turn it over to him. It was his class and his students that
really brought this forth and stepped up and as I understand it did a marvelous job. I
personally have seen different parts of the -- oh, progression of the construction, but I
haven't seen the finished product and people have told me you would not even
recognize the building after you have seen what they have done. So, with that, Mr.
Grove.
Grove: My name is Greg Grove and I'm one of the construction teachers for Meridian
district and this family medical building that we put together is in its final stage. We are
seeking our final approval on our -- hopefully this week and the medical staff should be
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 4 of 72
moving in probably early of next week and so that they can start seeing students to help
them stay in school. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, if you will introduce yourself and tell us what you compete in.
Ganning: I'm Colton Ganning and I go the Renaissance High School and I'm competing
in the American spirit.
Malman: Hi. My name is Harley Malman. Igo to Centennial High School and I
complete in the spirit -- sorry. The spirit competition.
Crishbaum: My name is Henry Crishbaum. Igo to Mountain View High School. I'm
competing in promotional bulletin board and residential system installation.
Kailey: Hello. My name is Kailey. Igo to Mountain View High School and I'm
competing in American spirit.
Puba: Hello. My name is Michaeline Puba. Igo to Renaissance High School and I'm
competing in community service.
Hadley: I am Samantha Hadley. Igo to Eagle High School and I'm also competing in
community service.
Costin: I'm Heather Costin. Igo to Eagle High School and I'm competing in
promotional bulletin board.
Hall: My name is Brandon Hall. Igo to Centennial High School and I'm competing in
related technical mass.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here. So, what their teacher didn't tell you is the two
young ladies that lintroduced -- or I presented the award to -- or the proclamation, they
won fourth in their category at national and the young lady with the red hair, she scored
the highest in the nation in her competition. So, we always send some pretty amazing
young people to represent our school district. These kids have been building Habitat for
Humanity homes for a number of years under some great supervision by two amazing
teachers and I will say that the Idaho medical -- or medical residency of Idaho, Dr.
Eberle and this medical clinic that is happening at Meridian Elementary that these
young people are remodeling, their goal is 200,000 dollars. They have raised 175,000
and would appreciate helping with that gap of 25,000, just in case any of you have an
interest in philanthropy.
Item 6: Consent Agenda
A. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-034
Gramercy Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E.
Overland Road and West of S. Bonito Way Between E. Blue
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page5of72
Horizon Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting
of Thirty-Seven (37)Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot
on Approximately 5.59 Acres in an R-15 Zoning District
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 13-
020 Gramercy Heights by Gramercy, LLC Located South of E.
Overland Road and West of S. Bonito Way, Between E. Blue
Horizon Drive and the Ridenbaugh Canal Request: Amend the
Recorded Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056) for the
Purpose of Attaching the New Home Elevations Proposed with
the Gramercy Heights Subdivision
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 13-031
Knighthill Center by Mason and Stanfield Inc. Located
Southwest Corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden
Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Five (5)
Commercial Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately
9.11 Acres in the C-G Zoning District
D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: MDA 13-
019 Knighthill Center by Mason and Stanfield, Inc. Located
Southwest Corner of N. Linder Road and W. Chinden
Boulevard Request: Modify the Recorded Development
Agreement (Inst. #106122368) to Incorporate a New Concept
Plan and Update Certain Sections of the DA Pertinent to the
Proposed Knighthill Center Subdivision
E. Final Order for Approval: FP 13-048 Baltic Place Addition by
Cair Paravel, LLC Located South of E. Franklin Road and West
of E. Kalispell Street Request: Final Plat Consisting of Two (2)
Building Lots on Approximately 9.41 Acres of Land in an I-L
Zoning District
F. FP 14-001 Zebulon Commons Subdivision by The Traditions
by Amyx II, LLP Located South of E. McMillan Road and West
of N. Eagle Road Request: Final Plat Consisting of 38 Single-
Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other
Lots on 13.56 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District
G. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-023
Connections Credit Union at Ten Mile by Connections Credit
Union Located Southeast Corner of W. Pine Avenue and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Amend the Development Agreement
(Instrument #110111935) for the Purpose of Attaching a New
Concept Plan and Building Elevations
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page6of72
H. Acceptance Agreement: Display of Artwork of Idaho
Photographic Arts in Initial Point Gallery from December 5,
2014 to January 5, 2015
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement between the
Meridian Heights Water & Sewer District and the City of
Meridian
J. Approval of Award of Bid and Agreement to Titan
Technologies for the "Locust Grove Water Main Extension
Project" for aNot-to-Exceed Amount of $448,020.00
K. License Agreement for Community Garden in Kleiner Park
L. Approval of award of Professional Services Agreement to
Project Engineering Consultants, Inc. for the "Rails with Trails
UPRR Cutoff Arterial Crossing Design Study" project for aNot-
To-Exceeded amount of $77,707.35.
M. Resolution No. 14-975: A Resolution Establishing an Interim
Rate for the Provision of Sewer Services to Meridian Heights
Water and Sewer District Customers until the Transition of All
Water and Sewer Services is Complete
De Weerd: Okay. So, Item No. 6 is our Consent Agenda.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as modified.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is
no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Well, it looks like -- yes, Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Does that include authorization for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest?
Rountree: Certainly.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page7of72
De Weerd: Of course. But thank you for that. Madam Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Community Items/Presentations
A. Community Development: Initial Bus Route Options
De Weerd: Item 7-A is under Community Development and I will turn this over to Caleb
to introduce.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. A few months ago Kelli
Fairless with VRT was here before the Council to outline our public involvement process
and the charter for a group of interested stakeholders that were going to be looking at
what an initial fixed line route for bus service in Meridian would -- would or could look
like. So, that group has been meeting bimonthly over the past several months. There
is, actually, several members in the audience today. We have serving on that team
members of VRT, COMPASS, ACHD, MDC, Councilman Zaremba, two transportation
commission members and myself primarily serving on that. And, again, we meet a
couple of Fridays every month. So, we are getting ready to go out for the public
involvement phase of this project, excuse me, which includes -- which will include an
online survey, a stakeholders meeting, which would be meant to engage some more
interested parties, some transit dependent populations and their representatives to see
maybe if some of these options are preferable to others before going to the -- to the
great populace which, again, an online survey and also an open house. So, before we
go public with -- with any options we want to run what we have developed as a steering
committee by the Council, look for any input. You aren't asked to -- to choose your
favorite one tonight and, in fact, a few of the options you will see aren't even really
feasible with the amount of money that's budgeted for this year. But we wanted to show
you some of the work that's gone into it. I don't know if Councilman Zaremba wants to
say any words or not throughout this presentation. We didn't -- we didn't coordinate
that. But I know Kelli Fairless has a PowerPoint slide show she would like to give and
that was just a very high level brief introduction on this topic and with that I will turn it
over to Kelli, unless there are any questions.
Fairless: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Hi, Kelli. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 8 of 72
Fairless: I'm Kelli Fairless. I'm the executive director of Valley Regional Transit. Our
address is 200 Northeast 2nd in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you for being here.
Fairless: I use this; right? Okay. Well, I appreciate, Madam Mayor and Members of the
Council, to be here. I'm going to, before I start the slide show, apologize up front.
There is a lot of slides here. They have a lot of detail, but -- I just lost my --
Hood: No. That was me.
Fairless: There we go. But I -- I'm going to go through them fairly quickly. I was
thinking with the new Council members it might be helpful to get a little more
background information. Caleb is going to send the presentation out, so that you have
that detail, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on each slide for the sake of time.
So, a quick overview about Valley Regional Transit. You all are aware we are the
regional public transportation authority. I have talked about our responsibilities to the
public and for coordinating and providing public transportation. The way that we do that
-- how we fund our services are primarily through a combination of federal and local
funds and Meridian is in the large urban, but you have the unique position of kind of
being in the middle of both the large urban and the small urban, but your boundaries are
in the large urban area. We have available to us sections -- these are formula dollars
under the Federal Transit Administration. We get about 3.4 million in Section 5307 and
I have listed what those services can -- what those expenses can cover. Section 5339
is for capital and that's about 350,000 and, then, Section 5310 is for more human
service related transportation and we get about 350,000. So, that's the total federal
dollars that come to the large urban area that Meridian fits within. In the small urban
area we get about 2.2 million for Section 5307 and about 253 -- 250,000 for both the
5339 and 5310. The one thing that's unique between the large urban and the small
urban area is that in -- it's how the match ratios work. Federal match is -- for operations
is 50 percent. For capital is 80 percent. But when you factor in all the different match
ratios and all the different activities of what's funded we get a blended rate and in the
Boise urbanized area, the large urban area, 80 percent of the services are funded with
local dollars and 20 percent are funded with federal dollars. The small urban area,
those area 40 percent local and a 60 percent federal. So, we -- we maximize every
federal dollar in that system. The reason that we don't do that in the large urban area is
there just isn't enough federal dollars and the city of Boise has always overmatched
their federal program beyond what's required. So, there is just not enough money to do
all of the projects. Currently our services include 15 fixed routes, a route in Garden City
that's a fixed route, we have services for persons with disabilities and, then, Meridian is
one of the -- the inter-county routes come through Meridian and serve the park and
rides and, then, we also just started the community link project with the Meridian Senior
Center that starts November 1st. I provided you with a system map, because some of
you may have some questions as we talk about the options, about how it fits with the
system. So, I'm going to take a little bit of time just to talk about the design principles
that we use. I'm not going to spend any time on this slide, because we have talked
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 9 of 72
about Valley Connect before. That's kind of our -- our overarching plan for our system.
But as we were developing those plans we developed service classifications, so that --
it's very similar and comparable to the functional classification system you would see in
a roadway map, but we have a premium corridor, which is typically some kind of high
capacity, high frequently route. Primarily routes connect the communities together, so
they might be a route that would serve Meridian and Boise in one -- one segment.
Secondary routes are more local neighborhood routes and special services are for
persons with disabilities and, then, we also have identified classifications for rural
services and express commuter services. We talk about the competing goals of transit.
Transit really came about in a lot of communities through rural systems and they are
focused on covering a lot of area and so you're trying to cover a lot of ground, serve as
many people as you can, but your frequency is probably going to be a lot less. You
may see a bus maybe only every two hours or every hour. A productivity system is
where you're serving high demand areas, focusing and maximizing ridership and
minimizing the subsidy. When we did our plan as a board -- our board adopted a 70
percent productivity to a 30 percent coverage. So, that's the ratio that we try to maintain
when we are doing service planning. So, this is the map of Valley Connect. There are
-- we have taken all the service classifications and through color coding identified where
those are. This really is the vision of where we would like to be. This is so that we can
-- can develop services. The one thing is we don't -- because we rely on partnerships
and new money to expand services, Valley Connect is designed in a way that we could
take out different routes and look at different segments and develop different segments
independent of other segments. But when we do that we try to use certain design --
service design principles and these have been adopted in our plans throughout the
years, but really focusing on the quality, the -- having a full pallet of service, recognizing
it's not a one size fits all, thinking about equity across the region, that not everybody
gets the same exact service, but it fits the community in the planning process and that
we really try to use the direct, simple, and easy to understand and we did a complete
route restructure in 2005 based on -- on those principles. Eliminated large loops,
focusing service on two-way routes, so that they would be quicker -- quicker trips for
people using the 15, 30, 60 minute frequencies, because it's easier for people to
understand and to break out into time -- time schedules. We adopted a fixed bus stop
system which created a lot more ease for the passenger and trying to make the system
as seamless and customer focused as we can. You have seen this graphic before. It's
really the -- the graphic about how all of those Valley Connect services and -- and
support services fit under our regional system. So, I'm going to talk about this particular
project as Caleb mentioned, the City Council approved the 60,000 in the budget. We
talked about the original concept, which was to connect downtown Ustick Road and
Boise city, form the planning team, and are looking at connecting with key stakeholders
throughout the process. The planning assumptions -- and we talked a lot about this, so
at the foundation really looking at options that consider the Valley Connect plan
services, so we are not recreating the wheel, but what we wanted to do is evaluate the
short-term route in the context of what is the system going to look like when it's fully built
out, because we want this to be a successful service. So, we also evaluated land use
patterns -- not just those today, but what are they going to look like in the future and
where are the major activity centers and neighborhoods that we want to serve. We
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 10 of 72
looked at stakeholder objectives, what are the target markets, is it commuters,
shoppers, what are we looking at? What is the potential for leveraging the federal
funds? As I mentioned, that looks different in the small urban services versus the large
urban and what makes the difference is where the services are initiated. So, if they are
initiated in the Nampa area it goes under a smaller urban project. If it's initiated in the --
in Boise or Meridian and only serves those areas, then, it's considered a large urban
project. So, this -- the Ustick route to downtown Meridian -- one of the first ones we
looked at -- as we looked at and thought about the service design guidelines and the
funding availability and thinking about some of the design guidelines don't get met in
this more circular route, because it doesn't provide the two way service, it's more of a
loop route, so if somebody wants to get three-quarters into the route you ride the whole
way around and it sort of deviates from the -- just to give you an example of some of
those design principles. So, we did start looking at the whole system first and this
graphic is all of the planned services for Meridian with the routes listed and, again, I'm
not going to go into a lot of detail on those, just that -- that there has been a lot of
thought to what services could be available in Meridian also in addition there are routes
identified that would be considered flex zones where we might do more demand
responsive or flexible types of services. So, the service options -- if you could go to the
pdf, Caleb. You received these in your packet and the -- we looked at a couple of -- I
think three more commuter-based options that would be weekday peak hour services
and, then, a couple of weekend options that -- that will go through. The table at the top
talks about the distance between the -- the route, a 12.7 mile route. Round trip would
be 25.4 miles. This would be a 30 minute frequency. There would be a stop about
every five miles, so we would utilize park and rides for this type of route. The total cost
for a peak hour route like this is calculated about 240,000 and, then, the local portion --
because it is starting in Canyon county, the local portion for that route would be around
98,000. The next route is a route that would serve the Meridian activity centers to
downtown Boise. Again, this is a commute route, peak hour, about 11 mile distance or
21 mile round trip. It would also be a 30 minute frequency and that is about 269,000,
with a 215,000 local portion and, again, that's because of the match ration. This route is
also a weekday peak hour, but it serves just -- it's specific to Meridian. So, it doesn't
connect to any particular existing route, except for at the park and ride and this is an 8.6
mile one way trip. It's about 12.2 total route, 30 minutes frequency, and that you can
see the cost, about 150,000, 120,000 for local and, again, because it's only in Meridian
it would have Boise -- the large urban area match ratio and, then, this is -- as the
committee was thinking about different markets to serve and the amount of funding that
was available and really trying to make a difference with -- you know, a small scale type
route like this, we started thinking about what a Saturday kind of shopper route might
look like and so -- and also you could connect the different parks and the different
activity centers in Meridian. So, this route is -- it connects parks and shopping and it
kind of would be a retail shuttle into and out of the Town Square Mall and this would be
a 30 minute frequency all day during Saturday and there would be stops at -- along the
major activity centers. Just to point out the circles aren't the only stops, they are really
just highlighting that -- the highest level activity centers. So, that has a local match of
about 68,000 dollars, which is still a little outside of our range. And, then, the last one is
a little smaller scale, does not go all the way into Town Square Mall, but serves
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 11 of 72
Meridian -- the City of Meridian, a lot of the similar qualities, 30 minute frequency, and
that is within the budget of -- with a local portion of 37,625. A couple other things that
we are considering as we were developing this route. If we do a peak hour service we
would have to look at available equipment, because we don't have a lot of vehicles
available during peak hour and so we would have to factor that cost into the -- the
project as well. The advantage of a Saturday service is we have plenty of equipment
available. So, the committee wanted to present these options to give you an
opportunity to discuss -- and I have a few questions, Caleb, back at the PowerPoint, if
you want to put that back up, just to kind of see if we could get some input on -- there
we go. One more. So, we were curious about what you thought of the idea of a
weekend versus a commuter type service. I know one of the comments that
Councilman Rountree had at the last meeting when we talked about the charter, it was
just raising expectations and, you know, I think we want to be very conscientious about
that going into public outreach and would really get to -- would like your input on the
public outreach process and how we go forward. So, with that I would stand for any
questions or enjoy hearing your comments.
De Weerd: Thank you, Kelli. Council, any questions? Comments? Councilman
Zaremba?
Zaremba: I would comment that I appreciate the work that's been put in on this. When
you -- when you sit down and -- after we started discussing scenarios and what -- the
actual cost of them, I realized I calculated back -- the 60,000 dollars that we did set
aside in this year's budget actually works out to about 1,110 dollars week. So, it was a
realization that that doesn't buy a whole lot of transportation, even when you add in
whatever is matchable the two scenarios that come closest -- the one that's on the
screen now, which is the Saturday only service hitting an awful lot of important places in
Meridian and circulating a lot of people around is very attractive. The other scenario
that was close that was about 69,000 dollars -- when you notice that it connects to Town
Square Mall, that actually is a center -- a transfer center VRT now and even on a
Saturday you would able to go almost anywhere in Boise if you got to Town Square
Mall. So, to me that continues to be a viable option, although it's 9,000 dollars more
than we talked about before. So, I think the discussion is are any of these options
viable or should we just put the 60,000 dollars back into our General Fund and wait until
we have enough money to do a whole system or would it make sense to at least have
what I call a toe in the door and if it's -- if it's only a Saturday service and we find out
that people are loving it and using it, then, that's ammunition to talk about bigger budget
for next year and -- so, I guess the discussion is should the committee proceed with
this, should we go to public outreach and ask for their opinions and does the rest of the
Council have any direction on whether the 60,000 dollars is flexible or do we stay within
that.
De Weerd: Those are great questions, Councilman Zaremba, and I'm so glad we have
a larger City Council to answer them.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 12 of 72
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have got a question for Kelli and also my opinion. Well, Kelli, so -- and I don't
know -- maybe it's not even an option, but if we are specifically kind of drawing our
residents to specific shopping centers, do we go after that private sector dollar? I mean
will they kick in some money towards this. The Village. The Mall.
Fairless: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member, you know, this total cost hasn't
factored in any fares that might be collected. A lot of systems that do these shopping
shuttles don't typically charge fares, but sometimes the fare collection can be just
additional added cost. But -- and there have been times when retailers have been
willing to help fund the -- the project and that's something we could certainly look at and
we would encourage that. The other thing, too, I would point out with that particular
route is you do have the opportunity for people to come from Boise and do their
shopping in Meridian as well. So, there may be folks that would be going in the reverse
and doing that as well. So, that could be a selling point if you were going to get retailers
involved, that might actually be a stronger route to pitch to them. But it's an idea I think
we should think about.
Milam: Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Kelli, thanks for the presentation. It was very very informative and I'm going
to kind of put you on the spot with kind of sideways question in this. Meridian route V04
that's on the screen right now as a weekend route, ballpark cost if that was aweekly --
like adaily route?
Fairless: Let me -- do you have a good guess on that one? Does the audience have an
answer?
Cavener: You can phone a friend.
Fairless: It's about -- probably about 250 to 270. Yeah. I had a lifeline to the audience,
so --
Cavener: I appreciate it. Thanks.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 13 of 72
Borton: Kelli, one question that would help me that you probably can't answer it today --
is to understand how starting these seed routes play a bigger roll in a long-term
development of public transportation. Any of these routes may be a loss for a year or
two or so, but do you have studies that you can provide from other communities
transitioning from 50,000 to 150,000, how they have incorporated these types of
satellite routes and, then, developed them, got community support and what -- how
that's been successful or not successful.
De Weerd: Madam Mayor, Council Member, the -- I don't have any case studies of
where one route was started in a city the size of Meridian, so I can't say I have any
direct knowledge of that. We have been really careful in this planning process and I
have been kind of the wet blanket in a lot of ways, which Councilman Zaremba has
been very patient with me as I have thought through -- Valley Regional Transit's interest
is a successful route at all -- you know, that's what we want to see, because this is the
first step forward. So, if it -- if it falls flat and it doesn't accomplish the goal, then, we
have -- it makes it harder to go back when you want to expand it or make something,
you know -- so, I'm really -- I am really cautious about trying to do anything that isn't
going to be successful. I think that's probably the least risky with a Saturday shopper
shuttle, because it's not -- you know, there is a lot of other types of transit that -- that we
could explore down the road, weekday service, peak hour service, that you're not really
getting any -- any information about in this way, but it does get people thinking about
transit in Meridian. It kind of expands people's exposure to it and with marketing, you
know, we could probably -- I know the Saturday routes in Boise are very busy. So, you
know, I think it's -- it's something that we could probably make work. It's really
managing expectations, deciding how to -- how you're going to measure success, and
then -- then being realistic about what that success would look like, depending on the
route. And I would have fears of it not performing in the way that we would want it to
personally. So, that's one of the things that --
Borton: Madam Mayor? And, Kelli, I agree and the reason I asked that question is -- is
I would have the same fears unless there was some empirical data that says -- that
allows you to answer that fear and say no, wait, because this one year, two year, three
year of low ridership and lack of interest is -- is part of the progression towards a
successful route and we have seen it in these other communities and so that's why we
are -- allow it to evolve.
Fairless: Yeah. And I think with a weekday service serving the City of Meridian you
would want to be able to put at least two to three routes, because you want them to
connect to each other as well or you do end up with those loops that -- that go against
the principles of making it simple, quick, it makes really slow transit for people and
you're going to service a very transit dependent population and that may be the way we
measure success is that people who don't have access to any transportation have
access to that and that may be a goal, an objective that you want to achieve and so it
wouldn't be -- you wouldn't measure that against ridership, because you're not probably
going to get the kind of ridership you would like to see. Does that --
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 14 of 72
Borton: Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Kelli, are some of these loops located near other connecting facilities, like
bicycle paths or those that would lend to, okay, I can ride my bike to that location, catch
the -- the bus and connect in several different ways. Was that considered as you were
looking at these routes?
Fairless: The primary activity centers that we looked at were parks and -- and retail and
those kinds of centers. The commuter routes were neighborhoods where there would
be opportunities for park and ride, because you're not going to want these buses to stop
very frequently or they would come too slow for a commute style. So, I have to look to
Caleb to say you would probably know better which ones -- which one of these areas
connected with bike routes, because we didn't specifically look at that, but I think with
parks I can probably assume that those would connect to some of your paths.
Hood: Madam Mayor? I don't know that I can answer that, because, like Kelli said, we
didn't really look at the interaction with bike routes. Certainly Pine is a -- a bike friendly
corridor -- at least it's becoming one over time, but that wasn't one of the major things
we looked at when we were trying to accomplish the goal of -- within the parameters
established by -- by Council. So, I'm sorry, I can't really answer that either.
De Weerd: Well, I guess, Council, one of the questions is regarding -- if this goes out
for public comment. I would be very curious to see what the public is thinking and, you
know, before you even try something you want to know if there is an interest, a desire,
and maybe even put a challenge out there to -- to seek riders and let them give it a
chance. But without the public input I -- and to even know what would be a priority for
them, it would be like shooting in the dark and not even know what you're shooting at.
So, I would ask is there a consensus from Council to move forward for public comment
and are you ready to perhaps take action if -- if there is an interest from the community
and I think you will have the finance staff come up to you after this and tell you there is
no money, so --
Hood: Well -- and, Madam Mayor, if I may, I don't think any of the first three options are
on the table and are anything we would go to the public with. I think options four and
five -- this one with some tweaking or sharpening of a pencil we could probably get
close to that -- that 60,000 dollar potentially. So, what I heard at our last committee
meeting was really options four and five would be the ones we would put before those
stakeholders and say is this something you would use or people you know, do you think
they would use this, so we do get an idea of those -- I mean MYAC, for an example, that
is a community we would engage, is are you -- is this something you would be -- and
get with -- oh, yeah, if you use it over there a little bit maybe I would use it. So, those
are the types of things we are looking for. But just to clarify, I don't think, you know,
something that's four times, five times the money set aside -- as that wasn't something
we were going to ask the public if this is what they want at this point anyway. That's not
one of the parameters we were told to work from. That came across pretty clearly. But
a lot of this exercise tonight was to show you -- like the things Kelli explained -- we were
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 15 of 72
trying to get butts in seats and we were trying -- you know, that was one of the things I
heard when Councilman Zaremba was -- was proposing this, a successful route means
people are using it, obviously. We want to cover Meridian. We want to go downtown.
And we talked about Ustick. You can't do all that for 60,000 dollars. So, we tried and
we had these different variations and when you start to run it you just don't have -- you
got to cut something or multiple somethings out of that equation to get your 60,000
dollars. So, again, what Councilman Zaremba was saying is we can put something
together and cross our fingers and hope -- a little bit more than hope -- we will do some
outreach -- to see if it's successful. Or not. But we designed something within the
constraints, for the most part, of the money that the Council approved. So, that is just
clarification that I -- I don't believe the first three options are even something we should
put out there for public consumption. We just wanted to show you some of our work
behind the scenes.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. I would be curious when you go to the -- to our youth council
members, ask them if they were on a school route -- bus route and if they took the
school bus. I can almost answer for them, but -- Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I was just going to support what Caleb just said. In our discussion in the
committee we wanted the Council members to see a lot of the thinking that went into it
and what some of the scenarios add up to. But I believe it's our plan to only discuss
options four and five in front of the public.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I concur in that. I think the -- option four comes closest to what we were
initially envisioning in terms of trying to get some connection and continuity, though I
think our original vision was it might be more than just a Saturday. Keep in mind that if
we take these to the public and there will be an expectation that something happens, at
least these two options are within the budget -- or close and also keep in mind that if it's
not successful you will go through another public process much like the first one and,
then, close the route and Kelli and I have been through a couple of those in the past, so
it can work both ways and it doesn't mean that it's perpetual. Of the two that are left I
think the one that looks to me like it has the potential of being successful is the fourth
option.
Fairless: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I think even back to Councilman
Borton's point, out of all of them I would say this one, because of the connection to
downtown and if we could do it Monday through Friday, I think this could be a pretty
good standalone route, because it's serving some of the major activities. I just don't
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 16 of 72
have a case study I could go to and say, you know, prove that out, but I think it has a lot
of the qualities, it's anchored by, you know, some major activity on both sides and you
have got a lot of housing and in between as well. So, I think it could be successful, it's
just -- it's hard to say without those kind of case studies to back that up.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, do we need a motion or kind of a summation to give Kelli
some direction? I would just summarize what I'm hearing and say move forward with
option four and five with the public involvement. As you design that public involvement
make sure that you don't forget the Boise market and certainly the selling point I think
are some of the features in Meridian that they are already coming to, so --
Fairless: Right.
Rountree: -- with that I would say let's get going and see what we come up with
Fairless; All right. Well, thank you. Appreciate your time.
De Weerd: Kelli, I would just add in looking for those natural allies I think Boise Town
Square probably would be thrilled to have people that are going to the Village also
consider going there, too, since the Village has really become an energy center. So, at
some point we will want to talk with our -- our retail partners and see if this can be a
funding partnership, instead of -- instead of just the city funding getting people to their
establishments.
Fairless: Yeah. And, you know, I really appreciate that perspective, too, because, then,
you're also -- it's also a marketing tool, because they are going to be invested in getting
people to ride it. So, you're kind of getting both sides of the coin that way as well. I
think it's a really good suggestion.
De Weerd: And perhaps maybe even the senior center somehow be a partner on a
Saturday route for their members and engaging their transportation -- at least in getting
them to -- to their facility that they can, then, hop on and do their thing.
Fairless: Right. Right. Yeah. That's actually a really good point, too.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Fairless: Well, thank you for your time.
B. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-976: A Resolution for the
Appointment of Patrick S. Oliver to Seat 5 of the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission
De Weerd: Okay. Council, I had moved Item 10-A as 10-B. In front of you you have
Resolution 14-976, appointing Patrick Oliver to Seat 5 of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission and -- see, Pat, I had to put on my glasses just to make sure you
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 17 of 72
were here. And I will ask Pat if he would like to make any remarks, but I will forewarn
you right now that these meetings can go long and so by putting you earlier on our
agenda I think it defeats the purpose of you learning that these can go long. So,
Council, I would appreciate -- you do have information on Mr. Oliver in your packets. I
conducted interviews with the chair and we are excited about having Pat's perspective
on our Commission. He is a long-time Meridian resident. He cares about this
community. He lives in a part of our community that is not represented at this time and
so I'm honored to bring his name in front you for consideration to appoint him to
Planning and Zoning.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would like to move that we approve Resolution 14-976, appointing Patrick
Oliver to Seat 5 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission.
Rountree: Second
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the appointment under 10-A, now
10 -- or 7-B. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Would you like to make any comments? Up here, please. Thank you for
being here with us tonight.
Oliver: Thank you. Appreciate it. Madam Mayor and Council Members, I appreciate
the opportunity to join the Planning and Zoning Commission. I look forward to a
rewarding opportunity for me to give back and give back to the community which I have
lived in for 40 years and I hope I bring something to the table that I can add to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and I hope to learn a lot from it and am already
getting a lot of information that is overwhelming, but I'm very much looking forward to
the opportunity and enjoying the experience so far, so thank you for your confidence in
me and I appreciate working for the city again and, hopefully, I will be of help, not a
hindrance. Thank you.
De Weerd: I look forward to working with you as well
Oliver: Thank you very much.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 18 of 72
De Weerd: Thank you.
Rountree: And thank your family for allowing you to do this.
De Weerd: Yeah. Because even though we moved you up on the agenda it still was
long, uh.
Item 8: Items Moved From Consent Agenda
De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 9: Action Items
A. FP 14-003 Canterbury Commons No. 2 by Heartland Homes,
LLC Located South Side of W. Pine Avenue, East of N. Ten
Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty-
Seven (57) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Nine
(9) Common
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 9-A. This applicant has requested a continuance
to February 18th. Council, I would need a motion to continue this item.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue FP 14-003 to February 18th, 2012 -- or '14.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to February 18th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Consolidated Public Hearing on the Update to the
Development Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and
the Revisions to Impact Fee Ordinance
De Weerd: Item 9-B is a consolidated public hearing on our update to the development
impact fee and capital improvement plan. I will turn this over to our CFO. Stacy.
Kilchenmann: Good evening. And now I'm going to turn the meeting over to our
consultant Adam Orens, who is from BBC Consulting in Denver, Colorado, and they are
the company that did the first update when the statute changed and he went through
and did a recalculation of population forecast, et cetera -- I don't know if you have all
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 19 of 72
read the report, but it's very detailed, and he is going to briefly explain the process and
what we came up with. We also have some members of the impact fee advisory
committee in the back row that came to give their support -- if you drag them up here.
So, without anything else I will turn it over to Adam.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for joining us.
Orens: Yes, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Thanks for having me here. As Stacy
mentioned, I'm Adam Orens. I'm with BBC Research and Consulting. We are an
economic and public policy consulting firm. We are out of Denver, Colorado. Yes, it's
been a rough couple days since the Super Bowl, but we are here to talk about impact
fees. So, as Stacy mentioned, we have been at this since September of 2013. We
were tasked with doing an update of your impact fee program and we were the firm that
did the study -- I believe it was in '06 and '07. So, I intend this to be a brief summation
of what we -- the process that we went through to get the fees to this point. I will talk a
little bit about impact fee background. I know that some members of the Council are
relatively new or might not have been here when we did the original study. I will go
through some -- some of the data that supports the fees, demographic projections, an
example of how one of the fees are calculated and, then, we will talk about -- just
entertain your questions. I know there was some discussion in a meeting this past
December about differential distinctions in the fees and some details and I would be
happy to entertain questions and comments on that. So, just start with a brief definition
of what impact fees are. They areaway to finance capital improvements in the city,
specifically that serve growing areas in the city. This is a tool to finance capital that you
must expand to serve new residents and businesses in the community. We -- in this
instance we did police fees, fire fees, and parks and recreation fees. So, when does a
city generally adopt impact fees? When you're growing fast, which I know Meridian was
in mid -- mid decade -- last decade and I think it's kind of starting up again here. We
have actually had a lot of interest in this line of work that we do just recently this past
year, so, you know, we are seeing signs of a lot of communities updating their fees,
because of development activity starting again. Sometimes when communities grow
very quickly residents may realize that, you know, there is a lot of traffic in town and,
you know, calls for police service or other services are not as fast as it used to be and
so impact fees could be a good idea when there is a decline in the level of service or at
least the -- you know, it starts with the perception of your residents and, then, some
phone calls and then -- so, impact fees help a community keep their level of service at a
peg legal in the face of a rapidly occurring growth. When the General Fund does not --
well, it does not have the resources to fund capital improvements in its entirety, this is
another financing mechanism that communities often turn to. When there is a
perception in the community that -- that the growth that is coming into communities not
paying their own way into the system. And, then, you know, impact fees are -- are a
substitute for what's customary -- customarily called exactions where a community may
ask developers on an ad hoc basis to fund certain pieces of infrastructure just as a
general agreement of the approval and permitting processes. So, impact fees take
those exactions and the ad hoc nature of it and make a level playing field, a more
known system and predictable system where developers know what they have to pay in
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 20 of 72
order to have infrastructure to support their development. So, that's another way --
another time that impact fees are often used. Up on the screen right now is this simple
equation that is used to calculate impact fees. Basically just a division problem where
you look at the growth-related portion of capital improvement plans and you parse out
the facilities and the capital improvements necessary to support growth. You have
growth projections, which I will show you in a moment, and, then, you apportion the cost
of that infrastructure to the units of growth that are expected to come, residential units
and commercial square footage, and what we should know -- what we calculate is what
I like to call the full cost of recovery fee. That is the fee that would be necessary to be
paid to recover the full cost of growth-related capital. City Council has the freedom to
adopt any fee amount under that level. So, it can also be thought of as the maximum
allowable fee, but I really like to think about it -- I think is a more appropriate description
as the full cost of recovery fee. If a community decides not to adopt that they must
realize that those funds must come from another source, your general city revenues or
other funding sources if you -- if you intend to build all those items on the capital
improvement plan. Your city has very detailed capital improvement plans, but this is an
item of impact fee study as required by Idaho State statutes, you must have a regular
capital planning process, including fully loaded costs of the improvements and the
capital improvement plans I have seen in this community are very detailed, regular, they
include operating costs for future city budgets and Ihave -- they plan out a pretty far
horizon. But these fees are based on a ten year capital improvement planning timeline.
Not all capital spending is related to growth only and we went through a process where
we looked at the items on your capital improvement plans and we apportioned them to
these three categories. Certain capital improvement plans are to repair and replace --
replacing aroof on a fire station, those are not impact fee eligible and we don't include
them in the fees. You know, oftentimes when a community builds new facilities there is
-- there is an item of betterment that comes along with them. Afire station built 20
years ago is not the same as a fire station today and we make efforts to parse out a
betterment new facility, new services, and make sure that they don't get included in the
fees and I will show you an example of some of the parsing out that we do as part of an
example fee. The third item on here is impact fee eligible. When you are expanding
capital facilities in the community to serve new growth and preserve a level of service,
those capital improvements are impact fee eligible and we include them in the full cost
recovery fees. Part of the Idaho State statute is the convening and consultation with an
impact fee advisory committee. Stacy mentioned that some of the members are here
today. I met with them two times. I know they met a few other times, but we went
through a process where I presented all the calculations that were made, the growth
projections that the fees are based on. We had discussions with your police chief, fire
chief, and parks director on the CIP items and the advisory committee recommended
that we move forward. But the roll of the advisory committee has adopted and the
Idaho state statutes are to assist with the land use assumptions to periodically monitor
and evaluate the impact fee system. I think they need to be convened at least once a
year to just kind of look at how the CIP construction schedule is going, reevaluate
growth projections and decide if we are still in line with the parameters of the study. So,
here on the screen are the growth projections that the fees are based on. These were
taken from your regional planning agency COMPASS and we used ten year projection
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 21 of 72
of households and industrial and other commercial square footage. We -- we did a
commercial space take off based on the employment projections in COMPASS and we
kept the ratios, the square footage and employment similar across the planning horizon.
Also these -- these households and the commercial square footage are used to
apportion fee between residential and commercial land uses. So, we used a square
footage common unit and parsed out the fees between residential and commercial
based on their usage of the land in the community. So, here I will show you a quick
example of a CIP and a fee calculation and, then, I will show you a summary of all the
fees. Here you have your police capital improvement plan. You can see that one line
item to replace, vehicles, is not included in the fees, because those -- police cars are
replaced on a fairly regular basis. They are only in use for a couple of years and they
don't meet the standard of a very durable piece of capital equipment. Other fees --
future substations were allocated entirely to fees and one item in particular, the training
center, only a portion of that was included in the fees, because it's actually tied to your
station expansion project and it's serving the entire community and not just the growth
portion of the community. So, we only calculated -- we reduced that to about 22 percent
based on your growth projections as to the portion of that that will be serving the growth
and the portion of that that is the station expansion. Other items on this table include
the fee study is also impact fee eligible under statute. And, then, we -- we take out of
each of these any balance that you have in your impact fee funds -- do not need to be
replicated by the new fee payer, so we take that out of the equation. And so 11.6
million dollars in your CIP works out to about only 2.2 million of that is impact fee
eligible. So, we went through a similar process like this with your fire department and
with your parks department. Other adjustments made in those departments include
really insuring that the level of service remain constant. We took out a significant
amount of future planned parks acreage, because we saw your acres per thousand
resident creeping upward in what you have planned to construct here, which is great,
but you just can't use impact fees to fund it, you must find other ways to fund it. So, we
have made efforts in all the departments to make sure that these improvements are to
just continue the current level of service. So, going back to our police example, that 2.2
million apportioned out between residential and nonresidential land uses works out to
about 223 dollars per residential units, usually imposed at the time of building permit
and 12 cents per nonresidential square foot. So, the other fees I will show you in this
table. Similar process for fire and for parks at 681 dollars the residential fire fee. At
11.13 for parks and rec. About 2,000 --just over 2,000 dollars as a total impact fee that
is what's seen on the bill given to somebody -- developer at the time of building permit.
It's an increase over your previous fee system of about nine percent in total. So, in my
opinion it's a very modest increase. I think it basically keeps you lock step with inflation
and that's what we have calculated through this process. If the -- using the growth
projections to project fee revenue, it would mean about 18 million over ten years in fee
revenue and, then, the city portion, which is all those fee items that were not -- or CIP
items that were not impact fee eligible -- would need to be supported by general
revenues of the city and that over the -- over the ten years is about 40.8 million dollars
worth of capital improvements. That the city's portion of -- of the system here. So, I
don't have any other prepared slides for this and I would be happy to open the floor for
comments and questions.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 22 of 72
De Weerd: Thank you so much. Council, do you have any questions?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: First of all, I believe that without impact fees growth pays for itself through taxes
over the years, the jobs it creates and everything, so growth does pay for itself
regardless of whether you have impact fees or you don't have impact fees. Another
thing. On your assessment for residential, on rental units I understand that you throw
apartments and rental houses, three, four -- two bedroom houses all in the same
occupation -- or occupancy category; is that true?
Orens: We have one fee for residential units. That's regardless of rent -- tenure does
not really figure into this equation. I think it's more of a distinction between single family
and multi-family.
Bird: How does apartments go in with single family where single family is -- is family?
Apartments usually is one or two people.
Orens: We charge one fee per residential unit and the thought and the logic behind that
is there can be any amount of residents in an apartment versus a single family home.
Actually, the most common form of rental housing in Meridian happens to be single
family homes and so when we do impact fees we like to make sure that we are not
pushing the analytical boundaries of the study. So, by that I mean anybody can live in
an apartment or amulti-family structure, it could be a single parent with two kids or
three unrelated workers in their 20s and they might have very different usage or
demand of municipal services and municipal infrastructure. So, we designed the fees
like this one for some simplicity and, two, ease of administration and, three, because I
feel that it's -- it's a residential unit that you're serving and that residential unit could
have varying demands on municipal services and facilities. So, I don't feel like I know
enough about the people that live in that residential unit to assess them a different fee
than another one.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: This is a very very similar question to what Keith was asking, but why are you
charging a flat fee for a residence, instead of by the foot, like you are with commercial?
That would simplify -- I think that would answer the question that he has is if you have a
thousand square foot home and you have a 5,000 square foot, they are charged the
same impact fees.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 23 of 72
Orens: Because I'm not quite sure that they may have more demand for police services
than a smaller unit. The mere size -- to me I think if you -- if you want to try and scale
things differently it could be based on population of people and people per units. Maybe
bedrooms would be a better proxy, but I would think that simple square footage, due to
the varying ways that homes are constructed, what you really want to try and find is
your best proxy for demand for facilities and services and those two are proxies for that.
Also, a household is also a proxy and that's why we have recommended that in this
instance.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes. Stacy.
Kilchenmann: I might be able to provide some clarification. On the first square foot we
only charge that on commercial and it's only for police and fire. We don't charge
commercial properties impact fees. So, that's -- that's why you -- we try to equate what
the demand is for a particular entity property on what the -- what the function is. So, fire
and police we just assume people that work in commercial buildings don't necessarily
use parks when they get charged a residential fee. And that the demand on police and
fire equates to size. Well, a Walmart is going to demand more police and fire time than
a Krispy Kreme and the reason for not separating -- we haven't separated, that we have
tried to make some arbitrary separation between who lives in a particular type of
residence is that we really can't find anything that says people who live in apartments
use parks less than people that live in houses. When we looked at studies and in
Meridian you generally have less people living in a large household than you might find
in an apartment. So, it becomes a -- how are you going to distribute that. So, if we -- if
we are not going to charge apartment -- if we are going to lower the fee for apartments,
we will raise the fee for single family houses. So, it just becomes how are you going to
distribute it, how do you make that fair so that you don't leave anybody being irritated or
not happy with the fee. And that's why we have tried to keep it as simple as possible.
Orens: Yeah. I think that's right. And if you -- if you think amulti-family unit is paying
more than they should, I think the issue that Stacy brought up a little bit is what -- you
know, when the fees are calculated we come up with the fee eligible amount and, then,
we -- we divide it up between residential, commercial, and we stop there. If you want to
divide it even more, that means that you must feel that single family units right now
under the current system are being unfairly subsidized by multi-family units and that
cost needs to be reallocated among the two. So, any lowering of one type would --
would result in raising the other type.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would like to make a comment on philosophy of growth paying for growth.
While it's true that after things are built and occupied, they do increase our tax base.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 24 of 72
The way that process works is that pretty much after they are built and after they are
occupied the county assessor makes an assessment on them and they levy a tax and,
then, there is about a year before that tax is collected, so it ends up -- the property taxes
and the sales tax process is a similar process where it goes through some state hands
and sits there for awhile before it's distributed. They lag considerably behind the need.
In other words, if a dwelling is occupied or a business is occupied and we initially don't
collect anything on them until two years later, what happens to their calls for police or
their need for fire during that time when we have not funded that additional growth and
to me the purpose of impact fees is it's the only thing that we collect before the need is
there, not two years after the need is there. It enables us to provide the facilities to
purchase the equipment and hire the firemen, to purchase the equipment and hire the
police, to add a few more acres to our parks, so that those are available when those
buildings are occupied, whether it's a residence or a commercial and to me that is the
only way that growth pays for itself. Now, a few years later when we are collecting
property tax on those properties and sales tax if it's a business, that money goes into
maintaining what was needed as that grows. So, we do eventually collect more, but to
me the phrase growth paying for the growth means that we need to have facilities in
place by the time there are people here to use them and the only way to do that is with
impact fees.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any additional questions?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On the nonresidential you're calculating that based on a square foot. At
some point do you stop? I mean it seems to me like if -- if you get 20,000, 30,000,
40,000, 50,000, 150,000 square foot building, I'm not sure that you necessarily -- I might
could rationalize it for fire, but I'm not sure I can rationalize it for police, when you're also
getting an impact fee for police based on persons more or less through residential. So,
help me with that.
Orens: Yeah. Under the -- the current system there is no cap for that. I don't see any
reason that if -- if you decided you want -- if you're getting such large buildings coming
into the community and they are of an industrial or warehouse nature, you may want to
consider potentially adding some sort of cap to this. That is not something that we see
a lot and so we didn't add the cap in this case, nor have I seen it become an issue in
other communities that have that. Mainly, you know, if you get a large big box store,
let's say, I believe that -- that those fees per square foot are justifiable, because, you
know, they have a lot of traffic, they have a lot of -- and each square foot and the bigger
the store roughly becomes more the activity that's there. You know, this is a -- we need
to find a proxy for demand. That is what we are trying to do in using these matrix that
we do and in my opinion I feel like we have found the right proxies here, but there are
many ways to do this and, you know, if that becomes more of an issue, then, we can
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 25 of 72
investigate that further if you feel strongly that there is some inequity in the system as it
was designed.
De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Okay. Thank you so much.
Orens: Thank you.
De Weerd: This is a public hearing and at this point I would open it up. I had only one
person that did sign up to testify, Jeremy Thompson. Signed up against. If you will,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Thompson: Jeffrey Thompson
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry.
Thompson: That's okay. It's my handwriting, so it's all right. I live at 1970 East Handel
Court in Meridian in Vienna Woods Subdivision and I'm representing the Building
Contractors Association today, BCA Southwest Idaho. I'm currently the president. A lot
of our members are out today, they are not here. There is a national builders show in
Las Vegas and so our normal representative Dave Yorgason, is not able to attend, but I
am here to speak just for the body of our organization and did you -- Council, did you
get --
De Weerd: We did
Bird: We received letters.
Thompson: Okay. You did see -- okay. So, just to state for the record that that's --
that our position is that the fee calculation, if you look through that document, we are
just questioning that -- the numbers that COMPASS uses, we know that they aren't fully
accurate, obviously, if you compare from 2006 and you look back at that, you can see
they are not. So, when we take that all into consideration across the -- the police, fire,
and so forth on those impact fee calculations, we are really jumping up a sizable
amount. The park impact fee, specifically starting with that one, is going down. We --
we are okay with that, obviously. That's a reduction. But we understand that that's
because prices of land have decreased dramatically since 2006 and also we also would
like to recognize that, obviously, sometimes the land is donated for parks and things,
too, which is not even in that equation, but we still are in favor for that -- that reduction.
The police impact fee is proposing a raise of 262 percent and new growth to pay for 22
percent of that facility -- the new facility and through the hired consultant that has just
spoken to us, they may say it's justifiable as we state in the letter, but we believe that
that's a stretch and clearly an attempt to have growth pay for the increased level of
service of the police to -- you know, at the expense of new growth. And so as you look
at those things we -- we are saying that we are just looking for reasonable estimations
on these fees and so we are stating that our position is that we are not seeing that
reasonability there and we see that -- as that fee is more reasonable that we can still
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 26 of 72
have sufficient funds, the city does, to provide the services that are needed and so I
would just -- I appreciate your time, I appreciate you looking through this document to
consider this and just for the record have our position both on the fire impact and police
impact and park impact fees that -- of our -- of occur current position regarding each
one of those. Are there any questions that you have for -- for us as a Council?
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Well, I'm a little bit confused. And maybe that's just I'm coming into this new,
but according to the numbers from the BCA, they seem a lot different from the numbers
we were just shown. Your -- this would make a difference of -- I mean I read this and I
go, wow, that seems outrageous, but the presentation that we just viewed showed the
total of increase of about 150 -- nine -- what was nine percent, about 150 dollars -- I
didn't write the numbers down -- per unit total, where this would be -- I don't know --
700 dollars difference. Does that make sense? So, I'm just -- I'm confused. I'd like to
know what somebody -- what are the real numbers? What are the current numbers and
what are the proposed numbers that I can really understand what's going on, because
these numbers are different from the other numbers that we were just shown and I just
want to make sure that we are basing this on fact. Thank you.
Thompson: The numbers that we have, correct me if they are wrong, is the park impact
fee is to go to 1,113 dollars?
De Weerd: Which is a reduction.
Bird: It's a reduction, but the others go up.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. That's in your packet of information.
Milam: Is that the correct numbers, though?
Bird: They are correct. It's not on there. The consultant's -- the consultant's did not
give what we pay now, they want -- they are showing what they want us to pay.
Milam: So, their numbers --
De Weerd: I'm sorry, if you need to -- can you hold on? We will ask him to answer that
after Jeff -- Council, any other questions for Jeff at this point? Okay. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 27 of 72
De Weerd: And we will get to the question of what it -- what it was, what it's being
proposed and I certainly have seen it -- I will pull it up in my packet as well. But any
additional testimony? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address.
Seal: Madam Mayor -- yes. Jonathan Seal. W.H. Moore Company. 1940 Bonito,
Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Seal: I would just for full disclosure for the new Council members, I'm -- I filed a protest
on the park impact fee, so I'm going to try to stay within my lane tonight and keep my
comments fairly generic. A couple things that I did want to respond to in the discussion.
There was talk about if you lower the park impact fee for apartments you're going to
have to raise them for homes and in my discussions before I fully support that. If you
look at, for example, Ada County Highway District, they don't charge the same impact
fee for warehouse that they do for medical. They recognize that there is a difference. If
you look at the city of Boise, for example, their apartment impact fees for park are lower
than they are for single family. Again, they recognize that there is a difference. There
was a comment also made, if I understood it right, that there was more people living in
apartments than do in single family homes. The truth of the matter is if you look at the
census, the census for residential -- single family residential and rental -- I should say
for rental, do not differentiate between an apartment building and a single family home.
So, if a single family home is a rental, it's considered a rental property. So, that number,
if you look in the census, is very misleading. Yes, if you do look at that number, it does
indicate that -- that the number of people living in rental property is slightly higher than it
is for a single family. But, again, when you peel that -- the layers that of impact, you
recognize that, in fact, you know, that's a misleading number. Also, the thing that I
really struggle with in this -- in this process -- and I have mentioned this before -- is how
you can charge the same impact fees for an apartment project -- say a single family
apartment -- or a single bedroom apartment, as you can for a large say four or five
bedroom home. I, actually, did astudy -- and, again, maybe it's not the most scientific,
but we actually -- I actually looked at -- we did an analysis of homes sold in the City of
Meridian -- all homes sold, new and used, over the last year and the average size of
that home was slightly under 2,200 square feet. If you, then, take an analysis of the --
of the quantity of apartments in here and you take, again, the average of that, it's slightly
under 1,000 square feet. So, again, trying to square circle and say that a thousand
square foot -- and I'm saying on average -- a thousand square foot apartment building
or apartment dwelling is going to generate the same impact as a typical single family
home -- I have a difficult time understanding. So, those are just some points that I'd like
to bring up. Obviously, when I come back on the impact fee I will get into a little bit
more detail, but I think these are things you recognize and, again, we could look at all
different types of things. The other thing Iwould -- I would mention also, too -- and I
have heard this comment -- that single family homes have backyards, so they don't put
the type of pressure on a park system that an apartment does. But I think if we all look
at particularly the homes in Meridian -- in fact, we are doing a single family development
and you look at the backyard, it's about 20 feet. They are diminishing the size of the lot
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 28 of 72
and increasing the size of home. Thereby putting more pressure on the parks system
for single family. If you look at many of the apartment projects, including ours -- and,
again, I'm not going to get into any detail -- I think many of them are upgrading their
amenities substantially, which I would argue, in fact, reduces the burden on the park
system. So, those are just some of my general comments and I hope I stayed in my
lane. So, with that I will sit down, unless you have any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Jonathan?
Rountree: Thanks, Jonathan.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Seal: Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Additional comments? Good evening.
Miller: Hello, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Brad Miller with Van Auker
Properties. 3084 East Lanark in Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Miller: We are industrial developers. We have distribution warehouses around the
valley. If you eat tortilla chips they probably came from one of our warehouses. If you
feed your dog dog food it probably came from one of our warehouses. If you sleep on a
Sleep Train mattress it came from one of our warehouses. If you have hydraulic hoses
on your tractor, which, Mr. Bird, you probably do, it came from one of our warehouses.
So, we fuel a lot of the --the materials that are sold around the valley. We just -- we are
just emerging from a very difficult economic time. We had an unprecedented number of
tenants that just went away. We had an unprecedented number of tenants who were
hurt by the downturn in the economy and we have not been able to raise rents for many
many years. We have not recovered to the point where we were in 2004 or 2005 and --
and concessions we have to give to get new tenants to sign leases is -- I have been
with Van Auker for 20 years and we have never had to give away a bated rent and now
we are giving away bated rent. So, even though the economy has improved, it's not
back to where it was and -- and doesn't look like it will for awhile. We have -- I have
tenants that -- where we have not raised the rent on them in ten years, believe it or not.
I can cite you quite a number of them. And we just don't make a practice of raising
rents, because the market won't support it. Any increase in impact fees we will not be
able to pass on, it will have to be absorbed by us. We feel that the police impact fee for
an industrial project will go from six cents a square foot to 12 cents a square foot, so
you're doubling the cost right there. For fire they are suggesting to go from 25 cents a
square foot to 35 cents a square foot. I kind of like Mr. Rountree's questioning there. I
mean warehouses are very low impact compared to a Walmart, so I'm thinking either --
and we are not asking for this, but maybe we ought to convert some of our warehouses
into like punk crowd dance clubs, so we get a little more bang for the buck, you know,
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 29 of 72
out of the police department. But I'm feeling like we are not getting our full benefit there.
But we would ask that you forego any rate -- any increase in the impact fees right now,
let the economy continue to rebound, let us all continue to get our economic footing
and, then, consider that. I think that the level of service the city is providing now is
adequate and I think with the existing impact fees and the existing economic base
growing, the tax base growing, that it should be sufficient to continue on the way you
are. Thank you very much and I'll stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I'm not sure I'd go with your suggestions, Brad, but I like the way you think
De Weerd: I think it's Krispy Kreme and a --
Bird: The chief is going to talk to you as you walk back there.
Miller: I figured we'd have to make sure that you and Mr. Bird didn't show up.
De Weerd: Okay. Additional testimony? Good evening.
Turnbull: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. First time I have
been here since you expanded the Council and it's nice to see that Mr. Nary is not so
lonely sitting at the end of the bench anymore. I wanted to --
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address.
Turnbull: Excuse me. David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise
De Weerd: Thank you.
Turnbull: I don't have the resources to parse through an impact fee study report and
make technical arguments, so I'm not going to do that. I want to talk a little bit more in
philosophical terms. The consultant at the beginning talked about some of the reasons
that impact fees are good options. He talked about one was that when level of services
are perceived to be declining and I don't know if that's a perception in the community. I
will tell you what, I started developing properties in this city when there were about
9,000 people and we are nine times that now and what I have seen is better level of
services, better equipment, better staffing, the whole works. Much of that came at a
time before there were impact fees.
Bird: That's right.
Turnbull: I can go all the way back to looking at Boise when it was, you know, in the
'60s there were about 40,000 people and now it's 200,000 and, you know, it seems to
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 30 of 72
me like the -- you know, another point was the perception that growth doesn't pay its
way. I just get a little bit weary of harping on growth doesn't pay its way, because all I
have seen is that economic prosperity comes from that growth. So, that's just a
philosophical point that I'd like to point out. I would reference the BCA response. I
thought they had a lot of good points. I won't delve into that any further. But, then, I'd
just like to share some empirical observations. You know, you have got a technical
study in front of you, but I will give you some empirical observations. One is just the
mere fact of affordability. Since the downturn six years ago, we have seen nothing but
increased costs of all sorts from fees, from standards -- development standards -- it
costs us more to develop and construct today than it did a long time ago and yet, you
know, we have this affordability issue as Brad would mention and, you know, we have
built one commercial building in five years, simply because we can't charge enough rent
to cover the cost of building a new building. That's just the facts. That will turn around
some day, but we are not there yet. Commercial construction is severely challenged
right now. Now, we have seen -- and Meridian's been blessed to have projects like
Scentsy and the Village, but those are different kind of drivers. Guys like us that are
building for multi-tenant offices and things like that where the vacancies have been high
and the abatements have been high, it's just not really feasible for us to be building a lot
of many new products right now and increasing the cost of doing that just makes it
worse. It's, essentially, a new tax -- a tax -- an additional tax on new construction and I
think we ought to all realize that anything that you tax more you will get less of, so -- the
consultant also mentioned some of the alternatives to impact fees would be exactions.
I'd like to go back to some experiences we have had with ACHD. I think ACHD in
recent past has pulled back their impact fees. If you talk to their staff they recognize
that that's a serious impediment to construction. We have a property over on Ustick
where the tenant bought the property, was not able -- well, was getting ready to
construct -- and I can't remember the impact fee from ACHD was something like
750,000 dollars. They pulled the plug and walked away. Alternative being exactions. I
would argue that we still have exactions in place. If you compare new development
standards, we are required to put in X percent of open space. We are required to
provide X number of amenities per acre. That is, in effect, a substitute for park property,
you know. To develop anything on Chinden we are providing a ten foot regional
pathway. If we develop anything along a creek or something like that, we are providing
a regional pathway system. We don't get paid for that. We don't get a reduction in
impact fees and as was mentioned by the BCA, sometimes you get donations, too. We
have been ones that have been happy to make donations to the city park system and
other things. We've never asked for a reduction in our impact fees from that. Maybe
I'm stupid. Maybe I should have. But those are the kind of things that we are happy to
do. So, I'm just pointing out that there are some other considerations that need to be
taken into account. We appreciate the fact that the park impact fees weren't raised. In
fact, they were reduced a little bit in response to the reduction in land costs, but I would
encourage you to hold the line on any other for the parks -- or for the fire and police. I
will tell you what, I see that the -- I don't see any lack of police cars on streets. They
have got great vehicles. I don't see that we have any reductions in response times, but,
again, that's just my observation. So, I appreciate your time and would stand for any
questions.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 31 of 72
De Weerd: Well, you will find out about the response times tomorrow at the State of the
City and -- so, I'm not telling you.
Turnbull: Are you planning something?
De Weerd: Just will tell you what their response times have done.
Turnbull: Okay.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Turnbull?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I have none.
Bird: Thanks, David.
De Weerd: And thank you. You have been a great community partner.
Turnbull: Thank you.
De Weerd: Additional comments or questions?
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council --
De Weerd: Hi, Steve.
Siddoway: I have done quite a bit of thinking on the issue of just the splitting of the
parks fees, so I thought I would maybe give some thoughts. For the record, it doesn't
matter to me if they are split or not, because the impact fee eligible amount does not
change under either scenario. The question is should they be split for -- for those
different types of uses. The example was given of the -- the ACHD fees being different
to reflect that there is a different burden placed on the road system by that and so the
question to be asked is there a different burden placed on the parks system for -- by a
multi-family unit versus a single family residence. I think the point is that we want to be
fair to -- to both and what would an equitable be? So, can you -- can you base that on
square footage. I think it would be a difficult argument to make, because you could
have a retired couple, living in a large house and you could have a family living in an
apartment. There has been quite a bit of effort done by both Finance and Jonathan
Seal's team to see if we could come up with a persons per household number from a
census for multi-family versus single family. Because if there was a way to stratify it
that would seem to be a logical way, because the persons per household seem to
equate more to the demand on the park system than natural square footage of the -- of
the unit. They have already testified that they have not been able to find anything.
have looked, I can't find anything either. The closest that we can find is the rental
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 32 of 72
versus owner-occupied persons per household. Several years ago when the last
studies were done, the difference between rental versus owner occupied were 2.93
persons per household versus 2.67 for rentals and that's actually gotten way closer and,
actually, rentals -- like was mentioned by Jonathan Seal, are actually a little higher, only
by .02. I think the numbers in the 2010 census are 2.95 persons per household in an
owner-occupied residence and 2.97 in a renter occupied residence. So, we are unable
to come up with a clear distinction between persons per household in that evening --
what we have available in the census. The -- anecdotally, you know, it's been
suggested that, you know, apartments may use -- apartments -- people who live in
apartments may use parks more, because they don't have backyards. As Jonathan
Seal testified, often in apartment complexes they beef up their -- their amenities. Single
family residential subdivisions are going that, too, as Mr. Turnbull pointed out. You
know, they -- they are providing swimming pools and private open space parks and so,
again, I'm having a hard time differentiating just based on amenities, because both
provide amenities.
De Weerd: I can see that you're arguing both sides very well
Siddoway: So --
Rountree: Going to go into politics.
Siddoway: -- all of this is to say that -- that's the whole reason why there is one
proposed fee for both. It's difficult to come up with a -- solid reasoning to differentiate.
If you look at the cities around us, Boise does have a different one. Nampa does not.
Meridian used to, but does not now. It can be done both ways and whether you --
whichever way you choose does not alter the amount of impact fee eligible capital
improvements, it's just whether it's -- there is a logical way to split it out or not. So, I
guess I offer that as what I have thought about since it came up last month and would
stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Any questions from Council?
Bird: I have none, Mayor. Thanks, Steve
De Weerd: Thank you.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Klein: I'm Rachele Klein. 11101 West Executive Drive in Boise and I just have a
question after hearing all this. I just wanted to understand when your last increase in
impact fees actually occurred. I just wondered if they have been increasing every year
as the economy has been going down or has the city been able to hold impact fees
steady during this time? Is this the first increase I guess?
De Weerd: Since 2006, I believe
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 33 of 72
Kilchenmann: Yes. In '6 the Council adopted less than the allowable amount and, then,
in 2008 they adopted the amount recommended in 2006 and, then, haven't -- so, we
haven't really changed the fees since that time.
Klein: That's what I was curious about. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Additional comment? Any questions?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Barton.
Borton: If there is no additional public comment, I have got some questions for Adam, if
that's okay.
De Weerd: Yes. So, Adam, you did -- had -- well, I guess we just got the information
on different fees. Yes. Mr. Barton.
Borton: Thank you. Adam, help me understand a few things in your report.
Orens: Sure.
Barton: In no particular order. So, one of them is figure nine the parks and rec capital
improvement plan. Ten year.
Orens: Uh-huh.
Barton: It lists, among other things, some items of equipment that are identified as a
hundred percent growth related. This was on page 21 of your --
Orens: Yes. I believe I pulled it out right here. Is that --
Barton: Yeah. It's ATV, trailers, some items that I wouldn't of thought of being long-
term capital investments. Where is the line drawn?
Orens: The line is eight years, I believe, and these must be in service for that. These
are items of equipment that are tied to the park that are above it and in discussion with
the parks department they said that their general practices were to keep these items of
equipment around for longer than the threshold defined in the statue.
Barton: Okay. Then on page 19, figure seven, is the CIP for the fire and it identifies
replacement of various engines, which are not growth related.
Orens: Correct.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 34 of 72
Borton: Tell me about that. What excludes those?
Orens: Because those are tied with current older fire stations and that's the general --
those are items of capital that may or may not have been financed with impact fees in
the past, but when you go to replace or repair an item of capital it is not impact fee
eligible if it's serving the existing community and not serving growth, which is the case
with all those items there that have zeros as the growth related portion.
Borton: Okay. The next question is page 53, Appendix D, and it's in reference to the
fire station additions.
Orens: Uh-huh.
Borton: And the narrative makes reference to -- in your analysis there is growth related
need for 1.8 fire stations, which got rounded up to two, without any real explanation,
other than a round up, and, then, it would be moved to three after discussion with -- with
city staff. So, to me that's a big jump from 1.8 to three, so -- and the report didn't really
flush out how you got there, because that's a big number.
Orens: So, we -- we tried to check the level of service with fire stations, looking at, you
know, your current amount of fire station square footage and number of fire stations for
certain amounts of land uses in the community and we found what was planned was
going to creep up a little bit and, then, we wanted to reduce that and, then, what we
were told by city staff was that certain stations were necessary in certain areas in order
to keep that response time sustained and we were told to -- that those were necessary
to keep that standard of response time in line to where it was. So, using that level of
service of response time, which I believe trumps a square footage allocation, in our
judgment we included that in there.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I'm trying to decide whether to mention something that's actually unrelated to
this, but as I'm known for going sideways -- the discussion reminds me that it was kind
of a surprise to me to learn -- and I think I learned this just after we bought our ladder
truck -- that the insurance agencies rate a city depending not only on response time, but
the equipment that they have and it's actually of benefit to our citizens and what I'm
thinking of specifically is when we bought the ladder truck our insurance rating improved
such that the insurance cost for all of our citizens and businesses went down a little bit
in the following years and these kind of investments have benefits totally unrelated to
the subject that we are talking about right now, but I just thought people ought to know
that.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 35 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for Adam?
Borton: Madam Mayor? I have one more. It was intriguing -- and I have no idea why
the distinction is -- as each category items are -- appear to be one hundred percent
eligible or 22 percent --
Orens: Yeah.
Borton: -- rather than 45 or 62 or --
Orens: And that's -- we calculated that number and I'm happy you asked that. What --
where that 22 percent comes from is we looked at the current amount of households
today and commercial square footage -- future commercial square footage and
households and that growth percentage is 22 percent of what we expect to be here in
2023. It's not here right now. That represents the growth portion.
Borton: Okay.
Orens: Did I answer your question?
Borton: Yes. Thanks.
Orens: Let me make just one remark. I mean I -- just to back up philosophically here,
we have been, you know, kind of splitting tax year with some of these items on here
and, you know, trying -- you have been asking me some detailed questions, but, you
know, I just think it's important for you to know that this is one way to finance growth-
related capital. You can decide to finance other -- in other ways. You can decide to not
adopt the full fee for other considerations that are at interest to the community. These
fees are not calculated in a vacuum here and, you know, they do have implications on
certain other goals that the community might have. So, I think that's important for you
as Council to weigh how you decide as a community to finance your capital expansions.
And, you know, there are -- there are pros and cons on either side of this. You know,
impact fees really help with keeping up standards in the community. Do they impact
the cost of construction and developer costs? Sure. They absolutely do. But, you
know, I think it's your decision as to how do you decide to fund that. One thing our fees
do is they -- they tie demand to a funder of this type of capital I think pretty clearly and
easily. Taxes maybe not so much, maybe the community tax base is not keeping up
with this. There was a mentioned of timing. I think that was, you know, interesting to
me and I have studied this -- I have studied this in really high growth areas, areas with a
lot of resource development, oil and gas areas, where this becomes a very significant
issue is that the capital need is almost in advance of when that household shows up,
but for the taxes to keep up there is a lag time in that. If you decide you can absorb that
lag time and fund it through other general revenues, then, that's great, you can keep
fees low and you can move on your way. If you decide that that's not sustainable for
your community in funding this, then, this is one method that you have at your disposal
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 36 of 72
to fund capital improvements and so I'd just like to kind of back up from beyond the
details to conclude on that. So, thanks for having me here. I appreciate it.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borton: I'm going to ask you another question. I apologize.
Orens: Sure.
Borton: And here is why. Before I get to the -- the concept of whether or not we should,
I have got to grasp whether we could, meaning are the calculations really defensible,
even though to get to a maximum potential impact fee. So, that's why I asked some of
these --
Orens: Yeah. No.
Borton: -- questions. Another one that jumps out at me is within the parks capital
improvement plan, the Rails to Trails component, incorporate the portion as being
growth related, which I may be wrong, but if the concept is to maintain an existing level
of service how does that particular item fall within maintaining levels of service for
something that doesn't yet exist?
Orens: Well, this is a community amenity that has been parsed as to be funded partially
by growth, partially by the community, and these fees are designed in that way and so
these Rails to Trails are a community amenity and it is defensible to include a portion in
the fees. This level of service -- you have trails in the community right now, these are
just more trails that happen to be along a rail corridor. So, you know, the distinction was
-- was not made to me in that way that this was funding something that was not already
here, as you have other trails. So, that's how it was couched to me and that's why I
decided to include that in here as to encourage -- or extend trail -- additional trails in the
community.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borton: And the reason that question also comes up is further up when there is
reference to pathway and trails as a subcategory and pathway connections is not being
growth related. I'm just trying to get --
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 37 of 72
Orens: No. No. Those were existing connections that are absent from current trail
segments as was described to me in areas that are older in the community and Steve
may be able to describe where and how a little better than I can.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: First, are there any further questions for Adam? Okay. Thank you, Adam.
Orens: Yeah.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so the -- the pathways are not in
there because there are already development zoning ordinances and such that require
development of pathways. As Mr. Turnbull mentioned in his testimony, you know, they
are required to build pathways, but there is no impact fee offset. That's because we are
not collecting any impact fees for pathways. If we started collecting impact fees for
pathways there would -- there would need to be, but we are not collecting impact fees
for pathways. Now, the Rail with Trail is a specific exception to that, because it's
considered more of a regional pathway connection and along the rail is different than
the ones that are built by development as it goes along these canals. So, that's the
reason that the Rail with Trail is in, but the individual developer built pathways are not.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Steve, though, any pathway we put in is paid for by impact fees; right?
Siddoway: No. We can't -- unless --
Bird: We cannot use --
Siddoway: Unless we are collecting impact fees for pathways.
Bird: Okay.
Siddoway: They are General Fund items.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: Yeah. Any other questions forme?
De Weerd: Thank you.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 38 of 72
De Weerd: So, Council, I guess tonight you have had an opportunity to hear from the
committee, from our consultant and from some of our stakeholders. Several questions
have been raised in terms of -- I think our development community has supported the
notion that -- that growth does need to pay for itself, but I think there have been a
couple of equity questions on the impact of development, whether it's the industrial --
industrial versus retail, which we know there is a heavier impact on the retail side.
Whether it's apartments versus single family homes. And so there are some
fundamental questions. In the past we have dealt with the apartments versus the multi-
family versus the single family differently. This Council has -- has chosen not to always
accept the full impact fee that is eligible and -- and other times we have. So, I guess
those are some of the things that you get to ponder tonight. I think I will open it up for
discussion. If you need further information, if you want to continue this, if you just open
it up for some discussion.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would make a comment. I certainly have made it clear before and again
tonight how much I am in favor of impact fees. Certainly as a concept. Along with that I
understand we don't want to make our fees so high that we stop growth or that it -- or
we drive it somewhere else and I do feel it is perfectly reasonable to discuss not making
a full recovery with our impact fees. I know our CIPs are well thought out and the timing
of them is well thought out as well. But as many in the private sector and people in
general are having to do, it may still be time to say, okay, we need to delay a few capital
things and that would encourage me to say we don't need quite full recovery, that I
would consider impact fees just a little short of what is being recommended. I wouldn't
go below what we are already at, but somewhere in between I think is fair, because as
has been pointed out, we haven't reached full recovery yet and our growth rate isn't
quite what the CIPs intended or anticipated I mean and if it were possible to put a few
projects off, I would think that we could not go for the full impact fee that we are looking
for, as much as I am in favor of impact fees, I also am sensitive to saying perhaps a
hundred percent isn't needed right now.
De Weerd: Stacy, I have a question regarding -- at this point the Council hasn't had a
discussion about the CIP and the CIP is the tool we are using to calculate the impact
fee eligibility or amount. So, what is supposed to come first? Is this the chicken and an
egg thing, but --
Kilchenmann: Well, I think almost everything on here is on our city CIP. If you -- if you
look at the ten year CIP that we have been working with, it's pretty much all on here,
because a lot of these things aren't impact fee eligible. So, I -- you know, maybe Ideally
we -- because we have a new Council we would start with the capital improvement plan,
but it's not necessarily going to be the same as this one, the city one, because that one
is tied -- you know, we work more on the first five years and, then, there might be things
from the city plan that aren't going to be in the impact fee plan. So, I guess it is like a
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 39 of 72
chicken and an egg question. It's -- so, we started this in September and it's a very
slow process. We are almost at the point it would be nice if we'd just pick a fee, any
fee, you know -- so we can --
De Weerd: Wow, that just came from our CFO.
Kilchenmann: I'm worn down. But -- and I do want to say Adam didn't come up with
these items, in all fairness, so he's really not the evil consultant. This -- this comes from
our -- our staff and they -- you know, we have been through this a lot, the items on here,
and they are the best people that can answer the questions. A lot of what Adam does is
mechanical, you know, he researches the population and so forth and does all sorts of
things. So, he's really not evil.
De Weerd: Well -- and, Council, I guess I do know tomorrow we will have a
conversation at the State of the City about response times and what -- what is coming
up. We need to have a community discussion and a discussion here with the City
Council on expected levels of service. What we were able to fund five years ago does
cost different today. You know, I'm building a home and the cost today is a lot different
from when I built a home ten years ago. It's more. So, I know with the expansion of our
city you need to have your police accessible in different areas, what you have never
seen in a capital improvement plan with a police substation or a little office and that's
about all it is -- has not been on a previous capital improvement plan. We are looking at
levels of service and an enormous amount of plats coming in our pipeline for south
Meridian and north Meridian. Those are two areas that are going to explode and right
now I sat in a meeting with the city of Kuna and had their fire department -- that's their
rural department say Meridian is going to have to serve our new growth. That's
offensive, because they can't fund it and because it's the first to respond. So, there are
some difficult discussions that are going to be had. Right now our response time from
our fire department is pretty flat. It's slightly improved at five percent, but our police
department increased their response time -- that's not adecrease -- for priority three
calls by one minute. We went from over three minutes to over four minutes. Now a lot
of that, because we do have data to look at what is going on and we also have common
sense. There is a lot of construction, especially out on Eagle Road where most of our
response is. But there is a cost of service and this Council is going to have to decide
what that level of service needs to be and that will have an impact and what this capital
improvement plan is and what -- what we are willing to pass on to think that we are
augmenting new growth. So, I would welcome our new members to Council in being
part of these fun discussions.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that I -- I mean I love living in Meridian. That's
why I live here. And I don't want the level of our service to decrease. So, you know,
this is -- I see where this is a very touchy subject. I also have been -- I owned homes
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 40 of 72
and I have owned a business and, you know, it is painful paying these fees, but I do
have a question. This is a ten year -- is this a ten year plan? Right? That's kind of
what we are looking at? Do these all have to come at once?
De Weerd: It comes with new growth. It comes with each permit.
Milam: Right. So, I guess my question would be is it -- does the increase have to be all
at one time or could it be an annual percentage? So, we have a nine percent increase
because that -- and because we are looking at numbers that are based on ten years
down the road and some of these expenses. Could the fees also just kind of graduate
up?
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor --
De Weerd: Stacy.
Kilchenmann: -- Council, yes, you can -- you can -- you can do that. You could have
zero fees, you could -- you could phase it in, any combination thereof. As long as you
don't increase it over this.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: And this is more for clarification for my end. So, this plan was initially
adopted in 2006 and was supposed to go through 2016. I guess my question is why are
we having this discussion now, as opposed to maybe a year from how? I recognize
2016 is right around the corner, but if you could provide me some insight as to why we
are discussing this now, as opposed to down the road.
Kilchenmann: You actually -- Councilman, they actually advise that you update your
plan every five to six years, because things change and so we -- some of these things
are in the old one and weren't done, but we are getting out, now we are looking at 2026.
So, I'm -- Adam might be able to clarify that, why we don't wait until 2016, except that
it's taken so long that it would be 2020. Or Rita might know why we -- you know, just
because levels of service change. Like with parks the level of service went down, so if
we kept charging that -- and the reason wasn't because of the cost of land, it's because
of the donation of Kleiner. So, that brought us -- we are still using 2006 level of
services, but we had Kleiner that brought our acres per thousand up and that's what
made their fee go down.
De Weerd: Thank you for clarifying that our level of service really didn't go down.
Kilchenmann: Yeah. We didn't change the level of service, we were just trying to keep
it the same.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 41 of 72
Cavener: All right.
Kilchenmann: Is that -- do you want Adam to address why --
Cavener: No. I think you did a fine job of clarifying as to --
De Weerd: But I think someone also equated to it as you have to have a reasonable
impact fee, because if you do drive development -- growth is happening and it either
happens in our city or it happens all around our city and we deal with it anyway. So,
without the impact fee or the tax base to pay for the service that we are responding with.
So, that is why I think this Council has traditionally not looked at an entire fee in every
area. There has been differences, but I -- I do think that some legitimate discussion
was brought up today in terms of where is the impact is and should there be a
difference.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: In reflecting back, previous councils have -- have seen these kinds of things
-- not necessarily these kinds of increases, but they have taken the typical Meridian
approach, if we are going to do it, let's do it incrementally, don't do it all at once. I
cannot support doing the one hundred percent for impact fee of the increases they are
talking about here and we couldn't do that in 2006. It was done incrementally as -- as
things progressed and, of course, that was the period of time when everybody thought
the sky was the limit and we were just going to continue on and the bottom fell out. I
appreciate the comments from the folks this evening. Meridian is bless in some regard
with the amount of things that are going on and the amount of investment that's
occurring in our city, as opposed to other cities and Ada County and Canyon county as
well. Or throughout the state. I have supported impact fees from the first time we
started talking about them way too many years ago to remember when it was -- for
parks and recreation. And I agree with what David said, that Meridian, if you look at it
as a community, is pretty shinny and new and I think that's because of not only the
development, but the use of impact fees in a wise manner to provide quality equipment
for our public safety people, provide quality parks and recreation. Keith and I both go
back to the time when we had 16 acres in the city for a park. That was it. And the
swimming pool was purchased by another entity. So, we have gone a long ways and I
want to be able to continue to do that and I don't want to necessarily push people out,
because we have some of these fees that we are looking at. So, I -- I will take the sage
advice that if we do anything we do it in small increments. It was nice to see -- and I
agree with Stacy, we were blessed with the Kleiner Park in order to way exceed what
our four acres -- two acres per person goal was and can reduce that fee. But we are
not necessarily meeting our original goals for police and fire response and we need to
take a look at how we can do that. We can do that in advance or we can try to play
catch up and I personally am not excited about trying to catch up and get behind from
the progress we have made in this city. Some things that have come out tonight make
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 42 of 72
me think that there probably are some finer points that we can put on some of these
things. Do we want to do that? I don't know, but I think we ought to look at it.
Particularly the piece I brought up and to me an industrial warehouse there ought to be
a cap on what the impact fee ought to be, as opposed to, you know, a never ending
amount. And there probably ought to be some impact fees associated with the kind of
use that happened in some of those big box -- a box store that's all commercial retail
probably ought to have a higher impact fee and we are not only worried about personal
property, but we are primarily concerned about people. So, I could see a difference
there. So, I think my recommendation in some of these things that have been brought
up is to put a finer point on them and see if they can relatively easily be split and a
different factor applied to them, with the potential idea of caps. That might be another
approach to the parks and recreation issue with respect to high density living and -- and
park fees. I don't know. I just -- I'm just rattling at this point. But that's a possibility.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Rountree: I don't -- I don't disagree with the study. I think the study is basically what we
have seen in the past. It's a great job. It's a crystal ball. The capital improvements
plans are a bit of a crystal ball determining what the city needs in 20 years or ten years,
but based on my past experience the staff has done an outstanding job of trying to
identify what we need in this city in order to meet our goals and what our citizens are
telling us that our goal is to have a safe and quality environment to live, work and play.
So. that's where I am.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor? When you start like doing industrial versus retail, like we
have talked about, single family, multi-family, part of this fee is based on projections in
the future, so we have projected how many commercial square feet they will be. So,
this is a question for Ted or Adam, because I don't know how to do this. If you -- like
say industrial versus retail, if we need to go and -- and this is the thing that Adam really
helped us with, is go dig out what's the projection for retail in Meridian, what's the
projection for industrial, and we have used up Adam's budget, so I thought I would just
add that. But maybe Adam or Ted can answer that. I'm not sure exactly what we would
go through to -- to do that.
De Weerd: See, you didn't even look back at Ted to see who was going to fill that. You
knew.
Orens: I do a lot of these studies. I mean I would be happy to answer any of your
questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Adam.
Orens: I think the question here is on simplicity, complexity, and accuracy. You know,
we have recommended a fairly simple system here. Can I make this more complex?
Absolutely. Can I make it more accurate? I don't know. You know, when you make --
the choice is do we make a couple of larger assumptions or do make a lot of small
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 43 of 72
assumptions on this? Is retail going to grow faster than industrial, than other types of
office in here -- those are things we are going to have to make. I have already made
some of them in this, but I did not use those finer distinctions in stratifying the fees more
than I have. If -- you know, the community feels that, you know, by making more cuts in
this by saying, okay, if we charge a different fee for this land use versus this land use
versus this land use, that this is a fairer system, then, I can make those apportionments
and assumptions and calls to do that and present them in a transparent manner and
maybe you will feel more comfortable about it. Maybe you won't, though. Because I
don't know if that complexity equals accuracy. In this we have decided -- the decision
was made that, you know, I don't feel that that really -- making an extra assumption on,
well, is multi-family going to grow faster than single family, so we are going to have
differential fees between the two and that will affect the fee amounts, you know, we
have decided not to make those assumptions, because we didn't feel that it makes this
a more accurate system. In the statutes we have the -- the two standards that you have
to adhere to -- and this will be some legalese -- a rational nexus and rough
proportionality. There are in two Supreme Court decisions and I feel that we have done
that in this system is satisfied those conditions for the fees. You know, can we make
this more complex? Yes. Can I estimate persons per household in different types of
housing types and assign different fees for them? Yes, I can do that for you if you
would like. So, you know, those -- I think the questions are about equity and, you know,
if we have designed an equitable system here. We have backed off and said, you know
what, I think a level playing field and having people pay the same amount of fees is -- is
a fair and equitable system here. You know, we are using inexact proxies and there are
going to be winners and losers to any system you design here. People will pay more or
less and people will complain about how much they pay, no matter what kind of system
you design. So, with that in mind these were the fees and these were the stratifications
that we made in the system.
De Weerd: Thank you, Adam. Stacy, what has been the discussion at the impact fee
committee? Have you had the discussion on the flat fee versus the -- having different
categories or classifications or tiers or whatever it is?
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor -- and, again, Ted -- Ted has been very very helpful in
this, even though he's hiding in the corner. He's really the smart guy on the thing, not
me, but we did discuss this. Mr. Seal came and presented his case about apartment
versus -- or single family versus multi-family and the impact fee advisory committee
didn't choose to change -- to try to stratify the fee. So, Ted, do you want to --
De Weerd: She was going to get you up here.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Ted Baird, Deputy City Attorney. I was
looking for an opportunity to stretch my legs, so it's good to be up here. I can add to
what Stacy said and that the committee gave their recommendation after reviewing the
report asking many of the same questions that you have asked tonight. Their
recommendation is the full recovery fee is fully supported. They know full well when it
gets to you that you may, indeed, make some of those equity decisions and I think what
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 44 of 72
we are looking for is for you to pick a peak in that ordinance -- in fact, your options are
you can continue the hearing, you can have more discussion in the second and third
readings and maybe get towards those differential fees that you're comfortable with.
You don't need to send this back to the committee at this time if you're comfortable
making those adjustments, as long as they are less than the full recovery amounts that
are in the study. You can pick a fee for this year and give an assignment to the
development impact fee committee to look at some of these differentials and caps that
you're talking about and come back with further recommendations for next year. This
study that we have just completed and the budget's been sent for, is good for four or
five years. So, that can be the max and you can -- you can seek recommendations on
how to implement incrementally like you -- you have talked about tonight. So, those are
my comments based on what I have heard. If you have any other questions for me I'd
stand for those at this time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Ted. Any questions for Ted?
Bird: I have none.
Baird: Okay. Thank you.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Stacy.
Kilchenmann: I was thinking like Ted did, I mean if you're not comfortable adopting this
full fee, you pick a percentage to adopt and, then, we can go through, if you so desire,
and further budget money to dig deeper into the industrial versus retail kind of
questions. I sense you're not comfortable adopting this full fee, but what we did last
time when we went through this -- I mean we are in a period of growth and we put off
adopting the fee and when we do that we miss growth -- we miss those growth spurts,
that just puts us behind the eight ball again. You can draw straws.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Stacy, in 2006 -- and, I'm sorry, I don't remember, but what was the
percentage of the recommended fee increase that was actually implemented?
Kilchenmann: I will let Rita answer that.
Cunningham: Councilman Rountree, I don't actually have a percentage. It was 1,138
dollars you adopted out of the park allowable fee and you adopted the full fire and the
full police. So, it was 1,600 dollars for the fee and now we are at 1,846. My math whiz
can give you a percent.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 45 of 72
Rountree: That was in 2006?
Cunningham: 2006. Yes.
Rountree: Okay.
Cunningham: And, then, the full fee was adopted in 2008.
Rountree: Okay.
Cunningham: Councilman Rountree, we just calculated that and it was 15 percent.
Rountree: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Rita, that 15 percent was what we adopted in '06 and, then, adopted what percent
in '08?
Cunningham: Well, what you actually did was adopted 85 percent of the fee in '06 and,
then, you adopted the additional 15 percent in '08.
Bird: That's what I thought. Yeah.
Cunningham: So, you brought it up --
Bird: Yeah. We brought it up. And we went 85 percent in '06.
Cunningham: Yes.
Bird: Because we thought we were still in hog heaven and -- and we added the 15 in
2008.
De Weerd: No. Because you were. I remember that conversation specifically.
Rountree: You do?
De Weerd: You bet.
Bird: Well, you got a better memory than me. Of course you're a lot younger.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 46 of 72
Bird: I -- I agree with everything that Councilman Rountree stated before and like to add
a little more. I can't adopt the fees as they brought forward. I don't think to get service
you throw money at it. I think we maintain our service by our good employees and our
good directors and our good leadership. So, I just -- and I -- I think we have to -- I think
Councilman Rountree brought up a great point between big box stores that are retail
and big industrial warehouses. You definitely would be more apt to use fire and police
at the retail big box stores than you would at a -- at an industrial warehouse. I still can't
believe that we -- we can't have different fees for multi-family and single family in our
parks and I -- until we work that out Ijust -- I just don't think it's fair. I think we are -- I
think we are running off development in our multi-family by doing it, to be truthful with
you.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, based on Ted's --
De Weerd: I'm sorry, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I know you had to get that squared away. Madam Mayor, I think it's probably
inevitable that we will see some increase in these, but for purposes of moving this along
and not get too crazy with increases and not necessarily approach what's been
recommended by the report, but primarily so it's easier to do math, I'm going to suggest
that for purposes of the ordinance as we move the ordinance to the first reading and
with the intent that particularly the fire and police fees will be subject to further scrutiny,
suggest that the police fees be raised to 90 dollars for the residents, remain the same
for the nonresidential, fire be increased to 400 and nonresidential stay the same and the
Parks and Recreation fees be 1,110. Nothing magic about those. I just do the math a
lot quicker that way.
Bird: That's about the same as I have, but -- Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Councilman Rountree, I could go along with this, but I -- I can't go along with
parks without we have a different rate for multi-family.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, this -- Ted, are you paying attention? Okay. I think you
can adopt that fee as a total and, then, we will have to go back and redistribute it
between the two. That one's a little easier to do, I think, than the industrial versus retail.
Is that correct, Ted? So, if we adopt whatever the 1,110 as the fee, then, we will have
to go back and try to figure out how much is going to go to an apartment and how much
is going to go to a residence based on people putting in it and Adam has dug out some
of those numbers for Meridian. Ted, is that correct? Can I do that or do we have to
figure it out before they can put it in the ordinance?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I understand Stacy's question, as long
as the fees that you adopt, whether they -- if you direct a differential between multi-
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 47 of 72
family and single family, you can adopt something less than the full recovery amount for
multi-family, but you cannot raise the single family above what the maximum is, with the
understanding that that reduction is going to need to be made up somewhere, most
likely from General Fund. I should also point out that in the 2006 revisions this
nondistinction between single family and multi-family was instituted and you went
through a period of growth with the apartments coming in and it wasn't until just the end
of 2013 that the question came up. So, you have got quite a track record of that
nondistinction being acceptable to the development community. However, do
knowledge that you want to encourage more multi-family for the community, you want to
encourage nice amenities, so we understand your desire possibly to set that less, but
you can -- you can make it a percentage based on any factor that you want, as long as
it's less than the maximum allowable amount. Now, Stacy, was that answering the
question that you posed?
Kilchenmann: I think so.
De Weerd: Well, I just want the record to note that Mr. Bird desires more multi-family
and I do think that our -- our planning staff needs to take note of that. Just saying.
Bird: Don't leave, Ted. Madam Mayor? Now you made me forget what I was going to
ask Ted. Go and sit down.
Rountree: He takes direction well.
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I got a question. It may be a Ted question, so he gets halfway back.
De Weerd: He wanted to stretch his legs.
Borton: We will see where this goes. If -- if it's the intent to send this back for a brief
period of time to try and articulate a couple of the caps or different levels of multi-family
and single family, things of that nature, and bring it that back with those articulated for
the Council to consider, is there a difference between tabling this today for a week or
two or whatever that takes versus approving it today knowing that we are really kind of
setting an artificial cap that will go down in the future -- the two go around, but to the
same spot.
Kilchenmann: I will answer that, too, along with Ted.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, one of your
options is, indeed, to table the ordinance here after the first reading and send the matter
back to the impact fee committee with direction to bring you those differentials based on
the existing study. I wouldn't encourage any further study. We have done great work
scrubbing those CIPs and getting them down to what's acceptable, but if you wanted
them to take that maximum and ratchet it back and differentiate it and investigate caps
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 48 of 72
and bring you some specific recommendations rather just grabbing something out of the
air like may have been suggested, that's certainly one of your options, so --
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, in my view -- well, it's not going to be two weeks. I mean
to do this is going to be months, because first we have to define -- because, again, we
have got to do those estimates, so we -- we have to figure out somehow how much
retail are we going to have in the next ten years, how much industrial -- the apartment
one is a little easier, because we still have to do the projections, but we -- it's an easier
number to find, but we still have to figure out how many multi-family units are going be
built and how many single family and, you know, we are going to have to have
somebody that can do that research. It's not going to -- you know, it's not going to be
two weeks. And, then, if we try to -- which we don't have to get the impact fee
committee together, right? I don't know if we have to have them to consider it. That's --
that's alengthy process. So, it's going to be a matter of months. That's why I
suggested that -- if we are going to drop -- because if we are going to drop the fee now
with what Councilman Rountree recommended, I would suggest that before we get into
that -- all that detail we do that a year from now, since the fee is going to drop.
Baird: Madam Mayor? Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt
De Weerd: Yes, Ted.
Bird: Perhaps staff could take direction tonight and come back with some specific
recommendations on the second reading that would help you to determine whether to
take staff's recommendations or, indeed, to send it back the committee. You don't have
to make that decision tonight, but I would agree with Stacy it's not a two week process,
we would have to convene the committee and come up with some -- some factors to
make those distinctions on.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I have -- my question is more -- pertains to those who are protesting this
increase and my question to you is how do you feel about the current fees as they
stand, like total per household?
De Weerd: Well, think it's not only a total per household, but there is the commercial
and industrial -- the square footage as well.
Milam: Okay.
De Weerd: So, do you have a specific question, then, for anyone in the audience? I
think they have kind of already told you what they thought of it.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 49 of 72
Milam: Well, they told me what they thought of the increase, but they didn't say how
they felt about the current situation and how -- well, other than the fact than separating
the apartments from single family residents -- you know, how fees are pretty reasonable
compared to Boise -- and I'm not breaking it down -- the total -- the total fee, which is
now 1,846 dollars, that fee -- if we kept the fee the same, didn't increase it at all and,
then, took the decrease off of parks and rec and reallocated that to police and fire, the
difference, they are not experiencing an increase and we are not sort selling our
departments short. Just my thoughts.
De Weerd: Did anyone want to volunteer to answer -- Mr. Turnbull. I'm not sure really
what the question is, but --
Turnbull: Madam Mayor, we are not here protesting the existing fees. You know, the
lower the fees the better in my estimation. Will say this: Impact fees are a two edged
sword. They cut both ways. We realize that we need to have adequate police and fire
service and parks, so this has always been a bit of a negotiation with the stakeholders
and we think -- and I meant to compliment the city in my original testimony. I think the
city has done a really nice job managing its General Fund. A lot of the things that you
see funded here around the city come out of the General Fund and you have been a
pay as you go kind of city and you have done a very very nice job of building out the
infrastructure in this city. So, you know, in answer to your question we are not here to
ask you to go back to zero. I think that that -- if you want to discuss that I will be happy
to meet with you anytime. But we are here to try to help hold the line on increased
costs in a time when it's been really difficult for the building industry in general. So, I
hope that answers your question.
Milam: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I like Councilwoman Milam's suggestion. If I understood it
correctly, the parks impact fees are being -- this is just talking about residential -- are
being reduced 271 dollars. If we took that 271 and added 90 of it to the police and 181
to the fire on the residential section, we would be making some difference there without
changing what the payers pay. Is that --
Milam: Exactly.
Zaremba: -- essentially what you were saying?
Milam: Yes.
Zaremba: I put some numbers on it --
Milam: Thank you. Yes. Not exact numbers, but proportionately just reallocate the
funds to the fire and police and --
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 50 of 72
Zaremba: Yeah. That's an attractive idea to me.
Milam: And does that work for -- you know, for the builders and the people that are
bringing the new homes and -- I think that sounds fair.
De Weerd: So, Council, I almost hesitate to ask, but there is a nonresidential per
square foot that's not been discussed. I think that you need to give us direction on that
as well.
Borton: Madam Mayor? I will speak to a little bit broader than that, because I cannot
answer that question either. In light of Mr. Turnbull's protest -- here is what I think from
this discussion -- what I'm taking from it. I have lost the sense of the rational nexus and
the rough proportionality. I think now we are -- it sounds like we are moving into a --
kind of a nebulous horse trading and it implies that we are losing the awareness that
this is, in fact, atax -- which serves a purpose, but I -- my perspective apply the -- make
changes to it with great caution. So, these type of calculations to me seem to be a
worse route than delaying it, even if it takes several months to try and get the questions
of Council answered. That might give people greater comfort as to whether or not a cap
on industrial is more fair or residential and multi-family is more fair. That brings us back
to the balance of what the impact fee was intended for and I can feel more comfortable
applying it to those that we charge and be able to articulate why we do so. So, that's
where I'm leaning. If we are going to go any further to juggle numbers back and forth,
my position is let's give staff a clear list of those types of components we want
articulated back for us, not redo the study by any stretch. But to answer those
questions to give Council comfort to make a final decision based on actual data.
De Weerd: Thank you. You said that so much better than I could have. I do think that
if the public asks whether it's -- those that will be incurring these fees or the citizens that
are saying you're making up a gap with our taxpayer dollars, we need to have a nexus
as to why you made the decision that you made and I guess asking staff and the impact
fee committee to come back with a recommendation on how to -- to look at that, but I
think they will want some direction. If you're looking at keeping things that you don't
want to increase what is being charged at this point more and give them a cap to come
back and see how they can bring back a recommendation that does have a nexus and
has relevancy to the study and the fees that are being collected, that gives them the
direction to, then, bring something back to you that makes sense.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If in -- to further that process we all -- if we share the list at least what we heard
exchanged, the unanswered question, the two that we were the -- what I heard the most
that I wrote down were articulating the difference and the distinction between the single
family and the multi-family and the other one, which I thought it was a great comment by
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 51 of 72
Councilman Rountree, I have no sense of how to articulate the calculation is capturing
some type of cap on a police impact fee as relates to industrial. I don't know if you
mean industrial and commercial, but at least industrial of a certain square footage, you
know, try and recognize those seem to make common sense. I don't know where you
draw the line or how we give staff clearer direction on that. Those are the two that I
noted.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Well, I think it's safe to just give that to staff and say go forth and bring us
back something. Mr. Bird.
Bird: I have got -- I have got something on the lines of Councilman Rountree had. I
think for the police fees we go residential 90, stay with the square foot of six. Fire 425
square foot. Park 1,113 for single, 775 for multi-family.
De Weerd: Based on -- I'm just sending the calls to you.
Bird: This is just something I was throwing out --
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: -- for the staff to look at.
De Weerd: For -- for the impact fee to execute on.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: And you can't withdraw your names from the impact fee committee.
Kilchenmann: I just did. Madam Mayor, if you want to lower the fee not just by saying
we don't want to increase it X percent, you have to take things out of the capital
improvement plan. So, that -- that's something that you can -- I don't feel like I can do
that. I don't know if you want to direct those functions to take things out of the capital
improvement plan. If you're going to say these things that we have in here are going to
go -- switch to the General Fund. If that's something you want to do or if you want to
wait until we have our impact fee discussion in March to get that.
Rountree: Madam Mayor? That brings up a question and I have been trying to figure
out what it is. But we have seen the capital improvement plan. We have approved the
capital improvement plan. That was the -- apparently that wasn't financially constrained,
because we have not had these numbers. So, how could we have approved a capital
improvements plan and now we have to increase the impact fees in order to
accommodate that?
Kilchenmann: Yeah. The ten year plan was -- was never funded. It was a -- it -- yeah.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 52 of 72
Rountree: Okay. All right.
De Weerd: The five year was.
Rountree: Five year was.
Bird: Five year was.
Rountree: Okay.
Kilchenmann: And it all -- you know, if it -- if we don't have growth we won't build a fire
station in X years, so it just all pushes out. So, that would be -- besides these other
factors the other piece of information would be what -- how do we take things out?
What methodology do you want to use.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Stacy, is it a matter of taking items out or just recharacterizing them as not
growth related and changing the percentage?
Kilchenmann: I will have to ask Adam. I think we have tried to take population
estimates and determine what's growth related. I think changing -- just changing the
percentage would throw off the whole functionality of the -- he's going to answer it.
De Weerd: I think the --the solution is you just choose to fund more out of your General
Fund.
Bird: Yeah.
Kilchenmann: Yeah.
De Weerd: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: The other option in looking at the CIP is decide our growth rate has not
justified doing everything on the CIP right now. The CIP was based on the -- the five
year and the ten years plan are based on a certain growth rate, which we haven't had. I
do not see -- in my memory of the CIP I don't see items that I would cross off and say
we are never going to do them, but I would like an investigation of do we need to do it
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 53 of 72
on that timeline. Can they slip a little bit and maybe we do it in the sixth year instead of
the fourth year and does that save us some impact fee.
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor. It doesn't, because this is a ten year. So, basically, what
you would need to do is either say we are not going to do it in ten years or we are not
going to do it period. We could say we are not -- and I'm looking at --
De Weerd: Well -- and you will see that because we didn't have the growth that we
expected and didn't collect the growth impact fees that we expected, projects have been
pushed out and so it just continues to move -- to move them back and that has been
how it's been operating. But we can say in doing our analysis is the General Fund can't
absorb the cost. So, the only way to absorb it or to -- to fill that gap is to delay -- to
defer or never do, so --
Bird: What do you want, Tam?
De Weerd: So, I think that the direction from Council has been to send it back to staff
and to the committee and with the goal to bring it back without a raise to the current fee
and perhaps lower -- I don't know. I'm not quite sure we have this clear direction to the
-- the nonresidential per square foot, unless, you know, if Council wants to just say we
want to keep that at today's level. The other aspect to discuss is going to be the multi-
family versus single resident and the industrial versus the retail.
Kilchenmann: I still --
De Weerd: You can't say no, so
Kilchenmann: The goal is to keep the fee from going up? Is that what
De Weerd: I do know that was what I heard with the residential. I don't have abetter --
Idon't have a good sense on the nonresidential at this point. I --
Kilchenmann: But in total. So, what we are looking at in total, so that we know how
much we are moving to the General Fund. The goal is to keep the -- the whole fee now,
the fee for the three of them, not to increase.
De Weerd: It sounded like to keep parks whole and to see reduction of the -- the 271 to
distribute between the police and fire, but it needs to be -- it needs to have some kind of
a nexus as to what the recommendation comes back as. I don't know. I'm trying to
make sense of all of it myself, just to give you direction and I -- it would be just easier for
me to say you heard what they said, go do it.
Kilchenmann: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 54 of 72
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: And our directors have heard that, too, so -- Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Not to confuse things, but I'm not sure we all said the same thing. I'm -- I'm
not opposed to a justified slight increase. I am opposed to a hundred percent of the
increase that's been proposed, but if it's justified to have a slight increase that could be
explained to me.
De Weerd: We just need to have something explained to us why we are making the
decision that we are asking them to make. I guess different from what decision you're
asking them to make today. Okay. Any further clarification from Council? Rather than
me speaking on your behalf?
Rountree: I could try, but I think it would get more confusing.
De Weerd: We will keep this public hearing open. I would ask Council -- or maybe I will
ask staff. What is a reasonable time frame that you feel comfortable having this back
on a City Council agenda?
Kilchenmann: Madam Mayor, I would say two to three months.
De Weerd: Is that answer as arbitrary as some of the discussion up here?
Kilchenmann: Yeah. I'm not sure right now what exactly this would entail.
De Weerd: Can we just delay it for two weeks to bring back better plans on a what time
frame should be?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you want -- I mean it sounds --
rather than bring -- trying to guess -- we can just renotice this for when we are ready to
bring it back for your consideration, rather than set it off for two weeks and, then, we tell
you it's two months and, then, we just try to -- I think it would be wise to simply vacate
tonight the reading and, then, you have given direction to staff on what you're seeking
and, then, when they are ready to bring that back they will bring it back and we can just
renotice the ordinance at that time.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, whatever you decide I would like a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 55 of 72
Bird: Stacy, is your -- is the audit done?
Kilchenmann: Yes.
Bird: Okay.
Kilchenmann: Now we are doing the budget.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue this public hearing to the 4th of March 2014. That
gives the staff three weeks.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue this until March 4th.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of continuing this item until March 4th say -- yes
Borton: I didn't -- is there any additional discussion on the motion as to what they are
specifically bringing back?
De Weerd: You should -- we would like to have that clarification, but it's not generally
part of a motion like this, but we can have that conversation after the vote. So, the
motion is to continue this item until March 4th. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, if you have any specifics you would like give the staff
I'm sure they would be very grateful.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I apologize, didn't know if it was articulated earlier. I -- the one comment you
made, which make senses to me, that could be part of these calculations is an
application of the reduction for parks, the 271, into the police and fire and as part of that
process splitting out, if possible, as to the police and fire. The residential into the multi-
family, single family to drilling down into a little more detail. And the nonresidential into
an industrial and nonindustrial and, then, in going through that -- those mechanics, if
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 56 of 72
there is some recommendations as to an industrial fee specific to police and a
recognized cap on any square footage.
Kilchenmann: Okay.
Borton: If that helps.
Zaremba: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Would we, then, want an analysis of whatever those numbers produce?
How does that affect the CIP? Or is that too much to ask?
Rountree: Madam Mayor. I think probably as opposed to analysis is what's the
difference.
De Weerd: That certainly would be easier.
Rountree: Yeah. Simply a difference.
De Weerd: Any other clarifying points?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: To include in that the figure that by making such a reduction or not making that
increase we are effectively committing to fund certain items out of the General Fund.
Kilchenmann: Yes, that will --
Borton: A bigger number than we all realize.
Kilchenmann: Yeah. It will -- it will fall out naturally, so that will --
De Weerd: Councilman Rountree, I guess I would ask you, Mr. President, who did you
assign as Council liaison to the impact fee committee?
Rountree: I don't think there is one.
De Weerd: Oh, shoot. Maybe we need one.
Rountree: I don't think there has ever been one, but we certainly could.
Bird: We are better off without one.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 57 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. You will see --
Rountree: I could sit with them. I have no problem with that.
De Weerd: Okay. I think that would be appreciated. Okay. Thank you for sticking with
us on this.
Item 10: Department Reports
B. Solid Waste Advisory Commission: SWAC Report and
Recommendation Regarding Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the City of Meridian and Republic Services of
Idaho About City Parks' Recycling Revenue
De Weerd: I will go ahead and move to Item -- 10-A was moved up. We have already
entertained it. 10-B is our Solid Waste Advisory Commission. So, I will ask Mollie
and -- yeah. Thank you for sticking with us.
Mangerich: Absolutely.
Klein: We learned so much.
Mangerich We did.
De Weerd: Is this a tag team presentation?
Mangerich: Yes.
Klein: Yes.
Mangerich: Again, good evening, Madam Mayor and Member Council Members. I'm
Mollie Mangerich and I'm here representing the Solid Waste Advisory Commission. On
their behalf the Solid Waste Advisory Commission is asking for approval --
De Weerd: Could we have the conversations out in the corridor. Sorry. Thank you. I
just didn't want you have to talk over this.
Mangerich: Thank you very much. The SWAC is asking your approval to memorialize
via a memorandum of understanding the current verbal working agreement we have
with Republic Services, documenting their agreement to donate 80 percent of the
revenue generated from the sale of recyclables that are collected at our city parks.
Primarily -- or, namely, those are Settlers, Heroes, and Julius Kleiner Park. That money
would, then, be directed to the Meridian community recycle fund and this would be
consistent -- the flex recommendation is consistent with the agreement that we have
with Republic Services on the sale of recyclables generated from our curb-side
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 58 of 72
recycling program. Rachele Klein has been very kind to stay with us this evening. She
is with Republic Services and their business development manager and we would both
stand for any questions. She is a wonderful resource on the markets of our -- of our
recyclables and the trends that has been taking.
De Weerd: What is the trend that it's been taking?
Klein: Madam Mayor and Council, it has been very negative. We have not seen a net
positive revenue event in over 14 months. So, what that translates to in real dollars is
about a ten to 12 thousand dollar a month subsidy from Republic Services. So, the way
that it was designed originally when markets were strong, the residential recyclables
were sold, the city kept 80 percent of the revenue and 20 percent went to pay for the
household hazardous waste program, which runs on Mondays at the transfer station.
And what nobody really foresaw was that the crash of the recycling market and, then,
the surpluses that have since built up, so we have been waiting for that market to turn
around. It's been very soft. With Christmas there is a lot of volume, so prices are even
lower than usual and with a turnaround hopefully by summer when school is out and
bonds stop we will see, hopefully, some positive numbers. But in the meantime we are
very committed as a company to continue with both the household hazardous waste
program and curb side recycling until markets turn around. So, eventually, we would
like to see a big deposit in the community recycling fund. That's why this memo has
been --this memorandum of understanding has been pushed off, because there is not a
ton of money yet, but it's hopefully coming.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Well, I think that the recycling program in the park system has been a really
positive program and, you know, I know the commodity market is not necessarily
behaving, but certainly I know there is an appreciation to being able to do the right thing
and people like doing that. So, thank you.
Mangerich: Madam Mayor, Council Members, our community truly does have a
willingness to recycle at our beautiful public parks and to date our date shows that we
have captured two and a half tons of aluminum cans and plastic bottles. That's a lot of
volume coming out of those parks to make that modest weight. So, we are just at the
beginning of this and we are very proud of the partnership that our parks and recreation
department has conducted with the Meridian community recycling fund and that they
have installed almost 40 stationary recycling containers at these three parks and they
are well attended, they service them, they do the operations and maintenance and
collection of them to get them to the large area where Rachele's trucks can come and
pick them up.
De Weerd: Yeah. So -- Mr. Zaremba.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 59 of 72
Zaremba: Madam Mayor. This is kind of a sideways comment, but I think it was last
November I had the opportunity to take a tour of Republic's recycling facility in Seattle
and that was an exciting tour. I enjoyed it very much. I understand and look forward to
Republic building afacility -- maybe not that big, but, anyhow, a facility here in Meridian.
The one thing I would add is it was physically challenging to take the tour. We had to
use all the catwalks that the employees use and I know it would be an extra investment,
but there really needs to be a viewing platform that's separate from the working area. It
would make -- I'm sure it will be very popular for tours, because this one was well
attended as well. But I look forward to that facility and your partnership in recycling is
wonderful.
De Weerd: Well, I was just out at the transfer station this weekend dumping a bunch of
drywall and it was just so much fun, you know, being able to throw that stuff where ever,
so I didn't have to stack it. So, thank you.
Klein: Mayor, just as an aside, I thought you guys might appreciate this. We give tours
out there to Boy Scout troops fairly regularly, because there is a unit on trash and
recycling and landfill, so they come out to the transfer station and we had two Meridian
drivers out there and one of the Boy Scouts asked on the tour if they thought their jobs
were patriotic. I thought that was an interesting question and I was just kind of chewing
on that and one of our drivers said absolutely and they said -- one of them said, you
know, long ago the city here, elected officials, decided to put in a system of waste
removal to keep the city clean and it's it our job to fulfill that wish and the next one said
being patriotic doesn't mean necessarily being a soldier, it means serving the
community beneath your officials and that's what we do every day and (thought --
De Weerd: Oh, wow.
Klein: -- you know, there were kind of interesting, heartwarming responses from our
drivers.
De Weerd: Thank you for sharing that.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just a couple comments. One, SWAC does a great job of coordinating and
vetting all of these things and Republic Service has continued the great community spirit
that they -- not necessarily inherited -- saw what SSC brought to the community and
they have just stepped right into those shoes and continued to do great things for us. A
question on the MOU. Has that been reviewed by legal?
Mangerich: Yes.
Rountree: Okay.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 60 of 72
Mangerich: Been drafted and reviewed by legal and SWAC members and brought
before our last SWAC meeting. So, we are just seeking your -- our recommendation for
you to approve.
Rountree: I would move that we approve the memorandum between the City of
Meridian and Republic Services and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the MOU. Madam Clerk, will you,
please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: And I would like to congratulate you on annual report and certainly to
Republic on our partnership. It's been impressive what SWAC has been able to do,
keeping an eye on our community partners, our accounting partners, and, you know,
really tracking some of the things that have a potential to impact us in a negative way,
but also doing so many positive things. So, thank you so much.
Klein: Thank you.
C. Community Development: Fairview Corridor Management
Strategy Update
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10-C is under Community Development and I will turn this to
Caleb or Brian.
Hood: Maybe I will just real quickly, Madam Mayor, one of the benefits of being the
division manager you get to delegate projects that maybe aren't the most popular to
other staff and Brian drew the short straw on this one. Actually, I inherited Fairview
Avenue from Matt Ellsworth back in 2008 and I worked on it for three years and, then,
ACHD talked about it for another year and, then, I asked Brian -- I asked him, I did not
tell him, but he volunteered somewhat to pick the project up with ACHD and their
consultant. So, he has a brief report he's going to give tonight. I do want to thank him
on the record for taking up Fairview. Also would ask the Council -- he's not feeling well
this evening, so if you would not scream into the microphones or direct any bright lights
at him. But I do appreciate Brian and he has a brief presentation, so -- thank you,
Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 61 of 72
De Weerd: I had the siren with the flashing lights that I was saving for this one. Sorry,
Brian.
McClure: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as Caleb kind of alluded to, I have a
brief informational update for you on the Fairview corridor management study as they
are calling it now, that used to be the Fairview access management plan. You should
all have an invitation to the joint meeting at ACHD that's occurring Thursday at 12:00
p.m. That is Boise city council, ACHD commission, and hopefully you. Before you do
go, though, I do have a few things I'd like to point out maybe for you to think about
before you go into that meeting. I wanted to touch briefly on the history. Caleb kind of
did a little bit. The short of that is that this project has been going on for a long time, it
always hit bumps. There has been some issues moving forward. Despite these delays
Council has historically been supportive of doing something. They haven't necessarily
said what, there was a preferred strategy in the past, but, you know, long term
addressing congestion, safety and connectivity and sort of benefits or consequences.
ACHD has agreed and they have kept on this despite the -- the hurdles and the delays.
Most recently they have got a new consultant on board, DKS. They -- my personal
opinion they have been doing a fantastic job coordinating all this. So, far they have --
they have just kind of taken a different approach to this. They have got a steering
committee now, which is kind of leading a lot of the charge and they also have a product
management team. The steering committee is made up of business owners and
stakeholders along Fairview corridor. That's in west Boise and Meridian. So, we do
have -- we had two Meridian business owners on Fairview that have been part of that
steering committee and, then, the project management team is made up of the
consultant staff -- ACHD staff and, then, staff in Boise and Meridian. Me. The steering
committee and project management team have not always agreed on everything.
There is this a few kind of large things that will probably come out of the woodworks
Thursday -- hopefully not too much, but by and large everyone has agreed that
something needs to be done. There are very long-term consequences of not doing
something and so that's just generally -- generally been the direction out of the whole
project is that we need to be doing something and that's kind of the duty that's planned.
This is a foot in the door, Councilmen, and I think it's probably the -- some of the
interesting things, just as kind of a preview for the discussion on Thursday is it's a
phased project and -- a phased study rather. Phase one occurs entirely in Boise in
terms of any construction improvements. This is because generally speaking that's the
area of the greatest need. There is no design yet, so while the strategy does identify
tools, it does not necessarily say what has to be done where. That's going to come out
in the design to a large degree, you know, taking site specific considerations into
account. That has to have additional public outreach and, then, it has to be approved
by ACHD commission before a design can be constructed and the third point here,
which is what I really find interesting is there has to be -- it has to be proven. So, after
they make construction improvements or time improvements or whatever the
improvements are, but they have to study those for a period of three years and they,
basically, have to prove that what they are doing is working. If it's not, then, they can
make adjustments to it. But that lends itself to being beneficial to Meridian because we
have basically learned from Boise and so we will -- not only will we have a better plan,
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 62 of 72
better design, but it allows us time in the interim to continue doing what we have been
doing in managing access and trying to reduce conflicts between now and then. Staff is
supportive of the plan and the implementation outlined in the plan and, then, the -- the
guidelines in there are very transparent and very consistent. With that I would stand for
any questions.
De Weerd: So, Brian, since there is some kind of a plan here, as new development
occurs somewhere like the Eagle corridor and some of the standards that were
developed with that as new development occurs, those developments are bringing
some of the anticipated improvement. Is that going to be part to this Fairview corridor
as well in lighting standards and sidewalks and whatever the treatment is being
suggested.
McClure: Madam Mayor, I will try to address this. If not, Caleb or, hopefully, Ryan can
correct me if I'm wrong. There is not a lighting component to this necessarily. There is
-- there is a safety issue and lighting is one of the things that needs to be addressed,
but it's not necessarily put street lights on Fairview as part of this plan, if that's what
you're asking. In terms of interim improvements with projects, those are supposed to
continue happening as they would normally occur. So, if something comes in and
ACHD feels it's not safe and they require a median or a reduction of curb cuts, then, that
would occur as normal per regular, you know, development standards. The plan really
addresses a corridor in terms of miles and so what do we need to do for this whole mile
-- for this mile or multiple miles to reduce conflict and reduce congestion and improve
safety. It's not site specific at least yet, but all the site specific ones will also occur with
the development in Meridian.
De Weerd: Okay. So, with this plan there isn't a vision for what it is, it's just reducing
conflict?
McClure: Madam Mayor, it's definitely a toolbox and so there is a lot of things identified
in there. Signal timing. Reflectors on -- on signals. Improved lighting at intersections.
Sidewalks. Pull outs. Backage roads. Frontage roads. Medians. I mean there is a
whole -- whole toolbox of items in that strategy. They are not necessarily all spelled out
there or where they occur in terms of specific sites. But that will happen with the
design.
De Weerd: You know, I can just equate to -- we were out on -- on Fairview somewhere
between -- oh, gosh, what is the name of that street? By Capital Christian. That street.
All the way down to Krispy Kreme -- yeah. Hickory. That sidewalk is so dark you don't
really want to walk on it. So, I guess when I asked about lighting it's -- are there any --
any lights anticipated other than just on intersections? That is a safety aspect.
McClure: I would not disagree with you, but there has been no design so far. Whether
or not ACHD or the city chooses to put those in I don't know, but certainly lighting and
safety is a consideration and those can be addressed in design.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 63 of 72
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd; Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: My question -- what did you -- you said how many business -- Meridian
business owners are -- have been part of this study?
McClure: There has been two -- Madam Mayor, Councilman -- sorry.
Milam: Milam.
McClure: Milam. There has been two on the steering committee and so they have
been part of the regular meetings. Michael Einstein's Oilery and I forget the other
name, but he's the owner of the restaurant over near Burger King north side of Fairview.
De Weerd: Ken --
Bird: Ken Marler?
McClure: They have also had considerable outreach, though, as well, so -- a
considerable outreach and they have had a lot of comments on that as well, including a
public meeting. So, while two were on the steering committee, there has been a lot of
business owners involved.
Milam: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: And just to back up, I think that ACHD was pretty aggressive in sending out
letters, fliers -- I mean they did everything they could to get business engagement and --
with very little results. When they start digging out there you will start getting
participation. Any other questions?
Hood: Madam Mayor, I think Ryan had -- wants to say something.
De Weerd: Oh. Yes, Ryan.
Head: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Ryan Head, ACHD, 3775 Adams Street, Garden
City. I just wanted to clarify a couple points and I can definitely speak to this as a
planner. There is a specific -- within the plan that -- as your staff indicated, there are
specific phases. However, within those phases there are specific strategies that are
being applied to that section. So, if you think of a phase, think of a section of Fairview
and one of those -- included in those in lighting strategies. I will just give you an
indication now -- we have been working somewhat with your staff that ACHD is looking
at a few grant sources to look at maybe a few pilot projects on how we could implement
lighting in a more comprehensive manner. There has been shown some safety
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 64 of 72
benefits, as you mentioned, for the motoring public, which is kind of the funding sources
we are looking at to more comprehensive lighting. So, that is something that we are
evaluating at this time, which is a recommendation out of this plan. So, I -- and I would
agree this has been a -- a great effort working with staff and also getting the businesses
involved. There has been a lot of effort to try and bring this very difficult project to a
conclusion as you know. Medians are -- which is one strategy that is evaluated in here
and is not the most popular subject. So, with that I would take any other questions you
might have.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Thank you, Ryan. Okay. Any other questions for Brian? This is in
preparation for our Thursday meeting, as I understand it, with Boise, ACHD
commission, and the City of Meridian. It isn't a public hearing per se, it's a stakeholder
discussion. Okay. Thank you, Brian. I hope you're feeling better. I tried not to speak
too loud.
D. Parks and Recreation: 2013 Kleiner Park Concession Update
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10-D is our Parks Department. I looked up and I saw, oh, I
waited until Steve left the room.
Moss: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So, I'm back again this
week to discuss our Kleiner Park concession stand and for the benefit of Councilman
Zaremba and Councilman Rountree, I will give just a really brief update of what we
discussed last week. So, in 2012 when Kleiner Park opened we -- we bid out the
concession stand and we -- we got a winning bidder who -- Mr. Grove is here in our
audience tonight and he will be the first one to admit that his bid was much too high at
that time. We had -- his bid was 30 percent of gross sales at the concession stand.
The only other bid that we received was two percent of gross sales. And so there is a
wide disparity and as Councilman Bird pointed out last time, there probably should have
been a process at that time to negotiate with -- with Mr. Grove to -- to just I guess close
the gap in the disparity with the bids and so that didn't happen. We went through the
first year, first year did not go very well. A big part of that, if you remember we did have
some issues with our splash pad at Kleiner Park. Certainly did not help the -- the
attendance at the park throughout that year. And, then, this last -- in the first year they
did not do very well. This last year, while the splash pad was open, it was, again, not a
great year for concession sales and so what we are proposing is to reach a settlement
with -- with our vendor for the 2013 season for the fees that you would pay, as opposed
-- instead of the fees that he currently owes us, as well as a different fee moving
forward. The proposal that we had brought last week was a proposal where he would
pay 20 percent of gross sales after the first hundred dollars per day and so we went
back to the -- we went back to the vendor and negotiated more of a flat fee, as opposed
to a percentage for this last year and next year and what we would like to propose --
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 65 of 72
what we would like to propose for this past year and the upcoming year is that the
vendor pays 825 dollars per season. That amount would cover the cost that it costs the
city to keep that building open, plus an extra couple hundred dollars. You know, this
past year was a year that they lost money and so, you know, as I said last time, really
any amount that he would have to pay us represents a loss on his part. We have got
high hopes for next year, he has high hopes for next year, and so what we would --
what we would like is to move forward with this settlement for 2013 and 2014 and, then,
2014 is his last season under contract after which point we would rebid the Kleiner Park
concessions opportunity out. So, that's a brief synopsis. I would stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Rountree: No. Sounds like a plan.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Well, Istill -- I still have a little bit of a difficult time with the numbers, the 800
and -- I mean I know it covers our expense, but that's based on last year's sales, which
weren't very good. That's eight percent. A little under eight percent or so. And that's --
and at Settlers Park they paid 12 percent and so I don't think it's fair to -- to the vendor
at Settlers Park that pay 12 percent, when Kleiner Park is only paying eight percent.
So, make me believe it, that it's fair.
Moss: Well, Madam Mayor, Councilman Milam, that's -- I got it right this time. That's a
fair point. You know, I guess the big difference is in the amount of sales. You know,
you won't hear the Settlers Park concessionaire complaining about their fee to us
anytime soon, because their sales over the summer were, you know, over four times
that of what it was at Kleiner this last year. And so it's big process and so, you know, I
really have -- I really doubt that -- you know, unless we go to a -- this is the fee to lease
out the building and we go to a request for qualifications process, as opposed to a
request for proposals, you know, I -- it would just be circumstance if the fees were
exactly the same between the two parks and so, you know, if -- if that's what you would
like to propose that we -- that we offer to our vender, then, I think that's, you know, a
reasonable -- a reasonable offer. But after talking with him over the course of the week
I think we felt that, you know, 825 was a fair number. You know, it kind of met in the
middle between what we had proposed last week and what you had proposed -- and
what you had proposed as 1,200 dollars. We kind of tried to meet in the middle a little
bit.
Milam: I definitely think that the sales will be better this year.
Moss: We hope so.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 66 of 72
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Colin, I appreciate it that you went back and negotiated a figure I'm comfortable
with. I think you have tried to cover the city's cost and we said at the last meeting we
want to do what we can to try and promote the pioneer first person to try and operate
this and we are learning as go. So, your solution is one that I'm comfortable with.
Moss: And I'd also -- the point that I made last week as well is that, you know, our -- the
vendor put in approximately 8,000 dollars just in infrastructure building out that
concession stand and, you know, just all the equipment that it takes to operation a
concessions building and so, you know, that amount of money was, you know,
obviously, out of pocket before anything started and, you know, with two losing seasons
thus far, you know, I guess my thought is that, you know, if -- even if sales do go really
really well this year, you know, I think we would -- we would be really happy for them to
-- to have one -- one season that does really well before we open it back up.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: The equipment that he put in there, does that stay with the building or is it
removable items?
Moss: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, it belongs to him and so if he were to not get
the bid in 2015 that would be his equipment to move out of the building.
Bird: Okay.
Moss: We bid it out as an empty building and the vendor, then, builds it out. There is --
there is nothing that he did to permanently alter the building to fit his -- to fit his
equipment. They have to bring in all their equipment to fit what we currently have.
Bird: And, Madam Mayor, follow up?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bird: And we furnish all the electricity and water and stuff. He pays no fee for that?
Moss: That's correct. That would be a part -- that would be a part of his fee that he
would pay us as a -- as a percentage of sales or in the future, you know, as we may just
go with a flat fee. It seems that may be easier.
De Weerd: Anything else from Council?
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 67 of 72
Bird: I have nothing, Mayor.
Rountree: I have nothing.
Milam: No.
De Weerd: Okay. Well --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Moss: At this point I don't know that we necessarily need a -- an action item. I was -- I
was coming to get Council's direction and if -- if it's agreeable to the Council what I will
do is prepare -- prepare a contract amendment with Mr. Grove's signature on it and I will
put it back on your Consent Agenda for next week.
Rountree: That sounds good to me.
Bird: Sounds okay to me.
Zaremba: Works for me.
De Weerd: Okay.
Moss: Okay? Thank you very much.
De Weerd: Thank you, Colin.
E. Finance Department: FY2014 Budget Amendment for FY2014
Grant Carryforward
De Weerd: Okay. 10-E is through our Finance Department. Seeing the last man
standing, I think Todd was it.
Lavoie: Short straw was drawn. Well, thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council. I'm here to answer any questions regarding this item. It's the 2014 grant
Carryforward and if you have questions I'm more than happy to answer for you, but I will
try to make it quick for you.
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Come on. Go ahead. Drill him.
Bird: Just another budget amendment from Finance.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 68 of 72
De Weerd: I know. We need to limit them on their budget amendments.
Bird: I know it. They are getting worse.
De Weerd: I actually signed it, though. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve the FY-2014 budget amendment for the grant carryforward.
Zaremba: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10-E. Madam Clerk, will you
call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Ordinances
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 14-1596: An Ordinance
Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12, Meridian City Code,
known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Schedule; to
Provide for an Amendment to the Police, Fire and Parks and
Recreation Impact Fee Schedules
De Weerd: Item 11-A is Ordinance 14-1596. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this
ordinance by title only.
Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor, I was going to suggest, since this is the impact
ordinance --
De Weerd: Oh, yes. Sorry.
Nary: --that we continue this matter to March 4th.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 69 of 72
Bird: I move we continue the proposed Ordinance 14-1596 to March 4th, 2014.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to March 14th. All those
in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Ordinance No. 14-1597: An Ordinance (AZ 13-005 -Paramount
Northeast) For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In The
NW'/a Of The Ne'/a Of Section 25, Township 3 North, Range 1
West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, And A Parcel Of
Land Located In The NW'/a Of The Ne'/a Of Section 25,
Township 4 North, Range 1 West; Establishing And
Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of Said
Lands From RUT To C-C (Community Business), TN-C
(Traditional Neighborhood Center) And R-8 (Medium Density
Residential District)
De Weerd: Item 11-B is Ordinance 14-1597. Madam Clerk, you can read this one by
title only.
Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1597, an
Ordinance AZ 13-005, Paramount Northeast, for annexation of a parcel of land located
in the northwest one quarter of the northeast one quarter, Section 25, Township 3
North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and a parcel of land located
in the northwest one quarter of the northeast one quarter of Section 25, Township 4
North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A
and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent
and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City
of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of said
lands from RUT to C-C, Community Business; TN-C, Traditional Neighborhood Center,
and R-8, Median Density Residential District, in the Meridian City Code, providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County
recorder, and Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a
summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing
an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. I don't see anyone who
wants to see it read in its entirety, so, Council, do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 70 of 72
Rountree: I move that we approve Ordinance 14-1597 with suspension of rules.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve this item. Madam Clerk, will you,
please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Future Meeting Topics
A. Hearing on an Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's
Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment Request
De Weerd: Item 12 is the need to place this item on an agenda and seeing that we did
push out the impact fee discussion to March 4th it seems that it would be appropriate to
consider the date that we need to place this on that date as well.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Seal did stay as well -- or Mr. Seal
did stay as well if you had any questions for him. We did discuss that in the hallway on
whether or not even on March 4th you're going to have any real direction on where you
want to go, but if you -- we, obviously, can't delay this one much longer. It does impact
them. I mean they are paying their fees and moving along. So, it really is your choice,
Council, on whether you want to set if for March 4th and see where you land on the
impact fee discussion and, then, set this for hearing or set for a date specific tonight,
knowing you're just going to have to address it regardless. But you can set it past the
4th so at least you will have that discussion. But it really is up to you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: A question for the Council. Do you -- on that impact fee are we going to -- are we
going to do all three readings, do you suppose, or are we going to do it in one or two? I
don't think we are going to have the whole three. I don't think.
Nary: You have to have all three.
Bird: We have to have all three?
Nary: Yes.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 71 of 72
Bird: Okay. So, if we have that it's going to be the 25th of March before we would be
able to -- well, I suppose we could do it on the 18th, but there is no guarantee.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Bird, remember this is
based on relief for the prior ordinance.
Bird: I understand that.
Nary: So, all you're really doing is -- I mean part of the reason you set this over was to
see where your direction you would end up with the ordinance going forward and
whether that would be relevant to your decision on whether to grant any relief on the
prior ordinance. So, you can certainly wait until an ordinance is passed, but, again, I
don't know even on March 4th if you're going to be ready for that decision. But, again,
you can choose that at that time, too.
Bird: I -- if we -- if we go to the 18th or 25th, Bill, are we running out of time for the
applicant?
Nary: Well, Mr. Seal, if you want him to address you. When we spoke -- I mean they
would like some finality.
Bird: Sure they would.
Nary: But Idon't -- I mean I don't -- they don't want to push that too much further, but
they are paying their fees and getting their permits. They are paying under protest. If
you grant relief they will be reimbursed whatever amount you grant them, so --
Bird: What do you think?
De Weerd: I think you certainly will have a better idea after March 4th.
Bird: And we don't want to do it on the 11th.
Rountree: I think we -- excuse me, Keith. Go ahead.
Bird: Go ahead, Charlie.
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I think we could -- I think we could schedule it for the 4th and
if we get bogged down we probably wouldn't handle it, but I think if we -- at least the
thought I have is if we establish -- not even how it breaks down, but the -- generally
accept what the fee is going to be for the next cycle of this, then, we can --
Bird: I agree.
Meridian City Council
February 4, 2014
Page 72 of 72
Rountree: -- make some decisions that may be pertinent and helpful to the applicant
and, then, deal with the splitting aspect of it later, beings that we are going to be
phasing out one ordinance and phasing in another.
Bird: Was that a motion?
Rountree: Well, I would say let's schedule it for the 4th and if it gets crazy we can move
it to the 11th, but --
Bird: I would second that.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to place this agenda item on the
March 4th agenda. I don't think I need a motion, but we will just do that.
Rountree: We can talk about that Friday.
Bird: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. So, unless there are any other items for consideration as future
agenda items, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Milam: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:59 P.M.
(AU~~EEflf~ N FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
/' ,_ ~
r
MAYO MMY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
~~.
~~
:'"
ATTEST: ~
+~ ( Cif~g of
J !~1 Anil I ~ ~. . ~ 1- i•
HOLMAN, CITY CLK ~~~ .w
~~ ~ w~
F
„~
:~,: art..