16-1119 Eligibility Report Ten Mile Urban Renewal DistrictCITY OF MERIDIAN
RESOLUTION NO. I �p
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER,
MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN ACCEPTING THAT CERTAIN REPORT ON ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
TEN MILE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT AS AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AND
JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATING THE AREA AS APPROPRIATE FOR AN
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT; DETERMINING THAT THE AREA IDENTIFIED IN
THE REPORT IS DETERIORATED OR DETERIORATING; DESIGNATING SUCH
AREA AS APPROPRIATE FOR AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT; AUTHORIZING
THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY TO PREPARE AN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR
THE AREA TO INCLUDE A REVENUE ALLOCATION PROVISION AS ALLOWED
BY LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) is an independent public
body, corporate and politic, an urban renewal agency created by and existing under the authority
of and pursuant to the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, being Idaho Code, Title 50, Chapter
20, as amended and supplemented ("Law");
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2002, the Meridian City Council adopted Ordinance No.
02-987 approving an urban renewal Revitalization Plan;
WHEREAS, based on inquiries and information presented, it has become apparent that
additional property within the City may be deteriorating or deteriorated and should be examined
as to whether such an area is eligible for urban renewal planning purposes;
WHEREAS, the City and MDC commenced certain discussions concerning examination
of the additional area as appropriate for an urban renewal project;
WHEREAS, during 2015, the City and MDC authorized the commencement of an
eligibility study and preparation of an eligibility report of an area located between I-84 and the
West Franklin Road east of Ten Mile Road;
WHEREAS, MDC has obtained an eligibility report (the "Report"), which examined an
area in Meridian, Idaho, in an area known as the Ten Mile Area for the purpose of determining
whether such area was a deteriorating area and deteriorated area as defined by Idaho Code
Sections 50-2018(9) and 50-2903(8);
WHEREAS, the Report dated November 2015, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, found the existence of one or more of the statutory criteria for the area to be
considered eligible for urban renewal activities;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-2008, an urban renewal project may not
be planned or initiated unless the local governing body has, by resolution, determined such area
to be a deteriorated area or deteriorating area, or combination thereof, and designated such area
as appropriate for an urban renewal project;
WHEREAS, Idaho Code Section 50-2906, also requires that in order to adopt an urban
renewal plan containing a revenue allocation financing provision, the local governing body must
make a finding or determination that the area included in such plan is a deteriorated area or
deteriorating area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council acknowledges acceptance and receipt of the Report.
Section 2. The City Council has determined that the Ten Mile Urban Renewal Area
identified in the Report is a deteriorated or deteriorating area and qualifies as an urban renewal
project and justification exists for designating the area as appropriate for an urban renewal
project.
Section 3. Having made such designation, the City Council hereby authorizes MDC
to proceed with the preparation of an Urban Renewal Plan for the area, which Plan may include a
revenue allocation provision as allowed by law.
Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
adoption and approval.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this q day of February,
2016.
2016.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of February,
APPROVED:
Mayor TaoKy de Weerd
ATTEST: OV'Teo At,
City
By. P -P -1DIA�.,�,
Jayce olman, City Clerk Ds,,,, o
�1 SEAL,
T ��rh,, rrse,�saeE°P��
EXHIBIT A – Report attachment
1 | P a g e
Ten Mile
Urban Renewal District
(Proposed)
Eligibility Report
Prepared for
The City of Meridian
and
The Meridian Development Corporation
November 2015
Kushlan | Associates
Boise, Idaho
2 | P a g e
Introduction: Kushlan | Associates was retained by the City of Meridian to assist
in their consideration of establishing a new urban renewal district in the City of
Meridian, Idaho.
Elected Officials serving the City of Meridian are:
Mayor: Tammy de Weerd
Council President: Charles Rountree
Council Vice President: Keith Bird
Council Members: Joe Borton
Luke Cavener
Genesis Milam
David Zaremba
City Staff
Community Development Director: Bruce Chatterton
Planning Division Manager: Caleb Hood
Economic Development Administrator: Brenda Sherwood
Idaho statutes, at Title 50-2006 states: “URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. (a) There is
hereby created in each municipality an independent public body corporate and poli tic to
be known as the "urban renewal agency" that was created by resolution as provided in
section 50-2005” to carry out the powers enumerated in the statutes.” The Meridian City
Council adopted Resolution 01-397 on July 24, 2001 bringing forth those powers within
the City of Meridian.
The Mayor, with the confirmation of the City Council, has appointed nine members to
the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, also doing business as the Meridian
Development Corporation (MDC). The MDC currently oversees the implementation of
one urban renewal district focused on the revitalization of downtown Meridian that was
established by the City Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 02-987 on December 3,
2002. The current membership of the Commission is as follows:
Chair: Jim Escobar
Vice Chairman Dan Basalone
Secretary David Winder
Commissioners Calvin Barrett
Keith Bird
Tammy de Weerd
Kit Fitzgerald
Eric Jensen
Callie Zamzow
Staff:
Urban Renewal Administrator: Ashley Squyres
Legal Counsel: Todd Lakey
3 | P a g e
Map of Existing Downtown Meridian Urban Renewal District
4 | P a g e
Background:
While Native Americans inhabited the area for centuries, the development of the
community of Meridian, as we know it today, evolved through the late nineteenth
century. European settlement started in the 1880s and was originally located on a farm
owned by the Onweiler family. A school was opened in 1885. The U.S. Postal Service
established a mail drop along the Oregon Short Line Railroad and the site was named
Hunter after its superintendent. Community activity grew around this mail stop focused
on the railroad. In 1893 an Odd Fellows lodge was organized and called itself Meridian,
acknowledging that it was located on the Boise Meridian the primary North-South survey
benchmark for Idaho. That name grew in primary use as the name of the settlement and
the Village of Meridian was incorporated in 1903 with a population of approximately
200.
The economy had traditionally been focused on the support of the surrounding
agricultural activities. A major creamery was established in the community in 1897 to
support the nearby dairies. Fruit orchards were located throughout the area.
Meridian was a significant stop on the Interurban electric railway from 1908 to 1928.
This service provided convenient access for passengers and freight in both easterly and
westerly directions.
Throughout most of the 20th century, Meridian remained a relatively quiet community
focused on its agricultural roots. US Census Bureau data, reflects a 1910 population of
619 people growing to 2,616 by 1970. However, starting in 1970 the pace of growth in
Southwest Idaho quickened and Meridian’s growth initially reflected, and then exceeded
the regional rates by significant margins. Over the past twenty-five years the rate of
growth has been startling by any reasonable standard. The following table reflects that
population growth over the city’s history.
1903 (Incorporation Estimate) 200
1910 619
1920 1,013
1930 1,004
1940 1,465
1950 2,081
1960 2,616
1970 6,658
1990 9,596
2000 34,919
2010 75,092
2014 (Estimate) 85,000
When income statistics are compared to statewide numbers, the population of Meridian
compares favorably with the rest of Idaho in these categories. The median household
income in Meridian is $63,571, approximately 37% above the statewide figure of
$46,767. Per capita money income for the Meridian population is $26,377 as compared
5 | P a g e
to the statewide number of $22,568. The percentage of the Meridian population below
poverty level is 8.4% as compared to the statewide number of 15.5%.
Investment Capacity: Cities across the nation actively participate in the economic
vitality of their communities through investment in infrastructure. Water and sewer
facilities as well as transportation, communication, electrical distribution and other
systems are all integral elements of an economically viable community. Idaho cities
have a significant challenge in responding to these demands along with the on-going
need to reinvest in their general physical plant to ensure it does not deteriorate to the
point of system failure. They face stringent statutory and constitutional limitations on
revenue generation and debt as well as near total dependence upon state legislative
action to provide funding options. These strictures severely constrain capital investment
strategies.
The tools made available to cities in Title 50, Chapters 20 and 29, the Urban Renewal
Law and Economic Development Act are some of the few that are available to assist
communities in their efforts to support economic vitality. New sources of State support
are unlikely to become available in the foreseeable future, thus the City of Meridian’s
interest in exploring the potential for establishing their second urban renewal district is
an appropriate public policy consideration.
The City of Meridian initially established its Urban Renewal Agency in 2001. As noted
above, its exclusive focus, limited by the boundaries of the district, is on the traditional
downtown area of Meridian.
Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan
The Idaho Transportation Department initiated planning for the development of a new
interchange with Interstate 84 at Ten Mile Road in the 1990s. Construction of the
interchange was completed in 2012. In support of the State’s investment and in
anticipation of the resultant development pressure from the opening of the new
interchange on the area immediately west of the Meridian City limits, the City initiated a
broad-based planning effort for the general area. The Plan that was produced was the
Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and was adopted by the City Council on June 19,
2007. The Plan remains in effect and is intended to guide development decisions within
the study area. A map of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan is provided below:
6 | P a g e
As indicated in the Plan map, substantial public infrastructure is called for in
implementing the development patterned envisioned. Thus far, development
opportunities considered for the area covered by the Plan have been insufficient in scale
to support the required public facility investment. This imbalance has thwarted the
orderly implementation of the planning undertaken by the City and the property owners.
This lack of progress has stimulated the current interest in exercising the powers granted
under State Law in the establishment of a second urban renewal district in Meridian.
Steps in Consideration of an Urban Renewal District:
The first step in consideration of establishing an urban renewal district in Idaho is to
define a potential area for analysis as to whether conditions exist within it to qualify for
redevelopment activities under the statute. In this report, the lands evaluated are called
the “Study Area”.
The next step in the process is to review the conditions within the Study Area to
determine whether the area is eligible for creating a district. The State Law governing
urban renewal sets out the following criteria, at least one of which must be found, for an
area to be considered eligible for urban renewal activities.
1. The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating
Structures; and Deterioration of Site; [50-2018(9); and 50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c);
and 52008(d)(4)(2)
2. Age or Obsolescence [50-2018(8) and 50-2903(8)(a)]
3. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout [50-2018(9) and
a. 50-2903(8)
4. Outmoded Street Patterns [50-2008(d)(4)(2)
5. Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and
Modern Traffic Requirements [50-2008(d)(4)(2)].
6. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness [50-
2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b)]
7. Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]
8. Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions [50-2018(9)] and [50-2903(8)(b)]
9. Diversity of Ownership [50-2018(9); [50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c)]; and [50-
a. 2008(d)(4)(2)]
10. Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency; [50-2018(9)
11. Defective or unusual condition of title; [50-2018(9)
12. Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality
a. [50-2018(9) and [50-2903(8)(b)
7 | P a g e
13. Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]
14. Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area [50-2903(8)(b)]; and
Economic Disuse [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]
If the Eligibility Report finds that one or more of the conditions noted above exist
within the Study Area, then the Urban Renewal Agency may adopt it and forward it
to the City Council for their consideration. If the City Council concurs with the
determination of the Urban Renewal Agency, they may direct that an Urban Renewal
Plan be developed for the area that addresses the issues raised in the Eligibility
Report.
The Urban Renewal Agency, then acts to prepare the Urban Renewal Plan for the
new District and determines whether to also recommend the establishment of a
Revenue Allocation Area to fund improvements called for in the Plan. Once the Plan
for the District and Revenue Allocation Area are completed, the Urban Renewal
Board of Commissioners forwards it, along with their recommendation, to the City
Council for their formal consideration.
The City Council must refer the proposed Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for a finding that the Plan, as presented, is consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission has 60 days to
complete their review. At the same time, other taxing entities levying property taxes
within the boundaries of the proposed Urban Renewal District are provided a thirty-
day opportunity to comment on the Plan to the City Council. While the taxing
entities are invited to comment on the Plan, their concurrence is not required for the
City Council to proceed with their consideration. In the case of the Ten Mile Study
Area, the effected taxing districts for those properties located within the city limits of
Meridian are:
The City of Meridian
The West Ada School District (School District No. 2)
Ada County
Emergency Medical District
Mosquito Abatement District
The Ada County Highway District
Meridian Library District
Meridian Cemetery District
Western Ada Recreation District
College of Western Idaho
For those properties located in unincorporated Ada County, the effected taxing
districts are:
The West Ada School District (Joint School District No. 2)
Ada County
Emergency Medical District
Mosquito Abatement District
The Ada County Highway District
8 | P a g e
Meridian Library District
Meridian Cemetery District
Western Ada Recreation District
College of Western Idaho
Meridian Fire District
Pest Extermination District
Once/If the Planning and Zoning Commission makes their finding of consistency and
the thirty-day comment period for the various taxing entities has passed, the City
Council is permitted to hold a public hearing and formally consider the Adoption of
the Plan creating the new Urban Renewal District and Revenue Allocation Area.
The City Council also must find that the taxable value within the district to be
created, plus the Base Assessed Value of any existing Urban Renewal / Revenue
Allocation areas do not exceed the statutory maximum of 10% of the citywide
assessed valuation.
If the City Council, in their discretion, chooses to proceed, they will officially adopt
the Urban Renewal Plan and Revenue Allocation Area and provide official
notification of that action to the County Assessor and Idaho State Tax Commission.
The Urban Renewal Agency then proceeds to implement the Plan.
Description of the Ten Mile Study Area:
The Study Area subject to the current review is located on the east side of Ten Mile Road,
north of the Interstate 84 right-of-way and south of Franklin Road. All properties
included are within the boundaries of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. The
Study Area consists of twenty (20), relatively large, tax parcels. To provide the Agency
and the City maximum flexibility in considering the ultimate extent of the District, the
Study Area has been divided into sub-districts, defined primarily by ownership, for
analysis. This will allow convenient decision-making by the Agency and City on which
properties to include in the formation of a District should that be their determination.
The Study Area has been divided into four Sub-districts designated as TM-1 through TM-
4 as noted in the following map and table. The size and value information presented in
Table 1 was derived from the Ada County Assessor’s on-line parcel information system.
The current taxable value of the Study Area is $4,482,400. However, a substantial
portion of that area maintains an agricultural property tax exemption. This is important
because State Law requires that when such properties transition from this exemption,
the resultant increase in taxable value accrues to the Base Assessed Value instead of the
Incremental Value. This requires estimating the impact of this transition. In reviewing
the values ascribed to the various parcels, values range from $.04 to $.08 per square foot
for agricultural exempt land. The consultant met with the staff of the Ada County
Assessor to determine the value they place on the subject parcels before the exemption is
applied. They indicated that a per square foot value of between $2.00 and $3.00 would
be consistent with values they place on similarly zoned properties within the immediate
area. They indicated that value, absent other information, is what should be used in
considering the non-exempt values. Therefore, the taxable values have been adjusted to
reflect this higher number as a basis for making the 10% calculation. Using the higher
value ($3.00) to be conservative, we calculate that the Base Assessed Value of the Ten
9 | P a g e
Mile URD moves from the $4,482,400 amount with the agricultural exemptions to
$39,539,125 with those exemptions removed. It should be noted that the mere inclusion
of a parcel within an urban renewal district does not have any effect on the agricultural
exemption. That status would change only upon a change of use away from agricultural
Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Study Area & Sub-Districts
Table 1
Sub-District
Ownership Parcel # Acreage 2015
Taxable AV
Est. 2015
Base AV w/o
ag.
Exemption
TM-1 SCS Brighton LLC
South Parcel
S1214314810 75.52 $265,600 $9,868,954
North Parcels
S1214223260 34.63 $2,494,200 $4,525,448
S1214212560 3.631 $138,500 $474,499
S1214212800 2.875 $4,600 $375,705
Sub-District TM-1 Total 116.656 $2,902,900 $15,244,606
TM-2 Treasure Valley
Investments LLC
S1214233665 111.572 $235,300 $14,580,229
S1214234020 4.211 $9,500 $550,293
S1214223567 2.131 $4,800 $278,479
Sub-District TM-2 Total 117.914 $249,600 $15,409,002
10 | P a g e
Note: These acreages are exclusive of adjacent public rights -of-way for Ten
Mile and Franklin Roads that should be included in the ultimate boundaries
of any district established. Publicly owned properties are assigned no value in
Idaho assessments, so including them makes no difference to the value
calculation, but will slightly increase the ultimate acreage. Only half of the
right-of way for Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road adjacent to TM-1
(northern portion) are included as only half of the right -of way has been
annexed into the City.
Description of the sub-districts:
Sub-District TM-1; As noted in the table above, Sub-District TM-1 consists of four tax
parcels. The largest parcel (75.25 acres) is located at the southern limits of the Sub-
district immediately adjacent to the freeway interchange. It remains primarily in
agricultural use. Of the total acreage, 4.0 acres has been designated by the Assessor as
the homesite and thus not subject to the agricultural exemption accruing to the balance
of the property. The homesite is assessed at $143,100. Associated with the homesite,
there was a residence constructed in 1969 with an assessed value of $14,100. However,
that residence has been removed from the property, but a large equipment shed remains
on the property and in use. The balance of the property (67.8 acres) carries a valuation
of $108,400. The relatively low taxable value of the majority of the land is a result of the
agricultural land property tax exemption available to owners of property dedicated to
agricultural uses under Idaho law.
TM-3 SCS Brighton LLC
S1214212580 6.557 $10,700 $856,869
S1214212820 5.443 $8,900 $711,291
S1214212740 1.286 0 0
S1214212720 0.686 0 0
SCS Brighton LLC Sub-
total
13.972 $19,600 $1,568,160
Kostka Calnon
Enterprises Limited
Partnership
S1214120710 2.201 $163,100 $287,1627
S1214121133 20.18 $32,600 $2,637,122
S1214212622 12.912 $21,000 $1,687,340
S1214121134 12.2 $47,700 $1,594,296
S1214121172 5.41 0 0
Sub-total Kostka Calnon 52.903 $264,400 $6,206,385
Bainbridge
S1214120631 0.972 $167,300 $127,021
S1214120331 2.104 $169,600 $274,951
Sub-total Bainbridge 3.076 $336,900 $401,972
Sub-District TM-3 Total 69.951 $620,900 $8,176,561
TM-4 Twelve Oakes LLC
R8580480010 1.438 $108,174 $108,174
R8580480020 7.987 $600,826 $600,826
Sub-District TM-4 Total 9.425 $709,000 $709,000
Consolidated 313.946 $4,482,400 $39,539,125
11 | P a g e
When the improvement value assigned to a parcel is less than the land value, a
deteriorated or deteriorating condition is present. National real estate appraisal
standards suggest that in an economically viable property, land value should contribute
approximately 30% of the total value leaving 70% to the improvements. As that ratio
shifts, with improvement value declining as a proportion of the total, a condition of
disinvestment is determined to be present. At a point when the improvement value
represents less than 50% of the total (i.e. improvement value is less than land value)
such condition represents a “deteriorating condition” for the purposes of this analysis.
A random survey of Ada County Assessor property records of parcels in the immediate
proximity of the proposed Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Study Area reflects these
ratios. Sample residential properties constructed within the past 20 years reflect a land
value of between 27% and 39% of the total values. Commercial properties, where
appraisals are determined on an income basis instead of cost or comparable properties,
reflected land values of between 20% and 29% of total value.
When the homesite in Subdistrict TM-1 is analyzed, an improvement value was found
that is less than 10% (9.85%) of the land value. However, the resi dence and various
outbuildings on the property have been removed, even though they are still recognized
on Ada County Assessor records.
The Ten Mile Road frontage has been improved to current urban standards but the
balance of the property has no public infrastructure to support the development pattern
envisioned in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan.
A short portion of the Ten Mile Drain extends from the east into the northern Brighton
properties, but is not part of that ownership and various maps show this small parcel
remains outside the incorporated area of the City of Meridian. Since this small parcel is
not in the city limits, it is included in TM-3, not TM-1. The drain physically continues in
a northwesterly direction cross the Brighton parcels, but it is not recognized as a
separate parcel in this area.
The parcels located within the northerly portion of the sub-district have recently been
platted for commercial development, but no investment has been made. Some
preliminary planning has been conducted on potential development consistent with the
Specific Area Plan, but no formal process implementing the Plan has been pursued.
One lot (S1214212800) containing 2.875 acres has no access to a public street.
While the parcels included in Sub-District TM-1 are under one ownership, they are not
all contiguous. The statute does not require contiguity in the establishment of a district,
however, the State Tax Commission maintains a policy that does. This contiguity can be
achieved by including the Ten Mile Road right-of-way that is adjacent to the intervening
parcel to establish one contiguous district boundary should the City determine to not
include the TM-2 Sub-District.
Sub-District TM-2: This Sub-District consists of three (3) parcels, all of which remain
in active agricultural use. One parcel contains 111.572 acres, one contains 4.211 acres
and one contains 2.131 acres for a total of 117.914 areas. As in TM-1, the properties
located in TM-2 have no infrastructure installed other than the improvements to Ten
12 | P a g e
Mile Road. No structures or other improvements are located within the boundaries of
Sub-District TM-2.
One lot (S1214223567) has no access to a public street. A dedicated but unimproved
right-of-way separates the larger parcel from the 4-acre lot. Questions exist with regard
to the sufficiency of the right-of-way, both in terms of width and alignment.
According to representatives of the property owner, a low spot exists at the extreme
southeast corner of the larger parcel allowing for the ponding of run -off from
neighboring properties.
The Kennedy Lateral extends in an east-west direction across most of the site.
These properties are annexed and a general concept for development of the sub -district
exists but no active progress has been made toward implementation.
Sub-District TM-3: Sub-District TM-3 contains eleven (11) parcels under three
ownerships. SCS Brighton LLC owns four parcels consisting of 6.065 acres located along
the westerly edge of the sub-district and adjacent to their holdings in TM-1. The lot
located south of the Ten Mile Drain has no access to a public street . One of the parcels is
the extension of the Ten Mile Drain and another is designated as “wasteland” by the
County Assessor, and thus carry no value.
Steven J. Bainbridge owns two residential parcels located at the easterly end of the sub -
district fronting on West Franklin Road and consisting of 3.076 acres. One parcel
(S1214120631) consists of 0.972 acres and carries a land value of $93,200 and
improvement value of $74,100 (80% 0f land value) thus suggesting disinvestment. The
other parcel (S1214120661) is 2.104 acres in size and has a land value of $117,700 and
improvement value of $51,900 (44% of land value) also suggesting a condition of
disinvestment.
The majority of the sub-district is held in the ownership of Kostka-Calnon Limited
Partnership. This ownership is made up of five (5) parcels containing 52.903 acres. The
Ten Mile drainage facility consisting of 5.41 acres traverses the Kostka-Calnon ownership
and is classified as “wasteland” by the Ada County Assessor and therefore has been
assigned no assessed value for taxation purposes. The total area of Sub-District TM-3,
including the three ownerships and the “waste” parcels is 69.951 acres.
The Kostka – Calnon parcels also remain in active agricultural usage, but 1.5 acres have
been designated as the homesite (S1214121134), with an assessed value of $20,000. The
residential improvement on the homesite includes a residence constructed in 1916 and
carries a valuation of $10,300 or 51.5% of the associated land value. The remaining
value on the homesite parcel ($17,400) and the values of the other two parcels ($53,600)
used for agricultural purposes are subject to the agricultural exemption. An additional
residential parcel (S1214120710) consists of 2.201 acres and has an assessed value of
$163,100 for both land and improvement values. In this case the improvement value is
assessed at 40% of the land value, suggesting disinvestment.
An open irrigation lateral runs through the properties.
13 | P a g e
The Brighton parcels remain fully in agricultural usage and no structures are present on
the properties. The Ten Mile drain separates the two Brighton parcels creating a land -
locked parcel.
One lot under Kostka – Calnon ownership (S1214121133) consisting of 20.18 acres is
situated south of the Ten Mile Drain and, like the Brighton parcel, has no access to a
public street.
No active development planning is evident on the properties located within the sub-
district.
The entire extent of Sub-District TM-3 remains in unincorporated Ada County. Should
the Agency and City conclude that the properties located within this area be included in
an urban renewal district, the parcels to be included would need to be either annexed
into the City of Meridian prior to the effective date of the creation of the district, or be
subject to an agreement between the City of Meridian and Ada County permitting the
unincorporated parcels to be included. The Brighton and Kostka / Calnon properties
have petitioned for annexation and that process is currently underway. The Bainbridge
properties are not part of the annexation petition.
Sub-District TM-4: Sub-District TM-4 consists of two tax parcels under the
ownership of Twelve Oakes LLC, according to the records of the Ada County Assessor.
The ownership is divided between a commercial tract located along the Franklin Road
frontage and the majority (7.987 acres) designated for mixed-use development. There
are no improvements or structures on the property.
As noted above, the property has received initial entitlements for development but no
schedule for installation of improvements has been established. The only public
infrastructure serving the site, at this time, is the fully improved frontage of Franklin
Road and an irrigation lateral located along the west property line. The north-south
portion of the irrigation lateral separating TM-4 from TM-3 has been piped as required
by City approvals.
Analysis of the Study Area:
A review of the Study Area reflects a pattern of delayed investment or an area in
transition. This is particularly notable given the area’s proximity to substantial public
investment in the Ten Mile interchange and street and utility improvements to both Ten
Mile Road and Franklin Road. The Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan provides a
clearly articulated vision for a high-density mixed-use development pattern in this area
that would capitalize on the access and utility investments already made by public
entities. To date, however, while some planning has been done consistent with the Plan,
little progress has been made to implement the vision. The Plan calls for substantial
investment in public infrastructure but the market to date has proven incap able of
supporting the capital costs. It appears as though meaningful progress may depend
upon some level of public intervention to support the desired private investment to bring
the Plan to reality. The individual sub-districts will be analyzed in the context of the
adopted Specific Area Plan, and then the Study Area as a whole will be looked at to
determine a final recommendation.
14 | P a g e
For the convenience of the reader, the statutory criteria are reiterated, at least one of
which must be found to qualify an area for urban renewal activities. Those conditions
are:
1. The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating
Structures; and Deterioration of Site; [50-2018(9); and 50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c);
and 52008(d)(4)(2)]
2. Age or Obsolescence [50-2018(8) and 50-2903(8)(a)]
3. Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout [50-2018(9) and
50-2903(8)]
4. Outmoded Street Patterns [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]
5. Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by Streets; and
Modern Traffic Requirements [50-2008(d)(4)(2)].
6. Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or Usefulness [50-
2018(9) and 50-2903(8)(b)]
7. Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]
8. Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions [50-2018(9)] and [50-2903(8)(b)]
9. Diversity of Ownership [50-2018(9)]; [50-2903(8)(b) and (8)(c)]; and [50-
2008(d)(4)(2)]
10. Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency; [50-2018(9)]
11. Defective or unusual condition of title; [50-2018(9)]
12. Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality
a. [50-2018(9) and [50-2903(8)(b)]
13. Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]
14. Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area [50-2903(8)(b)]; and
Economic Disuse [50-2008(d)(4)(2)]
Analysis: Sub-District TM-1
Criterion #1: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating
Structures; and Deterioration of Site: The structures associated with these properties
are located at the extreme south end of the Study Area and are adjacent to the recently
constructed interchange. As noted above, the house and other outbuildings on the
homesite have been removed, leaving only a large equipment shed on the property. That
structure is relatively new and is appropriate to support a continued agricultural use but
is inconsistent with the vision inherent in the Specific Area Plan. Since the majority of
the structures previously located on the property have been removed, no deteriorated or
deteriorating structures remain. Therefore, criterion #1 is not met.
15 | P a g e
Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: Again, as noted above the structures were built to
serve the historic agricultural use. While the remaining structure is not old, it is not of a
nature to support the high-density mixed-use envisioned in the Plan. Additionally a
significantly large and open drainage channel traverses the northerly parcels. This
remains a common method of providing drainage to agricultural lands, but is
inconsistent with high-density urban uses envisioned for the area. Therefore the
remaining equipment shed and the open drainage channel are obsolete in this context
and as such, criterion #2 is met.
Criterion #3: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: As noted above,
it is recommended to include the Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road rights -of- way within
the boundaries of the sub-district. As such, the improvements made to these facilities in
recent years appear adequate to serve the anticipated development. However, there are
no streets in place to serve the internal development of these relatively large parcels.
Implementation of the Specific Area Plan requires circulation throughout the planning
area and since no streets currently exist to serve the anticipated interior development,
criterion #3 is met.
Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: This criterion is addressed in the same
manner as the previous one and since there is no interior circulation pattern in place,
criterion #4 is met.
Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by
Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: While the Ten Mile Interchange and the
Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road improvements provide good access to the area for the
broader Meridian and regional community, the internal circulation system is non-
existent at this point in time. The Specific Area Plan calls-out specific locations for
access points into the sub-district so as to coordinate access into adjacent properties and
thus allowing future signalization enhancing traffic safety in the area. While curb
returns have been installed at specific locations, no means of providing streets
connecting to these access points is currently in place so criterion #5 is met.
Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or
Usefulness: The parcels in the sub-district are of a size and configuration appropriate for
the historic agricultural use for which they have been deployed for several decades.
However, as the City and region have developed around these properties, the large lots in
the sub-district are not properly configured to accommodate the development pattern
envisioned in the Specific Area Plan. A more fine -grained and high-density development
pattern is represented in the adopted Plan. Also, as noted above, one of the lots in the
northerly section of TM-1 has no access to a public right-of-way. Therefore criterion #6 is
met.
Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: While the topography of
the sub-district presents no difficulty for implementation of the Plan the lot layout as
noted above is inappropriate for the uses envisioned and one parcel is land-locked. Thus
criterion # 7 is met.
Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: Again, given the current agricultural
use “insanitary and unsafe conditions” are not present. However, when considering the
anticipated development pattern, the sub-area is completely devoid of public water
16 | P a g e
supply and distribution facilities. No provision for required fire flows nor any provision
of sanitary sewer or storm drainage facilities adequate to the demand has been made.
Therefore, criterion #8 is met.
Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership: There are four parcels included in Sub-District
TM-1. All of these parcels are under the ownership of a single entity. Therefore,
criterion # 9 is not met.
Criterion #10: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada County
Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #10 is not met
Criterion #11: Defective or unusual condition of title: The two smaller parcels in the
northern section of TM-1 appear to have been created by an informal “Lot split” and not
through formal subdivision. Therefore they do not represent a legal lot of record, but
merely a separate parcel for taxation purposes. While this is a legal process in the Sta te
of Idaho such tax parcels may not comply with zoning and other site requirements . This
can be viewed as an unusual condition of title. Therefore, criterion #11 is met.
Criterion #12: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality:
The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made
substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the
surrounding areas. The City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this ar ea in the
creation and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but without the
capacity to provide public infrastructure, the Study Area will remain an under -utilized
area in the midst of the fastest growing area in the State of Idaho. Criterion #12 is met.
Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is met.
Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is met.
Findings: Sub-District TM-1: Conditions exist within the sub-district to allow the
Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian City
Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed in
State Law.
Analysis: Sub-District TM-2
Criterion #1: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating
Structures; and Deterioration of Site: Sub-District TM-2 consists of approximately 118
acres of undeveloped farmland. The entire acreage is used for agricultural purposes with
no structures present on the properties. Therefore, criterion #1 is not met.
Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: Again, no structures are present on the property and
the only infrastructure serving the property is the recently improved Ten Mile Road
which meets current standards. The Kennedy Lateral serves the current agricultural
uses, but the open nature of the facility is not compatible with the development pattern
envisioned in the Specific Area Plan and thus can be considered obsolete. Therefore,
criterion #2 is met.
17 | P a g e
Criterion #3: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: The only street
serving this sub-district is Ten Mile Road which fronts the westerly edge of the sub-
district. An unimproved right-of-way exists in the Southwest corner of the Sub -district
This dedicated right-of-way extending into the property in a curvilinear fashion is viewed
by the property owner as inadequate both in terms of width and alignment to support
development plans for the property. No mechanism is in place to install required
infrastructure. Effective development of the 118 acres requires public street access to the
full extent of the property. Such street network does not exist at this time. Therefore,
criterion # 3 is met.
Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: This criterion is addressed in the same
manner as the previous one and since there is no interior circulation pattern in place,
criterion #4 is met.
Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by
Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: While the Ten Mile Interchange and the Ten
Mile Road and Franklin Road improvements provide good access to the area for the
broader Meridian and regional community, the internal circulation system is non-
existent at this point in time. The Specific Area Plan calls out specific locations for access
points into the sub-district so as to coordinate access into adjacent properties and thus
allowing future signalization enhancing traffic safety in the area. While curb returns have
been installed at specific locations, no means of providing streets connecting to these
access points is currently in place. The right-of–way extending into the property is
viewed as inadequate by the property owner. Therefore, criterion #5 is met.
Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or
Usefulness: The parcels in the sub-district are of a size and configuration appropriate for
the historic agricultural use for which they have been deployed for several decades.
However, as the City and region has developed around these properties, the large lots in
the sub-district are not properly configured to accommodate the development pattern
envisioned in the Specific Area Plan. A more fine -grained and high-density development
pattern is represented in the adopted Plan. One land-locked lot has no access to public
right-of-way. Therefore, criterion #6 is met.
Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: A low area at the
southeast corner of the largest parcel acts as an informal drainage basin, receiving run-
off from adjacent residential properties. The topography of the rest of the sub-district
presents no difficulty for implementation of the Specific Area Plan. The lot layout as
noted above is inappropriate for the uses envisioned. Again, one lot has no access to a
public street. Thus, criterion # 7 is met.
Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: Again, given the current agricultural use
“insanitary and unsafe conditions” are not present. However, when consid ering the
anticipated development pattern, the sub-district is completely devoid of public water
supply and distribution facilities. No provision for required fire flows nor any provision
of sanitary sewer or storm drainage facilities adequate to the demand has been made.
The open configuration of the Kennedy Lateral would create an unsafe condition under
the development pattern envisioned in the Specific Area Plan. Therefore, criterion #8 is
met.
18 | P a g e
Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership: There are three parcels included in Sub-District
TM-2. All of these parcels are under the ownership of a single entity. Therefore,
criterion # 9 is not met.
Criterion #10: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada County
Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #10 is not met.
Criterion #11: Defective or unusual condition of title: No defective or unusual conditions
of title exist. Therefore, criterion #11 is not met.
Criterion #12: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality:
The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made
substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the
surrounding areas. City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this area in the creation
and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but without the capacity to
provide public infrastructure, the Study Area will remain and under-utilized area in the
midst of the fastest growing areas in the State of Idaho. Criterion #12 is met.
Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is met.
Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is met.
Findings: Sub-District TM-2: Conditions exist within the sub-district to allow the
Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian
City Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as
prescribed in State Law.
Analysis: Sub-District TM-3
Criterion #1: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating
Structures; and Deterioration of Site: As with the other sub-districts previously
reviewed, the properties included within Sub-District TM-3 have been dedicated to
agricultural pursuits for many decades. Structures, both residences and outbuildings
were developed on the properties fronting on West Franklin Road to support that use.
The Ada County Assessor recognizes four residential structures and several outbuildings
in this sub-district, all of which reflect improvement values less than the values assigned
to the parcels on which they are located. These residences reflect values ranging from
28% to 80% of the land value. This situation suggests a deteriorating condition of the
improvements. While the condition of many of the structures remains serviceable for
their historic use, the higher intensity uses envisioned in the Specific Area Plan are
incompatible with the older buildings. Therefore, criterion #1 is met.
Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: The County Assessor recognizes four residential
structures in the sub-district two of which approach 100 years of age and one being 85
years old. The other dwelling was constructed in 1980. A variety of out buildings exist
on the properties. The age of the majority of the buildings suggests that the structures on
the properties are functionally obsolete. It is most likely that implementation of the
City’s plans for the area will require demolition or relocation of most of the structures
currently in place.
19 | P a g e
Another infrastructure element located in the sub-district is the Ten Mile Drainage
facility. It is an open ditch that traverses the sub-district actually separating the
southerly lot from those fronting on Franklin Road and thus creating a relatively large
parcel with no public access.
The ditch may be adequate for the current use of the property, but the higher density
uses envisioned in the planning documents render this facility obsolete in the more
urban context that has evolved around this property.
Finally, the property is served by an irrigation lateral (Vaughan Lateral) that runs along
the east boundary of the sub-district then traverses the area in an east-west
configuration before returning to the north boundary at Franklin Road. As long as the
properties remain in agricultural use the open facility f unctions adequately. However, as
the development on the properties intensifies, the open nature of the lateral will present
a potentially hazardous condition and therefore would be rendered obsolete. The lateral
has been piped along the easterly boundary of TM-3 suggesting that a similar treatment
of the east-west section will be required as a condition of development at some time in
the future. Therefore, criterion #2 is met.
Criterion #3: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: West Franklin
Road has been improved to full urban standards across the northerly frontage of this
sub-district. An unimproved private roadway provides the only access to the interior
part of the sub-district. To fully respond to the vision expressed in the Spe cific Area
Plan, a more robust system of public streets will be required. The southerly lot has no
access to a public street. Since those streets do not exist at this time, criterion #3 is met.
Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: This criterion is addressed in the same manner
as the previous one and since there is no interior circulation pattern in place, criterion
#4 is met.
Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by
Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: While the Ten Mile Interchange and the Ten
Mile Road and Franklin Road improvements provide good access to the area for the
broader Meridian and regional community, the internal circulation system is non-
existent at this point in time. The Plan called out specific locations for access points into
the sub-district so as to coordinate access into adjacent properties and thus allowing
future signalization enhancing traffic safety in the area. While curb returns have been
installed at specific locations, no means of providing streets connecting to these access
points is currently in place so criterion #5 is met.
Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or
Usefulness: The parcels in the sub-district are of a size and configuration appropriate for
the historic agricultural use for which they have been deployed for several decades.
Three parcels fronting West Franklin Road have been divided off from the original
property but even these lots range from approximately one acre to 2.2 acres making
them ill-suited for the type of development envisioned in the adopted plans. A more fine-
grained and high-density development pattern is represented in the adopted Plan. The
largest lot in TM-3 (20.13 acres) has no public access. Therefore, criterion #6 is met.
20 | P a g e
Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: While the topography of
the sub-district presents no difficulty for implementation of the Specific Area Plan the lot
layout as noted above is inappropriate for the uses envisioned. The largest lot has no
access to a public right-of-way. Thus, criterion # 7 is met.
Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: While public water and sewer facilities
are available to the site in the recently improved Franklin Road, City policy precludes
providing utility service to properties outside the city limits. Therefore the existing
residences located in Sub-District TM-3 do not currently have access to public water and
sewer service. This condition will be rectified if the current annexation petition
ultimately results in their inclusion within the city limits.
The property is served by an open irrigation channel (Vaughan Lateral). That portion of
the Lateral running along the east property line of Sub -District TM-3 has recently been
piped. The portion traversing the area in an east-west direction remains open and
unprotected creating a potentially hazardous condition as activities intensify in the area.
Criterion #8 is met.
Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership: The 62.485 acres included within Sub-District
TM-3 are held under three separate ownerships: (Brighton, Kostka / Calnon and
Bainbridge) with the majority (53 acres) being controlled by Kostka / Calnon. A large
number of small parcels with diverse ownerships make reinvestment difficult. However,
the properties located here are relatively large and one can expect three sophisticated
property owners to work together. Therefore, it is determined that criterion#9 is not
met.
Criterion #10: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada County
Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #10 is not met.
Criterion #11: Defective or unusual condition of title: The two smaller parcels at the
westerly end of TM-3 appear to have been created by an informal “Lot split” and not
through formal subdivision. Therefore they do not represent a legal lot of record, but
merely a separate parcel for taxation purposes. The larger 20 acre parcel appears to be
created in a similar manner. While this is a legal process in the State of Idaho such tax
parcels may not comply with zoning and other site requirements. This can be viewed as
an unusual condition of title. Therefore, criterion #11 is met.
Criterion #12: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality:
The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made
substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the
surrounding areas. City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this area in the creation
and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but without the capacity to
provide public infrastructure, the Study Area will remain and under-utilized area in the
midst of the fastest growing areas in the State of Idaho. Criterion #12 is met.
Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is met.
Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is met.
21 | P a g e
Findings: Sub-District TM-3: Conditions exist within the sub-district to allow the
Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian City
Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed in
State Law.
While the entire area of Sub-District TM-3 currently remains in unincorporated Ada County
a petition for annexation to the City of Meridian has been filed for the Brighton and Kostka /
Calnon properties. Should that annexation become effective prior to the creation of an
urban renewal district in this area, the inclusion of these parcels could occur without
hindrance.
The Bainbridge parcels were not included in the annexation petition. And while statute
allows for inclusion of unincorporated areas in an urban renewal district created by a city in
Idaho, that can only be accomplished by way of an intergovernmental agreement between
the city and the county permitting such inclusion. This option would create complexity and
potential delay, especially if any opposition surfaces. We are unaware of any interest of this
ownership to be included.
Analysis: Sub-District TM-4
Criterion #1: The Presence of a Substantial Number of Deteriorated or Deteriorating
Structures; and Deterioration of Site: The properties located within this sub-district
have no structures on them; therefore, criterion #1 is not met.
Criterion #2: Age or Obsolescence: Again, given the fact that no structures exist on the
properties, age and obsolescence are not an issue. The irrigation lateral, previously
existing in an open-ditch condition has been enclosed in a piped system. Therefore,
criterion #2 is not met.
Criterion #3: Predominance of Defective or Inadequate Street Layout: While the
property fronts on a street improved to full urban standards, no internal circulation is
currently in place. However, this sub-district is relatively small and current plans call for
the property to be served by private streets. Given that this development is planned in
isolation from the surrounding properties and the relatively small traffic demand
anticipated, the private streets should be adequate. Therefore, criterion #3 is not met.
Criterion #4: Outmoded Street Patterns: The analysis for this criterion is essentially the
same as for criterion #3 and thus, criterion #4 is not met.
Criterion #5: Need for Correlation of Area with Other Areas of a Municipality by
Streets; and Modern Traffic Requirements: Again, Sub-District TM-4 is relatively small
(9.425 acres) and the proposed development does not negatively impact development
potential around it. The Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan that covers this
property does not call for street extensions through this area. Therefore, criterion #5 is
not met.
Criterion #6: Faulty Lot Layout in Relation to Size, Adequacy, Accessibility or
Usefulness: The property within this sub-district has recently been divided to
accommodate a specific development scheme; therefore the lot layout is appropriate for
the anticipated uses. Criterion #6 is not met.
22 | P a g e
Criterion #7: Unsuitable Topography or Faulty Lot Layouts: As noted above, the lot
configuration is suitable for the proposed development having recently been divided and
the site is relatively flat allowing services to be extended. Therefore, criterion #7 is not
met.
Criterion #8: Insanitary or Unsafe Conditions: No insanitary conditions exist on the
site and public sewers will be extended throughout the property with the proposed
development. The Vaughan Lateral has been piped thereby eliminating that potentially
unsafe condition. Criterion #8 is not met.
Criterion #9: Diversity of Ownership: The entire sub-district is under one ownership;
therefore Criterion #9 is not met.
Criterion #10: Tax or Special Assessment Delinquency: According to Ada County
Assessor records, no delinquencies exist. Therefore, criterion #10 is not met
Criterion #11: Defective or unusual condition of title: No defective or unusual conditions
of title exist. Therefore, criterion #11 is not met.
Criterion #12: Substantially Impairs or Arrests the Sound Growth of a Municipality:
The State of Idaho, the City of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District have made
substantial investment in the transportation and utility facilities serving this and the
surrounding areas. City of Meridian has expressed its vision for this area in the creation
and adoption of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. The proposed
development is consistent with the Plan. The relatively small area and isolation from the
rest of the Specific Area Plan properties suggest no substantial impact on the
development of nearby areas or the community as a whole. The sub -district is separated
from the other in-city sub-districts by the unincorporated areas included in Sub-District
TM-3. Criterion #12 is not met.
Criterion #13: Conditions Which Retard Development of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #13 is not met.
Criterion #14: Results in Economic Underdevelopment of the Area: See discussion of
Criterion #12 above. Criterion #14 is not met.
Findings: Sub-District TM-4: Conditions do not exist within the sub-district to allow
the Board of Commissioners of the Meridian Development Corporation and the Meridian
City Council to determine that the area is eligible for urban renewal activities as prescribed
in State Law. Should the Agency and City Council want to bring urban renewal tools to
assist in the development of this sub-district, appending it to Sub-District TM-3 may be a
better option than a stand-alone, geographically isolated district.
Consolidated Sub-District Analysis: Having reviewed the existing conditions in the
four sub-districts separately, the Study Area as a whole will be evaluated. Conditions
exist in Sub-Districts TM-1, TM-2 and TM-3 that warrant a finding that these areas may
be included in an urban renewal district. Sub-District TM-4, in a stand-alone condition,
would prove difficult to justify. However, it could legitimately be included in a larger
district, associated with an area or areas where the conditions/findings were met.
23 | P a g e
A significant issue in determining what areas to include is the timing of potential
development. Recent amendments to the Urban Renewal Law and Economic
Development Act have limited the maximum life of a district to 20 years. The longer
development is delayed after creation of an urban renewal district, the fewer years of
incremental revenue are thus available to support required infrastructure investments.
Should the City Council direct the creation of an urban renewal plan in this area, one of
the required elements of that Plan is a financial feasibility analysis. In that analysis, one
will need to consider the cost of installation of public facilities against the anticipated
revenue produced by the private, taxable investment. This suggests that a district
wherein development in not foreseen in the very near future may prove financially
infeasible.
Another significant factor is the type of development anticipated in the area under
consideration. Of particular concern is the proportion of owner-occupied residential
properties. These uses enjoy a substantial property tax exemption prescribed by State
Law, thereby reducing the revenue yield needed to support infrastructure investment.
Such residential uses need properties carrying their full tax burden to supplement their
limited yields.
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the data and the conditions that exist within the Study Area as noted above,
the Meridian Development Corporation Board and Meridian City Council may determine
that Sub-Districts TM-1, TM-2 and TM-3 are eligible for the establishment of an urban
renewal district and could be combined into a single urban renewal district. Sub-District
TM-4 appears ineligible as a stand-alone district but could be included in a larger
district. A variety of configurations are available at the discretion of the City Council.
10% Analysis: In addition to the findings reported above, verification that the
assessed value of the proposed Study Area is within the statutory limits is needed. As
noted above, State Law limits the percentage of assessed value that can be included in
urban renewal / revenue allocation districts to 10% of the total valuation of the City.
According to Ada County Assessor records, the most recent total certified value for the
City of Meridian is $ 8,890,841,600. This number does not reflect exemptions.
Therefore taking a more conservative approach, the net taxable value for this calculation
is used. That number is $6,848,682,967. As shown in the analysis in Table 1 the current
taxable value of the entire Study Area after the agricultural exemptions are lifted is
estimated to be $39,539,125. This value then must be added to the Base Assessed Value
of the Downtown Meridian Urban Renewal District to test for the 10% limitation. The
Base Assessed Value of the Downtown District established at the time of its creation, is
$146,334,050. The analysis for these purposes in presented in Table 2, below. The
combined amounts are well below the statutory limit. Reducing the area to be included
in the new district would reduce the percentage.
24 | P a g e
Table 2
Statutory 10% Limitation Analysis
Area Taxable Value Percentage
Total City $6,848,682,967 100%
Downtown Meridian URA Base Value $146,334,050 2.14%
Proposed Ten Mile URA $39,539,125 0.58%
Total UR Base Assessed Value Percentage $185,873,175 2.714%
The effect of creating this district on the capacity of the City and MDC to consider future
districts should they choose to do so is also explored. The table below shows that even if
a new district similar to the Ten Mile URD were to be established, appro ximately 7.66%
of the citywide taxable value would remain uncommitted.
Remaining Urban Renewal Capacity
Maximum 10% Limitation $684,868,297 10%
Downtown Meridian URA $146,334,779 (2.14%)
Proposed Ten Mile URA $13,482,643 (0.58%)
Available AV within limitation $615,275,932 7.286%
25 | P a g e
Images: Sub-District #1
Images: Sub-District #2
Images: Sub-District #3
26 | P a g e
Images: Sub-District #4