The URL can be used to link to this page

2014-03-04I CITY COUNCIL REGULAR D A H 0 MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 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 by Jordan Mowery 3. Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian Church 4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 5. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of February 4, 2014 City Council Meeting B. Approve Minutes of February 11, 2014 City Council Workshop Meeting C. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting D. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting E. Approve Minutes of February 25, 2014 City Council Meeting F. Approval of Street Light Maintenance Agreement with Traditions by Amyx II for Zebulon Commons Subdivision G. Approval of Professional Services Agreement to JUB Engineers, Inc. for "Meridian Heights - Kentucky Ridge Program Management" for the Not -To - Exceed Amount of $89,000.00 Moved off of Consent to Item 7 H. Approval of purchase of a Pierce Arrow UC -06 Fire Engine from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $499,926.00, to sign the Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing and authorize the Purchasing Manager to issue and sign the purchase order. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, March 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. I. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night Sponsorship Agreement Between Westside Body Works and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $350.00 J. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Presenting Sponsorship Agreement Between Carrington College and the City of Meridian for a Not - to -Exceed Amount of $2,000.00 K. Temporary Construction Easement, Sundance Investments LLLP, Grantor L. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-002 Three Corners No. 2 by David Dean Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -Eight (28) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 15.24 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District M. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-004 Hacienda Subdivision No. 4 by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road, Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Four (44) Residential Lots and Ten (10) Common Lots on Approximately 10.11 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District N. Final Order for Approval: 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 6. Community Items/Presentations A. Transportation Commission: Annual Report Presentation 7. Items Moved From Consent Agenda — 5G Moved Here - Approved 8. Action Items A. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-039 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 4.69 Acres in an R-8 Zoning District Denied B. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-024 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst#105152708) to Change the Development Plan from a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, March 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. Retirement Community to a Townhome Community for the Proposed Falconers Place Subdivision Denied C. Continued from February 4, 2014: Consolidated Public Hearing on the Update to the Development Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Revisions to Impact Fee Ordinance Approved w/ Effective Date of May 1, 2014 D. Continued from February 4, 2014: 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 Second Reading Only E. Continued From February 25, 2014: To Review the Terms and Conditions of the Real Property Exchange between the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows and the City of Meridian at Storey Park F. Second and Third Reading of Ordinance No. 14-1599: Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain City Owned Real Property to the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc. Located at Storey Park in the City of Meridian Approved G. Public Hearing: TEC 14-001 Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership Located North of W. Chinden Boulevard and West of Spurwing Way Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat H. Hearing on an Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment Appeal Granted I. Public Hearing: TEC 14-002 Centrepointe North by Jonathan Seel Located West Side of N. Eagle Road, Approximately a 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat Approved J. FP 14-007 Spurwing Orchard No. 3 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty -Three (63) Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District Continued to March 18, 2014 9. Department Reports Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, March 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. A. Community Development Report Budget Amendment for City -Wide Economic Development Audit for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $45,000.00 Approved 10. Future Meeting Topics None 11. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(c)(f): (c) To Conduct Deliberations Concerning Labor Negotiations or to Acquire an Interest in Real Property, Which is Not Owned by a Public Agency, and (f) To Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation Into Executive Session at 8:59 p.m. Out of Executive Session at 10:23 p.m. Amended onto the Agenda: Purchase/Sale Agreement and Contract for Subject Property - Approved Adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, March 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. Changes to Agenda: ® Item #8J — Spurwing Orchard Subdivision No. 3: The applicant has requested continuance to March 18th. Item #8A & B: Falconers Place (PP -13.039; MDA -13.024 and ALT -13-025) Application(s): Preliminary plat, development agreement modification and alternative compliance Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.69 acres of land, zoned R-8, and is located at the southeast corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road. History: In 2005, the property received the annexation, preliminary plat and conditional use permit approval to construct and operate an assisted living facility comprised of 5 individual facilities on the property. The property is governed by a development agreement which restricts the use of the property to the assisted living facility. In 2008, the same development was approved however; the developer at the time failed to submit a time extension application or record the plat and establish the use on the site within the time limits of the UDC. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: The surrounding area is primarily developed as single family residential; zoned RUT, R-4 and R-8. Summary of Request: The applicant has applied PP, MDA and ALT to develop a single family development consisting of one existing single family residence and 36 townhomes in the R-8 zoning district. The R-8 zone was established on the property to develop an assisted living facility. The previous developer requested a step-up in the density/zoning as allowed in the comprehensive plan. For purposes of this application, the comprehensive plan becomes the advisory tool for determining the future land use and the underlying zoning regulates the use and the density in which the property may be developed. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 2 buildable lots that consists of 1 existing single-family detached home (Lot 1, Block 1) and thirty-six (36) proposed townhomes (Lot 2, Block 1) on 4.69 acres of land. Gross density proposed for this project is 7.87 dwelling units to the acre. Although the density is greater than the anticipated density of the comprehensive plan, the use and density proposed with the development is allowed in the R-8 zone and consistent with the step-up in density allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. All of the proposed lots comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. Access to this development will be provided from E. Falcon Drive. The existing single family residence will continue to take access from this roadway. The townhome portion of the development will take access from the extension of S. Falconers Place through a blanket reciprocal ingress/egress easement. The applicant has requested alternative compliance to deviate from the 20'X 20' parking pad requirement in front of the townhomes. In lieu of the parking pads, the applicant is proposing three (3) overflow parking stalls at the end of the each townhome driveway which increases the amount of useable open space within the development. To address staffs concerns with the parking ratio in the SEC, the applicant has provided a revised plan increasing parking as recommended by staff. The UDC does not require compliance with the common open space and site amenity standards. The only required landscaping is a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to S. Eagle Road. 2.74 acres of open space and 2 amenities (a sitting area with a decorative trellis and a plaza area) are being provided for the townhome portion of the development. The submitted elevations depict three color schemes and a mix of building materials (lap siding and cedar shake siding), decorative window and door trim, decorative corbels, belly bands, covered entries, and stone wainscot consistent with the surrounding developments. Through the CZC and DES process, staff will ensure the compliance f with the building materials, colors and design features proposed with the submitted elevations. Commission Recommendation: Denial at the January 16th meeting. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: L In favor: Laren bailey and David Alexander ii. In opposition: Teresa Turner, Tammy Cook and Lindell Timothy iii. Commenting: Bob Aldridge, Rex Cook, Harold Krasinski, Holly Thomas -Mowery and Jonathan Mowery — all in opposition iv. Written testimony: Ronal Mowery, Brady and Teresa Turner and Rick and Michelle Stott — all in opposition Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The R-8 was allowed specifically for the assisted living facility; and ii. Approving the proposed development when the recorded development agreement restricts the use to the assisted living facility. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Commission recommended denial of the application due to the restriction of the use on the property and felt the R-8 zone was granted for the sole purpose of developing the property with an assisted living facility. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony Since the Commission Hearing: Laren Bailey, applicant's representative, submitted a letter from their Traffic Engineer comparing the traffic impact between an assisted living facility and the proposed townhome development. Notes: f Item #8G: Olivetree at Spurwing (TEC -14.001) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary plat time extension Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 20.51 acres, is currently zoned R-4 & R-8, and is located north of W. Chinden Blvd, west of N. Spurwing Way. Summary of Request: The subject preliminary plat consists of 65 single-family building lots & 6 common lots on 20.51 acres of land. Eighteen percent of the site is proposed to develop as open space. The applicant requests a two (2) year time extension on the preliminary plat for the Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat. This is the 4th time extension requested by the applicant for this subdivision. The applicant cites current market conditions as the reason for inability to complete the processing of the plat at this time. Written Testimony: Becky McKay (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions • Comply w/current street light standards • Revise development plans to comply with the 2013 edition of the Supplemental Specifications & Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction. Notes: Item #81: Centrepointe North (TEC -14.002) Application(s): Preliminary plat time extension Location: The subject property is located on the west side of N. Eagle Road, approximately % mile north of E. Ustick Road. Summary of Request: This is the fourth time extension requested by the applicant. The applicant is requesting the extension based on the amount of retail development taking place at the Village at Meridian. The applicant does not foresee see this as a permanent issue however it is their opinion the development will continue to see muted growth until the market absorbs the available retail space. During the previous time extension reviews, staff has conditioned the applicant to comply with all newly adopted City ordinances and the applicant has concurred with these requirements. Since the previous time extension approvals the City has not adopted any new standards that would impact the commercial development, therefore staff is not recommending any no conditions of approval for the subject property. However, the applicant is required to comply with all previous conditions of approval for this site. Written Testimony: Jonathan Seel (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Item #8J: Spurwing Orchard No. 3 (FP -14.007) Application(s): ➢ Final plat Location: The site is located on the north side of W. Chinden Boulevard, west of N. Ten Mile Road in southeast'/4 of Section 22, Township 4 North, Range 1 West. Summary of Request: The proposed final plat depicts sixty-three (63) single-family residential building lots and four (4) common/other lots on 25.85 acres of land. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 2.43 dwelling units per acre. All of the lots comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4 zoning district. The proposed open space consists of the Chinden Boulevard street buffer, 8 -foot wide parkways adjacent to the local streets and two (2) passive open space lots. Overall open space totals 4.57 acres which is approximately 19.2%. The number of lots and the proposed open space is consistent with the approved preliminary plat, thus staff recommends approval. Written Testimony: Mike Wardle submitted written testimony and would like the Council to modify condition of approval as follows: Consditon#4: change the language from dedicate to preserve. Staff is amenable to this request. Condition #6a. The applicant is requesting the removal of this condition. The requirement for the landscaping adjacent to Chinden Boulevard is required by City code. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 4, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba Joe Borton, Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener. Others Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Tom Barry, Kyle Radek, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, Rita Cunningham, Todd Lavoie, Jamie Leslie, Perry Palmer, Steve Siddoway, 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: I would like to welcome all of you for -- to our City Council meeting tonight and thank you for joining us. For the record it is Tuesday, March 4th. It's a little bit after 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Jordan Mowery De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we will be led by Jordan Mowery and if Jordan would like to come forward he will lead us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) De Weerd: Jordan, I would like to offer you a City of Meridian pin. That's for joining us. Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard of Ten Mile Christian Church De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Larry Woodard. He's with Ten Mile Christian Church, formerly Cherry Lane Christian Church. I keep referring it to Cherry Lane, so I thought I had to bring that up, Larry. Woodard: Yes. I know. De Weerd: Please join us in the invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 2 of 64 Woodard: You know, it's always a pleasure to come and pray before your weekly meetings, but I'm also reminded that there is a Supreme Court case pending that might kill the idea of prayer before City Council meetings. But I have to believe that the prayers over the years have helped our city and you folks as we move forward. So -- De Weerd: You know, Larry, we will just call them moments of reflection. Woodard: Okay. Let's pray. Our dear Heavenly Father, we come to you this spring evening thanking you for the moisture this winter that will allow our farmers and water users to irrigate as usual. We thank you for this Council who oversees a growing community in the middle of a historic farming area. I ask that you bless each of the Council members and our Mayor. May their decisions continue to have the best interest in our city in mind. Another major road project is beginning over 1-84 and I ask for safety for the drivers and those working on the new Meridian exit. I pray for health for each Council Member and the Mayor. They put in long hours and their decisions affect this entire community for years to come. With the increase in drug use in our community I pray for families trying to raise their children today. Be with the teachers, the counselors, the youth ministers and police who try to stem this problem for our youth. One particular group of young people in Meridian that I pray for are the 200 homeless kids. It's hard to believe that that many kids do not have a place to live and sleep in cars at night. Collectively I pray that this community can figure out a way to help this group in the next year or two. We have a fine group of people who work for the city, planners, police, firemen, City Hall, legal staff, EMTs and I know I have missed some, but I ask your blessing on them and their families. Lastly tonight I pray for our nation and its leaders. We have lived through an era where the U.S. was respected and our nation was blessed. I pray that strong leadership once again can be exhibited and our faith in you would be an important first step, in Jesus' name, amen. De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Woodard: You bet. Thank you. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: 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 corrections. Item 5-G has been requested to be moved to Item 7 and Item 8-J, the applicant has requested a continuance of that item and with those changes I ask for a second to the motion. Bird: Second. r Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 3 of 64 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as changed. All those `t in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of February 4, 2014 City Council Meeting B. Approve Minutes of February 11, 2014 City Council Workshop Meeting C. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting D. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting E. Approve Minutes of February 25, 2014 City Council Meeting F. Approval of Street Light Maintenance Agreement with Traditions by Amyx II for Zebulon Commons Subdivision H. Approval of purchase of a Pierce Arrow UC -06 Fire Engine from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $499,926.00, to sign the Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing and authorize the Purchasing Manager to issue and sign the purchase order. I. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night Sponsorship Agreement Between Westside Body Works and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $350.00 J. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Presenting Sponsorship Agreement Between Carrington College and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $2,000.00 K. Temporary Construction Easement, Sundance Investments LLLP, Grantor L. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-002 Three Corners No. 2 by David Dean Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -Eight (28) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 15.24 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 4 of 64 M. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-004 Hacienda Subdivision No. 4 by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road, Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Four (44) Residential Lots and Ten (10) Common Lots on Approximately 10.11 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District N. Final Order for Approval: 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 De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda as published with the changes approved previously. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as changed. 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 6: Community Items/Presentations A. Transportation Commission: Annual Report Presentation De Weerd: Item 6 is our Transportation Commission annual report. Our chair Ryan Lancaster is here. We appreciate you joining us tonight, Ryan, and certainly we thank you and the committee for your service to our community. Lancaster: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. So, a year ago it was my pleasure to be here and give the last Traffic Safety Commission annual report and this year it's my pleasure to be here and give you the first annual Transportation Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 5 of 64 Commission report. So, it's been a big year for the Transportation Commission, because its been the only year that the Transportation Commission existed. So, you know -- so, last February the Traffic Safety Commission and the Transportation Task Force were both dissolved and by ordinance of this Council this Transportation Commission was formed. So, it wasn't until June of last year that we were able to finally have a commission and meet and so I will try to make my -- my annual report commensurate with the amount of work that we did. Here is just a reminder of who the commissioners are, as well as -- we have nine commissioners, as well as six ex -officio members of the commission representing various transportation agencies in the valley, as well as Councilman Zaremba and we regularly have the participation of two staff members from planning and from legal, as well as we have staff support from various city departments, including police, planning -- in addition to Caleb that is. Parks and probably some others. So, we appreciate their -- their assistance and their involvement. So, the ordinance is written so the membership is made up of citizens, business interests, and technical experts. While we don't necessarily have, you know, names or seats assigned to those -- those positions, our commission is made up of that -- that base. I thought right now would be the appropriate time .to mention as well that in addition to their -- their membership on our commission, two of the commissioners are also participating in a project team with Valley Regional Transit, along with Councilman Zaremba and Caleb Hood from planning. Their involvement, you know, extends past just our commission. Because this was our first year a lot of -- of what the commission did was sort of introductory and building the commission, if you will. So, we selected our officers, adopted bylaws, so our commission has bylaws. Some regular topics that -- that were on our agenda was a monthly project update from the city staff. We were provided with updates from -- on ongoing construction projects, as well as planned projects, the biggest one being Meridian split corridor phase two. You might have heard of that before. I anticipate in the future, you know, a big project that we will be receiving updates on is Meridian interchange and the mainline construction on 1-84, which did bid today, by the way. I was there, so -- we also were given monthly updates on staff communications or communications that either came through the Mayor's office or to planning or somehow came through the city that was handled on a staff level, so we were provided updates on that. Sometimes we gave input, sometimes it was just for your information. We had presentations from each of the -- the agencies or -- yeah, from the agency that make up our ex -officio members, if you will. So, from Valley Regional Transit, Ada County Highway District, COMPASS, the Idaho Transportation Department District Three, which covers this part of the state, as well as the school district. So, we -- we can better understand the needs and the desires and work that these various agencies do, what they do for our city, what we can do to help them and whatnot. So, the commission was involved with -- well, this combined commission -- we cover both planning, as well as safety issues are sort of the pinpoint issues, more planning issues. We were involved with the Ada County Highway District's five year work plan. We had some input and communication on VRT bus routes, COMPASS's regional long range transportation plan. We had discussions about transportation alternative programs here in the city, as well as new signs that ACHD put up, their way finding signs around the city and this is more of the -- the pinpointed issues in the city. We discussed all of these to some extent. Some of these came before you in one form Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 6 of 64 or another. I understand that at least one occasion we increased your City Council meeting membership -- or attendance by just a little bit. You're welcome. But we talked about golf carts on public streets. Speed and safety. Potential concerns on State Highway 55 or Eagle Road. Pedestrian safety on the -- near the Scentsy -- the new Scentsy complex. Neighborhood cut -through traffic always seems to be a recurring theme at various points in the city. Raised medians seemed to be a hot topic for a couple of months and the Ada County Highway District brought to us their ideas of -- of -- of their crosswalks on Main Street and the removal of one of them, which has since happened, so -- you know, these -- these topics come to us from city staff. A couple of these came from police and some come from citizen concerns. You know, they come to us through a vary -- a variety of -- of sources. And that's -- the concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about any of that. It's a pleasure for our -- our commission to serve as commissioners. We do have a large group. We have nine commissioners and seven ex -officio members and staff, so we pretty well fill all this area up quite well and we even have to bring in a chair at times, so -- but it's a pleasure to serve our city. You know, we -- we have the good fortune of being able to make nonpolitical recommendations to you. We don't have to worry about getting reelected, so, you know, we can be a little bit removed from that and, like I say, it's a pleasure to serve, so -- De Weerd: Thank you, Ryan. Council, do you have any questions? r Bird: Thank you for your service. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: It's not a question, but I just wanted to agree and reconfirm that this is a group that is very well qualified and very thoughtful and they have some very good discussions and I will look forward to their developing even more as they -- as we go along. It's a good start and thank you for your leadership of it. Lancaster: Thank you. De Weerd: And I would, too, like to add our thanks for your leadership, both on the Safety -- Transportation Safety Commission, as well as this newly formed commission. We appreciate that you were able to seamlessly merge the two together, giving a venue for our citizens to be heard for the issues they feel are extremely important in their neighborhoods, as well as looking and giving a citizen perspective on our long term transportation challenges as well. So, thank you, Ryan. And thank you, too. I was going to call you your brother's name again, David, but we appreciate you being here tonight as well. So, thank you. Lancaster: Thank you. r Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 7 of 64 d Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda G. Approval of Professional Services Agreement to JUB Engineers, Inc. for "Meridian Heights - Kentucky Ridge Program Management" for the Not -To -Exceed Amount of $89,000.00 De Weerd: Okay. So, we did move an item from the Consent Agenda. Item G. So, we will go ahead and hear that item at this point. Barry: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue tonight. What we have before you is a task order for your consideration and approval. It involves moving some professional services funds and allocating those funds to a task order to be issued by the city to JUB Engineers to cover the program management components of the transition period in bringing about services to the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District patrons who, as you already know, are residents now of the City of Meridian. I wanted to give you a little perspective and background on this. You recall that the last several months leading up to the agreement that we developed -- as we contemplated the three -party agreement, which laid out a course and obligated the three parties of that agreement to that course to meet certain milestones, we had contemplated at that point in time a number of transitionary activities that would need to be undertaken in order to allow for this transition to occur smoothly and timely. Once the district fulfills its obligation in taking to a vote of their residents, their patrons, the dissolution question, which as you all know, was -- was favorable for dissolution. We, then, began working very diligently to get to the very details of transitioning this particular area for the services that it's going to be receiving by the City of Meridian. That list of about 40 tasks that we identified initially in the three -party agreement that was negotiated back in the early fall has now grown and I wanted to share with you what the work breakdown structure currently looks like and give you some background as for need for this particular program management piece. Since about November time we have been meeting with staff from multiple departments inside the city, as well as the property owner -- the dominant property owner who is a party of the three -party agreement and the district representative and we have developed a list now of things that need to occur in order to facilitate the transition of the Meridian Heights -- De Weerd: You're such an engineer. I mean -- Barry: It is my point, actually. So, what you will notice is this list of -- Zaremba: Small type. Barry: It is very small type and I'm happy to pass it around. But the point to this is to show you that the items we originally contemplated, which were big items, 40 major items, have grown to 400 now and we do not have the staff resources to actually carry out this kind of work that is going to be needed over the ten to 12 month period, which Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 8 of 64 has facilitated our need to come before you this evening and ask for assistance. That assistance, as I mentioned, is in the form of a task order which we would like to execute with JUB Engineering to designate a professional project manager to continue to refine this list and to allow us to move forward in the execution or implementation of this particular project to fulfill the obligations we have in the three -party agreement and, in addition, to make sure that we have a smooth transition. So, JUB Engineers is on the city's roster list and we have interviewed them and brought them in to talk about this particular project. They have on their own accord attended one or two meetings now and have expressed interest in the position. They are certainly qualified for the work. The contract itself would be for a not to exceed amount of 90,000 dollars. That includes 1,000 dollars for contingency and most of this amount, about 80,000, is for program management, about 3,000 is for project administration and the remainder of close to 6,000 dollars is to help us develop a public outreach and education campaign. We were currently anticipating the hiring of a communications manager for the city and as that position gets filled it is our expectation that we would turn that communications plan over to the communications manager and, thus, we are not asking for significant funds on the project -- or, excuse me, the communications management piece. So, the consulting money that we have already identified in the Public Works budget is -- about 20,000 dollars of this funding would come from the wastewater consulting professional services account and 70,000 would come from the water professional services account. This does not require a budget amendment, which is why originally it was placed on the Consent Agenda for your consideration. Although we do understand and it does make sense for us to have the dialogue about this particular request since this particular issue has gotten a lot of attention over the last six or so months. So, in any event, I will stop there and pause for any questions that you might have and, then, ask for your favorable consideration of the proposal. De Weerd: Tom, I think you need to read into the record all the tasks on that list. Barry: We will be here a long time, but -- and maybe I can pass it around or give it to the clerk to enter if that's all right. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Tom, thanks for the -- for the background. One of the reasons that I thought it made sense was not only to just identify that -- the diligence you have uncovered 40 has become 400 different tasks to insure that this is done properly, but also to get a sense that the expenditure, while not a budget amendment, it's expending funds that were originally allocated into a line item that now is depleted to an extent that you can't spend those monies on other professional services. So, is there any anticipated Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 9 of 64 expense that you had originally budgeted that you're now not going to be able to do because it's being spent here? Barry: Councilman Borton, it's a great question and it's a little bit complex, but I can say at the moment no. So -- let me qualify that a little bit if you don't mind. So, 20,000 dollars of the professional services money comes from the wastewater professional services fund in, actually, just depleting that fund. We usually budget with some contingency or undesignated funds for these types of projects. As you know, Public Works is a very complex and dynamic operation and we constantly get challenged by various programs and projects and services and those type of things throughout the year. So, in our budgeting process we budget some undesignated professional consulting services money in our project budget to allow for this exact type of thing. So, although a budget amendment isn't needed, we are going to be pulling from those undesignated consulting funds to allow for this type of activity to occur. Now, this happens all the time in Public Works. The reason this one is unique is because the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer project is a big one and it is one that has consumed a lot of our time and has been one that's been fairly complex. So, to keep us all in the know,, it does make sense for us to have this conversation. But, essentially, at this point there is nothing in wastewater professional consulting services that will be -- we will have to avoid or not do. On the water side, which is 70,000 of the dollars that we are going to be utilizing for this, if you may recall that a large portion of this particular project involved water services. It involved putting in meter pits and setters, meters, abandoning some wells and doing a lot of water work, which is why most of those funds are coming from water. So, it's completely reasonable that those professional services funds, which are designated for these types of un -- unplanned, if you will -- and, again, I will remind you that this budget was set, essentially, back to July of last year, far before we had a three -party agreement and far before we had the district election and far before we knew that we would be at this particular juncture in the road. So, at this point in time we are able to utilize those undesignated funds, as they were programmed in the budget, to accomplish this work without sacrificing any current or anticipated projects going forward. However, as I just mentioned earlier, because Public Works is dynamic I can't tell you that something crazy isn't going to happen or unanticipated in nature isn't going to happen, you know, in the remainder of the six months of the fiscal year of 2014. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just add a piece. For the benefit of the public that's here, when you say that it's common in Public Works to provide your budget with some contingency funds, that is common all over the place and part of the reason is that much of Public Works' work is underground and you can plan a project as tight as you can plan it and, then, you start digging and discover something's different. So, it's not any kind of a Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 10 of 64 slush fund, it is a fund to cover things you just can't know when you start to dig. So, I just wanted to make sure that the public wasn't disturbed by a contingency fund. Barry: Thank you, Councilman Zaremba. De Weerd: Contingency is much better than slush fund. Zaremba: Correct. It's not a slush fund. De Weerd: It's not a slush fund. Oh, my gosh. Any other questions from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Despite the absence of a known crazy guarantee, which is concerning, I like your no crazy things are going to happen guarantee in the future, I would move to approve the contract with JUB for the Kentucky Ridge program management in an amount not to exceed 90,000 dollars. Rountree: Second. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 6 -- Rountree: Seven -- De Weerd: Well, 5-G that was moved to seven. Any discussion from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: 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: Thank you, Tom. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 11 of 64 Barry: Thank you. Item 8: Action Items A. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-039 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 4.69 Acres in an R-8 Zoning District Denied B. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13- 024 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst#105152708) to Change the Development Plan from a Retirement Community to a Townhome Community for the Proposed Falconers Place Subdivision De Weerd: So, we are under Action Items. Item 8-A and B are continued public hearings on PP 13-039 and MDA 13-024. 1 will turn this over to staff at this time for their remarks. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first action item on this evening's agenda is the Falconers Place Subdivision. A development agreement modification. I did want to go first on the record this evening and say that this project has come to you with a recommendation for denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Their preface for the denial was they didn't feel that the density of the project was appropriate given the low density residential land use designation on the property. And also they felt based on the requirements stipulated in the recorded development agreement they didn't feel comfortable that the proposed townhome development was appropriate or -- because it wasn't part of their purview during the public hearing. They didn't feel prudent that it would come forth -- they should come forth with a recommendation on the plat. So, in my presentation to you this evening I want to make sure and focus on the development agreement first, if that's okay with you, and, then, go into the merits of the preliminary plat. One other item that I mentioned before -- that I forgot to mention that when my recs came out before -- when I sent my recs out last week staff was under the impression that the Mowerys who own the existing -- the single family home in the development, they have actually rescinded their consent to be part of the application. Well, prior to tonight's hearing staff did receive a new affidavit of legal interest and they have committed to being part of the preliminary plat. So, that issue that I have called out in the staff report as far as the Commission recs has been resolved. So, tonight before is really the Commission's recommendation for denial and, then, how we act on the development agreement and, then, move forward through the preliminary plat. This property is currently R-8 in the Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 12 of 64 city. It consists of 4.69 acres and it was annexed in 2005 with the R-8 zoning designation based on what the applicant or the developer at that time had presented to you. The previous developer envisioned an assisted living facility on the site. In our request to you, as I mentioned to you, it was -- the property is currently low density residential in the city's Comprehensive Plan and under that plan the City Council at your discretion can approve a step up in density to allow an increase in density. For example, in this case with the LDR designation, that basically means three units or less to the acre for residential development. When the applicant came before you in 2005 and proposed an assisted living facility, they could not go with the R-2 or the R-4 zone or that use was not allowed in those zoning districts, so they came forth with the R-8 zone and with that annexation and platting and conditional use process the Council did recommend -- or require a development agreement that restricted the use of the property to four -- to five retirement homes and one clubhouse. And so moving forward tonight, in order for the applicant to develop the townhomes as presented -- as I will present to you as part of the preliminary plat application, the amended development agreement needs to be corrected or at least the Council should find that the use is appropriate for the site based on what has occurred in 2005. So, as staff's recommended provisions and, of course, new provisions moving forward, this is what we are presenting to you this evening. Currently 6.1.1 in the recorded development agreement, as I stated, does restrict the use of the site to the five retirement homes and one clubhouse building. If it's your pleasure this evening staff is recommending that you amend that language and allow the site to develop with 36 townhomes and the existing single family residences. DA provision 6.1.2 was a requirement back in 2005 as well and that was a requirement that the existing residence that was the remaining part of this project was to hook up to sewer and water with the first phase of development. Staff has no changes to that DA provision moving forward. The additional items that I have pointed out to you in underlined format here are the new DA provisions that we are recommending with the development of the townhome project. The first one will require the applicant to condo the townhome units prior to occupancy. The second would require that they comply with their preliminary plat, the landscape plan, and the elevations that I will present to you a little later on in the presentation. The ' third will have -- will require them to comply with any future ordinances in effect at the time of development. The fifth bullet point requires that they obtain certificate of zoning compliance and design -- design review approval for each townhome structure and record the final plat prior to the issuance of a building permit and the final and last bullet point that we are recommending tonight is that the townhome portion, excluding the single family home, consist of approximately 2.74 acres of open space and the two site amenities as represented on the landscape plan. So, if you will allow me to indulge and move into the preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision. The plat will -- the first lot will consist of the existing single family residence located here on Lot 1, Block 1, and there is -- 36 units are planned -- 36 unit townhomes are planned on one single lot with access coming from a private -- or, excuse me, a new local street with access for those townhomes will be provided to a reciprocal cross -access agreement as well. The one thing I would mention to you -- in order to get that open space that I have mentioned to you as far as my DA provision -- DA modification presentation, applicant has requested alternative compliance to reduce the amount of Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 13 of 64 parking required under ordinance to increase their open space. So, typically under the UDC when there is a townhome development, the UDC would require four parking stalls per unit, two in a garage and two in a 20 -by -20 parking pad. In this design the applicant's providing the two car garage, but they had requested alternative compliance not to provide the 20 -by -20 parking pad and have provided some overflow parking for each pod of townhomes here as represented. During the Planning and Zoning Commission staff had concerns with the parking ratio for the pod configuration in the southeast corner of the development and that's what the graphics on the right depicts on how they were going to mitigate staff's concerns. The Planning and Zoning Commission did support the revised change that you see here on the right-hand side. So, our staff believes they have provided adequate parking for the development and we have -- we are in support of the alternative compliance request as well. As I mentioned to you, the applicant is proposing 2.74 acres of open space for the site, primarily situated around the townhome development. The two amenities that I would mention to you is a seated gazebo area, covered picnic area up here in the northwest corner of the development and, then, also located here along the ' east boundary for the amenities moving forward. Details of those amenities are not provided for you tonight, but a condition of the final plat requires those details to be provided. And, then, here on the proposed townhome elevations, again, all of the units are to be similar in design and construction materials, with three distinct color schemes as part of our recommended provision in the DA and also the provisions of the preliminary plat staff is recommending that they provide a minimum three color schemes as -- three color schemes as presented this evening and we wanted to make sure that they -- the elevations are consistent with these design concepts that are presented to you this evening. So, again, as I mentioned to you they will have to go through staff level approval for placement of the structure and also the site design. As I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend denial at their January 16th hearing. This property had quite a bit of public testimony on it during that hearing and I have highlighted that in the hearing outline for you this evening. Speaking in favor we had Laren Bailey and David Alexander, who is the applicant's representative and the developer on the project. Speaking in opposition we had Teresa Turner, Tammy Cook, and Lindell Timothy. Commenting on the application in opposition was Bob Aldridge, Rex Cook, Chantelle Krasinski, Holly Thomas Mowery and Jordan Mowery. And, then, prior to the Commission hearing staff did receive written testimony in opposition from Ronald Mowery, Brady and Teresa Turner, and Rich and Michelle Stott. As I mentioned to you earlier, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not feel that this -- the density of this project -- the one thing I did fail to mention that the number of units proposed for this site, the density for this project would be at 7.87 dwelling units to the acre, which is pretty close to the maximum of what is allowed in the R-8 zone. As I mentioned to you, because there was a step up in that density allowed, the R-8 zoning was in place. So, the zoning -- the proposed density for the project does comply with the R-8 zoning district and it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan as allowed in that step up that the Council granted in 2005. So, actually, the key items of discussion for you this evening and the one thing I also failed to mention to you was that this site may not have water rights for irrigation water and so the applicant is requesting your approval to use city water to irrigate the 2.74 acres of open space for the development, Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 14 of 64 which could be quite burdensome to those homeowners in the future as water prices increase. I know at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing it was discussed that they are still exploring other avenues, but they still want to have that on the table for your approval this evening. One last item to mention to you. The applicant did submit written testimony after the P&Z hearing. They actually hired an independent traffic engineer to go out and do a traffic study. The public testimony presented at the Commission hearing had to do with the density and traffic, of course, related to the proposed townhome development. The applicant's actually provided a letter from their traffic engineer comparing the then assisted living use with the townhome use. So, that should be in your packet as well for your review. And, then, late this evening prior to Council hearing this evening I did receive additional testimony from Greg Goins in opposition of the project as well and he's -- that should be in front of you this evening as part of your packet as well. Other than the published testimony and now that we have the Mowerys as part of this preliminary plat. Staff feels there aren't any other outstanding issues for you this evening and I will stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: Not at this time, Mayor. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. Thank you, Bill. I have a couple of questions, one which is from deep memory. When the project across the street from this on the west side of Eagle Road came in their original plan aligned their entry road with East Falcon Drive from -- from this side of the road and ACHD required them to move their entrance south, because it was too close to Victory Road according to ACHD and the discussion at the time from ACHD was that when any property on this side of the road developed they would require Falcon Drive to be moved to align with the other one. Did ACHD bring any of that up this time or has that been discussed anywhere? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, as the -- as the plat is presented to you this evening as -- as a recommendation from ACHD they -- they have not waivered on that. I know the applicant during -- I know some of the neighbors were there testifying at ACHD about concerns of that intersection and even based on that testimony at that hearing ACHD staff still held with their recommendation that Falcon Drive would be the access and there would be no alignment with -- with the street across -- with the -- with the roadway adjacent, the opposite side of -- the west side of Eagle Road I guess. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, the other comment -- and I'm sure we will discuss this later, but -- actually I will hold that for later. Sorry. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further questions? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 15 of 64 Rountree: Not at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Nelson: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. My name is Deborah Nelson, I'm an attorney with Givens Pursley. My office address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant. I'd like to offer just a little bit of background about the applications and the property and, then, our planner Laren Bailey of LEI is going to take over the applicant's presentation this evening and provide some more details about the project. First a little background. In 2005 the owner of this property wanted to develop an assisted living facility and they requested and the city approved based on that specific request annexation and R-8 zoning. It was accompanied with a development agreement that limited the use to the existing single family residence and the new requested assisted living facility. Less than a month later the residential portion of the property was sold, but no subdivision process was followed and that created the illegal split that you heard about from Bill tonight. Eight and a half years later the property is still vacant, no assisted living facility was built. That owner that requested that particular use no longer owns the property or is associated with the project. Neither of the parcels have been improved to city standards from street improvements or a sewer and water hook-up standpoint. My client has how acquired that vacant parcel and they are here tonight about the two applications that Bill has outlined for you. There seems to have been some confusion about these at the P&Z Commission from our perspective and I just want to walk through each of them quickly. The subdivision application is intended to remedy that illegal split. It's also intended to comply with the city's ordinances about what happens when you have a subdivision to make these improvements happen to facilitate the connection to sewer and water. When the staff report was issued following -- before the P&Z hearing following submittal of that application it recommended approval of that subdivision and noted that it complied with the ordinance. It seemed that the P&Z Commission in recommending denial conflated the application and was thinking into the future about the use that was contemplated that is requested as part of the DA modification application that only comes before the City Council. They were looking at the density as was mentioned. They were hung up on the fact that the very requested use was prohibited by the current in effect development agreement. Of course they don't have any authority to review development agreement modifications and so that created a problem with their approval and it seemed to us that they seemed to get hung up on those points, rather than the standards in your ordinance that apply to preliminary plat approval. So, we just ask you tonight to consider the subdivision application based on the standards in your ordinance and not conflate it with the other application before you. On the second application the development agreement modification, as we just mentioned, the recommending body under your ordinance is the planning director, not the P&Z. So, their recommendation of denial in that application does not apply. Your planning director has recommended approval, both originally and again tonight of that application. So, we ask that you consider that tonight and we'd like to give you some Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 16 of 64 more information now from Laren to support our request for that. I would stand for more questions -- for questions now or wait until you hear more testimony from him and come back up if necessary at your -- at your wish. De Weerd: Probably to stay within your time it would be good to have him come up and do questions afterwards. Nelson: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And, Laren, if you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Bailey: Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Laren Bailey, I'm a planner with LEI Engineers and Surveyors. Our address is 3023 East Copperpoint Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. De Weerd: Thank you. Bailey: Thank you again for hearing our application tonight. Bill has done a good job of outlining this for you and I just want to walk through it quickly and explain some of the specifics. Let's see. Bill, actually, could you help me get to the building renderings, please. Thank you. I'm going to start with the buildings themselves, the houses, and move to the site and, then, to the comp plan portions. Real quickly we are proposing 12 tri-plex buildings and as you can see in the architecture, each one of these will have three units that could be -- we are going to come back with a condominium plat, so each one of these could be owned individually. Each building is designed to mimic the relative size and shape of a single family home similar to those in the area, you know, these are meant to fit in with the neighborhood and not stand out like a four -flex or, you know, a larger multi -family development would -- would stick out. These are meant to fit in. The facades of the buildings are -- are markedly craftsman in design, long sloping roofs, the use of dormers and mixed materials. The upper floors are set back from the ground and where the roof continues to slope beyond brings the scale of the buildings down. The roof lines are composed of upper and lower gable roof, long sloping plains, and thick eaves. Dormers are centered in the front and backs of the building. The roof slope on the front of the building will create a nice covered entry porch. Again, the building materials we are using are distinctly craftsman in style, cultured stone will be found throughout, as well as the -- at least the minimum of three different color schemes. We may have more than that, but the three you see here are the ones proposed tonight. Again, each -- each residence itself will have its own two car garage, so -- and those garages will face each other and I will get to that in a minute when I get to the site plan. So, there was some question about building heights from the neighbors and these aren't going to be any taller than any other, you know, two story home, they are roughly 25 to 27 feet in height. Bill, if we could go to the site rendering, please. It's a little hard to see here, but as you can see the buildings -- the garages all -- the garages all face each other on the common drive, so those garages aren't going to be facing the street, they won't be facing Eagle Road or Falcon Drive and so it will create a Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 17 of 64 nice little community where you will just see the fronts and side facades of those homes. Okay. I want to move on to the site itself. The site -- the idea here was to create as much open space as possible to minimize the impact of these homes in the neighborhood and to create buffers from the neighboring property owners. If you -- when we -- we will get to the assisted living center when I get a little further along, but those buildings were in some instances only five feet off the neighboring properties and they were much larger buildings. Impact to the neighbors was much greater than -- than we feel this is. As you can see we have got a lot of landscaping here, you know, a lot of open space to -- you know, to create a good feel here. The landscaped area -- they are not going to have individual yards here. It's all going to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. So, all the watering, maintenance, mowing will be conducted by the HOA. So, you will have a very clean look to the development. There won't be any trampolines in the backyard or hot tubs or things of that nature, it will be very clean and taken care of. We are showing pathways that will connect all the units to both Falconers and Falcon Drive, as well as to sidewalk that we will be placing along Eagle Road. There will be landscape amenities. There will be some seating areas, some little trellis landscaped areas where people can sit and reflect. Okay. On to municipal utilities, water and sewer services are available to the site. As Bill indicated, we will be extending those to the single family home -- existing home connecting that to water and sewer, as well as widening Falcon Drive per ACHD's requirement and adding for better sidewalk and driveway approaches. The storm drainage will all be maintained on site infiltrated. Onto traffic and roadways. ACHD approved the plans two weeks ago. The staff -- ACHD's staff report indicated that the amount of traffic that this development will add will not significantly impact the traffic in the area. It's our understanding that ACHD met with some of the neighboring -- or some of the neighboring property owners and discussed some of the issues with tight -- or site distances and turning radiuses internally on Eagle Road itself. Staff's comment -- and I believe Meridian staff has received a letter from them that any of those improvements that are needed on Eagle Road would be ACHD's responsibility and not the responsibility of this development. ACHD also indicated that the widening of Eagle Road is in their plans. I can't tell you a specific date, but they are looking at widening that in the near future. Okay. Under the Comprehensive Plan -- and, Bill, maybe if you could look at the vicinity of the -- larger vicinity map. Thank you. This may be larger than we really need here, but I just wanted to show the proximity to Eagle Road and Eagle interchange at the freeway. We are just over a mile from the interchange at this location. We are very close -- within a half mile, three-quarters of a mile of major employment centers at Silverado and -- or excuse me. I mixed those up. At Silverstone and EI Dorado business park. We are very close to Overland Road. Bill, if we could look at -- back to the zoning map. Thank you. So, as we zoom in a little closer here, you can see the intersection of Victory Road. We have got commercial designation out on the corner. And, then, across the road from this project we have an R-8 zoned project as well that has multi -family development. So, looking at this, you know, how it fits into the neighborhood and into the densities here we feel that this is a good fit that we have tried to limit the amount of impact a density like this might have on the neighbors and provide a good project that will be a good project, not just today, but down the road ten, 20, 30 years from now this will fit in with the densities in the area and Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 18 of 64 be a good project. I want to point out again that the open space on this project that we have more than 50 percent of the site in open areas and when we look back to -- if we could -- Bill, could you bring up the assisted living. Thank you. The assisted living plan they had just -- just over 18 percent open space. As you can see these are large ,buildings, again, we will get some of these areas up against the neighbors, some of these areas were -- sorry -- were five feet or -- five to ten feet the building was separated from the neighboring property owner and we wanted to move buildings away from that, give them some space and so that's, you know, providing for that. We have got over 50 percent open space. As Bill indicated we also hired Kittleson and Associates to do a traffic comparison between the assisted living center with 75 beds and a clubhouse and this development and what they came up with -- and this was also verified by ACHD, they did their own independent report and they basically came up the same. This development on the weekly trips per day, if you add those up Monday through Friday, we are about ten trips per week over the assisted living. However, on the weekends the assisted living makes up for those and so it's roughly a wash in the average week. The one major difference was that on the assisted living they have got about ten percent truck deliveries per week, whereas we are not going to have that in the -- in this development. So, with that we think this project will be a great asset to the City of Meridian and we ask for your approval and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. At this point I will bring up one of the things I was thinking of earlier. Let's see. Bill, I think I would like to see the elevations, if we could go to those. One of the things that's being asked for -- okay. I guess we are not seeing the garage side of these, but is not to provide the 20 -by -20 pad at each of the garages and we have actually had experience with that before. There was a time somewhere around ten years ago where the requirement was that the pad was the width of the garage, usually 20 feet, and it could only -- it could be ten feet in depth. After a few of those were built the fire department discovered that people were parking there anyhow and the fire department was -- it was difficult having access to places and sometimes somebody would pull a car in and park right against their garage and that wasn't quite so bad, but a number of people would park face onto the garage and, then, they were hanging over a sidewalk or out into a driveway. The ones that come to mind actually were alleys where they didn't have sufficient pad, but it was applied on the front as well and I -- at some point -- again, at the request of the fire department that we considered it, we went back to the 20 -by -20 pad, because it just -- human nature is if somebody is going into their house they are going to park there and if it's not big enough to hold a couple cars they are going to park there anyhow and it creates a problem thinking down the line for trash trucks and other stuff as well -- bigger vehicles that need to come through there. So, I would ask you to defend having that pad smaller. Why does that create a problem for you guys? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 19 of 64 4, Bailey: Mayor and Commissioner Zaremba, I think there is several issues here. The first one being if we were to create those parking spots behind this, we are going to have 60 foot wide paved areas between each building. We -- we wanted to have more landscape, rather than a whole bunch of -- of a sea of asphalt like you have in a traditional four-plex development, so we tried to minimize those widths in the hope that -- two fold. One, with them being minimized that there wouldn't be room for people to do that. One, they are going to -- they are going to affect their neighbors and so we are not going to be able to do that, because their neighbors aren't going to be able to get in and out. But, two, because this is going to be managed by an HOA, all of the common areas -- these stripes will be common areas as well -- we are going to have management be able to take care of and address the situation and keep that from happening. We have also provided additional parking at the end of each drive, as well as the street -- Falconers Drive has a 50 foot ACHD right of way which provides for parking on both side of the street. So, we feel that -- that there is plenty of room for parking, there is plenty of extra parking for this type of development and the size of homes that are going to be here. We are not -- you know, we are not expecting to have a family with five kids and four cars and a boat and jet skis and the whole nine yards, this is going to be, you know, for, you know, the target audiences are going to be young professionals and maybe empty nesters that aren't going to have as many vehicles and as many toys as we would recognize in a traditional single family neighborhood. But I hope that answers your question. Oh -- Zaremba: It helps. Bailey: -- we have worked with the fire department and talked it over with them and they -- my understanding is they feel comfortable with it, so -- Zaremba: All right. Thank you. And another spot -- and this is something I need to ask Bill. Somewhere in the rules in multi -family dwellings -- and I'm not sure where they are cut off, whether it's a triplex or more multiple than that -- are that each unit has to have a hundred square feet of private space, which could either be a patio on a ground level unit or a balcony on an upper level unit and I don't see that in these elevations. Is this within whatever group that would require that or am I thinking of the wrong rules? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba, yes, these are townhomes, so, therefore, those multi -family standards do not apply to the development, nor does the open space requirement under the UDC. So, what the developer is proposing here is actually in excess of what we could get if we had a single family home. Really, the only required open space for the development is the 25 foot landscape buffer along Eagle Road. The rest is a bonus with this development. So, it's something to think about and because the applicant proposed it and we felt it was technically an amenity for this development to have that much open space, that's why we required it in the -- recommended the requirement in the development agreement for you to take action on this evening. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 20 of 64 Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for -- from the Council at this time? Rountree: Not right now. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bailey: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. * I have several people who have signed up. When I call your name, if you would like to provide testimony at that time I would invite you forward. Bob Aldridge signed up against. Thank you for being here. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Aldridge: Yes. Bob Aldridge. 3300 Falcon Drive. If you can go back to the plat area map, I'm directly across the street from this development. I have lived there now almost 30 years. Over that time period I have been before this Council a number of times on various developments and always working with them to come up in support and to answer the one question that was asked on that road change, that was my suggestion and we went to ACHD and agreed, because of the huge traffic problems that it would have created at Falcon Drive and Falcon Drive directly across from each other. The thing that came out of the P&Z denial of this, which was unanimous, was that this is, quote, not in the right place. That was said a number of times in that meeting and that's correct. This is a neighborhood that consists of single family homes on acreages. Mine is five acres and similar around that area and the surrounding subdivisions are all single family dwellings on large lots. That's what this is. The project itself is both visually dense and practically dense. When they came forward we supported that, because for one thing their buildings were one story and so they were not a big visual impact. These are two story. They are 27 feet tall and that's going to make a huge comparison to the wide open spaces. I'm going to be looking at this as I'm out stomping gophers and running my six inch gated irrigation. It's a huge comparison. The development agreement is something that we are also very unhappy about. When that was originally brought up that was negotiated and as it says in part 1-10 on page two, that was done based on the neighborhood input and on the strict application of the conditions that were put in there and we felt that those were relatively low buildings and the lots -- I have been around a lot of nursing homes and assisted livings and I know how the traffic works in those. Staff comes in early. They come in usually at 6:00 o'clock shifts and so they are not there at rush hour. Most of the parents -- or, excuse me, the parents are there, the children come to visit them during the day or at night, they are not coming at rush hour. As a matter of fact, they are very careful not to be there at rush hour. So, the development agreement -- the conditions that were put in because this was assisted living, they had to create what I regard and I think that should be regarded as an artificial R-8. It was not in compliance with the then Comprehensive Plan, nor what this property really is designed for. It's a small piece with only one access sitting on a very busy area and the R-8 was done to allow that. We are now attempting to piggy back Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 21 of 64 and leap frog that into R-8 in the traditional sense with seven point something units per acre. The traffic situation -- we did have discussion with ACHD and that vote was not unanimous, by the way. One of the commissioners voted against approval and the problem is very simple. I take my life in my hands when I try to, number one, turn in. When you were there we had that area on top. We crest over it full speed through that stop light and when you do that at full speed you have got 4.5 seconds -- I measured it -- before you're there where I'm parked. There is no center lane, no turn lane, none in prospects. The time period that I was told by ACHD for widening is 2027 to 2030. So, very long term. They are simply not going to be widening Eagle Road anytime in the near future. The other problem is -- and if I could have my wife's time to talk to you, she would like me to do her three minutes, if that's allowed. De Weerd: Okay. Aldridge: The other problem is that in addition to that slope and coming over the top from the north to the south there is a dip and that's why we moved that road south from the other subdivision. They are right at that dip. When you are there at Falcon looking south -- I was there at 7:20 a couple days ago, there is a solid line of lights going clear out of sight. The roundabout down at Amity means that is continuous traffic coming to the north and you have all the subdivisions to the south that feed in where ever the holes are and you literally wait and wait and wait and, then, you finally get a small hole and you jump on your accelerator and jump in. That's not a good situation. In addition to that, that's going to increase. There are more and more subdivisions going into the south. From the north the problem is that when you come over the visual lines may be fine if there is no traffic there. The problem is that -- and I see this all the time -- that when you come over and you have got traffic in front of you you can't see that stopped car and there is no turn lane, so cars are going around. Well, there is a nice telephone pole there that has almost been hit on a number of occasions. It's a traffic nightmare and it's something that has been created. Trying to go out through the subdivision that is now on the other end, you just saw your report, we have been talking about capturing neighborhoods. That's not doable. Plus you're coming now onto Victory Road, which is extremely high traffic and very difficult to get on, especially if you're trying to get back to Eagle Road and cut left, you're going across two lanes of Victory and you're also battling the Sutherland Farms Subdivision, which empties at that point. So, you have real problems no matter how you get out of here. This is going to be over 200 traffic trips per day. That's what the figures were that came from ACHD. That's a huge impact and what we see is something that's going to create danger and problems and so we feel that we need to solve the problem, we need to get that illegal split corrected, but you don't correct that problem by creating a new problem. There are much better uses for this property. There are other places that this project could go. P&Z was exactly right when they said it's not in the right place. So, we would ask that you deny this project and that this be redesigned into something that actually fits with the neighborhood and will not have the impact. De Weerd: Thank you, Bob. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 22 of 64 Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Aldridge: Thank you. De Weerd: Just for the record, Kim Aldridge did also sign up against. Sorry. I'm reading someone's printing. Mrs. Krasinski. She signed up against. And, then, Harold signed up against as well. Is that maybe Charlene or -- Krasinski: Chantelle. De Weerd: Chantelle. Thank you. If you will -- Krasinski: Chantelle Krasinski. De Weerd: Thank you. Krasinski: 3475 East Falcon Drive. De Weerd: Thank you. Krasinski: Madam Mayor and Commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. We live at the very end of the cul-de-sac. The property that we are talking about is right as you turn into our road that we are at the end of. So, essentially, we are not very far from the intersection of Eagle and Victory. Essentially what they did was they widened that intersection and, then, it snakes down right where you turn into Falcon Drive. So, so many times I have been stopped getting ready to turn and because there is a lot of traffic now people are just right on my tail and they trying to go around and there is a telephone pole that kind of got moved and somebody's going to hit that telephone pole. We just can't do more traffic right there. I mean we are -- we are like maybe 100, 200 feet from the intersection and when we bought into that property we were five -- five acre properties on that street that was it and now they are thinking of putting that in and when we supported the assisted living, you know, I mean it's an assisted living facility, people aren't going to be coming and going during rush hour, just like Mr. Aldridge, who has already testified. But now they are thinking of putting in something with that high of density? It's not a good location. Planning and Zoning was exactly right in denying this and I would just ask you to deny it as well. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Krasinski is also signed up in opposition. Thank you for being here. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. H.Krasinski: My name is Harold Krasinski. 3475 East Falcon -- De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 23 of 64 H.Kraskinski: -- in Meridian. And, Madam Mayor and Council Members, I am also in opposition for many of the same reasons that have already been stated. We are going to be sort of blocked in at the end of the street there with all of the other traffic. I think perhaps even the -- the original R-8 zoning that was amended so that we could have the assisted living was a mistake also, which didn't really want that to go in either, but it did go in and that, if 1 am correct, was 2005 with a two year developer's agreement was going to expire, which we assumed meant would go back to the previous zoning and, then they got an extension for a couple years -- I believe somewhere around 2009 is when the developer's agreement should have expired. So, we are talking about amending an agreement that's really been -- should have expired already several years ago. So, as Bob Aldridge stated, it's sort of an artificial R-8 and it doesn't seem to me, according to the original spirit of that agreement, that it should be any R-8 at this point, because that original developer's agreement, you know, as a lay person assuming that means it's null and void. The original property owner never went ahead -- never built the development that it was intended for, so it seems to me that it should be null and void and if that were the case -- I don't see how you could amend an agreement that expired four or five years ago. So, we as citizens would assume that that is the proper recourse for that kind of an agreement as best as, you know, we understand it. So, we would certainly hope that you would deny this particular development and if -- if anything goes in there hopefully a lower density, a few single family homes, as opposed to the tri-plexes that are going to -- have been proposed for this development. So, I thank you all for your time and letting me speak. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. H.Krasinski: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Lindell Timothy. Good evening. Timothy: Good evening. My name is Lindell Timothy. I reside at 3467 Falcon Drive. All I have to say is I want to reiterate everything that my neighbors have said and go on record as being in opposition. I really have nothing more to add to what they have already said. De Weerd: Well, thank you for being here. Helen -- so I can't read your last name, so I'm anxiously for you to come forward, so we can figure it out. Thank you for being here. Lawler: Madam Mayor and City Council, my name is Helen Lawler. My address is 3467 Falcon Drive. Lindell and my property is adjacent to the east side of the proposed development. I want to, for the record, make it known that I am also in opposition to this. I know ACHD and the transportation -- new transportation commission -- ACHD may have signed off on this and they have done their study. However, those are usually theoretical. You can't propose what's going to happen down the road. I drive that every day getting out and coming in and I agree with what Bob says, there is times Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 24 of 64 when you will sit there for five minutes trying to get out. People don't let you in. You have to be assertive or you will sit there all day and if you're fortunate a school bus might come along picking up kids and that's your opportunity to get out. I also have a special needs son who has transportation that comes in. I will leave sometimes, I will be waiting there for five minutes to get out and my driver that picks him up is waiting to turn in for that same five minutes. I think his proposal for the project is beautiful. I don't think it is in the right location. Theoretically they may say the traffic will not be that impactive. In reality we drive it every day and I would encourage anyone to sit at that intersection for those five minutes and watch traffic. We are -- if you add another 200 vehicle commutes per day there are going to be accidents. It's too close to Eagle Road. Coming home at the end of the day trying to get off there is no turn lane. You have got one eye looking forward, because there is oncoming traffic, your vision is obscured by the hill and retro -- behind you you're trying to keep one eye watching people barrel down hoping they are watching for you and cutting around you versus rear ending you. So, I would like it known that I oppose this and I do also concur with everything that Bob Aldridge has said. De Weerd: Thank you. Lawler: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. David Hendrickson signed up against. Okay. Holly Thomas Mowery signed up as neutral. Bird: You got this guy that -- De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Would he like to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you for joining us. Holly Thomas Mowery. Okay. Brady Turner signed up against. Turner: Good evening, Madam Mayor -- De Weerd: Good evening. Turner: -- Members of the Council. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Turner: The original nursing home facility that was proposed for this area, as Bob Aldridge has already stated, was single story family -- or single story homes, single story, buildings, so the visual impact looking uphill at this property from my property would be minimized. The proposed condos that are before you now are two stories, so there is going to be a much larger impact from a visual standpoint, providing a much clearer visual density in the development. When the nursing home was originally proposed we were somewhat reluctantly in support of the R-8 zoning, understanding that R-8 was the only zoning that would allow the nursing home development to be built Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 25 of 64 in this area, we were given assurances -- and this is part of the reason why the development language was proposed was that if that development fell through that this property would revert back to the original low density R-2, R-4 zoning. That development has fallen through. We have the DA in place and stipulate that requirement and we fail to understand now why we are trying to move forward with an R-8 project in this area. It's not consistent with the comp plan. We have worked very hard over the past ten years or more -- I have been before this Council multiple times trying to work with developers of Kingsbridge, Sutherland Farms, excuse me, Napoli Subdivision -- several divisions trying to keep this area of the -- of Meridian as a transitional zone between the City of Meridian and the city of Boise. It's one of the few areas left where we have low density between the two cities to create a transitory area within the community. As also stated multiple times by several folks, the traffic study, while, yes, the total vehicle impact per day is probably consistent with that of the nursing home facility, the timing of those vehicle trips will be as for the proposed development in front of you now would be during peak rush hour versus off hours for the nursing home facility. So, for those reasons and as well as the reasons very well articulated by Bob Aldridge, I would request that the Council deny this petition and the revert the zoning back to the original R-2, R-4 zone. Thank you for your time. De Weerd: Thank you. Turner: Questions? L Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, sir. And Teresa Turner also signed up in opposition. Okay. Thank you. Those were the people that have signed up on the sign-up sheet. Is there anyone who would like to -- yes, please. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Cook: Rex Cook. 3691 South Caleb Place. I'm in the Dartmore Subdivision there just in that cul-de-sac that's going to be kind of butting up to the -- the proposed development there and as you look at that map it's interesting to see -- you got these nice one acre lots and the five acre lots and were talked about earlier and, then, all of a sudden you're transitioning to a much smaller proposed density and as it's been proposed or expressed before, that wonderful development idea it's just not in the right spot. So, if I could be put down as being against this proposal I'd appreciate it and I don't know if I can speak for my wife, but she wasn't able to be here, but she was also against it. Like I said, I don't know if we can -- De Weerd: It's always dangerous to speak for your wife. Cook: You know, that's correct. De Weerd: We so note that. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 26 of 64 Cook: Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Thank you. Cook: Thank you. De Weerd: Any further testimony? Okay. Would the applicant like to respond? If you will state your name once again for the record. Bailey: Sure. Ms. Mayor, Commissioners, again, my name is Laren Bailey with LEI Engineers. De Weerd: Thank you. Bailey: Our address is 3023 East Copperpoint Drive. I was hurriedly scratching down remarks and comments, so hopefully, I cover everything. To begin with, again, I just wanted to reiterate, you know, the Comprehensive Plan, which was brought up by staff in the staff report and this is Section 3.7.1. It says support a variety of residential categories for the purpose of providing a range of affordable -- affordable housing opportunities. Our belief in -- I believe in the city's Comprehensive Plan is that the idea is to have a mix of uses within -- within each area, so that -- so we don't just have one type of housing or one size of product, that we can have integrated neighborhoods with a diversity of people living there. To go back to the traffic discussion, again, you know, we have met with ACHD, we have also hired an independent traffic firm to look at, you know, the traffic in this area and, yes, you know, I'm not going to discount the folks who live there. They live it every day. The fact of the matter is that ACHD plans to widen this portion of Eagle Road in the near future and, hopefully, that will alleviate some of those issues. But, again, you know, this is Eagle Road, it's one of the heaviest traveled roads in -- in the county and, you know, there is going to be some waits and some traffic issues from time to time. You know, our hope is not to make those worse, but -- but we feel we shouldn't be held up form developing because other developments may make traffic as well. To talk about the building heights. One of the issues here -- I think if you look at our plan, you know, trying to pull those buildings away from the perimeter of the property -- most folks vision probably won't really be affected, because those buildings will be pulled away from the property, they won't have this large building -- even though the assisted living maybe would have been slightly shorter, you got to remember commercial buildings are usually taller than a single story house. So, right up against the property line that probably would have actually impacted their vision more than this development. You know, the development agreement and the condition that this be an assisted living, surely the city didn't envision this being assisted living forever and that's the only use -- only use that you ever built here. We have seen that that -- you know, the market hasn't been able to produce an assisted living facility and so we are hopeful that, you know, you can see the way to allow different use on this property. And, again, you know -- and I'm sure -- I'm not trying to talk down the Council, I know you know this, but, you know, we are looking at density today, but also down in the future -- in the future down the road, ten years from now, 20 years, 30 years, whatever this area is Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 27 of 64 going to look like and, yes, today there are five acre lots. You know, we have a lot of this issue around when cities transition into those -- those urban areas -- or not urban, those rural areas when the building fringe moves into those areas and we have this as properties develop and, you know, that's -- it's just -- it's just -- I guess what I'm trying to say it's par for the course, it's part of the way this happens and, unfortunately, people are affected in the near term, but in the long term as the city grows these properties are going to be developed -- they will most likely be developed. With that I guess I will stand -- well -- yeah. With that I will stand for any additional questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. DE Weerd: Okay. Bailey: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: I have a question that I would like to pose to ACHD and I -- one of the things that is concerning me very much is the alignment of this entrance road and where it meets Eagle and its relationship to the entrance road to the subdivision across the street from it. And, actually, I have a two part question. One is the discussion of the safety of this location for this entrance and the other is -- we have had a couple of different comments of different times frames for the widening of Eagle and if you -- if you have that knowledge at the top of your head of what is the target for widening that would help, but I'm really more concerned about the location of the entrance. But both those things. And thank you for being here. Head: No problem. Ryan Head, Ada County Highway District, 3775 Adams Street in Garden City. I wish I could answer your question as far as the alignment of the roadway and, I apologize, I don't have the history there. But having attended the hearing in which ACHD heard this, that did not come up as a topic in that hearing. As far as the plan for widening Eagle Road, currently design is set to start in 2018. The preliminary -- the right of ways and preliminary developments probably 2019. Construction is listed as unfunded, which likely would be in 2020, 2021, in that time frame. It's currently listed as the 37th priority in our prioritization process, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Borton, did you have a question? Borton: Madam Mayor, just for Laren. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 28 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you, Ryan. Borton: Thanks, Laren. Sorry, I missed you before. You might have said something earlier that I missed as well, but I can't get my head around the alternative compliance with the parking. I think Councilman Zaremba brought up a great question. The report, unless I'm reading it wrong, there is an original requirement of 144 spaces, it had designed 87 and, then, what you showed looked like it might have added ten spaces to 97? But there is a big gap. And when I read the findings for alternative compliance there is a reference to open space, but there is a disconnect on -- and I must have missed something, so help me understand the basis for that. Bailey: Correct. I believe we are at 97 spaces today. Borton: Okay. Bailey: Two things -- or another thing I wanted to bring up that I -- that I didn't bring up before. The developer wants to -- you know, he understands this is an issue and the city's concerned about it and something that will be addressed in the CC&Rs, so that it can be taken care of by the management team and make sure that people are -- they will be required to park in their garages or in a designated space. But, again, you know, I think the problem is -- we are in a -- this product is a little bit in between your standard four-plex or apartment complex and your single family residence. So, we are kind of in between. If we were apartments we would be providing two -- or 1.5 per unit. Single family we have two in the garage and two in the driveway. So, we feel size of -- of units and also the type of development, that -- that we are somewhere in between that and that's why we asked for the alternative compliance to allow for more open space, instead of having a sea of asphalt behind each one of these buildings that may or may not really get used. Does that answer your question or am I not getting there? Borton: Madam Mayor? I recall you saying that, so I didn't miss it. But I don't know if you answered -- I don't know if there is an answer -- at least the way I see it. I look at alternate compliance in that there is a requirement for, in this example, 144 stalls and you're going to short that by almost 50 stalls, that there is an alternative means to address what would otherwise have been a need for a lot of parking spaces and the provision of open space, which is great, doesn't create an alternate form of compliance of that requirement and -- and that's a big gap for this project that, again, Councilman Zaremba sort of pointed out what seems to be the realty and we all know if three is a two car garage that has two cars in it that would be the first time you ever see it. I mean people -- and that's not your responsibility -- I understand that. That's why I don't know if there is an answer to my question. Bailey: Mayor, Commissioner Borton, again, we want to take care of that in the CC&Rs and require people to use their garage for a car, not for the storage unit. We feel, again, if these are going to be smaller house sizes, they are not going to have, you know, as much -- hopefully not as many material items as a lot of us do. but, you know, in different types of housing we are going to see different demographics living there and Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 29 of 64 think that's a place where -- not to -- I mean not to drive your code or anything, but I think your code looks at -- we have got an either or an or, we don't have anything in between, we don't have a different -- a varying degree of, you know, how much parking we need to provide. So, if we are looking at strictly single family with 144, if we were at multi -family, then, we have got more parking than we need and so, unfortunately, there is not a middle ground in your code and so that's why we are asking for the alternative compliance. And I know -- I think you brought up some good points about where people are going to park and I think the best we can do or what we are trying to do is say, well, we are going to control that with CC&Rs and a management team and say, you know, people have to park in their garage, not -- not in -- you know, not in the private drive area. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I would ask another question that has been brought up a couple times and that's building height. You said they would be limited to or around 27 feet. Is that measuring to the peak or is that measuring the way the builder builds it, which is about halfway up the slope and it's -- the peak is considerably higher than that? Bailey: Well, I think there is a couple things going on here. One, the site does have some topography to it. There is about a ten foot drop from Falcon Drive all the way down to the south property line and so my understanding -- and I looked at this when I got back to my notes. Actually 28 feet to the peak of the roof are the architectural plans that have been submitted to staff. This will be up slope and so, you know, I'm sure you're going to have a little bit of variation here and there. But I think that slope also benefits us in that we are not looking at one -- you know, one house, we are going to have them stepping down this hill and so, you know, as people look up we have got a separation to the building from the property line that's going to help, because your sight vision triangle is not going to -- you're not going to see over those. And, yes, you know, you're going to see the peaks of those, but not a solid roof all the way across your property line. So, we don't feel it's going to be a lot different from any other single family residential subdivision and looking over your neighbor's fence at their home. Zaremba: Thank you De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question for Bill. Bill, it's been mentioned a couple times and inferred that with the development agreement that the understanding was the R-8 was a compromise and that if it didn't -- if the project didn't move forward over a certain degree Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 30 of 64 or a certain period of time, then, there is some reversionary aspect in that agreement. I don't know as I see that, but I don't see all of that stuff, so help me out. Is that in fact or is that -- Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think I will defer to our -- to Bill Nary on this -- on the counsel, but typically we -- we do have some of that language in our development agreement. However, I have been here with the city for almost seven years and never seen a property reverted back to the original zoning. Rountree: Okay. Parsons: That it was to the previous zoning it was before they requested annexation. But I will go ahead and defer to Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, there is reversionary language in all of our DAs. It is standard language. It does require that we go through a due process to do that. So, it's not automatic and that it will revert. We had an exercise about five years ago, we had a number of outstanding development agreements and had never been signed and some that had been signed, but had expired, and the prior planning director had, basically, categorized all of those and we brought a bunch of them in front of you for that direction and we did actually terminate some of those development agreements. But the decision was also made on some of those that what was -- what was provided in the development agreement -- if we never took action and we never went through the due process to terminate it, then, it still is existing, it's still a valid development agreement. So, it's still -- it's still able to be amended as proposed here. This was one of those. So, we terminated some that we felt were -- either had not been signed or had zoning that was -- or projects on them that there was a concern from planning and the Council at the time to not allow those to continue on and we terminated those. But we left a few of those in place, like this one, because, again, the concern was that what's proposed there is not problematic. So, it's still within your purview, again, to not grant the requested change or to grant the change, but it was felt at the time that those that were left were ones that did not have any other problematic issue of leaving them in place. So, again, the language that I think -- and the folks that have testified is correct, there are -- there is language like that, but it does require action on the city's part to terminate them before they become extinguished. Rountree: Thank you, Bill. Nelson: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. I just wanted to follow up. I agreed with -- De Weerd: Deborah, if you can state your name again for the record. Nelson: Deborah Nelson, 601 West Bannock. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 31 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you. Nelson: I do agree with Bill Nary's comments, but I just also wanted to add, in case that wasn't clear, that in addition to due process, which he properly points out would be required for reversion, we also have to be in default of the agreement and our request to change a limitation within a development agreement does not constitute default. You retain that regulatory authority under the state statutes and under your own ordinance to modify agreements when they no longer make sense as you see fit. So, I just wanted to make sure that was clear, that it has not reverted, we are not in default. The zoning is in place. We are asking for a change in a use limitation. De Weerd: Okay. Nelson: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Nelson: Thanks. De Weerd: Council, anything further from the staff, applicant, or any of those that testified? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: No. I thought Councilman Rountree wanted to say something. Rountree: No. I'm through with my questions. Zaremba: Not just this. development, but this is maybe the third or the fourth time in the last few years that somebody several years ago planned to have a retirement or assisted living home in an area that was originally R-2 or R-4 -- the intention it would be R-2 or R-4 and in order to do the assisted living, which is not allowed in the R-2 and R-4, they were given an R-8 and a development agreement. So, this was not unusual. this has happened before. But as. I say, this is the third or fourth time where that property has changed hands and the new owner said, okay, well, assisted living isn't right anymore, we want to do something else and we feel we are entitled to the R-8 that is the designated zone without the development agreement. I personally don't agree with that. I -- the development agreement is what made it an R-8 and I struggle with the ability to say that it wasn't that. So, I guess the piece of it that we are not going to resolve tonight, but I know we look at the UDC all the time to say is there something we Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 32 of 64 need to fix in the UDC and I would like to put on the list some future time to discuss maybe allowing assisted livings in R -4s, so that we don't have to do an R-8 and a development agreement and there is no further discussion about it needing to revert. Just a thought, because I -- I struggle with this. I have been trying to avoid using the words bait and switch, because it isn't usually the same owner that does the switch, but, as I say, this has come up several times recently and I throw that in for future discussion. De Weerd: Thank you. We will definitely put it out for an additional discussion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Councilman Zaremba. I have a real hard time on this, because the simple fact is is we -- they got an R-8 for one purpose only and that was for assisted living and I'm sure that the applicants today would not be involved with this property if it hadn't of had an R-8 zoning on it. I don't think it's fair -- the five acre lots are nice, but if R-8 is allowed in here -- money talks and you can probably see one or two of them go into the R-8 deal, too. If the over developments around there -- and I realize that across the street there is a lot of R -8s, but we do have Eagle Road to add to the buffer there. I cannot support this. The only -- that property, unless it gets an assisted living, facility and traffic in condos or townhouses, whatever you want to call them and assisted living is a big difference. I don't care what anybody says. You're not going to have the traffic in an assisted living, because most of the people in assisted living -- the only traffic you're going to have is the employees and once in awhile people being ran in a van to doctors. I just can't support this as a townhouse development, because I think we are opening up a real big can of worms and it isn't fair to all those R-4 developments and subdivisions around that property. So, I just can't support it. I mean it was passed for one reason as an R-8 and I just won't be able to support it. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Who just said that? Oh. Mr. Zaremba. It's like where did that come from. Zaremba: I'm sorry. My lips didn't move. De Weerd: I know it. I'm looking at -- Zaremba: I appreciate Councilman Bird's comments and I have two major issues here. One is the roadway access remaining where it is as we add density. That seems to be a serious problem to me and the other is the issue of why it is an R-8 for assisted living and I guess I would suggest that we actually, when we do get to voting, that we vote on B before we vote on A. B is the modified development agreement and the sense of Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 33 of 64 Council on whether that's going to happen or not really answers the question about the preliminary plat. So, I would just suggest -- my question would be can we take these out of order when we vote? Rountree: Sure. De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the public hearing on PP 13-039 and MDA 13-024. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 8-A and 8-13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I just a comment., This area has been a difficult area for the residents in the area, for the developers and those folks that have property that they want to do something different with, as well as the city it's been ongoing for a number of years. One of the things that was done by the City Council and a previous developer and neighbors was to come to some consensus on the R-8 and R-8 for the retirement senior care facility and as you have already heard from the other sage councilmen up here, it was done for that purpose and that purpose only, not to be left by a current developer or somebody in the future to allow a higher density. For that reason I'm not particularly inclined to support the DA modifications. We do DAs now. We have this on record in an agreement with property owners that this is what our intent was and certainly the process allows them an opportunity to visit that. We have had that and we will soon find out how that outcome is. What I really wanted to say is that kudos to both groups. It's always been a tough area to work with. I think those that have testified and provided information have been sincere, you have been respectful and with a high degree of civility, something that we don't see too often when we have some contentious issues before us, so I appreciate and applaud all of you and respect that. I hope we all can walk out of here and say, well, at least I have had a fair opportunity and whatever the decision might be. And having said that, Madam Mayor, I'll let anybody else make a comment. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 34 of 64 De Weerd: I think that it's probably all been said. I, too, appreciate the civility of the topic. I would echo what many of the residents in that area said, this is an attractive development and I think it's also in the wrong place. You know, it's -- I think that the city is committed to a diversity in housing product, but you can't fit a round -- or a square peg in a round hole and even though it is a transitional area what really concerns me is there is -- we fought for that traffic light out there and it was delayed and it was delayed from -- it was infuriating, actually, and, Ryan, I'm not going to kill the messenger tonight. But it is disappointing to hear that that road improvement is -- is in design in 2018 and it's unfunded. What do we need to do to get the attention of ACHD in needed road improvements out in south Meridian. It is really frustrating. I was looking at the map that we got from Ada County Highway District and I don't think there is another city in this county that has as many red lines and orange lines on it than Meridian does and that needs to be addressed and it can't be everyone has his turn. It has to be we need to start addressing where those trips are and where those red lines are and those orange lines and to start getting some traffic relief and I think the residents really explained it today, it is frustrating out there and if you're sitting out there waiting to turn or even waiting for that intersection light, it is infuriating and I hope that our residents in south Meridian find their voice, because that voice needs to be heard. We need to start seeing some improvements out in that area and you heard from our Transportation Commission chair tonight. There is a venue to come to and we would invite you to add your voice to that process. So, Council, sorry, I did have to add that it is a good project, it's just not in the right place. That the reason that is R-8 was for a whole different reason, other than the density desired out in that particular piece of property and there are some serious traffic concerns in that as well. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I will be brief, because you took some of my thoughts, but one thing that I wanted to reiterate is I personally really liked this project and -- thought it was well designed and hope that projects like this are brought back into our community, because I do think that it is a -- a middle ground between some of those larger density apartments and some of the homes that many of our young families find and so I appreciate bringing forth this project. I agree with the Mayor, I thought it was well designed and would have met the needs of a lot of those in our community. However, I have to agree with what -- the comments that we have also heard tonight, it's just not the right location to meet the needs of our citizens in that area. De Weerd: And I did like the reduction -- less pavement, more open space. I would also say that this is a product that's needed in our community. It really is. People are looking for those condominiums or the townhouses that as they downsize it's -- but it's not the right place, so -- Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, as an introduction to the motion, I will repeat what's already been said. I do think it was an attractive project and in general I'm in favor of greater Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 35 of 64 densities. They make city infrastructure more effective and certainly if we are ever going to have public transportation it will depend on higher density populations. So, it pains me to say I don't feel this is the right location for that, but I support what has been said. That said, Madam Mayor, I move that we deny MDA 13-024. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second on Item 8-B. Any discussion from Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: 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. De Weerd: Item 8-A. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we deny PP 13-039. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny Item 8-A. Any discussion from Council? 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. C. Continued from February 4, 2014: Consolidated Public Hearing on the Update to the Development Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Revisions to Impact Fee Ordinance Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 36 of 64 De Weerd: Item 8-C is continued from February 4th. It's the consolidated public hearing on the update to our development impact fee CIP and the revisions to the impact fee ordinance. I will turn this over to staff. I would just note for the record that there is an updated document from when we heard this on February 4th and it is -- Rountree: It's attached to the ordinance. Bird: It's attached to the ordinance. Before the ordinance. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Thank you. For anyone in the audience who hasn't already received one, we do have a stack of them in the back of the room. De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. I was hoping someone would. Wow, looks like a popular topic. Rountree: You guys could get a little closer together now. Cunningham: Okay. Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council. Stacy actually went home sick today. I teased her that that was because of this presentation, but she f assured me it's not. De Weerd: Now I will assure you it does make people sick. Cunningham: Yeah. She's been a little bit stressed. But we actually have prepared a very short agenda. So, we are just going to talk about the five requests that you made from the February meeting. We are going to give you an updated impact eligible CIP and, then, we are going to give you the updated fee. Okay. The first thing that you actually -- what we had written down was you wanted to see if we could split the residential fee between single and multi -family. In order to do that we needed two factors, the growth and the demand. We were able to obtain both of those. CBC helped us get the actual demand. We took the person per household by the residential type from the 2010 census. So, you will see when we have updated the fee that we have split the park between single family and multi -family. The commercial, the next item you actually asked if we could do the same, could we look at splitting industrial versus nonindustrial. Again we needed two factors, the growth and the demand. We were able to obtain the growth, but not the demand. When I actually did talk to the police department they don't keep stats on what type of a call they have per building type. Also I had checked with Nampa and Boise and they only have one commercial fee. They don't split it between commercial and non -- or industrial versus nonindustrial. Then you also asked us if we would place a cap -- or could we place a cap on the commercial fee. Again, I could find no data to support the demand on the police by the size of the building. Also Stacy wanted to note that there is -- the actual commercial fee Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 37 of 64 is only eight percent of the needed CIP. Okay. The fourth item you asked could we come back to you with no increase of current fee. Our departments have gone to work with Stacy and Todd and reduced their capital requests and so this naturally drops the fee. So, you will find a lower fee. And, then, also one of the items that was asked if you adopted a lower fee than what we suggest today how would it affect our CIP. The General Fund would have to make up the difference as we grow or we would actually decrease our current level of service. And now we go into the actual -- the updated CIP and this is the fire impact eligible CIP. So, the total need for the fire department in the next ten years from growth is 5.4 million. This one is the parks. Their eligible CIP has dropped to 8.2 million. And for the police department their eligible impact CIP has dropped to 1.3. This gives us a total of about 15 million that we are going to need to collect from growth to maintain the current level of service. So, we take that 15 million, we divide it by the number of permits that's actually been projected and here is your new revised fee. You can see the single family has gone down to 17.67. The multi- family down to 14.54. And the commercial actually went up to 36 cents a square foot. And now here is an actual comparison from today's current fees. You can see the fee dropped on the residential for the single family 78 dollars. The multi -family will go down 391 dollars. And, then, the commercial fee goes up a nickel from today's rate. And at this time that's the presentation. If you want more detail we do have some detail of the actual changes of the CIP, but we stand here ready for questions. De Weerd: Or sit there. Cunningham: Or sit here. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions? First, I would like to thank Rita and Todd -- certainly our finance department, but also each of our departments. I know there was a lot of blood, sweat and tears as part of this, but they really sharpened their pencils and went to work. What we didn't want to do was compromise that level of service. That is what our current residents expect and do appreciate what the team has done to bring this back to you. So, I would ask Council if you have any questions. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I appreciate all the work that has gone into it and as you said, a lot of people participated. This was true of the previous version as well, but the park impact fee was going down a little bit and I guess I would like to ask Director Siddoway just to comment on what this means to him. He is being very cooperative -- De Weerd: His were the tears I think. Zaremba: You know, I think we should have on the public record what this impacts. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 38 of 64 Siddoway: Sure. Yeah. Mine were the tears. It is difficult to see it go down, you know, almost 400 dollars from where it -- where it was as a flat fee. Now only three dollars of the split fee for single family, further than that on the multi -family. But I have been through the methodology multiple times. I believe that what we have in there is justifiable as what we need for growth. Part of the reason it goes down is that we have been collecting funds -- impact fees that are currently unspent and that gets subtracted off at the end. So, I am comfortable that the methodology is sound and represents the impact fee eligible portion of our CIP and so, therefore, I can't argue for it to go up from there. Zaremba: Thank you. Siddoway: Yeah. Thanks. Any other questions for me? Rountree: Well, Madam Mayor, just a reminder everyone -- and I'm sure Steve can do this as well -- is that we have a measure to strive for with the impact fees in terms of acreage per individual and a significant portion of that was accomplished with the Kleiner Park donation resulting in the ability to lower the amount of funds we need in the future to reach that goal of two acres per thousand or something like that. Siddoway: Our current acres per thousand is at approximately three. Rountree: Three. Siddoway: And our goal is four. Rountree: Four. Siddoway: The difference, though, you know, would have to come from General Fund, partnerships or other sources. The impact fees can only maintain our existing level of service and our existing level of service is only as high as it is because of donations like Kleiner Park. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this item? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Yorgason: Certainly. My name is Dave Yorgason. My address is 14254 West Battenburg Drive in Boise, Idaho. And at this moment in time I'm standing here representing myself as a local developer and contractor, but also as the representative for the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho. r, De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 39 of 64 Yorgason: Thank you so much for listening to our comments. We know that the original study was aggressive and we appreciate your listening to our comments and concerns. Some of the members wished they could have been here tonight. Some had other testimony at other hearings in another city, so they couldn't be here, but we recognize and appreciate your comments. For those who may not know, I serve on the Boise city park impact fee and I'm learning quite a bit through our process. I have only been serving on that committee for a few months. Boise has been doing the same analysis that Meridian has been going through here as well. So, I won't spend a lot of time talking about that. I could answer any questions you may have on that. But we recognize the desire to maintain the existing level of service. Growth should pay for its fair share, but not pay for more than its fair share. We are concerned about affordability of housing. We can talk about how much Meridian has grown relative to the county. Meridian has grown a lot -- approximately 40 percent of last year's growth in residential housing in Ada County was just here in Meridian city and that does equate and come into play with regard to how the COMPASS numbers may or may not be accurate. Putting that aside, in concluding comments we wish to thank you for your consideration in lowering the fee. I was not aware of how much the fee would change until I walked through the door here tonight. We appreciate what you have offered to us and thank you for that. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Rountree: No. Thank you for your comments. Bird: Thank you, David. De Weerd: We appreciate you being here. Yorgason: You're welcome. Thank you. De Weerd: Additional testimony? Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Just a statement. I appreciate what staff -- what staff and the committee has done. I believe, though, that this is from.2006 to 2014. It's a few years. I think we need to -- I know we have got legal and finance involved on the committee. I think we need to have economic development, Bruce Chatterton's group, have a representative on that, plus our committee, our citizens, and I think we need to -- I think we need to meet quarterly with this group and have, if we can, a citizen as a chairman of it, not one of the staff or anything, but work together, so that we are not eight years down the line changing impact fees. So, that's just something to throw out. I'd like to see Bill and Ted and them figure out some resolution that would take care of this. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 40 of 64 De Weerd: They are already working on it. So, what a great idea. We anticipated exactly what you would say and tried to be one step ahead, but thank you. I think staff agrees with you and has been working on kind of an updated charter of what the impact fee committee will do and how we can better utilize the citizens' time and their expertise on there. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I just wanted to take an opportunity to thank staff for the work they did. I know they went into this with a great amount of angst trying to read our mind. We sat down together and drew some things on their white board and kind of came out with this direction. I think it -- I think they have addressed the concerns that we have brought forward when we talked about this. I hope it's clear to everybody -- certainly if it isn't let's get it out now. But, again, I appreciate Todd and Rita and Stacy for the time that they spent trying to weave this into something that was understandable. I think you have done a great job. Cunningham: Thanks. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: And we will ask Ted and Mark and -- Rountree: Yeah. They are in the background, but -- De Weerd: Oh, but they -- they were the ones that were sweating. Who just said Madam Mayor? Okay. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Rita, maybe you can just provide just a little bit of clarification for me. Residential, multi -family versus residential single family, if six years out because of maybe we see an uptick in multi -family, what does that do, then, to our projections and do we at that point come back and reassess multi -family or do we just pull dollars from the General Fund to -- to meet the dollar projection? Cunningham: As we -- if we -actually grow more in multi -family, the demand actually increases, we have more revenues coming in and so as we bring in more revenue we will be updating you with fund balance, we will be updating the departments and they will be constantly looking at that growth and how they need to expand and keep up with the current level of service. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 41 of 64 Cunningham: So, we will have some years, but, you know, one's going to be up, one's going to be down. That's what we have found. De Weerd: And this is certainly something that as we look at refining the charter of the impact fee committee these updates will be provided and discussed and so there will be greater monitoring of this. Cavener: That's good to hear. Thank you, Mayor. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Yes. I had one question on it. De Weerd: You know, that mike will not bite you. Borton: So, just one question, because we have gone through lots of different versions of this that -- and I love this, this is really fun in a real weird kind of way. I enjoy the impact fee analysis. But the one thing that I saw in different versions that it may be a question for Rita and, Jamie, it may be a question for you -- is the training center phase two. That component of the police impact -- Cunningham: Yes. Borton: I thought it was -- I have seen figures where it was 2.2. This one says 1.6. Is that -- Cunningham: Todd, do you have that comparison? Borton: But there was a higher figure of revenue derived from phase two. Cunningham: Hang on just a second. Do you have that handout? Because I thought it was still the same amount. Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: To follow up on the question, I guess would that have a consequence -- if there was a change it would have been a change in the size or the anticipated cost of the overall project? Cunningham: Yes. Borton: A change or am I recalling -- Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 42 of 64 Cunningham: Actually, when we were looking back at the first draft that the BBC presented last year, it was 1,672,484 dollars that's actually impact fee eligible. So, that amount has stayed the same. So, the original construction, the CIP value, is 7.5 million. Twenty-two percent of it could be attributed to growth and so left it the same. 1.6 million. Borton: Okay. Okay. Cunningham: Does that help? Borton: It does help. It makes me wonder where I was -- where I saw something different. De Weerd: On Jamie's wish list. Borton: As long as it wasn't a change in the cost -- the budgeted cost over this amount. Leslie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I don't -- I know there was some discussion over a 2.4 number that was in one of the projections. I don't know where that -- that number came from. I think Rita is correct in that what was presented to the committee when we talked about the overall cost, it was 7.5 million dollars for both phases of the project originally and there was 800,000 dollars for the remodel, which -- and we withdrew the 3.6 million that was scheduled for the remodel. So, I know that those two numbers were on the sheet that I seen of 7.5 million and 800,000. One of the documents I seen from the General Fund balance forecast from the workshop that they did had second phase listed at 2.4 million dollars. That did raise a little bit of concern on our perspective from the police department where second phase -- I think that is a math error in which they took 7.5 million -- they subtracted 5,052,000, which included the 800,000 from it, and that will give you that rough 2.4 million dollar number. So, I think perhaps in this forecast that number may have been misrepresented, but in what Rita has in the documentation I seen that 7.5 million is accurate and the 800,000. 1 hope that clarifies that a little bit. Borton: It does. So, I did see it. Good. Leslie: It was the 2.4. De Weerd: So, you're not crazy. Rountree: It always makes you feel good when you can figure out what you were thinking. Cunningham: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Rita. Yes. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 43 of 64 Cunningham: Councilman Borton, I actually did find -- the 2.2 was actually the eligible CIP for the police department. The total in BBC's draft. Borton: Okay. Cunningham: So, it was the bottom number. Borton: Okay. That was the only question. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Any questions? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I actually have a procedural question, I believe, that would be directed to Mr. Nary. The ordinance we are about to discuss -- I guess I was thinking that this would be the second reading of it and that's not indicated here, but -- so, I could be wrong about that. But just as a general procedure, if there were -- if this were the second reading and we had had a first reading, but now we have changed the numbers, in the vast scheme of things is that okay or does the motion have to be made in such a way that -- Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, I'm going to let Mr. Baird answer. I think our intent was to bring back a final ordinance to you next week anyway for approval, but I may have misunderstood it, but I wanted -- Ted can answer that better. Baird: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba. The ordinance that you have in front of you is capable of being passed tonight. It incorporates the changes -- there is an addendum that has all of the new numbers, which, in effect, amend the report that is also incorporated into this. So, in one motion you can approve the revised CIP and we have also carried forward the revised fees on page four of the ordinance, those blanks are filled in, so if you're going to accept those, that work has been done. The only thing that needs to be added to this ordinance is an effective date and that might be an item of discussion before you close the hearing. The effective date needs to be at least 30 days from publication, so you would be looking at a date 30 days from this Monday. That's the one last factor to consider. And, then, also involved with your question I think was -- there has been a change to what was originally proposed. The impact fee statute requires that if the change is so significant that the public would be surprised, then, you have to go through a renoticing. We made the determination in this case that anyone who was here and witnessed that public hearing wouldn't be surprised at what we come up with, because as you have Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 44 of 64 already testified, we took your suggestions and we came back in an attempt to fulfill your wishes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question for Ted. Ted, do you see a necessity to include for an appropriate name -- Exhibit A, those five tables? It seems to me that that -- that's, obviously, backup information, but I don't know that that's necessarily ordinance material. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Rountree, I thought it was important to at least include it in what was in the packet and what was available today, because it does amend the study. The third whereas clause incorporates that as part of the ordinance. It also incorporates that 75 page study that you have all reviewed. Historically we have attached all that to what's on the laser fiche, because that's what makes up the methodology. Rountree: Okay. Baird: It is a little bit unusual, but we feel it's required by the impact fee statute. The only thing that goes to Sterling is set forth in section three of the ordinance, it repeals and replaces City Code 10-7-12, so that's -- that's the only change you're going to see online and, again, we are looking for direction with regards to an effective date. Rountree: Okay. Baird: And just one last thing. At one point looking at the former agenda, I thought this was identified as second and third readings. I might just hand this back to Bill. He's the ordinance king about whether we need to come back next week. It really wouldn't hurt anything and if you have heard all you need to hear you don't have to -- you can conclude the public hearing tonight, so that I'll ask Mr. Nary's opinion of how to handle the second and third readings. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think we announced that on the record last week that we did a first reading and it was intended for second reading and third reading tonight as a possibility. We didn't publish it that way. It's probably safer -- impact fees are one of those areas that, you know, sometimes can be very vulnerable for people to -- if there is an issue that they haven't raised it probably would be safe to do tonight as a second reading. We will put in on for third reading with your direction, we can put in the date of effectiveness and get it published and, then, have it read as third reading next week and published. So, it probably would be safer to do it that way. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 45 of 64 De Weerd: Okay.. Any problems with -- with that? I don't see any. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't see any problems, but I think we ought to make an effective date of the 1 st of May 2014. That gives plenty of time, gives us our 30 days and gets it published and everything. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Ditto. That's exactly what I was going to say. De Weerd: Another mind reading opportunity. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further questions or discussion, I move that we close the public hearing on Item 8-C. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-C. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Item 8-D is an ordinance 14 -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I would like to make a motion on Item 8-C that we approve the capital improvement plan for the develop -- for the impact eligible CIP and the revised impact fee -- impact fees established by the presentation that staff has presented us tonight'to be incorporated in the ordinance. Bird: Second. De Weerd: That is about to be read, so -- Baird: With an effective date of -- Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 46 of 64 Rountree: And the effective date would be May 1st, 2014. De Weerd: Okay. Second agree? Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Motion and a second. I will ask for roll call. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Continued from February 4, 2014: 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: That's a lot of ayes. Okay. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read Ordinance 14-1596 by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1596 second reading. An ordinance to amend the municipal code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12, Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule, to provide for an amendment to the police, fire, and parks and recreation impact fee schedules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. It will be read in its final form next week with expected Council action at that time. E. Continued From February 25, 2014: To Review the Terms and Conditions of the Real Property Exchange between the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows and the City of Meridian at Storey Park F. Second and Third Reading of Ordinance No. 14-1599: Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain City Owned Real Property to the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc. Located at Storey Park in the City of Meridian De Weerd: Item 8-E and 8-F are both related. We will turn this over to Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 47 of 64 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, after our discussions last week on the land exchange all those terms and conditions have been accepted, so the agreement that's in front of you is ready for approval. De Weerd: Thank you. Any further question on Item 8-E? If not we will go into the second and third reading of Ordinance 14-1599. Madam Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only. Holman: Thank you, Madam Mayor. City of Meridian Ordinance No. 14-1599, an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of certain city owned real property to the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc., located at Storey Park in the City of Meridian, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, of the pending Storey Park Subdivision. Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and attest on behalf of the City of Meridian the exchange agreement, access easement deed and other documents necessary to completed the transaction. Providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Thank you. Council, any -- I would entertain a motion. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move we approve Ordinance 14-1599 with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-F. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, abstain; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes with one abstention. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. G. Public Hearing: TEC 14-001 Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership Located North of W. Chinden Boulevard and West of Spurwing Way Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 48 of 64 De Weerd: Item 8-G is a public hearing TEC 14-001. 1 will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next item on the agenda is a preliminary plat time extension for the Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision. This property was annexed and zoned in 2006 and final platted in 2007, 1 believe, and is currently zoned R-4 and R-8. This is the fourth time extension before you at this time. Because this is a time extension, staff -- or the ordinance allows you to impose new conditions consistent with current ordinances and so as part of staff's recommendation to you this evening staff is recommending that you approve the time extensions with two conditions. The first condition is for the requirement that the subdivision comply with the current street lighting standards that we have under the Public Works Department and, then, also when the applicant comes in and actually submits construction documents -- or construction drawings for the subdivisions we ask that they come in under the 2013 edition of the supplemental specifications and drawings to the Idaho standards for pubic works construction documents we have adopted. The applicant has agreed to the recommended conditions that I have presented to you this evening and I'd stand for any questions you have. De Weerd: Council, any question? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: This is, again, a way back thing, but when this originally came through there was a requirement for a second access to this and the attempt was to connect the west end of this to Ten Mile Road at Chinden. At the time that condition was waived or removed, because this property only owned what would be half of the right of way needed to make that access happen at Chinden and Ten Mile. Since then ITD has presented their plan for the -- that whole Chinden corridor and they are intending to buy the right of way to make that intersection a full intersection. That's the drawings that they are showing and I feel we need to resurrect the idea of having that access. What ended up being provided was an emergency access that would carry a fire truck, but it would not carry traffic, it would be close off, and as many of the residents of the rest of this subdivision testified, that puts an awful lot of traffic winding around back through the west of the rest of this development if this continues to be a dead end without a second access and I know I'm bringing up something that was way in the past, but can we make that a condition that -- they haven't started building yet, so this is all on paper and my question is can we make that a condition of approval of the extension. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 49 of 64 Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I am filling in for Ms. Watters this evening, but I do recall the condition that that be a fire department access only at that point. If you recall, back in 2011 or so staff did process a development agreement modification -- I guess it was 2010 for the Jaykers Subdivision or what's known as Spurwing Greens to the west and now we do have some connectivity through this development other than through the Spurwing development. So, that's something that's changed since this has come through. Without knowing what ACHD's take is on that roadway and having that private golf course there, I mean there is other property owners involved here for getting that condition in place. Maybe the applicant can shed some light on that, but to my knowledge -- I don't have a specific answer to -- I don't have anything to say yes or no to at this point, so -- all I know is at this point it's been approved with the emergency access point and additional connectivity has been provided to that gated driveway with the tennis facility and Spurwing and, then, Spurwing Greens. So, it's not -- it's not only -- it's not landlocked with one access point at this point. So, things have changed over time since 2007. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions or comments? Would the applicant like to make -any comment? Rountree: Way to go, Shari. De Weerd: Hi, Shari. Stiles: Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Shari Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 1029 Rosario in Meridian. De Weerd: Nice to see you. Stiles: Good to see you, too. New faces and cleared the place out. De Weerd: It was the impact fee discussion. Stiles: Madam Mayor and Council, there could be a possibility in the future that they may want to redesign that to have some kind of access, but they were approved with the emergency access only. It was a point of contention with the neighborhood to actually have a full bore access there. I don't know what it would go to, because there is just more golf course if it continued any -- in depth into the property -- if it went any depth into the property it would just have to, basically, dead end. The only other person that has some kind of access is Rod Wagner there. He would be on the northwest corner. He's trying to get some kind of access, because they told him he was going to keep his own driveway just little distance. So, they are still in design. As far as I am concerned they don't know finally what they are going to do with that intersection. I think it's maybe 90 percent, is that what you understand, Councilman Zaremba? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 50 of 64 Zaremba: The -- the drawing of it that they were showing at an open house that handled -- happened -- this is maybe months, nine months ago now, maybe as much as a year, but I don't think so -- showed that to be a five lane by seven lane intersection, that they were going to -- for what looked like a hundred or so feet north of Chinden, have a five lane access signalized -- full access intersection that was five lanes on Ten Mile continuing some distance north of Chinden, plus whatever was going to be on Chinden, which is seven lanes or something like that and -- Stiles: I apologize. I -- Zaremba: -- that was the drawing that was showing -- Stiles: -- wasn't aware of that and I know that Rod Wagner was just fighting for some kind of access to his property that would line up with Ten Mile, instead of using his existing access, which could have been maybe 50 feet from the intersection. Zaremba: Well -- and the fact that they were showing it as a possibility doesn't mean it's funded or going to happen, but if there is the opportunity to have the other -- and you make -- or I think Bill made the point that there is another nearby access that didn't used to exist where Spurwing was connected to Spurwing West or whatever it is. But that would be an attractive access if it could happen, but I understand that may be difficult. Stiles: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, it would significantly change -- I mean the entire -- they would have to change the whole design of the project to make it a collector easily and you wouldn't want any front -on housing on that, so I think they are just wanting to keep this alive and the market really isn't there right today with these patio home products, they are concentrating more on those large lots and while the prices are so low and people can afford the large lots, but they want to keep this project alive and that's why I'm here tonight requesting a time extension. Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. De Weerd: Any other questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you, Shari. Stiles: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to offer testimony on this item? Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 51 of 64 Rountree: Seeing none, I move that we close the public hearing to TEC 14-001. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this item. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the continuation and time extension for Item 8-G. Bird: Second. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. If there is no discussion, 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. H. Hearing on an Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment De Weerd: Item 8-H is a hearing on an appeal. I will turn this over to -- is this Bruce Chatterton's? Rountree: Everybody is pointing. De Weerd: Fingers point to Mr. Nary. Congratulations. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. What's in front of you is a continuation of the appeal hearing that was held in December, a request from W.H. Moore in regards to impact fees. It's only focused on one of your impact fees, just the park impact fee. As you recall from the hearing or if you reviewed the hearing for the Council Members that weren't in office at the time, the basis of the request was that there was no differential between multi -family and single family. In your current fee you Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 52 of 64 have now determined to create a separate category for those different types of housing types. So, what's in front of you today -- Mr. Moore's company -- Mr. Seel is here representing them -- has been paying the fee -- they made a proper appeal timely. They have been properly heard. They have been paying the fees as required by statute, under protest. If you grant them relief they would be entitled to a rebate or a reimbursement of the fees in excess of whatever relief you grant. You have the ability to grant relief based on the evidence that they presented. The only issue or caution or concern you may have is that whatever relief you grant there is -- if there are any other applicants that apply for permits between now and the effective date of your new ordinance, they would also have the ability to request the same relief. I don't know if that's a dozen, a thousand, or five. I have no idea. But that's your only concern -- that would be your only issue is whatever relief you grant for multi -- in my opinion isn't just for multi -family. If you were to apply -- for example, if you were to say that you're going to grant relief based on your new fee for multi -family, then, a new applicant for a different type of permit -- for a building permit could request the same rationale that the new fee should apply to them as well. So, that's -- that's the risk you have, but you have the ability under the statute to grant relief if you wish. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I'm sure you said this, but help me understand. This would apply -- the scenario that you're suggesting would apply to anybody that -- that applied now for a permit. It would not apply retroactively to all the people that have built multi -family in the last year, because they never filed any kind of an appeal or -- how -- how at risk are we for a hundred existing developers to come in and say, hey, I want my money back, too? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Zaremba, your risk for those is zero. They have -- they had an opportunity to appeal, as Mr. Moore's company did, they chose not to appeal and pay the fee. So, you are not at risk for anybody who has already paid it, you're only -- again, risk is probably a -- maybe a bigger word than a concern here. You're only concern is anybody else that were to apply for a permit between today and when your new fee goes into effect May 1st. Zaremba: Thank you. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Ms. Milam. Milam: Bill, my question is, basically, what are we -- are they wanting us to change all of the fees to be what the current fees are, because not only do we have two different numbers for multi -family homes, but also the park's fees were reduced. But other -- the police and the fire were increased. So, are we looking at the whole package as current Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 53 of 64 fees or are we looking at a specific reduction based on just the difference between single family and multi -family or all the parts, including the dropped fees? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Milam, we are -- they did not appeal the police or fire impact fees, so that's not an issue in front of you. All that's requested is parks. What was requested by the applicant in their appeal testimony was simply that a differential be created between multi -family and single family. In the prior formula there was no difference created. So, it's anecdotal, it's not binding upon you, but you now have a methodology creating that difference. If you wish to apply that to the applicant -- again, you're not bound to do it, but it's certainly -- it's evidence you can use, because you found that to be relevant now. That's all they were simply asking was that they believe it was relevant to be considered in the prior one, it just never was, no one had asked for it, they did. So, again, you don't have to follow the same methodology, but you can, because at least something that has been vetted and has been accepted by the Council. Milam: So, to reduce it on the multi -family by 312 dollars or roughly this -- Nary: Within your discretion however you want to apply that. Milam: Okay. Rountree: Are you going to ask for testimony? De Weerd: Would the appellant like to comment? Good evening. Seel: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. Jonathan Seel. W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. You know, I was just going to say first in my younger days I ran four marathons and they are 26 miles, 385 yards, and I kind of feel like I'm at that 385 yard point right now and I'm really waiting for that finish line. As I mentioned, as Mr. Nary mentioned in the testimony, our argument was that multi -family should not be charged the same as single family and I think in my documentation and my support I think I substantiated that. I believe tonight what -- what staff has come up with is a recommendation acknowledging the fact that there is a difference between the two. What we would simply ask for and which I believe is fair, is that the new impact fee, which reduces the -- the existing impact fee by 616 dollars, apply not only to the permits that we have already paid, but the permits that we would pay going forward until I believe -- and, Mr. Nary, you can correct me -- until May 1st or -- well, I guess for all that continuing on, so that we would get a reimbursement for those permits that we paid to date and that we would get a reduction in the permit fees for parks only going forward on our project. And, again, I would like to thank staff and the Councilmen and the Mayor for all the hard work that everybody has put in this. I know it's been a challenge for all of us. So, anyway, that's my request. De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Any question from Council? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 54 of 64 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Have you calculated what that grand total fee is? What would we owe you back? Seel: I calculate it's approximately 135,000 dollars. I figured if I'm doing my math right, 616 dollars times 220. So, it's approximately 135,000. So, needless to say, it -- when you put it in the total I think we estimated our fees on this project over a million and a half dollars, so it's still certainly a nice reduction in there. But, yeah, we are still certainly paying substantial fees and we are not complaining about those. At least not here. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions -- Bird: I have none. De Weerd: -- from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you, Jonathan. Seel: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? 'De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: If we are discussing, I'm inclined to allow the refund under the protest. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we have no other deals, I think I got a motion here. I move that we -- Rountree: Excuse me, Mr. Bird. Do we want to close the hearing? Bird: It isn't a public. Rountree: Well, it's a hearing. Bird: Do we have -- Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 55 of 64 Rountree: I don't -- De Weerd: No. Nary: You have an open hearing. Bird: Okay. I move that we close -- Nary: It's an appeal hearing. Rountree: All right. Bird: I move we close the appeal on the impact fees administrator's decision. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the hearing an appeal. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Madam Mayor. Bill, if I don't get this right let me know. I move that we allow the appeal and to return 616 dollars per unit that has already been -- the applicant has already there applied and paid and to continue this through May 1st and at which time applicant will pay new administration fees or fees. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: What I -- I guess I just want to make clear, so -- for the people that have to collect it, the 616 dollars per permit per unit is a rebate of what's already been applied -- what has already been granted. What you're requesting is they pay the -- your new fee -- your multi -family fee on the future permits between now and May 1 st. Bird: These -- those can't go in until -- he's going to -- I know it's paperwork, but he's going to have to pay the 1,384 between now and -- and May 1st and, then, we will give him back 616. And, then, May 1st when this comes into effect, then, he starts paying the 767. Do you guys -- is that -- is that clear? Nary: Uh-huh. Yes, I think that's clear. Bird: Is that okay, Bill? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 56 of 64 Nary: Yes, that's okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Is that what the second was seconding? Rountree: I don't know that it got a second, did it? Bird: It hasn't got a second. De Weerd: Oh, no, it didn't. We can't have discussion until I have a second. Zaremba: I will second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second and discussion by Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Discussion on the motion if I may. We actually didn't discuss this, whether we -- the motion includes, essentially, paying a check to them and I would ask whether we would consider -- that's a credit and say, okay, the next time you pay we will start working this credit down and rather than us writing a check to them we -- they now have a credit with the city. Can we do it that way? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you. I'm looking at it through the shoes of the person at the desk when someone comes to pay a permit. It's all computerized. So, the easiest thing to do is to follow the motion and that way the accounting department can -- or the Finance Department can verify how many permits have been paid, what the amount of the refund would be. So, it just seems to be the -- the best way to keep track of it and not mess up the counter permit system. Zaremba: Just a thought. So, the second stands with the original motion. De Weerd: Okay. Any additional discussion? Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor. Mr. Nary, is it -- the motion sounds like it's two things. There is granting the requested relief to refund past paid impact fees with relation to fire -- or fire -- excuse me. Parks. But it's a different animal to -- to go from now to May 1 and prospectively apply the new impact fee rate prior to it being paid, but prior to an ordinance being changed -- I mean is it -- am I getting wound around the actual -- you have to actually, between now and May 1st, pay the current existing fee, then, appeal that and, then, come back and we refund it? It would be nice to skip that step, but -- can we? Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 57 of 64 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can, Council Member Borton. I think the way Council Member Bird's motion is is the only way you can do it, because you're not changing your existing ordinance until May 1st. So, what -- I think what -- if understand Council Member Bird's motion, what he's saying is is rather than requiring the applicant reapply and reappeal every time they bring in a payment, they have to go through the exercise of paying the accurate fee by ordinance -- or we are going to predetermine to apply the same reasoning and decision to their -- to their future permit fee on May 1st and reimburse them the same amount. Borton: Okay. Nary: So, I think statutorily you're allowed to do it and by ordinance I think you have to do it that way. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: And that all is under this current appeal perspective; right. Okay. Any further questions or discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Madam Clerk. 4` Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener; yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. I. Public Hearing: TEC 14-002 Centrepointe North by Jonathan Seel Located West Side of N. Eagle Road, Approximately a 114 Mile North of E. Ustick Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat De Weerd: Item 8-1 is a public hearing on TEC 14-002. 1 will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the CentrePointe North time extension. The applicant is here to discuss with you extending his preliminary plat up to two years. Currently his reasoning for the request is the fact that we have a pretty large commercial property on the northeast corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue currently absorbing the retail market out there -- the current market -- or economic conditions that are out there. So, they don't foresee this as a long-term issue, but they certainly recognize that it's difficult to get tenants in place Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 58 of 64 with that project going on. So, they are, again, seeking your approval. During the previous time extensions -- again, this would be the fourth time extension requested by the applicant. During those previous time extension reviews staff did require appropriate conditions to comply with the city's ordinance -- current ordinances in effect. So, as part of this time extension staff has not recommended any new conditions as part of the time extension. Staff did receive written testimony from Jonathan Seel in agreement with the staff report and as a condition of the time extension we have required the applicant to comply with all approvals through the city, including past time extensions. Because we do have the necessary - necessary conditions in place and there is a development agreement on the site, staff is recommending approval of the time extension before you this evening. I stand for any questions you have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Rountree: No. Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Does the applicant have any comment? Seel: Good evening once again. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito. I'm in agreement with the staff report. I think, as Bill said, with the Village project it's basically sucked the air out of the room, so to speak, and we hope that that's a temporary situation. So, it's gone from a bad economy to a good economy with too much retail development. So, we would simply ask for the two year extension at this point and, hopefully, we won't be back here in two more years. So, unless you have any questions I will sit down. De Weerd: Thank you. It looks like you can sit down. Seel: Thank you. De Weerd: It doesn't look like there is anyone here to provide public comment on this. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Seeing nobody coming forward to comment, I move we close the public hearing on TEC 14-002. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-I. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 59 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve TEC 14-002. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Item 8-I. If there is no discussion, 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. J. FP 14-007 Spurwing Orchard No. 3 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty -Three (63) Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District De Weerd: Item 8-J has been requested to continue to another date due to a scheduling conflict. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: These are usually noncontroversial. Do we have the applicant here? Can we deal with this? De Weerd: I don't know if he agrees -- Zaremba: Or is that just too unusual? De Weerd: -- with everything or not. Zaremba: We have a staff report. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 60 of 64 De Weerd: There is a -- the applicant is asking the Council to modify a condition. I guess if you want to discuss this without the applicant here to talk about why -- Zaremba: Staff was recommending approval and I'm -- I'm just asking. De Weerd: The staff is -- Zaremba: Do we need to put it off? De Weerd: -- is amenable to condition number four. I don't know about condition number 6-A. I guess if we want to discuss it we can. The applicant is asking it to be continued. Zaremba: And I'm okay with that. I just thought we are here and it would take five minutes. De Weerd: So -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: -- do I have a motion? Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue FP 14-007 to March 18th, 2014. Milam: Second. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to March 18th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Department Reports A. Community Development Report Budget Amendment for City - Wide Economic Development Audit for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $45,000.00 De Weerd: And under Department Reports I will turn this over to our community development director. Chatterton: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I'm happy to report that this is the first budget amendment I have brought to you all in two years. Not ,going to make a habit out of it, though. Not a good thing. The request tonight is for 45,000 dollars to complete Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 61 of 64 a city wide economic development plan. Of this total 45,000 dollars, 23,000 dollars we are requesting from the General Fund and 22,000 dollars from the Enterprise Fund. Talk a little bit -- just a second about why the Enterprise Fund would be involved with this. Before I talk about the reasons for this, some of the good news is that most of this work -- a good part of it has already been done through the work that we have been doing with the Fields District study. The Fields District, of course, involved looking at industry clusters around agriculture, around higher education, around tourism, several things that we are interested in. So, in the course of doing that study the consultants, Pegasus Group, actually bid and collected much of the data that we would need for a city wide economic development plan and they have also done some of the analysis. So, while the 45,000 dollars certainly is a significant amount of money, that's probably less than half what it would be to do this if we were starting just from scratch. The other good thing is -- and you talk about efficiencies, is that as we complete the Fields District study, the consultants will be in town and working on them at the same time, because they are closely related. So, I'm very happy that we have been able to find an efficiency here and really, you know, some serendipity when it comes to -- to being able to complete these studies at the same time and get -- and really have some cost savings. So, it's a bit of a bargain in my view. Why do we need a city wide economic development plan? The first and foremost reason is we don't have one. Think about it for a second. We have an economic development program and, of course, that's a bigger program than simply is represented by Brenda Sherwood. You know, the Mayor is heavily involved with it. You all are heavily involved with economic development. Many of the department heads and other members of staff are involved with it. But why do we have one? What targets are we shooting for? It really is sort of remarkable when we stop and realize that we don't have the analysis, the overall plan that would inform what our efforts are. How are we going to be spending our -- our scarce resources in the future? Do we need additional resources? Do we need a different approach to things? So, first and foremost that's -- that's a compelling reason. Second, several of the department heads came to the realization at the same time that as we move forward to a strategic plan for the city -- for the various departments of the city, that needs to be informed by an economic development plan as well. Without that really what is the strategic plan for? ED, economic development, would be a big part of that. And, finally, getting back to why we are proposing the Enterprise Fund monies here, Public Works feels that they would like to have their infrastructure development program, water, sewer, and other infrastructure be better informed by economic development targets. Again, a big reason for having infrastructure is economic development and so the feeling there is that if we know what those targets are -- for instance, if we are going to be doing more or less industrial, if we are going to be doing commercial in a different way, if we are going to be going after different types of employers and manufacturers, they are going to have an impact both in the type of industry and where they are located on -- on how we extend infrastructure and how we plan it. And if you have any questions about that -- that interface, which I think is an important one, Tom's here to address that in addition to the possible use of Enterprise Funds. In a nutshell that's what this is all about. We have had good results so far with the consultant group, they are highly qualified to do this type of work and love to have your concurrence on this project. Happy to answer any questions. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 62 of 64 De Weerd: Thank you, Bruce. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move we approve the community development report budget amendment for city wide economic development audit for the not to exceed amount of 45,000 dollars. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-A. Any discussion from Council? 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. De Weerd: Thank you, Bruce. Chatterton: Thank you. We are excited to be reporting back to you on this. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Thanks, Bruce. Item 10: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Council, are there any items to consider under Future Meeting Topics? Item 11: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(c)(f): (c) To Conduct Deliberations Concerning Labor Negotiations or to Acquire an Interest in Real Property, Which is Not Owned by a Public Agency, and (f) To Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion, then, to adjourn into Executive Session. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 63 of 64 Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) and (1)(f)• Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session. 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. EXECUTIVE SESSION. (8:59 p.m. to 10:23 p.m.) De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Amended onto the Agenda: Purchase/Sale Agreement and Contract for Subject Property Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move to amend the agenda to address the real estate purchase matter that was recently presented, not otherwise available for the Council's consideration when the agenda was originally established. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to amend the agenda. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council March 4, 2014 Page 64 of 64 Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I would move for the approval directed to the Mayor and Clerk to sign the purchase and sale agreement for the subject real property. Zaremba: Second. Borton: That's the motion. David seconded. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, 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. De Weerd: Council, do I have a motion to adjourn? Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:23 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ]" Y`DE-WEERD DATE APPROVED U JAYCEFIHOLMAN, CITY CLERK Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: A. Approve Minutes of February 4, 2014 City Council Meeting MEETING NOTES z CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5B PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: B. Approve Minutes of February 11, 2014 City Council Workshop Meeting MEETING NOTES 9 N Hill CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: C. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council PreCouncil Meeting MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5D PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: D. Approve Minutes of February 18, 2014 City Council Meeting MEETING NOTES r CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5E PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: E. Approve Minutes of February 25, 2014 City Council Meeting MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5F ITEM TITLE: F. Approval of Street Light Maintenance Agreement with Traditions by Amyx II for Zebulon Commons Subdivision MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ME IDIANFZC-- Public O Works Department TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Members of the City Council FROM: Austin Petersen, Transportation and Utility Coordinator DATE: February 18, 2014 Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members Joe Borton Keith Bird Luke Cavener Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH TRADITIONS BY AMYX II FOR ZEBULON COMMONS SUBDIVISION I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: Approve the street light agreement with Traditions by Amyx II for the Zebulon Commons Subdivision; and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Austin Petersen, Transportation and Utility Coordinator 489-0352 Warren Stewart, PW Engineering Manager 489-0350 Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372 III. DESCRIPTION A. Back rg ound The Zebulon Commons development is located off of McMillan Road, between Locust Grove and Eagle Roads. In lieu of installing standard shoebox fixtures, the developer of the Zebulon Commons has installed non-standard decorative street lights. Photometric data has been provided, and these lights have been installed according to the Department of Public Works Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. This agreement provides for maintenance of the decorative street lights by the Homeowners Association with electrical costs to be paid by the City. Page I of 2 Mayor Tammy de Weerd E IDIANCity Council Members Joe Borton IDAHO Keith Bird Luke Cavener Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: ZEBULON COMMONS This STRE T LIGHTPhorglanized NCE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 2014 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporati under the laws of the State of Idaho ("City"), whose address is 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho, 83642, and The Traditions by Amyx II, a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Idaho ("Developer"), whose address is 13967 Wainwright Drive, Suite 102, Boise, Idaho, 83713. WHEREAS, pursuant to Meridian City Code section 11 -3A -21(B), the City generally maintains only shoebox- and cobrahead-style street lights, and requires that decorative street lights be maintained by the developer or homeowners association under a maintenance agreement duly executed with City; WHEREAS, Zebulon Commons is a residential subdivision within the City of Meridian with thirteen (13) special -order, decorative street lights installed by Developer to satisfy the City of Meridian requirements for street lighting; and NOW, THEREFORE, for the exchange of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: I. COMMITMENTS A. City's commitments. From the Effective Date of this Agreement forward, City shall be responsible for paying Idaho Power Company for the provision of electricity required to operate the thirteen (13) street lights located in the Zebulon Commons residential subdivision. It is agreed that City will enter into a Schedule 41C Agreement with Idaho Power Company. Developer acknowledges that street lighting served under the Schedule 4 1 C Agreement must be controlled by a photo electric device of the "fail off'type. type. A. Developer's commitments. From the Effective Date of this Agreement forward, Developer shall be responsible for: 1. Replacement, as needed to ensure functionality, of` fuses, wiring, bulbs, ballasts, or photoelectric cells in the thirteen (13) street lights located in the Zebulon Commons residential subdivision. 2. Replacement and/or repair, as needed due to damage, deterioration, or loss, of the thirteen (13) street lights located in the Zebulon Commons residential subdivision, and any component or appurtenance thereof. ''i II. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Time is of the essence. Developer acknowledges that commitments made under this Agreement shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. B. Heirs and assigns. It is understood and agreed that Developer will assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement to the Zebulon Commons home- or property owners association when said such organization is formed. This Agreement and each and all of the terms and conditions hereof shall apply to and are binding on Developer, City, the Zebulon Commons home- or property owners association, and these parties' respective heirs, successors and assigns. C. Entire agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. WITNE S WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this day of , 2014. DEVELOPER: _ Todd Amyx,,� STATE OF IDAHO ) / ) ss: County of 14441L ) nn I HE BY CERTJFY that on this lV day of G'rrI , 2014, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in the to of Idaho, personally appeared Todd Amyx, proven to me o be the person who executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and ffixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate fir ab e written. Z,— 94;7�1 of y Public for Idaho Residing at K.8 i , Idaho My Commission Exp"ares: CITY OF MF HIAN: - ______ o�,-jLF)AUGL 61 BY: - ,° c f" ttest: city old 1 Tammy de erd, Mayor `� ERIDIA.I� ycee I .Holman, City Clerk '0°+.,. 1 D A 11 9 SEAL STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT: ZEBULON COMMON ltTE �� PAGE 2 OF 2 't he m e rs�� nJ a v Cab ol a 0 se C� too 9 11-PIP;kB6a 9 a glass"' STATE OF IDAHO ) / ) ss: County of 14441L ) nn I HE BY CERTJFY that on this lV day of G'rrI , 2014, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in the to of Idaho, personally appeared Todd Amyx, proven to me o be the person who executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and ffixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate fir ab e written. Z,— 94;7�1 of y Public for Idaho Residing at K.8 i , Idaho My Commission Exp"ares: CITY OF MF HIAN: - ______ o�,-jLF)AUGL 61 BY: - ,° c f" ttest: city old 1 Tammy de erd, Mayor `� ERIDIA.I� ycee I .Holman, City Clerk '0°+.,. 1 D A 11 9 SEAL STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT: ZEBULON COMMON ltTE �� PAGE 2 OF 2 't he m e rs�� Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5G PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: G. Approval of Professional Services Agreement to JUB Engineers, Inc. for "Meridian Heights - Kentucky Ridge Program Management" for the Not -To -Exceed Amount of $89,000-00 MEETING NOTES -T 0 fyvnuj 04 1=f,45� t-11� CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk, From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager CC: Jacy Jones, Tom Barry, Warren Stewart Date: 02/27/14 Re: March 4t' City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the March 4 City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration. Approval of Professional Services Agreement to JUB Engineers Inc for "Meridian Heights — Kentucky Ridge Program Management" for a Not -To -Exceed amount of $89,000.00. Recommended Council Action: Approval of Agreement to JUB Engineers, Inc for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $89,000.00. Thank you for your consideration. 0 Page 1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MERIDIAN HEIGHTS — KENTUCKY RIDGE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Project No. 10481 THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES is made this 4th day of March, 2014, and entered into by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and JUB Engineers Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", whose business address is 250 S. Beechwood Ave. Ste. 201 Boise ID 83709. INTRODUCTION Whereas, the City has a need for services involving Meridian Heights - Kentucky Ridge Program Management: and WHEREAS, the Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform and has agreed to provide such services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. Scope of Services: 1.1 CONSULTANT shall perform and furnish to the City upon execution of this Agreement and receipt of the City's written notice to proceed, all services, and comply in all respects, as specified in the document titled "Scope of Services" a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, together with any amendments that may be agreed to in writing by the parties. 1.2 All documents, drawings and written work product prepared or produced by the Consultant under this Agreement, including without limitation electronic data files, are the property of the Consultant; provided , however, the City shall have the right to reproduce, publish and use all such work, or any part thereof, in any manner and for any purposes whatsoever and to authorize others to do so. If any such work is copyrightable, the Consultant may copyright the same, except that, as to any work which is copyrighted by the Consultant, the City reserves a royalty -free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish and use such work, or any part thereof, and to authorize others to do so. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS 10481 Page 1 of 14 1.3 The Consultant shall provide services and work under this Agreement consistent with the requirements and standards established by applicable federal, state and city laws, ordinances, regulations and resolutions. The Consultant represents and warrants that it will perform its work in accordance with generally accepted industry standards and practices for the profession or professions, that are used in performance of this Agreement and that are in effect at the time of performance of this Agreement. Except for that representation and any representations made or contained in any proposal submitted by the Consultant and any reports or opinions prepared or issued as part of the work performed by the Consultant under this Agreement, Consultant makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as part of this Agreement. 1.4 Services and work provide by the consultant at the City's request under this Agreement will be performed in a timely manner in accordance with a Schedule of Work, which the parties hereto shall agree to. The Schedule of Work may be revised from time to time upon mutual written consent of the parties. 2. Consideration 2.1 The Consultant shall be compensated on a Not to Exceed basis as provided in Attachment B "Payment Schedule" attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof for the Not -to -Exceed amount of $89,000.00. 2.2 The Consultant shall provide the City with a monthly statement, as services warrant, of fees earned and costs incurred for services provided during the billing period, which the City will pay within 30 days of receipt of a correct invoice and approval by the City. The City will not withhold any Federal or State income taxes or Social Security Tax from any payment made by City to Consultant under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums is the sole responsibility of Consultant. 2.3 Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Consultant shall not be entitled to receive from the City any additional consideration, compensation, salary, wages, or other type of remuneration for services rendered under this Agreement., including , but not limited to, meals, lodging, transportation, drawings, renderings or mockups. Specifically, Consultant shall not be entitled by virtue of this Agreement to consideration in the form of overtime, health insurance benefits, retirement benefits, paid holidays or other paid leaves of absence of any type or kind whatsoever. 3. Time of Performance: This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties, and shall expire upon completion of the agreed upon services, or unless sooner terminated as provided below or unless some other method or time of termination is listed in PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 2 of 14 10481 Attachment A. This Agreement shall terminate automatically on the occurrence of (a) bankruptcy or insolvency of either party, or (b) sale of Consultants business. 4. Independent Contractor: 4.1 In all matters pertaining to this agreement, CONSULTANT shall be acting as an independent contractor, and neither CONSULTANT nor any officer, employee or agent of CONSULTANT will be deemed an employee of CITY. Except as expressly provided in Attachment A, Consultant has no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in the City. The selection and designation of the personnel of the CITY in the performance of this agreement shall be made by the CITY. 4.2 Consultant shall determine the method, details and means of performing the work and services to be provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall be responsible to City only for the requirements and results specified in this Agreement and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement, shall not be subjected to City's control with respect to the physical action or activities of Consultant in fulfillment of this Agreement. 5. Indemnification and Insurance: CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses and other costs including litigation costs and attorney's fees, arising out of, resulting from, or ii-, connection with the performance of this Agreement by the CONSULTANT, its servants, agents, officers, employees, guests, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of the tortuous conduct of CITY or its employees. CONSULTANT shall maintain, and specifically agrees that it will maintain, throughout the term of this Agreement, liability insurance, in which the CITY shall be named an additional insured in the minimum amounts as follow: General Liability One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence, Professional Liability / Professional errors and omissions One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) aggregate, Automobile Liability Insurance One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per incident or occurrence and Workers' Compensation Insurance , in the statutory limits as required by law.. The limits of insurance shall not be deemed a limitation of the covenants to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY; and if CITY becomes liable for an amount in excess of the insurance limits, herein provided, CONSULTANT covenants and agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for all such losses, claims, actions, or judgments for damages or injury to persons or property and other costs, including litigation costs and attorneys' fees, arising out of, resulting from , or in connection with the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or Consultant's officers, employs, agents, representatives or subcontractors and resulting in or attributable to personal injury, death, or damage or destruction to tangible or intangible property, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 3 of 14 10481 including use of. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a Certificate of Insurance, or other proof of insurance evidencing CONSULTANT'S compliance I with the requirements of this paragraph and file such proof of insurance with the CITY at least ten (10) days prior to the date Consultant begins performance of its obligations under this Agreement. In the event the insurance minimums are changed, CONSULTANT shall immediately submit proof of compliance with the changed limits. Evidence of all insurance shall be submitted to the City Purchasing Agent with a copy to Meridian City Accounting, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 6. Notices: Any and all notices required to be given by either of the parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, shall be in writing and be deemed communicated when mailed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY City of Meridian Purchasing Manager 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, ID 83642 208-888-4433 Email: kwatts@meridiancity.org CONSULTANT JUB ENGINEERS, INC Attn: Tim Haener 250 S. Beechwood Ave., Ste. 201 Boise, ID 83709 Phone: 208-376-7330 Email: TJH@JUB.com Either party may change their address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner herein provided. 7. Attorney Fees: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 8. Time is of the Essence: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. 9. Assignment: It is expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto, that CONSULTANT shall not have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate or sell any of its rights under this Agreement except upon the prior express written consent of CITY. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 4 of 14 10481 10. Discrimination Prohibited: In performing the Services required herein, CONSULTANT shall not unlawfully discriminate in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age or disability. 11. Reports and Information: 11.1 At such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be furnished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. 11.2 Consultant shall maintain all writings, documents and records prepared or compiled in connection with the performance of this Agreement for a minimum of four (4) years from the termination or completion of this or Agreement. This includes any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photo static, photographic and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols or any combination thereof. 12. Audits and Inspections: At any time during normal business hours and as often as the CITY may deem necessary, there shall be made available to the CITY for examination all of CONSULTANT'S records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall permit the CITY to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. 13. Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material: No material produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to copyright in the United States or in any other country. The CITY shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose and otherwise use, in whole or in part, any reports, data or other materials prepared under this Agreement. 14. Compliance with Laws: In performing the scope of services required hereunder, CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of Federal, State, and local governments. 15. Changes: The CITY may, from time to time, request changes in the Scope of Services to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of CONSULTANT'S compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the CITY and CONSULTANT, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. 16. Termination: If, through any cause, CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, or agents fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 5 of 14 10481 Agreement, falsifies any record or document required to be prepared under this �< agreement, engages in fraud, dishonesty, or any other act of misconduct in the performance of this contract, or if the City Council determines that termination of this Agreement is in the best interest of CITY, the CITY shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement, in part or in its entirety, by giving written notice to CONSULTANT of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least fifteen (15) days before the effective date of such termination. CONSULTANT may terminate this agreement at any time by giving at least sixty (60) days notice to CITY. In the event of any termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property, and CONSULTANT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily complete hereunder. Notwithstanding the above, CONSULTANT shall not be relieved of liability to the CITY for damages sustained by the CITY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by CONSULTANT, and the CITY may withhold any payments to CONSULTANT for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the CITY from CONSULTANT is determined. This provision shall survive the termination of this agreement and shall not relieve CONSULTANT of its liability to the CITY for damages. 17. Construction and Severability: If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such holding will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other part of this Agreement so long as the remainder of the Agreement is reasonably capable of completion. 18. Advice of Attorney: Each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement. It has received independent legal advice from its attorney's or the opportunity to seek such advice. 19. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other agreements or understandings, oral of written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. 20. Public Records Act: Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 9-335, et seq., information or documents received from the Contractor may be open to public inspection and copying unless exempt from disclosure. The Contractor shall clearly designate individual documents as "exempt" on each page of such documents and shall indicate the basis for such exemption. The CITY will not accept the marking of an entire document as exempt. In addition, the CITY will not accept a legend or statement on one (1) page that all, or substantially all, of the document is exempt from disclosure. The Contractor shall indemnify and defend the CITY against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, actions, t attorney fees and suits whatsoever for honoring such a designation or for the PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 6 of 14 10481 Contractor's failure to designate individual documents as exempt. The Contractor's failure to designate as exempt any document or portion of a document that is released by the CITY shall constitute a complete waiver of any and all claims for damages caused by any such release. 21. Confidentiality: Consultant understands and acknowledges that all tests and results(confidential information) are intended solely for the City. Consultant agrees to hold all confidential information in confidence and will not disclose the confidential information to any person or entity without the express prior written consent of City. 22, Applicable Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho, and the ordinances of the City of Meridian. 23. Approval Required: This Agreement shall not become effective or binding until approved by the City of Meridian. CITY OF TAMMY de "' RD, MAYOR �„��'`n^t'�� Oti J !J 1 2 , ( /_l city of Dated: J `i / / - PT A T\jk"� t i�p411 8 Approved by Council GUi Attest: JAY E MAN, CITY CLERK Purchasing Approifal BY: KEIT A S, rurchaysihd Manager Dated::T 2 �lf PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS 10481 JUB ENGINEERS, INC BY: ;�- -VIlw4rofjogaNe& 0 6icaft ,v,A. Dated:_�:f'1�1� Depart ent Approval BY: • ' ' 2 T u ire0t0I -- - Dated:: Z-�►� Page 7 of 14 Attachment A SCOPE OF WORK I. Introduction The intent of this Agreement is to perform program management for the City of Meridian (Owner) to assimilate the Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District (MHWSD) into City services. The program is based off the Three Party Agreement executed in October of 2013 (Three Party Agreement), which is included as Attachment B. Currently, the City and MHWSD have assembled a task force of City and MHWSD employees (Task Force) to work on the project. J -U -B intends to work closely with the Task Force on a collaborative effort to provide program management needed to coordinate various activities of the City and to monitor the work of third parties. Also, J -U -B will collaborate with the MHWSD to craft a public outreach program so the residents of the MHWSD are informed in a proactive way. J -U -B will assist the MHWSD in execution of the program until a City Public Information Officer is hired, at which time the MHWSD and City will execute the program. The anticipated date of that transition is mid-April, 2014. Work is anticipated to commence in late -February 2014 and last through January of 2015. II. Items to be Provided by Owner: The Owner shall provide the following to J -U -B to facilitate the completion of J -U -B's Scope of Services for this Project: 1. Provide clear direction to the Program Manager for timely resolution of pertinent policies or other action items. 2. Except for J -U -B's responsibilities delineated herein, provide all labor, materials, fees arid costs necessary to meet the City's commitments under the Three Party Agreement within the timeframes specified. 3. Commit the Task Force to meet on a monthly basis to review status and coordinate activities (one two hour meeting per month). 4. Assign Task Force leads and support personnel as requested by J -U -B and provide names, titles, emails, and phone numbers (office and mobile) of Task Force Leads and support personnel. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 8 of 14 10481 5. Commit the City Engineer to meet weekly via phone or in person (as needed up to one hour meeting per week). City Engineer may be asked to help enforce commitments from City staff or third parties. 6. Commit a Water Department Representative to assist the public outreach program by attending visits with residents about the water service project (potentially meet with most individual land owners). 7. Provide a Public Information Officer who, with the MHWSD Administrator, will coordinate and lead the public involvement program starting mid-April, 2014 or sooner. 8. Provide record drawings of the existing infrastructure in the annexed area. 9. Provide plans of the improvements already installed or to be installed in the area by the City, or by third parties. 10. Other items not covered in J -U -B's scope of work or not provided by J -U -B via addendum. III. J -U -B's Scope of Services J -U -B work on this project shall be limited to the following Scope of Services as well as other items that may be included via addendum: 1. Project Management — Provide ongoing management of the project including regular status updates, coordination, and budget/schedule compliance. ✓ Deliverables: i. Monthly budget update and status report with invoice. ii. Detailed annotation of labor costs on the project with invoice. iii. Invoices shall include an Earned Value Graph showing "budget" and "expended" trends overtime. 2. Program Management — Monitor, document, coordinate, facilitate, and assist in the resolution of issues between the signatories of the Three Party Agreement in an effort to successfully implement said Agreement and related activities. Work activities of the three parties that are subject to Program Management include items listed in the Work Breakdown Structure and Schedule (WBS) included hereto as Attachment C. The first priority of the Program Management will be to endeavor to cause the City to meet its commitments in the Three Party Agreement. The second priority is the monitoring and coordination of work provided by the other two parties: the MHWSD f and L.C. Development, Inc., (Centers). The third priority is implementation of work by PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 9 of 14 10481 the City that is not a subject of the Three Party Agreement and is not on the critical path for completion of Agreement requirements. J -U -B's approach is to conduct the management through phone calls, email, site meetings, office meetings, maintenance of a Master Task List, and other means necessary for proper communication and proactive resolution of issues. Coordination will be with various City departments, other signatories of the Three Party Agreement, and reviewing agencies, as follows: 1. City Water 2. City Fire 3. City GIS and Asset Management 4. City Surveyor (or contracted surveyor) 5. City Trash — Republic Services 6. City Sewer 7. City Billing 8. City Finance 9. City Code Enforcement 10. City Emergency Services 11. City Attorney 12. City Council 13. DEQ 14. IDWR 15. ACHD 16. MHWSD Engineer 17. MHWSD Board 18. MHWSD Patrons 19. L.C. Development, Inc. (Centers) We anticipate the following: a. Complete the Master Task List in Excel using the latest work breakdown structure. The list will be tabbed for each Task Force Lead. b. It is estimated that work will include an average of up to 10 hours per week of Program Manager time for 10 months. That time will include the following activities: L Weekly half hour calls or meetings with the City Engineer to discuss specific resource or cooperation issues that are critical to success. These will include email notes by J -U -B. ii. Monthly Task Force meetings to discuss overall progress with the group. These will include an agenda and notes by J -U -B. Ten meetings are anticipated. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 10 of 14 10481 iii. Check Point meetings with the Public Works Director, Assistant Public Works Director, City Engineer, and MHWSD Administrator. Up to five one-hour meetings are anticipated. iv. Continuous updating of an Excel Master Task List and bi-weekly dissemination of updates to the Task Force. Task List will include: 1. Action item. 2. Status (pending, ongoing, completed). 3. Responsible party. 4, Timeframe for completion. 5. Critical issues. 6. Action required. 7. Notes. 8. Critical successors. 9. Cross references, if any. Tasks that are behind schedule will be flagged. Updates will be sent to individual Task Force leads on a bi-weekly basis. Upon pre -approval of the Owner, J -U -B may provide professional planning, engineering, land surveying, or construction phase services in support of the project. These services are not included in the estimate of fees and will be negotiated on a T&M or Lump Sum basis depending on the scope of work. ✓ Deliverables: i. Weekly email notes to City Engineer on critical needs. ii. Monthly Task Force Meeting minutes and notes. iii. Check Point Meeting minutes and notes. iv. Bi -weekly updates of the Master Task List to Task Force Leads. NOTE: Success of the Program Manager project will depend significantly upon the cooperation and resource allocation by the City and third parties. Since J -U -B has no direct control over City staff or third parties, therefore, we cannot guarantee a successful conclusion nor be liable for claims, damages, or costs resulting from the project. As a professional service provider, J -U -B commits to meet the standard of care in the performance of services. 3. Public Involvement Process—J-U-B, through our subsidiary The Langdon Group (TLG), will initiate a public involvement process until the City's Public Information Officer is hired, no later than mid-April, 2014. After that time, the City and MHWSD will conduct PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 11 of 14 10481 the public outreach campaign with support from the 1 -U -B Program Manager. Work will be closely coordinated with the MHWSD Administrator and will be limited to the following: a. Create a Draft Public Involvement Plan including plan components and schedule. This will include a kickoff meeting with the MHWSD Administrator to understand their issues and current status of public involvement. b. Craft Talking Points for internal and external messaging. c. Review a. and b. with City and MHWSD and finalize. d. Prepare monthly email updates for the MHWSD Administrator for inclusion in their outreach campaign. e. Participate in up to three Open Houses. ✓ Deliverables: L Draft and Final Public Involvement Plan. ii. Draft and Final Talking Points. iii. 10 email updates to MHWSD Administrator. For the most part, formal communications to patrons will be made through the MHWSD Administrator, who will review materials prior to dissemination. Any City -initiated formal communications with patrons must be pre -approved by the City Public Works Department and Mayor's office. Upon pre -approval of the City, J-U-B/The Langdon Group may provide additional public involvement or mediation services including group or individual facilitation, mediation, or negotiations in support of the project. These services are not included in the estimate of fees and will be negotiated on a T&M or Lump Sum basis depending on the scope of work. IV. Schedule for Completing Services Work will be conducted from late -February, 2014 through January, 2015. This schedule will be contingent upon all parties providing the necessary resources to actually complete the work required. Also, the schedule is contingent on timely review and approval by the reviewing agencies. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS 10481 Page 12 of 14 Attachment B MILESTONE / PAYMENT SCHEDULE A. Total and complete compensation for this Agreement shall not exceed $89,000.00. TASK DESCRIPTIONAMOUNT Project Manager 1 Project ManagementATOTAL $3,100.00 2 Program Management$80,200.00 Administration/Clerical 3 Public Involvement Process$5,700.00 $89,000.00 RATE SCHEDULE Name / Title Hourly Rate Project Manager $155.00 Sr. Public Involvement Project Manager $140.00 Public Involvement Project Manager $117.00 Administration/Clerical $70.00 ALLOWABLE REIMBURSABLES The following reimbursable expenses will be allowed ONLY if addressed in the agreement. Amounts will be reimbursed at cost. Expense Rate Sub -Consultants Cost Outside Printing and Reproduction with Receipt Cost Travel See Below PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS 10481 Page 13 of 14 TRAVEL EXPENSES The City will only pay for meal, lodging and transportation expenses for official business that consists of consultants traveling to or from, outside of the Treasure Valley, and that are directly related to the specific task. Reimbursement will NOT exceed the limits allowed under the US General Services Administration Per Diem Rates for the Boise area. These rates can be found at the following website: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/cateaory/100120 The current FY2014 rate for meals is $46 per full day, and $34.50 (75%) for both travel days. Receipts for meal per diem allowances are not required. The current FY2014 GSA hotel rate is $83.00/night. Lodging, transportation and hotel expenses will only be reimbursed when accompanied with an itemized receipt and proof of prior approval by the Project Manager. Transportation (Pre -approved by Project Manager): All travel must be by the most economical means practical. If there is interruption of travel or deviation from the direct route for the traveler's convenience, the deviation may not exceed the cost of uninterrupted travel. Airline: Consultants will only be reimbursed for coach or economy class rates. Rental Cars: A vehicle is only allowed with prior authorization by the City Project Manager. Mileage: Mileage to and from consultants office and airport may be reimbursed if incorporated in any associated task. Parking: Airport parking may be reimbursed if incorporated in any resulting task. ALL OTHER EXPENSES ARE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL AND ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR MERIDIAN HEIGHTS Page 14 of 14 10481 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5H PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: H. Approval of purchase of a Pierce Arrow UC -06 Fire Engine from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $499,926.00, to sign the Interlocal Contract for Cooperative Purchasing and authorize the Purchasing Manager to issue and sign the purchase order. MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Memo To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk, From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager CC: Jacy Jones, Mark Niemeyer Date: 2-27-2014 Re: March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the March 4h City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration. Approval of purchase of Pierce Arrow Fire Engine from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $499,926.00 Recommended Council Action: Approval of purchase of Pierce Arrow Fire Engine from Hughes Fire Equipment for the Not -To -Exceed amount of $499,926.00 and authorize the Purchase Manager to sign the Purchase Order. This purchase is being made from the HGAC contract (a cooperative contract) that has been reviewed and approved by Legal. This purchase is part of the approved 2014 Budget. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: I. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Single -Night Sponsorship Agreement Between Westside Body Works and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $350.00 MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS f, CA�3LEab AcOeSight Meridian Meridian Settlers Park CABLEONE MOVIE NIGHT IN MERIDIAN 2014 SINGLE -NIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMET M L � wit d Z 1 10-�-C� This CABLEONE MOVIE NIGHT IN MERIDIAN 2014 SINGLE -MIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made on this - , 2014 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Idaho, whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ("City"), and Westside Body Works, whose address is 210 Fairview Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 ("Sponsor"). For good and valuable consideration and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, City and Sponsor agree as follows: 1. Single -Night Sponsorship. Throughout the term of this Agreement, Sponsor shall be, and shall be recognized as, the Single -Night Sponsor of City's June 201h installment of the weekly summer CableONE Movie Night in Meridian event series. As such, benefits insuring to Sponsor throughout the term of this Agreement shall include those enumerated for Single - Night sponsors in the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Sponsorship Packet, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Payment. By 5:00 p.m. on March 3, 2014, Sponsor shall prepay to City three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00). In the event the Sponsor fails to pay this amount in full in a timely manner as provided herein, City may terminate this Agreement in the manner therefor as set forth herein. In the event that the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian program is discontinued, or the showing is cancelled or shortened before Sponsor's promotional video is shown, no portion of the amount prepaid shall be refundable, though City shall issue a raincheck to Sponsor for redemption as a Single -Night Sponsor in the following season. City shall make all decisions regarding scheduling. In the event that the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian program is discontinued, or the showing is cancelled or shortened after Sponsor's promotional video is shown, no portion of the amount prepaid shall be refundable, and no raincheck shall issue. 3. Promotion. a. City's efforts. With regard to CableONE Movie Night in Meridian, City shall undertake the promotional and advertising efforts enumerated for Single -Night Sponsors in the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Sponsorship Packet, attached hereto as Exhibit A. MOVIE NIGHT SINGLE -NIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 1 of 6 , b. Promotional Item Limitations. The sale or distribution of any food, drink, or other promotional item by Sponsor at Sponsor's booth, as allowed in the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Sponsorship Packet attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall not be permitted without prior written permission from City. Such permission may be withheld or revoked at any time and for any reason. City may also, at any time, require that Sponsor discontinue the distribution of any promotional item that City deems to be negatively impacting concessions sales or deems not to be appropriate. c. Video production. City, in its sole discretion, may edit, reduce, cancel, or reject, at any time, any audio, video, or written material submitted, used, or created by Sponsor. Any pre -approval by City shall not be considered a waiver of the right to revoke or edit any such material during the term of this Agreement. Further, Sponsor warrants and represents that, as to all content of the video pieces created or produced pursuant to this Agreement, Sponsor shall, and hereby agrees to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City from all claims, suits, judgments, proceedings, losses, damages, costs, and expenses, of any nature whatsoever, including attorneys' fees, for which the City may become liable by reason of City's displaying of Sponsor's audio or video copy, artwork, or other content, including but not limited to claims for libel, violation of privacy, plagiarism, or copyright violations. 4. Term. The term of this agreement shall be from the Effective Date through September 1, 2013, unless earlier terminated by either party by the method established herein. 5. Cancellation; scheduling. The parties acknowledge that the 2014 CableONE Movie Night in Meridian event series schedule shall include twelve to fourteen (12-14) weekly movie showings during June, July, and August, but cancellation of any or all movie showings may be necessary due to weather or other conditions or circumstances. City shall have sole responsibility and discretion in scheduling and/or cancelling CableONE Movie Night in Meridian and all movies and activities related thereto, including any and all related activities by Sponsor. The parties hereto expressly acknowledge that Settlers Park is a public space, the management and scheduling of which shall at all times be within the sole purview of City. Any right or privilege granted to Sponsor by this Agreement shall include neither the right to exclude any law-abiding person from CableONE Movie Night in Meridian, nor the right to interfere with any person's concurrent, lawful use of Settlers Park where such concurrent use does not conflict or interfere with Sponsor's use. 6. Insurance Sponsor's responsibility. City shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of any equipment, materials, or personnel used or employed by Sponsor in the furtherance of this Agreement, or to cover any activity undertaken by Sponsor in the exercise of the rights or the furtherance of the obligations described herein. Any and all insurance of each party's respective property and personnel shall be the sole responsibility of that party. Sponsor shall obtain all necessary insurance as may be required in order to protect Sponsor's insurable interests for Sponsor's rights and obligations described within this Agreement, including, but not limited to, liability insurance, automobile insurance, worker's compensation insurance, and/or property insurance. MOVIE NIGHT SINGLE -NIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 2 of 6 7. Use of City's name, logo. City hereby conveys to Sponsor permission to use City's name for purposes of advertising, marketing, and public information, without violation of City's rights of privacy or any other rights City may possess under this Agreement, provided that Sponsor shall not use City's logo for any purpose without the express, written permission of the Mayor's Executive Assistant. 8. Termination. a. Termination for cause. If either Party determines that the other has failed to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, violated any of the covenants, agreements, and/or stipulations of this Agreement, engaged in any act of misconduct in the performance of this Agreement; or if either Party willfully or negligently defaults in, or fails to fulfill, its material obligations under this Agreement, the other Party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement by giving written notice to the defaulting party of its intent to terminate, and shall specify the grounds for termination. The defaulting party shall have two (2) days after such notice is sent to cure the default. If the default is not cured within such period, this Agreement shall be terminated upon written notice of such termination by the terminating party. b. No compensation upon termination. In the event of termination, neither Party shall be entitled to compensation or damages for any equipment or materials provided pursuant to this Agreement or obligations incurred in furtherance of the rights conveyed by this Agreement. 9. Photography and recording. City shall be authorized to photograph, record, video tape, reproduce, transmit, or disseminate, in or from CableONE Movie Night in Meridian, all related activities for educational and public information purposes. City shall not be responsible for the actions of persons who are not under its employment or control. 10. Relationship of Parties. It is the express intention of Parties that Sponsor is an independent contractor and not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Sponsor and City or between Sponsor and any official, agent, or employee of City. Both parties acknowledge that Sponsor is not an employee of City. Sponsor shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement. Sponsor shall have no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in City. The selection and designation of the personnel of City in the performance of this agreement shall be made by City. 11. Indemnification. Sponsor specifically indemnifies City and holds City harmless from any loss, liability, claim, judgment, or action for damages or injury to Sponsor, to Sponsor's personal property or equipment, and to Sponsor's employees, agents, or volunteers arising out of or resulting from the condition of City's real or personal property or any lack of maintenance or repair thereon, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees. Sponsor further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any loss, liability, claim or action from damages or injuries to persons or property in any way MOVIE NIGHT SINGLE -NIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 3 of 6 arising out of or resulting from the use of City's real or personal property by Sponsor or by Sponsor's employees, agents, volunteers, or invitees and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees or volunteers. 12. Waiver. Sponsor shall, and hereby does, waive any and all claims and recourse against City, including the right of contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to Sponsor's performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or damage may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its officers, agents or employees. 13. Taxes. Sponsor shall be solely responsible for the payment of taxes owed for any income realized as the result of activities undertaken pursuant or related to this Agreement. 14. Time of the essence. Sponsor acknowledges that services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. 15. Compliance with law. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Sponsor shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. 16. Non-discrimination. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Sponsor shall not discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap. 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. 18. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. 19. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. 20. Cumulative rights and remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be cumulative and none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the exercise of any remedy provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. MOVIE NIGHT SINGLE -NIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 4 of 6 21. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. 22. No assignment. Sponsor shall not assign, sublet, subcontract, or transfer its rights or responsibilities hereunder without the express written consent of City. Should Sponsor cease to exist in its current form, this Agreement and all rights granted to Sponsor hereunder shall be void. 23. Notice. Any and all notice required to be provided by either of the Parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed communicated upon sending an e-mail message, addressed as follows: Sponsor: City: Mindy Critchlow Colin Moss mindy@westsidebodyworks.com cmoss@meridiancity.org Either party may change its e-mail address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change in the manner herein provided. 24. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. 25. Warranty of authority. The undersigned expressly warrants that, to the extent set forth herein, he is duly authorized to act as the representative and agent of Sponsor. The undersigned further warrants that he is authorized to bind Sponsor to the obligations set forth herein, and to accept the liabilities as established herein on behalf of Sponsor. SPONSOR: Kv)(i(t Authorized Representative Signature Title Please Print Name CITY OF MERIDIAN: BY; Tammy de erd, Mayor x MOVIE NIGHT SINGLE—NIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT Date - _.. ",-'ATTEST: « Auc,�c. .I1 nan, City Clerk PAGE 5 of 6 Exhibit A CABLEONE MOVIE NIGHT IN MERIDIAN 2014 SPONSORSHIP PACKET Single Night Sponsor For $350 you will receive: • Recognition as one event's sponsor in all promotional efforts for that event. • The opportunity to promote your business or organization at your movie night through product displays, sampling, demonstrations, etc. It is also encouraged to organize activities that add to the appeal of your movie night. Examples include bounce houses, live bands, games, raffles, etc. • The opportunity to insert one (1) thirty (30) second advertisement into the pre -movie video at your movie night. • The opportunity to hang up to two (2) banners no wider than eight (8) feet each around the seating area during your show. Banners around seating area must be free-standing. There will be no fences, trees, buildings, etc around the seating area to hang your banner on. • Your logo linked to your website on the City of Meridian website next to your event's listing on the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian page. • Your logo and a link to your website on your movie night's event listing on the Meridian Parks and Recreation page on Facebook. • Your logo next to your event's listing on the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian flyers that are distributed throughout the season. MOVIE NIGHT SINGLE -NIGHT SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 6 of 6 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: J. CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Presenting Sponsorship Agreement Between Carrington College and the City of Meridian for a Not -to -Exceed Amount of $2,000.00 MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Settlers Park CABLEONE MOVIE NIGHT IN MERIDIAN 2014 PRESENTING SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT This CABLEONE MOVIE NIGHT IN MERIDIAN 2014, SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made on this 1day of tce 2014 (`Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the state of Idaho, whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ("City"), and Carrington College, whose address is 1122 North Liberty Street, Boise, ID 83704 ("Sponsor"). For good and valuable consideration and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, City and Sponsor agree as follows: 1. Presenting Sponsorship. Throughout the term of this Agreement, Sponsor shall be, and shall be recognized as, a 2014 Presenting Sponsor of City's weekly summer CableONE Movie Night in Meridian event series. As such, benefits insuring to Sponsor throughout the term of this Agreement shall include those enumerated for presenting sponsors in the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Sponsorship Packet, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Payment. B�y 5:00 p.m. on March 31, 2014, Sponsor shall prepay to City two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). Int e event —Ti--9—onsor fails to pay this amount in full in a timely manner as provided herein, City may terminate this Agreement in the manner therefor as set forth herein. In the event that the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian program is discontinued or shortened for any reason, no portion of the amount prepaid shall be refundable. 3. Promotion. a. City's efforts. With regard to CableONE Movie Night in Meridian, City shall undertake the promotional and advertising efforts enumerated for presenting sponsors in the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Sponsorship Packet, attached hereto as Exhibit A. b. Promotional Item Limitations. The sale or distribution of any food, drink, or other promotional item by Sponsor at Sponsor's booth, as allowed in the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian 2014 Sponsorship Packet attached hereto as Exhibit A, shall not be permitted without prior written permission from City. Such permission may be withheld or revoked at any time and for any reason. City may also, at any time, require that MOVIE NIGHT PRESENTING SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 1 of 6 Sponsor discontinue the distribution of any promotional item that City deems to be negatively impacting concessions sales or deems not to be appropriate. c. Video production. City, in its sole discretion, may edit, reduce, cancel, or reject, at any time, any audio, video, or written material submitted, used, or created by Sponsor. Any pre -approval by City shall not be considered a waiver of the right to revoke or edit any such material during the term of this Agreement. Further, Sponsor warrants and represents that, as to all content of the video pieces created or produced pursuant to this Agreement, Sponsor shall, and hereby agrees to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City from all claims, suits, judgments, proceedings, losses, damages, costs, and expenses, of any nature whatsoever, including attorneys' fees, for which the City may become liable by reason of City's displaying of Sponsor's audio or video copy, artwork, or other content, including but not limited to claims for libel, violation of privacy, plagiarism, or copyright violations. 4. Term. The term of this agreement shall be from the Effective Date through September 1, 2014, unless earlier terminated by either party by the method established herein. 5. Cancellation; scheduling. The parties acknowledge that the 2014 CableONE Movie Night in Meridian event series schedule shall include twelve to fourteen (12-14) weekly movie showings during June, July, and August, but cancellation of any or all movie showings may be necessary due to weather or other conditions or circumstances. City shall have sole responsibility and discretion in scheduling and/or cancelling CableONE Movie Night in Meridian and all movies and activities related thereto, including any and all related activities by Sponsor. The parties hereto expressly acknowledge that Settlers Park is a public space, the management and scheduling of which shall at all times be within the sole purview of City. Any right or privilege granted to Sponsor by this Agreement shall include neither the right to exclude any law-abiding person from CableONE Movie Night in Meridian, nor the right to interfere with any person's concurrent, lawful use of Settlers Park where such concurrent use does not conflict or interfere with Sponsor's use. 6. Insurance Sponsor's responsibility. City shall not provide insurance to cover loss, theft, or damage of any equipment, materials, or personnel used or employed by Sponsor in the furtherance of this Agreement, or to cover any activity undertaken by Sponsor in the exercise of the rights or the furtherance of the obligations described herein. Any and all insurance of each party's respective property and personnel shall be the sole responsibility of that party. Sponsor shall obtain all necessary insurance as may be required in order to protect Sponsor's insurable interests for Sponsor's rights and obligations described within this Agreement, including, but not limited to, liability insurance, automobile insurance, worker's compensation insurance, and/or property insurance. 7. Use of City's name, logo. City hereby conveys to Sponsor permission to use City's name for purposes of advertising, marketing, and public information, without violation of City's rights of privacy or any other rights City may possess under this Agreement, provided that Sponsor shall not use City's logo for any purpose without the express, written permission of the Mayor's Executive Assistant. MOVIE NIGHT PRESENTING SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 2 of 6 8. Termination. a. Termination for cause. If either Party determines that the other has failed to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, violated any of the covenants, agreements, and/or stipulations of this Agreement, engaged in any act of misconduct in the performance of this Agreement; or if either Party willfully or negligently defaults in, or fails to fulfill, its material obligations under this Agreement, the other Party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement by giving written notice to the defaulting party of its intent to terminate, and shall specify the grounds for termination. The defaulting party shall have two (2) days after such notice is sent to cure the default. If the default is not cured within such period, this Agreement shall be terminated upon written notice of such termination by the terminating party. b. No compensation upon termination. In the event of termination, neither Party shall be entitled to compensation or damages for any equipment or materials provided pursuant to this Agreement or obligations incurred in furtherance of the rights conveyed by this Agreement. 9. Photography and recording. City shall be authorized to photograph, record, video tape, reproduce, transmit, or disseminate, in or from CableONE Movie Night in Meridian, all related activities for educational and public information purposes. City shall not be responsible for the actions of persons who are not under its employment or control. 10. Relationship of Parties. It is the express intention of Parties that Sponsor is an independent contractor and not an employee, agent, joint venturer, or partner of City. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between Sponsor and City or between Sponsor and any official, agent, or employee of City. Both parties acknowledge that Sponsor is not an employee of City. Sponsor shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement. Sponsor shall have no authority or responsibility to exercise any rights or power vested in City. The selection and designation of the personnel of City in the performance of this agreement shall be made by City. 11. Indemnification. Sponsor specifically indemnifies City and holds City harmless from any loss, liability, claim, judgment, or action for damages or injury to Sponsor, to Sponsor's personal property or equipment, and to Sponsor's employees, agents, or volunteers arising out of or resulting from the condition of City's real or personal property or any lack of maintenance or repair thereon, and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees. Sponsor further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any loss, liability, claim or action from damages or injuries to persons or property in any way arising out of or resulting from the use of City's real or personal property by Sponsor or by Sponsor's employees, agents, volunteers, or invitees and not caused by or arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its employees or volunteers. MOVIE NIGHT PRESENTING SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 3 of 6 12. Waiver. Sponsor shall, and hereby does, waive any and all claims and recourse against City, including the right of contribution for loss and damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to Sponsor's performance of this Agreement, whether such loss or damage may be attributable to known or unknown conditions, except for liability arising out of the tortious conduct of City or its officers, agents or employees. 13. Taxes. Sponsor shall be solely responsible for the payment of taxes owed for any income realized as the result of activities undertaken pursuant or related to this Agreement. 14. Time of the essence. Sponsor acknowledges that services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a timely manner. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to this Agreement, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of, and a default under, this Agreement by the party so failing to perform. 15. Compliance with law. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Sponsor shall comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local laws. 16. Non-discrimination. Throughout the course of this Agreement, Sponsor shall not discriminate against any person as to race, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation or any physical, mental, or sensory handicap. 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes any and all statements, promises, or inducements made by either party, or agents of either party, whether oral or written, whether previous to the execution hereof or contemporaneous herewith. The terms of this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except upon written agreement signed by both parties hereto. 18. Costs and attorneys' fees. If either party brings any action or proceedings to enforce, protect or establish any right or remedy under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other relief awarded. 19. Agreement governed by Idaho law. The laws of the State of Idaho shall govern the validity, interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. Venue shall be in the courts of Ada County, Idaho. 20. Cumulative rights and remedies. All rights and remedies herein enumerated shall be cumulative and none shall exclude any other right or remedy allowed by law. Likewise, the exercise of any remedy provided for herein or allowed by law shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy. 21. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be, illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. MOVIE NIGHT PRESENTING SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 4 of 6 22. No assignment. Sponsor shall not assign, sublet, subcontract, or transfer its rights or responsibilities hereunder without the express written consent of City. Should Sponsor cease to exist in its current form, this Agreement and all rights granted to Sponsor hereunder shall be void. 23. Notice. Any and all notice required to be provided by either of the Parties hereto, unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed communicated upon sending an e-mail message, addressed as follows: Sponsor: Clty: Mark Gould Colin Moss mgould@carrington.edu cmoss@meridiancity.org Either party may change its e-mail address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change in the manner herein provided. 24. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. 25. Warranty of authority. The undersigned expressly warrants that, to the extent set forth herein, he is duly authorized to act as the representative and agent of Sponsor. The f' undersigned further warrants that he is authorized to bind Sponsor to the obligations set forth herein, and to accept the liabilities as established herein on behalf of Sponsor. SPONSOR—'. *1zedReprLesentative Au Signature I�f ��I , L�& Please Print Name CITY OF MERIDIAN. BY: -- Tammy y eerd, Mayor Title csiy of �r111�IDT f� v3 rhe TAEl"�,''�' MOVIE NIGHT PRESENTING SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT Date ATTEST: ty Clerk PAGE 5 of 6 Exhibit A 2014 CABLEONE MOVIE NIGHT IN MERIDIAN SPONSORSHIP PACKET Presenting Sponsor For $2,000 you will receive: • Recognition as the series presenting sponsor for one (1) full season in all promotional efforts such as TV, newspaper, radio, e-mails, internet, and flyers. One season will include up to fourteen (14) shows during the summer months of June, July and August. • The opportunity to set up a booth at each show during your season. • The opportunity to insert one (1) thirty (30) second advertisement into the pre - movie video at each show during your season. • Your logo displayed and your business or organization's name spoken in the "Sponsored by" portion of the welcoming video at every show. • The opportunity to hang one (1) banner on the movie screen and up to two (2) banners no wider than eight (8) feet each around the seating area at each show. Banners around seating area must be free-standing. There will be no fences, trees, buildings, etc around the seating area to hang your banner on. • Your logo linked to your website on the City of Meridian website above the movie schedule the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian page. • Your logo and a link to your website on every CableONE Movie Night in Meridian event listing on the Meridian Parks and Recreation page on Facebook. • Your logo in the Meridian Parks and Recreation Summer Activity Guide in the advertisement for the upcoming season. Over 25,000 copies are distributed through direct mail and the West Edition of the Idaho Statesman and the guide is promoted heavily online throughout the summer. *Available only if sponsorship is confirmed by March 31St • Your logo at the top of the CableONE Movie Night in Meridian flyers that are f distributed throughout the season. MOVIE NIGHT PRESENTING SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT PAGE 6 of 6 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM TITLE: ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: K. Temporary Construction Easement, Sundance Investments LLLP, Grantor MEETING NOTES L CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00 4 BOISE IDAHO 03/06/14 01:02 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbiliig RECORDED -REQUEST OF 114►1�� Meridian City TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this 4 day of 2014 between Sundance Investments, LLL, the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the GRANTORS, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the GRANTEE; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the GRANTORS desire to provide a temporary construction easement adjacent to the existing sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property located at 125 West Taylor Avenue, Meridian, Idaho as identified by the Ada County Tax Assessor's as Parcel S 1212449200; and WHEREAS, the existing sanitary sewer is to be rehabilitated through a parallel existing underground pipeline to be constructed by others and or GRANTEE within the existing permanent sewer easement; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the GRANTORS, and other good and valuable consideration, the GRANTORS do hereby give, grant and convey unto the GRANTEE the right-of-way for a temporary construction easement over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A, (Sheet C-101 of the Construction Plans) The temporary construction easement hereby granted is for the purpose of replacement of the existing sanitary sewer line, related incidental work and storage of materials related to the construction process. GRANTOR accepts that access across the parcel from Taylor Avenue to the temporary construction easement shall be granted at a mutually agreed location between the GRANTOR and GRANTEE and/or the GRANTEES Contractor. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said temporary construction easement and right-of-way unto the said GRANTEE, its successors and assigns shall be temporary, The termination of this easement shall expire 30 days after the installation and acceptance of said sewer line by the GRANTEE. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after installing and accepting said sewer line, GRANTEE shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. The GRANTOR and GRANTEE agree to the following in return for the temporary easement described herein. ➢ The GRANTEE agrees to compensate the GRANTOR $2,500 for possible damage to the existing trees located in the landscaping island adjacent to the new f sewer line. This shall be considered as full compensation for any damage caused by removal and replanting of the existing trees. Should subsequent repairs or maintenance activities be required on said sewer line by the GRANTEE, the Sewer Rehab. Site 14 Sundance - Temporary Construction Easement GRANTEE shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring the landscaping trees. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the GRANTEE that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: Sundance Investments, L.L.L.P. By: its General Partner, THE SUNDANCE COMPANY Vice -President Chief Financial Officer Addressbgog EovFP-L No, r� l50 — /v1 F9101AN, -rP STATE OF IDAHO ) . ss. County of Ada ) On this day of d 2014, bef e me th under i d,a 11 Public in and for said State, personally app ared known or identified to me to be the President and Secretary, resp ctively, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. �11 (SEAL) NOTARY PUB C FOR ID Q Residing at: Commission Expires: DEBRA RENEE GRENKE Notary.Public .state of Idaho F Sewer Rehab. Site 14 Sundance - Temporary Construction Easement GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de W�tld, Mayor C.. Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: 3 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss County of Ada ) oAU(,,t w City of I I IDIANt �F S11�f�1. On this + day of Pc -,yr—,, , 2014, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. A�A_R(SEID Residing at: IL {(y t �) 1 � Commission Expires: DC)� c7 Sewer Rehab. Site 14 Sundance - Temporary Construction Easement ..!, 60•9'I=,= YIS "o -was MOMStl . d 9 -was 01'aswe w�.,.w,� w� r NVIO183W :10 KUO 9+`V ooacv�e'S OSa A �tl••-ti«a , bt 311S 8VH3d fl3M3S 'ONI'SH33NIDN3 e91•f � �W z pip d 104 � g g « Y� C, c J '0 Er 6 :j .J Fi ®0 C) Z _ R - S 1 g n � I R 1 1 � tr J-111, 5 $ O o i 4 1 O C w L o cam 5 - E o 1 cZo a 2 E Z �$ "O O N c ' r: Ec N N 3 @ O@ D X N 1 a 1 i + F-Uwncn e Z c40 co v o o EE` 0— CL a) m aHE@ Ix • C- 14-9 •r- ..11 1 pp R A gig y C n,©E) C',E;E) e R 1 g n � I R 1 1 � tr J-111, i 1 q I 1 1 i ' 1 1 i Y SRI e R Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5L PROJECT NUMBER: FP 14-002 ITEM TITLE: Three Corners L. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-002 Three Corners No. 2 by David Dean Located Southeast Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and Chinden Boulevard Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -Eight (28) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 15.24 Acres of Land in the R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5M PROJECT NUMBER: FP 14-004 ITEM TITLE: Hacienda M. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-004 Hacienda Subdivision No. 4 by Jayo Investments, Inc. Located East Side of N. Meridian Road, Midway Between Chinden Boulevard and E. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty -Four (44) Residential Lots and Ten (10) Common Lots on Approximately 10. 11 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5N PROJECT NUMBER: FP 14-003 ITEM TITLE: Canterbury Commons N. Final Order for Approval: 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 MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting noTF- March 4. 2014 ITEM TITLE: ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: A. Transportation Commission: Annual Report Presentation MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Date: December 2, 2013 To: Mayor and City Council From: Transportation Commission -Ryan Lancaster, Chair -Tracy Hopkins, Vice Chair -David Ballard -Jo Ann Bujarski -Micah Gale -Stephen Lewis -Jack McGee -Pat Morandi -[Vacant] RE: 2013 Annual Report The Transportation Commission was formed by the City Council on February 26, 2013 with Ordinance no. 13-152 replacing the City's Traffic Safety Commission and Transportation Task Force. On May 22, 2013, nine Commissioners were appointed through Resolution no. 13-925. The Commission meets on the first Monday of each month in the Council chambers. Councilman David Zaremba and representatives from ITD — District 3, ACHD, COMPASS, Valley Regional Transit (VRT), and Joint School District No. 2 serve as ex -officio members. Planning Division Manager Caleb Hood provides staff support and Ted Baird, Deputy City Attorney, provides legal guidance. Additional City staff has interacted with the Commission from time to time. The Commission first met on Monday June 3, 2013. Commissioners Lancaster and Hopkins were elected Chair and Vice -Chair of the Commission. Commission Bylaws were approved by the Commission on September 9, 2013. Valley Regional Transit, ACHD, COMPASS, ITD — District 3, and Joint School District No. 2 made presentations to the Commission to familiarize the Commissioners with the services each agency provides and their responsibilities. Monthly transportation project updates are provided to the Commission by Caleb Hood. The Commission was presented with, and provided input on ACHD's Five -Year Work Plan, VRT Bus Routes and planning, COMPASS' Regional Long -Range Transportation Plan update, potential City Transportation Alternatives Program projects, and ACHD Wayfinding programs. Monthly updates on transportation projects that were in planning, design, or construction stages were provided to the Commission by City Staff. Technical recommendations were provided by the Commission to the City Council or transportation agencies on a number of topics. Golf Carts on public streets in the Spurwing Subdivision and other streets within the City was one of the first topics discussed by the Commission. A review of Idaho code revealed a potential conflict between a City ordinance allowing Golf Carts on some public roads. The Commission recommended that the City Council eliminate the ordinance allowing Golf Carts and consider sun -setting the practice in the two communities where Golf Carts are currently allowed. The Meridian Police Department approached the Commission with concerns about posted speed limits and safety on SH -55 (Eagle Road) and SH -69 (Meridian Road). A letter was sent to ITD District 3 requesting engineering studies on the two highways and for ITD to present the study results and recommendations to the Commission at a later date. Concerns about pedestrian safety near the Scentsy complex were also brought to the Commission by the Police Department. Due to Scentsy policy, employees that smoke had to cross Pine Street to smoke. Due to traffic volumes on the road, there were safety concerns. The Commission recommended that the Mayor's office contact Scentsy regarding their policy and the potential safety implications. The Commission heard a citizen concern about cut -through traffic on Woodbury Drive between Meridian and Linder Roads and asked ACHD to conduct a traffic study to determine if the street is a candidate for traffic calming measures. A widening project on Franklin Road between Ten Mile and Black Cat Roads was proposed to include a landscaped median. Concerns about access to existing driveways being limited by the proposed median were brought to the Commission from individuals on behalf of the Ten Mile Christian Church. After listening to the concerns and support for the medians from City Staff and ACRD, the Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to proceed with the design of the medians. ACHD reported to the Commission that they had recently counted pedestrian traffic across Main Street at Williams and King Streets. At the time of the presentation to the Commission, ACHD was considering to enhance the crossing at King Street and to not restripe the crosswalk at Williams Street. Commissioners Ballard and Lewis and have been involved in strategic planning for Valley Regional Transit's Public Transportation Operations Plan and Budget for service in the City. Their involvement will continue into 2014. The Commission also received briefing on Staff Communications with citizens or businesses regarding transportation related topics and was given the opportunity to provide thoughts, suggestions, requests for more information, or to discuss the topics. The Commission is grateful for the opportunity to provide service to the citizens of Meridian and to actively shape the transportation systems of our City. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 7 ITEM TITLE: Items Moved From Consent Agenda MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: $Y PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-03 ITEM TITLE: Falconers Place A. Continued from February 18, 2014: Public Hearing: PP 13-039 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Two (2) Residential Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 4.69 Acres in an R-8 Zoning District MEETING NOTES �J�' "� b -t/� X CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 8 PROJECT NUMBER: MDA 13-024 ITEM TITLE: Falconers Place B. Continued from February 18,2014: Public Hearing: MDA 13-024 Falconers Place by Falcon Drive Meridian, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Falcon Drive and S. Eagle Road Request: Amend the Recorded Development Agreement (Inst#105152708) to Change the Development Plan from a Retirement Community to a Townhome Community for the Proposed Falconers Place Subdivision MEETING NOTES \ bQlv�' CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting noTl=• March 4. 2014 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: CIP Plan and Impact Fees C. Continued from February 4, 2014: Consolidated Public Hearing on the Update to the Development impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Revisions to Impact Fee Ordinance MEETING NOTES 1-�AaNt-t- CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Jaycee Holman n , From: Nate Fuller <nfuIler@mycolemanhome. corn > lent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 4:10 PM ,'p: Jaycee Holman £> Y f Qil Cc: jjones@meridiancity.org. E. Subject: Meridian City Impact Fee - Coleman Homes Attachments: Impact Fee Letter - Coleman Homes.pdf Good afternoon, Unfortunately, a representative from Coleman Homes will not be able to attend tonight's City Council meeting. The attached document contains our concerns as a builder with regards to the proposed Meridian City Impact Fee increases. Thanl<you for your time and consideration, Nate Fuller Purchasing Manager nfuller@mvcolemanhome.com p: 208.424.0020 ext. 104 f: 208.424.0030 1859 S. Topaz Way, Ste. 200 Meridian, ID 83642 90 Coleman Homes real choices... better living February 4, 2014 Re: Meridian City Building Impact Fees To Whom It May Concern: We at Coleman Homes, LLC are concerned with the proposed Impact Fee increases. Increases of this nature truly affect our ability to build quality homes at affordable prices. Over the past year, on average, we have seen our building costs increase by five to seven percent. The combination of these higher direct building costs with the additional impact fees will potentially force us to increase our sales' prices which could act as a deterrent for growth in the City of Meridian. We stand united with the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho (BCA) in opposition to the proposed impact fee increases considered by the City of Meridian. We thank you for your consideration as you view our concerns of the following impact fees: Park Impact Fee: The park impact is proposed to go down from $1,384 to $1,113. The fee should go down because land prices are cheaper today than when the previous fee was calculated in 2006. Though the fee appears to assume impact fees are necessary to pay for all park land acquisition and no land will be donated and no grants are available, the BCA supports the new fee. Police Impact Fee: The police impact fee is proposed to increase from $85 to $223. The BCA is opposed to this increase. Some of the reasons include: 1. On its face, a 262 percent increase does not pass the smell test. 2. Looking more closely at the numbers, they are proposing to build a new Training Center facility and have new growth pay for 22% of this new facility. Though the hired consultant may say this is justifiable, we believe this is a stretch and clearly an attempt to have growth pay for to increase the "level of service" for the police partially at the expense of new growth. This cost increase alone represents nearly 60 percent of the infrastructure costs included in this fee. 3. Everyone knows that the COMPASS numbers used to calculate the amount of growth is erroneous. Unfortunately, they are the numbers that the consultant has to use to calculate the fees. For example, over the past several years Meridian City grew much more than 3 percent year and based on planned subdivisions the City will continue to grow more than 3 percent in the future. Nearly 40 percent of the residential construction building in Ada County was in Meridian in 2013. Many of the projected infrastructure needs are based on growth already in the pipeline. Realistic growth numbers will result in an expedited flow mycolemanhomc com p: 208 424 0020 1 f: 208 424 0030 1 1859 S. Topaz Way, Suite 200 1 Meridian, ID 83642 of impact fee revenue to the City. With more accurate impact fee revenue, the City will still receive sufficient funds to pay for needed services. 4. By comparison, if the proposed fee is adopted, the City of Meridian will be charging the highest police impact fee in the Treasure Valley. The next highest fee in Ada County is $151 in Boise. 5. Since no other city in Ada County charges a police impact fee, the average police impact fee for all cities in Ada County is $39.33. The current Meridian City Police Impact Fee is already higher than the average of all Ada County Cities. 6. Increasing this fee will slow growth in the City. 7. We ask that the police impact fee not be increased. Fire Impact Fee: The fire impact fee is proposed to increase fiom $377 to $681. The BCA is opposed to this increase. Some of the reasons include: 1. On its face, a 180 percent increase does not pass the smell test. 2. As stated on page 15 of the report, "the fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies." So why is an increase needed? One conclusion is that the consultant is forced to use COMPASS growth projections? Maybe the fire department is buying more expensive equipment in the future. But normal inflation cannot justify the proposed 180 percent fee increase. 3. As stated previously with the police impact fees, the COMPASS numbers used to calculate the amount of growth do not meet reality. Meridian City grew much more than 3 percent this past year and will continue to do so in the future. Nearly 40 percent of the residential construction in Ada County was in Meridian in 2013. With added growth comes added impact fee revenue. With a more reasonable impact fee, the City will still receive sufficient funds to pay for needed services. 4. Assuming there are 4 fire stations today, it appears that the 10 year CIP projects "needing" 4 more fire stations in the next 10 years. Why? If the population is not doubling in 10 years according to COMPASS, why double the number of fire stations? Unless there is an acknowledgement that these additional fire stations will cover growth outside of the 10 year plan. If so, then a further fee reduction is justified. 5. By comparison, if the proposed fee is adopted, the City of Meridian will be charging the highest fire impact fee in the Treasure Valley. Currently, the highest fire impact fee is in Boise at $515. 6. As no other cities in Ada County charge a Fire Impact Fee, the average fire impact fee in Ada County is $148.66. The current City Fire Impact Fee is already higher than the average of the Cities. 7. Increasing this fee will slow growth in the City. 8. We ask that the fire impact fee not be increased. Lastly, according to a recent study by the National Association of Home Builders, raising fees has a direct relationship to affordability and growth in a city. In 2013, it was determined that for every $1,000 increase in the cost of a home, 500 people are priced out of our local housing market. The BCASWI is striving to ensure that homes remain affordable for our current residents and our future generations. Please consider the impacts of home affordability in your decision. M)'Colemanhomecom p: 208 424 0020 1 f: 208 424 0030 1 1859 S. Topaz Way, Suite 200 1 Meridian, ID 83642 We look forward to continuing our positive relationship with the City of Meridian. Sincerely, Nate Fuller Purchasing Manager Coleman Homes lily col emanhome com p: 208 424 0020 1 f: 208 424 0030 1 1859 S, Topaz Way, Saute 200 1 Meridian, ID 83642 Jacy Jones crom: David Yorgason <dyorgason6@gmail.com> :nt: Friday, January 31, 2014 5:35 PM o: Jaycee Holman Cc: Jacy Jones; Jeff Thompson; Steve Martinez; Frankie Hickman; Joe Atala; Dave Yorgason Subject: Meridian City Impact fees Attachments: BCA Meridian Impact Fee letter signed 1-31-2013.pdf To Mayor and City Council Members: I am submitting these comments from the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho (BCASWI) regarding the proposed changes to the Building Impact Fees. Please accept my apology for not attending the. hearing Tuesday night. I wish I could have delivered this message personally, however I will be out of town and attending a prior commitment at the International Builders Show on this same day. Please consider the attached written comments from the President of the BCASWI as you deliberate the proposed impact fee changes. In watching the process that the impact fee advisory committee took to come to these recommendations, it was apparent that the goal of the consultant was to determine the maximum allowable impact fee to charge the builders. The City of Meridian has a history of being fair to its customers and we hope that the City of Meridian is not becoming a City known for charging maximum fees to its customers. I currently serve on the Boise City Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee and it is my understanding that the City of Boise does not charge the maximum allowable fee due. Some of the reasons include: 1) they recognize additional sources of funding (grants or donations) and 2) COMPASS growth projects are too conservative compared to reality. ease consider the attached comments seriously. Based on a recent study on our local housing market, it was determined that for every $1,000 increase in the sale price of a home, 500 homebuyers are priced out of the local market. Affordability is a primary concern for our current residents and future generations. We appreciate your service and your consideration. Sincerely, Dave Yorgason BCA Government Affairs and Local Developer The Honorable Mayor Tammy de Weerd Meridian City Hall 33 E Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Meridian City Building Impact Fees To Whom It May Concern: 6206 N. Discover,,; Wav; Suite 1 3 77 3-'51y 0NMB r -no ;,art The following are comments and concerns from the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho (BCA) pertaining to the proposed impact fee increases considered by the City of Meridian. Park Impact Fee: The park impact is proposed to go down from $1,384 to $1,113. The fee should go down because land prices are cheaper today than when the previous fee was calculated in 2006. Though the fee appears to assume impact fees are necessary to pay for all park land acquisition and no land will be donated and no grants are available, the BCA supports the new fee. Police Impact Fee: The police impact fee is proposed to increase from $85 to $223. The BCA is opposed to this increase, Some of the reasons include: 1. On its face, a 262 percent increase does not pass the smell test. 2, looking more closely at the numbers, they are proposing to build a new Training Center facility and have new growth pay for 22% of this new facility. Though the hired consultant may say this is justifiable, we believe this is a stretch and clearly an attempt to have growth pay for to increase the "level of service" for the police partially at the expense of new growth. This cost increase alone represents nearly 60 percent of the infrastructure costs included in this fee. 3. Everyone knows that the COMPASS numbers used to calculate the amount of growth is erroneous. Unfortunately, they are the numbers that the consultant has to use to calculate the fees. For example, over the past several years Meridian City grew much more than 3 percent year and based on planned subdivisions the City will continue to grow more than 3 percent in the future. Nearly 40 percent of the residential construction building in Ada County was in Meridian in 2013. Many of the projected infrastructure needs are based on growth already in the pipeline. Realistic growth numbers will result in an expedited flow of impact fee revenue to the City. With a moreaccurate impact fee revenue, the City will still receive sufficient funds to pay for needed services, 4. By comparison, if the proposed fee is adopted, the City of Meridian will be charging the highest police impact fee in the Treasure Valley. The next highest fee in Ada County is $151 in Boise, 5. Since no other city in Ada County charges a police impact fee, the average police impact fee for all cities in Ada County is $39.33. The current Meridian City Police Impact Fee is already higher than the average of all Ada County Cities. 6, Increasing this fee will slow growth in the City. 7. We ask that the police impact fee not be increased, Fire Impact Fee: The; fire impact fee is proposed to increase from $377 to $681, The BCA is opposed to this increase. Some of the reasons include: 1. On its face, a 180 percent increase does not pass the smell test. 2. As stated on page 15 of the report, "the fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies." So why is an increase needed? One conclusion is that the consultant is forced to use COMPASS growth projections? Maybe the fire department is buying more expensive equipment in the future. But normal inflation cannot justify the proposed 180 percent fee increase. 3. As stated previously with the police impact fees, the COMPASS numbers usedto calculate the amount of growth do not meet reality. Meridian City grew much more than 3 percent this past year and will continue to do so in the future, Nearly 40 percent of the residential construction in Ada County was in Meridian in 2013. With added growth comes added impact fee revenue. With a more reasonable impact fee, the City will still receive sufficient funds to pay for needed services. 4, Assuming there are 4 fire stations today, it appears that the 10 year CIP projects "needing 4 more fire stations in the next 10, years. Why? If the population is not doubling in 10 years according to COMPASS, why double the number of fire stations? Unless there is an acknowledgement that these additional fire stations will cover growth outside of the 10 year plan, If so, then a further fee reduction is justified. 5. By comparison, if the proposed fee is adopted, the City of Meridian will be charging the highest fire impact fee in the Treasure Valley. Currently, the highest fire impact fee is in Boise at $515. 6. As no other cities in Ada County charge a Fire Impact Fee, the average fire impact fee in Ada County is $148.66.The current City Fire Impact Fee is already higher than the average of the Cities. 7. Increasing this fee will slow growth in the City. 8. We ask that the fire impact fee not increased. Lastly, according to a recent study by the National Association of Home Builders, raising fees has a direct relationship to affordability and growth in a city, In 2013, it was determined that for every $1,000 increase in the cost of a home, 500 people are priced f- out of our local housing market. The BCASWI is striving to ensure that homes remain affordable for our current residents and our future generations. Please consider the impacts of home affordabilitin your decision. We look forward o cont'nui our positive relationship with the City of Meridian. f Sincer y, Jeff Th kp'soh President Building Contractors Association Southwestern Idaho l x X C O 0- E O N N LL N Q N 'O O E M r O N N N LL U N Q.. E LL O" O(C) O O O O, O O O7 O O M CD M N U 69- EH N O O O N s CC) O 0o d" CV O r r- o } O O O O O N C N` 0c0 tri- 1%-64 000 69- 'W7; C7 Efl M 69- co Uc' �O 61> O C O N O LO O O C) O co O O N"- N��r_ 00 � OO� O` EA O Q O? N E Q Q Q O U =V E O U W LLJLL O O O C O O E LO N N N Q 4 c� c� c� (n � c N a) U- a) Q O O Q Q c0 N Q Co ccu W. ,cB C ,(U zz C C U N N N ct!LL,O C crC 6 pULL� N a),p N 06 O U N,Q U N O LL N O N O IL IL x X C O 0- E O N N LL N Q N 'O O E M r O N N N LL U N Q.. E LL CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE February 4, 2014 ITEM # 913 PROJECT NUMBER Public Hearing on the CIP and Impact Fee PROJECT NAME Ordinance PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL] iww"o-mir- -T-% T7, !-T-,jr� ("Fl, Y CLERKS 01IFFICE ZI CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE March 4, 2014 ITEM # PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan/Ordinance Changes PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL CBT`` CLERKS OFFICE BBC RESEARCH CONSULTING Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans City of Meridian FINAL REPORT Final Report November 20, 2013 City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans Prepared for City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 1999 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202-9750 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com V V~ RESEARCH CONSULTING Table of Contents Report Background and Objectives ..................................................................... ......................................1 Definition of Impact Fees ........................................................................ ......................................1 Land Use and Demographics ................................................................... ......................................6 Impact Fee Calculations Considerations ................................................. ......................................9 Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans .................................... ....................................10 Mechanics of Fee Calculations ................................................................ ....................................19 City Participation ..................................................................................... ....................................22 Cash Flow Analysis ................................................................................... ....................................25 Other Funding Sources ............................................................................ ....................................26 Implementation Recommendations ....................................................... ....................................27 Summary ................................................................................................. ....................................28 Appendices A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fee Ordinances B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist D. Collier's Year- End Real Estate Market Review E. Detailed Demographic Analysis F. Collier's Year- End Real Estate Market Review G. Meridian FY 2014-2024 CIP BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING This report regarding impact fees for the City of Meridian (Meridian or City) is organized into the following sections: ^ An overview of the report's background and objectives; ^ A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; ^ An overview of land use and demographics; ^ A step-by-step calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach; ^ A calculation of the City's monetary participation in those capital improvements defined as requiring repair, replacement or an upgrade, and the City's pro rata share of partially growth-related capital improvements; ^ A cash flow analysis; ^ A list of implementation recommendations; and ^ A brief summary of conclusions Each section follows sequentially. We have also attached several appendices with supporting documentation: Appendix A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances; Appendix B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist; Appendix D. Current Service Standard Approach; Appendix E. Detailed Demographic Analysis; Appendix F. Colliers' Year-End Real Estate Market Review; and Appendix G. Meridian FY 2014-FY2024 CIP. Background and Objectives The City hired BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) in August 2013 to update impact fees for police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. This document presents the full cost recovery fees based on the City's demographic data and infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the City's monetary participation; examines the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount; and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. Definition of Impact Fees Impact fees are generally defined as one-time assessments used to recover the capital costs borne by local governments due to new growth and development. Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act), attached as Appendix A, which specifically gives cities, towns and counties the authority to levy impact fees. The Idaho Code defines an impact fee as "... a BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 1 payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development."t Purpose of impact fees. The Impact Fee Act repeats the legislative finding that "... an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the state of Idaho."z Idaho fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law.3 Some of those restrictions include: ^ Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth;^ ^ Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees maybe held in certain circumstances beyond the 8-year time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable causes ^ Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development;b ^ Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund. t See Section 67-8203(9), Idaho Code. "System improvements" are capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities include: parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law enforcement, Eire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (Z8), Idaho Code. z See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code. As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a legal impact fee. To meet substantive due process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of "rough proportionality." Adequate consideration of the factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2) ensure that rough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Development Corp. v. South Jordaa, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollan v. Crty ofTigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). h See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203 (29), Idaho Code. S See Section 67-8Z 10(4), Idaho Code. 6 See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code. ~ See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 2 In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following: ^ Establishment of and consultation with a development impact fee advisory committee (Advisory Committee);$ ^ Identification of all existing public facilities; ^ Determination of a standardized measure (or service unit) of consumption of public facilities; ^ Identification of the current level of service that existing public facilities provide; ^ Identification of the deficiencies in the existing public facilities; ^ Forecast of residential and nonresidential growth;9 ^ Identification of the growth-related portion of City Capital Improvement Plans;to ^ Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement funding sources;tt ^ Implementation of recommendations such as impact fee credits, how impact fee revenues should be accounted for, and how the impact fees should be updated over time;1z ^ Preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same;13 and ^ Preparation and adoption of an ordinance authorizing impact fees pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same.l'~ The proposed update to the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance, which is the ordinance that will amend the City's municipal code, is attached as Appendix B. A checklist for ordinance requirements is found in Appendix C. How Should fees be Calculated? State law requires the City to implement the Capital Improvement Plan methodology to calculate impact fees. The City could implement fees of any amount not exceeding the maximum fees calculated by the CIP approach. This methodology requires the City to describe its service area, forecast the land uses, densities and population that will occur in that service area over the next 20 years, and identify the capital improvements that $ See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code. 9 See Sectia~ 67-8206(Z), Idaho Code. 10 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. tt See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. tz See Sections 67-8209 and 67-8Z 10, Idaho Code. t3 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. th See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 3 will be needed to serve the forecasted growth at the same level of service found in the existing community. 15 This list and cost of capital improvements, along with a time schedule for commencing and completing the construction of all capital improvements, constitutes the capital improvement element to be adopted as part of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan.16 Only those items listed on the CIP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements plan.t~ To ensure that impact fees are adopted and spent for capital improvements in support of the community's needs and planning goals, the Impact Fee Act establishes a link between the authority to charge impact fees and certain planning requirements of Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The local government must have adopted a comprehensive plan per LLUPA procedures, and that comprehensive plan must be updated to include a current capital improvement element.l$ This study considers the planned capital improvements for the period between 2013 and 2023 that will need to be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a "proportionate share" of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. "Proportionate share" is defined as "...that portion of the cost of system improvements ...which reasonab]y relates to the service demands and needs of the project."19 Practically, this concept requires Meridian to carefully project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and logical impact fee schedules. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees: are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital improvements by the development being charged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such improvements; and are "earmarked" so as to benefit those that pay the impact fees. is As a comparison and benchmark for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC also calculated the City's current level of service by quantifying the City's current investment in capital improvements for each impact fee category, allocating a portion of these assets to residential and nonresidential development, and dividing the resulting amount by current housing units (residential fees) or current square Footage (nonresidential fees). By using current assets to denote the current service standard, this methodology guards against using fees to correct existing deficiencies. The calculation of the C ity's current level of service is found in Appendix D and this investment in capital improvements for police, Fire, and parks and recreation is referenced throughout this report. t6 See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code. ~~ Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. See Appendix A for a description of the requirements of the Impact Fee Act for the capital improvements plan. t8 See Sections 67-8203 (4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code t9 See Section 67-8203(23), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 4 There are various approaches to calculating impact fees and to crediting new development for past and future contributions made toward system improvements. The Impact Fee Act does not specify a single type of fee calculation, but it does specify that the formula be "reasonable and fair." Impact Fees must take into account the Following: ^ Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of ]and, or construction of system improvements; ^ Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; ^ That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by Meridian to system improvements; and ^ All other available sources of funding such system improvements.20 Through data analysis and interviews with City staff, BBC identified the share of each capital asset needed to serve growth. The total projected capital improvements needed to serve growth are then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting amounts divided by growth projections from 2013 to 2023. This is consistent with the Impact Fee Act.zt However, only residential development is charged parks and recreation impact fees since households are the primary consumers of park services. Among the advantages of the CIP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: ^ The allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is "a standard measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit22 of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvement."23 The service units chosen by the study team are all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential development square feet. zo See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. zt The impact fee that can be charged to each service unit (in this study, residential dwelling units and nonresidential square feet) cannot exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements for system improvements attributable to new development to provide an adopted service level by the total number of service units attributable to new development. See Sections 67-8204(16), 67-8208(1 (f) and 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code. 22 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. zs See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 5 ^ A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a "conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial."z'~ In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data and, as a result in this study, impact fees are allocated between aggregated residential (i.e., all forms of residential housing) and nonresidential development (all nonresidential uses including retail, office, agricultural and industrial). Land Use and Demographics In calculating the impact fees, it was necessary to allocate capital improvement costs to both residential and nonresidential development. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of projected new households and nonresidential square footage added from 2013 through 2023. Pursuant to Idaho State law, we gathered data on 20-year land use assumptions in Meridian, including population, households and employment. See Appendix E for the 20-year forecasts to 2033. However, the impact fee calculations in this report are based on the next 10 years of land use data to maintain consistency with Meridian's CIP planning horizon. Residential data. The primary data sources for residential unit counts and square footage numbers are the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS); the City of Meridian; the U.S. Census Bureau. Appendix E provides COMPASS' demographic spreadsheets and details any calculations performed by the study team to arrive at current or projected residential data. Current and future households. To estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from COMPASS' document entitled Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecast by DemographicAreas updated in 2010. This document provides detailed data (from 2010 to 2040 in five year increments) on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). BBC then adjusted the population for these demographic areas down slightly to reflect the population estimates within the city limits as estimated in the COMPASS document 1990-2013 Population Estimates by City Limit Boundaries. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the derivation of the current and future household numbers and COMPASS' Community Choices Forecast spreadsheet. Single family/multifamily distribution. Communities in Motion was the basis for the allocation of future housing units between single family and multifamily units. Communities in Motion is the Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Treasure Valley to 2040. The Communities in Motion working group collaborated with COMPASS to estimate housing units by type in the Treasure Valley. This report forecasts that Treasure Valley will eventually be 55 percent single zh See Section 67-8208(1)(e), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 6 family and 45 percent multifamily housing units (see Appendix F). However based on previous discussions the City's Planning Department, the study team concluded that this distribution would not be appropriate given recent construction activity. Therefore, in the interim, we believe it is appropriate for the allocation of future housing units in Meridian to be based on city building permit trend data provided to BBC during the analysis. Based on this data, BBC assumed future residential growth will be 75 percent single family and 25 percent multifamily. This housing type distinction is only necessary for calculating residential square footage, a precursor to fee calculations, as discussed below. The impact fees in this report are equivalent for single family and multifamily units. Current and future square footage. In order to distribute the costs for capital improvements to new residential and nonresidential development, a precursor to the calculation of impact fees, it was necessary to estimate the current and future total square footage of residential and nonresidential units in the City. In addition, square footage data are used to calculate the growth-related percentage of certain capital improvements that are only partially necessitated by growth. The particular capital improvements referenced in this study that are only partially growth-related are the police training center, Story Park development, Rails with Trails, and the Recreation Center. The calculations of the growth-related percentage of these capital improvements are found on page 11. Based on national data, BBC used figures of 2,210 square feet for single family units and 1,127 square feet for multifamily units.25 These estimates reflect the average of national annual median square foot figures from 2007 to 2012 and represent the best available data. Figure 1 on the next page presents the number of current (2013) and projected (2023) single Family and multifamily units, and respective square footage estimates. zs US Census Bureau, average figures from 2D07-2012, Median and Average Square Feet of F1oorArea in New Single Family Houses Completed by Location and Median and Average Square Feet of FloorArea in Units in New Multifamily Buildings Completed. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 7 Figure 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian Housing Unitsil) Single Family Multifamily Total Housing Units Square Feet Iz) Single Family (units * 2,210 sq.ft.) Multifamily (units * 1,127 sq.ft.) Total Square Feet 24,150 30,274 6,124 2,994 5,036 2,041 27,144 35,310 8,165 53,150,096 66,628,243 13,478,147 3,375,518 5,676,823 2,301,305 56,525,614 72,305,066 15,779,452 (1) COMPASS for housing units and City of Meridian for allocation of units between single family and multifamily. (2) US Census 5-year trailing average for square footage. Source: COMPASS, U.S. Census Bureau. Currently, there are an estimated 27,144 housing units in the City of Meridian, 24,150 of which are single family units and 2,994 of which are multifamily units. By 2023 the residential housing stock is projected to have increased by 30 percent (8,615 households) for a total of over 35,000 units. Nonresidential data. Colliers' Idaho: Boise and Nampa, 2012 Year-End Real Estate Market Review, tabulates existing office, retail and industrial square footage for cities in the Treasure Valley. The report, located in Appendix G, discusses various submarkets in the Valley, including the City of Meridian, and lists current nonresidential square footage, vacancy rates, building counts, market rents, etc. BBC totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected nonresidential square footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed with Colliers, the Year-End Real Estate Market Review square footage count only includes buildingsgreater than 5,000 square feet. To adjust for this underestimate of nonresidential square feet, BBC obtained City data on the square footage of new commercial development since 2009. The City's data are not a cumulative total of all square footage in the City; rather the data only reflect the square footage of new permitted nonresidential units. BBC calculated the percentage of new units since 2009 that were less than 5,000 square feet in size. As of August 2013, on average, 5 percent of the City's newly permitted nonresidential units were less than 5,000 square feet. Knowing this, Colliers tabulation represents 95 percent of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. By dividing Colliers square footage by 95 percent, the study team arrived at the current total of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This method generates a total of 9,965,834 nonresidential square feet in 2013. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the current nonresidential square feet. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE S Future nonresidential development. ~1o data exist for exact 2023 projections of nonresidential square footage in Meridian. Therefore, BBC developed a logical method for calculating future nonresidential square footage. COMPASS' document, Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecast by Demographic Areas, provides data on current and future jobs in Meridian. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage to 2023. Currently, there are 23,213 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet tota19,965,834. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs in 2013 produces a ratio of 429 square feet per employee in 2013.26 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2023. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to employee remains constant, the study team used this ratio, as described above, to project nonresidential square footage forward. The estimated number of jobs in 2023 (30,908) is multiplied by the square footage per employee (429). This produces a total of 13,269,278 nonresidential square feet in 2023. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the future nonresidential square feet. Figure 2 below shows the current and projected nonresidential development square feet. Figure 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development Note: Total in 2013 9,965,834 Assumes that nonresidential square footage grows in proportion to employment (429 square feet peremployeei. Total in 2023 13,269,278 Source: COMPASS, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2012, City of Meridian and BBC. Difference (2013 to 2023) 3,303,444 Using the methodology described above, the increase in nonresidential square footage from 2013 to 2023 is approximately 3.3 million square feet. Impact Fee Calculation Considerations The fees calculated under the CIP approach were based on the following: ^ City investments in police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements projected to be built from 2013 through 2023; ^ An allocation of investment to residential and nonresidential development, based on new residential dwellingunits and nonresidential square footage; and ^ A fee calculation that involves dividing the appropriate share of capital improvements by projected residential units and nonresidential square feet. z~ This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time, and can be adjusted in future impact fee updates. The 429 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 9 Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to "...project demand for system improvements required by new service units ... over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years."27 BBC recommends a 10-year time period based on the City's best available capital planning data. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth over the next 10 years at existing service levels. Equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more is also impact fee eligible under the Impact Fee Act. The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the "CIP Value" in Figures 5, 7 and 9. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. Because impact fees are calculated for three impact fee categories in this study (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation), 33 percent of the study's cost is included in all calculations. Additionally, for all three categories, the City's current impact fee fund balance is subtracted From the total CIP value. The existing fund balance will be used to pay for a portion of the future capital improvements and will therefore decrease the amount needed to be collected from future impact fees. In the study team's judgment, the City is obligated to expend this existing fund balance onpre-planned growth-related capital improvements before spending future impact fee receipts on newly identified projects in the following CIPs.2B The forward-looking 10-year CIPs for the police and parks and recreation departments each include some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth BBC spoke with each department to determine a logical metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. The capital improvements mentioned immediately above are calculated to be 22 percent growth-related. The 22 percent ratio is calculated by dividing the accumulated new square footage between 2013 and 2023 (residential and nonresidential) by the total square footage in 2023.29 This percentage is attributed to growth under the philosophy that growth caused the need for such facilities and vehicles, and this growth also necessitates building a proportionately larger facility to accommodate additional personnel (which would otherwise not be necessary with the existing population). For example, the proposed police training center and the community/recreation center construction should be sized according to population and peak period demand. The City needs to size these facilities and vehicles to be able to accommodate the demand created by current residents and demand of future residents. 27 See Section 67-8208(1)(h). 2e "Collected development impact fees must be expended within eight (8) years from the date they were collected, on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis ...." See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. Funds collected prior to July 1, 2006, must be expended within Five (5) years from the date they were collected, on afirst-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. z9 The residential square footage is described in Figure 1 and the nonresidential square footage is described in Figure Z. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 10 It should be understood that growth will be paying only a portion of the cost of these facilities. The City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of these partially growth-related capital improvements with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. As discussed later in this report, the value of this City participation investment is approximately $40.9 million over the next ten years, or more than $3.7 million per year. This investment includes almost $30.5 million of discretionary funding in connection with purely non-growth-related improvements, and nearly $10.4 million of capital improvements which are growth-related and therefore must be funded from the City's General Funds. These funds could come from City revenues, donations, grants or other partnerships. It should also be noted that certain CIP capital improvements are listed in the following figures as zero percent growth-related because City staff relayed that the proposed capital improvements were actually either entirely repair and replacement of existing facilities or represented an upgrade in service levels not triggered by new growth. These non-growth- relatedcapital improvements are listed, nonetheless, in the CIP because municipalities often use the CIP for planning purposes, not just to calculate impact fees. Meridian may find this inclusion in the CIP exhibits useful. Levels of service. Levels of service (sometimes referred to in this study as "service level(s)") must be defined in the capital improvement element of the Comprehensive Plan, and is the basis for establishing additional service capacity need in any system that serves new development. "Level of service" is "... a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities."30 Service levels need to be stated in quantifiable, specific terms, since they measure the benefit new development receives for payment of impact fees. The capital improvement element must clearly identify existing public facilities and service levels and identify any shortfalls in service levels, if at all. Any such shortfall or "deficiency" that Meridian intends to overcome for both existing and new development cannot be funded with impact fees. Likewise, the cost of raising the service level for existing and future development beyond the current service level is ineligible for impact fee funding. If Meridian desires to use impact fees to achieve a higher service level for new development than existing service levels, Meridian must, outside of impact fees, raise the money to bring the existing community to that higher service level as well. This restriction has a general effect of restraining the setting of unreasonably high standards and fees solely for new development. All of the capital improvement costs in the CIPs on the following pages represent improvements that are needed for growth to maintain the current level of service. The City maybe operating at a less than desirab]e level (i.e., operating with deficiencies). In the future, the City may plan to increase the level of service. If this is the case, any capital improvements that increase the current level of service are not impact fee eligible and have been purposely excluded from the calculations. The police department is currently operating at a stated level of service of with 1.10 sworn officers per 1,000 residents based on the full employment at 87 sworn officers and 26 non sworn so See Section 67-8203(17), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 11 staff members. The actual level of service has historically been lower due to frictional hiring difficulties. The capacity of police calls, initiated by both the police and the public, has also been increasing over time. See Figure 3. This is due to an increase in total population, population density, and crime rate. Because of the pressures that growth places on the police services there are capital improvements required to maintain the level of service to current standards which are impact fee eligible. The police department has recently focused on finding efficient solutions in order to meet their future infrastructure needs. In particular, the department's locker room, break room, and patrol area spaces are all either at or near capacity. The police department commissioned the design of a station expansion in response to their spatial needs. The department has been able to reduce the projected cost the future station expansion by 50 percent, because the department hired a consultant in order to efficiently utilize the existing spaces. Additionally, the police department plans to use space within the proposed training center to meet growth related office and meeting space needs. These plans to relocate and expand in the new facility have minimized the cost of the station expansion. Figure 3. Police Calls for Service, 2006-2013 60,000 40,000 20,000 Officer Initiated Calls Note: 2013 totals based on existing data extrapolated to year end. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Public ]nltiated Calls Likewise, the fire department must build new infrastructure in order to maintain its current level of service as Meridian continues to grow. The current and targeted level of fire service is to respond to 80 percent of all calls within six minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and five minutes in transit). BBC analyzed the ratio of fire infrastructure for the city's current and projected land uses and, in conjunction with discussions with members of the finance department, determined that the fire department CIP lists more capital improvements than are necessary to continue this level of service. Therefore, the proposed fire station #8 and the corresponding apparatus cannot be included in the fee calculations. While they are shown on the C[P they are subtracted from the total eligible fee amount. Only growth-related capital BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 12 20D6 2007 2008 2D09 2010 2011 2012 2013t improvements necessary for the continuation of the current level of service are shown to be impact fee eligible. The parks and recreation has plans to increase the level of service in the future. The current level of service is 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents. However the additional 160 acres listed on the CIP represent an increase the level of service to 3.91 acres per 1,000 residents. Of the 160 acres listed on the CIP, 70 acres are impact fee eligible because they are required in order to maintain the current level of service, however the additional 90 cannot be included in the fees. Therefore, the costs associated with developing the additiona190 acres are subtracted from the total impact fee eligible amount. See Appendix D for more details on the calculation. The city also has plans to develop the 77-acre South Meridian Park. The actual development of this park is beyond the 10 year timeframe of the CIP, however, initial work including planning and design and work will take place within the next 10 years and are included in the fee calculations. Current police assets. The provisions of the Impact Fee Act significantly limit the City's use of impact fees. This is particularly true for police service because most costs of serving new development involve adding police officers or patrol vehicles that are not impact fee eligible, even though the demand for added personnel and vehicles might be a direct result of new development. Figure 4 lists the current police assets. The police department is currently operating with 1.10 officers per 1,000 population based on the current employment of 87 officers and 26 support staff. Figure 4. Curent Police Assets source: Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) City of Meridian Police Department. Command VehlCle Police Communications Equipment (198 Radios) K-9 Training Facility K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) Crime Scene/ Evidence Van The 1.10 officers per 1,000 population service standard equates to a current investment of $200 per residential unit and $0.10 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Police Capital Improvement Plan. Figure 5 on the following page lists the future capital improvements that are necessary to maintain the current level of service (i.e., 1.10 officers per 1,000 population) for future residential units and nonresidential development. The figure presents $2.2 million of future capital improvements that are eligible for inclusion in the police impact fee calculation. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "CIP Value" times the "Growth-Related Portion." BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 13 Figure 5. Police 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan Infrastructure Training Center $7,500,000 22 % $1,672,484 Station Expansion 800,000 100 800,000 Replace Vehicles ($300,000 annually) 3,000,000 0 0 Substation in Fire Station #5 60,000 100 60,000 Future Substation #1 120,000 100 120,000 Future Substation #2 120,000 100 120,000 Future Substation #3 60,000 100 60,000 Total Infrastructure $11,660,000 $2,832,484 Fee-Related Research Portion of Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $639,687 100 % $639,687 Grand Total $11,027,646 $2,200,130 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. The police CIP in Figure 5 includes the projected expenditures for four substations which will be located within other, larger facilities such as new fire stations. The precise location of these future substations has not been officially determined. The police department does not need new full size stations, but instead needs smaller police offices throughout the city where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. The police CIP includes 22 percent of the costs of a new training center. As previously stated, this improvement will serve both the existing population and is also necessary to meet the demands of future growth therefore it is only partially impact fee eligible. This new facility will include a training village and classrooms. It will also be open for use by other public service departments and the local community. Current fire assets. The fire department responds to 84 percent of all calls for service within six minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and five minutes in transit). BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 14 Figure 6. Current Fire Assets, 2013 Source: City of Meridian Fire Department. Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) Training Tower @ Station #1 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) 1993 Pierce Engine (304) 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 2006 Pierce Engine (304) 2008 Pierce Engine (305) 2008 Pierce LADDER (T-31) 2000 International Water Tender (320) 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) 2009 FORD F550 Brushpumper 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) Command Trailer luipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls 17 Vehicle Radios 5 Base Station Radios The current level of service equates to a current investment of $510 per residential unit and $0.24 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Fire Capital Improvement Plan. The fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies. The fire department's CIP includes improvements which are designed to service areas but would increase the current level of service beyond responding to 80 percent of all calls for service within six minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and five minutes in transit). Therefore, the improvements that would increase the service level, station #8 and the engine for station #8, have been subtracted from the impact fee eligible amount and those that remain represent the improvements necessary to continue of the current level of service. See Appendix D for more details on the calculations. Figure 7 reflects the future fire capital improvements needed to maintain the current level of fire service. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 15 Figure 7. Fire 10-year Capital Improvement Plan Buildings Fire Station #5 Ito repay Rural Fire) $806,DD0 100 % $806,000 Fire Station #6 2,230,000 100 $2,230,000 Fire Station #7 2,020,000 1D0 $2,020,000 Fire Station #8 2,020,000 100 $2,020,000 Vehicles Quint Ladder T- Station #4 $1,100,000 0 % $0 Heavy Rescue Engine Station #6 700,D00 100 $700,000 Quint Ladder T for Station #7 1,100,000 100 $1,100,000 Fire Engine for Station #8 520,DD0 100 $520,000 Fire Engine MF005 520,000 100 $520,000 Heavy Rescue Tender 380,D00 0 0 Replace Engine #38 520,DD0 0 0 Replace Engine MF009 520,DD0 0 D Replace Ladder Truck MF021 1,1OD,00D 0 0 Replace Brush MF022 145,DD0 0 0 Replace Engine MF010 520,DD0 0 0 Replace Engine MF014 520,000 0 0 Replace Engine MFD18 520,D00 0 D Equipment "Opticom" Traffic Signal Controls $200,DD0 100 % $200,000 Replace Air Unit MFDO 98,000 0 0 Replace Breathing Apparatus 380,D00 0 0 Total 2014-2023 CIP $15,919,000 $10,116,000 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Minus Increase in Level of Service Fire Station #8 and Engine #8t $2,540,000 $2,540,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $861,861 100 % $861,861 Grand Total $12,524,472 $6,721,472 Note: t This station was removed in order to maintain the current level of service. Service level calculated by comparing fire stations to developed land uses in the city. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, and BBC Research & Consulting. The City is expected to purchase $16 million dollars in fire capital improvements, $6.7 million of which is impact fee eligible from 2013 to 2023. Current parks and recreation assets. The total number of currently developed park acres is 245.5, which equates to a service standard of 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents. Figure 8 lists the City's current parks and recreation assets that are responsible for the 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents service standard. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 16 Figure 8. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2013 Source: City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Paths & Trails Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) Neighborhood & Mini-Parks Gordon Harris/Kiwanis Park (11.1 Acres) Renaissance Park (6.5 Acres) Season's Park (7.1 Acres) Chateau Park(6.7 Acres) 8th Street Park (2.8 Acres) Champion Park (6.0 Acres) Centennial Park (0.4 Acres) Generations Plaza (0.24 Acres) Heritage MS Ball Fields (4 Acres) Bark Park (.8 Acres) Fire Station #4 Park (0.6) City Hall Plaza (0.9) Cox Monument (0.1 Acres) William Watson (7 acres Land only) Community Parks Heroes Park (30.1 Acres) Tully Park (18.5 Acres) Bear Creek Park (18.8 Acres) Storey Park (19.0 Acres) Borup Park (47 acres Land Only) Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (56 Acres) Kleiner Park (60 Acres) Meridian Community Center The level of service for parks and recreation equates to a current investment of $2,052 per residential unit (see Appendix D for calculation). Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. Currently, Meridian's 10-year population growth would justify slightly 70 acres of new parks at the current 3.04 developed acres per thousand residents level of service. The CIP lists development of 90 additional acres that are beyond what is necessary to maintain this service level, as described on page 13. Any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. Figure 9 below lists the entire CIP, but the costs associated with the 90 acre increase in the level of service are removed the impact fee eligible value. The three items on the CIP listed as partially growth related are partially included in the fee calculation. The current population will have access to these facilities; however, they are not designed exclusively to increase the current level of service for the existing population. These BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 17 facilities will also meet the demand of the future growth, which enables a portion of the costs to be recovered through the impact fee. Park values are calculated at $177,000 per acre. This includes $142,000 for development costs and $35,000 for land costs. These values were calculated from weighted historical data provided by the City. See Appendix D for details on this calculation. For Borup and William Watson parks only the development costs are applied because the land has already been purchased and exists on the list of current infrastructure. Figure 9. Parks and Recreation 10-year Capital Improvement Plan Pathways & Trails Pathway Connections $1,150,000 0 % $0 Neighborhood & Mini-Parks Isola Creek (7 acres) $1,239,000 100 % 51,239,000 Highlands (7 acres) 1,239,000 100 1,239,000 Oaks (7 acres) 1,239,000 100 1,239,000 William Watson Development Only (7 acres) 994,000 100 994,000 Community Parks Hillsdale (20 acres) $3,540,000 100 % $3,540,000 Borup Park Development Only (47 acres) 6,674,000 100 6,674,000 Storey Park (5 acres) 885,000 22 197,353 Aldape Construction (60 acres) 10,620,000 100 10,620,000 Large Urban Parks South Meridian Park $1,050,000 100 % 51,050,000 Parks Amenities Rails with Trails $1,000,000 22 % $222,998 Recreation Center (YMCA Partnership) 4,000,000 22 891,991 Equipment Sweeper/Blower $18,000 100 % $18,000 Truck/Plow 35, 000 100 35, 000 Large Area Mowers(2) 110,000 100 110,000 Mules (4) 48,000 100 48,000 ATV 12,000 100 12,000 Trailer 7,500 100 7,500 Trim Mowers (5) 100,000 100 100,000 Trucks (4) 100,000 100 100,000 Tu rf Sprayer 40,000 100 40,000 Ball Field Groomer 10,000 100 10,000 Replace Vehicles and Equipment 2,032,000 0 0 Tota12014-2023 CIP $36,142,500 $28,387,842 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Minus Increase in Service Level 90 acres at $177,000t per acre $15,930,000 100 % $15,930,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $3,378,970 100 % $3,378,970 Grand Total $16,840,863 $9,086,206 Note: $177,000/acre in land and development costs Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and BBC Research & Consulting. BBC RESEARCH gt CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 1S Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $36 million, of which over $9 million is impact fee eligible. Mechanics of Fee Calculations Impact fees are calculated using the costs summarized in Figures 5, 7 and 9 and the demographic information from previous figures. As required by the Impact Fee Act, prior to fee adoption, the Advisory Committee must consider the following factors: ^ The means by which existing system improvements have been financed (for example, if grant money has been consistently used to finance system improvements, it may be reasonable to postulate that this will continue in the future); ^ The extent to which new development will contribute to financing system improvements through (past and future) taxes, assessments and contributions; ^ The extent to which new development has provided system improvements, without charge, for other properties in the service area; ^ Extraordinary costs incurred by the City in serving new development; and ^ The availability of other sources of funding for system improvements (e.g., local improvement district assessments, general tax levies).31 Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend that the City Council adjust the full cost recovery impact fee.sz Future land use assumptions. Figure 10 displays the City's incremental increase (from 2013 to 2023) in square footage distributed between residential and nonresidential land uses. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate capital improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. Figure 10. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013 to 2023 Note: Residential 15,779,452 83 % May not total due to rounding. Single Family 13,478,147 71 Multifamily 2,301,305 12 Source: Nonresidential 3,303,444 17 City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Total 19,082,896 100 ~o ~~ See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. 3z These factors are to be considered while the City is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits maybe calculated on aproject-by-project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 19 In 2023, the City's residential development is expected to increase by 15,779,452 square feet, and the nonresidential development is estimated to increase by 3,303,444 square feet. Therefore, the future allocation of land uses is projected to be 83 percent residential and 17 percent nonresidential. The study team has calculated all impact fees per residential unit, regardless of unit type, and per nonresidential square foot, regardless of type. BBC does not recommend imposing fees at a more detailed level of analysis (i.e., fee differentials for single family and multifamily units and differentials for commercial, agricultural and industrial square footage). In our judgment, such distinctions are unwarranted by empirical evidence. After allocating costs to the appropriate land-uses, impact fees for residential and nonresidential development are calculated by dividing the residential service costs by new residential units, and by dividing nonresidential service costs by new nonresidential square footage. Police impact fees. Figure 11 presents police impact fees of $223 per residential unit and $0.12 per nonresidential square foot. This represents the full cost recovery impact fee under Idaho's Impact Fee Act. Figure 11. Police Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Figure 45 Police Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Figure 10. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013 to 2023 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Allocated Value for Police Infrastructure 111 $2,200,130 Future Land Use PercentagelZl Residential 83 3'0 Nonresidential 17 % Costs by Land Use Category Residential $1,819,265 Nonresidential $380,865 Growth to 2023 Residential (in dwelling units) 8,165 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,303,444 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $223 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.12 BBC used the current service standard as a benchmark to double check the forward-looking CIP approach. The team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to Meridian's current investment in police infrastructure ($200 per residential unit and $0.10 per nonresidential square foot -see Appendix D). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10- Year Police CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 20 Fire impact fees. Figure 12 calculates the impact fees for fire capital improvements based on the future growth projections and anticipated future capital improvement costs described in earlier exhibits. Figure 12. Fire Impact Fee ~ ~ ~ . - Calculation. Notes: Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements ~1~ $6,721,472 (1) See Figure 7. Fire Capital a- Improvement Plan for a list of CIP Future Land Use Percentage investments required to maintain the ReSldentldl 83 current level of service. (2) See Figure 10. Distribution of Land Nonresidential 17 % Uses 2013 to 2023. Allocated Value by Land Use Category source: Residential $5,557,917 City of Meridian and BBC. Nonresidential $1,163,555 Growth to 2023 Residential (in dwelling units) 8,165 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,303,444 Impact Fee by Land Use Residential (per dwelling unit) $681 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.35 The full cost recovery impact fees for fire capital improvements total $681 per new residential unit and $0.35 per new nonresidential square foot. These fees are within the same range as the value of Meridian's current investment in fire infrastructure ($510 per residential unit and $0.24 per nonresidential square foot). It is to be expected that the full cost recovery fees slightly exceed this current level of investment. Natural cost increases in providing the same level of service and the addition of several new types of infrastructure triggered by growth, but not wholly applicable to growth, increase the future investment in fire infrastructure. Many factors are responsible for higher fire fees as compared to the current investment in Appendix D. For example, as the city and the need for fire services have grown, additional fire engines are required to be held in reserve. Since the requirement for the additional engine is triggered by growth the costs of are impact fee eligible. Current investment does not reflect any such type of large improvement, which explains why the fees under the CIP approach are higher. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 21 Parks and recreation impact fees. Parks and recreation impact fees are shown in Figure 13, which is based on Figure 9 and demographic projections. Parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Figure 13. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Figure 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Value of future Parks & Recreation improvements Ili $9,086,206 Current Land Use Percentage Residential 100 ~° Nonresidential 0 Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $9,086,206 Nonresidential $0 Growth to 2023 Residential (total dwelling units) 8,165 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,303,444 Impact Fee by Unit of Development Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,113 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A The full cost recovery impact fee for parks and recreation capital improvements is $1,113 for any new residential unit. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amount does not exceed Meridian's current investment in parks and recreation infrastructure ($1,763 per residential unit). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10-Year Parks and Recreation CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. City Participation Because not all the capital improvements listed in the CIPs are 100 percent growth-related, the City would assume the responsibility of paying for the portion of the capital improvements that are not attributable to new growth. These payments would come from existing funds, donations and/or ongoing revenue sources that are not tied directly to growth. To arrive at the City participation amount, the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility amount need to be subtracted from the total CIP value. Figures 14 through 19 calculate the City's participation between 2013 and 2023. The participation amount includes the cost of purely non-growth-related improvements, and portions ofgrowth-related improvements that are attributable to repair, replacement, or upgrade, and not impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 22 Figure 14. City Participation -Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 Note: (11 Directly from Figure 6. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023. (21 City Participation amount is equal to the amount of repair/replacement/upgrade capital improvements and the non-growth amount required bythe CIP. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. If the City adopts the full cost recovery police fees as calculated in this report, the City would potentially be responsible for approximately $8.8 million in police capital improvements. The City's participation would ensure that police service levels in Meridian do not decline. Again, the City's participation amount does not include ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs that will also be borne by the City and not paid by impact fees. Figures 15, 17 and 19 on the following pages further analyze the City's participation amount by separating the City's total participation amount into two categories: the purely non-growth improvements total, and the non-growth improvements total attributed to portions of impact fee eligible improvements. It should be noted that the participation amount associated with purely non-growth improvements is discretionary. The City can choose not to fund these capital improvements (although this could result in a decrease in the level of service if the deferred repairs or replacements were urgent). However, the non-growth-related portion of improvements that are impact fee eligible must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. Figure 15. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $3,000,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $5,827,516 Total $8,827,516 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. To maintain the current level of service, 1.1 officers per 1,000 population, the City must contribute $5.8 million between 2013 and 2023. The City must contribute this amount since the capital improvements reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. At the time this study was completed, the only purely non growth related item in the CIP was the amount allocated to replace vehicles. These are not impact fee eligible because they are replaced more frequently than the 10 year useful life required in order to include equipment in impact fee calculations. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 23 Figure 16 presents the City's participation in fire capital improvements, comprised of capital improvements that are repair, replacement or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Figure 16. City Participation -Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 $15,064,472 - $6,721,472 = $8,343,000 Note: )1) Net the Impact Fee Fund Balance )2) Directly from Exhihit il. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 )3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Based on the maximum fire impact fees calculated in this report, the City's participation amount could total approximately $S million. Figure 17 below distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are repair, replacement, or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Figure 17. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $8,343,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements {required) 0 Total $8,343,000 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. In the above analysis, the City has the discretion to contribute $8 million toward capital improvements that are purely non-growth-related. The city is not obligated to contribute any amount in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee because none of the items on the CIP are partially growth related or partially included in the impact fee calculation. Figure 18 outlines the dollar amount that the City should contribute, in addition to impact fee receipts, to parks and recreation capital improvements between 2013 and 2023. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 24 Figure 18. City Participation -Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 $32,770,863 - $9,086,206 = $23,684,658 Note: ll) Net the Impact Fee Fund Balance 12) Directly from Exhibit il. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 i3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Based on the full cost recovery parks and recreation fees calculated in this report, the City's participation amount could total approximately $23.7 million. Figure 19 distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are purely non-growth-related (discretionary funding) and improvements that reflect the non- growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Figure 19. ~ , Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capital Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related Improvement Plan improvements (discretionary) $19,112,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of source: I impact fee eligible improvements (required) $4,572,658 BBC Research & Consulting. Total 523,684,658 Of the $23.7 million of calculated City participation, $19 .1 million is discretionary because the associated capital improvements have been defined as purely non-growth-related. However, $4.6 of the City's participation is required in order for the impact fee analysis to remain whole. Cash Flow Analysis It is important for the City to assess revenues that would be generated by the full cost recovery impact fees as presented in this study, prior to further consideration by the Advisory Committee. Figure 20 below displays the impact fee cash flow from 2013 to 2023 using the fees calculated by the CIP methodology. Figure 20. Projected Cash Flows-CIP Methodology Projected New Residential Units 817 Projected New Nonresidential Square Feet 330,344 Cumulative Cash Flow $1,800,781 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. 4,083 8,165 1,651,722 3,303,444 $9,003,904 $18,007,808 BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 25 If impact fees were adopted at the full cost recovery amounts, the City would collect nearly $18 million in impact fee revenues from 2013 through 2023. This amount is mathematically designed to finance the entire growth-related portion of Meridian's CIP. Other Funding Sources Impact fees are just one of several funding sources for capital improvements. No one source is likely to fund all of the identified public facility needs. The City must be committed to addressing and alleviating deficiencies in service levels and addressing the expansion of service levels through exploration in connection with the following, without limitation, possible funding sources: ^ General Fund: The City's General Fund takes in revenues and makes expenditures for the ongoing operation of City functions. ^ General Obligation Bonds: With these bonds, the City borrows money for public facility development to be repaid with funds generated by an increase in property taxes. These voter-approved (two-thirds of all voters required) bonds establish an increase in property taxes for a period of time (typically 20 - 30 years) necessary to repay the bonds. The money raised can only be used for capital improvements and cannot be used for maintenance. ^ Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds may be issued based on leasehold values of land, facilities and operating entities that create a specific cash flow used to repay the bonds. Voter approval is required. ^ Certificates of Participation: With this option, the City would sell COPS to a lending institution in return for a loan used to make improvements in connection with a public facility. The lender would securitize the loan by taking title to the facility prior to the repayment of the COPS. The loan is repaid from revenue generated by the facility or from the City's general operating budget. This option is subject to judicial approval. ^ Grants: Grants are available from a variety of sources, including private foundations and government resources. ^ Joint Public/Private Partnership: This approach to funding would entail the City entering into a working agreement with aquasi-public or private entity to help fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 26 Implementation Recommendations As the City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Improvement Plans and impact fees, we also offer the following information for your consideration. Please note that this information will be included in the City's impact fee enabling ordinance (Appendix B). Capital Improvements Plan. Should the Advisory Committee recommend this study to the City Council and should the City Council adopt the study, the Finance Department should revise the City's existing Capital Improvement Plans using the information in this study. The existing City Capital Improvement Plans for these departments is attached to the study as Appendix H. A revised capital improvement plan would then be presented to the City for adoption as an element of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the procedures of the Local Land Use Planning ACt.33 Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City should review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance (Appendix B) for adoption as reviewed and recommended by the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is in a unique position to work with and advise several departments and the City Council to ensure that the capital improvement plans and impact fees are routinely reviewed and modified as appropriate. Impact fee service area. Some municipalities have fee differentials for various city zones under the assumption that some areas utilize more or less current and future capital improvements. The study team, however, does not recommend the City assess different fees by dividing the City into zones. Police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements inherently serve asystem-wide function. If, for example, a serious accident occurs in one part of the City, the fire department may call on engines and equipment from other stations to assist. Therefore, it is more appropriate not to differentiate fees based on City zones. In practice, all areas of the City have an equal demand on the infrastructure because the parks, fire, and police department function most efficiently on asystem-wide basis. Donations. If the City receives donations for capital improvements listed on the CIP, the City must account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for anon- or partially growth-related improvement, the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is for agrowth-related project in the CIP, the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Grants. If a grant is expected and regular, the grant amount should be reflected upfront in the fee calculations, meaning that the impact fees will be lower in anticipation of the contribution. If the grant is speculative or uncertain, this should not be reflected up-Front in the fee calculations since the City cannot count on those dollars as it undergoes capital planning. 33 See Sections 67-8Z03(4) and 67-SZO8(1). BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 27 The rational nexus is still maintained because the unexpected higher fund balance, due to the receipt of a grant, is deducted from the calculations as a "down payment on the CIP" when the fee study is updated. Credit/reimbursement. If adeveloper constructs or contributes all or part of agrowth- relatedproject that would otherwise be Financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category or, at the developer's choice, be reimbursed from impact fees collected in the future.3'~ This prevents "double dipping' by the City. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they made the City aware of the construction or contribution. If credit or reimbursement is due, the City must enter into an agreement with the fee payer that specifies the amount of the creditor the amount, time and form of reimbursement.ss City participation. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City of Meridian may choose not to adopt the CIPs as stated in this report, in which case the City will need to prepare revised capital improvement plans for review and adoption. Impact fee accounting. The City should continue to maintain an Impact Fee Fund (already established for the existing parks and recreation fees) separate and apart from the General Fund. All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital improvements. The City's General Fund should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest earnings, and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital improvements not related to growth. Spending policy. The City should establish and adhere to a written policy governing its expenditure of monies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for City operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth. In cases when growth-related capital improvements are constructed, impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capita] improvements are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve newgrowth, cost sharing between the General Fund and Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures. The City is expected to grow very rapidly over the 10-year span of the CIPs. Therefore, the fees calculated in this study should be updated annually as the City invests in additional infrastructure beyond what is listed in this report, and/or as the City's projected development changes significantly. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. sa See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code. 3s See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 28 Summary Using the CIP methodology, the state mandated approach, BBC calculated the total (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation) full cost recovery impact fee for residential units at $2,016 and $0.47 per nonresidential square feet as seen in Figure 21 below. This full cost recovery fee is being presented to the Advisory Committee for its review and consideration in light of statutorily identified factors. Figure 21. Summary of Impact Fees Source: B8C Research & Consulting. Police fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $223 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.12 Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $681 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.35 Parks & Recreation Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,113 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A Tota I Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $2,016 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.47 It is the study team's assessment that the City could reasonably charge impact fees of any amount up to the $2,016 per residential unit and $0.47 per nonresidential square foot. This amount is sufficient to pay for the growth-related portions of Meridian's Capital Improvement Plans. Summary of City participation. Figure 22 summarizes the total amount the City is required to contribute and the amount the City could contribute discretionarily over the next 10 years to police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 29 Figure 22 City Participation Summary, 2013 to 2023 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting Discretionary Amount (Purely Non-Growth Improvements) Police $3, 000,000 Fire $8, 343,000 Parks & Recreation $19,112,000 Total $30,455,000 Required Amount (Partially Non-Growth Improvements) Police $5,827,516 Fire $0 Parks & Recreation $4,572,658 Total $10,400,174 The total amount the City would need to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt fees at the full cost recovery amount, will be approximately $40.9 million. The required $10.4 million reflects the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. The amount attributable to capital improvements defined as purely non-growth equals nearly $30.5 million; the City can choose not to fund this total amount, however, service levels could decrease. If the City plans to fund all repair, replacement or upgrade capital improvements in addition to the required amount, the City will need approximately $40.9 million over the next 10 years. This equates to approximately $3.7 million per year that the City will have to finance by drawing from the General Fund, donations or other revenue sources. However, fairness and maintaining the integrity of the impact fee system require the City to fund nearly $1 million per year in non- growth-related capital improvements that are impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 30 Appendix A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fee Ordinances IDAHO TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHAPTER 82 Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances 67-8204. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCES. Governmental entities which comply with the requirements of this chapter may impose by ordinance development impact fees as a condition of development approval on all developments. (1) A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements determined in accordance with section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Development impact fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. (2) A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities adopted in the development impact fee ordinance of the governmental entity that are applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development. The construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing public facilities for which a development impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new development. (3) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify the point in the development process at which the development impact fee shall be collected. The development impact fee maybe collected no earlier than the commencement of construction of the development, or the issuance of a building permit or a manufactured home installation permit, or as may be agreed by the developer and the governmental entity. (4) A development impact fee ordinance shall be adopted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 67-8206, Idaho Code. (5) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process whereby the governmental agency shall allow the developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the proportionate share of development impact fees under the guidelines established by this chapter which shall be set forth in the ordinance. The individual assessment process shall permit consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee. The decision by the governmental agency on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee, including an explanation of BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 1 factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and shall specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (6) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide a process whereby a developer shall receive, upon request, a written certification of the development impact fee schedule or individual assessment for a particular project, which shall establish the development impact fee so long as there is no material change to the particular project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the impact fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code. The certification shall also specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (7) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision for credits in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8209, Idaho Code. (8) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision prohibiting the expenditure of development impact fees except in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8210, Idaho Code. (9) A development impact fee ordinance may provide for the imposition of a development impact fee for system improvement costs incurred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the system improvements. (10) A development impact fee ordinance may exempt all or part of a particular development project from development impact fees provided that such project is determined to create affordable housing, provided that the public policy which supports the exemption is contained in the governmental entity's comprehensive plan and provided that the exempt development's proportionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than development impact fees. (11) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide that development impact fees shall only be spent for the category of system improvements for which the fees were collected and either within or for the benefit of the service area in which the project is located. (12) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for a refund of development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8211, Idaho Code. (13) A development impact fee ordinance shall establish for a procedure for timely processing of applications for determination by the governmental entity regarding development impact fees applicable to a project, individual assessment of development impact fees, credits or reimbursements to be allowed or paid under section 67-8209, Idaho Code, and extraordinary impact. (14) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify when an application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted to be made by a BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 2 developer or fee payer. An application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted sufficiently in advance of the time that the developer or fee payer may seek a building permit or related permits so that the issuance of a building permit or related permits will not be delayed. (15) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for appeals regarding development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8212, Idaho Code. (16) A development impact fee ordinance must provide a detailed description of the methodology by which costs per service unit are determined. The development impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in section 67-8208(1)(f), Idaho Code, by the total number of projected service units described in section 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code. If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the projected new service units described in section 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code, by the total projected new service units described in that section. (17) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for various land uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to pay a project's proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development project's proportionate share of system improvement costs, except as provided in section 67-8214(3), Idaho Code. (18) After payment of the development impact fees or execution of an agreement for payment of development impact fees, additional development impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes. In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the additional development impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units or change in scope of the development. (19) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any development to double payment of impact fees. (ZO) A development impact fee ordinance shall exempt from development impact fees the following activities: (a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of its destruction; BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 3 (b) Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units; (c) Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on the same lot, provided that the number of service units does not increase; (d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; (e) Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of service units; and (f) Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements. (21) A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (a) That a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of the development impact fee ordinance; or (b) That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle on that same lot or space. (22) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process for dealing with a project which has extraordinary impacts. (23) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for the calculation of a development impact fee in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A development impact fee shall not be deemed invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners or developers within the service area other than the person paying the fee. (24) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a description of acceptable levels of service for system improvements. (25) Any provision of a development impact fee ordinance that is inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void and that provision shall have no legal effect. A partial invalidity of a development impact fee ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance that are consistent with the requirements of this chapter. BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 4 Appendix B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance City of Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Attached is the Impact Fee Ordinance Revision. The ordinance in its entirety can be found at the following link: htt~//www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book id=306&chapter id=6495 BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, HOAGLUN, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 12, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE; TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Research and Consulting ("Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections for the period 2013 to 2023 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital hmprovements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, dated November 20, 2013 (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; determines the costs necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees as set forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS, in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans adopted by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for additional police, fire. and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page I of 5 WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS, the "maximum allowable fee" is also referred to as the "full cost recovery fee" under the methodology set forth in the Impact Fee Study. If the adopted fee is less than the maximum allowable fee, the impact fee eligible portions of adopted Capital Improvement Plan will not be fully funded unless general fund revenue or other income sources are used to fund the difference between the maximum allowable fee and the adopted fee; and WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee met on November 20, 2013 and passed a motion to approve the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans and recommend that the City Council hold the required public hearing on the Capital Improvements Plans and the updated Impact Fees and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss. review and hear public comments on the proposed Capital Improvements Plans and the revised Impact Fee as recommended by the Development Impact Fee Committee; and WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at a public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, tire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the police, fire. and parks and recreation Impact Fees, as revised, to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted. will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted by this Ordinance are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council and that Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12 of the Meridian City Code is repealed and replaced as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: A. As used in this chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates; the word shall, will or must is always mandatory; the word may is permissive; and the word should indicates that which is recommended, but not required. B. Nothing in this chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development for which a lawful building permit was issued prior to the effective date hereof. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from requiring a developer to construct reasonable project improvements in conjunction with a project. D. Nothing in this chapter shall limit the ability of the city to enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided in section 67-8204A, Idaho Code. E. 1. The impact fees described in this chapter, and the administrative procedures of this chapter shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years to ensure that: a) the demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such impact fees are still valid; b) the resulting impact fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire. and/or parks and recreation system improvements required to serve new growth and development; c) the monies collected in any impact fee fund have been and are expected to be spent for system improvements of the type for which such impact fees were paid; and d) such system improvements will benefit those developments for which the impact fees were paid. 2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as follows effective the day of , 2014: IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 3 of 5 Police impact fee schedule: Residential per dwelling unit Nonresidential per square foot Fire impact fee schedule: Residential i per dwelling unit Nonresidential per square foot Parks impact fee schedule: Residential per dwelling unit Nonresidential n/a Total fees: Residential per dwelling unit Nonresidential per square foot F. Violation of this chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in this code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the city charged with the administration of this chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this chapter including, without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed development, shall be a violation of this chapter. G. The captions used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this chapter. H. If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho impact fee act, section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 4 of 5 shall be deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. I. This chapter shall be in full force and effect not less than thirty (30) days subsequent to this chapter's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon this chapter, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this chapter shall be repealed. Section 2: That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7 remain unchanged. Section 3: This Fee Schedule shall be in effect on the day of , 2014, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. 2013. 2013. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of December, APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian. Idaho, this day of December, APPROVED: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 5 of 5 Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist Idaho Impact Fee Act CIP Requirements See, Section 67-8208, Idaho Code Re uirement Re ort Section (a) A general description of all existing public facilities Exhibits 4, 6, and 8 (existing facilities) • and their existing deficiencies within the service area or areas of the governmental entity Also see Appendix D. • and a reasonable estimate of all costs and a plan to develop the funding resources related to curing the existing deficiencies o including, but not limited to, the upgrading, updating, improving, expanding or re lacin of such facilities to meet existin needs and usa e; (b) A commitment by the governmental entity to use other available sources of revenue to See "Other Funding Sources" cw-e existing system deficiencies where practical; page 29. (c) An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments fo-- usage of Requirement addressed in fee ordinance. capacity of existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional planner or by a qualified engineer licensed to perform engineering sewices in See fund balance discussion on this state; page 11. (d) A description of the land use assumptions by the government entity; See land use discussion on page 6 and 7. (e) Current Asset tables and • A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, supporting text: Exhibits 4, 6, and 8. generation or discharge of a sewice unit For each category of system improvements • and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to Also noted in Appendix D. various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial; See p. 5, Other fee calculation considerations. Re uirement Re ort Section (f) A description of all system improvements and their costs necessitated by and attributable Exhibits 5, 7, and 9 regarding Capital Improvements to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, to Plans. provide a level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact Fee ordinance; (g) The total number of service units necessitated by and attributable to new development See Exhibits 1 and 2. within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; (h) The projected demand for system improvements required by new service units projected See CIPs 2013-2023, Exhibits 5, 7, and 9. over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty (ZO) years; (i) Identification of all sow-ces and levels of funding available to the governmental entity for See "Other Fw~ding Sources" page 29. the financing of the system improvements; (j) If the proposed system improvements include the improvement of public Facilities under Meridian currently does not collect fees for the jurisdiction of the state of Idaho or another governmental entity, then an agreement development activity beyond its city limits. This updated between governmental entities shall specify the reasonable share of funding by each unit, study does not propose fee collection beyond city limits. provided the governmental entity authorized to impose development impact Fees shall not !f the city desires, it could obtain an IGA with Ada assume more than its reasonable share of funding joint improvements, nor shall the County to collect impact fees in the cow~ty (i.e., area of agreement permit expenditure of development impact fees by a govermnental entity which impact). is not authorized to impose development impact fees unless such expenditure is pursuant to a developer agreement under Section 67-8214, Idaho Code; and (k] A schedule setting forth estirnated dates for commencing and completing construction of See CIPs 2013-2023, Exhibits 5, 7, and 9. all improvements identified in the capital improvements plan. Appendix D. Current Service Standard Approach The Current Service Standard approach was used to calculate the City's current investment in capital infrastructure. This approach is only shown for comparison purposes and serves as a double check against the CIP approach in the main report. If the current investment in improvements were considerably lower than the calculated fees in the body of the main report, then the City would need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. If this were the case, it is likely projects were attributed to growth at an inaccurately high percentage, or, alternatively, some of the growth projects have elements of repair, replacement or upgrade that have not been identified. On the other hand, if the current investment in improvements were considerably higher than the fees calculated under the CIP approach, the City would also need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. In this case, it is likely the City would need more future improvements to maintain current levels of service, or the City did not allocate enough of the capital improvements to growth. The Current Service Standard methodology utilizes the current distribution of residential and nonresidential square footage in the City as a basis for allocating improvement costs. This conservative allocation is based upon the theory that current investment reflects the current level of service provided by the City, and this current level of service should be maintained in future growth. In order to evaluate the City's current capital improvements, BBC met with City staff to review the replacement costs and equity percentages (portion owned) of current capital improvements If the equity percentage for any project is less than 100 percent, this indicates that the project is debt financed and the loan has not yet been retired. For the portion of current improvements that is not yet owned in its entirety, taxes are used to pay the debt service payments. This prevents "double dipping" so that growth would not pay twice for improvements with taxes and impact fees. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth at existing service levels. The cost of the fee study is also eligible for inclusion into the calculation for all fee categories. All current capital improvement figures include 33 percent of the fee study cost since the total cost is shared between three impact fee categories (police, fire, and parks and recreation). Unspent impact fee funds are also considered a city asset and are included in the calculation. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1 Figure 1 below presents the total replacement value of current police assets. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "Replacement Value" times the "Equity Percentage" percentage. Figure 1. Current Police Assets, 2013 ,; '; . Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) $4,000,000 100 ~ $4,000,000 Command Vehicle 30,000 100 30,000 Police Communications Equipment (198 Radios) 990,000 100 990,000 K-9 Training Facility 400,000 100 400,000 K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) 275,000 100 275,000 Crime Scene/ Evidence Van 40,000 100 40,000 Tota I $S, 735,000 $ 5,735,000 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study 57,38 100 % 57,33 Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $639,687 100 ~ $639,687 $6,382,021 $6,382,021 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research Sc Consulting. Figure 1 lists approximately $6.4 million in replacement costs for the City's police improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more. Under the Current Service Standard approach (not allowed as the fee calculation methodology in Idaho), this would all be impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 2 Figure 2 presents the current capital improvements identified by City staff for the fire department. Figure 2. Current Fire Assets, 2013 Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) $1,900,000 100 % $1,900,000 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Training Tower @ Station #1 1,449,725 100 1,449,725 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 167,000 100 167,000 Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) $520,000 100 % $520,000 1993 Pierce Engine (304) 520,000 100 520,000 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 520,000 100 520,000 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 520,000 100 520,000 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 520,000 100 520,000 2006 Pierce Engine (304) 520,000 100 520,000 2008 Pierce Engine (305) 520,000 100 520,000 2008 Pierce LADDER (T-31) 1,000,000 100 1,000,000 20001nternational Water Tender (320) 240,000 100 240,000 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) 85,000 100 85,000 2009 FORD F550 Brushpumper 85,000 100 85,000 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) 85,000 100 85,000 Command Trailer 60,000 100 60,000 Equipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $200,000 100 % $200,000 17 Vehicle Radios 68,289 100 68,289 5 Base Station Radios 26,500 100 26,500 Tota I $15,406,s14 $15,406,s 14 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $861,861 100 % $861,861 Grand Total $16,275,709 $16,275,709 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research ix Consulting. The City has approximately $16.3 million invested in fire improvement. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly all of the current investment would be impact fee eligible. BBC calculated the level of service for the fire department as a ratio between the amount of fire station square footage and the size of developed area within the city. This calculation, see figure 3, indicated that only 1.8 stations would be necessary to maintain the current service level. However, because fire stations are necessary to protect public safety, BBC rounded to the nearest whole fire station indicating that 2 stations would be necessary to maintain the level of BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 3 service. However, the CIP listed 4 stations, meaning by these calculations, 2 stations were not eligible for inclusion in the impact fees. Through discussions with the Fire Department and the Finance Department, BBC decided that it is more realistic that the City will actually need 3 new stations because fire service levels are dependent on station location and response times in addition to the number of stations. Therefore only one of the four stations was removed from the final fee calculation. See Figure 5 for calculation. Figure 3. Fire Department Level of Service Calculation Station Square Built Square Footage Built Square Foot Per Footage in Meridian Station Square Foot 2014 38,839 66,491,448 1,712 2023 69,047 85,574,343 1,239 Required to Maintain Increase in Constant Level: 49,985 Service 19,363 Sq. Ft. or 2.2 Stations (~) Note: (1) Based on an average station square footage of 8,631 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research and Consulting BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 4 Figure 4 shows the City's current parks and recreation assets. Figure 4. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2013 Paths & Trails Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) $233,200 100 % $233,200 Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) $220,000 100 220,000 Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) $165,000 100 165,000 Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) $121,000 100 121,000 Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 100 110,000 Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 100 110,000 Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) $27,500 100 27,500 Neighborhood & Mini-Parks Gordon Harris/Kiwanis Park (11.1 Acres) $1,964,700 100 % $1,964,700 Renaissance Park (6.5 Acres) $1,150,500 100 1,150,500 Season's Park (7.1 Acres) $1,256,700 100 1,256,700 Chateau Park (6.7 Acres) $1,185,900 100 1,185,900 8th Street Park (2.8 Acres) $495,600 100 495,600 Champion Park (6.0 Acres) $1,062,000 100 1,062,000 Centennial Park (0.4 Acres) $7,080 100 7,080 Generations Plaza (0.24 Acres) $42,480 100 42,480 Heritage MS Ball Fields (4 Acres) $708,000 0 0 Bark Park (.8 Acres) $141,600 100 141,600 Fire Station #4 Park (0.6) $106,200 100 106,200 City Hall Plaza (0.9) $159,300 100 159,300 Cox Monument (0.1 Acres) $17,700 100 17,700 William Watson (7 acres Land only)t 245,000 100 245,000 Community Parks Heroes Park (30.1 Acres) $5,327,700 100 % $5,327,700 Tully Park (18.5 Acres) $3,274,500 100 3,274,500 Bear Creek Park (18.8 Acres) $3,327,600 100 3,327,600 Storey Park (19.0 Acres) $2,653,000 100 2,653,000 Borup Park (47 acres Land Only)t 8,319,000 100 8,319,000 Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (56 Acres) $9,912,000 100 % $9,912,000 Kleiner Park (60 Acres) $10,620,000 100 10,620,000 Meridian Community Center 64,350 100 64,350 Total $53,027,610 $52,319,610 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $3,378,970 100 % $3,378,970 Grand Total $56,413,913 $55,705,913 Note: f acres not included In the level of service calculation because i[ is not developed and in use. $177,000/acre in land and development costs. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research Sc Consulting. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE S The City's replacement cost for the current parks and recreation improvements totals approximately $56 million. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly the entire current amount of investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre ($177,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $177,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. This value includes $142,000 per acre for development costs and $35,000 per acre for land. It was calculated by taking the weighted average costs of four, existing or planned parks. It includes sample parks from community, and neighborhood park categories. See Figure 5 for calculation. Figure 5. Park Valuation _ Calculation Settler's 56.1 $8,719,223 $1,146,069 $9,865,292 Gordon Harris 11.1 1,054,221 550,308 1,604,529 source: Renaissance Park 6.5 495,482 913,942 1,409,424 City of Meridian BBC Research & Borup (Planned) 30.0 4,470,000 N/A Consulting Total 103.8 $14,738,926 $2,610,319 $12,879,245 Average Per Acre Cost (Weighted) $142,022 $35,380 $177,402 The level of service for parks was calculated by estimating how many acres of parks would be necessary to maintain the current ratio of 3.04 acres per 1,000 population (246 acres for 81,000 people). In order to maintain this level of service, 315 acres would be necessary or 70 additional acres. However the CIP lists an additional 160 acres of developed parkland. Therefore, This is an increase in the service level by 90 acres, valued at $16,000,000 (90 X $177,000). Figure 6. Parks and Recreation level of Service Year Acres Population (1,000) Acres per Population Calculation 2014 246 81 3.04 2023 406 104 3.91 cres equire o source: Maintain Constant City of Meridian BBC Research ~ LOS: 315 Increased LOS: 90 acres Consulting Figure 7 displays the Ciry's current distribution of square footage between residential and nonresidential land uses, based on the demographic figures in the main report. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6 Figure 7. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013 Note: Residential 56 525 614 85 (1) May not total due to rounding. , , Single Family 53,150,096 80 source: Multifamily 3,375,518 5 Nonresidential 9 965 834 15 City of Meridian, Colliers Mternotionol Boise and Sun Nampn ,Year-End , , Real Estate Moricet Review, 2072 and BBC Research St Consulting. TOtaI il) 66,491,448 100 % Currently, 85 percent of total square footage in Meridian is comprised of residential development and the balance (15 percent) is nonresidential development. Impact fee calculation. Figures 8 through 10 present the impact fee calculation based on the improvement costs in Figures 1, 2, and 4. Fees are calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of service costs by total residential units and nonresidential square feet. Again, since Idaho law mandates the use of the Capital Improvement Plan approach, fees calculated under the Current Service Standard approach serve only as a conservative double-check to validate the fee levels calculated under the CIP approach. Figure 8. Calculation of Police Impact Fees Note: (1) See Figure 3. Current Police Assets. (2) See Figure 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Current Value for Police Infrastructure (''~ Current Land Use Percentage 12i Residential Nonresidential Costs by Land Use Category Residential Nonresidential Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) Nonresidential (in square feet) Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) Nonresidential (per square foot) $6,382,021 85 15 $5,424,718 $957,303 27,144 9,965,834 Under the Current Service Standard approach, the City has a current investment in police improvements of $200 per residential unit and $0.10 per nonresidential square foot. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 7 Figure 9 below calculates the current investment in fire improvements under the Current Service Standard approach. Figure 9. Calculation of Fire Impact Fees Note: (1) See Figure 4. Current Fire Assets. (2) See Figure 9. Distribution of Land Uses,2013. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team Current Value for Fire Infrastructure Ill $16,275,709 Current Land Use PercentagelZl Residential 85 Nonresidential 15 Costs by Land Use Category Residential $13,834,352 Nonresidential $2,441,356 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 27,144 Nonresidential (in square feet) 9,965,834 Impact Fees by Land Use Residential (per dwelling unit) $510 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.24 As of 2013, the City has $510 per residential unit and $0.24 per nonresidential square foot invested in fire improvements. Figure 10 below displays the current parks and recreation investment per residential unit. Parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Figure 10. Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Note: (1) See Figure 6. Current Parks and Recreation Assets. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research ~ Consulting Current Value for Parks & Recreation Ili $55,705,913 Current Land Use Percentage Residential 100% Nonresidential Oho Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $55,705,913 Nonresidential $0 Current Land Use Residential (total dwelling units) 27,144 Nonresidential (in square feet) N/A Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential {per dwelling unit) $2,052 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A The City's current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $2,052 per residential unit. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 8 Appendix E. Detailed Demographic Analysis The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act defines "Land Use Assumptions" as a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 20-year period. The 2013 and 2023 current and forecasted residential land uses for the City of Meridian are based on COMPASS' demographic area as calculated in the COMPASS document; Communities (n Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas, updated in October 2012. The basis for the City's nonresidential square footage was Colliers' International Boise and Nampa, Year-End Rea(Estate Market Review, 2012. This report is located in Appendix G. This appendix details the calculations and assumptions used to arrive at current and future residential units and current and future nonresidential square footage. This appendix should be read in conjunction with the main report text, which summarizes the study team's approach to the demographic data analysis. Residential Data COMPASS produces two types of demographic estimates/forecasts: Trend Forecasts and the Community Choices Forecast. COMPASS explains that "the goal of [the Trend] forecast was to allocate future growth based on prevailing residential patterns and densities...Since Trend is based on current development (everything built to date) and on-going development (approved and preliminary development proposals), Trend will be adjusted each year to reflect changing pattern." ~ The second forecast, the Community Choices Forecast, "does not reflect the way the region has been growing, instead it incorporates a vision for how we would like to grow."' In other words, this forecast allows for changes in the Trend forecast reflecting the way in which the community desires to grow. This forecast takes into account denser growth within existing areas of impact, higher density development around transit corridors, and open space between communities. The study team has chosen to use the Community Choices Forecast data because we believe it provides a more accurate vision of the future and it has been adopted by COMPASS as the preferred growth forecast used in the regional long-range transportation plan. The COMPASS document is entitled Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas, last updated in October 2012. t Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts. 2 Ibid. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 1 The document cited on the previous page provides detailed data on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). Current and future households. As stated in the main report text, to estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from the aforementioned COMPASS document. Based on previous input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the study team has chosen to use COMPASS' data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact. The maps on the following pages portray the current City limits and COMPASS' demographic areas. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 2 Cite of Meridian ~,,, - _ _ _~_ ~'r ,v.c. Future Land Use Map ~ ; Legend .~ - aw ~~ # Park. - ¢ Trxrca Statbn ~ i 6 s ~ :. r- FIA:I9 F2CAG66 ~a ~ ~- I Raet 4 _ T.n~ Mar li~ler.lwye- SNnaf -- {- - - £ ...... FnhvN WuM.ay ~ FIiWC InYYGA]ngc _ -~ ~' ~-~~ _ = ~~ FrGVre O+enass - - € 3 Emryw~y E.'O(!.~d _ r Er~Lr~R IVCL+.r~~ ~',f rve~gnoarrcce~;~~ ~ , ~ ~~~ r~ F IDI~ IAN - _ , ~J ~ _ 4- ~ ~~- _ _ Fulure Land Uscs Cit}~ idc Tcn Milc lntcrchangc Spccitic Arca +.na~. E~atc R ACfOJi ®~.c pox yrrsrt: 234nua Nrv. ilensry ert.~nmun: _vwCHnyay Ra:~0am.J Oq"fwn Mp3vm UBHAy HBSOeno1 `IM~6ltml MfiQMI Dpnsily ResOentel RFUC U% ke~Aalwotl MaS ~ Doraty RcEgaF:a' MveG Errpayr.r_-c tt-.i+h3~ f)earsl R~.aax,a MMG UaC GOmnM~b IIKf PenYIY ReSKKntil MaCO U3C RtaStrt'e Ha" LMSty Resitleniai - Mast iM R~vrRr_a>naM P~-3-v: Easmrr~t Mue~i Ilse Con.:r nr~ ~crRC.r:a: ~ Mmtl use RegorA civic i ~res.pe eatut Adopted March S. 2073 ., x. tA120 UFS • M[dfcrt3rge C>tiG 5~[B'PXC IYtl `.°x.c - ~ • i 6•p•• ntusrn3 Laty Derciy Empbymcnl __ _ __ _ -__ _ BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3 Ada (~rn~nty BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 4 The data below reflect the COMPASS-defined demographic areas in the report Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas. These data were the basis for current and future residential estimates/forecasts. Z 1 E imat s 2 1 mmuni h i 2 2 mmunit h i 2 2 mmu ni h i Demo ra hic Area Po ulation Household lobs` Po ulation Households lobs' Po ulation Household lobs" Po ulation Households Jobs" Air art 890 35] 10,080 907 358 11,537 889 363 13,181 910 371 15,359 Boise Foothills 9,362 3.331 3,465 10,024 4,035 3,496 10,416 4,258 3,530 10,787 4,410 3,575 Boise Northwest 14,259 6,198 3,487 14,661 6,366 3,767 15,010 6,590 4,079 16,499 7232 4500 Central Bench 38,374 17,017 21,120 39,692 ]7,150 22,592 39,147 17,336 24,250 42,061 18,718 26,442 Downrown 3,406 2,21 30,278 3,942 2,271 33,18] 3,922 2,273 36,473 4,349 2,542 40,810 East End 6,785 3,196 3,215 7,075 3,233 3,315 7,009 3,287 3,428 7,147 3,347 3,577 North End 17,576 8,273 3,357 17,702 8,332 3,60 17,429 8,395 3,889 18,192 8,758 4,260 Southeast-ea rber Valle 1,662 637 489 2,491 992 522 3,417 1,390 560 3,906 1,592 610 Southeast 8nise 33.315 14,708 19,590 35037 15,008 21,181 35,200 15,367 22,980 36,817 1.6.112 253:9 1~ ~ ..aue 40,683 1953 13993 43098 14,819 14.648 45 ]Ot 15,g6] 15383 43311 ]7.L2n L6359 69072 elr gn394 .7935 37,066 11..348 I0.41~ - 580 J-1,SJ3 ~a 97T '4198 a -~1~~`~ Boise total 235,38 96,905 149,468 245.565 99.630 160.195 247,957 102,800 172,296 264,019 109,709 188,316 Ea le Total 21299 7,582 5136 23,918 8,510 6,272 27,428 9,852 7,546 30,740 11000 9,232 Garden Cit Total 1 OS 4923 7033 1 315 5036 772 11445 5242 8 1263 5793 9509 Kuna Total 17,850 5,657 2135 20311 6,419 3,282 22,397 7,515 4,595 29192 9,489 6,329 Star Total 6222 209 496 7 46 253 750 9,58 32 1036 1213 4147 411 Censer R~leridiar+ 409]4 14,920 16,924 4,260 1.517 19433 44.183 1459 ?2,007 47,937 77,953 25,439 North Mehdian 3G 319 7940 2,352 37,795 7,856 3,137 40,673 12,590 3732 44,149 13673 4,527 South Mer idian 14,957 4,915 4,097 18,888 6,148 4,727 23,845 7,892 5,419 26,514 8,786 6,353 MeridianT --~ $ ~ 3631 Blocks Creek RU rat 15 180 3,059 5 1,007 3,058 5 1,009 3,058 5 1,011 Call foothills Rural 393 141 58 431 155 176 488 181 178 920 349 261 Northwest Rural Ada 3,978 1,299 302 5,985 2,016 400 9,438 3,252 507 10,912 3,804 651 Southeast Rural 1,190 375 131 1,242 392 161 1,311 421 195 2,29 744 239 West Foothills 177 72 47 249 99 73 367 146 702 421 167 141 Southeast Rural 946 296 252 1,035 324 254 1,101 360 256 1,166 380 258 fen Mile Creek Rural 1,410 497 1,67-0 3,563 508 807 3,533 520 870 3,572 535 837 West Faothil is ],320 445 116 1,403 472 277 1466 513 456 4,563 1,598 694 Ada Rural Total 9 429 313 2 70 16,967 3,97 3 5 20 762 5398 3,523 26,90 7,582 4,092 A un T I 4 1 1 2 27 41 11 1 7 7 2 11 271 171 22 42 4 4221 1 1 2 2 2 Central Caldwell 9,934 3,670 2,384 10662 3,744 2,482 10,819 3,867 2,589 11,597 4,155 2,732 Downlo wrr Caldwell 3,800 1,366 4,126 4,752 1,433 4,401 4,586 1,460 4.711 5,121 1,670 5,173 Northeast Caldwell 16,082 5,131 2,917 19,622 6,332 4,856 25,201 8,459 7,040 28,683 9,648 9,934 South Caldwell 14,249 4,407 1,694 17,021 5,384 1,962 21,777 7,161 2.753 26,314 8,712 2,649 West Caldwell 6,417 2352 2,069 6,875 2,485 2,181 7,426 2,724 2304 7,916 2,901 2,472 Caldwell Total 50482 16 92 13 19 58,932 19 378 15 2 69 809 23,67 ]8 902 79 63 27086 22 910 Downtown Nam a 5,027 2,039 3,094 5,063 2,053 3731 4,865 2,063 4,449 5,7)0 2,444 5,403 East Narn a 16,077 5,415 5,687 16,493 5.554 6,676 16,481 5,758 7.409 18,878 6,623 8379 North Nam a 9,562 3,162 7,013 12,062 3,813 8584 14,854 4,808 10,858 17,843 5,826 13,095 Southeast Nam a 22,958 7,971 4,363 24,24? 3,183 4.601 24,872 8,560 4,867 26.109 8,981 5,718 West Nam a 36,736 12,763 8,77 ?9./17 ]3,627 9,262 43,072 14995 9,808 44,981 15657 10535 Nam a Total 90 3 3135 28 931 97 580 33 23 32 5 1041 36 37 39 113 537 39 3 a2 63 Middleton Total 7,22 242 865 7 836 2 62 9 B 5 2967 10 9,16 3 362 148 West RUral-Green leaf Total 1,119 395 79 1,137 401 88 1,134 407 99 1,511 538 115 South RUral-Melba Total 823 270 205 8 277 243 859 288 285 1,08 365 341 Northwest Rural-NOtus Total 7 265 131 808 273 1 816 285 2W O6 355 262 Northwest RU rat-Pa rma TO[al 2,295 81 638 2,382 84 686 2,500 897 741 3,126 125 810 west RUral-Wilder Total 715 525 235 806 55 285 1910 61 3 265 86 413 gar theist Rural total G.85G 2,386 806 7280 ~ 535 833 7905 "t 797 861 8,442 2_,991 907 r th~,+~es: Rural total 5.060 1.638 666 .226 1,695 715 5,376 1,793 1!1 5,570 1,860 844 South aural Total ]2,104 4,006 1,800 13407 4,447 1,856 15,264 5,177 1915 16,799 5,703 1,995 West Rural foal 7,386 2,579 2,636 7,854 2,732 2,687 8,442 2,990 2,746 8,881 3,144 2,823 ~~~~-I TOtaI 3 70 S~ 337 1 6 6 63 n n un T I 1 211 1 1 2 7 1 72 1 22 7 7 2 2 2 21 7 1 2 R i n IT I 7 2 211 24 24 22 2 42 74 7 24 1 74 2 2 COMPASS document: Communities in Motion 1090 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas . According to COMPASS' Community Choices report, the population in Meridian in 2010 was 82,250, households totaled 27,775 and there were 23,373 jobs in the demographic area. The data presented above are all 2010 numbers. Data are only provided for 5-year increments beginning in 2010. Therefore, the study team calculated the annual percent change between 2010 and 2015 to estimate residential data in 2013. The study team used the same approach to calculate data for 2023 (necessary for the Capital Improvement Plan approach).] s Annual percent change = ((In(new population)-ln(old population))/number of years. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE S The final table portrays how the study team arrived at 2013 and 2023 residential data. Residential Calculation for 2013 to 2023 Population 74,529 80,806 2.7% 85,438 98,498 103,739 1.7% 107,467 Households 25,168 27,144 2.6% 28,593 33,473 35,310 1.84 36,619 Jobs 21,179 23,213 3.1% 24,735 28,233 30,908 3.1% 32,905 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and BBC Research Sc Consulting Twenty-year projection data. The table on the following page lists COMPASS' forecasts to 2030 for all the demographic areas in Ada and Canyon Counties. Twenty-year forecasts are necessary to include in this report to meet the requirements of the State Statutes. However, these data are not used in the calculation of impact fees, since the timeline of the CIP is only 10 years. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6 2010 Estimates 2015 CommunitvC hoices 2020 CommunitvC hoices 2025 CommunitvCh oices 2030CommunituCh oices 2035CommunitvCho ices Demo ra hicArea Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs' Population Households lobs' Alr ort 890 351 10,080 907 358 11,537 889 363 13,181 910 371 15,359 936 381 17781 965 393 20400 Boise Foothills 9,362 3,881 3,465 10,024 4,035 3,496 10,416 4,258 3,530 10,787 4,410 3,575 11,093 4,533 3628 11451 4676 3683 Boise Northwest 14,259 6,198 3,487 14,661 6,366 3,767 15,010 6,590 4,079 16,499 7,232 4,500 18,422 8,065 4964 20915 9147 5466 CentralRench 38,374 17,017 21,120 39,692 17,150 22,592 39,147 17,336 24,250 42,061 18,718 26,442 46,308 20,742 28885 51947 23437 31516 Downtown 3,406 2,214 30,278 3,942 2,271 33,181 3,922 2,273 36,473 4,349 2,542 40,810 5,013 2,957 45650 5900 3515 50879 East End 6,185 3,196 3,215 7,075 3,233 3,315 7,009 3,287 3,428 7,147 3,347 3,577 7,253 3,398 3744 7376 3457 3923 North End 17,576 8,273 3,357 17,702 8,332 3,608 11,429 8,395 3,889 18,192 8,758 4,260 19,291 9,281 4661 20744 9976 5132 Southeast-Barber Valle 1,662 637 489 2,491 992 522 3,417 1,390 560 3,906 1,592 610 4,297 1,758 666 4803 1971 727 Southeast Boise 33,315 14,708 19,590 35,037 15,008 21,181 35,200 15,367 22,980 36,817 16,112 25,359 38,950 17,118 28003 41788 18456 30859 Southwest Boise 40,683 13,953 13,993 43,098 14,819 14,648 45,105 15,961 15,383 48,374 17,129 16,359 52,229 18,491 17453 57168 20236 18610 WestDench 69,072 26,477 40,394 70,936 27,066 42,348 ID,413 21,580 44,543 74,977 29,498 47,465 81,221 32,135 50725 89473 35627 54225 Boise Total 235,384 96,905 149,468 245,565 99,630 160,195 247,957 102,800 172,296 264,019 109,709 188,316 285,013 118,859 206,180 312,530 130,891 225,420 Eagle Total 21,299 7,582 5,136 23,918 8,510 6,212 27,428 9,852 7,546 30,740 11,000 9,232 34,136 12,195 11,103 38,269 13,658 13,126 Garden City Total 11,051 4,923 1,033 11,315 5,036 7,720 11,445 5,242 8,488 12,630 5,193 9,509 14,140 6,504 10,643 16,137 7,443 11,865 Kuna Total 1],850 5,657 2,115 20,311 6,419 3,282 22,397 7,515 4,595 29,192 9,489 6,329 35,961 12,147 8,264 46,079 15,618 10,361 StarTOtal 6,222 2,090 496 7,54fi 2,536 750 9,561 3,260 1,036 12,134 4,147 1,411 15,103 5,197 1,836 18,931 6,560 2,289 Center Meridian 0.0,974 14,920 16,924 4,260 1,551 19,A33 44,183 16,459 22,007 47,937 17,953 25,439 53,136 20,030 29,245 60,030 22,784 33,355 North Meridian 36,319 7,940 2,352 32,795 9,856 3,137 40,673 12,590 3,732 44,]49 13,673 4,522 47,071 14,581 5,402 50,707 15,705 6,345 SouthMeridlan 14,957 4,915 4,097 18,888 6,148 4,727 23,845 7,892 5,419 26,514 8,786 6,353 29,262 9,713 7385 32,833 10,917 8,501 Meridian Total ~ _ ~/77~ I 3. 31,.555 37,297 :,308,701 , 36,314 129,469 ~ I .143,570 . ~'; '_ Blacks Creek Rural 15 S 180 3,059 5 1,007 3,058 5 1,009 3,058 S 1,011 3,058 5 1,014 3,060 6 1,017 East foothills Rural 393 141 58 431 155 116 488 181 178 920 349 261 1560 598 355 2415 931 455 Northwest Rural Ada 3,978 1,299 302 5,985 2,016 400 9,438 3,252 507 10,912 3,804 651 12400 4380 811 14290 5113 986 Southeast Rural 1,190 375 131 1,242 392 161 1,311 421 195 2,294 744 239 3766 1227 286 5745 1876 336 WestFOOthills 177 72 47 249 99 73 367 146 102 421 167 141 424 169 185 434 173 231 Southeast Rural 946 296 252 1,035 324 254 1101 360 256 1,166 380 258 1169 381 261 1171 382 264 Ten Mlle Creek Rural 1,410 497 1,620 3,563 508 807 3,533 520 820 3,572 535 837 3614 550 856 3672 571 875 West Foothills 1,320 445 116 1,403 472 277 1,466 513 456 4,563 1,598 694 9308 3263 960 15681 5498 1245 Ada Rural Total 9,429 3,130 2,706 16,967 3,971 3,095 20,762 5,398 3,523 26,906 1,582 4,092 35,299 10,513 4,726 46,468 14,550 5,409 Ada Count Total 383 491 148 062 190 327 419 911 157 657 208 611 448 271 171008 228 642 494 221 188132 255 203 549 121 209 799 284 788 621990 238126 316 671 Central Caldwell 9,934 3,670 2,384 10,662 3,744 2,482 10,819 3,867 2,589 11597 4,155 2,732 12,653 4,547 2891 14,037 5,062 3,060 Downtown Caldwell 3,800 1,366 4,126 4,752 1,433 4,401 4,586 1,460 4,711 5,121 1,670 5,123 5,907 1,979 5,579 6,950 2,392 6,070 Northeast Caldwell 16,082 5,131 2,917 19,622 6,332 4,856 25,201 8,459 7,040 28,683 9,648 9,934 32,367 10,915 13,152 36,997 12,506 16,635 South Caldwell 14,249 4,407 1,694 17,021 5,384 1,962 21,777 7,161 2,258 26,314 8,712 2,649 31,703 10,572 3,060 38,573 12,953 3,543 West Caldwell 6,417 2,352 2,069 6,875 2,485 2,181 7,426 2,724 2,304 7,916 2,901 2,472 8,396 3,078 2,654 9,006 3,303 2,853 CaldwellTatal 50,482 16,926 13,190 58,932 19,378 15,882 69,809 23,671 18,902 79,631 27,086 22,910 91,026 31,091 27,356 105,563 36,216 32,161 Downtown Nam a 5,027 2,039 3,094 5,063 2,053 3,731 4,865 2,063 4,449 5,720 2,444 5,403 7,049 3,037 6,459 8,530 3,832 7,603 East Nam a 16,077 5,415 5,687 16,493 5,554 6,676 16,481 5,758 7,409 18,878 6,623 8,379 22,156 7,813 9,460 26,449 9,375 10,623 North Nampa 9,562 3,162 7,013 12,062 3,813 8,584 14,854 4,808 10,858 17,843 5,826 13,095 21,871 7,204 15,563 27,253 9,046 18,261 Southeast Nampa 22,958 7,971 4,363 24,243 8,183 4,601 24,872 8,560 4,867 26,109 8,981 5,218 27,674 9,521 5,610 29,681 10,215 6,035 WestNam a 36,736 12,763 8,774 J9, 719 17,627 9,262 43,072 14,995 9,808 44,987 15,657 10,535 46,453 16,188 11,345 48,171 16,820 12,216 Nampa Total 90,360 31,350 28,931 97,580 33,230 32,854 104,144 36,184 37,391 113,537 39,531 42,630 125,203 43,763 48,457 140,384 49,288 54,758 Middleton Total 7,227 2,427 865 7,836 2,628 934 8,544 2,947 1,029 9,767 3,362 1,148 10,915 3,751 1,284 12,277 4,212 1,430 West Rural-Greenleaf Total 1,119 395 79 1,137 401 88 1,134 407 99 1,511 538 115 2,086 737 133 2,860 1,005 151 South Rural-Melba Total 823 270 205 844 277 243 859 288 285 1,086 365 341 1,419 477 402 1,863 627 464 Northwest Rural-NotusTotal 184 265 131 808 213 168 816 285 Z09 1,061 355 262 1,421 456 322 1,893 588 386 Northwest Rural -Parma Total 2,295 814 638 2,382 844 686 2,500 897 741 3,126 1,125 810 3,984 1,440 890 5,113 1,854 974 West Rural - Wilder Total 1115 525 235 1,806 556 285 1,910 614 340 2,654 861 413 3 680 1,200 495 5 028 1645 581 Northeast Rural total 6,856 2,386 806 7,280 2,535 833 7,905 2,797 861 8,442 2,991 901 8,681 3,082 945 8,939 3,180 992 Northwest Rural Total 5,060 1,638 666 5,226 1,695 715 5,376 1,793 771 5,570 1,860 844 5,630 1,882 925 5,699 1,905 1,013 South Rural Total 12,104 4,006 1,800 13,402 4,442 1,856 15,264 5,177 1,915 16,799 5,703 1,995 18,173 6,175 2,085 19,591 6,765 2,182 West Rural Total 7,386 2,579 2,636 7,854 2,732 2,687 8,442 2,990 2,746 8,881 3,144 2,823 8,975 3,179 2,909 9,079 3,218 3,000 l Thal R r r ~ ~ ~ 09! ' ' ., . h~ 318 ~ ,, 7 u a , _ ! _ _ - _ _ l- i . , n n n T l 1 211 1 1 2 2 7 1 72 1 22 7 2 2 2 21 7 2 1 7 1 11 2 R i n l T I 2 4 2 22 4 2 4 7 74 24 2 74 2 27 14 7 2 7 7 4 2 414 7 COMPASS document: Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts 6y Oemographir Areas . In 2035, Meridian will have 143,570 persons, 49,460 households and 48,201 jabs. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 7 The table below presents the annual percent change between 2030 and 2035, which is used to estimate residential data in 2033. Residential Calculation for 2033 Population 129,469 137,667 2.1~° 143,570 Source: Hou52hOId5 44,324 47,274 2.2% 49,406 COMPASS Community Choices Forecast Jobs 42,032 45,581 2.7% 48,201 data and I mpact Fee Study Team. The demographic data in 2033 are as follows: 137,667 persons, 47,274 households and 45,581 jobs. Nonresidential Data Colliers' Idaho Boise and Nampa, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2012, was the basis for calculating current and future nonresidential square footage. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected square footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed in the main report text, Colliers report only tabulated buildings greater than 5,000 square feet. In order to adjust the square footage upwards to include smaller buildings, the study team calculated the percentage of new commercial units since 2009 that were less than 5,000 square feet in size. As of August 2013, on average, 4 percent of the City's newly permitted commercial units were less than 5,000 square feet. The following exhibit shows the City data that were used to quantify the proportion of units less than 5,000 square feet. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 8 BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 9 In the spreadsheet on the previous page, the method to calculate the percentage of units less than 5,000 square feet is as follows: 1) Calculate the average square footage of built units to determine if, in that particular month, the units built were, on average, 5,000 square feet or less. New SQF column/New Commercial column = Average SQF per Unit column 2) Use an Excel formula to quickly identify the months that "qualified" as having units with an average square footage of 5,000 or less. > 1= "yes" (the average of all units was 5,000 square feet or less); 0 = "no" (the average of all units was not less than 5,000 square feet). 3) Tabulate the total square footage of the "qualifying" months with unit averages of 5,000 square feet or less. Total square footage of "qualifying" months = 163,196 sq. ft. 4) Determine the proportion of total square footage that can be attributed to buildings that are 5,000 square feet or less. > 163,196 total square feet of "qualifying" months / 3,286,947 total square feet of all commercial buildings = 5 percent. Knowing that 5 percent of the City's new commercial square footage was less than 5,000 square feet, the study team deduced that Colliers tabulation thus represents 95 percent (100 percent -5 percent) of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. The study team arrived at the final (2013) nonresidential square footage in Meridian by dividing Colliers number (9,471,529 square feet) by 95 percent. This method generates a total of 9,965,834 nonresidential square feet in 2013. Future nonresidential development. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage in 2023. Currently, there are 23,213 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet total 9,965,834. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs produces a ratio of 429 square feet per employee in 2013 (9,965,834/23,213). h This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time. The 4Z9 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 10 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2023. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to workers remains consistent; the study team used this ratio to project nonresidential square footage forward. The estimated number of jobs in 2023 (30,905) is multiplied by the square footage per employee calculated on the previous page (429). This produces a total of 13,269,278 nonresidential square feet in 2023. See the spreadsheet below for details on the calculation of current and future nonresidential square footage. Current Square Footage Calculation Total SFT Total SFT per Colliers Report including units over (all buildings greater 5,000 SFT than 5,000 SFT) (see below for calculation) 9,471,529 9,965,834 Calculation of Total Current SFT 9,471,529 (Colliers) + x (SFT total of units less than 5,000) = y (total SFT) x = .0496 y (4.96 percent oftotal square footage is less than 5,000 -see City data spreadsheet) Substitute y for x 9,471,529 + ..0496 y = y 9,471,529 = y-.0496y 9,471,529 = .95y 9,471,529 /.95 = y Y= 9,965,834 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2012 and City of Meridian. 2013 Total Employment 2012 SFT 23,213 9,965,834 2023 SFT 2023 (2023EmploymentX Employment SFT per Employee) 30,908 13,269,278 SFT per Employee (2013 Employment/ 2012 SFT) 429 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2012, City of Meridian and BBC BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 11 Appendix F. Colliers' Year-End Real Estate Market Review ~ ~' ~1 . ,~ 1 1 ~• ...' ~.~ :• . .!!:f ~ww ~~ LANO i ~' 7ua^ ~~ ... ~.~ . , e rw^ ^ ^, r ^w^ • ^, • w • • • ^ ... ^ ^,~ aa.a,s ^ N 1 ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ Nampa ~ ~~---~ ,~,,,., © Idaho Center ray Downtown Nampa Q Karcher © Northsidc ©South Nampa Canyon County Submarkets Contents MARKET REVIEW Retail • MARKET REVIEW Industrial MARKET fiEV:t1'J Investment 8 IAARKE7 Ri-VIEW MARKt i REVIEW Land ~' MARKET REVIEW i i~' COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS Retail COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS Industrial COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS i i :, i ~___ ~~emcd~le Rd ~_ - _ ii ~= . ~4 ' - .-- ~ 1 t [3015E 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKi IN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, 10 83687 ,I: ~~'012 - ~' i. , --I~ _I I J I I I D J /' I II I ~-------------II ~ Downtown Boise ~ Airport ©Garden City Q Eagle ;~, North End ©Central Bench 0 West Bench '~J. Meridia Southeast ~ Northwest J Southwest Ada County Submarkets COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL IDAHO MANAGING OWNER GEORGE ILIFF george.iliff2colliers.cam 208.472.2858 For Questions or Additions! lnjormafion, Please Concoct: RESEARCH ANALYST LEVIJOHNSON levi.johnson2colliers.cam 208.472.2860 DIRECTOR OF MARKETING DAVE FERNANDEZ dave.fernandezCdcolliers.com 208.472.2868 Afl in/ormotion provided in this report is /ram sources we deemed reliable. Colliers Infernotianol makes no represenfntian or wnrronty as to ifs accuracy. ._.. ~, r, - ---. l ~ ., I 4 ~ I 3 r r _ ~ • '~ a~ © ` 1 ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved Overview The Treasure Valley office market improved during 2012, end- ing the year with a 15.4% overall vacancy rate, down from 17.2% twelve months ago. Leasing activity was slightly stronger in the second half of 2012 compared to the first half of the year. The Treasure Valley office market experienced 558,091 square feet of absorption in the second half of 2012, surpassing the 315,686 square feet absorbed during the first half of the year. The down- town periphery had the greatest absorption of any submarket in 2012, with 100,043 square feet of newly leased office space. All other submarkets in the trade area experienced positive absorp- tion with the exception of the southwest submarket. 2012 was a positive year for existing projects such as the 269,000 square foot 8th & Main building in Downtown Boise. Slated for completion in 2014, it is over 76% leased at the time of this publication. Speculative building is still not an op- tion for most developers. Banks remain cautious, requiring significant preleasing for office projects to break ground. Notable transactions from January -June, 2012 include: ~ Sorenson Communications - 25,643 square foot lease at Silverstone Corporate Center in Meridian. ~ CTA Architects - 21,000 square foot lease at 8th & Main in Downtown Boise. ~ Pinebridge 1 Building in Meridian - 26,037 square foot sale in the first half of 2012. Notable transactions from July -December 2012 include: 2 01 Lm of Available Office SF 6y Building Class $submarket ^ Boise State University - 8,852 square foot purchase in Bobo. ~ Berkley North Pacific - 18,000 square foot lease in the Water Tower Building in Meridian. ^ EPA - 9,800 square foot lease in the Banner Bank Building in Downtown Boise. 35oaoo BUILDING CLASS -35°~ 3aoooo J a - s0% ©c ~_, 450000 t Vacancy -25% 23.0% ~~ 21.4% 16.4% 21.4% p 200000 19.ri16 - 40 % N LL ^y d 7 ~ ~ 15.2% K v'cl 150000 -15% '100000 9.6% ~ '~ -'ta°/a 50000 ~ 4.a% ~ _ 5% 0 ^ ~ ~ 0°~ Central Downtown Downtown Eagle Meridian Southeast Southwest West Bench Bench Periphery BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 -~o~ 2 Inventory & Vacancy Colliers International tracks approximately 18.2 million square feet of space in 893 office buildings 5,000 square feet or larger in fif- teen different submarkets throughout Ada and Canyon Counties. Vacancy continues to decrease slowly throughout the Treasure Valley. The Eagle & North End /Northwest /Garden City submar- kets posted the largest declines in vacancy from mid-year 2012, 10.2% and 5.1% respectively. Canyon County, Meridian and the Cen- tral Bench were the only submarkets in which vacancy increased, posting vacancy rate increases of 3.5%, .4% and 4.1% respectively. Asking Rates Overall asking rates declined slightly in 2012 to an average of $15.22 full service, down from $15,79 at the beginning of 2012. 20~--, Year=End Office Average Full Service Direct Asking Rates I L 15,000 sr•) 530.00 525.00 N 520.00 sn.45 st9.92 st6% sn.% ~ 515.00 ~ su.a ~ ~~ 510.00 ~~`~ 55.0MM0 ~. W 0ac` c`a'c Qa`~ a~ Da `~i `eay~ r~ay~ 0ac` J dc~`a Oo3 c ~` ~ fie` \~a`a~c for ho,` fey` c~o`o v ~' ~ a ~~~ ~~`' v o''~ o a\,~. ~c ?' 2 0 1 Y~-End Office Inventory by Submarket c5,ooo 25% n~ 1596 0 15`y; 1496 G ~ ~ 1196 1196 109< 2R 10°~0 . c ??5 d c 0% o Q,c •~a• ry ~c Jc ea ~ x40 V• 3c~ ~ a~ ~~Q ~ ~o ~'~ Jr ~ ac Oo eGy ~' Qe `~a ec yo ~~ a~D ~ ~,c ac ~~ \C~ `o V `a 3~y. ~~ O° a\2' ~c ?' z The most significant change in asking rates came from the Southwest, Southeast and Central Bench submarkets. These - finished the year with asking races of $14.35, $15.70 and $9.99 rn respectively. Class "A" office products in Downtown Boise are experiencing lease rates very close to asking prices. ,=; Outlook We expect continued improvement in the office market during 2013. As the market gains strength, rates will begin to increase. In our estimation there are fewer landlord conces- sions being made now as compared to a year ago. l l 1 Y ar-End Office Vacancy by Submarket z1.n96 aal6 zao% ~ 19.x96 ~ a~ I~ ~~ +~ to sw to z% a s9;~, 4 c ~~ \Q' ,~ ~ h y v zc co a ~a~ D c `aa ra do occ m Oo c~~ '~~ ~'°D~ v~°~ 0 Say ~~ ~i o c`o °'` ac 3 O \~'. 0 ca 2' Year.-End Ranked Office Absorption by Submarket 20~~ I L c5,000 sr•9 165,000 135,000 ~ 105,000 ~ 75,000 'a 45,000 '~ 15,000 T ~' -_ N~ ~~ a\= ~c 2' ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved L3~ Overview The Treasure Valley retail market picked up momentum in the second half of 2012, and is trending better than similar sized met- ropolitan areas across the West. The overall vacancy rate has dropped to 9.1%, down from 12.3% a year ago. This is due in large part to the increased absorption in the "B" and "C" locations, as well as these three key events: i~~ Local businesses have been adding back employees. ~~~ New-to-the-market retailers, either start-ups or fran- chisees are opening new stores. ~~ Chain retailers have adjusted to the shopping habit changes of their customers and are growing and morphing to meet their customer's needs. Rents are climbing, mainly on the "A" located centers. There remains a dichotomy between absorption and rents in the "A" locations versus the rest of the market. Even though "A" location absorption, lack of leasable space, firmer rents and fewer conces- sions have been a positive point in a dreary economy, other trends are emerging, such as leasing activity in off "A" locations. RETAI L market reviev~ Areas that were hit hardest are bouncing back, such as Glen- wood & State Street. Eighteen months ago, the vacancy rate at this intersection stood at 40%. Plantation Shopping Center was a "zombie" center, meaning it had space for lease but the owners were unwilling or unable to deliver space to prospects. Northgate Shopping Center was 25% vacant and an unanchored strip-center in front of Wal-Mart had one tenant and 80% vacancy. The recovery at these properties is like a snapshot of how the commercial market is rebounding. First, an investor/developer bought the note for Plantation Shopping Center. After foreclosing on the shopping center, he spent $2 million renovating the center. Today, Ross is open and anchors the newly renovated Plantation Shopping Center, which is 90% occupied. The unanchored strip center in front of Wal-Mart was bought by a tenant who took advantage of the best owner/user financ- ing market in 30 years. Northgate Shopping Center leased their problem space to Goodwill for a thrift store, bringing their occupancy up to 92%. 2 O 1 Anchored vs. Unanchored Vacant SF by Submarket 180000 ' 45°10 PRIMARY USE 160000 (] Anchored - 40% '~ Unanchored Shops 140000 + Vacancy - 35°10 120000 ~ i - 30% d r -+ d ~ ` 100000 - 25% w ~ .o to 80000 13.55E ~~ ~ 20% ~ 60000 - ~ 15% 40000 e•4g' 9.vst, 8251, ' 10% 7.556 6.Y~, 7.076 20000 - 5% 0 0% 0e~`r ~agve r~ey~ cC.`~`l ~~a`a~ r~~a `reay~ r~es~ 0e~~r a\ o`` <ae d`¢ ~~~ oJ oJ` s, Ge~`~ ~ Ga d ~ y ~e BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE. ID 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 ~I: -~C~1?__ Inventory & Vacancy Colliers International tracks approximately 20.7 million square feel of inventory in the Boise Metro market. This is based upon buildings and retail centers 5,000 square feet and larger (excluding the Boise Towne Square Mall). Vacancy declined dramatically in all but the following three submarkets in 2012: Meridian, Central Bench and the Southeast submarkets. Triple Net Asking Rates tJverall retail asking rates have risen in the second half of 2012. moving to $13.38 from $13.31 six months ago. Individual submarkets showing the highest increases in rental rates in 2012 were Can- yon County; increasing by 51.97 to X13.76 per square foot and the Northwest submarket; increasing by $1.05 to $12.50 per square Foot. 2 0 1 Y~-End Retail Inventory Distribution 35% 30~~~ ~~ ~ 25°~ m 20°, aR 15`,'~ 97es T 0 10°!° c ~ 796 yX, °, .-, ~ 5% 4v. a~ ~ _ ~ 0% , c.~ '°~ c~ ay. aye ~ e ~~ ~ ca `p ~`a 0e r J,ce tae `r a` ~a ``~v cac~oc ~ may yob q° C,~c``a 20 Va~D =o 2 0 1 Y/eLa~r-End Retail Average Triple Net Annual Asking Rates r 525.00 520.00 sw 00 °~, 515.00 su.23 suzq ° ~'`~ >•>~ 513 76 '0 ~ m 51 [i i;' i sit r/, ~yt 512.50 . (12.26 55 ra 50 00 . co a a°j (,`i 4 aac ` ` ~~~ oy 3 ` o'Oy ay r ¢oc, JC`~ 0 . ec e~ i t `r ~ n . r 0 0 v . ``a a`a ~ ?0 20 yo yoo ~~y o °c ~ c~ C, \ a ~' C1 Tenants continue to lock into longer leases, averaging close to five ~ years, as opposed to the three year average term length prevalent A three years ago. ,,_ Outlook Expect more new retailers, especially quick service restaurants to enter the Treasure Valley in 2013. There will also be more deals - on "off-the-market" properties. For example, Chick-Fil-A made ~- a deal on Broadway to take a site where there was an operat- ing restaurant. More tenants will make plays for "A" properties ' and pay the high cost of the location. All grocery stores, includ- ing gourmet, Wal-Mart neighborhood, convenience, independent and discount grocery stores, will be major news stories in 2013. oY~a~ d Retail Ranked Absorption by submarket 475.000 375.000 _~ ~ 275,000 .a ~ 175,000 Q t~l s+~ 75,000 0 ~. v mac ~e ~~ m`' ~ v y y cD Doc ~a ~a~ `o~c r °c~ mac `aa 1 a r ~ a D ~ ~ ~ i Soy ~ hoc ho ~a~ c`~a ~o ~0 20 mac Cra 2 01 Y/eLa~r-End Retail Vacancy by submarket 30% 25% 20 ° ~ taz96 T c 15°~~~ tas% m u m 10 `" 8 696 7.9ly 9.9% 8.296 6.891 A9% 7.0% ~ h796 5. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0°,;, co ~ ~~ `ac ca d`f~ aye aye c~ c~~ Vac~`a ~a`a ~ 20` ?o` ~o you Say ac~oc . V ®2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved Overview Lease rates throughout the Treasure Valley stabilized in the second half of 2012, and the gap between owner/tenant value expectation continues to close. The stabilization of rates has led to asking rates being much closer to deal rates in the second half of 2012. Industrial sales activity has increased during the second half of 2012, but is limited by the amount of inventory for sale. This demand is driven by two factors: companies purchasing space instead of leasing it, and healthier construction and trade sectors in the market. Attractive financing and a drop in prices allows users to purchase facilities and lease them back to corporate entities while maintaining a strong balance sheet. Inventory and Vacancy Colliers International tracks 1,136 industrial buildings containing more than 35.5 million square feet. A total of 3,330,999 square feet of industrial space is currently vacant, giving the valley a total vacancy rate of 9.4%. 2 O 1 Sum of Available SF by Primary Use and Submarket ^ Southwark Meta! Manufacturing - Purchased 12.7 acres in Sky Ranch Business Park, Caldwell, and built a 79,500 square foot manufacturing plant expansion in Idaho. 58 lnvesUnents, LLC -Purchased 255 Steelhead Way in Boise, a b2,000 square foot former Applied Materials industrial facility; the buyer had a tenant in-tow. ^ ATCO Structure & Logistics - Leased a 203,500 square foot building with 17 acres at the Gateway West Industrial Center in Pocatello for a new manufacturing site in Idaho. ^ Dixon Contoiner Co. -Purchased 3210 E. Amity Road in Boise, a 53,000 square foot expansion facility located near their corporate headquarters. ^ Greenstar Building Systems -Purchased 1425 Sun- nyside Road in Weiser, a 67,000 square foot manufac- turing building for a new production site. 250000 -25% PRIMARY USE (] Flex 200000 ~] Industrial /Manufacturing to o% -20% I~ Warehouse /Bulk Space t Vacancy ti 150000 ~ -15% ~ a, a A c ~ `~ N 100000 10.3% ~ 1 e`~ -10% Bb% 7.2% 7.3% T.0% b.T% 50000 ~ - 5% 0 0% Airport Central Downtown Eagle Garden Cily Meridian Southeast Southwest West Bench Bench Periphery NDUSTRIAL market review Notable transactions include: BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5b60 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 I '01?_ Outlook Vacancy rates in 2013 will continue tv decline due to limited new costruction. Leasing activity should remain steady as the market recovers and landlords regain negotiating power. This may be the last year owner/users can take advantage of the low interest rates and SBA financing opportunities, as interest rates are expected to increase later in 2013. Owner/ users are looking to take advantage ofgovernment-backed financing options as well as historically low interest rates in 2013, hedg- ing that the financing market will change in the near future as the national economy continues to work through fiscal legislation. Sales activity will remain strong and values of existing buildings will increase as demand continues to exceed quality supply. In- 2 O 1 Y~-End Industrial Absorption by Submarket 350,000 340,000 250,000 ~ 200,000 ° 150,000 ~ s , . 1D0,000 ~ 4 50,000 ~ ~ tl~ till -50,000 •100 000 ~~ '~ ~ ~e ti~ Q y~ y~ 4 a v ~ Os .a a m Q Qa ~a ~G `~D a3 ,ce .,~ 0mc 2aF SG mac P , ~`. ~m a ~ oJ . h ~ o~ c ~a °i c~ ~a ~~ -150,000 ~ 0 3 I ac ~o 3c Qo 2 O 1 Y~-End Industrial Inventory by Submarket 30°J° n% 25`. ~ 20 ; ~, 0 0 15'S',; ~ ~ ~ ~ a 1 a °,, oas nw ~ ~ ~ ~ 6% c - 4% 4% u S~' > ~ C ~ 0"b , .A aFQa `ya`O `a3~ 0~c` ~~Qo`` `aac ~¢~~ c ~ ,c a`0 Qc`~ Ravi y 1,ay ~ ac`~a ~a~ ti° 3c V o 3c. O° D Z dustrial development will be limited to local developers who ~ are building to accommodate current relationships. While in- C dustrial development will be limited, 2013 could be the year ~ when new speculative development is planned in anticipation of ~ increasing demand and the corresponding increase in lease rates. D (- There is still significant interest in distressed, bank owned, and ; property for auction, however there are few available sites. ~ making it a competitive segment. - Due to the lack of quality existing facilities available to purchase, ~ the industrial land market will gain momentum in Q3 and Q4 of ~_' 2013. ~} ~ea~En~d I~ stria) Average Triple Net Direct Asking Rates 51.20 51.05 50.90 m SODS ,o ~ 50.60 so.~ Y 50.45 so.go saai ~~ m,,~ saso w.ax so.a3 ~,~ so.aa m•'~ a So.3o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 50.15" St1.00 ' o~. c~ a~~ ~ ~~ `ac aye ~ °y~ ~~ Qa ~•~Q 0a ~~Q ~a e` ~D ,re r 0e ~aF ~3 c`~a ~c c ~a~D ~! ~o ~o~ wag C, v° ~o 3c Qo 2 O Y a End Industrial Vacancy by Submarket Ir- 35°~~ 28°0 u 21 % ~.l~b c r .e V 1a > ~.~ 72% 6,7% r-~ 7.096 5.a% ," 34% ~ 0°l° ~` 4 t~ ~Q' \~ aC N y~ 4 Qa y P`~Q° 0ec ``Qv, ~a@' ~C+ ~a` oraa `3e 0°c ~aF a3 ec`~a c a ~a~D ~lr yo °J boy C, G o.~ 3c. Qo ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved C1 The Investment Market Sales of commercial real estate in 2012 continue to increase, recording over $283 billion worth of significant transactions, which represents a 24°~ increase from 2011. Apartments were the biggest mover, with transaction volume up 47%. Over one- third of all transactions were done on a portfolio or REIT basis. The primary drivers of this increase are: an improved econom- ic sentiment, a stronger lending environment, and an increased appetite of various funds to get off the sidelines. According to RC Analytics, overall commercial prices are within 20% of peak levels, albeit there are variations in value swings amongst property types. None of the 35 core markets have re- covered back to peak pricing, but 15 of those markets' apartment sectors have recovered back to, orabove peak pricing. The following West-based cities have apartment pricing that is higher than it was during the prior peak: San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Denver, and Oakland. These markets also saw some of the largest increases in transaction volume during 2012. Investment Year in Review Sales Volume ~ Pricing Trends Dlndlvidual QPoMollo QEnlYty Billions "'~ YoY Lhange 200° ~ oo°~° °- D°/ -10D°!o 01 '02 03 ~Dd '05 -06 '07 'OB '09 '10 '11 '11 GOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET. SUITE 300 ©OISE. ID 83702 Lending According to Amherst Securities, new defaults of commercial mort- gages fell to their lowest levels of the cycle in the fourth quarter of 2012. 80% of CMBS loans maturing were paid off, which is a vast improvement from where it's been. According to RC Analyt- ics, of the $394 billion of commercial mortgages becoming troubled over the past cycle, 58% have now been resolved and $164 billion remains to be worked out. Lenders have continually shown a healthier appetite to lend. Life insurance companies are starting to compete with Fannie and Fred- die on apartment loans. The CMBS market is making its way back, and local banks have improved their appetite for commercial loans on investment property. National Outlook The national sentiment is that the market looks healthy. Investment dollars will continue to chase core assets at a premium. The lending market should continue to support the transaction volume. Outside of core assets, the hottest sectors will continue to be apart- ments and single-tenant NNN, grocery-anchored, drug or dollar- store based retail. Regional Regionally, the West seems to be recovering at a healthier rate with more focused interest from investors. Three of the top five performing markets in 2012 in terms of overall volume were on the West coast (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles). Sentiment from vested players is that 2013 will see continued improvement. Western cities account for nine of the top 20 performing apart- ment markets (San Jose, San Francisco, Orange County, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Denver, and Oakland). According to a survey done by Western Real Estate Business, most vested players believe that the market will continue to improve in 2013. Retail will continue to be strong, primarily because out-of-state investors understand quick-serve restaurants and dollar stores. They can translate well-located, high traffic locations with a good retail concept into a performing asset in any market. NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 ,~ ='~12 Local The local investment market saw more activity in 2012 than re- cent years, and Boise has garnered national attention in 2012 as abusiness-friendly, recovering market. The Brookings Institute listed Boise as one of the 20 fastest recovering cities in the nation based on housing prices, growth, and employment statistics. KPMG declared that Boise is the lowest-cost city to do business in the West. From a transaction standpoint, the most active segments in the local market have been apartments and retail. Some sales of note occurring 2012 include: ^ Doubletree Club Hotel, (158 rooms) ^ Park River Apartments, (91 units) ^ Woodbridge Apartments, (200 units) Lodge at Maple Grove Apartments, (154 units) ~ Lancaster Apartments, (30 units) ^ Pinebridge office (26,000 square feet) Eagle View Plaza retail (20,000) ^ Chcrry Wood Plaza retail (15,800) From a development standpoint, strong indicators in multi- family have led to a healthy amount of building. From 2012 through 2013 we should see an increase in inventory of 8-10°~ to our market. Apartments completed or under construction: Boise State 1350 beds), River and 12th Sr. Housing l53 units), Affinity Senior Housing 1150 units), Union Square 1120 units), Regency at River Valley 1240 units), Gramercy l48 units), Crossfield 180 units), Brassy Cove (255 units), and Avondale Place 1200 units). Here are some other exciting projects of note: ~ 8tli & Main: 269,000 square foot office tower anchored by Zions Bank, Holland & Hart, Ruths' Chris. ^ Whole Foods: 150,000 square foot retail anchored by Whole Foods and Walgreens. ^ )LIMP: 100,000 square foot urban-interactive park with parking garage developed by Simplot. Z ^ The Village at Meridian: 723,000 square foot ^. (200,000 carnplete) retail/lifestyle center in Meridian ~ on Eagle Road. ~ ^ St Luke's Canyon County Expansion: 80,000 square feet Local Outlook The local market has experienced healthy absorption in the ~ office and retail segments. It has also seen stable occupancy in ~ apartments for the past 2'/z years. This has led to a strong push ~ in development of retail, office, and apartments. ~ Local transaction focus will be similar to national trends, with investors being primarily interested in apartments and retail. 02013 Colliers Paragon LLC - Afl Rights Reserved 2 O 1 Yea -End Average Cap Rates -United States 9 Outlook Activity throughout Canyon County was very strong in the second half of 2012. The declining unemployment rate, currently at 7.5%, has direct correlation to vacancy in the retail, office and indus- trial specialties, and has had a positive impact on real estate in the county. This was most notable in Downtown Nampa where the vacancy rate fell by 1.7% to its current rate of 4.4%. Canyon County vacancy rates have declined in the retail and industrial markets, ending the year at 8.9% and 10.9% respectively. How- ever, the overall Canyon County office market experienced an in- crease in overall vacancy, ending 2012 at 10.6%. There was an increased demand for mid-size industrial properties forsale ranging in size from 5,000-10,000 square feet in 2012. This demand was also present in the office market, which experienced an increase in owner/users who purchased office buildings in 2012. Available office space above 4,000 square feet in Canyon County is in short supply. Signature transactions and projects in 2012: ^ Sout/twarks Building -Caldwell: 79,000 square (ool build to-suit manufacturing plant for HVAC ducting. ^ Franklin Flex -Nampa: 40,000 square foot invest- ment purchase of flex space ^ Library Square -Nampa: 60,000 square foot new library, 34,500 square foot office /retail space, and 300-space parking garage ^ I-84 Construction: The completion of an 8-lane ex- pansion from Nampa to Boise and the new 10-Mile ramp have greatly improved the connectivity between Ada and Canyon Counties. 2 0 1 Yep a -End Canyon County Office Market Caldwell 29 388,470 47,977 12.4% 0 0.0% 47,977 12.4% 510.75 Downtown Nampa 38 420,280 18,679 4.4% 0 0.0% 18,679 4.4% 511.41 Idaho Center 12 208,128 24,020 11.5% 0 0.0% 24,020 11.5% 510.53 Karcher 25 292,955 25,996 36.3% 0 0.0% 25,996 8.9% n/a Middleton 1 6,000 0.0% 0 O.D% 0 0.0% n/a Norihside Nampa 3 38,194 11,015 28.8% 0 0.0% 11,015 28.8% n/a South Nampa 33 337,248 48,667 14.4% r 2760 .r 0.8% r 51,427 15.2% ~ 510.66 r .... .. : A::.~:<, •i; fir.: ru,t"~.f r,r., Ji.:~CJ.:. J:: 2 O ~ Yea -End Canyon County Retail Market Caldwell 44 945,865 88,174 4.3% 0 0.0% 88,174 9.3% 510.20 Downtown Nampa 54 175,987 26,382 3.4% 14,326 1.8% 40,708 5.2% 59.15 Idaho Center 36 1,327,091 148,953 11.2% 0 0.0% 148,953 11.2% 516.21 Karcher 75 2,668,643 222,346 8.3% 3,000 0.1% 225,346 8.4% 514.52 Northside Nampa 12 196,841 1,500 0.8% 0 0.0% 1,500 0.8% n/a South Nampa 30 709,961 60,217 8.5% 0 0.0% r 60,217 8.5% 513.15 8015E 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SVITE 300 BOISE, 10 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 rl ~ ~~12 Nampa Submarket Activity in the Nampa submarket was very strong in 2012, espe- cially the demand for office space under 1,000 SF. The Down- town Nampa retail market experienced an increase in vacancy of 3.8%, and a decrease in asking rates of $0.23. There were several significant transactions in Nampa over the past 12 months that include: ~ The Idaho Hop House leased 6,580 square feet in Downtown Nampa. ^ The former Crescent Brewery sold in June, 2012. Wal-Mart purchased 12.51 acres of development ground. ~ Deseret Industries leased 12,844 square feet of retail space in Holly Plaza. Caldwell Submarket 10 (7 Office vacancy rates in Caldwell increased in 2012 by 6.1% to 12.4%, while office asking rates decreased by $3.11 per square Z foot, ending the year at $10.75 per square foot. The Caldwell ~ Industrial market has remained stagnant in 2012, with a few Z large vacant facilities keeping vacancy high. ~ 0 Significant activity in Caldwell includes: C ^ Sale of the former Blue Elephant car wash Idaho Center Submarket The Idaho Center submarket is another bright spot in Canyon County, experiencing a decrease in office vacancy of 6.3%, and a decrease of 7.6°~ in retail vacancy over the past twelve months. I<archer Submarket Activity in Caldwell remained challenging in 2012. However, Gard- The Karcher submarket experienced increased activity with ner Company announced a new 60,000 square foot medical office several new single end-user buildings constructed in 2012. development next to West Valley Medical Center, with construction Competitive lease rates are generating interest in good retail scheduled to begin in 2013. locations. Canyon County Industrial Market Caldwell 139 4,410,566 • 257,970 5.8% 0 0.0°k 257,970 5.8% 50.46 ~owntawn Nampa 14 234,723 2,500 1.1% 0 0.0% 2,500 1.1% n/a Idaho Center 52 1,851,026 364,870 19.7% 0 0.0% 364,870 19.7% 50.38 Karcher 29 1,078,994 52,346 4.9% 0 0.0% 52,346 4.9% 50.40 Northsidc Nampa 110 5,789,248 796,250 13.8% 12,500 0.2% 808,750 14.0% 50.49 South Nampa 20 707,826 32,242 4.6 f, 0 0.0% 32,242 4.6% EO.48 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ I Canyon County ----j ,l ~J ~ ' Submarl<ets t 1 ~ - © .:dletOn --I I' + 0 ~i J '10 •~ I _ ~ I i © i ..rho Center I I, - 1 I----------li I ~,,.• ~y ,wntown i J'' ~~ - ~ Q uth Nampa ~. (r-.._-___-__ mil'-Nan pa ~ ------ i ~.,. ., ~ ,rcher 02013 Colliers Paragon LLC - Atl Rights Reserved 11 Overview Farm ground, commercial land, residential development, and finished residential lots were very active in 2012, however land for industrial use experienced a very low demand in 2012. The highest priced farm ground transaction reported in 2012 was an auction for $10,000 per acre on a 300 + acre property in Pleasant Valley, northwest of American Falls. This high price was due to the high rental rate for potato land in Eastern Idaho, which averages $800 per acre. By comparison, southwest Idaho farm ground leases have increased to $250 per acre with rates as high as $450. In all markets we saw medical, retail, service and commercial users taking advantage of lower land prices. In the summer of 2012, Ridley's Grocery Store, asmall-footprint regional grocer, purchased a 30+ acre site in North Kuna for a future store. Supply and Demand Ab~~orption of single fornily house lots continues at a manageable and sustainable level in Southwest Idaho with 3,916 single family detached home building permits issued for all of southern Idaho in 2012. Demand for development land is low with most builders and investors concentrating their efforts on the vacant developed house lots left over from the housing market downturn in 2007. Canyon County residential lots are experiencing an increase in demand. Outlook In 2013 we expect a slight leveling in residential land prices. The recent rapid increases in residential land, lot and finished new home pricing will create a price pull-back. Industrial land prices and demand will continue at their current low level throughout 2013. Farm land prices will spike even higher with the next round of land offerings driven by an increase in demand. Expect transactions to occur in the $4,000 to $6,000 per acre range. The supply of new single family lots in Ada County will continue to come from the con- struction of small, manageable phases of existing and new subdivi- sions. Canyon County still has too many vacant developed lots to warrant much new-lot construction. However, just like Ada County, where demand has absorbed the supply of existing lots, Canyon County developers will build new lots in specific areas of demand. 2 01 N we Construction Home Sales & Inventory by County 7000 Sum of Supply, Ncw COnStrUCllOn 6000 Sum of Sales, Ne Canslr ction w u 5000 ~, 400D c a 3000 2000 ~ ~ ~ ' -- ~' IODD' ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ t ~ IAA ~ 0 P ~ ~ ~, O O N /7 O O I O v of O O .O N m ~ O O O O ~ '- ~ ~ ~ p~ O N n v ~ .O 1~ m O~ ~ O~ O O O O O O O O O O O .- N p, p. ^ p, r r r O N O O O N N I N O O N N O O O O O O O p, N N N N N N N ~ p. r p~ ^ O O O O O O O O O O O O O r N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ada Canyon BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 '012 _ ~~ ~ ~~.~ ~.vl i INI CI ICI iJl v` ~i~il;~il~_ _ :~ office market changes from 2011 ;~ 2 ~ 1 ~ number of number of Asking ~ CEASES SAES RATES VACANCY OFFICE - i i ~i c,`i -~ r ~ Central Bench 101 1,914,454 409,275 0 409,275 21.4% 18,822 Downtown 77 3,701,536 288,625 94,357 382,982 10.3% 78,923 Downtown Periphery 76 1,891,463 84,031 6,800 90,831 4.8% 100,043 Eagle 59 725,538 108,322 2,150 110,472 15.2% 79,813 Meridian 142 2,484,094 481,453 0 481,453 19.4% 115,775 N. End/N. West/Garden City 44 557,537 81,877 0 81,877 14.7% 33,170 Southeast 51 1,375,929 225,960 0 225,960 16.4% 46,192 Southwest 50 872,674 186,733 0 186,733 21.4% -4,623 West Bench 145 2,719,396 581,142 45,532 626,674 23.0% 39,696 Canyon County 147 1,751,657 179,114 0 179,114 10.2% 50,280 2 O 1 Y~-End Office Full Service Asking Rates by Building Class es.ooo. sFt Central t3ench 59.99 515.08 59.76 59.20 Downtown 517.45 519.83 316.12 511.75 Downtown Periphery 519.92 522.87 517.29 n/a Eagle 513.88 515.06 511.98 n/a Meridian 516.96 S1T.41 515.33 n/a North/Northwest/Garden City S1T.96 516.85 514.90 513.50 Southeast 515.70 576.03 f15.75 513.50 Southwest 514.35 514.35 n/a n/a West Bench 512.96 514.66 512.53 511.17 Canyon County 512.98 516.55 512.29 512.00 n/o -Hers ServKt Rm eQe~tO m CMns / S~ov+e m2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved 13 retail market changes from 2011 number of number of Askin, LEASES SAES RATES VACANCY ~ ~ ~i Retail Submarket Statistics at a Glance i Central Bench 55 1,339,402 181,051 0 181,051 13.5% 57,306 511.44 Eagle 27 b55,850 54,000 1,327 55,327 8.4% 256,707 514.23 Garden City 30 770,614 57,810 0 57,810 7.5% 101,624 59.91 Meridian 114 3,650,196 250,295 0 250,295 6.9% 289,335 514.24 North End 10 193,772 13,499 0 13,499 7.0% 33,227 516.00 Northwest 32 831,222 82,239 0 82,239 9.9% 51,664 312.50 Southeast 45 1,430,919 260,825 0 260,825 18.2% 60,261 514.82 Southwest 38 1,667,308 110,327 1,820 112,147 6.7% 109,577 513.64 West Bench 100 3,547,527 288,256 1,431 289,687 8.2% 416,126 512.28 Canyon County 261 6.624,388 564,898 17,329 582.227 9.8% 136.838 313.76 i i~ •i ~ i O 1 Y~-End Retail Full Service Asking Rates by Primary Use cs,ooo sa:.1 Central Bench 511.44 514.50 511.25 59.29 Eagte 514.23 520.00 513.47 514.40 Garden City 59.91 n/a 510.60 59.27 Meridian 514.29 517.18 513.26 515.16 North End 516.00 n1a 518.38 510.00 Northwest 512.50 570.67 511.64 512.25 Southeast 514.82 f13.87 516.62 512.85 Southwest 513.64 E13.39 515.78 512.13 West Bench 512.28 E13.84 571.76 511.39 Canyon County 513.76 513.50 513.59 512.20 BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET. SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 93702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 .:?012 INDUSTRIAL comprehensive statistics -~R~r~~ INDUSTRIAL Yom, industrial market changes from 2011 number of number of Asking LEASES SALES RATES VACANCY ~+ ~+ ~+ 01 Y~-End Industrial Submarket Statistics at a Glance Airport 91 3,351,156 2b3,235 25,865 289,100 8.b% 259,049 50.40 Central Bench 73 2,005,936 143,965 0 143,945 7.2% 180,836 50.41 Downtown Periphery 35 766,652 51,589 0 51,589 6.7% -1,856 50.48 Eagle 10 289,132 21,028 0 21,028 7.3% 16,020 50.59 Garden City 108 1,563,604 163,564 0 163,564 10.3% 61,875 50.44 Meridian 137 3,337,239 232,638 0 232,638 T.0% 280,193 50.50 Southeast 79 4,613,095 145,b50 9,690 155,340 3.4% 72,308 50.42 Southwest 87 1,577,300 274,042 25,359 299,401 19.0% 108,888 50.43 West Bench 152 3,862,514 42B,71b 27,000 455,716 11.8% 284,679 50.42 Nampa 225 9,661,817 1,248,208 12,500 1,260,708 13.0% 60,500 50.44 Caldwell 139 4,410,566 257,970 0 257,970 5.8% 57,277 50.46 2 01 Y~-End Industrial Full Service Asking Rates by Primary Use cs,ooo ss.1 Airport 50.40 50.59 50.35 50.37 Central Bench 50.41 50.52 50.57 50.38 Eagle 50.59 50.67 50.55 n/a Garden City 50.44 50.52 50.49 50.33 Meridian 50.50 50.64 50.42 50.49 Southeast 50.42 n/a 50.48 50.41 Southwest 50.43 50.50 50.48 50.48 West Bench 50.42 50.77 30.37 50.39 Canyon County 50.44 50.43 50.50 50.37 ' No - hb FuY Sm+or as q'~aM ar Wu! S+tmwfm 14~ ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved •1~~~~~I• ih~ ?012 Management George Iliff T Managing Owner & Office Assaiate '58.472.2858 Sr - ;. f ,-age I w Manglos caM. slog .w u.iatc H~ /2.2841 Karen warner, caM Asociate ~ 708 489 0172 t.n un .rear rer!dwlln-r,tnm '=,c~~t' Fei,~f~ner ,~ A•:;ociate ~ .>!?8 493 5107 Matt Palmer Associate 7nx 477 2836 i , t I;elr ;c n~..~il ..•i ~, t r;,.. ~~,~_~ . C~rokcrage Mike Christensen A~ssaaate zox 47z za66 ~ ,--,~.oualc a s„721047- ~~~~ r Crrart~_C are '~' ~,s~,auale _ 7Ud1+72.2835 U~oo'•_bl9keslce r~colliers.cern ~,4~,~ ~ -~~~~-; r~1 Research C.we Fernandez Cn-ector of Marketing _J.5472.2868 „_.yr `r.. n3 r,.~r 'tir..,'.,ia.• gyp-^~ i~~:-~ Johnson ~' ••^:r•:rarch Analyst • ~ , '!~~: 477 7860 Investment Brokerage Clay Anderson cPA. MBA Associate 208.489.6177 .'.ay. a ndBrSpn:'~CplEiers.com ~ir:vid war ~ '". actor of Investment Services x 477 7R44 Dyne Slaughter cc1M.MeA ;ociate -~; 472 2853 ~~ ~.iv,.t,-r '.r rill ii ~• . r-d ~.•ri '_if '~efl i~~`d1l i w F. r.msaclion Coordinator 708 472.2854 ~~ ~ of ian_~n, al "I1culliNr ec u~~ Steve Foster Associate F 708 477 )834 .r G,•di•f ~$nll~.er ~. nor urvn~ O,v,UCn. ~.•~f.+ ~ ~ a Associate • ~ 208 472.1b68 ~~~ j - ,',ck Scruton ~ ''~'.SOCIatC , ;ii 477 2851 ~: c Tuci;er /~ ::ociate .'[~.°, 477 7842 ~.'~-.'.f ~ ~~f~..::~.-:I~. i~ I inda King h+akcr Assistant 3:;8.472.2863 hr~da king(dcolliers.com Camille Shaffer Research Assistant ~ ,"J8 4 /2 "2857 : ~ cry ., ;n.... ~_ mi ®2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved t ' :lge ;hn Starr Associate (, ~ 208.472.2838 .... _ Jimmy Rourn6ni~ a %,ssociate ~~ o~n r~ 2840 err ~r,.~r ~ r~ -,unty Brokerage Todd Moss M:~:ociatc ~ r~ ; f)x :i77 1665 hf,l:e i'cnd ~ Associate ..~ ' ZOB 472 16G6 :rid., ~ ~i,:'"lr:~ i ~ , ~ _ir.i ~~'' t ~ncoln Hagood ~ ~ Associate ?nR 472 1667 .~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ „~,i nl . ~ -.err -;~.; u~t ;of:;~~. A ::ociate T:)8 472 1663 'n Vrint ~~u,,,•°, rh nir~r. ~ nrn Au ~ -:~ ~~ ~.rices ~?,i[h1 Picl(ett CAI, AARE " ,:ociate 'U8 250 4767 . ~ h ;ru .~ .'J, n,lir•,, i c~n P' _ nagement l:1 ~:e Attiani 1lrector of Property Services ~``, 1~ ; r'..y 477 7867 ., ;,-..,r Dirao~.f 4 Project Manager ~~ 7U8 472 2669 0 r r m D Q D r n 0 ~~ N n 0 Q O ~~ o c ~ ~,~ -• cn m ~ ~ - W tD p O w ~ O "" W T ~i O O ~ N Appendix G. City of Meridian FY2014-FY2025 Capital Improvement Plan Admin Parking Lot Development $300,000 $300,000 $2,000 Sum of Admin $300,000 $300,000 $2,000 Fire Fire Engine -Heavy Rescue Tender $380,000 $380,000 $5,000 Fire Engine - MF005 $520,000 $520,000 $5,000 Fire Engine -Station #4 -Quint Ladder T $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,000 Fire Engine -Station #6 -Heavy Rescue $700,000 $700,000 $10,000 Fire Engine -Station #7 -Quint Ladder T $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,000 Fire Engine -Station #8 $520,000 $520,000 $5,000 Fire Station #6 $2,230,000 $2,230,000 $150,000 Fire Station #6 Staff (12) $0 $1,243,592 Fire Station #6 Staff (3) -Floaters $0 $310,898 Fire Station #7 $2,020,000 $2,020,000 $150,000 Fire Station #7 Staff (3) -Floaters $0 $310,898 Fire Station #7 Staff {9) $0 $932,694 Fire Station #8 $2,020,000 $2,020,000 $150,000 Fire Station #8 Staff (12) $0 $1,243,592 Fire Station #8 Staff (4) -Floaters $0 $414,531 Fire Station Staff (1) -Fire Inspector $0 $103,632 Fire Station Staff (3) -Battalion Chiefs $0 $421,738 Fire Station Staff (9) -Floaters $0 $932,694 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Purchase Station #5 from Rural $806,000 $806,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 1 of 6 Replace Brush MF022 $145,000 $145,000 Replace Engine MF009 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Engine MFO10 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Engine MF014 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Engine MF018 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Ladder Truck MF021 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Replace Staff MF015 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF016 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF020 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF023 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF024 $41,600 $41,600 Replacement Equipment- Air Unit MF00 $98,000 $98,000 Replacement Equipment- Breathing Ap $380,000 $380,000 Sum of Fire $8,231,000 $7,376,000 $15,607,000 495 000 5,914,269 IT Additional Operating Costs $0 $20,000 Dark Fiber $500,000 $500,000 Network Administrator $0 $43,000 Phone Purchase-VOIP $212,500 $212,500 Replace Computers $115,150 $115,150 Replace Computers $148,800 $148,800 Replace Computers $108,750 $108,750 Replace Computers $117,250 $117,250 Replace Computers $491,000 $491,000 Replace Computers $365,000 $365,000 Replace IT Hardware $80,000 $80,000 Replace IT Hardware $80,000 $80,000 $14,000 Replace IT Hardware $30,000 $30,000 Replace IT Hardware $80,000 $80,000 $40,000 Replace IT Pool Car $20,000 $20,000 Software Engineer $0 $43,000 Web Developer $0 $43,000 Sum of IT $2,348,450 $2,348,450 $74,000 $129,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 2 of 6 Parks 77 Acre Park Design (77 Acres) $750,000 $750,000 Aldape Park Construction (60 Acres) ($2,100,000) $0 Aldape Park Construction (60 Acres) $8,520,000 $2,100,000 $10,620,000 $360,000 ATV/Trailer $12,000 $12,000 $500 Ball Field Groomer $10,000 $10,000 $500 Borup Park Construction (47 Acres) $6,674,000 $6,674,000 $282,000 Field House (YMCA) $460,000 $1,540,000 $2,000,000 Field House (YMCA) $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $142,000 $75,000 Grounds Keeper I $0 $45,000 Grounds Keeper I $0 $45,000 Grounds Keeper I $0 $45,000 Grounds Keeper II $0 $59,000 Grounds Keeper II $0 $59,000 Highlands Park Construction (7 Acres) $994,000 $245,000 $1,239,000 $21,000 Highlands Park Construction (7 Acres) ($245,000) $0 Hillsdale Park Construction (20 Acres) $3,540,000 $700,000 $4,240,000 $60,000 Hillsdale Park Construction (20 Acres) ($700,000) $0 Isola Park Construction (7 Acres) ($245,000) $0 Isola Park Construction (7 Acres) $994,000 $245,000 $1,239,000 $21,000 Large Area Mower $55,000 $55,000 $2,000 Large Area Mower $55,000 $55,000 $2,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 Pathway Connections $150,000 $150,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $150,000 $150,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $150,000 $150,000 $5,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 3 of 6 Pathway Connections Pathway Connections Rails With Trails Rails With Trails Replacement Equipment -Adventure Isl Replacement Equipment- Bear Creek Pa Replacement Equipment -Gordon Harri Replacement Equipment -Renaissance Replacement Equipment- Seasons Park Replacement Equipment- Storey Park Replacement Equipment -Tully Park Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Storey Park Construction (5 Acres) Sweeper/Blower The Oaks Park Construction (7 Acres) The Oaks Park Construction (7 Acres) Trailer Trim Mower Trim Mower Trim Mower Trim Mower Trim Mower Truck Truck Truck $150,000 $150,000 $385,000 $385,000 $690,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $710,000 $994,000 $115,000 $115,000 $18, 000 $7,500 $20,000 $20, 000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 ($245,000) $245, 000 $150,000 $5,000 $150,000 $5,000 $500,000 $500,000 $690,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $710,000 $25,000 $18,000 $1,000 $0 $1,239,000 $21,000 $7,500 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $25,000 $3,000 $25,000 $3,000 $25,000 $3,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 4 of 6 Police Code Enforcement Officer (1) Crime Prevention (1) Parking Enforcement Officer (1) Planning and Research (1) Police Attorney (1) Police Corporals (2) Police Detectives (2) Police Detectives (2) Police Lt (2) Police Officer - K9 (1) Police Officer -Motorcycle (1) Police Officers (2) Police Officers {3) Police Officers (3) Police PIO (1) Police Sgt {1) Police Station Expansion $800,000 Police Substation -Fire Station #5 Police Substation -Fire Station #6 Police Substation -Fire Station #7 Police Substation at The Village Police Trainer {1) Police Trainer {1) Replace Vehicles $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $60,000 $120,000 $60,000 $120,000 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $60,000 $120,000 $60,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $100,000 $62,000 $77,000 $63,000 $80,000 $121,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $244,000 $101,000 $97,000 $170,000 $255,000 $255,000 $70,000 $111,000 $95,000 $95,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 5 of 6 Truck $25,000 $25,000 $3,000 Truck/Plow $35,000 $35,000 $3,000 Turf Sprayer $40,000 $40,000 $1,000 William Watson Park Construction (7 Ac $736,030 $736,030 $21,000 Sum of Parks $16,930,030 $12,134,500 $0 $2,790,000 $35,389,530 $1,020,000 $328,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Training Center $1,775,000 $1,225,000 $3,000,000 $300,000 Sum of Police $5,575,000 $1,585,000 $7,160,000 $400,000 $2,496,000 Grand Total 533.384.480 512.134.500 57.376.000 $1.585.000 50 52.790.000 $60.804.980 51.991.000 58.867.269 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 6 of 6 Impact Fee Comparison between Current and Proposed Impact Fee Calculations Single Family Home (SFH) Multifamily Home (MFH) Revised Impact Fee Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Fire Impact Fee $ 551.07 $ 551.07 $ 0.29 Parks Impact Fee $ 1,080.72 $ 767.52 $ Police Impact Fee $ 135.72 $ 135.72 $ 0.07 Total Impact Fee $ 1,767.51 $ 1,454.31 $ 0.36 Current Impact Fee Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Fire Impact Fee $ 377.00 $ 377.00 $ 0.25 Parks Impact Fee $ 1,384.00 $ 1,384.00 $ Police Impact Fee $ 85.00 $ 85.00 $ 0.06 Total Impact Fee $ 1,846.00 $ 1,846.00 $ 0.31 Dollar Value Change - Impact Fee Percentage Change - Impact Fee Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Revised Impact Fee Calculations Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Combined Fire Impact Fee $ Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Fire Impact Fee $ 174.07 $ 174.07 $ O.fJ4 Parks Impact Fee $ (303.28) $ (616.48) 831,139 Police Impact Fee $ 50.72 $ 50.72 $ 0.01 Total Impact Fee $ (78.49) $ (391.69) $ 0.05 Percentage Change - Impact Fee Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Revised Impact Fee Calculations Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Combined Fire Impact Fee $ 3,374,761 $ 1,124,737 $ 941,974 $ 5,441,472 Parks Impact Fee $ 6,618,345 $ 1,566,507 $ - $ 8,184,852 Police Impact Fee $ 831,139 $ 277,001 $ 231,990 $ 1,340,130 Total Impact Fee $ 10,824,245 $ 2,968,245 $ 1,173,964 $ 14,966,454 $ 0 Current Impact Fee Calculations Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Combined Fire Impact Fee $ 2,308,748 $ 769,457 $ 825,861 $ 3,904,066 Parks Impact Fee $ 8,475,616 $ 2,824,744 $ - $ 11,300,360 Police Impact Fee $ 520,540 $ 173,485 $ 198,207 $ 892,232 Total Impact Fee $ 11,304,904 $ 3,767,686 $ 1,024,068 $ 16,096,658 Dollar Value Change - Impact Fee Calculations Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Combined Fire Impact Fee $ 1,066,013 $ 355,280 $ 116,113 $ 1,537,406 Parks Impact Fee $ (1,857,271) $ (1,258,237) $ (3,115,508) Police Impact Fee $ 310,599 $ 103,516 $ 33,783 $ 447,898 Total Impact Fee $ (480,659) $ (799,441) $ 149,896 $ (1,130,204) Percentage Change - Impact Fee Calculations Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Combined Fire Impact Fee 46.17% 46.17% 14.06% Fire Impact Fee Parks Impact Fee -21.91% -44.54% Parks Impact Fee Police Impact Fee 59.67% 59.67% 17.04% Police Impact Fee Total Impact Fee -4.25% -21.22% 14.64% Total Impact Fee Permits -Res. SFH 6,124 Permits -Res. MFH 2,041 Total Res. 8,165 Permits -Com. Ind. Permits -Com. Office Permits -Com. Retail Total Comm. 46.17% 46.17% 14.06% 39.38% -21.91% -44.54% -27.57% 59.67% 59.67% 17.04% 50.20% -4.25% -21.22% 14.64% -7.02% 1,163,949 866,393 1,273,102 3,303,444 BBC Proposed Impact Fee (02/04/14) PBC Proposed Impact Fee Calculations (02/04/14) Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Res. - SFH Res. - MFH Commercial Combined Fire Impact Fee $ 681.00 $ 681.00 $ 0.35 Fire Impact Fee $ 4,170,444.00 $ 1,389,921.00 $ 1,156,205.40 6,716,570.40 Parks Impact Fee $ 1,113.00 $ 1,113.00 $ - Parks Impact Fee $ 6,816,012.00 $ 2,271,633.00 $ - 9,087,645.00 Police Impact Fee $ 223.00 $ 223.00 $ 0.12 Police Impact Fee $ 1,365,652.00 $ 455,143.00 $ 396,413.28 2,217,208.28 Total Impact Fee $ 2,017.00 $ 2,017.00 $ 0.47 Total Impact Fee $ 12,352,108.00 $ 4,116,697.00 $ 1,552,618.68 18,021,423.68 3/4/2014 C:\Users\malbertson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\KRNBBO7F\Itemized Impact Fee Approach (3) Department CIP Description Res. - SFH Res. -MFH Commercial Operating ! Personnel j Parks Eligible Park Development - 70 Acres $ 9,940,000.00 $ 1,217.39 $ 1,312.47 $ 932.11 $ 360,000.00 $ 253,000.00 Parks Eligible Park Land Acquisition $ 245,000.00 $ 30.01 $ 32.35 $ 22.97 $ - $ - Parks Eligible Park Development Equipment- 70 Acres $ 256,500.00 $ 31.41 $ 33.87 $ 24.05 $ 16,500.00 $ Parks Indoor Recreation Facility $ 891,991.00 $ 109.25 $ 117.78 $ 83.64 $ _ $ Parks Rails With Trails $ 222,998.00 $ 27.31 $ 29.44 $ 20.91 $ - $ $ 11,556,489.00 $ 1,415.37 $ 1,525.91 $ 1,083.69 $ 376,500.00 $ 253,000.00 Parks Available Fund Balance $ (3,378,970.00) $ (413.84) $ (446.16) $ (316.86) $ - $ Parks Impact Fee Study $ 7,333.00 $ 0.90 $ 0.97 $ 0.69 $ - $ - CIP Request Total $ 8,184,852.00 $ 1,002.43 $ 1,080.72 $ 767.52 $ - $ 376,500.00 $ 253,000.00 Current Rate Structure $ 1,384.00 $ 1,384.00 $ 1,384.00 3/4/2014 C:\Users\malbertson\AppData\LocaRMicrosoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\KRNBBO7F\Itemized Impact Fee Approach (3) Department CIP Description Amount Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire Opticom $ 20,000.00 Fire New Fire Engine - Station #6 $ 520,000.00 Fire New Fire Engine - Station #7 $ 520,000.00 Fire Purchase Station #5 from Rural $ 806,000.00 Fire Fire Station #7 $ 2,020,000.00 Fire Fire Station #6 $ 2,230,000.00 Fire Fire Available Fund Balance Impact Fee Study CIP Request Total Current Rate Structure $ 6,296,000.00 - Personnel Res. - SFH Res. -MFHcommercial $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 2.18 $ 1.55 $ 0.00 $ 52.66 $ 56.77 $ 40.32 $ 0.03 $ 52.66 $ 56.77 $ 40.32 $ 0.03 $ 81.63 $ 88.00 $ 62.50 $ 0.04 $ 204.57 $ 220.55 $ 156.63 $ 0.11 $ 225.84 $ 243.48 $ 172.91 $ 0.12 $ 637.61 $ 687.41 $ 488.19 $ 0.33 $ (861,861.00) $ (87.28) $ (94.10) $ (66.83) $ (0.05) $ 7,333.00 $ 0.74 $ 0.80 $ 0.57 $ 0.00 Operating�� Personnel $ 10,000.00 $ $ 10,000.00 $ $ 150,000.00 $ 932,694.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 932,694.00 $ 320,000.00 $ 1,865,388.00 $ 5,441,472.00 $ 551.07 $ 594.11 $ 421.93 $ 0.29 $ 320,000.00 $ 1,865,388.00 $ 377.00 $ 377.00 $ 377.00 $ 0.25 3/4/2014 C:\Users\malbertson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windov✓s%Temporary Internet Files%Content.Outlook\KRNBB07F\Itemized Impact Fee Approach (3) Department CIP Description Amount Res. SFH Res. -MFH Commercial Operating Personnel Police Police Substation - Fire Station #5 $ 60,000.00 $ 6.08 $ 6.55 $ 4.65 $ 0.00 $ - __. _._ $ - Police Police Substation - Fire Station #6 $ 120,000.00 $ 12.15 $ 13.10 $ 9.30 $ 0.01 $ - $ Police Police Substation at The Village $ 120,000.00 $ 12.15 $ 13.10 $ 9.30 $ 0.01 $ - $ Police Training Center (Phase 2) $ 1,672,484.00 $ 169.38 $ 182.61 $ 129.68 $ 0.09 $ 300,000.00 $ $ 1,972,484.00 $ 199.76 $ 215.36 $ 152.95 $ 0.10 $ 300,000.00 $ Police Available Fund Balance $ (639,687.00) $ (64.78) $ (69.84) $ (49.60) $ (0.03) $ - $ Police Impact Fee Study $ 7,333.00 $ 0.74 $ 0.80 $ 0.57 $ 0.00 $ - $ CIP Request Total $ 1,340,130.00 $ 135.72 $ 146.32 $ 103.91 $ 0.07 $ 300,000.00 $ Current Rate Structure $ 84.00 85.00 $ 85.00 $ 0.06 3/4/2014 C:\Users\malbertson\AppData\LocaRMicrosoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\KRNBB07F\Itemized Impact Fee Approach (3) Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan (CIP CIP Requert Total. Fire S 13,641,000.00 S 15,929.000-00 $ (2,223,000.0 Fire Not Impar. Fee Eligible $ (7,345.000.01 S 13,343,000.00) S 993.000.00 Total OF Impact Fee- Fin hparmant CIP D—iotlon uirvd CtP RK 111 rArtwunt Amount 0. artme n, GP W-— Amount 03X•nnea iv. OptinmlSzokAmmRy1:c S 3m,DOD.ro f zm.DDo.m - Fin New Fin EMlln-EtatbnK S !20,000.00 S - 530,000.00 Fke New Fire Enliea-Station RT S 520.000.00 S 530,.00 000 Fin Pullin, tatio,$3 From Runl 5 206,000.00 f 1106,000-00 20,000.00 Fin Fire Station 07 S 3,0210.00.00 S 21MODO.m - Fire Fire Station •6 $ 2,230,000.0 S 2,3SQODO.0O - Fin HNW R..—EMk+.-Station 86 S S ]00,00.0 (700,00-00) Fire Qubt Ladder Truck - Stahl, $ - f 1.100,000.00 111101000.00) Fin Fire Entine MF005 00 S $20.000.00 S 520,0.00 - Ftre Q—Ledo•; Truck - Station RT 5 3 L100,OWW 111100,00.0) Fire Heavy Rwcea Tender $ - $ 300,00.00 (300,m.00) Fire Replace E"i".39 S - $ 520,000.0 1330, MMI FIn Replan [ngln•MF009 S 510,00000 $ 520,000.0 - Fke P•Olace ladder Truck MF021 $ "0'.000.0 $ L100.0mm - Fir* Reabce brush MFO22 5 113,tW.00 $ 345.000.00 - Fire Re place El.Pi. MF030S !20000.00 S 510,000.00 - fin Replan EnSine MFO14 $ 520,,000.00 5 520,000.0 - Fire UPI— EMIne MMIB $ 520,000.00 S 511000.00 Fin Aept.Air pnd MF= - 5 !6,0.0 !6,000.0l. (93,000.001 Fin Replan 3nwh-Appwatu, S 3301000.00 5 330,000.00 - Fire Fin Stationed S 2,020,000.00 S ?020,1200.00 - Fire Fin EMin•e2 S L300,o00.00 5 520,000.00 530,000.00 CIP Requert Total. Fire S 13,641,000.00 S 15,929.000-00 $ (2,223,000.0 Fire Not Impar. Fee Eligible $ (7,345.000.01 S 13,343,000.00) S 993.000.00 Total OF Impact Fee- Fin hparmant CIP D—iotlon Reeled tip 401/434 Amount Nn .,m— S 20,000.0 Fire .,Beam S 20.000.0 FIn Optic:m f 20,000.0 Ike OWmmS f 1.219,00.0.00 5 1,239,0120.00 21000.00 Fka Oodcom S 20,000.00 F1e Ooticem § 20.000.00 Fire Optlmm § 20,000.0 fl• Optinm 5 20,000.00 Fin ;fill OWrnm $ 20,000.00 IarW Otcoom 5 20,000-00 Fin Naw Fin Engine-Stui,,#S S 520,000.00 Fire New Fire EM'm•-StationR S 520,000.00 R re Purchase Sta0on 65 From Rural 5 006,OJO.m Fire Nn S.1 -V S 2,030,000.00 Fire Fir*Station4 S 1.3!0.000.00 T—loplmpactfee-FIM S 6,394,00.0 Parks Department Capital Improvement Plan (CIP CIPR,—Total-Iarks $ 48.966,500.00 $ 36.142,300.00 $ 3;524,0=.= Parks —Irro.. Fee Eligible S (3],410,011.00) $ (25,694,658.=) $ 113,725,355.001 Total OF Impact Fee - Parks S 11.554,43900 5 12.457,842.0 $ 1901,553.00) Maartment OF peacrt iw Reeled tip 401/434 larks 0. mens CIP 0.z<ri ilea Moroni Amount DiNennce Iarb Ellebl•hrklarw AC..uit n S 245,000.00 5 - 345,000.00 Iarks I.lh..,C.r-,,Uo. $ 1.1'",000.0 $ L150,=w - larks Iola Creak Park f 1.219,00.0.00 5 1,239,0120.00 - Iarks Mkhlands Park$ ,259,00.00 1.335,000.00 $ 3,259,00.00:: - Iarks Oak, Park S 1.239,000.00 S L2390D0.m Iolin Rarks William Wa—Park $ 994,000.00 f !94.000,0 - Parks Hdhdale Park S !, 541000,0 S 3.540000.00 - farks Borup Park $6.674,000,0 $ 6.614,000.00 Police IarW Stony Park f 865,000.00 $ 865,000.00 - Ierks Aldan Park 1 20,620,000.0 f 10,620,000.00 - P:rks South Meidian Park $ 13,629,00.00 S 3,051000,0 12,57f,o00.00 Parka Rail wlh Trail S I,00,000.00 S 1,000,000.00 - Parks R.Cr•atlon Came, S 4,01000.00 S 4,0m,000.00 - rarks Sweeper/&pore; $ Is.=.00 $ 38,000.00 - ParW Truck/Plow S 15,000.00 5 35,000.00 - Parks lane Mea Mo.., (2) S 110,000.00 S no"Doo C - Parks M.11 (4) f 46,000.00 f 48,000,0 Parks ATV f 12,000.00 5 12.000.00 Parks Tr•Ow $ 7,300.00 S 1.500,0 - Park, Trlm Mow•r(5) S 101000.00 f 100,000,0 - Parks T-1,(4) S 100,000.00 S 100,000.00 - Parks Turf SF-., f 40,000.00 P:1,, 11:11 F,.W Groomer f 10,000m S 30000.0 - Parks Replan V.Wd—d Equipment $ 2.032,=.00 $ 2,032,000.00 - CIPR,—Total-Iarks $ 48.966,500.00 $ 36.142,300.00 $ 3;524,0=.= Parks —Irro.. Fee Eligible S (3],410,011.00) $ (25,694,658.=) $ 113,725,355.001 Total OF Impact Fee - Parks S 11.554,43900 5 12.457,842.0 $ 1901,553.00) Maartment rata[ OP lmpaw F•e - Parks S 11,556,469.00 Police Department Capital Improvement Plan (CIP OF peacrt iw Reeled ClP {K S/{/14 larks [ligible lark D"ll""ent-]O Acrn S 9,Sa0,0=.= Iarks EEgble Park land Acqulsaion S 345,000.= Iarks EON. Pah Dw•lopmeat[qulpm•nt•7O Aerw S 356,500.= (arks Indoor Recreation Facility S {91.99300 Iarks Rail Wlh Tn4s f 111,499.0 Iarks Raih WRh Tnh S 111..9900 rata[ OP lmpaw F•e - Parks S 11,556,469.00 Police Department Capital Improvement Plan (CIP Total CIP Impact Fee - IoIlce S 1.9]2.484.00 —2014 C\UsenVnalGnsenUppDHaLLaUWicresaFl\W,rgwn',TwKaary MemM fileflCon[aM.OWlookV[RH6601F16em¢W Import Fee Apprerh Reeled ClP {K S/{/14 0.p:Hment CIP ""MFAmount Amount ORI•n•ea Palk• blk•Subrtnbn-Flea Station6S S f1000.00 f 60,0)0.0 S IoIlce IoIlce Substation -Flea Strtbn f6 S 1110=.= $ 120,0[0.= S Iolke IOIke Subrtatbn at The Village S 120,000.= $ 120,00.= S - 1.11n Training Center(Ph— 2) S ].300,0=.= S 7,5 ;:lice Repl•ct Vehicb ($3=k Mnuallyl S !,000,0=.= S 3,000,0=.= S - Iolin POIke S�Ma7-Fir. Station4 f - S 60,000.00 f 166.000,=) Iolin Station E_mbn S - $ 6=.000.= $ (6010=.m) OF Regeart Total - Iolic• 5 30,800,000.m $ 31,6001000.00 S (900,00 oo) Police Not Impact Fee Eligible S (U27.516.031 3 13,81].S1f.001 S - Total CIP Impact Fea- Police S 1,971.494.00 S 2,832,44.00 S (960,000.00) O•pertment <IP Dez:r,pt:n Amount Ie3e• Iolk•SWrtation-fin 3ta[I0n BS S !0,000.00 Iolln Iolka substation - File 5 -ilea 66 S 120,000.00 IoIlce Police Subrtation at The Vlllege f 120,00.00 Police Trains, Can—(Phaea 2) 3 1,673,44,0 Total CIP Impact Fee - IoIlce S 1.9]2.484.00 —2014 C\UsenVnalGnsenUppDHaLLaUWicresaFl\W,rgwn',TwKaary MemM fileflCon[aM.OWlookV[RH6601F16em¢W Import Fee Apprerh Jacy Jones From: Jaycee Holman Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:50 PM To: Jacy Jones; Machelle Hill Subject: FW: February 4th Impact Fee Public Hearing Please put in the packets with this item. Thanks. Jaycee L. Holman Information Services Director City Clerk City of Meridian (208) 888-4433 IholmariPmeridiancity.org From: Spencer Martin [mailto:martin175@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:31 PM To: Jaycee Holman Subject: February 4th Impact Fee Public Hearing Jaycee, Although I plan to attend the City Council meeting to hear both the Mayor, City Council and public input regarding the Impact Fee recommendations I am not overly comfortable speaking to groups of people so I am sending a statement that exemplifies my thoughts as an Impact Fee Committee member. This is my first experience at doing something like this so please excuse any errors in proper protocol. I have thoroughly reviewed all information presented to the Committee by the Meridian Police Dept., Fire Dept. and Parks & Recreation. I have had an active background in all phases of first responders and am most recently retired from an organization that is responsible to the insurance industry for determining public protection classifications that can have a major impact on municipal fire services and community citizens. These experiences have given me a unique ability to grasp the information that was presented to the committee to which I felt comfortable with. I have put out the time and effort to interact with both the Meridian Fire Dept. and Police Dept. so that I may become more in touch with Meridian services and infrastructure. I also have been a Meridian resident for 20 years which has seen exceptional rapid growth and still remains a desirable, safe and affordable place to live not to mention being one of the best cities in the nation under 100,000 population to live. In conclusion I highly support the Impact Fee Committee's recommendations. Spencer Martin Impact Fee Committee Member l� Jacy Jones prom: David Yorgason <dyorgason6@gmail.com> .gent: Friday, January 31, 2014 5:35 PM To: Jaycee Holman Cc:. Jacy Jones; Jeff Thompson; Steve Martinez; Frankie Hickman; Joe Atala; Dave Yorgason Subject: gason Meridian City Impact fees Attachments: BCA Meridian Impact Fee letter signed 1-31-2013.pdf To Mayor and City Council Members: am submitting these comments from the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho (BCASWI) regarding the proposed changes to the Building Impact Fees. Please accept my apology for not attending the, hearing Tuesday night. wish I could have delivered this message personally, however I will be out of town and attending a prior commitment at the International Builders Show on this same day. Please consider the attached written comments from the President of the BCASWI as you deliberate the proposed impact fee changes. In watching the process that the impact fee advisory committee took to come to these recommendations, it was apparent that the goal of the consultant was to determine the maximum allowable impact fee to charge the builders. The City of Meridian has a history of being fair to its customers and we hope that the City of Meridian is not becoming a City known for charging maximum fees to its customers. I currently serve on the Boise City Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee and it is my understanding that the City of Boise does not charge the maximum allowable fee due. Some of the reasons include: 1) they recognize additional sources of funding (grants or donations) and 2) COMPASS growth projects are too conservative compared to reality. please consider the attached comments seriously. Based on a recent study on our local housing market, it was determined that for every $1.,000 increase in the sale price of a home, 500 homebuyers are priced out of the local market. Affordability is a primary concern for our current residents and future generations. We appreciate your service and your consideration. Sincerely, Dave Yorgason BCA Government Affairs and Local Developer nearly 60 percent of the infrastructure costs included in this fee Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 8D PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: D. Continued from February 4,2014: 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 MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher Q. Rich AMOUNT .00 2 641SE IDAHO 03/06/14 01:02 PM QEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig III IIIIIIIIIIIII'lllll'lllll'II III'll RECORDED-REQUEST OF 114016636 Meridian City -_ CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. - ~5~ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY ~ TO THE MERIDIAN DAIRY AND STOCK SHOWS INC LOCATED AT STOREY PARK IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OF THE PENDING STOREY PARK SUBDIVISION; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN THE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT, ACCESS EASEMENT, DEED, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION; PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code 50-1401, the City Council has statutory authorit to sell, exchange, or convey any real property owned by the city which is Y underutilized or which is not used for city public purposes; and, WHEREAS, when it is determined by the City Council to be in the City's best interest, the Council may by Ordinance duly enacted, authorize the exchange of the city- ownedreal property for property of like value; and, WHEREAS, the terms of the proposed exchange are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B and shall be a matter of public record; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the Meridian Cit Council on February 25, 2014 and at the conclusion of said hearing, the City Y . Council moved to approve the proposed real property exchange, subject to certain terms and conditions, and directed staff to bring forth this Ordinance ,authorizing the conveyance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That a public hearing on the proposed real property exchange was held at the February 25, 2014 meeting of the Meridian City Council. Section 2. That the City Council determined after the public hearing that the exchange parcel is underutilized and not currently used for public purposes. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY -Page 1 of 2 Section 3. That the proposed exchange is in the City's best interest and the terms and conditions contained in the Real Property Exchange Agreement and the Access Easement attached hereto as Exhibit A and B are hereby approved. Section 4. That the Mayor and City Clerk shall be authorized to execute and attest the Exchan e A reement (Exhibit A), the Access Easement (Exhibit B), a standard form g g warrant deed, and any other documents necessary to complete the conveyance Y authorized by this Ordinance. Section 5. That ursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of p the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one 1 readin in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this () g Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. ~,1.-- PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this -day of ~ Q~C,~ , 2014. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ____ day of h ~_, 2014. t APPROVED: ,~~~ , -~~ ~,O~~T MY DE ~VEERD 1 ATTEST: 4y ,~i~.~~„U~,z~~ ti` ~~ .Si . ~~ !~ ~. ,. ~~ j ~ ~ p ~ ~~ ~ ~~ JAY L. HOLMAN, CITY ALE ~ ~,~ ~~~~ yaw ~ t. n~ ,,~,; ~ t.;l C' j' n ~. ~ ~ u _ ~+. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY -Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Meridian, Idaho 83642 APPROVAL COPY ONLY DO NOT RECORD EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easement Agreement ("Easement Agreement") is made and entered into this da of , 2014 by and between The City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal y .. Corporation ("Grantor") whose current address is 33 E. Broadway, Meridian Idaho, 83642 and the Meridian Dairy & Stock Shows, Inc., an Idaho Corporation ("Grantee"), whose current address is 1892 W. Hendricks Ct, Meridian, Id 83646. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit A attached ("Grantor Real Property"). WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit B attached ("Benefited Real Property"}. WHEREAS, The Grantee has requested the Grantor to convey to the Grantee a nonexclusive easement on a portion of the Grantor Real Property in favor of the Benefited Real Property for the purposes described in Section 2.1 below. The portion of the Grantor Real Property that has been requested for the easement is described on Exhibit C attached ("Easement Real Property") and Exhibit D attached ("Easement Sketch"). WHEREAS, the purposes of this Easement Agreement are (i) to describe the easement granted, and (ii) to establish the relative rights and obligations of the parties regarding the easement granted under this Agreement. AGREEMENT: EASEMENT AGREEMENT -1 EXHIBIT B NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficienc of Y which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The parties hereto repeat herein by this reference the Recital ara ra hs set p g p forth above as if said paragraphs were set forth here in full. 2. Grant of Easement. For value received, Grantor hereby GRANTS AND CONVEYS to the Grantee a perpetual nonexclusive easement on the Easement Real Propert "Easement" . Y( ) 2.1 Purposes of Easement. The Easement is granted solely for the followin g purposes and no other: The Easement shall be used for ingress and egress for pedestrian and vehicular travel by Grantee and its respective tenants, representatives, customers, invitees and agents. Grantee's use of this nonexclusive easement shall not be inconsistent with and shall not interfere with Grantor's use of the Easement as ingress and egress to a ublic ark. No vehicle p p operating on the Easement shall exceed a speed of fifteen (15) miles per hour, exce t as p otherwise designated by signs posted by Grantor. No parking of any vehicles shall be ermitted p on the Easement. 2.2 Easement Obstructions. No fence or other barrier shall be erected or ermitted p within or across the Easement which would prevent or obstruct the assa e of edestrian or p g p vehicular travel; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not prohibit the tem orar erection p Y of barricades which are reasonably necessary for security and/or safet u oses in connection . Yp~ with the construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of improvements, includin the g Easement, on the Grantor's Property, it being agreed by the parties however, that all such work shall be conducted in the most expeditious manner reasonably ossible to minimize the p interference with the use of the Easement by the owner of the Benefited Real Pro ert and its p Y~ respective tenants, representatives, customers, invitees, and agents, and such work shall be diligently prosecuted to completion. 2.3 Relocation Reservation. This Easement is being granted rior to the develo m •p pent of the Grantor s Property. The Grantor has no obligation to make im rovements p upon the Grantor's Property for the Easement. Grantee shall coordinate the use of the Easement by construction vehicles with Grantor. Grantor hereby reserves the ri ht to relocate the g Easement upon the Grantor's Property either before or after the develo ment of the Grantor's . p Property, upon thirty days prior written notice to Grantee, provided, however, that the location where the Easement abuts the Benefited Real Property shall not be altered without the ex ress p written consent of the owner of the Benefited Real Property. The parties then a ree to execute g deliver and record an amendment to this document to evidence an such relocation. Y 2.4 Covenants and Agreements of the Grantor. The Grantor, on behalf of the Grantor and the Grantor's heirs, successors, assigns, purchasers, or transferee of an kind Y covenants and agrees with the Grantee and the Grantee's heirs, successors, assi ns, urchasers g p or transferee of any kind, that the provisions of this Easement Agreement i shall run with and . () bend the Easement Real Property, and (ii) shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable at law or In equity) by any owner of all or part of, the Benefited Real Property. EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 2 EXHIBIT B 2.4.1 Repair and Maintenance. Subject to Grantee's obli ations as set f g orth in Section 2,5.3, below, Grantor shall at its expense maintain all im rovem p ents located on the Easement Real Property in good and sufficient re air and shall kee the Easem p p ent Real Property in a neat and aesthetically pleasing condition. 2.5 Covenants and Agreements of the Grantee. The Grantee on behalf of the Grantee and the Grantee s heirs, successors, assigns, urchasers or transferee of p ~ any kind, covenants and agrees with the Grantor and the Grantor's heirs, successors assi ns urchasers g ~p or transferee of any kind, as follows: 2,5.1 Indemnification. To indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Grantor and its successors, assigns and agents from any loss, claim, or other liabilit of an natur y y e (including attorney fees and costs) that may arise from any use of the Easement b the Grantee Y and its respective tenants, representatives, customers, invitees, and a ents. g 2.5.2 Insurance. To purchase and maintain at all times a olic of p Y Comprehensive General Liability insurance utilizing an Insurance Services Office standard form with Broad Form General Liability Endorsement, or equivalent in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence of bodily injury and property lama e combined. The olic shall g p Y insure the Grantee with the owner(s) of the Easement Real Property as an additional insured and shall also insure against liability arising out of the use, occupancy or maintenance of the Easement Real Property. The policy shall be with a company with a Best's ratin of B+ or , g higher (or equivalent substitute rating). 2.5.3 Repair of Damage. All damage to any improvements caused b Y Grantee's use shall be repaired by Grantee as promptly as is reasonably possible. If such re airs p are not made, the Grantor, upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice, shall have the ri ht to g correct such condition. The Grantee shall promptly reimburse the Grantor for such costs. The Grantee shall be liable, and the Benefited Real Property shall be subject to a lien for all costs and expenses incurred by the Grantor in taking-such corrective action, plus all costs incurred in collecting the amounts due. 2.5.4 Installation of Below-Ground Utilities by Grantee. In the event the Grantee shall desire to install or construct utilities to the Benefited Real Propert in the Easement . Y Real Property, Grantee shall provide Grantor with not less than sixty (60) da s advance written . Y notice to Grantor, which notice shall include a copy of all proposed plans and specifications for the location of such below-ground utilities. The installation of such utilities b Grantee: i shall Y () be performed in a good and workmanlike manner; (ii) shall be performed at Grantee's sole cost and expense and at no expense to Grantor; (iii) once commenced, all such work shall be conducted in the most expeditious manner reasonably possible to minimize the interference with the use of the Easement Real Property by Grantor; and (iv) the Easement Real Pro ert shall be p Y restored to the condition in which it existed .immediately prior to such installation. No installation of below-ground utilities shall be allowed between the dates of Ma 1St and Jul 31St Y Y of each calendar year. EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 3 EXHIBIT B 3. General Provisions. 3.1 Notices. All notices, demands and re uests re uired or desired ' thi q q to be given under s Agreement must be in writing and shall be deemed to have been iven . g as of the date such writing is (i) delivered to the party intended, (li delivered to the then curr ent address of the party intended, or (iii) rejected at the then current address of the art intended ' ' p y ,provided such writing was sent prepaid. The initial address of the signatories hereto is set forth in the introduc tory paragraph of this Agreement. Upon at least ten (l o) days' riot written notice each ha p ~ party shall ve the right to change its address to any other address within the United States of Am ' erica. 3.2 Attorney Fees and Costs. If a suit, action, or other roceedin arisin out of or p g g related to this Easement Agreement is instituted by an art to this Easement A teem .. Y p Y g ent, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorne fees ex ert witness fees an .. Y ~ p d costs (i) incurred in any settlement negotiations, (ii) incurred in re arin for rosecutin or p p g ~p g defending any suit, action, or other proceeding, and (iii) incurred in re arin for rosecutin r p p g ~p go defending any appeal of any suit, action, or other proceedin . For the u ose of this section . .g p ~ "attorney fees" shall mean and include (1) attorney fees and (11) parale al fees. This section shall . g survive and remain enforceable notwithstanding any rescission of this Easement A reement or a g determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that all or any ortion of the remainder of this . p Easement Agreement is void, illegal, or against public policy. 3.3 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. This Easement A reement shall be g construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. The arties a tee p g that the courts of Idaho shall have exclusive jurisdiction and agree that Ada Count is the ro er Y pp venue. 3.4 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the obli ations to be g performed under this Easement Agreement. 3.5 Rights Cumulative. Except as expressly provided in this Easement A reement g and to the extent permitted by law, any remedies described in this Easement A reement are g cumulative and not alternative to any other remedies available at law or in e uit . q Y 3.6 Nonwaiver of Remedies. The failure or neglect of a party to enforce an remed Y Y available by reason of the failure of the other party to observe or perform a term or condition set forth in this Easement Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such term or condition. A waiver by a party (i) shall not affect any term or condition other than the one s ecified in such .. p waiver, and (ii) shall waive a specified term or condition only for the time and in a manner specifically stated in the waiver. 3.7 Successors and Assigns. This Easement Agreement shall be bindin u on and gp inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors, assi ns, heirs ersonal g ~p representatives, purchasers, or transferees of any kind. 3.8 Entire Agreement. All Schedules and Exhibits to this Easement A reement g constitute a part of this Easement Agreement. This Easement Agreement, to ether with the g accompanying Schedules and Exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement amon the arties and g p supersedes all prior memoranda, correspondence, conversations and negotiations. EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 4 EXHIBIT B IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Access Easement A reement to be g executed the day and year first written above. SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE APPROVAL COPY ONLY NOT FOR EXECUTION AT THIS TIME EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 5 EXHIBIT B STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2014, before me personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee Holman, known or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the municipal corporation who executed and attested, res ectivel the p Y~ instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that such munici al p corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at My Commission Expires EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 6 EXHIBIT B STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of ) On this day of , 2014, before me personally appeared Hillebrand J. Bruijn and Gerald W. Mattison, known or identified to me to be the president and secretary of the corporation that executed the instrument or the ersons wh p o executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowled ed to me that such g corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed m official seal the Y day and year in this certificate first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at My Commission Expires EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 7 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT A Grantor Real Property The following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho more articularl p Y described as follows to wit: Lots 1, 2, and 4, Block 1 of the Storey Park Subdivision Lot 5, Block 2 of the Honor Park Subdivision No. 2 EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 8 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B Benefited Real Property The following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows to wit: Lot 3, Block 1 of the Storey Park Subdivision Parcel #3121 of Govt Lot Ol, Section 18 3N lE EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 9 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C Easement Real Property The following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows to wit: EASIVfEN'~' BE~CRII'TION ~(~~. '~`~~ C~T~' t3~' 1~~~3~A,~', I1~AHU~ An easement located in #~he ~~' '~ of Section 18, Tav~rnship ~ North, Mange 1 East, Boise 111ieridian and lying across a pa~•t of Lot ~ of Black ~ of H~?~t~,~ .~'A.1 SU~D.IY.I~~'~N CVO, ~ as shown in Book d8 of flats at Page 659 and across a part of that parcel shown Qn R,ecord of Surtvey bTc~. 8737 all on file in the office of the Reco~•der, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Comnxencing at a % znch diatnetex icon pin marlcir~g the southwesterly corner of said Lat. 5, from r~vhich a 5I8 inch diameter iron pin marking tl~e northwesterly corner of said Lot 5 bears l/T a°29' OS" w a distance of 204.1 t feet; Thence ~ ~9°34'52" ~ along tl~e southerly boundary al" said l.~t 5 a distance Qf 27.2 feet to the l'QINT OF BECINN~IG; Thence continuit~g l~' $~°30'52" B a distance of 24.OC1 fee# to a poitat; Thence leavir~,g said southerly boundary I~ 0°l7'35" ~ a distance of 158.52 feet to a point; Thence a distar~ae of ~71.4~2 feet slang the arc off' a 7$G.~O foot radius crave left, said curve having a central angle of 12°29'6" and a song chord bearing N ~°32'28" ~' a distance of 171.9 feet to a poia~t; Thence I'~I 56°S2'03" w a distance of 69.05 feet to a point; Thence S 22°16'20" B a dista~~ce of 2'1.13 feet to a point; Thence a distance of l x.84 feefi along tine arc Qf a 215.00 xadxus curve ttight, said curve having a central angle of 5°17' 11" and. a long ch©rd bearing S 19°37'~~" B a distance of 19.83 1'cct to a point; Thence S S6°SZ'03" F a distance of 26.Od feet to a point; The~~ce a distance of ] 56.54 feet along the axc of a 762.4a radius x~on-tangent curve right, said curve laving a radius point bearing ~ 77°56' 1 ~" w, a eeniral. angle of 1.1 °46' 13" and a long chord bearing S 6° 10'42" E a distance of 156.26 feet to a point; Thence S 4°17'35" E a ~iis#ance of 158.60 feet to the Ft~INT ~DF BE~xIl~1NIl~TC. This parcel contains 8,870 square feet X0.204 acres} and is subject to any other easements existing ar in use. ~~~~~~~ ~ Frepared by: Crlenn ~. Bennett,l'LS c~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ Civil Suxvey Consultants, Xncarpa~-ated ~r ~ December 6, 2413 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~. $~,'~ EASEMENT AGREEMENT -10 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT D Easement Sketch EASEMENT AGREEMENT -11 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT This Agreement is made between Meridian Dairy & Stock Shows, Inc., an Idaho Corporation hereinafter referred to as "MDSS"), and the City of Meridian City, an Idaho Municipal ( Co oration (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"), collectively referred to herein as "the Parties." This Agreement shall be made effective as of the date when fully executed by both Parties ("Effective Date"). WHEREAS, MDSS owns or controls (or will own or control at the time of Closing) certain real property located in Ada County, Idaho, legally described herein and depicted as "Parcel A" on Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, CITY owns certain real property located in Ada County, Idaho, legally described herein and depicted as "Parcel B" on Exhibit "B"; and, WHEREAS, CITY desires to own Parcel A to add land and vehicular access to its adjacent public park, and MDSS desires to own Parcel B to add land to its adjacent Speedway property; and, WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this real property exchange agreement whereby MDSS will convey Parcel A to CITY in exchange for CITY conveying Parcel B to MDSS subject to certain terms and conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, because Parcel A has a greater appraised value than Parcel B, CITY will be making a cash payment at closing to compensate MDSS for the portion of Parcel A that exceeds the value of Parcel B. NOW, THEREFORE, in return for good and valuable consideration, including the agreement set forth herein and the Parties' proceeding to the closing of the property exchange contemplated hereby, the receipt and sufficiency of such consideration being hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby enter into this Agreement and the terms and conditions set forth below. 1. EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY. 1.1 Identification of Exchange Parcels. l.l.l MDSS TRADE PARCEL. The parcel that MDSS intends to trade to City under the terms of this agreement is legally described as Lot 5, Block 2 of the Honor Park Subdivision No. 2, according to the plat thereof, filed in Book 68 of Plats at Page 6959, records of Ada County, Idaho. The MDSS Trade Parcel is depicted on Exhibit "A" and is referred to herein as "Parcel A". 1.1.2 CITY TRADE PARCEL. The parcel that CITY intends to trade to MDSS under the terms of this Agreement is to be legally described as Lot 3, Block 1 of the Storey Park Subdivision according to the plat thereof to be filed in the book of Plats, Ada County, Idaho upon the recording of the pending final plat. The 89,332 square foot parcel is depicted on Exhibit "B" and is referred to herein as "Parcel B." COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 1 - 1.1.3 Parcels "A" and "B" may be referred to collectively herein as "the Properties." 1.2 Additional Compensation. To offset the difference in value between Parcel A and Parcel B, CITY shall pay monetary compensation to MDSS in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) (the "Additional Compensation"). The Additional Compensation shall be placed in Escrow by City and paid to MDSS in cash at Closing. 1.3 Conveyance of Title. 1.3.1 Title to the Properties shall be conveyed by Warranty Deed in the form attached as Exhibit "C". Title to the Properties shall be marketable and insurable and shall be free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and restrictions, exclusive of (i) real property taxes for the current year which are not due and payable on or before Closing, and (ii) liens, encumbrances, and conditions accepted in writing on or before Closing. 1.4 Title Insurance. 1.4.1 Commitment. Upon the acceptance of this Agreement by the CITY, the MDSS shall order a Commitment for Title Insurance ("Commitment") covering both Parcel A and Parcel B issued by Pioneer Title Company of Ada County ("Title Company.") 1.4.2 Objections to Title. Either Party shall have five (5) business days after receipt of the Commitment to object in writing to the condition of the title as set forth in the Commitment, unless said time period is extended pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that a Party makes written objection to the title, the other Party shall have a reasonable time to cure any defects of title. In the event the other Party cannot cure said defects, the objecting Party may elect, as its sole remedy, to either (i) terminate this Agreement, or (ii) proceed to closing, taking title subject to such defects. If the Parties do not so object, the Parties shall be deemed to have accepted the condition of the title. 1.4.3 Policies. Each Party may pay for standard coverage owner's title insurance policy on the respective properties which it receives after the exchange under the terms of this Agreement. 1.5 Possession. The Parties shall be entitled to possession of their respective properties upon closing. 2. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES. Each Party represents and warrants to the other regarding their respective properties: 2.1 Property Ownership. At the time of Closing, the Parties shall have good, marketable title to their respective parcels. At the time the deeds axe placed into escrow, no other Party shall have any right, title, or interest in the Properties. 2.2 Compliance with Laws. The Parties have received no notice from any governmental agency that the properties are in violation of any statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or deed restriction affecting the Properties. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 2 - 2.3 No Litigation. There is no equitable, legal, or administrative suit, action, arbitration, or other proceedings pending or threatened against or affecting the Properties. 2.4 Broker Fees. Neither Party is obligated to pay any fee or commission to any broker, finder, or intermediary for or on account of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. 2.5 Information to be Provided. Within ten (10) business days after the Effective Date of this Agreement each Party shall be obligated to deliver to the other Party the following: 2.5.1 Contracts. All contracts of any kind or nature that will survive the Closing and that relate to the Properties. 2.5.2 Leases. A copy of all leases relating to the Properties, together with any amendments to them. 2.6 Access to Property. After the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Parties and their representatives shall have reasonable access to the respective Properties that they are to receive under the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. 3. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. 3.1 Definitions. The terms "hazardous substance," "release," and "removal" shall have the definition and meaning as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(or the corresponding provision of any future law); rovided, however, that the term "hazardous substance" shall include "hazardous waste" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 6903 (or the corresponding provision of any future law) and "petroleum" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 6991 (or the corresponding provision of any future law). The term "superfund" shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq. ("CERCLA") (or the corresponding provision of any future law) and any similar statute, ordinance, rule or regulation of any state or local legislature, agency or body. The term "underground storage tank" shall have the definition and meaning as set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 6991 (or the corresponding provision of any future law). 3.2 Representations and Warranties Regarding Hazardous Substances. MDSS represents with regard to Parcel A and City represents with regard to Parcel B, that: 3.2.1 The Parcel is not contaminated with any hazardous substance. 3.2.2 The Parcel is not subject to any pending, threatened, or likely federal, state, or local "superfund" lien, proceedings, claim, liability, or action for the cleanup, removal, or remediation of any hazardous substance from the Parcel. 3.2.3 There is no asbestos on the Parcel. 3.2.4 There is no underground storage tank on the Parcel. 3.3 Phase I Environmental Audit. Each Party intends to obtain a "Phase I" environmental audit and liability assessment on the property that they are to receive under this COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 3 - agreement. The Phase I audit shall be conducted in substantial compliance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-OS or its replacement. The Parties have agreed that both Phase I reports shall be prepared by Gem Environmental or other such entity as mutually agreed by the Parties. The Phase I report on each property shall be enforceable by both Parties. The cost of the Phase I reports shall be shared equally between the Parties and shall be paid at closing. In the event that this Agreement is terminated, the obligation of the Parties to pay the vendor for producing the Phase I reports shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 3.4 Phase II Environmental Audit. If either Party is not satisfied with the condition of the property that the Party is to receive under this Agreement as reported in the Phase I environmental audit, then that Party, in addition to any other remedy and without any waiver of rights, shall have the right to either (i) terminate the Party's obligations to close the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, or (ii) require that additional audits ("Phase II"} be conducted on the that Party's Parcel, at the requesting Party's sole cost, and extend the date for Closing for a period of time reasonably necessary to complete and analyze the Phase II audit. 3.5 Cooperation with Environmental Audit. Each Party shall cooperate fully with the environmental audits referred to in this Agreement. 4. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING. 4.1 Conditions Precedent to Obligations of MDSS. The obligations of MDSS under this Agreement are subj ect to the satisfaction of the following condition: 4.1.1. Title to Parcel A. MDSS shall obtain fee simple to Parcel A as a condition precedent to Closing. 4.1.2. Release of Parcel B from Shared Parking and Cross Access A reement. Parcel B shall be released from the terms of the Shared Parking and Cross Access Agreement which is described in Note 6 in the attached Exhibit B. 4.2 Conditions Precedent to Obligations of CITY. The obligations of CITY under this Agreement are subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions: 4.2.1 LWCF Approval. The National Park Service "Amendment to Project Agreement" dated January 27, 2014 approving the City's Land and Water Conservation Fund Conversion application shall remain in full force and effect. 4.2.2 Honor Park Subdivision CC&R Amendment. City shall secure an amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Honor Park Subdivision to either allow the City uses of Parcel A contemplated under this agreement, or exempt Parcel A from the CC&R requirements entirely. 4.2.3 Storey Park Subdivision Appr~ oval. City shall receive final plat approval of the Storey Park Subdivision, creating a Parcel B as a legal lot. 4.2.4 City Council Approval of Trade. City shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 14: COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 4 - Cit Council shall hold a public hearing regarding the intent to 4.2.3.1 y exchange real property. er notice and hearin ,the City Council must have approved 4.2.3.2 Aft g ' t and authorized the Ma or to sign all necessary papers to complete this Agreemen Y the exchange transaction contemplated by this Agreement. al of Encroachments. MDSS shall effect the removal of any and all 4.2.5 Remov b its tenant that exceed the boundaries of Parcel B and encroach on encroachments caused y City's lot 2, block 1 of the Storey Park Subdivision. ditions Precedent to Obli ations of Each Party. The obligations of each 4.3 Con g under this A reement are subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions: Party g 4.3.1 R_e resentations and Warranties True. The representations and warranties art are true com lete, and accurate as of the date of this Agreement and as of the date of each P y p of Closing as if made as of such date. 4.3.2 Covenants Performed. Each Party has performed all obligations, covenants and a reements to be performed before Closing as set forth in this Agreement. g 4.3.3 Title Polic . The Title Company is prepared to issue policies in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.4. 4.3.4 Execution and Deliver of Documents. The Parties (and others where re uired shall have executed and delivered to the Closing Agent the following: q ) (a) The Warranty Deed(s); and (b) Any other documents necessary to effect the transfers of title contemplated by this Agreement. 4.3.5 Environmental Audit. The Parties obtain and approve the environmental audit(s) referenced in Section 3. 4.3.6 Access Easement. The Parties shall have reached agreement on the terms and conditions of an easement in favor of MDSS providing connectivity of Parcel B to Watertower Lane across the property of CITY. The Parties shall include an escrow instruction to record the Access Easement after Closing. S. CLOSING. 5.1 Definition. "Closing" shall occur on the date on which the deeds to all ro ernes are recorded in satisfaction of the requirements of this Agreement. pp 5.2 Closin Agent. The Closing Agent for this Agreement shall be Pioneer Title g Com an of Ada County ("Closing Agent"). Each Party shall each pay one-half of the Closing p y Agent's Closing Fees at Closing. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 5 - • e of Closin .Closin shall be at the offices of the Closing 5.3 Time, Date and Plac g g . arch 2014 or at such other time, date, and place as maybe Agent on or before the 31st day of M , mutually agreed by the Parties. ' Instructions. The Parties shall execute and deliver to the Closing 5.4 Closing Agent ' e form enerall rovided by the Closing Agent with such modifications Agent instructions on th g y p .. . the Parties that are consistent with the terms and conditions of this as are reasonably made by reement for the u ose of effecting the transaction provided herein. Ag p ~ 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS. oration of Recitals. The recitals set forth in this Agreement are a material 6.1 Incorp and inte ral art of this Agreement and are incorporated herein by reference. g p Governin Law Jurisdiction, and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed 6.2 g ' ted in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. The Parties agree that the and lnterpre courts of Idaho shall have exclusive jurisdiction and agree that Ada County is the proper venue. 6.3 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the obligations to be performed under this Agreement. 6.4 Ri hts Cumulative. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, and to the g extent ermitted b law, an remedies described in this Agreement are cumulative and not p Y Y alternative to any other remedies available at law or in equity. 6.5 Nonwaiver of Remedies. The failure or neglect of a Party to enforce any remedy available b reason of the failure of the other Party to observe or perform a term or condition set Y forth in this A reement shall not be a waiver of such term or condition. A waiver by a Party g i shall not affect an term or condition other than the one specified in such waiver, and (ii) shall O y waive a s ecified term or condition only for the time and in a manner specifically stated in the p waiver. 6.6 Entire A reement. All Schedules and Exhibits to this Agreement are a part of g ' ' he this A reement. This Agreement, together with the accompanying Schedules and Exhibits, is t g entire a reement amon the Parties and supersedes all prior memoranda, correspondence, g g conversations and negotiations. 6.7 Severabili .The invalidity of any portion of this Agreement, as determined by a ~' ., court of com etent 'urisdiction, shall not affect the validity of any other portion of this p J Agreement. 6.8 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instruments. 6.9 Attorneys' Fees. If either party shall default in the full and timely performance of this A reement and said default is cured with the assistance of an attorney for the other party g and before the commencement of a suit thereon, as a part of curing said default, the reasonable attorne s' fees incurred by the other party shall be reimbursed to the other party upon demand. Y COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - b - ' ' e arties concernin this Agreement, the unsuccessful In the event of any litigation between th p g ' ' 'mburse the revailin party for all reasonable costs and party in such litigation shall fully rel p g 'ncludin reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such litigation. expenses,l g ' resentations Warranties, and Covenants. All representations, 6.10 Survival of Rep ~ . ' Parties set forth in this Agreement shall survive the Closing and warranties, and covenants of the shall survive the recording of the Warranty Deeds}. GREEMENT. MDSS acknowledges that this agreement will be 7, EXECUTION OF A SS before CITY executes the agreement and that the execution of the executed by MD .. the CITY is contin ent u on ratification of the terms and conditions of this agreement by g p . . the Meridian Cit Council and the Council's authorization for the Meridian agreement by Y Cit Ma or to execute this agreement on behalf of the CITY. Y Y $. SIGNATURES. Dated this .t 4 day of t-~ , 2014 MERIDIAN DAIRY & STOCK SHOWS, INC. Hillebrand J. Bruijn, Presi t MERIDIAN DAIRY & STOCK SHOWS, INC. Gerald W. Mattison, Secretary Dated this ~ day of ~. , 2014 THE CITY OF ME ;~ -. Tammy deJ~C~'~rd, Mayor ~ , :i'~ ~'. ~,, C , ~~{' ` ~ ,~ T. ~~ ~y ATTES ,~ ~ ~~ .~. ~q C~~V i~~Y a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~._~ ~.~~/, ~ s ~L~°~~~ ayce .Holman, City Clerk ':f~ ~~ ,,~ ~^~~~)c ~ItI~'4yU, COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 7 - STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) a On this ~~ day of Cc~ , 2014, before me, not ublic in and for said state, personally app red Hillebrand J. Bruin and Gerald W. Mattison ~'Y p known to me to be the President and Secretary of the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc, the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. \\~~~~,`~,p~ll BENS ii,~~ • .: ~-•• ~r AUg~`G (SEAL) ,,. ,: r• ,~~/ rrrrrrrrrr~rr ~~ ~~i ~OF ID~~~~ ~~~Nt11111 M N~~~~~ STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: j Idaho My Commission expires: h , Z ~ , 20Z~ On this da of , 2014, before me, a notary public in and for y said state, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of Meridian City, Idaho, who executed the within instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that Meridian City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ,.~~, ~o,~ ~•. • ti,~ e ,~ . ~ ~er ~ ~~,~ ~V • ~' 0 ', • (SEAL) ;'~~ ~ .~~ • r , ~ • • ~p~ + ~ ~,'~ • • ~, r. ,~r~ ,~ , ~ ••..... Not ry Pu lic for Id o Residing at Meridian, Idaho ~ ~~ My commission expires: ~ an ~~ _~a~ p COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 8 - EXHIBIT" A ~ ~ c~ ~ w ~} ~ # ~ V h ~ y K,hj.~3 YI + ~ t ~µ•~ NQ R ~rww~ rrr~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ll„ c ~ ~ ~~~ a ~a ~, .o ~~~~ ~~~ ..~ N ~ ~ ~~ o i ~w 1 t w~ ~ En ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~+ ~' 1fr ~ ~Y "~w (j .~ 1 ~ 1~..~r~f ~...r...J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t f ~ ~1 ~ .d~ ~/~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q w ~ 1 s'~ ~~ , 11 rrr J[~J ~ V ~ ~ ~ rF~ERr t ~ (/~ ~ y ~ k~ ~; y x ~ ~ I ! ' ~ ' V h ,~ ., 1/1 v1 ~''~ ~M~ ~ ~/ ~ `J ,,,~ ~ LL ~,~ ~~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ y F..~ "J~~ ti ~~~ W.. ~/' ~ ~ a Ltd ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ,; o~~~ ~. Q ,. '~ ~` ~ °~ ~zz~ ~<~ ~ ~.~~~ ~w a. "~~~ w W W W COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT - 9 ~., ~~ ~~ ~w ~~ ~~~ ~~o 4, ~~~ L ~ ~~ Q ~~ ~~ ~' ~~ ~~~ ~~w a~ w ~`+~ `~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~~ Q ~i ~~ ~~ ~, R~ ~~ ~,~ EXi~il Bid' B W~ O ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~j~$ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~} ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~~~~~i~ ~~ 73 ~N a~ ti ~~ N~~ N K ~ '.y ~i '` '1 .... f~ µ, y i(v fr~'~{~~~ ~y v .LiiiY((7 !if!!~ ~ ~ LtPt QM' f11t/ +RM' ~ ~63Yni A OMDlA' t~ k ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ I !I ~~~°" a~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~¢ ~~~ ~fOYi ^4 ~~ ~A '~ ,i ~~ ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT 13.00 2 BOISE IDAHO 05/30/2014 03:31 PM DEPUTY Victoria Bailey E Electronic Recording RECORDED -RE, I Iillll VIII IIIA 111111(11111 III Illll ifl[Il llllll 11111111 Illi I f RECORDED -REQUEST OF PIONEER TITLE COMPANY OF ADA C 114042026 RECORDING REQUESTED BYAND WHEN RECORDED RETURN To.- C& O_ City Clerk CLty of Meridian 33 E. Broa&av Aveny Meridian, ID 8?�,42 ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED - Dd NOT REMOVE THE COUNTY STAMPED FIRST PAGE AS IT IS NOW INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT (Space Above For Recorder's Use) WARRANTY DEED For value received MERIDIAN DAIRY & STOCK SHOWS, INC., an Idaho nonprofit corporation ("Grantor"), conveys, grants, bargains, and sells to THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, ("Grantee"), whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and its successors and assigns forever, the following described real property situated in Ada County, State of Idaho: Lot 5 in Block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No 2, according to the plat thereof, filed in Book 68 of Plats at Page(s) 6959-6960, and as amended by Affidavit recorded September 22, 2006 as Instrument No. .106151776, records of Ada County, Idaho SUBJECT TO taxes and assessments for the current year and all subsequent years, together with any and all existing easements, Tights -of -way, reservations, restrictions and encumbrances of record, to all zoning laws and ordinances, and to any state of facts an accurate survey or inspection of the premises would show. This conveyance shall include any and all estate, right, title, interest, appurtenances, tenements, hereditaments, reversions, remainders, easements, rents, issues, profits, rights-of-way and water rights in anywise appertaining to the real property herein described. The Grantor covenants to the Grantee that Grantor is the owner in fee simple of said real property; that the real property is free from all encumbrances, excepting those as may be herein WARRANTY DEED - 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BYAND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: 011Clerk CLly ofMeridian 33 E. Broa4Livay.4venue Aleridian, ID 83642 ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED - DD NOT REMOVE THE COUNTY STAMPED FIRST PAGE AS IT IS NOW INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, C-1— (Space Above For Recorder's Use) WARRANTY DEED For value received MERIDIAN DAIRY & STOCK SHOWS, INC., an Idaho nonprofit corporation ("Grantor"), conveys, grants, bargains, and sells to THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, ("Grantee"), whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and its successors and assigns forever, the following described real property situated in Ada County, State of Idaho: Lot 5 in Block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No 2, according to the plat thereof, filed in Book 68 of Plats at Page(s) 6959-6960, and as amended by Affidavit recorded September 22, 2006 as Instrument No. 106151776, records of Ada County, Idaho SUBJECT TO taxes and assessments for the current year and all subsequent years, together with any and all existing easements, rights-of-way, reservations, restrictions and encumbrances of record, to all zoning laws and ordinances, and to any state of facts an accurate survey or inspection of the premises would show. This conveyance shall include any and all estate, right, title, interest, appurtenances, tenements, hereditaments, reversions, remainders, easements, rents, issues, profits, rights-of-way and water rights in anywise appertaining to the real property herein described. The Grantor covenants to the Grantee that Grantor is the owner in fee simple of said real Property; that the real property is free from all encumbrances, excepting those as may be herein WARRANTY DEL, D - 1 set forth, and excepting those of record, and that Grantor will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this instrument on this day of May, 2014. MERIDIAN DAIRY & STOCK SHOWS INC. B President Hillebran JZ=14 J. Bru Secret ry Gerald W. Mattison. STATE OF IDAHO A ss. County of -C�4& On this J, --X day of May, 2014, before me 6:.754/ '-7-' /111-7 appeared Hillebrand J. Brujn and Gerald W. Mattison, known or identified to me to be the president and secretary of the corporation that executed the instrument or the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official sea] the day and year in this certificate first above written. OTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at My Commission Expires F`&siding at Caldwell, 0 MY COMI' Masion Expires -05-05-2,017 WARRANTY DEED - 2 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT 43.00 12 BOISE IDAHO 05/30/2014 03:31 PM DEPUTY Victoria Bailey SimptifdeRECORDEDElectronicREQUEST Recording I IIIIII VIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII III I'lll IIIIII IIIIII III VIII IIII IIII - RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND PIONEER TITLE COMPANY OF ADA C 114042028 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Meridian, Idaho 83642 ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED-DO NOT REMOVE THE COUNTY STAMPED FIRST PAGE AS IT IS NOW INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE ORIc;iNa� p�� EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easement Agreement ("Easement Agreement") is made and entered into this 301---- day of Viewi 7ve7'c , 2014 by and between The City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation ("Grantor") whose current address is 33 E. Broadway, Meridian Idaho, 83642 and the Meridian Dairy & Stock Shows, Inc., an Idaho Corporation ("Grantee"), whose current address is 1892 W. Hendricks Ct, Meridian,Id 83646. RECITALS: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit A attached ("Grantor Real Property"). WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of the real property described on Exhibit B attached ("Benefited Real Property"). WHEREAS, The Grantee has requested the Grantor to convey to the Grantee a nonexclusive easement on a portion of the Grantor Real Property in favor of the Benefited Real Property for the purposes described in Section 2.1 below. The portion of the Grantor Real Property that has been requested for the easement is described on Exhibit C attached("Easement Real Property")and Exhibit D attached ("Easement Sketch"). WHEREAS, the purposes of this Easement Agreement are (i)to describe the easement granted, and (ii)to establish the relative rights and obligations of the parties regarding the easement granted under this Agreement. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,the parties hereby agree as follows: EASEMENT AGREEMENT- 1 1. Recitals. The parties hereto repeat herein by this reference the Recital paragraphs set forth above as if said paragraphs were set forth here in full. 2. Grant of Easement. For value received, Grantor hereby GRANTS AND CONVEYS to the Grantee a perpetual nonexclusive easement on the Easement Real Property ("Easement"). 2.1 Purposes of Easement. The Easement is granted solely for the following purposes and no other: The Easement shall be used for ingress and egress for pedestrian and vehicular travel by Grantee and its respective tenants, representatives, customers, invitees, and agents. Grantee's use of this nonexclusive easement shall not be inconsistent with and shall not interfere with Grantor's use of the Easement as ingress and egress to a public park. No vehicle operating on the Easement shall exceed a speed of fifteen (15) miles per hour, except as otherwise designated bysigns posted by Grantor. No parking of any vehicles shall be permitted g on the Easement. 2.2 Easement Obstructions. No fence or other barrier shall be erected or permitted within or across the Easement which would prevent or obstruct the passage of pedestrian or vehicular travel; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not prohibit the temporary erection of barricades which are reasonably necessary for security and/or safety purposes in connection with the construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of improvements, including the Easement, on the Grantor's Property, it being agreed by the parties however, that all such work shall be conducted in the most expeditious manner reasonably possible to minimize the interference with the use of the Easement by the owner of the Benefited Real Property, and its respective tenants, representatives, customers, invitees, and agents, and such work shall be diligently prosecuted to completion. 2.3 Relocation Reservation. This Easement is being granted prior to the development of the Grantor's Property. The Grantor has no obligation to make improvements upon the Grantor's Property for the Easement. Grantee shall coordinate the use of the Easement by construction vehicles with Grantor. Grantor hereby reserves the right to relocate the Easement upon the Grantor's Property either before or after the development of the Grantor's Property, upon thirty days' prior written notice to Grantee, provided, however, that the location where the Easement abuts the Benefited Real Property shall not be altered without the express written consent of the owner of the Benefited Real Property. The parties then agree to execute, deliver and record an amendment to this document to evidence any such relocation. 2.4 Covenants and Agreements of the Grantor. The Grantor, on behalf of the Grantor and the Grantor's heirs, successors, assigns, purchasers, or transferee of any kind, covenants and agrees with the Grantee and the Grantee's heirs, successors, assigns, purchasers, or transferee of any kind, that the provisions of this Easement Agreement (i) shall run with and bind the Easement Real Property, and (ii) shall inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable (at law or in equity) by any owner of all or part of, the Benefited Real Property. 2.4.1 Repair and Maintenance. Subject to Grantee's obligations as set forth in Section 2.5.3, below, Grantor shall at its expense maintain all improvements located on the Easement Real Property in good and sufficient repair and shall keep the Easement Real Property in a neat and aesthetically pleasing condition. EASEMENT AGREEMENT-2 2.5 Covenants and Agreements of the Grantee. The Grantee, on behalf of the Grantee and the Grantee's heirs, successors, assigns, purchasers, or transferee of any kind, covenants and agrees with the Grantor and the Grantor's heirs, successors, assigns, purchasers, g ns g or transferee of any kind, as follows: 2.5.1 Indemnification. To indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Grantor, and its successors, assigns and agents from any loss, claim, or other liability of any nature (including attorney fees and costs) that may arise from any use of the Easement by the Grantee and its respective tenants, representatives, customers, invitees, and agents. 2.5.2 Insurance. To purchase and maintain at all times a policy of Comprehensive General Liability insurance utilizing an Insurance Services Office standard form with Broad Form General Liability Endorsement, or equivalent in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence of bodily injury and property damage combined. The policy shall insure the Grantee with the owner(s) of the Easement Real Property as an additional insured and shall also insure against liability arising out of the use, occupancy or maintenance of the Easement Real Property. The policy shall be with a company with a Best's rating of B+ or higher (or equivalent substitute rating). 2.5.3 Repair of Damage. All damage to any improvements caused by Grantee's use shall be repaired by Grantee as promptly as is reasonably possible. If such repairs are not made, the Grantor, upon fifteen (15) days prior written notice, shall have the right to correct such condition. The Grantee shall promptly reimburse the Grantor for such costs. The Grantee shall be liable, and the Benefited Real Property shall be subject to a lien for all costs and expenses incurred by the Grantor in taking-such corrective action, plus all costs incurred in collecting the amounts due. 2.5.4 Installation of Below-Ground Utilities by Grantee. In the event the Grantee shall desire to install or construct utilities to the Benefited Real Property in the Easement Real Property, Grantee shall provide Grantor with not less than sixty (60) days advance written notice to Grantor, which notice shall include a copy of all proposed plans and specifications for the location of such below-ground utilities. The installation of such utilities by Grantee: (i) shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner; (ii) shall be performed at Grantee's sole cost and expense and at no expense to Grantor; (iii) once commenced, all such work shall be conducted in the most expeditious manner reasonably possible to minimize the interference with the use of the Easement Real Property by Grantor; and (iv) the Easement Real Property shall be restored to the condition in which it existed immediately prior to such installation. No installation of below-ground utilities shall be allowed between the dates of May 1st and July 31st of each calendar year. 3. General Provisions. 3.1 Notices. All notices, demands and requests required or desired to be given under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given as of the date such writing is (i) delivered to the party intended, (ii) delivered to the then current address of the party intended, or (iii) rejected at the then current address of the party intended, provided such writing was sent prepaid. The initial address of the signatories hereto is set forth in the introductory EASEMENT AGREEMENT-3 paragraph of this Agreement. Upon at least ten (10) days' prior written notice, each party shall have the right to change its address to any other address within the United States of America. 3.2 Attorney Fees and Costs. If a suit, action, or other proceeding arising out of or related to this Easement Agreement is instituted by any party to this Easement Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, and costs (i) incurred in any settlement negotiations, (ii) incurred in preparing for, prosecuting or defending any suit, action, or other proceeding, and (iii) incurred in preparing for, prosecuting or defending any appeal of any suit, action, or other proceeding. For the purpose of this section, "attorney fees" shall mean and include (i) attorney fees and (ii)paralegal fees. This section shall survive and remain enforceable notwithstanding any rescission of this Easement Agreement or a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that all or any portion of the remainder of this Easement Agreement is void, illegal, or against public policy. 3.3 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue. This Easement Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. The parties agree that the courts of Idaho shall have exclusive jurisdiction and agree that Ada County is the proper venue. 3.4 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the obligations to be performed under this Easement Agreement. 3.5 Rights Cumulative. Except as expressly provided in this Easement Agreement, and to the extent permitted by law, any remedies described in this Easement Agreement are cumulative and not alternative to any other remedies available at law or in equity. 3.6 Nonwaiver of Remedies. The failure or neglect of a party to enforce any remedy available by reason of the failure of the other party to observe or perform a term or condition set forth in this Easement Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of such term or condition. A waiver by a party (i) shall not affect any term or condition other than the one specified in such waiver, and (ii) shall waive a specified term or condition only for the time and in a manner specifically stated in the waiver. 3.7 Successors and Assigns. This Easement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives, purchasers, or transferees of any kind. 3.8 Entire Agreement. All Schedules and Exhibits to this Easement Agreement constitute a part of this Easement Agreement. This Easement Agreement, together with the accompanying Schedules and Exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior memoranda, correspondence, conversations and negotiations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Access Easement Agreement to be executed the day and year first written above. SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT-4 GRANTOR CITY OF MERIDIAN Attest: By Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Clerk GRANTEE MERIDIAN DAIRY & STOCK SHOWS INC. pzy'"*tdkb... • By President Hillebrand . Bruhn Secretary Gerald W. Mattison STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2014, before me personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee Holman, known or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the municipal corporati. - who executed and attested, respectively ,the instrument on behalf of said municipal corp.-. ion, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHE' , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certific- e first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at My Commission Expires EASEMENT AGREEMENT-5 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of (.( dei ) On this day of 1(7fy 2014, before me ',3/73/1 j. personally appeared Hillebrand J. Br4n and Gerald W. Mattison, known or identified to me to be the president and secretary of the corporation that executed the instrument or the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. . mER 1t4, 6 /3' NOTARY PUBLIC 0/11 I RI(DAHO .s wow Residing at 426 t BIA1' 41: My Commission Expires "ft, I Q4 44* is3sid;ng at Caldwell, ID ivly Commission Expire :05-05-2017 EASEMENT AGREEMENT-6 GRANTOR CITY OF MERIDIAN Attest: ,r C 37 By ! ..A1 _ 311 -44-110011b.. .4Y'Qf May Tamm Weerd "�` ili r �f E I L TANS--- y Weerd :^''_,, SF__AL w GRANTEE MERIDIAN DAIRY & STOCK SHOWS INC. By By President Hillebrand J. Bruijn Secretary Gerald W. Mattison STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On this QZ day of 2014, before me kece..z .} , personally appearedTammy de Weerd and , known or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the municipal corporation who executed and attested, respectively ,the instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Alt-1-Ltt , 17-w-j- , IMe% NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO • • Residingat f__..2,Ait,1_1,VJ : -v.' Oil' ' ..4 •4),' O My Commission Expires to).)-s):2-0A Z .Wi ,p. •••%* ' 4?:" : \!N '' ! ••. éiAi4. •••• '•s.•.•••• EASEMENT AGREEMENT-5 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of ) On this day of , 2014, before me personally appeared Hillebrand J. Bruijn and Gerald W. Mattison, known or identified to me to be the president and secretary of the corporation that executed the instrument or the persons who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at My Commission Expires EASEMENT AGREEMENT-6 EXHIBIT A Grantor Real Property The following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows to wit: Lots 1, 2, and 4, Block 1 of the Storey Park Subdivision Lot 5, Block 2 of the Honor Park Subdivision No. 2 EASEMENT AGREEMENT-7 EXHIBIT B Benefited Real Property The following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows to wit: Lot 3, Block 1 of the Storey Park Subdivision Parcel #3121 of Govt Lot 01, Section 18 3N 1 E EASEMENT AGREEMENT-8 • • EXHIBIT C Easement Real Property The following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows to wit: EASMENT DESCRIPTION FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO An easement _ located in the NW IA of Section 18, Township 3 North, . Range 1 East, Boise Meridian and lying across a part of Lot 5 of Block 2 of HONOR PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 2 as shown in Book 68 of Plats at Page 6959 and across a part of that parcel shown on Record of Survey No..8737 �oxx file in the office of-the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Now a part of Lot 2,Block 1,Storey Park Sub, filed in Book 106 pages 14731-14733 of Plats Commencing at a 1/2 inch diameter iron pin marking the southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, from which a 5/8 inch diameter iron pin marking the northwesterly corner of said Lot 5 bears N 0°29'08"W a distance of 204.11 feet; Thence N 89°30'52"L along the southerly boundary of said Lot 5 a distance of 27.82 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing N 89°30'52"B a distance of 24.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0°17'35"W a distance of 158.52 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 171.42 feet along the arc of a 786.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 12°29'46"and a long chord bearing N 6°32'28"W a distance of 171.09 feet to a point; Thence N 56°52'03"W a distance of 69.05 feet to a point; Thence S 22°16'20"B a distance of 21.13 feet to a point; • Thence a distance of. 19.84 feet along the are of a 215.00 radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 5°17'11" and a long chord bearing S 19°37'44" B a distance of 19.83 feet to a point; Thence S 56'52'03"E a distance of 26.06 feet to a point; Thence a distance of156.54 feet along the arc of a 762.00 radius non tangent curve right, said curve having a radius point bearing S 77'56'12" W, a central angle of 1.1°46'13" and a long . chord bearing S 6'10'42"E a distance of 156.26 feet to a point; Thence S 0°17'35"B a distance of 158.60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. • This parcel. contains 8,870 square feet (0.204 acres) and is subject to any other easements existing or in use. Prepared by: .Glenn K.Bennett,PLS IP; ►, i r Civil Survey Consultants, incorporated p December 6,2013 v �tt11l82 i4/4 o. ,g; K. ' • EASEMENT AGREEMENT-9 1 A , 4 EXHIBIT D Easement Sketch > 476v41-AOC,tc.,TZNAt. X 4 NYz xsoevxs s..s-.* /NS r.et. 7d'LX9t7?'..,' gi''.0 g .i...... . r _..•_. ____.•......„...._. .gam \\. t 1.a 1,2 1.11,F. i s2ra _ z u (T t i :. may` ww _w yr t»r.. 4,1 44... 1, ..� '"' ' fri Ar til i 41 __ S o.:17'..'L t 3ti,1SR7' ...-.......,........___c,9_,—........—.. .........___c-'9._..---...""'-...".......+" .4. rn q i 8 `-r to q 9r: C,..4r-- i M S5 ... 0 : ..• .• .-..-:- - ..• M l',1 ei 'R , 9 >.... _ 4 { 1 k...... , w -1.• EASEMENT AGREEMENT- 10 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: E. Continued From February 25, 2014: To Review the Terms and Conditions of the Real Property Exchange between the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows and the City of Meridian at Storey Park MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 8F PROJECT NUMBER= ITEM TITLE: F. Second and Third Reading of Ordinance No. 14-1599: Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain City Owned Real Property to the Meridian Dairy and Stock Shows, Inc. Located at Storey Park in the City of Meridian MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS I CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET DATE February 25, 2014 ITEM # PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Terms & Conditions of Real Property /Meridian Dairy Days PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL V ET T 0 Fm : H _P P iC SUMMARY OF ACTION TAKEN REGARDING INTENT TO EXCHANGE REAL PROPERTY AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY OF ACTION TAKEN: On June 4th, 2013, the City Council of the City of Meridian declared its intent to exchange of real property as set forth below, and to seek approval for the exchange from the National Parks Service (NPS) pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation Fund act of 1965. The NPS approval has been obtained and the City Council is prepared to hold a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether the terms and conditions of the proposed real property exchange are in the City's best interest. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE: The property to be disposed of as surplus property by the City is a parcel of approximately 89,332 square feet of undeveloped land located near the Southwest corner of Storey Park in the City of Meridian. This parcel is a portion of that real property identified Ada County Parcel No. S 1118222720. In exchange, the City would acquire a parcel of non -City - owned real property located at 430 E. Watertower Street, Lot 5, Block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No. 2, Ada County Parcel No. R3720680700 (The Watertower Parcel). The Watertower Parcel is adjacent to the southerly border of Storey Park and would provide for an extension of Storey Park and provide park access to Watertower Street. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho (including but not limited to Idaho Code section 50- 1402), that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 for the purposes stated herein. For further information, please contact the City Clerks Office at 888-4433. Publish: l Otte day of February, 2014 JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: $G PROJECT NUMBER: TEC 14-001 ITEM TITLE: Olivetree at Spurwing G. Public Hearing: TEC 14-001 Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership Located North of W. Chinden Boulevard and West of Spurwing Way Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET March 4, 2014 ITEM # 8G PROJECT NUMBER TEC 14-001 PROJECT NAME Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL E L , 4} �_ s" Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 8H PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: H. Hearing on an Appeal of an Impact Fee Administrator's Decision on an Impact Fee Individual Assessment MEETING NOTES t -¢L amu-�1 .?r��i� � ✓n'7i�.,,`-e- `% CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird David Zaremba Brad Hoaglun Charles M. Rountree TO: Mayor De Weerd and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Baird, Deputy City Attorney City Attorney/HR Department 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 308 Phone: 898-5506 Fax:884-8723 William L.M. Nary City Attorney/HR Director Ted W. Baird Deputy City Attorney Emily Kane Deputy City Attorney RE: Request to set Hearing on Appeal of Impact Fee Administrator's Decision December 5, 2013 BACKGROUND: On December 5, 2013, the Meridian Development Impact Fee Administrator (Stacy Kilchenmann) issued a written determination denying the request of WH Moore Company (fee payer) for a reduction in the Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee for the Red Tail Apartments (Red Wing Sub). LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL: Pursuant to section 10-7-10 of the Meridian City Code, the fee payer may request an appeal of the Fee Administrator's decision. The hearing authority shall be the City Council's "designee." The fee payer has requested that the City Council designate itself as the hearing authority and has further requested that the appeal be held at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on December 17th, 2013. Staff is supportive of this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council consider a motion to hear the appeal on December 17, 2013. Jacy Jones prom: Jonathan Seel <j.seel@att.net> ;nt: Friday, December 20, 2013 9:06 AM fo: Jacy Jones Cc: Ted Baird; Stacy Kilchenmann Subject: FW: Cost of Amenities Attachments: Approximate Cost of Amenities.pdf Jacy: At the impact fee hearing on Tuesday Councilman Roundtree asked the cost of the amenities at Red Tail Apartments. I told him I did not have that information but would get it to the Council and Mayor. Appreciate if you could forward to all parties. Thank you for your help. Jonathan Seel WH Moore Company Wk 208-323-1919 Cell 208-861-2642 Red Tail Luxury Apartments Amenities Description Approximate Cost Community Center 520,000 Pool 283,000 Cabana 135,000 Play Ground 751000 Sand Volley Ball 45,000 Ramada's 30,000 Bocce Ball 291000 Total 11117,000 Jacy Jones crom: Jaycee Holman ant: Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:50 PM To: Jacy Jones; Machelle Hill Subject: FW: February 4th Impact Fee Public Hearing Please put in the packets with this item. Thanks. Jaycee L. Holman Information Services Director City Clerk City of Meridian (208) 888-4433 iholma n(c)meridiancity.org From: Spencer Martin [mailto:martin175@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:31 PM To: Jaycee Holman Subject: February 4th Impact Fee Public Hearing Jaycee, Although I plan to attend the City Council meeting to hear both the Mayor, City Council and public iput regarding the Impact Fee recommendations I am not overly comfortable speaking to groups of people so I am sending a statement that exemplifies my thoughts as an Impact Fee Committee member. This is my first experience at doing something like this so please excuse any errors in proper protocol. I have thoroughly reviewed all information presented to the Committee by the Meridian Police Dept., Fire Dept. and Parks & Recreation. I have had an active background in all phases of first responders and am most recently retired from an organization that is responsible to the insurance industry for determining public protection classifications that can have a major impact on municipal fire services and community citizens. These experiences have given me a unique ability to grasp the information that was presented to the committee to which I felt comfortable with. I have put out the time and effort to interact with both the Meridian Fire Dept. and Police Dept. so that I may become more in touch with Meridian services and infrastructure. I also have been a Meridian resident for 20 years which has seen exceptional rapid growth and still remains a desirable, safe and affordable place to live not to mention being one of the best cities in the nation under 100,000 population to live. In conclusion I highly support the Impact Fee Committee's recommendations. Spencer Martin Impact Fee Committee Member Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: $I PROJECT NUMBER: TEC 14-002 ITEM TITLE: Centrepointe North I. Public Hearing: TEC 14-002 Centrepointe North by Jonathan Seel Located West Side of N. Eagle Road, Approximately a 1/4 Mile North of E. Ustick Road Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on a Final Plat MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET March 4, 2014 ITEM # 81 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME TEC 14-002 Centrepointe North PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL ECETV-FL) J�l 77 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 8J PROJECT NUMBER: FP 14-007 ITEM TITLE: Spurwing Orchard No. 3 J. FP 14-007 Spurwing Orchard No. 3 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located North Side of Chinden Boulevard, West of N. Ten Mile Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Sixty -Three (63) Single Family Residential Lots and Four (4) Common Lots on Approximately 25.85 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District MEETING NOTES -k 'Slldll� yy� vas CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 9A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: A. Community Development Report Budget Amendment for City -Wide Economic Development Audit for the Not -to -Exceed Amount of $45,000.00 MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS n M v m — ----- -+ W ----- ----- :r G fD S < V)i S m w `� :3� O " (C Cr uwi w til m N 1 C G m (D CD rt ( _ G Q O "E3 O Q. IQ (D a �• (p O 0 n cr a M 0 N CD : C w (D 0 m' � vOi " 0 o o� D 0 C1 O0 CL 0 C (D 0 (D -4, �� 3 m m o CD m (D 'o n w C. 0 a w 3 3 n 3 D m CL =3 D 3 wca C o 3 (a ::3 r+ o � 0 (D �-4 m s :3°) w3'mt7 GC -h C.0)0cam° „ °—' (D _+ a O O n� ci C (D 0 w �•' W (D 7 S _w n3 0 CD Q (D c d 0, ? O CL (D d N rl• Ci (D S (D C S r+ (D rt Q N _ v 0 .Gt (D w O c Q `° -, (n a s a v -( M w CL N o Fi, CD Ln <D r►0 w K O O " 3 CL Q CL G' T (D S 3 (n O a � D4 c o: (D O C 7 r"+ c c m v N 7 7 ao a O W e' d 3 t m a a (D 0 CL CD N 0 Cr (D T c (D N Q. o'+ -5m �I' (D a m 3 m ''• (D(D s rt c ((D 0 Q r+ N(D O Spm O vm 3 m ara a (D o 3 m o we m w 0 m o 3' r- o Cr m fl O (D < m a 0 r0+ N a 3 m -o n c CL 0)OL c r+ 3 Q 3 n 3° N m a 3 S o j. m rt 0) a 3 " w r+ m a) M C. m =r r) f a rt rct O ID rr d 3 o m 0 (n rr O 0-h =r (01 (D C (D N O 0. O T N =$ (D 0 (p Q- DA CL " N S =3 o °o' c� w = (D =rm m n a' c (<DC= ((DD rr 0r+ (D 3 O ((A 3 nm) o C. v h N"+ m CL r+ d H (D S N :+ a- a �, s (D < 0 (D O p w d "* a 3 O 3 pSj r+ (n v r+ c d rn-+ N v0i (D DI N �+ O O_ n, am s 3 m o m n m =3 ❑_ mn OO < = 3 m T q 0 o " m 3 (D(D3 ( < O r+ m O 3 -h v 'a(D m c 3 = Q' m rt m 0 O+ O < a O O 0 3 3 (1 (=D n o m 3 d rt, OOQ O C i� G) m -n !� y o N s m m m 3 0 ! G Z n W (D v c v > r+ (D O0 D (D00 J3 o f�rr a cQ O =30 � 0 n CD o� 3`n CD ((GD (D 3 07 p a (D (D ~ c o` (n 3 CD CD o D S -, a .Q c - (Dcn y w S C N O -t CTl N C) c m _Q m 1 U3 o v -n N (D ' N (D CD Z �< rtw1 O lot Z 3 0 =r v (D (D 0 O_ y 3 (D .Z' O O n O 0 0 sy (Q (D y =ou c cc � M N p> E; m 1 0 9 � N � c m. d O CL cL (D C. Q = O C. -� 3 (D (D (Q �G 7 � n M o w 3 cCL� G. 0) cc o N S O y O O G7 0 O � - Q -y N C• D 0 D ,P mai m C w r c = v z Z N o c zvra o 0 o O y m G. =i b" 6 0 z o M 2n ❑ Z r' m ca n 0 �t is m a r x r� O O I ]i� fl. 0) C=) '' 0 m 5' v m0 x O cq a � W c oN CL ooK r s. D c w _ co 'm l N M G) t 0 O � 0 7.4 cD vii cn m 0 N N 0 t 7�' 0 0 r n: o; CL 0 EA 69 O 0 ;um - Q -y -i n w � o c zvra o 0 w O c N 6 0 z o M 2n ❑ Z cCD m ca n 0 m a r x r� O O °. fl. 0) C=) '' 0 m 5' v m0 x O cq a � W c oN CL ooK CL D c w _ o 'm l N O 69 ;um - CD -y m - n w � o c a m o 0 w O c N 0 z o M 2n ❑ Z cCD m ca n M m Al r x o O O ID fl. 0) C=) '' 0 m 5' v 01 t a � W c CL ooK D c w a, o l N M G) 0 0 O 0 7.4 cD vii cn 0 N N 0 0 O o0 ;um - CD 5' m - n w � o c a m o 0 w O c N 0 z o M 2n ❑ Z cCD m ca n M Al r o O O fl. 0) C=) '' 0 m 5' v 01 t 0 (D W c CL ooK D w a, o O C 0 y o m w CD CD 0 CD CL amCDa. n n CD CD (D sv CDQ pm O �. NcID 9 C.v m �. o n op n < rn (D (D 0:,)R m O_ n.v'� N D n 5i o o B g -53 (D P CL�? (S m v Lr o N N CA N o t� C. C C C �O (D ON f1, o �- -^ R. ° o o to -0 Q5p� -0 CDd v CD v v v v -r 0 r N N N N Z7Oo CD m N N N N MN W N -L Fn rr-m* 000 cD -r (D N - Cl) j O c 3 N s�� 00 .�C.O 003 orno0� O rt <0 o 3 CD 0 O (D r+ (D N O 3 h A 69 69 69 {fl 0 0 = N 'C+ O. z h I m o= 20c -<mrK o0 ;um - ,nv>m ooO �mn z M M O N m � y� O 0 o m ❑ ❑ Z Al r o O 0) C=) '' m 01 t ooK a, o l Z M G) 0 O -, 7.4 cD vii cn N N r n: CL EA 69 69 y 0 C) C) O m 0 0, o x o: o0 1 O m , x -r 0 r N N N N Z7Oo CD m N N N N MN W N -L Fn rr-m* 000 cD -r (D N - Cl) j O c 3 N s�� 00 .�C.O 003 orno0� O rt <0 o 3 CD 0 O (D r+ (D N O 3 h A 69 69 69 {fl 0 0 = N 'C+ O. z h I m o= 20c -<mrK o0 ;um Cpp0 ,nv>m cnDC)� �mn z M M r N m � n N ? 0 �. v (D o � 0 o J J CD m 1 N N 0 0 N N C - v4 G) 0 Dm �v ZD oz E z �i -n O v C.v fD N N � y� O 0 o m ❑ ❑ Z .. SCOPE OF WORK — Economic Development Analysis and Plan (02 /18 / 14) Below is a scope of work for the creation of an Economic Development Strategy for Meridian, Idaho. Completing all of the tasks listed below will take approximately 4 months. The budget for completing these tasks is $45,000 (including expenses and 4 trips). There will be two deliverables —1) Economic Development Audit and 2) Economic Development Strategy. The Audit will include information gathered and assessed during Tasks One — Eight below. Consultant will deliver a presentation on these findings prior to beginning Task Nine and during Trip Three. TASK ONE: COMMUNITY AND DATA ASSESSMENT Consultant will build upon existing analysis performed during Fields District Phase I to determine Meridian's competitiveness in the immediate region and the northwest region. Through client and stakeholder feedback, Consultant will identify which communities are Meridian's current competition and develop demographic and economic profiles of each community. We will also compare Meridian to those communities. During Trip #1 lead team members will spend three full days in Meridian to meet with additional key stakeholders and gather additional information, data and reports relative to Meridian's economic development opportunities and assets. Meet with City's public works director and other city staff to receive an overview of major infrastructure considerations as it relates to economic development. TASK TWO: WORKFORCE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ANALYSIS The retention and development of a skilled workforce is crucial to the economic growth of a city. • Analyze the area's demographics from the perspective of current employers and potential recruits. Included in this analysis will be the overall growth of the labor force, unemployment rates, commuting patterns, wage rates and occupational statistics. • Meridian has a great school district system and presence of several higher education institutions. We will dig further into how all of these institutions are set up to help Meridian business and how the relationship with Meridian and its economic developers can be improved. • During Trip #2 Consultants will further analyze items listed in Task Two -Eight. TASK THREE• CLUSTER, LOCATION QUOTIENT AND TARGET INDUSTRY ANALYSIS The industries that Meridian and the Region targets for growth and recruitment are a major factor in strategy formulation, marketing programs and incentive policy. The economic development goals and strategies, marketing plans, and incentives will be focused on these target industries, so it is crucial that our team and Client reach a consensus on the existing state of programs to promote these target industries before Task Nine. • Analyze Meridian's and the Region's existing target industries utilizing location quotient analysis at the 4-5 digit level of NAICS. Some of this analysis has been done and we will build upon that; • We will analyze successful efforts in growing these industries and identify niche, sub -industry growth opportunities; Analyze regional and national trends in federal research areas, regional growth industries, and state industry targets and incentives for target industries; 11 Page EP��i�Sl�S • Identify business retention, recruitment, and workforce training programs currently serving these industries; • We can utilize import substitutions modeling to identify opportunities to replace imports with locally produced goods, particularly in areas of food production; • Develop a profile of each target industry, identifying: successes and failures of current programs to meet workforce needs; industry growth trends, site requirements, and recommendations on whether key industries are justified as "key" industries for the Region. • Identify potential infrastructure needs that must be addressed for Meridian to be successful in expanding these target industries. TASK FOUR: INCENTIVES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLKIT ANALYSIS Understanding Meridian's competitive strengths from a demographic, economic and overall asset perspective is certainly important to developing strategies to build upon those assets. Equally important is understanding the competitive nature of economic development —from the global and regional perspective. • Analyze any incentive deals and economic development tools (eg., urban renewal, investment zones) done or utilized by the city over the last ten years. • Review economic development tools employed by other Idaho communities not currently being used in Meridian. Identify other tools (or ways to use existing tools) that Meridian could employ to further its economic development goals. TASK FIVE: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL SITE ANALYSIS Most businesses want a "shovel ready" site when they are looking at communities for their next business expansion. Communities without such a site often do not make the business' short list of communities to further investigate for their expansion. Therefore, it is crucial to have parks or sites that are appropriate for the targeted industries the Region is currently pursuing. • Analyze reports and plans for existing and proposed infrastructure (drainage, water, wastewater, roadways). • Visit existing public and private business and industrial park to understand the existing assets, the marketability and industry composition at each site, the overall available space and average lease rates. • We will rely on our knowledge as economic developers in the private sector to provide information on available sites. • Assess potential new business and industrial sites, based on the target industry recommendations, and the site requirements of the target industries. • Work with City to map out all sites as part of a marketing piece for economic development use. • Identify potential deficiencies or areas where infrastructure needs to be better aligned with economic development goals. TASK SIX: EXISTING AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Eighty percent of job growth in the U.S. is from existing businesses that expand their operations. Having programs in place to help your existing businesses grow is essential to a sustainable economic development strategy. Developing and nurturing entrepreneurial activity in the Region will be an area we spend extensive time analyzing. The most successful entrepreneurship programs have a clear target market for their services, a strong set of programs, and a defined list of expected outcomes. Economic development financial institutions, local banks and 21Pa11 ge -- �FC;A�Sl1Sj credit unions also play a key role in making the area friendly for the growth of small business. The physical building, or incubator, should be the last piece of the entrepreneurship puzzle to be put in place. • Review programs run out of the counties, municipalities, school districts, and higher education institutions to understand the services offered. • Meet with recipients of these services to also understand if there are additional services that could be developed. • Examine how economic development organizations foster entrepreneurship and how to improve on its efforts. • Develop an understanding of the existing research and tech transfer initiatives taking place in and around the Region and identify opportunities for creation or spinoff research programs or incubators. Universities, technical schools, investors and philanthropists, and members of the public and private sector could all have a significant role to play. TASK SEVEN: TOURISM ANALYSIS We will examine the existing tourism industry in Meridian and the region. • Identify specific opportunities for Meridian to pursue further tourism development (eg., ties to vineyards, agritourism, retail. While this budget does not include a retail leakage analysis, we are able to perform this analysis upon request for additional fee. • Examine how other competitors are attracting tourists, their main tourism drivers and the primary demographic they are attracting. TASK EIGHT: MARKETING AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Our collective experience as consultants and land developers give us the insight into the priorities and interests of site selectors. We will assess web platforms, outreach tactics, and marketing materials to improve Meridian's ability to attract developers. • Review how economic development functions in Meridian and provide recommendations for improvements such as resource management, organizational structure, staffing, and other relevant issues. • Analyze budgets, committee representations, and responsibilities given to each group. • Identify and analyze best practices from organizations in comparison communities. We will share examples of other economic development structures to evaluate best options for the City. Prior to Task Nine, and during Trip Three, consultants will provide a presentation on the findings from the Audit portion of this project. Also during this trip, consultants will have a workshop with client on initial strategies and recommendations. TASK NINE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGY During Task Nine, Consultant will prepare a final draft report summarizing findings from the Audit portion of this project and all recommendations for Meridian to pursue in their economic development efforts. • Write a final plan that focuses on key opportunities, target industries, integrates Fields District and Core efforts, and improves necessary infrastructure improvements to support economic development. • During Trip Four Consultants will provide a presentation to Client and stakeholders on the final plan. 3 P a g e "�""� PROJECT TIMELINE - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUDIT AND PLAN Trip 1 { Trip1 F Trip 3 Trip 4 TASK February March Ari) May June Task One: Community and Data Assessment, Benchma Task Two: Workforce and Educational Institution Anal, Task Three: Cluster, Location Quotient and Target Indy Task Four: Incentives and ED Tool(s) Analysis Task Five: Business and Industrial Park Analysis Task Six: Existing and Small Business Development Ana Task Seven: Tourism Analysis Task Eight: Marketing and Operational Analysis Task Nine: Recommendations and Strategy TM = Project Team Meeting with Client Team ---cu 7- - - -T- ED =Interviews, Focus Groups, Site Vlslts , P=Council/Public Meetings _i 4Page n,s Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 10 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Future Meeting Topics MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: March 4, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: 11. Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 67-2345 (1)(c)(f): (c) To Conduct Deliberations Concerning Labor Negotiations or to Acquire an Interest in Real Property, Which is Not Owned by a Public Agency, and (f) To Consider and Advise Its Legal Representatives in Pending Litigation MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS