Loading...
2019-06-18 Regular CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 6:00 PM (Called to Order at 6:11 PM) 1. Roll-Call Attendance X Anne Little Roberts X Joe Borton X Ty Palmer X Treg Bernt X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Community Invocation by Chris Stoker of Settlers Park Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 4. Adoption of Agenda 5. Announcements 6. Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 M inutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. 7. Action Items Public Hearings for Land Use Applications follow this process: Once the Public Hearing is opened, City staff will present their report. Following the report, the applicant is allowed up to 15 minutes to present their application. Members of the public are allowed up to 3 minutes each to address council regarding the application. If a person is representing a large group such as a Homeowner's Association, indicated by a show of hands, they may be allowed up to 10 minutes. Following all public testimony, the applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to comments. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional testimony will be received. The City Council may move to continue the item for additional information or vote to approve or deny the item with or without changes as presented. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items, unless to break a tie vote. A. Resolution No. 19-2149: A Resolution Appointing Kit Fitzgerald to Seat 7 of the Meridian Development Corporation – Approved B. Resolution No. 19- 2150: A Resolution Appointing Donna Lusignan to the Historic Preservation Commission – Approved C. Resolution No. 19-2151: A Resolution Appointing Jennifer Bobo to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission – Approved D. Public Hearing for Twisted Creek Street Vacation (H-2019-0059) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at the intersection of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Twisted Creek St. – Approved 1. Request: Vacation of approximately 0.19 acres of the existing public right of way of W. Twisted Creek St. E. Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 for Oaks North and South (H-2018-0117) by Toll ID I LLC, Located on the North and South side of McMillan Rd. between N. McDermott and N. Black Cat Rds. – Continued to July 16, 2019 1. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South development and update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project F. Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 for Oakmore Subdivision (H-2018-0118) by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. – Continued to July 16, 2019 1. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and, 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family residential lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district G. (Application Withdrawn) Oakwind Subdivision (H-2018-0119) by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of N. McDer mott and McMillan Rds. – Application Withdrawn 1. Request: Rezone of 16.52 acres of land from the R-15 and R-4 zoning districts to the R-8 zoning district; and, 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 82 single family residential lots and 7 common lots on approximately 16.52 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district H. Impact Fee Public Hearing - Combined Hearing on Proposed I. Amendments to the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan and Proposed Amendments to the Development Impact Fees for Police, Fire, and Parks 8. Ordinances A. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: 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(E)(2), 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. – Approved 9. Future Meeting Topics Meeting Adjourned at 7:29PM All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or the public hearing should contact the City Clerk's Office at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council June 18, 2019. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:13 p.m., Tuesday, June 18, 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Genesis Milam, Ty Palmer, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Kevin Holmes, Kyle Radek, Berle Stokes, Mark Niemeyer, Jeff Lavey and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X__ Anne Little Roberts X _ _Joe Borton X__ Ty Palmer X__ Treg Bernt __X___Genesis Milam __X___Lucas Cavener __X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Sorry we are getting started a few minutes late. But thank you for joining us. For the record It is Tuesday, June 18th. It's 13 minutes after 6:00 or something like that. I can't see the clock. We will start with roll call attendance, Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the pledge to our flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Chris Stoker of Settlers Park Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by Chris Stoker with the Settlers Park Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I would invite you all to join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for joining us. Stoker: Our Father in Heaven, we are grateful to be able to be gathered here together in this meeting. We are thankful for the freedoms that we have in this area and in our country to be able to govern ourselves and to have safety and peace. We are grateful for those who keep that peace both abroad and here locally. We pray that thy spirit may be here in this meeting to help the leaders of our community as they make decisions and hear from the community things that will affect us and we are grateful for the good people that are moving to this area and pray that our leaders might be able to manage that growth in a good way. We say this in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 111 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 2 of 28 Item 4: Adoption of Agenda De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: There are some items which will be requested to be continued when we get there. They are not yet changed. So, I move we adopt the agenda as published. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adapt the agenda as is published. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Announcements De Weerd: Five under announcements. We have Dairy Days or Dairy Days Week coming up. We have plenty of events that run from Wednesday to Saturday. First time ever we have our parade on Saturday. It starts at 6:00 p.m. and so I invite you all to join us in the community parade. Playing in the Plaza. Spark Light Movie Night. I am going to get used to that. And Main Street Market is on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Playing in the Plaza. Hopefully you were able to enjoy that this last Thursday. It was kicked off. So, that will be playing every Thursday. Friday is the movie night and Saturday Main Street Market. Current opening on the Arts Commission and applications are due on June 28th. So, if you know someone, please, have them apply and we are accepting applicants for Meridian City 101 classes. That's in July. You can check out our city newsletter for that. Anything further under announcements? Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, any signups under Item 6? Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are no sign-ins on that item. Item 7: Action Items A. Resolution No. 19-2149: A Resolution Appointing Kit Fitzgerald to Seat 7 of the Meridian Development Corporation De Weerd: Okay. So, we will move right into Item 7. 7-A is Resolution 19-2149 and this is the resolution appointing Kip Fitzgerald to Seat 7 of the Meridian Development Corporation and I would stand for any questions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 112 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 3 of 28 Bernt: No questions. Comment, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Kit is highly qualified and she's going to be a great addition to MDC. She's been there before, so I think it is a great -- great pick for that -- for that appointment. De Weerd: Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: If nobody else has any other comments, I'm happy to make a motion. But I will echo Council Member Bird's comment. I had the great pleasure of serving with Kit on MDC. She's sharp. She's smart. Cares about downtown and our community. Great to have her back. So, with that I move we approve Resolution No. 19-2149. Bernt: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item Resolution 19-2149. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Resolution No. 19- 2150: A Resolution Appointing Donna Lusignan to the Historic Preservation Commission De Weerd: Resolution 19-2150 is a resolution appointing Donna -- boy, I did have to say her last name, so -- earlier and I don't have my glasses on. Is she here? This is to the Historic Preservation Commission. I -- we interviewed Donna for the MDC commission and she loves our downtown, she loves the old buildings and at that point asked her if she would be interested in the Historical Preservation Commission, which she was, and I bring her name for appointment to serve on the HPC. I would stand for any questions. If not, I would entertain a motion. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 113 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 4 of 28 Bernt: I move that we approve Resolution No. 19-2150, a resolution appointing Donna Lusignan to the Historic Preservation Commission. I apologize, Donna, if I messed up on your last name. I apologize. Little Roberts: Second. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-B. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Resolution No. 19-2151: A Resolution Appointing Jennifer Bobo to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission De Weerd: Again I would ask is Donna here? I forgot my glasses at home, so I can't see any of the faces out there. I do know that Jennifer is here, so -- Item 7-C is Resolution 19-2151. This is a resolution appointing Jennifer Bobo to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission and Jennifer brings a background in recreation programs and a real passion that she wants to add to our community and is ready to roll up their sleeves and -- and be a part -- active participant. I would stand for any questions. Bernt: No questions. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Milam. Milam: I move that we approve Item 7-C, Resolution No. 19-2151 appointing Jennifer BoBo to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission. Cavener: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve 7-C. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 114 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 5 of 28 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Thank you, Chris. And, Jennifer, I would love to -- to have you come up to the podium and introduce yourself and put a face with the name. Bobo: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm excited to join the committee. I'm excited to see all the different things that I can do to help. I enjoy the recreation activities here in Meridian. I have participated in quite a few of them, as many as my schedule will allow. So, I'm excited to actually give back and participate in the planning of the -- the different recreation opportunities in the parks and the bike trails and all the things that -- that I enjoy. Is there any other questions? De Weerd: No, but thank you and -- and one of the things that, as you know, the chair of each of the commissions joined me during the interviews and when I was talking to Jessica about what they really needed on the commission, she wanted a commissioner that participated in the events and that -- and that, of course, is one of the first things that Jennifer mentioned is she loves going to the events. She talked about a number of them and instantly it was just like, well, there you go, Jessica. So, we appreciate your interest and we look forward to working with you. Bobo: Great. Thank you. D. Public Hearing for Twisted Creek Street Vacation (H-2019-0059) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at the intersection of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Twisted Creek St. 1. Request: Vacation of approximately 0.19 acres of the existing public right of way of W. Twisted Creek St. De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Item 7-D is a public hearing for H- 2019-0059. Before I open this public hearing -- for anyone that is new here this evening, our process for our public hearings is that we open it to the public hearing with staff comments as they discuss the application, then, the applicant comes forward and has a chance to talk about their application and share any information with Council that's pertinent to -- to their proposal at that point and they have 15 minutes. We open to the public comments, which is three minutes each. There is a timer on the podium screen, so you can kind of keep track of what time you have allotted. After the public's comments Council will ask questions of staff, the applicant, and -- and perhaps follow up for any of those that testified that they may want further information from. I would note that they -- there is a public record on all of these applications that Council have had a chance in advance to review and use that in how they determine the outcome. With that I will ask for staff comments as I open the public hearing for 7-D. Holmes: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. This item before you is the West Twisted Creek Street vacation application. The site is located at the intersection of North Black Cat Road and West Twisted Creek Street between Chinden and McMillan in the R- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 115 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 6 of 28 8 zoning district. The applicant requests an approval to vacate approximately .19 acres of the existing public right of way, West Twisted Creek Street, dedicated with Jump Creek Subdivision No. 1. The recorded development agreement approved this roadway as a temporary access until the collector roadway to the north, North Gondola Drive here, was constructed. This roadway is currently under construction and once completed and accepted by ACHD the temporary access is to be closed and the area converted to a common lot with a pedestrian connection. So, to convert this area to a common lot, as originally intended, staff is recommending that the applicant process a property boundary adjustment application to combine the vacated right of way with one of the adjacent common lots to the north and south. Further, the applicant must submit a landscape plan modification application, so that staff can review the landscaping and make sure it meets code. City water and sewer mains are in place -- are in place in the existing right of way and this application proposes to keep them there. The applicant will be responsible for executing an easement document for these utilities and providing the required access, as well as coordinating with the Public Works Department on any street light issues. Since this vacation request is consistent with previous approvals and the recorded development agreement staff does recommend approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. And with that staff will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any question? The applicant is making his way forward. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. In the -- in the original approval this was supposed to be a temporary access and even when we did phase one the condition was there that it was supposed to be a temporary access. The highway district just recently started accepting those and this was probably one of the very first ones that this happened on and so our engineer and staff from the city and the highway district didn't catch, if you will, that provision and since then I have done a number of these on other roadways and they were platted as common area lots with an access easement and utilities, you know, went through. So, in phase one when this went in we really needed two access points and that's the reason that the highway district was willing to have this be a temporary access point. We, with the final plat for phase three, approached the highway district about, well, why do we have to go through this vacation, how about we just do a license agreement, you guys still own it and there isn't a requirement that it become a common area lot, it really hasn't ever had that -- that condition, there is just that we don't have that access point. But they didn't want to add that on their inventory if they weren't doing something with it and so with that being said we are going through the process with the highway district to get -- get back the property that we gave them before. They are actually asking that I showed them an exhibit up on -- where Gondola comes in up there that the public knows that they are not losing anything by giving this back to us, even though technically in their code we gave it to them in the first place, they -- they don't have to do that, but that's -- that's what they are doing and I think you all understand why the highway district and why, as a general rule, we don't want a lot of access points on these major roads. It's to make traffic and allow traffic to move more freely on those roadways. I mean there is a possibility with the BridgeTower development that's on the other side of the road, that that might even be signaled in the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 116 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 7 of 28 future. Phase three is just above where the portion that you can see that it's finished currently and it just -- it's not a straight connection, but it connects in and comes -- and so we are in the process of -- as staff said building that. The difficulty that -- that I have is that the property line adjustment doesn't -- doesn't make it a common area lot, it makes it a parcel. The concern in speaking with staff is that we recognize that it's common area. Well, common area can be in many forms. It doesn't have to be a lot. The only people that are allowed to accept this right of way is the HOA that has -- that owns one or -- owns both of the common areas on either side. Those are the only people that the property can be given back to is the adjacent property owner. That's, again, a state law provision. We would suggest that instead of doing the -- the record of survey, that we just do a deed restriction on it, that we recognize -- it's an agreement that we recognize that this is common area and that it forever is going to be common area. It would be almost impossible to build anything, because there is water and sewer and utilities going through there. It's very unlikely we are -- we are talking about, you know, such a minute piece that really could have anything built on it. It's going to the HOA. We would prefer to do a deed restriction on that, provide you a copy of that, with the understanding that the HOA is going to maintain it, you're going to see a landscape plan, your staff is, so you're going to have that as an example and, then, us provide you with the deed restriction on it. To me that makes a lot more sense. It accomplishes what you're trying to do. By doing a record of survey it isn't making it a common area lot when you attach it to a common area lot. So, making us do that process you're not getting your value. It's not -- it's not accomplishing what I think you want to have happen. So, that's -- that's where we are at. Other than that we are agreeable with everything else and I will stand for any questions you might have. De Weerd: Thank you, Kent. Council, any questions? Brown: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Madam Mayor, there are no sign-ins for this topic. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony on this item? Council, seeing no public testimony, any questions for staff or the applicant? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Question for staff. Maybe to put a fine point on the specific condition of approval that staff proposes that the applicant suggests should be altered. I'm looking at the -- there is really only a couple of them. It does not sound like this is -- got you on the same page. Holmes: Council Member Borton, the property boundary adjustment is kind of the process we have to track what is -- what is going to happen with this area, this existing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 117 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 8 of 28 right of way. Staff would be open to looking at a deed restriction document submitted with the final plat modification application as the applicant suggests and doing it that way as well and seeing if it meets the same goals that we would be looking for with a property boundary adjustment. Borton: Madam Mayor? Is there anything about a future maintenance and responsibility and control of that lot that would exist under your proposed boundary adjustment that wouldn't be addressed with what Kent is proposing? If it's not a -- if it's not a common lot -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, I think through that deed restriction I think Kent can put those parameters as to how that is to be maintained and what the purpose of that lot is and that's -- and Kent and I talked about it. So, technically, if you really want the applicant to convert this to a common lot, they would need to do a final plat modification, obtain the property from ACHD and, then, go through another public meeting process to convert that. We were trying to simplify the process and go through that property boundary adjustment. We felt if that was tied to a common lot, in essence, we would have record of that record of survey and, then, we could see that and have the landscape plan modification showing that being improved as a common lot and being owned and maintained. So, at this point, as I mentioned to Kent, if they are able to capture that in their deed restriction and they are able to acquire that property and show that as part of their landscape plan modification, then, we can at least scan that in with the application with the landscape plan modification and show that record -- at least the public and future staff members will have that record as to how that lot was to be maintained and owned. I think that's really where it came down to Kevin and I's decision of really how do we want to make -- memorialize that this is meant to be a de facto common lot, even though we don't really -- aren't really making it a common lot. So, I think as Kevin mentioned to you, we are going to have to create easements across that, which, in essence, negates it as a building lot, because you can't build over sewer and water easements. But hopefully -- I think Kent has a lot of experience with it based on the conversations that we have had and we feel confident we can move forward as suggested by the applicant with the deed restriction, if the Council feels comfortable with that as well. Borton: Madam Mayor, just one final -- De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: -- question. Maybe this is a question for Kent. In fact, I will make it a question for you. You're going to come up and close out anyway. Brown: Yeah. Borton: So, we will get you up here. I have not seen this before, so what's the snapshot of -- it's not a common -- an HOA owned lot. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 118 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 9 of 28 Brown: It's a parcel that's owned by the HOA. Borton: Oh, it is? Brown: Yeah. Borton: Okay. So, they would be taking responsibility for maintaining that landscape in the future or what? Brown: What -- I guess doing what staff is asking is actually easier for me than doing the deed restriction, but trying to do what -- what they want to have happen and protect the city, if that's what we are trying to do, that this is taking care of, the deed restriction does that in a better format. When -- when you see records a survey, for example, and you got two buildable lots and they built the house in the wrong spot and they adjust them, those are no longer lots, they are parcels. The lots have gone away, because what realistically your parcel line adjustment procedure is an acceptable means of subdividing. You're taking this sliver off and attaching it here and since the city has recognized that this is a subdivision process that doesn't have to go through a plat and us owning three parcels there -- or three -- two lots and a parcel is -- you know, realistically all the record of survey you would do for you is all the -- instead of owning two lots and a parcel, now I would own two par -- one parcel and a lot that's adjacent in that area and it doesn't -- it doesn't change the use of them or protect them and Bill could tell me I'm all wet, but I feel very confident in what we are doing. The city of Boise actually, when we do -- they allow us to split pieces of property up to four times and they -- they do a notice of buildable parcel and what it is it's signed by the landowner and by the city and it's an agreement that we have done this, we did this record of survey and we are recognizing it that way. I mean we could do something similar as a notice of a vacation or a notice of -- of common maintenance and ask the Mayor to sign it and -- or staff -- ask Cameron to sign it. I don't know if Cameron signs a lot, but have Cameron sign it and my client and we record it and, then, it's -- then it's memorialized -- is that the right word, Bill? That we are planning on taking care of it as a common area. But a deed restriction will do the same thing. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions for Kent? Okay. If there is no further questions, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Move we close the public hearing on H-2019-0059. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 119 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 10 of 28 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve H-2019-0059, inclusive of staff and the applicant's comments allowing the deed restriction solution to be incorporated as a condition of approval in lieu of the boundary -- the property boundary adjustment in the staff report. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Bernt: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. E. Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 for Oaks North and South (H-2018-0117) by Toll ID I LLC, Located on the North and South side of McMillan Rd. between N. McDermott and N. Black Cat Rds. 1. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South development and update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project F. Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 for Oakmore Subdivision (H-2018-0118) by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district to the R- 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family residential lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 120 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 11 of 28 De Weerd: Items 7-E and F, the applicant has requested a continuance to July 16th. The applicant did fail to post the site and pay the renoticing fee and is, therefore, requesting the continuance to the July 16th hearing. Bill, do you have any other comments on this? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, I do not at this time. As you can see they didn't post the site, so we can't really move forward on this particular application. I would share with Council that from discussions with the applicant -- and I know we have another request -- another application on this agenda, Item 7-G, but the applicant's asked to withdraw that one, but they are all interrelated and it sounds like they have a different vision that they want to allow staff -- one, they have to pay the renoticing fee in order -- pay us the money -- show us the money, right, so that we will get that notice and get that out to their neighbors in the surrounding area. But, two, we need -- staff needs more time because of the item -- the withdraw of 7-G, we need more time to modify the MDA staff report for you as you take that under advisement, because that will reflect some of the changes that we have as part of our recommendation of the DA modification. So, that just buys staff some time to update the staff report with that piece of the puzzle being removed from the development agreement modification and allows you to act on those two applications in a month or so. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. So, this was already continued from April and does July 16th give you enough time -- Parsons: Yeah. De Weerd: -- to do the review you need to? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, that would give us adequate time to go through in strike-out underline format that staff report once you act on the next item. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Madam Mayor, no questions. You addressed my -- I just wanted to make sure that the requested time from the applicant met the needs of staff. It sounds like it does. We are good. I'm good. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I would need to have a motion to continue both items E and F. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move that we continue Item 7-E, H-2018-0117 to July 16th, 2019. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 121 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 12 of 28 Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing on Item 7-E to July 16th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Do we have motion for Item 7-F? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move we continue Item 7-F, H-2018-0118, to July 16th of 2019. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-F to July 16th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. G. (Application Withdrawn) Oakwind Subdivision (H-2018-0119) by Toll ID ILLC, Located near the intersection of N. McDermott and McMillan Rds. 1. Request: Rezone of 16.52 acres of land from the R-15 and R-4 zoning districts to the R- 2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 82 single family residential lots and 7 common lots on approximately 16.52 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district De Weerd: Item G. This is the noted application that has been requested to withdraw and we would need the City Council to acknowledge the withdrawal to close out the record. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move that the City Council accepts the withdraw of the application for H-2018- 0119. Milam: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 122 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 13 of 28 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the request from the applicant to withdraw Item H-2018-0119. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. H. Impact Fee Public Hearing - Combined Hearing on Proposed I. Amendments to the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan and Proposed Amendments to the Development Impact Fees for Police, Fire, and Parks De Weerd: Item 7-H is a public hearing for the impact fee and who is going to introduce -- Mr. Lavoie. This was continued. There has been a couple of questions that have been asked since then. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, appreciate the time tonight. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee, we do not have any additional information to provide you above and beyond what has been provided to you via the consulting company Raftelis Consulting, who provided the impact fee study report to you in May and also presented to you that study in the month of May and, then, last month we presented -- or, actually, this month we presented the public hearing from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. So, at this time we have no additional information that has not been presented to you from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. We are here to answer any questions for you that have not been answered to date, but, again, we are here for the public hearing to answer any questions that you may have and we stand at the ready for you. De Weerd: Thank you, Todd. Council, do you have any questions at this point? Little Roberts: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. And, Todd, since it seems like we have had some citizens that have asked the question regarding waiting until the Comprehensive Plan is complete, is that something that the committee discussed? Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Council Member Little Roberts, the comprehensive financial plan -- apologize. The comprehensive -- that's ours. The comp plan -- and now I will go ahead and throw in there the land use study and the budget process. We do not take those into consideration, because those -- the budget is a 12 month fiscal period only. The impact fee is a ten year period. The comp plan we don't take into consideration, because that represents I think more than ten years and so we take the historical data, the data that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 123 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 14 of 28 we have available at our fingertips that shows us these -- the actual data that's occurring in the city and we use that -- or our consultant use the historical data to derive and develop the impact fee study as it was delivered to you in the month of April and May. So, we don't take those into consideration. The -- the comp plan changes year to year, month to month, if you have a change, so we don't use that to drive our impact fee study, we use population estimates from census, COMPASS, and our growth committee and, then, we use that data to make sure that we are calculating the growth projections based on population and, then, derive the impact fee study based on that. So, those three we don't believe impact the way we develop an impact fee study. We are able to present and develop an impact fee study every year. That is up to us. We do analyze the data every year to make sure that we are meeting the financial needs for the city. So, we will adjust it accordingly. Right now we are on a five year schedule. We could move it up to a four, three, two or one year schedule. But we do analyze it based on the actual data that's coming in every year and we make a decision to propose to you based on that. Little Roberts: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Madam Mayor. Mr. Lavoie, thank you. It was a pleasure to have you in our presence. Got a question for you. So, what you're saying in -- in a year if you find that this needs to be amended somehow, that that would be a possibility. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bernt, the answer is yes. We as a committee meet every quarter. We present to them their quarterly results and based on that information we will always analyze the data and determine whether or not we need to move the five year schedule up or keep it at the five year schedule. So, we talk about this at our quarterly meetings. Bernt: Okay. Good enough. Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Lavoie, the Council in the past 36 hours we received a significant amount of requests from our citizens to hold off rendering a decision until the comp plan and the budget is complete. I appreciate the requests coming in from -- from our residents. From a process standpoint is that doable? If -- if that was a decision the Council wanted to -- to support, would you have enough time after that process is complete to be able to hit your October 1 time? Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, it all depends when the land use report is done and the comp plan. If it's finished in a timely manner I guess we would need a couple months to develop the changes within our system. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 124 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 15 of 28 Cavener: Okay. Lavoie: This is changing the way we bill, the way we charge as compared to the current system, so we do need some messaging time to communicate to our building community and we also need some time to develop the changes in house. So, all depends when your comp plan is done. Cavener: And, Madam Mayor -- and to the benefit of Council, that's not just something I'm -- I'm saying we need to get -- I just -- I think it's important that when we get a request from our citizens to at least hear from the people who will be charged with implementing it, even if that's you. De Weerd: And I -- and I really think that Todd tried to address that -- that it would not have an influence on the -- the population data and demographics that went into the research on developing that impact fee either. So, it's unrelated. Mr. Bernt. Bernt: Madam Mayor, thank you. Just to clarify, I believe this comp plan won't be ratified until well after October, if I'm not mistaken. So, it would not meet the October 1 deadline for sure. Just to state that. De Weerd: Todd, can you tell me why the committee -- I know there has been concern that this needs to be updated and the new impact fees assessed. Why -- why is there an October begin date? Lavoie: Madam Mayor, we picked on October 1 due date to allow us to message correctly and allow us to make sure we program our internal systems to meet the new charging structure. We are changing the way we apply the rates. Right now we have a residential and multi-family. We are now moving to a four tiered system which was presented to you by Raftelis. So, we need to do some computer programming, but we want to make sure we have the time to communicate that to our building community that these other changes, along with the commercial -- commercial is going from a one to a two tier system, so we feel that we want to be able to communicate with the building community and internally to make sure we have all the processes, all of our policies updated, to meet the new code -- code or ordinance that you -- that we approve if it gets approved. De Weerd: Thank you. Any other questions for Todd. Thank you, Todd. Lavoie: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you let us know who signed up to testify. Johnson: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. First while you were in Executive Session we did receive an e-mail from Sally Reynolds with the list of people that had signed a petition, that you received individually, so I have loaded that in your packet for you to access if you would like. Also there are eight people signed in this evening for the hearing. Two wish to testify and the first is Sally Reynolds. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 125 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 16 of 28 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Sally. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Reynolds: Good evening, Madam Mayor. My name is Sally Reynolds. I reside at 1166 West Bacall Street in Meridian, Idaho, and I very much appreciate the clarification as to why those two items do not play a role in the process of the impact fees. I mean as a resident I -- I think that they should, but they don't. So, I won't sit here and argue that point with you. I am on the Meridian steering committee comp plan right now and it is my understanding that in the future land use now there are currently 162 land use changes. Now, if that -- how and if that impacts the population and what their trends are, that -- that's not my job, I'm not an expert, but I would be very curious as to how those future land use changes may, in fact, influence the population and I think it would very -- be very helpful for the consultant to take a look at the FLUM, even if it is the first draft that we have, even if it's not the final draft, but to get those 162 land use changes. Furthermore, I -- the one part of the ordinance it does say in Appendix A the city's adopted future land use map indicates land uses, density and intensity of development as required by Idaho Code. The surface area is defined as all land within the city limits in Meridian as modified by time. So, as I understand it, the future land use map does have an impact on how the city develops and so I think that it should be in there. The other point that I will make is - - as far as the four tier system goes, while I appreciate that we are really trying to allocate the dollars and the impact fees for what the size of the dwellings are, that seems really broken down and a lot more complicated. It sounds like they are going to have to do a lot more programming for that and as BCA has stood here and testified, the size of the houses, square footage, are going down and the demand for that is being driven by millennials and by the aging population and people who don't want to take care of yards and want smaller homes and while that's -- that's great and that's where things are going, we are not going to have those impact fees for those two bottom tiers are actually being decreased. So, we are not going to be getting any revenue as a city to fund the public capital gains that we have, because it will actually be decreasing and with the amount of multi-family and the amount of smaller R-15, R-40 that's been approved over the last year, I can see that trend being a real problem when it comes time to try and fund these capital improvements. Thank you. De Weerd: Sally, I guess I -- did you read the impact study itself and why they went to this -- this model that they are recommending? The premise is our -- our service levels are dependent on population base and the smaller units generally bear a smaller number of people that reside in them and so that -- that is why they went that direction and so I just wanted to make sure that that was noted. Reynolds: Okay. Thanks. And I did note that as far as the square footage with the number of bedrooms times the amount of people, the multipliers and all of that, and so I understood how that worked. I guess the question was three bedrooms and below accounted for something like almost 70 percent of all of the dwellings and so it would seem to make more sense to me to go ahead and so we have two tiers, the ones that are three bedrooms and below and, then, those that are above, although I mean I -- but I see they are trying to get down to -- to detail. But yes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 126 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 17 of 28 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Sally, a question for you. I assume -- I know you pretty well. You're great at organizing and you get people to be very passionate about issues affecting our community and I applaud you for that. So, I'm going to make an assumption that you helped kind of coordinate to have some people reach out to us, which I also appreciate. Based on what you have heard tonight from -- from staff and at least maybe some encouragement from Council to review this maybe on a more frequent basis than we have in the past, do you feel that addresses some of the concerns that you and your fellow neighbors were voicing in -- in the letter that you sent us? Reynolds: I think that it -- it certainly does -- sorry, Madam Mayor and Council Member -- De Weerd: That's all right. Reynolds: -- Cavener. I certainly do believe that it answers why this Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM aren't included in the process and I will go ahead and communicate that to the public. I think overall there is a feeling of, you know, why -- why haven't fees been changed in the last five years. There is not an understanding of the state code. And I think it would even help to know that they are monitoring it every single quarter, because this is something that the residents are concerned about. So, I am happy to disseminate any information that you have and if the Mayor's office and the communication would like to let us know a little bit more about the process -- I mean there are some residents that don't even understand that it's just capital improvements. So, they hear it and they think we need more infrastructure and it's not all the way across the board. So, there is definitely some education that needs to be done and I'm happy to help with that. De Weerd: And it might be worth noted -- noting that the Impact Fee Committee did come to Council a couple years ago and recommended increasing the fees and so they do monitor it and -- and as Todd mentioned it's on a quarterly basis that we can definitely keep in touch with how many permits are coming in, what the sizes are, and if we feel that we are collecting at the level we need to. Reynolds: Thank you so much, Mayor and Council. Johnson: Madam Mayor, the other sign-in was Christine Herwy. De Weerd: Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Herwy: Christine Herwy. I live at 2373 East Taconic Drive in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 127 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 18 of 28 De Weerd: Thank you. Herwy: I am -- I do live in Black Rock. I am -- I'm here on behalf of the Southern Rim Coalition. Our typical speaker is out of town and so I'm helping along with that. I probably don't have a lot to add, but I do want to say that we are seeing -- and we have heard over the last several years when we come to Council meetings, we have lots of developers up here indicating that they are looking to build smaller lots, smaller houses. We are definitely seeing that all around us, enough though we are advocating for larger. So, we are concerned that the -- the -- the numbers that they use for the 2014 and 2018 data sets for the proposed ordinance and the projections, we are concerned that those are -- in our feeling not adequate. We have seen in Meridian -- especially if you have any kids in the schools, we have seen a boom that just seems like it will not stop and we are concerned that the proposal for the impact fee schedule, as Sally has indicated, the bulk of these are going to be smaller houses we feel and that is where the biggest cut has been and so we are concerned that that is not going to, long term, be able to adequately -- what's the word I'm looking for -- fund city operations. We are already having troubles with the -- with our growth. We are already having troubles with schools and we end up building past the roads for kids and families to be on and so we are concerned that the - - the calculations seem to be based on the 25 -- 2,501 square foot to 3,200 square foot, where we are feeling like we are going to be seeing quite a few more smaller dwellings and that is where the biggest increase. We also have seen that the impact fees for builders during the boom were not adequately realized. So, the fee that we thought that they were going to be paying, they weren't paying the full fee and so what we are wondering is -- and the gentleman that was speaking before saying that we can -- we can look at these in a year and we could tweak them if need be, those are my words, but we are concerned that -- would that be done? And how often would that be done? It just doesn't seem -- you know, I did read the report and it's very detailed for every kind of service that would possibly need some kind of attention. You know, we are also feeling like many of you have heard that maybe the cart is before the horse and it would be great if we could wait until the comp plan was done and the budget were passed, so we could look at what that means and, then, we could look at the impact fees, but we are not quite sure why there might be such a rush and if we could wait, that's what we would ask for. De Weerd: Thank you, Christine. We appreciate you being here. I'm thrilled that we have citizens that care about our impact fees. For years we haven't had very many people even weigh in or feel that they had a voice in the impact fees and our impact fee committee certainly meets quarterly and you can definitely sit in and listen to the discussion. Impact fees are not easy to calculate and understand and that is why we have a consultant that helps us pull all the information together to make sure we follow the state code and that we are thoughtful in the method that we choose to -- to bring forth for Council's consideration. Mr. Clerk, any further signups? Johnson: Madam Mayor, of the eight that signed in, those are the only two that indicated they wished to testify. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. I see Denise coming forward. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 128 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 19 of 28 LaFever: Good evening, Mayor Tammy and Council. De Weerd: Good evening. LaFever: Denise Hanson-LaFever -- or Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way. I'm going to restrict what I'm going to talk about just to what we ended with last time. So, the concern that I have is at the last meeting we talked about dwelling units not being incorporated in the impact fee ordinances as discussed at the last meeting. We talked about incorporating it. I reviewed the ordinance that's on file and I don't see where it's Incorporated. I do see climate control floor area. If I was a developer I probably would hire a lawyer and say the whole entire building is climate controlled, therefore, I want to have it done at a cap and not, you know, unit -- dwelling unit. But I just don't see where it's incorporated and that really concerns me. So, can we put up the big one first, Bill or Chris? Yeah. What I did is I went to your building permits that are on file and I just -- first page on that one. I'm not sure how to get to it. So, I went to the building permit files and I went back through and inserted actually three columns. I figured out the average square footage for new homes in yellow. I figured out right here that we have the units of square footage for multi-family and the buildings per square footage and, then, I applied the rates to those. You can't see the column for that. Is there a way to move it. Okay. It's actually two pages. Johnson: I can bring it up over here if you have it with you still. LaFever: That's okay. Just move to the other one. So, what I did is this whole entire sheet of the building permit is in a lot of detail and so all I did was -- to make it easier to talk about, I lifted the totals off of those -- off of that sheet and placed them on a separate sheet that's easier to view and what this -- what I'm looking at here is this is by fiscal year, because that's how building permits are done is by fiscal year, and what I did is I did that simple calculation of average square foot for new homes and I can see by the building permits that they are -- they are trending down and what I'm seeing over here with the multi-families -- I took -- if we were just looking at the structure of the multi-family and I apply the cap rate of 3,433 dollars, I come up with this year alone, which is only through April 30th, of 195,681 dollars and, then, if I go back and I look at it and say, hey, the minimum that we are going to look at by unit is 1,000 square feet and we are going to apply that rate, you can see that the number increases to 560,000 dollars. That's a big difference in calculations and if you apply that to the year before, the difference between looking at a multi-family structure, opposed to a door, those are some big numbers. It's a big calculation. So, I'm very very concerned about the calculation. I'm also concerned about doing the allocation recovery calculation based on 2,501 through 3,200 as the allocation recovery basis, because I don't feel that's the way we are trending. Then that brings me to the questions which Todd can answer is how do you incorporate multi-family into the calculation? Do you calculate it as a whole building? That trends the number up. Do you calculate it one door at a time or one dwelling unit at a time? That drives the number down. So, either way up, down, what -- either way you look at, I don't feel that the allocation method is fair. But -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 129 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 20 of 28 De Weerd: Denise, you need to -- LaFever: I'm going to close. That's what I'm doing right now. Bernt: I just had a question for you. What would be your continued opinion in -- LaFever: I think we need to take a serious look at the allocation recovery and we need to take a serious look at multi-family and I would break them out and, then, I would go back and look at does it make sense to have one simple rate or do you tier the rates, but I would definitely treat multi-family and -- and the new houses separately. But I would -- I would go take one more run around it and run some numbers and do some calculations and grind on the recovery, what happens if -- if we get the answer wrong, what does that do to my recovery. I don't want to see the shift go to the -- to the tax burden to the residents. I want to keep it balanced and fair. Bernt: Madam Mayor. So, what you're saying, Denise, your -- your concern is mostly with the thousand square foot mark and below, not necessarily the next level or even the next level about that, is that -- is the -- basically, it's the -- it's the -- it's the multi- family footage amount that you're talking about? LaFever: I have three concerns. I have my -- my one concern is the dwelling units is -- from what I see is not incorporated as what was promised at the last City Council meeting, that it's not incorporated within this ordinance. Two, I'm concerned about the allocation recovery and the impact that the multi-family has on that calculation and how it is incorporated. And, three, I'm concerned about the trending of -- instead of basing on 2014 to 2018 numbers, that we are trending down already on the square footage of homes. So, those are the three things I'm concerned about and they all -- two of them wrap around the one thing that I'm concerned about, the allocation of the recovery and the multi-family how they pay, but we were promised a dwelling unit incorporation into this and I'm very concerned that that definition hasn't been properly incorporated within this and, like I said, if I were representing the developers as a CFO, I would want to call my lawyer and say, hey, could we go back and take a look at what this says controlled square footage, can we take a look at the whole entire building, because I really like that cap rate. That's like awesome. You know, if you're a developer and you're -- you're looking at the bottom line. But it's not so great if you're a citizen, so balance. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I can answer the dwelling unit question that Ms. LaFever has brought up. That was in the definition code that you -- changed last week. So, it's in the code now. So, it has been amended. It's a definition in the code. LaFever: I'm concerned that it's not in this ordinance to drive that calculation. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 130 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 21 of 28 Nary: In the -- oh, it's in the entire section of the ordinance regarding -- LaFever: I would much rather see it -- De Weerd: Okay. Can I -- LaFever: So, I disagree with that. De Weerd: Okay. LaFever: Very strongly. De Weerd: Any other questions for Denise? Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who wishes to provide testimony? Okay. Any of our impact fee members care to comment and wrap up? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Can Mr. Lavoie address the multi-family question, since it was raised. Since it was raised, Madam Mayor. Just describe how a multi-family project would utilize this proposed impact fee schedule, how it would be applied to a project. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, within the ordinance there is a statement that describes how multi-family will be calculated. I will sum it up, but if we need the official verbiage we can ask Bill to read it off to you, but what it is -- total square footage of the building for multi-unit complex, we will ask the developer how many dwelling units exist within that whole unit, we will take the average that -- that comes out to, so let's say you had a hundred square feet total building, you have ten units, that's ten square feet per unit. You, then, look at the schedule and you pay -- Milam: Zero. Lavoie: In this case zero. Yes. You did good, Genesis. But that's how it would be. It's a mathematical calculation of asking how many units exist within the dwelling -- the actual structure. I think we use building structure within the ordinance and, then, it's divided and, then, you use the scale to figure out what the average size is. So, if the average size of all the dwelling units is 1,200 square feet, you multiply that rate, which in this -- this case is 1,309 dollars times so many units and that's your impact fee revenue -- or impact cost. Does that make sense? Borton: Yes. Milam: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 131 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 22 of 28 Lavoie: That's more clear and we did a better job in the ordinance. Sorry. De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: It does, it makes it -- it's really clear to me, but I just want to make sure that there would be no possible way for a developer to slide something through -- I'm not saying that they would, but that's kind of what -- you know, what the worry seems to be and using it all as one -- one building, so -- Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Council Woman Milam, again, we worked with Legal, we worked with the Building Department to construct some language that we felt that would protect us. Again, Mr. Nary, if you have any comments on that. Then today we think we have it covered. Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you look at the table -- right. So, housing unit and the dwelling are the same thing and our code defines dwelling as the individual units in a building. And so, again, as we talked about -- I mean that's -- it's the entire ordinance, it's not just the table. That's the only portion you're talking -- you're changing, but the entire ordinance drives -- the fee is calculated based on the square footage of the residential units and it's based on the average in the -- in the definition. So, I don't think there is a -- I don't -- I don't know what somebody could do to fly under the radar. I don't -- I don't know what that means. So, I think it's clear. Mr. Baird is the expert. He thinks it's clear. The building department thought it was clear. If you're not -- if you're concerned we can certainly try a different approach, but we think it's clear enough and so I don't know what else to do to write it differently. Bernt: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bernt. Bernt: One -- two questions. First question is what's the -- do we know what the average square footage of a multi-family unit is in our city? Was that ever calculated or brought up? I mean roughly. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Mr. Bernt, I don't have that information. That information was collected by the professional consultant -- by Raftelis Consulting, they are the ones who collected the information from the Ada county assessor and our community development team, but I don't have it off the top of my head what the average size of a multi-family unit is. I apologize. Bernt: Is a Raftelis representative here this evening? Lavoie: Mr. Brent, Raftelis, Dwayne Guthrie, our professional representative, he is not here today. He was here the -- last month for the presentation. Sorry. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 132 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 23 of 28 Bernt: Second question. I just want to confirm this. Let's just hypothetically say that, you know, we find out that, you know, this -- this need to develop -- someone in the development community is maybe skirting the system, maybe, to a certain degree and is able to somehow circumvent the process -- I mean we are still in a position -- and I'm like City Council Woman Genesis -- Mrs. Milam, I don't believe that would ever happen. I have no reason to believe that that would happen. But are we in a position where we can say, hey, let's look at this and redo it in four or five years. Lavoie: Mr. Bernt, we can actually do another study tomorrow. We can do as many studies as we see -- we feel fit. There is no state code that states you can't do it more than once every week. You can do -- you have to do it at least once every five years. So, it's really up to us if we ever feel uncomfortable, we can present to you a request to open the study and conduct an analysis using a consultant again. Bernt: Follow up. Just one comment. And I don't say this for myself, because I don't feel that way, but there are -- like Council Member Cavener just said, we receive a lot of e- mails and that was -- it seemed to me like the major concern, you know, these lesser square footage units and so I just wanted to create some levity and say, hey, you know -- you know, there is a way in which we can, you know, verify and check that we're collecting what we need to collect. So, it sounds like it's -- De Weerd: You know, I -- I would say that if you look at it and early on when -- when we did this extensive land use map in the early 2000s, we looked at what the potential density of population will be per square mile and if you look at an R-15 where you can -- where you would consider 15 units per acre versus an R-2 or an R-4, you're looking at a collection per square mile of -- for the R-15 of 11,715. If you consider an R-4 at the size of 15 -- the 15,000 square foot or the 2,500 square foot, you're collecting per square mile 8,400 or -- or down to 7,100. So, you do collect a higher amount on the higher -- or the smaller units and the higher densities. So you are -- you are considering that -- the smaller unit and more -- more units. I just did some math. Any other questions for Todd? Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Todd -- sorry. So, since this has been an issue I think at least for myself, as far as the timing goes -- because I understand the concern. When I first read the report I was thinking that there was not nearly enough for police and fire being collected and I understand it's only for capital, but I'm not an expert in the field, you guys have a team you work together all year round for year after year, you hired a consultant, an expert in this field, so I'm -- in the field that I'm trusting the process, trusting you and the experts and I appreciate that. My question I guess would be -- since we are going through this comp plan change and everything, after -- maybe after another -- you meet quarterly, so there is maybe a quarter, two quarters, give an update to the Council on where you're at, you know, where things are, even if it's hunky dory or, hey, we might be off a little I think. That would be great. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 133 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 24 of 28 De Weerd: I think it would be good to ask the impact fee committee to give either a semi annual or an annual report and -- and certainly can. Even with the new land use map, you're not going to see instant change. We have pipeline lots that are -- are yet to be filled and they are not at those smaller densities, so -- or smaller homes. I think it is important to -- to keep on top of it and to have more frequent reporting from -- from the committee and -- and the committee can -- they -- they already report back to the committee for their discussion. It's very easy to bring that discussion back to Council. And, you're right, this -- this has been only when we update or the committee comes back and says we're not charging enough we need to be in front of Council. So, if you -- and I don't know what frequency Council would like, but I -- I think more than five years or two to three. Cavener: I agree, I think almost a combination. It would be great after this is implemented six months later we have somebody come back, but when we started this process -- and I don't know if anyone's changed their mind. I floated the idea of having an annual update, look at the CPI, and if we need to make any small changes along the way on an annual basis. That's something I guess, Todd, I would ask you to take back to the committee to gauge their feedback. I think having you guys come back on an annual basis just for an update more than anything, but I would also like to see that if there is any substantive changes that you guys bring that along with any changes based on CPI. Lavoie: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, we can definitely bring back an annual report. Again, we delivered to you an annual financial update, but it's not an official presentation from the team. Will just find a representative to present to you the annual results for you and most likely occur probably in the month of February, that's when we have our audited financials completed and I will show you the true representation of the fiscal year activities. I don't think that will be a problem at all. Cavener: Madam Mayor, if I can, for the benefit of everybody in the room, I know you know this and Council knows this. The Impact Fee Committee is citizen based and I think that we have so many in our community that really thrive on engaging and participating. Council Member Bernt is a previous participant in that committee and so this is really the Council relying on our citizens to help drive that conversation while using expert analysis. I appreciate it. Lavoie: Thank you. De Weerd: Any other final remarks? Lavoie: No final remarks. I think you have stated it. The professional report that was conducted by Raftelis Consulting we have supported their information. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee voted unanimously to support the information that Raftelis developed for you. We, as the Finance Department, Legal Team are administrators of the Impact Fee Committee, so we stand with -- in support of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and their support of the Raftelis product that they delivered to you in May. And we appreciate Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 134 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 25 of 28 the support that you have for it and hopefully approve what the full cost recovery method that the impact fee study has presented to you. So, I appreciate it. De Weerd: Thank you, Todd. Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor, I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-H. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I think it's been extremely helpful having these additional hearings and getting this additional information from the developer community, the public and having some additional time for dialogue amongst the seven of us. I think it's provided some better -- better vetting and also some better explanation as to what this process entails every time we do it, that the remarks that each organization has stated -- and this seems to capture the -- the new growth created capital costs be recovered through this mechanism. So, growth pays for itself, allowing our city to maintain this specific level of service with the Police, Fire, Parks. The analysis that was done to generate these figures seems to do that. I think the explanation that's come from these meetings describing the -- the technical disconnect between the comp plan and our budget and impact fees is probably a discussion we will have every time we do this. It's a good one, though. I think it's helpful for the public, as well as all of us, to remain aware of that. I appreciate what we have saved from the development community, that acknowledgement that growth should pay for itself and the legislators created this mechanism to allow it to happen. I like the proposal in several ways. Understanding it's using a tool to keep these costs away from our existing taxpayers, but having the additional layers in the residential based on -- on the square footage gives it an opportunity to be more fair and it allows it to be a little more flexible and capture that maybe a higher fee if there is larger structures that go -- get built going forward or smaller structures going forward, it doesn't over collect fees. So, I think that's a positive as well. So, hats off to the committee and the analysis. I think it's definitely supported by Idaho Code. I think the explanation did a fantastic job in trying to describe to the public the basis behind it. I'm not supportive of delaying it. I think the analysis supports doing it now effective in October 1. I think it just gives us the soonest date to collect a more accurate fee to capture the capital improvement plan. So, I'm supportive of that and I am extremely supportive of a lot of the comments that I have heard that this -- in light of the rate of growth that our community has, that we should certainly look at this and almost assume we will do this again in two years. The reports are great, wonderful data, but our city very well may pivot in a way that members of the public have described. It may actually have a lot of small home construction that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 135 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 26 of 28 necessitates looking at it again. We should do this in two years and just assume it's going to happen. It's not part of the ordinance, but probably the most prudent way to ensure any concern from the public gets addressed quick so we can pivot if necessary. So, I'm supportive of the ordinance as presented in light of all of that discussion. I appreciate the input from everybody. I think it's a good -- a good solution all in all. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Borton. Borton: A whole lot of thought, but -- it's been good. Good discussion. Bernt: Nothing more to add. That's perfect. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Cavener: It supports my feelings for the most part. Item 8: Ordinances A. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: 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(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee Effective Date. De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further I will move to Item 8-A, which is the third reading of Ordinance 19-1827. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is 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(e)(2), Meridian City Code, known as the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Okay. Council? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Ordinance No. 19-1827. Cavener: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 136 of 348 Meridian City Council June 6, 2019 Page 27 of 28 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance 19-1827. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: I would -- I know we have one of our citizen representatives here. I know you have put a lot of time and due diligence to this and -- and I hope to all of you who have spent countless hours on -- on the impact fee, I -- I know you have heard a lot of the testimony, I'm sure you have had an opportunity to read some of the public record. I know that that will be part of the discussions in the next quarterly meeting, but I want to thank you for the time and the -- the attention to detail that you have put in this. This is -- this was a very thorough study. It's -- it's the best that we have seen. I think a lot of work was put into it, so just on behalf of myself and Council, thank you. I know there is a real effort to make sure that growth does pay its -- its share and we appreciate your attention to that. So, thank you. Item 9: Future Meeting Topics De Weerd: Okay. Anything under Item 9? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just sort of hijacking this topic. Not really a future meeting topic, but one of our -- our ongoing tasks as Council is to use this time between now and the 8th'ish to get budget comments to our Finance Department, so they have got time to vet them, get them back out, so there is no surprises on the 8th. So, I'm not seeing stuff come out. I know Jenny compiles and sends it out, which is fantastic. So, the sooner anybody -- if you have questions -- can get that process started this month, the better. There is not -- the future media topic is July 8th. It's much more productive for all of us to have all of that vetted, whatever it is, before the 8th. So, get comments to Financial if you could, please, and that future meeting will go wonderfully. So, thank you, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. If there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Milam. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 137 of 348 Meridian City Council Junelj$ 2019 Page 28 of 28 Milam: I move that we adjourn. Little Roberts: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:29 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) (/ ZZ ! S MAYORT DE WEERD DATE APPROVED �5AUGi,_ E IDIAN DAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 5 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Announcements Meeting Notes: EIDIANDAHO ?- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 6 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their• elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist ,you in resolving the matter following the meeting Meeting Notes: 6/18/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/18/2019 Hearing Type: Public Forum Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm DashDetai Is?id=251 1/1 EIDIADAHO N.,+-- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 A Project File Name/Number: FesJLA CO Item Title: No. 19-2149 A Resolution Appointing Kit Fitzgerald to Seat 7 of the Meridian Development Corporation. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.A . Presenter: M ayor D eWeerd Estimated Time f or P resentation: 3 minutes Title of I tem - Resolution No. 19-2149: A Resolution Appointing Kit F itzgerald to S eat 7 of the M eridian Development Corporation R eso A ppointing K it Fitzgerald to MD C C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Reso appointing K it Fitzgerald to MD C Resolution 6/13/2019 F itzgerald A pplication B ackup Material 6/13/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/14/2019 - 9:11 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 4 of 407 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 19-2149 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, AND PALMER A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, APPOINTING HIT FITZGERALD TO SEAT 7 OF THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code section 50-2704, Meridian City Code section 1-13-4 charges the full City Council with appointment of members to the Board of the Meridian Development Corporation; and WHEREAS, Seat 7 of the Meridian Development Corporation is currently vacant; WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find that it is in the best interest of the people of Meridian to appoint Kit Fitzgerald to Seat 7 of the Meridian Development Corporation; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That Kit Fitzgerald is hereby appointed to Seat 7 of the Meridian Development Corporation for a term to run through August 31, 2019; Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. +h ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of June, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this Ieday of June, 2019. APPROVED: ri W-� AgE Mayor Ta ATTEST: P'pkp, o Ali(, Js o ' City or Cle ""o §t L the rr2F RESOLUTION APPOINTING KIT FITZGERALD TO SEAT 7 OF MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PAGE I OF 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 6 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 7 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 8 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 9 of 407 EIDIANC-- DAHJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 B Project File Name/Number: RtSj a'o, Item Title: OVIUM=s No. 19-2150 A Resolution Appointing Donna Lusignan to the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.B . Presenter: M ayor D eWeerd Estimated Time f or P resentation: 3 minutes Title of I tem - Resolution No. 19- 2150: A Resolution Appointing Donna L usignan to the Historic P reservation Commission R eso appointing D onna L usignan to HP C C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Resolution Resolution 6/13/2019 L usiganan Application B ackup Material 6/13/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/14/2019 - 9:11 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 10 of 407 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 19-2150 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPOINTING DONNA LUSIGNAN TO SEAT 4 OF THE MERIDIAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code Section 2-1-1 establishes the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission, its members and terms of their appointments; and WHEREAS, Seat 4 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission is currently vacant; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Meridian to approve the appointment of Donna Lusignan to Seat 4 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission as recommended by Mayor De Weerd and described herein; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That, effective immediately, Donna Lusignan be appointed to Seat 4 of the Meridian Historic Preservation Commission, which terms shall expire October 31, 2019. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. QQ ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 18�4day of June, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, thislyday of June, 2019. APPROVED: Mayor Tammy de Weerd ATTEST: 101-0k, AV(��� Chy or RIDIA M - City Cler �OAHO SEAL 0 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LUSIGNAN TO SEAT 4 OF THE MERIDIAN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 12 of 407 (�/rE IDIZ IA*,-----NDAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA .lune 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 C Project File Name/Number: Item Title: efd4pa.n.ce, No. 19-2151 A Resolution Appointing Jennifer Bobo to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission., Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.C. Presenter: M ayor D eWeerd Estimated Time f or P resentation: 3 minutes Title of I tem - Resolution No. 19-2151: A Resolution Appointing J ennifer Bobo to the M eridian Parks and Recreation Commission R eso appointing J ennifer Bobo to P arks C ommission C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Reso appointing J ennifer B obo to P arks Resolution 6/13/2019 B obo Application B ackup Material 6/13/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/14/2019 - 9:11 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 14 of 407 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 19-2151 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, PALMER, LITTLE ROBERTS A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPOINTING JENNIFER BOBO TO SEAT 2 OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code 2-1-1 establishes the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, its members and terms of their appointments; and WHEREAS, Seat 2 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission is currently vacant; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Jennifer Bobo to Seat 2 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission to be in the best interest of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission and of the City of Meridian; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-1-1, Jennifer Bobo is hereby appointed to Seat 2 of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, for a term to expire October 31, 2019. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ke day of June, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 16�0 day of June, 2019. APPROVED: ORATEDqoCGS z° Mayor Tammy de Weerd ATTEST: of 0 E ID�AN By: m '040,0 Chris Jo n, City Cler ��ti SEgL r��o`rhe TREASV%�\ RESOLUTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF JENNIFER BOBO — MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONER — I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 16 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 17 of 407 EIDIANC-- I DAHJ CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA .lune 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: City Council Meeting June 18, 2019 Changes to Agenda: Items 7E & F — The applicant failed to post the site and pay the re -noticing fee. The applicant is requesting continuance to the July 161h hearing. Item 7G. — The applicant withdrew the application and requests that the City Council acknowledge the withdrawal to close out the record. Item #7D: W. Twisted Creek Street - VAC (H-2019.0059) Application(s): ➢ Vacation Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site is located at the intersection of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Twisted Creek St, in the R-8 zoning district. Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to vacate approximately 0.19 acres of the existing public right-of-way of W. Twisted Creek St. dedicated with Jump Creek Subdivision No. 1. The recorded development agreement approved this roadway as a temporary access until the collector roadway to the north, N. Gondola Rd., is built. This roadway is under construction and once completed and accepted by ACHD, the temporary access is to be closed and the area converted to a common lot with a pedestrian connection. To convert this area to a common lot as originally intended, staff recommends the applicant process a Property Boundary Adjustment application to combine the vacated right-of-way with one of the adjacent common lots along N. Black Cat Rd. Further, the applicant must submit a Landscape Plan Modification application so the required landscape improvements can be reviewed and approved in accord with UDC standards. City water and sewer mains are in place in the existing right-of-way and this application proposes to keep them there. The applicant will be responsible for executing an easement document for these utilities and providing the required access, as well as coordinating with the Public Works Department on any street light issues. Since this vacation request is consistent with previous approvals and the recorded development agreement, staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Written Testimony: none Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0059, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18, 2019: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0059, as presented during the hearing on June 18, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0059 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) EIDIAN,?-- � J CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 D Project File Name/Number: H-2019-0059 Item Title: Public Hearing For Twisted Creek Street Vacation by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at the intersection of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Twisted Creek St. Request: Vacation of Approximately 0.19 acres of the existing public right of way of W. Twisted Creek Street. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.D. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for Twisted Creek Street Vacation (H-2019-0059) by Kent B rown Planning Services, L ocated at the intersection of N. B lack Cat Rd. and W. Twisted C reek S t. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 6/12/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/12/2019 - 3:47 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 19 of 407 6/18/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/18/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-D Project Name: Twisted Creek Street Vacation Project No.: H-2019-0059 Active: There are no signatures posted for this meeting type yet. Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http:Hi nternalapps/SIGN INFORM TOOLS/Si gnlnForm DashDetai Is?id=252 1/1 Page 1 HEARING DATE: 6/18/2019 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Kevin Holmes, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0059 Twisted Creek Street LOCATION: The intersection of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Twisted Creek St., in the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 28, Township 4N., Range 1W I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to vacate approximately 0.19 acres of the existing public right-of-way of W. Twisted Creek Street dedicated with Jump Creek Subdivision No. 1. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant/Owner: Jump Creek Subdivision HOA Inc. 8919 W. Arlene St. Boise, ID 83709 B. Representative: Kent Brown Planning Services 3161 E. Springwood Dr. Meridian, ID 83642 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Acreage 0.19 acres Current Zoning R-8 History (previous approvals) FP-14-046; DA inst. #2014-105206; PP-12-018; AZ-14-011 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 20 of 407 Page 2 III. STAFF ANALYSIS The applicant requests approval to vacate a portion of the existing public right-of-way (ROW) of W. Twisted Creek Street dedicated with Jump Creek Subdivision No. 1 (see legal description and site map in Exhibits A & B). Per the recorded development agreement, this roadway was approved as a temporary access until such time as the collector street (W. Gondola Dr.) was built to the north. Further, this area was to be converted to a common lot and improved as a pedestrian access to N. Black Cat Road, in lieu of the public street. To convert this area to common open space as originally intended, staff recommends the applicant process a Property Boundary Adjustment application to combine the vacated ROW with one of the adjacent existing common lots along N. Black Cat Rd. (Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 1, Block 4 of Jump Creek Sub. No. 1) and submit a Landscape Plan Modification application so the required landscape improvements can be reviewed and approved in accord with UDC standards. City utilities are currently located within the existing ROW. The applicant proposes to leave all existing utilities in place. However, the applicant will be responsible for executing an easement document for the water and sewer mains that run through this area, and provide at least the minimum required access roadway over those utilities. The paved pedestrian pathway may satisfy this requirement if it is constructed to the loading and width standards. Further, there are existing street lights that may need to be relocated. The applicant should work with Public Works Department on any street light issues. In order for ACHD to act on the applicant’s request to vacate the existing right-of-way, ACHD must receive a recommendation for approval (consent) from the City Council. Because the applicant’s request is consistent with previous approvals, staff recommends approval of the vacation as proposed in section V, Exhibit B with the conditions listed in this report. IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the vacation application subject to the conditions of approval in section VI. Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 21 of 407 Page 3 V. EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 22 of 407 Page 4 B. Legal Description of Public Right of Way Proposed to be Vacated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 23 of 407 Page 5 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 24 of 407 Page 6 VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Planning Division: A. A Property Boundary Adjustment application shall be submitted to the Meridian Planning Department in accord with UDC 11-6B-8 to incorporate the acquired right-of-way (ROW) property into one of the existing adjacent common lots (Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 1, Block 4 of Jump Creek Subdivision No. 1). B. A Landscape Plan Modification shall be submitted for the proposed pedestrian connection and landscaping to be located on the subject property in accord with UDC 11-3B-4C, 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3B-12C. Public Works Department: A. City utilities are currently located within the existing right -of-way (ROW). The applicant shall be responsible for executing appropriate easement document(s) for the water and sewer mains that run through this area, and provide at least the minimum required access roadway over those utilities. The paved pedestrian pathway may satisfy this requirement if it is constructed to the loading and width standards. B. The existing street lights within the area will need to be relocated. The applicant shall be required to work with Transportation & Utility Coordinator in the Public Works Department on specific design location. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 25 of 407 E IDLA 1* -- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 E Project File Name/Number: H-2018-0117 Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 For Oaks North and South by Toll ID I LLC, Located on the North and South side of McMillan Rd. between N. McDermott and N. Black Cat Rds. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to modify the overall boundary of Oaks North and Oaks South Development and update the zoning district boundaries, the concept plan and modify/remove certain provisions of the agreement that are no longer relevant to the project. Meeting Notes: Ccov,i,nL-r� 4<:> 7L)II 1�,?�/ 5 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.E . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 for Oaks North and S outh (H- 2018-0117) by Toll I D I L L C, L ocated on the North and S outh side of M cM illan Rd. between N. M c Dermott and N. Black C at Rds. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C ouncil Notes: RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/14/2019 - 12:26 P M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 26 of 407 E IDIAN�-- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 F Project File Name/Number: H-2018-0118 Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 Oakmore Subdivision Located near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black Cat Rd. Request: Rezone of 7.39 acres of land in the3 R-15 zoning district to the R-4 zoning district; and, Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of eighteen single family residential lots on approximately 7.29 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district. Meeting Notes: Con4�11*- +D JI)17 '�,T.019 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.F. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from April 16, 2019 for Oakmore S ubdivision (H- 2018-0118) by Toll I D I L L C, L ocated near the intersection of W. Gondola Dr. and N. Black C at Rd. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Minutes from Planning and Z oning Commission B ackup Material 1/25/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/14/2019 - 7:28 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 27 of 407 EIDIANC-- H� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 G Project File Name/Number: H-2018-0119 Item Title: Application Withdrawn - Oakwind Subdivision by Toll ID I LLC, Located near the intersection of N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rds. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.G. Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - (Application Withdrawn) O akwind Subdivision (H-2018-0119) by Toll ID I L L C, L ocated near the intersection of N. M cD ermott and W. M cM illan Rds. C ouncil Notes: RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/14/2019 - 7:28 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 46 of 407 EIDIANC-- DAJ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 7 H Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Impact Fee Public Hearing Combined hearing on proposed amendments to the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan and Proposed Amendments to the Development Impact Fees for Police, Fire and Parks. Meeting Notes: I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 7.H. Presenter: Todd Lavoie on behalf of the Impact F ee Advisory Committee Matt Adams will be available from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee Es timated Time for P res entation: 30 Title of Item - Impact F ee P ublic Hearing - Combined Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the Impact F ee Capital Improvements P lan and P roposed Amendments to the Development Impact Fees for P olice, F ire, and P arks C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing C ouncil Notes: public hearing - action is required by C ouncil (S pecif ically, action on the I mpact F ee Ordinance third reading). AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate 2019 I mpact F ee Study B ackup Material 5/15/2019 Notice of Hearing B ackup Material 5/23/2019 Written Testimony P ublic Testimony 5/31/2019 O rdinance Ordinance 5/31/2019 B C A L etter to the City P ublic Testimony 6/3/2019 Testimony Received after First P ublic Hearing P ublic Testimony 6/13/2019 P etitions R eceived J une 17 through 3:05pm on J une 18 Cover Memo 6/18/2019 S ally Reynolds P etition Received 5:39pm 2019-06-18 Cover Memo 6/18/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/12/2019 - 5:42 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 47 of 407 6/18/2019 City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 6/18/2019 Hearing Type: Council Item Number: 7-H Project Name: Impact Fee Project No.: Active: � Signature City- I Wish To Sign In Address For Against Neutral Name State -Zip Testify Date/Time 6/18/2019 Sue Linam 775 S. Thornwood Way X 5:52:34 PM Celeste 582 S Woodhaven Ave, 6/18/2019 X Fox Meridian ID 5:52:46 PM Andrea 2498 E Cyanite Dr. Meridian 6/18/2019 X Shelton Idaho 83642 6:01:32 PM Kaitlyn 6/18/2019 2498 E Cyanite Dr Meridian, ID X Shelton 6:01:44 PM Sally 6/18/2019 1166 w Bacall meridian X X Reynolds 6:04:47 PM Christie 6/18/2019 2373 e taconic dr. Meridian X X herwy 6:05:43 PM Anna 2299 E lodge trail Dr meridan 6/18/2019 X Webb idaho 6:08:36 PM Wendy 2299 E Lodge Trail Meridian 6/18/2019 X Webb Idaho 6:09:06 PM Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho httpWi nternalapps/SIGN IN FORMTOOLS/SignlnForm Detai Is?id=262 1/2 Development Impact Fees Study Final Report March 28, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 48 of 407 227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 www.raftelis.com March 28,2019 Mr.Todd Lavoie Chief Financial Officer City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject:Development Impact Fees Report Dear Mr.Lavoie, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) is pleased to provide the 2019 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian.After collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee,Raftelis recommends several changes to improve consistency with Idaho’s enabling legislation, including: Updated development projections and land use assumptions based on Meridian data Documentation of current infrastructure standards and projected need for additional facilities Proportionate fees for two types of nonresidential development and five size thresholds for residential development Our report summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements,to be funded by development impact fees,along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible Comprehensive Financial Plan. It has been a pleasure working with you and we thank City staff for engaging with quality information and insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian. Sincerely, Dwayne Guthrie, PhD, AICP Manager Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 49 of 407 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................................1 UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDAHO IMPACT FEE ACT .......................................................................................................................1 PROPOSED IMPACT FEES ..................................................................................................................................................................2 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES..................................................................................................................................4 CITYWIDE PARKS.............................................................................................................................................................................4 RECREATION BUILDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................................6 REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION ..........................................................................................................................................................6 PROPOSED AND CURRENT IMPACT FEES ..............................................................................................................................................6 FORECAST OF REVENUES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION...........................................................................................................................8 COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR PARKS AND RECREATION .............................................................................................................9 POLICE IMPACT FEES ............................................................................................................................................................10 PROPORTIONATE SHARE .................................................................................................................................................................10 EXCLUDED COSTS..........................................................................................................................................................................11 CURRENT USE AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY...........................................................................................................................................11 POLICE FACILITIES,SERVICE UNITS,AND STANDARDS ...........................................................................................................................11 POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS......................................................................................................................................................12 REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................................................12 POLICE DEVELOPMENT FEES............................................................................................................................................................12 PROJECTED REVENUE FOR POLICE FACILITIES ......................................................................................................................................14 COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR POLICE ...................................................................................................................................15 FIRE IMPACT FEES ................................................................................................................................................................16 EXISTING STANDARDS FOR FIRE FACILITIES .........................................................................................................................................16 FIRE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS .........................................................................................................................................................17 REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................................................18 CURRENT AND PROPOSED FIRE IMPACT FEES......................................................................................................................................18 PROJECTED REVENUE FOR FIRE FACILITIES..........................................................................................................................................21 COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FIRE FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................22 FEE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................23 COST OF CFP PREPARATION ...........................................................................................................................................................23 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES ...........................................................................................................................................................23 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS......................................................................................................................................................24 APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ..............................................................................................................................25 SERVICE AREAS.............................................................................................................................................................................25 SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS ................................................................................................................................................25 PROPORTIONATE SHARE .................................................................................................................................................................26 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT ............................................................................................................27 DEMAND INDICATORS BY DWELLING SIZE ..........................................................................................................................................28 JOBS AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................................................30 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 50 of 407 1 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Executive Summary Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction.By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs.Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests:need, benefit,and proportionality. First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital improvements. Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the fee paid should not exceed a development’s proportionate share of the capital cost. As documented in this report, the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the projects identified in this study taken from Meridian’s Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff,Raftelis determined service units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development.This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potent ial double payment of growth-related capital costs. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth “an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth.” The enabling legislation c alls for three integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA) for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan, which the City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The LUA (see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition, the CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with service units by residential size thresholds. The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility type (i.e., parks/recreation, police and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards, the projected need for improvements to accommodate new development, the updated DIF compared to current fees, revenue projections and funding strategy for growth -related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian. Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements, which have been met by the City of Meridian, as documented in this study. First, as specified in 67 -8204(2) of the Idaho Act, “development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 51 of 407 2 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT development as well as new growth and development.” Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see 67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report, with more detailed information maintained by City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third, the Idaho Act states the cost per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth - related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67 -8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types of applicable credits that may re duce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b) review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d) file periodic reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study. Proposed Impact Fees Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian’s 2019 impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are ma de during the adoption process, Raftelis will update the fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions. Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2019 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian.As discussed in Appendix A,Raftelis recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, base d on climate- controlled space. In contrast, the 2013 study used a “one size fits all” approach, whereby all housing units paid the same DIF.The 2019 size threshold that matches the average fee according to the 2013 method is a residential dwelling with 2501 to 3200 square feet. As shown below, the average fee per dwelling increased from $2,017 in 2013 to $2,943 in 2019, which is an increase of $926 (46%). In addition, the 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non -residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential Type of Impact Fee Service Area Incremental Expansion (current standards) Cost Allocation Parks and Recreation Facilities Citywide Park Improvements and Recreation Centers Residential Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings Functional Population and Inbound Vehicle Trips to Nonresidential Development Fire Facilities Citywide Fire Stations and Apparatus Functional Population and Jobs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 52 of 407 3 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT development.The average fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.47 in 2013 to $0.56 in 2019, which is an increase of $0.09 per square foot (20%). Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Citywide Service Area Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Proposed Total (2019) Existing Total (2013) Increase or Decrease % Change Residential (per housing unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 $2,017 ($922)-46% 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 $2,017 ($108)-5% 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 $2,017 $466 23% 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 $2,017 $926 46% 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 $2,017 $1,416 70% Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 $0.47 $0.41 87% All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 $0.47 ($0.01)-2% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 53 of 407 4 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Parks and Recreation Impact Fees The 2019 updated impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure standards for improved acres of parks and floor area of recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area. Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development. Figure PR1 documents recent cost factors per acre for park improvements and land. Based on four park site acquisitions, land for parks in Meridian is expected to cost approximately $61,000 per acre. City staff confirmed this land cost factor is reasonable and consistent with a recent land v aluation of $65,000 per acre quoted for expansion of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. As shown in the table below, park improvements have been averaging $241,000 per acre. Figure PR1: Cost Factors for Park Improvements Citywide Parks Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR2, the current infrastructure standard is 2.91 acres per 1,000 residents. At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for citywide park improvements. To maintain current standards over the next ten years, Meridian will improve 102.3 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately $24.65 million. Estimated Costs Park Name Acres Land Improvements Discovery Park 27.00 $405,184 $8,261,000 Reta Huskey Park 8.92 $680,007 $1,495,126 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50 $1,274,995 $1,382,621 Hillsdale Park 9.53 $857,700 $1,622,282 Total Costs 52.95 $3,217,886 $12,761,029 Weighted Average Cost per Acre =>$61,000 $241,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 54 of 407 5 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure PR2: Citywide Parks Standards and Need for Improved Acres Existing Parks Improved Acres Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.2 Settlers Park 57.7 Heroes Park 30.1 Discovery Park 27.0 Fuller Park 23.2 Bear Creak Park 18.8 Tully Park 18.7 Storey Park & Bark Park 17.9 Gordon Harris Park 11.1 Hillsdale Park 9.5 Reta Husky Park 8.9 Jabil Soccer Fields 8.4 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.5 Seasons Park 7.1 Chateau Park 6.7 Renaissance Park 6.5 Champion Park 6.0 Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.6 8th Street Park 2.8 Centennial Park 0.4 Total =>332.2 Allocation Factors for Parks Improvements Cost per Acre $241,000 Residential Proportionate Share 100% Service Units Population in 2019 114,102 Infrastructure Standards for Parks Improved Acres Residential (per person)0.00291 Park Needs Year Population Improved Acres Base 2019 114,102 332.2 Year 1 2020 121,126 352.7 Year 2 2021 126,812 369.2 Year 3 2022 132,163 384.8 Year 4 2023 136,845 398.4 Year 5 2024 140,190 408.2 Year 10 2029 149,248 434.5 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 102.3 Growth Cost of Parks =>$24,654,300 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 55 of 407 6 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Recreation Buildings Figure PR3 lists current floor area for recreation centers. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Meridian should expect to spend at least $225 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current standards, Meridian will need 17,096 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost approximately $3.85 million. Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected growth costs, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Proposed and Current Impact Fees At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs due to growth. The projected need for acres of improved parks and square feet of recreation centers was addressed above. The need to acquire an additional five acres of land for parks is based on staff’s comparison of the existing inventory of undeveloped park sites (i.e., 97 acres) to the projected need for 102 additional acres over the next ten years. In addit ion to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park impact fee fund Existing Recreation Centers Square Feet Meridian Community Center 4,200 1 Meridian Homecourt 51,303 1 Total to Include in Current Standards 55,503 Allocation Factors for Recreation Centers Building plus Land Cost per Square Foot*$225 Residential Proportionate Share 100% 2019 Meridian Population 114,102 * Based on local developer estimate. Square Feet Residential (per person)0.49 Recreation Center Needs Year Population Square Feet Base 2019 114,102 55,503 Year 1 2020 121,126 58,920 Year 2 2021 126,812 61,686 Year 3 2022 132,163 64,288 Year 4 2023 136,845 66,566 Year 5 2024 140,190 68,193 Year 10 2029 149,248 72,599 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 17,096 Growth Cost for Recreation Buildings =>$3,847,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 56 of 407 7 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $26,168,471 divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $744 per service unit. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per dwelling. The row highlighted light green indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling, which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Park Improvements acres 102 $241,000 $24,654,000 Park Land acres 5 $61,000 $305,000 Recreation Centers sq ft 17,096 $225 $3,847,000 Total =>$28,806,000 Professional Services Cost =>$18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 =>-$2,656,132 Net Growth Cost =>$26,168,471 Population Increase 2019 to 2029 35,146 Cost per Service Unit $744 Residential Impact Fees (per dwelling) Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Parks & Recreation Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $781 $1,113 ($332)-30% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $1,361 $1,113 $248 22% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $1,770 $1,113 $657 59% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $2,098 $1,113 $985 88% 3201 or more 3.29 $2,447 $1,113 $1,334 120% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $2,099 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 57 of 407 8 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive approximately $26.15 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and impact fee revenue. Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue Ten-Year Growth Cost =>$26,168,471 Parks Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential $2,098 Year per housing unit Hsg Units Base 2019 42,345 Year 1 2020 44,445 Year 2 2021 46,145 Year 3 2022 47,746 Year 4 2023 49,145 Year 5 2024 50,145 Year 10 2029 54,811 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 Projected Revenue =>$26,150,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 58 of 407 9 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to existing development. Existing parks and recreation centers are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Total impact fee funding of approximately $28.8 million represents a growth share of 80%, requiring approximately $7.28 million from other revenue sources over the next ten years. Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Parks and Recreation Needed Planned Improved Acres 102.3 151 Building Sq Ft 17,096 22,000 FY Description Amount Units Cost 2020 West Meridian Regional Park - Design $500,000 2022 West Meridian Regional Park - Construction 47 acres $5,147,500 2021 New Community Center - Design & Construction Documents $500,000 2023 New Community Center - Construction 22,000 square feet $5,000,000 2027 Margaret Aldape Park - Design $994,000 2029 Margaret Aldape Park - Construction 70 acres $10,012,500 2021 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Design $500,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Construction 25 $5,160,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Design $500,000 2025 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Construction 25 acres $5,160,000 2022 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Design $185,000 2024 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Construction 9 acres $1,906,500 2021 Additional Land Acquisition 5 acres $525,000 Total Cost =>$36,090,500 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees =>$28,806,000 Growth Share =>80% Existing Development Share to be Funded by Other Revenues =>$7,284,500 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 59 of 407 10 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Police Impact Fees The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards for police buildings. Proportionate Share In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1, functional population was used to allocate public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development . Functional population is like the U.S. Census Bureau’s "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction. It also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresiden tial development. Residents that work outside Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Meridian, the cost allocation for residential development is 73% while nonresidential development accounts for 27% of the demand for fire infrastructure. Figure P1: Functional Population Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety Demand Units in 2015 Demand Person Residential Hours/Day Hours Population*91,360 61%Residents Not Working 55,961 20 1,119,220 39%Resident Workers**35,399 20%Worked in City**7,231 14 101,234 80%Worked Outside City**28,168 14 394,352 Residential Subtotal 1,614,806 Residential Share =>73% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 55,961 4 223,844 Jobs Located in City**36,676 20%Residents Working in City**7,231 10 72,310 80%Non-Resident Workers (inflow commuters)29,445 10 294,450 Nonresidential Subtotal 590,604 Nonresidential Share =>27% TOTAL 2,205,410* 2015 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. ** 2015 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 60 of 407 11 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Excluded Costs Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and strict er safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. The City’s CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and equipment that do not meet the minimum useful life requirement in Idaho’s Impact Fee Act. Current Use and Available Capacity In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian has determined that police building space will require expansion to a ccommodate future development. Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development. Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police. For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average - weekday, vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and nonresidential development, along with FY18 -19 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services, as documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of $333 per square foot (provided by City staff). The cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY18 -19 service units, the standard in Meridian is 0.26 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development, Meridian’s standard is 0.06 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development, on an average weekday. Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards Police Buildings Square Feet PSTC (half)7,250 Admin Building 33,000 TOTAL 40,250 Source: City of Meridian Police Department. Police Buildings Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share (based on functional population)73%27% Growth Indicator Population Avg Wkdy Veh Trips to Nonres Dev Service Units in FY18-19 114,102 179,607 Square Feet per Service Unit 0.26 0.06 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 61 of 407 12 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Police Infrastructure Needs Idaho’s development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3, projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles. Meridian will need 12,161 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten -year, growth- related capital cost of police buildings is approximately $4.05 million. Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potentia l double-payment from other revenue sources. Police Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per d evelopment unit is also shown in the table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2017). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with nonresidential development within Meridian, trip ends (ent ering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using a basic 50% adjustment factor. Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Buildings - Residential 0.26 Sq Ft per person Buildings - Nonresidential 0.06 Sq Ft per trip Police Buildings Cost $333 per square foot Infrastructure Needed Veh Trips to Police Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings (sq ft) Base 2019 114,102 179,607 40,250 Year 1 2020 121,126 184,062 42,328 Year 2 2021 126,812 188,819 44,080 Year 3 2022 132,163 193,625 45,749 Year 4 2023 136,845 198,637 47,258 Year 5 2024 140,190 203,714 48,427 Year 10 2029 149,248 231,013 52,411 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 51,406 12,161 Growth Cost of Police Buildings =>$4,050,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 62 of 407 13 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act), less the projected police impact fee fund balance expected at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $2,633,140, divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $54 per residential service unit. Impa ct fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light blue indicates the updated police fee for an average -size dwelling is $152 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lowe r impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate -controlled space. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 63 of 407 14 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit Projected Revenue for Police Facilities Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately $2.6 million (see the upper portion of Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately $2.5 million in police 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Police Buildings square feet 12,161 $333 $4,050,000 Outdoor Training Facility 23%$690,000 Total =>$4,740,000 Professional Services Cost =>$18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 =>-$2,125,463 Net Growth Cost =>$2,633,140 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $1,922,192 Nonresidential $710,948 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons)35,146 $54 Nonresidential (vehicle trips)51,406 $13 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $56 $223 ($167)-75% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $98 $223 ($125)-56% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $128 $223 ($95)-43% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $152 $223 ($71)-32% 3201 or more 3.29 $177 $223 ($46)-21% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends per KSF Trip Adjustment Factors Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 37.75 50%$0.24 $0.12 $0.12 100% All Other 9.00 50%$0.05 $0.12 ($0.07)-58% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $154 Nonresidential Floor Area Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot $0.10 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 64 of 407 15 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need f or infrastructure and development fee revenue. Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years.Impact fees will pay for approximately $4.74 million, representing a growth share of 59%. Other revenue sources will be required to fund approximately $3.26 million in police facilities over the next ten years. Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Police Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities =>$2,633,140 Police Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office & Other Services $152 $50 $240 $50 $50 per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ftper 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Year Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue =>$1,895,000 $130,000 $336,000 $64,000 $85,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) =>$2,510,000 Buildings Description Square Feet Total Cost Training Facility Classroom 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 1 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 2 3,000 $1,000,000 Substation 6,000 $2,000,000 Total =>15,000 $5,000,000 Cost per Square Foot =>$333 Outdoor Facilities Description Cost Outdoor Training Facility $3,000,000 Total =>$8,000,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees =>$4,740,000 Growth Share Funded by Impact Fees =>59% Share to be Funded by Other Revenues =>$3,260,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 65 of 407 16 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Fire Impact Fees After evaluating calls for service data to general types of development, Raftelis recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development. Existing Standards for Fire Facilities Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. The standard for fire buildings is 0.44 square feet per person and 0.46 square feet per job. Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase communications equipment with a useful life of at least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and communications equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department. Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was allocated 73% to residential and 27% to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every additional resident will require M eridian to spend approximately $62 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately $64 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Fire Stations Square Feet Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd)11,700 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove)7,040 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd)6,770 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd)7,077 Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd)7,360 Fire Station # 6 0 PSTC (half)7,250 Training Tower @ Station #1 6,523 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr)1,744 Fire Admin Space (City Hall)13,511 TOTAL 68,975 Allocation Factors for Fire Stations Residential Share 73%Functional Nonresidential Share 27%Population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations Square Feet Residential (per person)0.44 Nonresidential (per job)0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 66 of 407 17 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles Fire Infrastructure Needs The City’s Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian, fire facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development over the next ten years, Meridian will expand fire buildings by 20,859 square feet and spend $2.93 million to expand the fleet of fire vehicles. Fire Apparatus and Equipment Coding Total Cost Engines FE $5,148,000 Ladder Truck LT $1,600,000 Pickup Trucks PT $539,659 Other Vehicles OV $287,700 Communications Equipment CE $2,112,284 TOTAL $9,687,643 Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications Residential Share 73%Functional Nonresidential Share 27%population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications Apparatus and Communications Residential (per person)$61.98 Nonresidential (per job)$64.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 67 of 407 18 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double -payment from other revenue sources. Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thous and square feet of floor area are also documented in the Land Use Assumptions. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light orange indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling is $693 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit and a cost of $246 per additional person. Please see Appendix Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Fire Stations - Residential 0.44 Sq Ft per household Fire Stations - Nonresidential 0.46 Sq Ft per job Fire Station Cost $535 per square foot Fire Apparatus/Communications - Residential $61.98 Cost per person Fire Apparatus/Communications - Nonres $64.46 Cost per job Facilities Needed Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and Year Jobs Stations Communications Base 2019 114,102 40,575 68,975 $9,687,643 Year 1 2020 121,126 41,612 72,551 $10,189,837 Year 2 2021 126,812 42,677 75,549 $10,610,907 Year 3 2022 132,163 43,768 78,411 $11,012,890 Year 4 2023 136,845 44,887 80,990 $11,375,214 Year 5 2024 140,190 46,035 82,993 $11,656,541 Year 6 2025 143,578 47,214 85,030 $11,942,532 Year 7 2026 144,996 48,421 86,209 $12,108,228 Year 8 2027 146,413 49,659 87,403 $12,275,860 Year 9 2028 147,831 50,929 88,611 $12,445,618 Year 10 2029 149,248 52,231 89,834 $12,617,376 Ten -Yr Increase 35,146 11,656 20,859 $2,929,733 Cost of Fire Stations =>$11,160,000 Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications =>$2,930,000 Total Growth Cost =>$14,090,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 68 of 407 19 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.1 1). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee of $695 for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Proposed nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopp ing center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non -residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development.The average fire impact fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.35 in 2013 to $0.46 in 2019. Based on the 2019 fee schedule, a new warehouse would be in the category of All Other. This fee category assumes 1.50 jobs per thousand square feet of floor area. To convert the fee to an amount per square foot, we divide by 1000 then multiply by the cost factor per job ($274). The result is $0.41 (truncated) per square foot. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 69 of 407 20 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Fire Stations square feet 20,859 $535 $11,160,000 Fire Apparatus dollars $2,930,000 Total =>$14,090,000 Professional Services Cost =>$18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 =>-$2,241,236 Net Growth Cost =>$11,867,367 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $8,663,178 Nonresidential $3,204,189 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons)35,146 $246 Nonresidential (jobs)11,656 $274 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Hsg Unit Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $258 $681 ($423)-62% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $450 $681 ($231)-34% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $585 $681 ($96)-14% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $693 $681 $12 2% 3201 or more 3.29 $809 $681 $128 19% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 2.34 $0.64 $0.35 $0.29 83% All Other 1.50 $0.41 $0.35 $0.06 17% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $695 Nonresidential Sq Ft Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot)$0.46 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 70 of 407 21 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities Over the next ten years, fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire infrastructure, which has a ten-year growth cost of $11,867,367 (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately $11.82 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. The revenue projection assumes implementation of the proposed fire fees and that development from 2019 to 2029 is consistent w ith the land use assumptions described in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities =>$11,867,367 Fire Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and Other Services $693 $410 $640 $410 $410 Year per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 4 2023 49,145 10,030 5,410 4,920 6,510 Year 5 2024 50,145 10,290 5,550 5,040 6,680 Year 6 2025 51,159 10,550 5,690 5,170 6,850 Year 7 2026 52,071 10,820 5,830 5,310 7,030 Year 8 2027 52,984 11,100 5,980 5,440 7,210 Year 9 2028 53,898 11,380 6,140 5,580 7,390 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue =>$8,640,000 $1,070,000 $900,000 $520,000 $690,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) =>$11,820,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 71 of 407 22 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire station floor area by approximately 25,000 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately $4.38 million. The total cost for these projects is approximately $17.75 million. The growth cost funded by impact fees is $14.09 million over ten years, which is 79% of the total cost. An additional $3.66 million in other revenues wil l be required to fully fund the Fire Department’s CFP for growth-related improvements. Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities Fire Stations Square Feet Total Cost Purchase Land for Fire Station #7 $500,000 Design Fire Station #7 $800,000 Build Fire Station #7 12,500 $5,387,500 Purchase Land for Fire Station #8 $250,000 Design Fire Station #8 $800,000 Build Fire Station #8 12,500 $5,637,500 Total =>25,000 $13,375,000 Cost per Sq Ft Based on Stations #7 & #8 =>$535 Fire Apparatus Units Total Cost Quint Truck 1 $1,600,000 Heavy Rescue Vehicle 1 $800,000 Fire Engine Station #7 1 $572,000 Fire Engine Station #8 1 $572,000 Vehicle for EMS Captain 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Fire Inspector/Investigator 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Battalion Chiefs 1 $63,000 Alternative Response Unit 2 $642,000 Total =>9 $4,375,000 Total =>$17,750,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees =>$14,090,000 Growth Share =>79% Funded by Other Revenues =>$3,660,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 72 of 407 23 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Fee Implementation and Administration Consistent with best practices and Idaho’s enabling legislation,Meridian updates capital improvements and development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory Committee, then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee calculations. Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible, tracking funds according to first in, first out accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure. Cost of CFP Preparation As stated in Idaho’s enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. This minor cost ($18,603 per infrastructure type) was added to the 2019 Meridian impact fees. Development Categories Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building, the average size threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate-controlled floor area for the entire building, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment complexes and some residential development provide common area s for use by residents, such as exercise rooms and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not subject to additional impact fees. Also, Section 67 -8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential building, that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to residential buildings, Raftelis recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to additional impact fees. The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density (i.e. jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area), as documented in Appendix A. “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial development. All Other includes industrial,warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian’s impact fee study. For residential development, impact fees are based on average persons per housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 73 of 407 24 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT average number of jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be rev iewed by City staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian’s elected officials for their consideration. Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one -time impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth -related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in th e fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience,Raftelis recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay intere st on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 74 of 407 25 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian’s 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho’s enabling legislation 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.” Service Areas To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees, the City of Meridian has evaluated collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the entire incorporated area. Raftelis recommends o ne citywide service area for Meridian impact fees. Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines “service area” as: “Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles, or both.” The City’s adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as modified over time. Summary of Growth Indicators Population, housing unit,jobs and nonresidential floor area are the “service units” or demand indicators that will be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are consistent with Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to th e Comprehensive Plan, which is more general and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be periodically updated (e.g. every 5 years).Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19 data. In Meridian, the fiscal year begins on October 1st. Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing unit s and nonresidential floor area, as shown in Figure A1. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections in the determination of the proportionate -share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than projected, fee revenue will decline,but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rat e of development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 75 of 407 26 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years, the impact fee study assumes Meridian’s population increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.7% per year. Over the next ten years, jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.6% per year, which is from the Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2010 to 2040. Figure A1:Annual Development Projections Proportionate Share The term “proportionate” is found throughout Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67 - 8202(2) states the intent to, “Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;” Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(17). Meridian, Idaho FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY23-24 FY28-29 FY38-39 Fiscal Year Begins Oct 1st 2019 2020 2021 2022 2024 2029 2039 Base Yr 1 2 3 5 10 20 Total Population City of Meridian 114,102 121,126 126,812 132,163 140,190 149,248 164,187 Annual Increase 7.2%6.2%4.7%4.2%2.4%1.0%1.0% Housing Units Single Family 35,911 37,649 39,056 40,381 42,367 46,229 54,516 Annual Increase 5.6%4.8%3.7%3.4%2.0%1.7%1.7% Multi-Family 6,434 6,796 7,089 7,365 7,778 8,582 10,322 Annual Increase 6.6%5.6%4.3%3.9%2.3%1.9%1.9% Total Housing Units 42,345 44,445 46,145 47,746 50,145 54,811 64,838 Annual Increase 5.7%5.0%3.8%3.5%2.0%1.7%1.7% Persons per Hsg Unit 2.69 2.73 2.75 2.77 2.80 2.72 2.53 Jobs (by place of work) Industrial 7,501 7,693 7,890 8,092 8,511 9,656 12,430 Commercial 11,455 11,748 12,048 12,356 12,996 14,746 18,982 Institutional 4,133 4,238 4,347 4,458 4,689 5,320 6,848 Office & Other Services 17,486 17,933 18,392 18,862 19,839 22,509 28,976 Total Jobs 40,575 41,612 42,677 43,768 46,035 52,231 67,236 Annual Increase 2.6%2.6%2.6%2.6%2.6%2.6%2.6% Jobs to Housing Ratio 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 1.04 Nonresidential Floor Area (square feet in thousands) Industrial 9,070 9,300 9,540 9,780 10,290 11,670 15,030 Commercial 4,890 5,010 5,140 5,270 5,550 6,290 8,100 Institutional 4,450 4,560 4,680 4,800 5,040 5,720 7,370 Office & Other Services 5,890 6,040 6,190 6,350 6,680 7,580 9,760 Total KSF 24,300 24,910 25,550 26,200 27,560 31,260 40,260 Avg Sq Ft Per Job 599 599 599 599 599 598 599 Avg Jobs per KSF 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 76 of 407 27 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT “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…” Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1). “All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. In the following sections, Raftelis describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential development. Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a “lo ng-form” questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds makes fees more proportionate and facilitates construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.85 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with two or more units average 2.00 year -round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes, which have two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.76 year-round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year - round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. Raftelis recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according to the number of year -round residents per housing unit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 77 of 407 28 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure A2:Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bed rooms, Raftelis recommends residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size.Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro -Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, Raftelis derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control totals for Meridian. As shown above, the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that Meridian averages 2.76 persons per housing unit. Figure A3:Persons by Bedroom Range Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics Units in Structure Persons House-Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Unit *81,202 27,793 2.92 28,448 2.85 89%2% All Other **6,765 3,379 2.00 3,378 2.00 11%0% Subtotal 87,967 31,172 2.82 31,826 2.76 2% Group Quarters 4,864 TOTAL 92,831 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024, B25032, B25033, and B26001. *Single unit includes attached and detached. ** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes. Recommended Multipliers (2) Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing (1)Units (1)Housing Unit Mix 0-1 48 39 1.30 2.8% 2 353 194 1.92 14.1% 3 1,598 678 2.48 49.2% 4+1,614 467 3.64 33.9% Total 3,613 1,378 2.76 100.0% (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for ID PUMA 701 (2012-2016 5-year database). (2) Recommended persons per housing unit are scaled to make the average derived from PUMS survey data match the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.76 persons per housing unit). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 78 of 407 29 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, Raftelis used the 2018 Ada County Assessor’s residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e., two, three, and four or more bedrooms). Raftelis recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, Ra ftelis derived the estimated average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1000 square feet or less) has an estimated average of 1.16 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space), the average is 3.63 persons per housing unit. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area by the total number of dwellings in the building. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 79 of 407 30 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure A4:Persons by Square Feet of Living Space Jobs and Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development.Raftelis uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work.In Figure A5, color shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes the will be used by Raftelis to derive average weekday vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, Raftelis averaged Light Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing (ITE 150) to derive an average of 1,209 square feet p er industrial job. The prototype for future commercial development is an average -size Shopping Center (ITE code 820). Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 427 square feet per job. For institutional devel opment, such as schools, daycare and churches, the impact fee study assumes an average of 1,076 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is an Elementary School (ITE 520). For office and other services, an average -size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 337 square feet per job. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 80 of 407 31 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure A5:Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Figure A6 indicates 2015 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type of nonresidential, are from Meridian’s Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau’s online web application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel informa tion obtained from Ada County. ITE Land Use / Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit*Per Employee*Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (avg size)1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 32.21 1.30 771 Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 3.35 4.05 0.83 1,209 *Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 81 of 407 32 2019 MERIDIAN DEVELO PMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT Figure A6:Jobs and Floor Area Estimates Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 82 of 407 IDAHO PRESS TRIBUNE EMMETT, MERIDIAN, KUNA, BOISE WEEKLY C/O ISJ PAYMENT PROCESSING CENTER PO BOX 1570 POCATELLO ID 83204 (208)467-9251 Fax (208)475-2338 ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONTINUED) Salesperson: LEGALS Printed at 05/20/19 10:13 by sje14 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acct #: 351462 Ad #: 1902593 Status: New CHOLD CHOL LEGAL NOTICE City of Meridian NOTICE OF COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMROVEMENTS PLAN AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS IMPACT FEES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a combined public hearing in the City Council Chambers at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, during its regular meeting at the hour of 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4th, 2019. The public hearing is for the purpose reviewing and considering proposed amendments to the Police, Fire, and Parks and Recre- ation Capital Improvements Plans and proposed Ordi- nance amendments to the corresponding Impact Fee Schedules 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 67-8206. The proposed amendments to the Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation Capital Im- provement Plans and Impact Fee Schedule are based on recommendations made by the Development Impact Fee Committee in April, 2019 and are contained in the Develop- ment Impact Fees Study Fi- nal Report dated March 28, 2019. The following materials are on file for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during regular business hours, Mon- day through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.: The text of the proposed Ordinance amending the Impact Fee Schedule, and the Develop- ment Impact Fees Study Fi- nal Report dated March 28, 2019 which contains the pro- posed amendments to the Capital Improvements Plans, the proposed land use as- sumptions, fee calculations, and proportionate share de- terminations. Copies of these materials are available upon request and may also be ac- cessed online at the City of Meridian website. Any and all persons inter- ested in or affected by these proposals shall have the right to appear at the public hear- ing and present evidence re- g a r d i n g t h e p roposals. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials may be submitted seven (7) days pri- or to the above hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. The public hearing will be held in an accessible facility. Individuals desiring accom- modation for disabilities may contact the office of the City Clerk at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. CHRIS JOHNSON, INTERIM CITY CLERK May 24, 2019 1902593 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 83 of 407 Chris Johnson From: Josha Iverson Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 4:51 PM To: gljacobsen@frontiernet.net Cc: mayortammy; Anne Little Roberts; Treg Bernt; Joe Borton; Luke Cavener; Genesis Milam; Ty Palmer; Chris Johnson Subject: RE: meridiancity.org/council/request.htmI Glenn, Thank you for your email, it has been received by the Mayor's Office. We appreciate you taking time to share your opinion about impact fees. Your email has been forwarded to our City Clerk and will be included in the public record. We'd encourage you to check our website, meridiancity.org, for information regarding the public hearing process and invite you to attend the hearing(s) on this issue. Our City Clerk is in the process of scheduling a hearing on this subject for June; the public hearing notice will likely be published next Friday, 5/17/19. We appreciate your interest in our community. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact us. Josha Iverson I Administrative Assistant City of Meridian I Mayor's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 489-0529 1 Fax: (208) 884-8119 C,(fER,IDIAN Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law From: Formspree Team <submissions@formspree.io> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 5:31 PM To: mayortammy <mayortammv@meridiancity.org> Cc: Anne Little Roberts<alittleroberts@meridiancity.org>; Treg Bernt <tbernt@meridiancity.org>; Joe Borton jborton@meridiancity.org>; Luke Cavener <Icavener@meridiancity.org>; Genesis Milam <gmilam@meridiancity.org>; Ty Palmer <tvpalmer@meridiancity.ore> Subject: meridiancity.org/council/request.html NEW FORM SUBMISSION Hey there, Someone just submitted your form on meridiancity.org/council/request.htm]. Here's what they had to say: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 84 of 407 Request for Mayor and Council: Name: Glenn Jacobsen replyto: aljacobsen@frontiernet.net Street Address: 1767 w. bearden ct City: Meridian State: ID Zip Code: 83640 Subject: Revised Impact Fees Message: Please increase the proposed impact fees for the city of Meridian. With the increased population growth, do not short change costs of future city needs. Add a buffer to your anticipated costs. It will save headaches in the future. Submitted 11:31 PM UTC — 07 May 2019. Mark as spam You are receiving this because you confirmed this email address on Formspree. If you don't remember doing that, or no longer wish to receive these emails, please remove the form on meridiancity.org/council/request.htm] or click here to unsubscribe from this endpoint. 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 85 of 407 Chris Johnson From: Todd Lavoie Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 3:14 PM To: Joe Borton; Brad Purser; Caleb Hood; Chris Johnson; David Fulkerson; Jeff Lavey; Jenny Fields; John Nesmith; Jon Wardle; Josh Cummings; Mark Niemeyer; Matthew Adams; Robert Simison; Seldon S. "Butch" Weedon; Spencer Martin; Steve Siddoway; Tammy de Weerd; Ted Baird; Todd Lavoie Cc: Dwayne Guthrie Subject: FW: Request Regarding Impact Fee Schedule Attachments: 5-20-19 Meridian Mayor & Council.pdf, ATT00001.htm Hello Joe, Thank you for the opinion letter for the impact fee proposal. We will have Chris submit this item following the proper channels. Have a great day! Todd THF FINANCE DEPARTMENT. YOU CAN ON US' From: Joe Borton <jborton@meridiancity.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 3:04 PM To: Todd Lavoie <tlavoie@meridiancity.org> Subject: Fwd: Request Regarding Impact Fee Schedule Joe Borton I Meridian City Council 33 E. Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Built for Business, Designed for Living www.meridiancity.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Begin forwarded message: From: Amy Kelley <amyk@blackrockhomes.com> Date: May 21, 2019 at 1:57:16 PM MDT To: "mayortammy@meridiancity.org" <mayortammv@meridiancity.org>, alittleroberts@meridiancity.org" <alittleroberts@meridiancity.org>, "iborton@meridiancity.org" iborton@meridiancity.org>, "typalmer@meridiancity.org" <typalmer@meridiancity.org>, tbernt@meridiancity.org" <tbernt@meridiancity.org>, "gmilam@meridiancity.org" Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 86 of 407 gmilam@meridiancity.org>, "Icavener@meridiancity.org" <Icavener@meridiancity.org> Subject: Request Regarding Impact Fee Schedule Dear Mayor de Weerd and City Council Members Please see the attached letter regarding the Impact Fee Schedule for building. III%i, 9 gxA,, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 87 of 407 BLACKROCK 0 M € S May 17, 2019 Mayor Tammy de Weerd Meridian City Council 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Impact Fee Schedule Dear Mayor de Weerd and Council Members: I write to commend your staff and consultants for their excellent work in studying the need to keep development related fees as low as practical. Those fees have a direct impact on housing affordability and make a big difference in terms of the opportunity for families to become homeowners. I also write to request that Meridian consider making a slight adjustment to two of the threshold square footages in the proposed impact fee schedule as follows: Change the square footage for the "second tier" to be from 1001 to 2000 sq. ft and the "third tier" be 2001 sa. ft. to 2500 sa. ft. As a builder, I am doing my best to keep the smaller homes as affordable as possible. I believe this proposed change would support this common goal. This adjustment would more accurately reflect the impact of the number of people likely to buy homes within these size categories. Houses under 2000 square feet have a limited number of bedrooms, and therefore, appeal to smaller families. Typically, homes over 2001 square feet attract larger families creating a more significant impact. Thank you for your consideration, Jake Centers Blackrock Homes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 88 of 407 Chris Johnson From: renwylie@aol.com Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 9:07 AM To: Todd Lavoie; Caleb Hood; Chris Johnson; dfulkerson@dfm.idaho.gov; Jeff Lavey; Jenny Fields; Joe Borton; John Nesmith; jwardle@brightoncorp.com; josh@crosswindsrealty.com; Mark Niemeyer; matt@thelandgroupinc.com; Robert Simison; butchweedon@gmail.com; Spencer Martin; Steve Siddoway; Tammy de Weerd; Ted Baird; dyorgason6@gmail.com Subject: Re: City Council Meeting - Impact Fee Public Hearing All, After reviewing this report I have the following comments: 1. 1 believe that the component of 2.91 acres of park per 1,000 residents is high. Most multi -family projects have open space and SFD's do as well and that should be used as part of the calculations. 2. The use of square footage as the determining factor for residential does not work as well for me as number of bedrooms. You could have a 999 sf. unit with 3 bedrooms that will house more people then a larger unit. Also, you may have developers building similar size units to be under the stated sizes and save on these fees. 3. On the commercial side, I do not see why the impact fee is less for manufacturing, industrial etc. then for retail / food service. The calculation is for the impact on Fire, Police and Parks not for traffic impact. I do not believe there should be a change to the existing price structure. Renny Wylie JRW Construction, LLC 1676 N. Clarendon Way Eagle, Id. 83616 208-939-1253 Original Message ----- From: Todd Lavoie <tlavoie@meridiancity.org> To: Caleb Hood <chood@meridiancity.org>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org>; David Fulkerson dfulkerson@dfm.idaho.gov>; Jeff Lavey <jlavey@meridiancity.org>; Jenny Fields <jfields@meridiancity.org>; Joe Borton jborton@meridiancity.org>; John Nesmith <jnesmith@meridianautocare.com>; Jon Wardle jwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Josh Cummings <josh@crosswindsrealty. com>; Mark Niemeyer mniemeyer@meridiancity.org>; Matthew Adams <matt@thelandgroupinc.com>; Robert Simison rsimison@meridiancity.org>; Seldon S. \Butch\ Weedon <butchweedon@gmail.com>; Spencer Martin martin175@aol.com>; Steve Siddoway <ssiddoway@meridiancity.org>; Tammy de Weerd tdeweerd@meridiancity.org>; Ted Baird <tbaird@meridiancity.org>; Dave Yorgason (dyorgason6@gmail.com) dyorgason6@gmail.com>; renwylie@aol.com <renwylie@aol.com> Sent: Mon, May 13, 2019 9:20 am Subject: City Council Meeting - Impact Fee Public Hearing The Impact Fee Advisory Committee will be presenting the Impact Fee Study to the public for input. City staff will be present to answer any questions that may arise. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 89 of 407 Todd Lavoie, CGFM I Chief Financial Officer City of Meridian I Finance 33 L. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208,439.04.20 C4fE TZj'_— The Finance Department — Where Everyone COUNTS? ani E-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian a -naafi occoun is ore subject to the ?doho dow, tri regards to both release and retention, and moy be rereosed upon request, unless exempt from drsciosure by row - City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-4433 www.meridiancity.org All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 90 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 1 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 19-1827 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER 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(E)(2), 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 Raftelis ("Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by Consultant, dated March 28, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (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 proposed 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 91 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 2 of 4 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, if the adopted fee is less than the fees proposed under the methodology set forth in the Impact Fee Study, 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 April 12, 2019 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, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 92 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 3 of 4 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. Section 2. The Impact Fee Study set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is hereby approved. Section 3. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2) of the Meridian City Code is REPEALED AND REPLACED as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: E. 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 __________, 2019: Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Total Fees Residential (per housing unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 93 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 4 of 4 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 ________, 2019, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this _______ day of ________________, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ______ day of _________________, 2019. APPROVED: ______________________________ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Chris Johnson, City Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 94 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 5 of 4 EXHIBIT A Development Impact Fees Study Final Report March 28, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 95 of 407 227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 www.raftelis.com March 28, 2019 Mr. Todd Lavoie Chief Financial Officer City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Development Impact Fees Report Dear Mr. Lavoie, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) is pleased to provide the 2019 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian. After collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Raftelis recommends several changes to improve consistency with Idaho’s enabling legislation, including: •Updated development projections and land use assumptions based on Meridian data •Documentation of current infrastructure standards and projected need for additional facilities •Proportionate fees for two types of nonresidential development and five size thresholds for residential development Our report summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements, to be funded by development impact fees, along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible Comprehensive Financial Plan. It has been a pleasure working with you and we thank City staff for engaging with quality information and insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian. Sincerely, Dwayne Guthrie, PhD, AICP Manager Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 96 of 407 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act .................................................................................................................. 8 Proposed Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Citywide Parks ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recreation Buildings ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Proposed and Current Impact Fees ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 15 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................................ 16 Police Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Excluded Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Current Use and Available Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards ......................................................................................................................... 18 Police Infrastructure Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Police Development Fees ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Projected Revenue for Police Facilities.................................................................................................................................... 20 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police ................................................................................................................................. 21 Fire Impact Fees ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Existing Standards for Fire Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Fire Infrastructure Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees .................................................................................................................................. 24 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 28 Fee Implementation and Administration ............................................................................................................................. 29 Cost of CFP Preparation ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Development Categories ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Credits and Reimbursements .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 31 Service Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Summary of Growth Indicators ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit ........................................................................................................ 33 Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Jobs and Nonresidential Development.................................................................................................................................... 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 97 of 407 Executive Summary Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need, benefit, and proportionality . • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid should not exceed a development’s proportionate share of the capital cost. As documented in this report, the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the projects identified in this study taken from Meridian’s Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, Raftelis determined service units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth- related capital costs. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth “an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth.” The enabling legislation calls for three integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA) for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan, which the City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The LUA (see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition, the CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with service units by residential size thresholds. The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility type (i.e., parks/recreation, police and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards, the projected need for improvements to accommodate new development, the updated DIF compared to current fees, revenue projections and funding strategy for growth-related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian. Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements, which have been met by the City of Meridian, as documented in this study. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, “development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development.” Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 98 of 407 67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report, with more detailed information maintained by City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third, the Idaho Act states the cost per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types of applicable credits that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b) review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d) file periodic reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study. Proposed Impact Fees Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian’s 2019 impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are made during the adoption process, Raftelis will update the fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions. Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2019 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian. As discussed in Appendix A, Raftelis recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, based on climate-controlled space. In contrast, the 2013 study used a “one size fits all” approach, whereby all housing units paid the same DIF. The 2019 size threshold that matches the average fee according to the 2013 method is a residential dwelling with 2501 to 3200 square feet. As shown below, the average fee per dwelling increased from $2,017 in 2013 to $2,943 in 2019, which is an increase of $926 (46%). In addition, the 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.47 in 2013 to $0.56 in 2019, which is an increase of $0.09 per square foot (20%). Type of Impact Fee Service Area Incremental Expansion (current standards) Cost Allocation Parks and Recreation Facilities Citywide Park Improvements and Recreation Centers Residential Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings Functional Population and Inbound Vehicle Trips to Nonresidential Development Fire Facilities Citywide Fire Stations and Apparatus Functional Population and Jobs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 99 of 407 Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Citywide Service Area Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Proposed Total (2019) Existing Total (2013) Increase or Decrease % Change Residential (per housing unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 $2,017 ($922) -46% 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 $2,017 ($108) -5% 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 $2,017 $466 23% 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 $2,017 $926 46% 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 $2,017 $1,416 70% Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 $0.47 $0.41 87% All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 $0.47 ($0.01) -2% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 100 of 407 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees The 2019 updated impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure standards for improved acres of parks and floor area of recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area. Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development. Figure PR1 documents recent cost factors per acre for park improvements and land. Based on four park site acquisitions, land for parks in Meridian is expected to cost approximately $61,000 per acre. City staff confirmed this land cost factor is reasonable and consistent with a recent land valuation of $65,000 per acre quoted for expansion of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. As shown in the table below, park improvements have been averaging $241,000 per acre. Figure PR1: Cost Factors for Park Improvements Citywide Parks Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR2, the current infrastructure standard is 2.91 acres per 1,000 residents. At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for citywide park improvements. To maintain current standards over the next ten years, Meridian will improve 102.3 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately $24.65 million. Estimated Costs Park Name Acres Land Improvements Discovery Park 27.00 $405,184 $8,261,000 Reta Huskey Park 8.92 $680,007 $1,495,126 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50 $1,274,995 $1,382,621 Hillsdale Park 9.53 $857,700 $1,622,282 Total Costs 52.95 $3,217,886 $12,761,029 Weighted Average Cost per Acre => $61,000 $241,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 101 of 407 Figure PR2: Citywide Parks Standards and Need for Improved Acres Existing Parks Improved Acres Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.2 Settlers Park 57.7 Heroes Park 30.1 Discovery Park 27.0 Fuller Park 23.2 Bear Creak Park 18.8 Tully Park 18.7 Storey Park & Bark Park 17.9 Gordon Harris Park 11.1 Hillsdale Park 9.5 Reta Husky Park 8.9 Jabil Soccer Fields 8.4 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.5 Seasons Park 7.1 Chateau Park 6.7 Renaissance Park 6.5 Champion Park 6.0 Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.6 8th Street Park 2.8 Centennial Park 0.4 Total => 332.2 Allocation Factors for Parks Improvements Cost per Acre $241,000 Residential Proportionate Share 100% Service Units Population in 2019 114,102 Infrastructure Standards for Parks Improved Acres Residential (per person) 0.00291 Park Needs Year Population Improved Acres Base 2019 114,102 332.2 Year 1 2020 121,126 352.7 Year 2 2021 126,812 369.2 Year 3 2022 132,163 384.8 Year 4 2023 136,845 398.4 Year 5 2024 140,190 408.2 Year 10 2029 149,248 434.5 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 102.3 Growth Cost of Parks => $24,654,300 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 102 of 407 Recreation Buildings Figure PR3 lists current floor area for recreation centers. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Meridian should expect to spend at least $225 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current standards, Meridian will need 17,096 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost approximately $3.85 million. Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected growth costs, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Proposed and Current Impact Fees At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs due to growth. The projected need for acres of improved parks and square feet of recreation centers was addressed above. The need to acquire an additional five acres of land for parks is based on staff’s comparison of the existing inventory of undeveloped park sites (i.e., 97 acres) to the projected need for 102 additional acres over the next ten years. In addition to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park impact fee fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $26,168,471 divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $744 per service unit. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per Existing Recreation Centers Square Feet Meridian Community Center 4,200 1 Meridian Homecourt 51,303 1 Total to Include in Current Standards 55,503 Allocation Factors for Recreation Centers Building plus Land Cost per Square Foot* $225 Residential Proportionate Share 100% 2019 Meridian Population 114,102 * Based on local developer estimate. Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.49 Recreation Center Needs Year Population Square Feet Base 2019 114,102 55,503 Year 1 2020 121,126 58,920 Year 2 2021 126,812 61,686 Year 3 2022 132,163 64,288 Year 4 2023 136,845 66,566 Year 5 2024 140,190 68,193 Year 10 2029 149,248 72,599 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 17,096 Growth Cost for Recreation Buildings => $3,847,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 103 of 407 dwelling. The row highlighted light green indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling, which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Park Improvements acres 102 $241,000 $24,654,000 Park Land acres 5 $61,000 $305,000 Recreation Centers sq ft 17,096 $225 $3,847,000 Total => $28,806,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,656,132 Net Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Population Increase 2019 to 2029 35,146 Cost per Service Unit $744 Residential Impact Fees (per dwelling) Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Parks & Recreation Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $781 $1,113 ($332) -30% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $1,361 $1,113 $248 22% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $1,770 $1,113 $657 59% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $2,098 $1,113 $985 88% 3201 or more 3.29 $2,447 $1,113 $1,334 120% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $2,099 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 104 of 407 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive approximately $26.15 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and impact fee revenue. Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue Ten-Year Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Parks Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential $2,098 Year per housing unit Hsg Units Base 2019 42,345 Year 1 2020 44,445 Year 2 2021 46,145 Year 3 2022 47,746 Year 4 2023 49,145 Year 5 2024 50,145 Year 10 2029 54,811 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 Projected Revenue => $26,150,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 105 of 407 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to existing development. Existing parks and recreation centers are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Total impact fee funding of approximately $28.8 million represents a growth share of 80%, requiring approximately $7.28 million from other revenue sources over the next ten years. Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Parks and Recreation Needed Planned Improved Acres 102.3 151 Building Sq Ft 17,096 22,000 FY Description Amount Units Cost 2020 West Meridian Regional Park - Design $500,000 2022 West Meridian Regional Park - Construction 47 acres $5,147,500 2021 New Community Center - Design & Construction Documents $500,000 2023 New Community Center - Construction 22,000 square feet $5,000,000 2027 Margaret Aldape Park - Design $994,000 2029 Margaret Aldape Park - Construction 70 acres $10,012,500 2021 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Design $500,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Construction 25 $5,160,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Design $500,000 2025 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Construction 25 acres $5,160,000 2022 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Design $185,000 2024 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Construction 9 acres $1,906,500 2021 Additional Land Acquisition 5 acres $525,000 Total Cost => $36,090,500 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $28,806,000 Growth Share => 80% Existing Development Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $7,284,500 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 106 of 407 Police Impact Fees The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards for police buildings. Proportionate Share In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1, functional population was used to allocate public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is like the U.S. Census Bureau’s "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction. It also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Meridian, the cost allocation for residential development is 73% while nonresidential development accounts for 27% of the demand for fire infrastructure. Figure P1: Functional Population Excluded Costs Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. The City’s CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety Demand Units in 2015 Demand Person Residential Hours/Day Hours Population* 91,360 61% Residents Not Working 55,961 20 1,119,220 39% Resident Workers** 35,399 20% Worked in City** 7,231 14 101,234 80% Worked Outside City** 28,168 14 394,352 Residential Subtotal 1,614,806 Residential Share => 73% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 55,961 4 223,844 Jobs Located in City** 36,676 20% Residents Working in City** 7,231 10 72,310 80% Non-Resident Workers (inflow commuters) 29,445 10 294,450 Nonresidential Subtotal 590,604 Nonresidential Share => 27% TOTAL 2,205,410 * 2015 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. ** 2015 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 107 of 407 equipment that do not meet the minimum useful life requirement in Idaho’s Impact Fee Act. Current Use and Available Capacity In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian has determined that police building space will require expansion to accommodate future development. Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development. Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police. For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average-weekday, vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and nonresidential development, along with FY18-19 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services, as documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of $333 per square foot (provided by City staff). The cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY18- 19 service units, the standard in Meridian is 0.26 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development, Meridian’s standard is 0.06 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development, on an average weekday. Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards Police Infrastructure Needs Idaho’s development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3, projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles. Meridian will need 12,161 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten-year, growth-related capital cost of police buildings is approximately $4.05 million. Police Buildings Square Feet PSTC (half) 7,250 Admin Building 33,000 TOTAL 40,250 Source: City of Meridian Police Department. Police Buildings Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share (based on functional population) 73% 27% Growth Indicator Population Avg Wkdy Veh Trips to Nonres Dev Service Units in FY18-19 114,102 179,607 Square Feet per Service Unit 0.26 0.06 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 108 of 407 Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Police Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per development unit is also shown in the table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2017). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with nonresidential development within Meridian, trip ends (entering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using a basic 50% adjustment factor. In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act), less the projected police impact fee fund balance expected at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $2,633,140, divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $54 per residential service unit. Impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light blue indicates the updated police fee for an average-size dwelling is $152 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Buildings - Residential 0.26 Sq Ft per person Buildings - Nonresidential 0.06 Sq Ft per trip Police Buildings Cost $333 per square foot Infrastructure Needed Veh Trips to Police Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings (sq ft) Base 2019 114,102 179,607 40,250 Year 1 2020 121,126 184,062 42,328 Year 2 2021 126,812 188,819 44,080 Year 3 2022 132,163 193,625 45,749 Year 4 2023 136,845 198,637 47,258 Year 5 2024 140,190 203,714 48,427 Year 10 2029 149,248 231,013 52,411 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 51,406 12,161 Growth Cost of Police Buildings => $4,050,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 109 of 407 fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit Projected Revenue for Police Facilities Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately $2.6 million (see the upper portion of Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Police Buildings square feet 12,161 $333 $4,050,000 Outdoor Training Facility 23% $690,000 Total => $4,740,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,125,463 Net Growth Cost => $2,633,140 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $1,922,192 Nonresidential $710,948 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $54 Nonresidential (vehicle trips) 51,406 $13 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $56 $223 ($167) -75% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $98 $223 ($125) -56% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $128 $223 ($95) -43% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $152 $223 ($71) -32% 3201 or more 3.29 $177 $223 ($46) -21% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends per KSF Trip Adjustment Factors Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 37.75 50% $0.24 $0.12 $0.12 100% All Other 9.00 50% $0.05 $0.12 ($0.07) -58% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $154 Nonresidential Floor Area Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot $0.10 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 110 of 407 approximately $2.5 million in police development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and development fee revenue. Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Impact fees will pay for approximately $4.74 million, representing a growth share of 59%. Other revenue sources will be required to fund approximately $3.26 million in police facilities over the next ten years. Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Police Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities => $2,633,140 Police Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office & Other Services $152 $50 $240 $50 $50 per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Year Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $1,895,000 $130,000 $336,000 $64,000 $85,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $2,510,000 Buildings Description Square Feet Total Cost Training Facility Classroom 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 1 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 2 3,000 $1,000,000 Substation 6,000 $2,000,000 Total => 15,000 $5,000,000 Cost per Square Foot => $333 Outdoor Facilities Description Cost Outdoor Training Facility $3,000,000 Total => $8,000,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $4,740,000 Growth Share Funded by Impact Fees => 59% Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $3,260,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 111 of 407 Fire Impact Fees After evaluating calls for service data to general types of development, Raftelis recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development. Existing Standards for Fire Facilities Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. The standard for fire buildings is 0.44 square feet per person and 0.46 square feet per job. Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase communications equipment with a useful life of at least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and communications equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department. Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was allocated 73% to residential and 27% to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every additional resident will require Meridian to spend approximately $62 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately $64 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Fire Stations Square Feet Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) 7,360 Fire Station # 6 0 PSTC (half) 7,250 Training Tower @ Station #1 6,523 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 Fire Admin Space (City Hall) 13,511 TOTAL 68,975 Allocation Factors for Fire Stations Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% Population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.44 Nonresidential (per job) 0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 112 of 407 Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles Fire Infrastructure Needs The City’s Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian, fire facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development over the next ten years, Meridian will expand fire buildings by 20,859 square feet and spend $2.93 million to expand the fleet of fire vehicles. Fire Apparatus and Equipment Coding Total Cost Engines FE $5,148,000 Ladder Truck LT $1,600,000 Pickup Trucks PT $539,659 Other Vehicles OV $287,700 Communications Equipment CE $2,112,284 TOTAL $9,687,643 Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications Apparatus and Communications Residential (per person) $61.98 Nonresidential (per job) $64.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 113 of 407 Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thousand square feet of floor area are also documented in the Land Use Assumptions. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light orange indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling is $693 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit and a cost of $246 per additional person. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Fire Station s - Residential 0.44 Sq Ft per household Fire Station s - Nonresidential 0.46 Sq Ft per job Fire Station Cost $535 per square foot Fire Apparatus/Communications - Residential $61.98 Cost per person Fire Apparatus/Communications - Nonres $64.46 Cost per job Facilities Needed Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and Year Jobs Stations Communications Base 2019 114,102 40,575 68,975 $9,687,643 Year 1 2020 121,126 41,612 72,551 $10,189,837 Year 2 2021 126,812 42,677 75,549 $10,610,907 Year 3 2022 132,163 43,768 78,411 $11,012,890 Year 4 2023 136,845 44,887 80,990 $11,375,214 Year 5 2024 140,190 46,035 82,993 $11,656,541 Year 6 2025 143,578 47,214 85,030 $11,942,532 Year 7 2026 144,996 48,421 86,209 $12,108,228 Year 8 2027 146,413 49,659 87,403 $12,275,860 Year 9 2028 147,831 50,929 88,611 $12,445,618 Year 10 2029 149,248 52,231 89,834 $12,617,376 Ten -Yr Increase 35,146 11,656 20,859 $2,929,733 Cost of Fire Stations => $11,160,000 Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications => $2,930,000 Total Growth Cost => $14,090,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 114 of 407 compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee of $695 for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Proposed nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fire impact fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.35 in 2013 to $0.46 in 2019. Based on the 2019 fee schedule, a new warehouse would be in the category of All Other. This fee category assumes 1.50 jobs per thousand square feet of floor area. To convert the fee to an amount per square foot, we divide by 1000 then multiply by the cost factor per job ($274). The result is $0.41 (truncated) per square foot. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 115 of 407 Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Fire Stations square feet 20,859 $535 $11,160,000 Fire Apparatus dollars $2,930,000 Total => $14,090,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,241,236 Net Growth Cost => $11,867,367 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $8,663,178 Nonresidential $3,204,189 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $246 Nonresidential (jobs) 11,656 $274 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Hsg Unit Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $258 $681 ($423) -62% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $450 $681 ($231) -34% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $585 $681 ($96) -14% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $693 $681 $12 2% 3201 or more 3.29 $809 $681 $128 19% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 2.34 $0.64 $0.35 $0.29 83% All Other 1.50 $0.41 $0.35 $0.06 17% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $695 Nonresidential Sq Ft Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot) $0.46 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 116 of 407 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities Over the next ten years, fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire infrastructure, which has a ten-year growth cost of $11,867,367 (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately $11.82 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. The revenue projection assumes implementation of the proposed fire fees and that development from 2019 to 2029 is consistent with the land use assumptions described in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities => $11,867,367 Fire Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and Other Services $693 $410 $640 $410 $410 Year per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 4 2023 49,145 10,030 5,410 4,920 6,510 Year 5 2024 50,145 10,290 5,550 5,040 6,680 Year 6 2025 51,159 10,550 5,690 5,170 6,850 Year 7 2026 52,071 10,820 5,830 5,310 7,030 Year 8 2027 52,984 11,100 5,980 5,440 7,210 Year 9 2028 53,898 11,380 6,140 5,580 7,390 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $8,640,000 $1,070,000 $900,000 $520,000 $690,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $11,820,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 117 of 407 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire station floor area by approximately 25,000 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately $4.38 million. The total cost for these projects is approximately $17.75 million. The growth cost funded by impact fees is $14.09 million over ten years, which is 79% of the total cost. An additional $3.66 million in other revenues will be required to fully fund the Fire Department’s CFP for growth-related improvements. Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities Fire Stations Square Feet Total Cost Purchase Land for Fire Station #7 $500,000 Design Fire Station #7 $800,000 Build Fire Station #7 12,500 $5,387,500 Purchase Land for Fire Station #8 $250,000 Design Fire Station #8 $800,000 Build Fire Station #8 12,500 $5,637,500 Total => 25,000 $13,375,000 Cost per Sq Ft Based on Stations #7 & #8 => $535 Fire Apparatus Units Total Cost Quint Truck 1 $1,600,000 Heavy Rescue Vehicle 1 $800,000 Fire Engine Station #7 1 $572,000 Fire Engine Station #8 1 $572,000 Vehicle for EMS Captain 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Fire Inspector/Investigator 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Battalion Chiefs 1 $63,000 Alternative Response Unit 2 $642,000 Total => 9 $4,375,000 Total => $17,750,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $14,090,000 Growth Share => 79% Funded by Other Revenues => $3,660,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 118 of 407 Fee Implementation and Administration Consistent with best practices and Idaho’s enabling legislation, Meridian updates capital improvements and development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory Committee, then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee calculations. Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible, tracking funds according to first in, first out accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure. Cost of CFP Preparation As stated in Idaho’s enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. This minor cost ($18,603 per infrastructure type) was added to the 2019 Meridian impact fees. Development Categories Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building, the average size threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate-controlled floor area for the entire building, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment complexes and some residential development provide common areas for use by residents, such as exercise rooms and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not subject to additional impact fees. Also, Section 67-8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential building, that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to residential buildings, Raftelis recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to additional impact fees. The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density (i.e. jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area), as documented in Appendix A. “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial development. All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian’s impact fee study. For residential development, impact fees are based on average persons per Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 119 of 407 housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the average number of jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian’s elected officials for their consideration. Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience, Raftelis recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 120 of 407 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian’s 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho’s enabling legislation 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.” Service Areas To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees, the City of Meridian has evaluated collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the entire incorporated area. Raftelis recommends one citywide service area for Meridian impact fees. Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines “service area” as: “Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles, or both.” The City’s adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as modified over time. Summary of Growth Indicators Population, housing unit, jobs and nonresidential floor area are the “service units” or demand indicators that will be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are consistent with Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan, which is more general and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be periodically updated (e.g. every 5 years). Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19 data. In Meridian, the fiscal year begins on October 1 st . Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing units and nonresidential floor area, as shown in Figure A1. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than projected, fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development. Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years, the impact fee study assumes Meridian’s population increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.7% per year. Over the next ten years, jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.6% per year, which is from the Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2010 to 2040. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 121 of 407 Figure A1: Annual Development Projections Proportionate Share The term “proportionate” is found throughout Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67-8202(2) states the intent to, “Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;” Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(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…” Meridian, Idaho FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY23-24 FY28-29 FY38-39 Fiscal Year Begins Oct 1st 2019 2020 2021 2022 2024 2029 2039 Base Yr 1 2 3 5 10 20 Total Population City of Meridian 114,102 121,126 126,812 132,163 140,190 149,248 164,187 Annual Increase 7.2% 6.2% 4.7% 4.2% 2.4% 1.0% 1.0% Housing Units Single Family 35,911 37,649 39,056 40,381 42,367 46,229 54,516 Annual Increase 5.6% 4.8% 3.7% 3.4% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Multi-Family 6,434 6,796 7,089 7,365 7,778 8,582 10,322 Annual Increase 6.6% 5.6% 4.3% 3.9% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% Total Housing Units 42,345 44,445 46,145 47,746 50,145 54,811 64,838 Annual Increase 5.7% 5.0% 3.8% 3.5% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Persons per Hsg Unit 2.69 2.73 2.75 2.77 2.80 2.72 2.53 Jobs (by place of work) Industrial 7,501 7,693 7,890 8,092 8,511 9,656 12,430 Commercial 11,455 11,748 12,048 12,356 12,996 14,746 18,982 Institutional 4,133 4,238 4,347 4,458 4,689 5,320 6,848 Office & Other Services 17,486 17,933 18,392 18,862 19,839 22,509 28,976 Total Jobs 40,575 41,612 42,677 43,768 46,035 52,231 67,236 Annual Increase 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Jobs to Housing Ratio 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 1.04 Nonresidential Floor Area (square feet in thousands) Industrial 9,070 9,300 9,540 9,780 10,290 11,670 15,030 Commercial 4,890 5,010 5,140 5,270 5,550 6,290 8,100 Institutional 4,450 4,560 4,680 4,800 5,040 5,720 7,370 Office & Other Services 5,890 6,040 6,190 6,350 6,680 7,580 9,760 Total KSF 24,300 24,910 25,550 26,200 27,560 31,260 40,260 Avg Sq Ft Per Job 599 599 599 599 599 598 599 Avg Jobs per KSF 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 122 of 407 Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1). “All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. In the following sections, Raftelis describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential development. Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a “long-form” questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds makes fees more proportionate and facilitates construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.85 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with two or more units average 2.00 year-round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes, which have two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.76 year-round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. Raftelis recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit. Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, Raftelis recommends residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size. Custom tabulations of Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics Units in Structure Persons House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Unit * 81,202 27,793 2.92 28,448 2.85 89% 2% All Other ** 6,765 3,379 2.00 3,378 2.00 11% 0% Subtotal 87,967 31,172 2.82 31,826 2.76 2% Group Quarters 4,864 TOTAL 92,831 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024, B25032, B25033, and B26001. *Single unit includes attached and detached. ** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 123 of 407 demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro-Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, Raftelis derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control totals for Meridian. As shown above, the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that Meridian averages 2.76 persons per housing unit. Figure A3: Persons by Bedroom Range DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, Raftelis used the 2018 Ada County Assessor’s residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e., two, three, and four or more bedrooms). Raftelis recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, Raftelis derived the estimated average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1000 square feet or less) has an estimated average of 1.16 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space), the average is 3.63 persons per housing unit. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area by the total number of dwellings in the building. Recommended Multipliers (2) Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing (1) Units (1) Housing Unit Mix 0-1 48 39 1.30 2.8% 2 353 194 1.92 14.1% 3 1,598 678 2.48 49.2% 4+ 1,614 467 3.64 33.9% Total 3,613 1,378 2.76 100.0% (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdat a Sample for ID PUMA 701 (2012-2016 5-year database). (2) Recommendedpersons per housing unit are scaled to make the average derived from PUMS survey data match the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.76 persons per housing unit). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 124 of 407 Figure A4: Persons by Square Feet of Living Space Jobs and Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development. Raftelis uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure A5, color shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes the will be used by Raftelis to derive average weekday vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, Raftelis averaged Light Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing (ITE 150) to derive an average of 1,209 square feet per industrial job. The prototype for future commercial development is an average-size Shopping Center (ITE code 820). Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 427 square feet per job. For institutional development, such as schools, daycare and churches, the impact fee study assumes an average of 1,076 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is an Elementary School (ITE 520). For office and other services, an average-size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 337 square feet per job. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 125 of 407 Figure A5: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Figure A6 indicates 2015 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type of nonresidential, are from Meridian’s Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau’s online web application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel information obtained from Ada County. ITE Land Use / Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 32.21 1.30 771 Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 3.35 4.05 0.83 1,209 * Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 126 of 407 Figure A6: Jobs and Floor Area Estimates Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 127 of 407 1 Ch r i s J o h n s o n Fr o m : To d d L a v o i e Se n t : Mo n d a y , J u n e 3 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 5 6 P M To : Br a d P u r s e r ; C a l e b H o o d ; C h r i s J o h n s o n ; D a v i d F u l k e rs o n ; J e f f L a v e y ; J e n n y F i e l d s ; J o e B o r t o n ; J o h n N e sm i t h ; J o n W a r d l e ; J o s h C u m m i n g s ; M a r k N i e m e y e r ; M a tthew Adams; Robert Simison; Seldon S. "Butch" Weed on; Spencer Ma r t i n ; S t e v e S i d d o w a y ; T a m m y d e W e e r d ; T e d B a i r d ; To d d L a v o i e Cc : Dw a y n e G u t h r i e ; D a v e Y o r g a s o n ( d y o r g a s o n 6 @ g m a i l . c o m ) Su b j e c t : FW : I m p a c t F e e M e e t i n g Q u e s t i o n s a n d A n s w e r s At t a c h m e n t s : BC A L e t t e r t o M e r i d i a n C i t y - i m p a c t f e e s 5 - 2 4 - 2 0 1 9 2 . p d f Ho w d y a l l , I w a n t e d t o p r o v i d e y o u w i t h t h e l e t t e r f r o m B C A f o r t o m o r r o w ’ s d i s c u s s i o n i f y o u h a d n o t r e c e i v e d i t . S o r r y f o r t h e l a t e s u b m i s s i o n . Th a n k y o u f o r y o u r t i m e a n d h e l p w i t h t h e I m p a c t F e e d e v e l o p m e n t . Ha v e a g r e a t d a y ! To d d Fr o m : D a v i d Y o r g a s o n < d y o r g a s o n 6 @ g m a i l . c o m > Se n t : M o n d a y , J u n e 3 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 4 6 P M To : T o d d L a v o i e < t l a v o i e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Su b j e c t : F w d : I m p a c t F e e M e e t i n g Q u e s t i o n s a n d A n s w e r s Be g i n f o r w a r d e d m e s s a g e : Fr o m : Da v i d Y o r g a s o n < dy o r g a s o n 6 @ g m a i l . c o m > Su b j e c t : R e : I m p a c t F e e M e e t i n g Q u e s t i o n s a n d A n s w e rs Da t e : Ma y 3 0 , 2 0 1 9 a t 1 0 : 0 4 : 0 6 A M M D T To : To d d L a v o i e < tl a v o i e @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g > Cc : ci t y c o u n c i l < ci t y c o u n c i l @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, J o e B o r t o n < jb o r t o n @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, C a l e b H o o d < ch o o d @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, J e f f L a v e y < jl a v e y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, Mark Niemeyer < mniemeyer@meridiancity.org >, St e v e S i d d o w a y < ss i d d o w a y @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, T a m m y d e W e e r d < td e w e e r d @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, T e d B a i r d < tb a i r d @ m e r i d i a n c i t y . o r g >, J o n W a r d l e < jwardle@brightoncorp.com >, Dan Richter < danr@avimor.com >, Au t u m n G e s t r i n - B l u m e < ab l u m e @ h e r i t a g e w i f i . c o m >, D a v e Y o r g a s o n < dy o r g a s o n 6 @ g m a i l . c o m > Hi T o d d , Th e B C A B o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s m e t a n d p r e p a r e d t h e a t t ac h e d r e s p o n s e r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s t o t h e M e r i d i a n C I t y i m p a c t f e e s . I a m c o p y i n g t h e h e a d s of Police, Fire and Parks Departments on this ema il as well so th a t t h e y t o o a r e i n t h e l o o p w i t h o u r c o m m e n t s . C an y o u p l e a s e m a k e s u r e t h a t e a c h m e m b e r o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l a n d t h e M a y o r r e c e i v e s a c o p y o f t h i s l e t ter prior to the City Council meeting? Ag a i n , t h a n k y o u f o r r e a c h i n g o u t t o u s . W e k n o w t ha t r e v i e w i n g i m p a c t f e e s i s a m o n u m e n t a l t a s k a n d ap p r e c i a t e t h e e f f o r t s b y a l l i n v o l v e d . F e e l f r e e to reply or call me if you have any questions. Th a n k s a g a i n , Da v e Y o r g a s o n 20 8 - 8 5 0 - 1 0 7 0 Me r i d i a n C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g A g e n d a J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 1 9 – P a g e 1 2 8 o f 4 0 7 May 24, 2019 Mayor de Weerd and City Council Members 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Proposed Changes to Impact Fees To Mayor de Weerd and City Council Members, The Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho (BCASWI) appreciates the positive working relationship we have with the City of Meridian. We were notified that the City is proposing changes to the city impacts fees. Based on our review of the proposed changes we have the following comments for your consideration: First, we continue to support fair and equitable impact fees as a means to have growth pay for itself and to maintain existing levels of service for the city provided services of parks, police and fire. Second, we recognize the City is proposing a change in the formula in how impact fees are calculated to be based on the square footage of the home. We agree that charging park impact fees based on the number of people in each home makes sense since the utilization of the parks tends to be based on population and the numbers used in the CIP are based on Meridian population per household and home size. However, police and fire services are not necessarily dependent on the square footage of a home. The proposed fee suggests that larger homes require 3 times the police and fire services each year compared to a smaller home. It’s our understanding that smaller units (i.e. multi-family) tend to have an equal or greater demand for these services compared to average or larger homes. We ask the City to consider either a flat fee for police and fire impact fees for all housing sizes, or reassess the fee based on the actual call volume demands for police and fire services. Third, we do not have sufficient knowledge to determine whether the total dollar amount requested for parks, police and fire in the CIP is accurate or will maintain current levels of service. We trust and hope these departments are prudent in their requests and not enhancing levels of service on the backs of new growth. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 129 of 407 Fourth, the park impact fee is increasing an average 88%. On the surface this is substantial, and we are concerned with this significant increase. We recognize there are several factors including inflation that cause this. Lastly, the overall fee increase, mostly driven by an increase in park fees, will have an impact on housing affordability for all. We all recognize the concern for affordable housing for our current and future citizens and the City has the authority to not accept the full amount as suggested by the Development Impact Fee Study report. If the City wants to help with affordable workforce housing, it could reduce the fee charged to the smaller units, which has been done in many cities across the county. In conclusion, we ask the city to 1) reconsider the methodology used to calculate the Police and Fire impact fees charged on a per unit basis and either reassess it based on actual demand for these services OR charge the same fee for all home sizes, and 2) consider supporting affordable housing by reducing the fee charged to the smaller units. We ask the City to remember that based on a recent study on our local housing economy, growth does pay for itself. We truly appreciate the efforts of the City’s committee and the City staff in this time of strong growth. Growth will not always be this strong and we look forward to continuing to work with the City in a positive way to continue providing the high quality of life that is offered to all the citizens of Meridian. Sincerely, Dan Richter, President Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 130 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 1 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 19-1827 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER 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(E)(2), 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 Raftelis ("Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by Consultant, dated March 28, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (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 proposed 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 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 131 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 2 of 4 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, if the adopted fee is less than the fees proposed under the methodology set forth in the Impact Fee Study, 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 April 12, 2019 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, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 132 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 3 of 4 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. Section 2. The Impact Fee Study set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is hereby approved. Section 3. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2) of the Meridian City Code is REPEALED AND REPLACED as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: E. 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 __________, 2019: Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Total Fees Residential (per housing unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 133 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 4 of 4 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 ________, 2019, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this _______ day of ________________, 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ______ day of _________________, 2019. APPROVED: ______________________________ Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Chris Johnson, City Clerk Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 134 of 407 IMPACT FEE ORDIINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 5 of 4 EXHIBIT A Development Impact Fees Study Final Report March 28, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 135 of 407 227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 www.raftelis.com March 28, 2019 Mr. Todd Lavoie Chief Financial Officer City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Development Impact Fees Report Dear Mr. Lavoie, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) is pleased to provide the 2019 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian. After collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Raftelis recommends several changes to improve consistency with Idaho’s enabling legislation, including: •Updated development projections and land use assumptions based on Meridian data •Documentation of current infrastructure standards and projected need for additional facilities •Proportionate fees for two types of nonresidential development and five size thresholds for residential development Our report summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements, to be funded by development impact fees, along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible Comprehensive Financial Plan. It has been a pleasure working with you and we thank City staff for engaging with quality information and insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian. Sincerely, Dwayne Guthrie, PhD, AICP Manager Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 136 of 407 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act .................................................................................................................. 8 Proposed Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Citywide Parks ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recreation Buildings ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Proposed and Current Impact Fees ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 15 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................................ 16 Police Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Excluded Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Current Use and Available Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards ......................................................................................................................... 18 Police Infrastructure Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Police Development Fees ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Projected Revenue for Police Facilities.................................................................................................................................... 20 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police ................................................................................................................................. 21 Fire Impact Fees ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Existing Standards for Fire Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Fire Infrastructure Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees .................................................................................................................................. 24 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 28 Fee Implementation and Administration ............................................................................................................................. 29 Cost of CFP Preparation ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Development Categories ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Credits and Reimbursements .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 31 Service Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Summary of Growth Indicators ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit ........................................................................................................ 33 Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Jobs and Nonresidential Development.................................................................................................................................... 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 137 of 407 Executive Summary Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need, benefit, and proportionality . • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid should not exceed a development’s proportionate share of the capital cost. As documented in this report, the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the projects identified in this study taken from Meridian’s Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, Raftelis determined service units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth- related capital costs. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth “an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth.” The enabling legislation calls for three integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA) for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan, which the City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The LUA (see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition, the CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with service units by residential size thresholds. The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility type (i.e., parks/recreation, police and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards, the projected need for improvements to accommodate new development, the updated DIF compared to current fees, revenue projections and funding strategy for growth-related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian. Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements, which have been met by the City of Meridian, as documented in this study. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, “development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development.” Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 138 of 407 67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report, with more detailed information maintained by City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third, the Idaho Act states the cost per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types of applicable credits that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b) review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d) file periodic reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study. Proposed Impact Fees Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian’s 2019 impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are made during the adoption process, Raftelis will update the fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions. Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2019 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian. As discussed in Appendix A, Raftelis recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, based on climate-controlled space. In contrast, the 2013 study used a “one size fits all” approach, whereby all housing units paid the same DIF. The 2019 size threshold that matches the average fee according to the 2013 method is a residential dwelling with 2501 to 3200 square feet. As shown below, the average fee per dwelling increased from $2,017 in 2013 to $2,943 in 2019, which is an increase of $926 (46%). In addition, the 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.47 in 2013 to $0.56 in 2019, which is an increase of $0.09 per square foot (20%). Type of Impact Fee Service Area Incremental Expansion (current standards) Cost Allocation Parks and Recreation Facilities Citywide Park Improvements and Recreation Centers Residential Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings Functional Population and Inbound Vehicle Trips to Nonresidential Development Fire Facilities Citywide Fire Stations and Apparatus Functional Population and Jobs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 139 of 407 Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Citywide Service Area Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Proposed Total (2019) Existing Total (2013) Increase or Decrease % Change Residential (per housing unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 $2,017 ($922) -46% 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 $2,017 ($108) -5% 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 $2,017 $466 23% 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 $2,017 $926 46% 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 $2,017 $1,416 70% Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 $0.47 $0.41 87% All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 $0.47 ($0.01) -2% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 140 of 407 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees The 2019 updated impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure standards for improved acres of parks and floor area of recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area. Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development. Figure PR1 documents recent cost factors per acre for park improvements and land. Based on four park site acquisitions, land for parks in Meridian is expected to cost approximately $61,000 per acre. City staff confirmed this land cost factor is reasonable and consistent with a recent land valuation of $65,000 per acre quoted for expansion of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. As shown in the table below, park improvements have been averaging $241,000 per acre. Figure PR1: Cost Factors for Park Improvements Citywide Parks Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR2, the current infrastructure standard is 2.91 acres per 1,000 residents. At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for citywide park improvements. To maintain current standards over the next ten years, Meridian will improve 102.3 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately $24.65 million. Estimated Costs Park Name Acres Land Improvements Discovery Park 27.00 $405,184 $8,261,000 Reta Huskey Park 8.92 $680,007 $1,495,126 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50 $1,274,995 $1,382,621 Hillsdale Park 9.53 $857,700 $1,622,282 Total Costs 52.95 $3,217,886 $12,761,029 Weighted Average Cost per Acre => $61,000 $241,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 141 of 407 Figure PR2: Citywide Parks Standards and Need for Improved Acres Existing Parks Improved Acres Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.2 Settlers Park 57.7 Heroes Park 30.1 Discovery Park 27.0 Fuller Park 23.2 Bear Creak Park 18.8 Tully Park 18.7 Storey Park & Bark Park 17.9 Gordon Harris Park 11.1 Hillsdale Park 9.5 Reta Husky Park 8.9 Jabil Soccer Fields 8.4 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.5 Seasons Park 7.1 Chateau Park 6.7 Renaissance Park 6.5 Champion Park 6.0 Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.6 8th Street Park 2.8 Centennial Park 0.4 Total => 332.2 Allocation Factors for Parks Improvements Cost per Acre $241,000 Residential Proportionate Share 100% Service Units Population in 2019 114,102 Infrastructure Standards for Parks Improved Acres Residential (per person) 0.00291 Park Needs Year Population Improved Acres Base 2019 114,102 332.2 Year 1 2020 121,126 352.7 Year 2 2021 126,812 369.2 Year 3 2022 132,163 384.8 Year 4 2023 136,845 398.4 Year 5 2024 140,190 408.2 Year 10 2029 149,248 434.5 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 102.3 Growth Cost of Parks => $24,654,300 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 142 of 407 Recreation Buildings Figure PR3 lists current floor area for recreation centers. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Meridian should expect to spend at least $225 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current standards, Meridian will need 17,096 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost approximately $3.85 million. Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected growth costs, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Proposed and Current Impact Fees At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs due to growth. The projected need for acres of improved parks and square feet of recreation centers was addressed above. The need to acquire an additional five acres of land for parks is based on staff’s comparison of the existing inventory of undeveloped park sites (i.e., 97 acres) to the projected need for 102 additional acres over the next ten years. In addition to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park impact fee fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $26,168,471 divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $744 per service unit. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per Existing Recreation Centers Square Feet Meridian Community Center 4,200 1 Meridian Homecourt 51,303 1 Total to Include in Current Standards 55,503 Allocation Factors for Recreation Centers Building plus Land Cost per Square Foot* $225 Residential Proportionate Share 100% 2019 Meridian Population 114,102 * Based on local developer estimate. Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.49 Recreation Center Needs Year Population Square Feet Base 2019 114,102 55,503 Year 1 2020 121,126 58,920 Year 2 2021 126,812 61,686 Year 3 2022 132,163 64,288 Year 4 2023 136,845 66,566 Year 5 2024 140,190 68,193 Year 10 2029 149,248 72,599 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 17,096 Growth Cost for Recreation Buildings => $3,847,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 143 of 407 dwelling. The row highlighted light green indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling, which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Park Improvements acres 102 $241,000 $24,654,000 Park Land acres 5 $61,000 $305,000 Recreation Centers sq ft 17,096 $225 $3,847,000 Total => $28,806,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,656,132 Net Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Population Increase 2019 to 2029 35,146 Cost per Service Unit $744 Residential Impact Fees (per dwelling) Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Parks & Recreation Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $781 $1,113 ($332) -30% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $1,361 $1,113 $248 22% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $1,770 $1,113 $657 59% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $2,098 $1,113 $985 88% 3201 or more 3.29 $2,447 $1,113 $1,334 120% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $2,099 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 144 of 407 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive approximately $26.15 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and impact fee revenue. Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue Ten-Year Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Parks Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential $2,098 Year per housing unit Hsg Units Base 2019 42,345 Year 1 2020 44,445 Year 2 2021 46,145 Year 3 2022 47,746 Year 4 2023 49,145 Year 5 2024 50,145 Year 10 2029 54,811 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 Projected Revenue => $26,150,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 145 of 407 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to existing development. Existing parks and recreation centers are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Total impact fee funding of approximately $28.8 million represents a growth share of 80%, requiring approximately $7.28 million from other revenue sources over the next ten years. Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Parks and Recreation Needed Planned Improved Acres 102.3 151 Building Sq Ft 17,096 22,000 FY Description Amount Units Cost 2020 West Meridian Regional Park - Design $500,000 2022 West Meridian Regional Park - Construction 47 acres $5,147,500 2021 New Community Center - Design & Construction Documents $500,000 2023 New Community Center - Construction 22,000 square feet $5,000,000 2027 Margaret Aldape Park - Design $994,000 2029 Margaret Aldape Park - Construction 70 acres $10,012,500 2021 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Design $500,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Construction 25 $5,160,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Design $500,000 2025 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Construction 25 acres $5,160,000 2022 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Design $185,000 2024 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Construction 9 acres $1,906,500 2021 Additional Land Acquisition 5 acres $525,000 Total Cost => $36,090,500 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $28,806,000 Growth Share => 80% Existing Development Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $7,284,500 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 146 of 407 Police Impact Fees The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards for police buildings. Proportionate Share In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1, functional population was used to allocate public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is like the U.S. Census Bureau’s "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction. It also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Meridian, the cost allocation for residential development is 73% while nonresidential development accounts for 27% of the demand for fire infrastructure. Figure P1: Functional Population Excluded Costs Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. The City’s CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety Demand Units in 2015 Demand Person Residential Hours/Day Hours Population* 91,360 61% Residents Not Working 55,961 20 1,119,220 39% Resident Workers** 35,399 20% Worked in City** 7,231 14 101,234 80% Worked Outside City** 28,168 14 394,352 Residential Subtotal 1,614,806 Residential Share => 73% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 55,961 4 223,844 Jobs Located in City** 36,676 20% Residents Working in City** 7,231 10 72,310 80% Non-Resident Workers (inflow commuters) 29,445 10 294,450 Nonresidential Subtotal 590,604 Nonresidential Share => 27% TOTAL 2,205,410 * 2015 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. ** 2015 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 147 of 407 equipment that do not meet the minimum useful life requirement in Idaho’s Impact Fee Act. Current Use and Available Capacity In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian has determined that police building space will require expansion to accommodate future development. Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development. Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police. For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average-weekday, vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and nonresidential development, along with FY18-19 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services, as documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of $333 per square foot (provided by City staff). The cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY18- 19 service units, the standard in Meridian is 0.26 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development, Meridian’s standard is 0.06 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development, on an average weekday. Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards Police Infrastructure Needs Idaho’s development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3, projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles. Meridian will need 12,161 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten-year, growth-related capital cost of police buildings is approximately $4.05 million. Police Buildings Square Feet PSTC (half) 7,250 Admin Building 33,000 TOTAL 40,250 Source: City of Meridian Police Department. Police Buildings Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share (based on functional population) 73% 27% Growth Indicator Population Avg Wkdy Veh Trips to Nonres Dev Service Units in FY18-19 114,102 179,607 Square Feet per Service Unit 0.26 0.06 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 148 of 407 Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Police Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per development unit is also shown in the table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2017). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with nonresidential development within Meridian, trip ends (entering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using a basic 50% adjustment factor. In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act), less the projected police impact fee fund balance expected at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $2,633,140, divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $54 per residential service unit. Impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light blue indicates the updated police fee for an average-size dwelling is $152 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Buildings - Residential 0.26 Sq Ft per person Buildings - Nonresidential 0.06 Sq Ft per trip Police Buildings Cost $333 per square foot Infrastructure Needed Veh Trips to Police Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings (sq ft) Base 2019 114,102 179,607 40,250 Year 1 2020 121,126 184,062 42,328 Year 2 2021 126,812 188,819 44,080 Year 3 2022 132,163 193,625 45,749 Year 4 2023 136,845 198,637 47,258 Year 5 2024 140,190 203,714 48,427 Year 10 2029 149,248 231,013 52,411 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 51,406 12,161 Growth Cost of Police Buildings => $4,050,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 149 of 407 fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit Projected Revenue for Police Facilities Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately $2.6 million (see the upper portion of Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Police Buildings square feet 12,161 $333 $4,050,000 Outdoor Training Facility 23% $690,000 Total => $4,740,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,125,463 Net Growth Cost => $2,633,140 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $1,922,192 Nonresidential $710,948 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $54 Nonresidential (vehicle trips) 51,406 $13 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $56 $223 ($167) -75% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $98 $223 ($125) -56% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $128 $223 ($95) -43% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $152 $223 ($71) -32% 3201 or more 3.29 $177 $223 ($46) -21% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends per KSF Trip Adjustment Factors Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 37.75 50% $0.24 $0.12 $0.12 100% All Other 9.00 50% $0.05 $0.12 ($0.07) -58% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $154 Nonresidential Floor Area Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot $0.10 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 150 of 407 approximately $2.5 million in police development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and development fee revenue. Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Impact fees will pay for approximately $4.74 million, representing a growth share of 59%. Other revenue sources will be required to fund approximately $3.26 million in police facilities over the next ten years. Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Police Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities => $2,633,140 Police Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office & Other Services $152 $50 $240 $50 $50 per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Year Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $1,895,000 $130,000 $336,000 $64,000 $85,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $2,510,000 Buildings Description Square Feet Total Cost Training Facility Classroom 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 1 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 2 3,000 $1,000,000 Substation 6,000 $2,000,000 Total => 15,000 $5,000,000 Cost per Square Foot => $333 Outdoor Facilities Description Cost Outdoor Training Facility $3,000,000 Total => $8,000,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $4,740,000 Growth Share Funded by Impact Fees => 59% Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $3,260,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 151 of 407 Fire Impact Fees After evaluating calls for service data to general types of development, Raftelis recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development. Existing Standards for Fire Facilities Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. The standard for fire buildings is 0.44 square feet per person and 0.46 square feet per job. Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase communications equipment with a useful life of at least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and communications equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department. Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was allocated 73% to residential and 27% to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every additional resident will require Meridian to spend approximately $62 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately $64 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Fire Stations Square Feet Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) 7,360 Fire Station # 6 0 PSTC (half) 7,250 Training Tower @ Station #1 6,523 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 Fire Admin Space (City Hall) 13,511 TOTAL 68,975 Allocation Factors for Fire Stations Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% Population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.44 Nonresidential (per job) 0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 152 of 407 Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles Fire Infrastructure Needs The City’s Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian, fire facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development over the next ten years, Meridian will expand fire buildings by 20,859 square feet and spend $2.93 million to expand the fleet of fire vehicles. Fire Apparatus and Equipment Coding Total Cost Engines FE $5,148,000 Ladder Truck LT $1,600,000 Pickup Trucks PT $539,659 Other Vehicles OV $287,700 Communications Equipment CE $2,112,284 TOTAL $9,687,643 Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications Apparatus and Communications Residential (per person) $61.98 Nonresidential (per job) $64.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 153 of 407 Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thousand square feet of floor area are also documented in the Land Use Assumptions. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light orange indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling is $693 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit and a cost of $246 per additional person. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Fire Station s - Residential 0.44 Sq Ft per household Fire Station s - Nonresidential 0.46 Sq Ft per job Fire Station Cost $535 per square foot Fire Apparatus/Communications - Residential $61.98 Cost per person Fire Apparatus/Communications - Nonres $64.46 Cost per job Facilities Needed Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and Year Jobs Stations Communications Base 2019 114,102 40,575 68,975 $9,687,643 Year 1 2020 121,126 41,612 72,551 $10,189,837 Year 2 2021 126,812 42,677 75,549 $10,610,907 Year 3 2022 132,163 43,768 78,411 $11,012,890 Year 4 2023 136,845 44,887 80,990 $11,375,214 Year 5 2024 140,190 46,035 82,993 $11,656,541 Year 6 2025 143,578 47,214 85,030 $11,942,532 Year 7 2026 144,996 48,421 86,209 $12,108,228 Year 8 2027 146,413 49,659 87,403 $12,275,860 Year 9 2028 147,831 50,929 88,611 $12,445,618 Year 10 2029 149,248 52,231 89,834 $12,617,376 Ten -Yr Increase 35,146 11,656 20,859 $2,929,733 Cost of Fire Stations => $11,160,000 Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications => $2,930,000 Total Growth Cost => $14,090,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 154 of 407 compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee of $695 for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Proposed nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fire impact fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.35 in 2013 to $0.46 in 2019. Based on the 2019 fee schedule, a new warehouse would be in the category of All Other. This fee category assumes 1.50 jobs per thousand square feet of floor area. To convert the fee to an amount per square foot, we divide by 1000 then multiply by the cost factor per job ($274). The result is $0.41 (truncated) per square foot. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 155 of 407 Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Fire Stations square feet 20,859 $535 $11,160,000 Fire Apparatus dollars $2,930,000 Total => $14,090,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,241,236 Net Growth Cost => $11,867,367 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $8,663,178 Nonresidential $3,204,189 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $246 Nonresidential (jobs) 11,656 $274 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Hsg Unit Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $258 $681 ($423) -62% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $450 $681 ($231) -34% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $585 $681 ($96) -14% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $693 $681 $12 2% 3201 or more 3.29 $809 $681 $128 19% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 2.34 $0.64 $0.35 $0.29 83% All Other 1.50 $0.41 $0.35 $0.06 17% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $695 Nonresidential Sq Ft Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot) $0.46 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 156 of 407 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities Over the next ten years, fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire infrastructure, which has a ten-year growth cost of $11,867,367 (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately $11.82 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. The revenue projection assumes implementation of the proposed fire fees and that development from 2019 to 2029 is consistent with the land use assumptions described in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities => $11,867,367 Fire Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and Other Services $693 $410 $640 $410 $410 Year per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 4 2023 49,145 10,030 5,410 4,920 6,510 Year 5 2024 50,145 10,290 5,550 5,040 6,680 Year 6 2025 51,159 10,550 5,690 5,170 6,850 Year 7 2026 52,071 10,820 5,830 5,310 7,030 Year 8 2027 52,984 11,100 5,980 5,440 7,210 Year 9 2028 53,898 11,380 6,140 5,580 7,390 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $8,640,000 $1,070,000 $900,000 $520,000 $690,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $11,820,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 157 of 407 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire station floor area by approximately 25,000 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately $4.38 million. The total cost for these projects is approximately $17.75 million. The growth cost funded by impact fees is $14.09 million over ten years, which is 79% of the total cost. An additional $3.66 million in other revenues will be required to fully fund the Fire Department’s CFP for growth-related improvements. Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities Fire Stations Square Feet Total Cost Purchase Land for Fire Station #7 $500,000 Design Fire Station #7 $800,000 Build Fire Station #7 12,500 $5,387,500 Purchase Land for Fire Station #8 $250,000 Design Fire Station #8 $800,000 Build Fire Station #8 12,500 $5,637,500 Total => 25,000 $13,375,000 Cost per Sq Ft Based on Stations #7 & #8 => $535 Fire Apparatus Units Total Cost Quint Truck 1 $1,600,000 Heavy Rescue Vehicle 1 $800,000 Fire Engine Station #7 1 $572,000 Fire Engine Station #8 1 $572,000 Vehicle for EMS Captain 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Fire Inspector/Investigator 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Battalion Chiefs 1 $63,000 Alternative Response Unit 2 $642,000 Total => 9 $4,375,000 Total => $17,750,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $14,090,000 Growth Share => 79% Funded by Other Revenues => $3,660,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 158 of 407 Fee Implementation and Administration Consistent with best practices and Idaho’s enabling legislation, Meridian updates capital improvements and development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory Committee, then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee calculations. Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible, tracking funds according to first in, first out accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure. Cost of CFP Preparation As stated in Idaho’s enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. This minor cost ($18,603 per infrastructure type) was added to the 2019 Meridian impact fees. Development Categories Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building, the average size threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate-controlled floor area for the entire building, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment complexes and some residential development provide common areas for use by residents, such as exercise rooms and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not subject to additional impact fees. Also, Section 67-8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential building, that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to residential buildings, Raftelis recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to additional impact fees. The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density (i.e. jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area), as documented in Appendix A. “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial development. All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian’s impact fee study. For residential development, impact fees are based on average persons per Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 159 of 407 housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the average number of jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian’s elected officials for their consideration. Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience, Raftelis recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 160 of 407 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian’s 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho’s enabling legislation 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.” Service Areas To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees, the City of Meridian has evaluated collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the entire incorporated area. Raftelis recommends one citywide service area for Meridian impact fees. Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines “service area” as: “Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles, or both.” The City’s adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as modified over time. Summary of Growth Indicators Population, housing unit, jobs and nonresidential floor area are the “service units” or demand indicators that will be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are consistent with Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan, which is more general and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be periodically updated (e.g. every 5 years). Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19 data. In Meridian, the fiscal year begins on October 1 st . Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing units and nonresidential floor area, as shown in Figure A1. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than projected, fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development. Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years, the impact fee study assumes Meridian’s population increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.7% per year. Over the next ten years, jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.6% per year, which is from the Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2010 to 2040. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 161 of 407 Figure A1: Annual Development Projections Proportionate Share The term “proportionate” is found throughout Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67-8202(2) states the intent to, “Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;” Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(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…” Meridian, Idaho FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY23-24 FY28-29 FY38-39 Fiscal Year Begins Oct 1st 2019 2020 2021 2022 2024 2029 2039 Base Yr 1 2 3 5 10 20 Total Population City of Meridian 114,102 121,126 126,812 132,163 140,190 149,248 164,187 Annual Increase 7.2% 6.2% 4.7% 4.2% 2.4% 1.0% 1.0% Housing Units Single Family 35,911 37,649 39,056 40,381 42,367 46,229 54,516 Annual Increase 5.6% 4.8% 3.7% 3.4% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Multi-Family 6,434 6,796 7,089 7,365 7,778 8,582 10,322 Annual Increase 6.6% 5.6% 4.3% 3.9% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% Total Housing Units 42,345 44,445 46,145 47,746 50,145 54,811 64,838 Annual Increase 5.7% 5.0% 3.8% 3.5% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Persons per Hsg Unit 2.69 2.73 2.75 2.77 2.80 2.72 2.53 Jobs (by place of work) Industrial 7,501 7,693 7,890 8,092 8,511 9,656 12,430 Commercial 11,455 11,748 12,048 12,356 12,996 14,746 18,982 Institutional 4,133 4,238 4,347 4,458 4,689 5,320 6,848 Office & Other Services 17,486 17,933 18,392 18,862 19,839 22,509 28,976 Total Jobs 40,575 41,612 42,677 43,768 46,035 52,231 67,236 Annual Increase 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Jobs to Housing Ratio 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 1.04 Nonresidential Floor Area (square feet in thousands) Industrial 9,070 9,300 9,540 9,780 10,290 11,670 15,030 Commercial 4,890 5,010 5,140 5,270 5,550 6,290 8,100 Institutional 4,450 4,560 4,680 4,800 5,040 5,720 7,370 Office & Other Services 5,890 6,040 6,190 6,350 6,680 7,580 9,760 Total KSF 24,300 24,910 25,550 26,200 27,560 31,260 40,260 Avg Sq Ft Per Job 599 599 599 599 599 598 599 Avg Jobs per KSF 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 162 of 407 Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1). “All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. In the following sections, Raftelis describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential development. Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a “long-form” questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds makes fees more proportionate and facilitates construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.85 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with two or more units average 2.00 year-round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes, which have two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.76 year-round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. Raftelis recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit. Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, Raftelis recommends residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size. Custom tabulations of Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics Units in Structure Persons House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Unit * 81,202 27,793 2.92 28,448 2.85 89% 2% All Other ** 6,765 3,379 2.00 3,378 2.00 11% 0% Subtotal 87,967 31,172 2.82 31,826 2.76 2% Group Quarters 4,864 TOTAL 92,831 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024, B25032, B25033, and B26001. *Single unit includes attached and detached. ** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 163 of 407 demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro-Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, Raftelis derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control totals for Meridian. As shown above, the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that Meridian averages 2.76 persons per housing unit. Figure A3: Persons by Bedroom Range DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, Raftelis used the 2018 Ada County Assessor’s residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e., two, three, and four or more bedrooms). Raftelis recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, Raftelis derived the estimated average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1000 square feet or less) has an estimated average of 1.16 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space), the average is 3.63 persons per housing unit. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area by the total number of dwellings in the building. Recommended Multipliers (2) Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing (1) Units (1) Housing Unit Mix 0-1 48 39 1.30 2.8% 2 353 194 1.92 14.1% 3 1,598 678 2.48 49.2% 4+ 1,614 467 3.64 33.9% Total 3,613 1,378 2.76 100.0% (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdat a Sample for ID PUMA 701 (2012-2016 5-year database). (2) Recommendedpersons per housing unit are scaled to make the average derived from PUMS survey data match the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.76 persons per housing unit). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 164 of 407 Figure A4: Persons by Square Feet of Living Space Jobs and Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development. Raftelis uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure A5, color shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes the will be used by Raftelis to derive average weekday vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, Raftelis averaged Light Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing (ITE 150) to derive an average of 1,209 square feet per industrial job. The prototype for future commercial development is an average-size Shopping Center (ITE code 820). Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 427 square feet per job. For institutional development, such as schools, daycare and churches, the impact fee study assumes an average of 1,076 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is an Elementary School (ITE 520). For office and other services, an average-size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 337 square feet per job. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 165 of 407 Figure A5: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Figure A6 indicates 2015 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type of nonresidential, are from Meridian’s Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau’s online web application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel information obtained from Ada County. ITE Land Use / Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 32.21 1.30 771 Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 3.35 4.05 0.83 1,209 * Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 166 of 407 Figure A6: Jobs and Floor Area Estimates Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 167 of 407 November The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho Income, Jobs, and Taxes Generated The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated December 2018 Housing Policy Department Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 168 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 169 of 407 Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Detailed Tables on Single-family Construction………………………………………………. 4 Detailed Tables on Multifamily Construction………………………………………………….. 9 Background and a Brief Description of the Model Used to Estimate the Economic Benefits………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14 Attachment: Local Impact of Home Building—Technical Documentation for the NAHB Model Used to Estimate the Income, Jobs, and Taxes Generated The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 170 of 407 1 Executive Summary Home building generates substantial local economic activity, including new income and jobs for residents, and additional revenue for local governments. The National Association of Home Builders has developed a model to estimate these economic benefits. The model captures the effect of the construction activity itself, the ripple impact that occurs when income earned from construction activity is spent and recycles in the local economy, and the ongoing impact that results from new homes becoming occupied by residents who pay taxes and buy locally produced goods and services. To fully understand the economic impact residential construction has on a local area, it is important to include the ripple effects and the ongoing benefits. Since the model was initially developed in 1996, NAHB has used it successfully to estimate the impacts of construction in over 800 projects, local jurisdictions, metropolitan areas, non-metropolitan counties, and states across the country. This report presents estimates of the metro area impacts of home building in Ada County, Idaho. For purposes of the NAHB model, a local area must be large enough to include the places where construction workers live and spend their money, as well as the places where the new home occupants are likely to work, shop, and go for recreation. In practice, this usually means a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Based on local commuting patterns, OMB has identified the Boise City, Idaho MSA as a metro area consisting of five counties (Ada, Boise, Canyon, Gem and Owyhee) in the State of Idaho (see map below). Boise City, Idaho MSA According to the Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey, roughly 181,000 of the Boise City, Idaho MSA’s 275,000 housing units are located in Ada County. In this report, wherever the term local is used, it refers to the five-county metro area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 171 of 407 2 The report presents estimates of the impacts of building 4,540 single-family and 1,759 multifamily housing units, based on construction activity in Ada County during the one-year period from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. The NAHB model produces impacts on income and employment in 16 industries and local government, as well as detailed information about taxes and other types of local government revenue. Aggregate results are summarized below. Subsequent sections of the report show detail by industry and type of tax or fee revenue generated. Single-family Construction The estimated one-year metro area impacts of building 4,540 single-family homes in Ada County include $1.31 billion in local income, $110.9 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 20,615 local jobs. These are local impacts, representing income and jobs for residents of the Boise City MSA, and taxes (and other sources of revenue, including permit fees) for all local jurisdictions within the metro area. They are also one-year impacts that include both the direct and indirect impact of the construction activity itself, and the impact of local residents who earn money from the construction activity spending part of it within the local area. Local jobs are measured in full time equivalents—i.e., one reported job represents enough work to keep one worker employed full-time for a year, based on average hours worked per week by full- time employees in the industry. The additional, annually recurring impacts of building 4,540 single-family homes in Ada County include $179.0 million in local income, $34.8 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 3,343 local jobs. These are ongoing, annual local impacts that result from the new homes becoming occupied, and the occupants paying taxes and otherwise participating in the local economy year after year. The ongoing impacts also include the effect of increased property taxes, estimated at $16.6 million, based on the difference between the value of raw land and the value of a completed housing unit on a finished lot, assuming that raw land would be taxed at the same rate as the completed housing unit. Compared to the rest of the ongoing impacts, it will take an extra year for the local governments to begin collecting the $16.6 million in extra property tax payments, as the increase is typically delayed for a year. The above impacts were calculated assuming that new single-family homes built in Ada County have an average price of $390,000; which includes $36,000 in raw land value and $13,500 in permit, hook-up, impact and other fees paid to local governments; and incur an average property tax of $4,463 per year. This information was provided by the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 172 of 407 3 Multifamily Construction The estimated one-year local impacts of building 1,759 multifamily units in Ada County include $190.6 million in local income, $26.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 2,953 local jobs. These are local impacts, representing income and jobs for residents of the Boise City metro area, and taxes (and other sources of revenue, including permit fees) for all local jurisdictions within the MSA. They are also one-year impacts that include both the direct and indirect impact of the construction activity itself, and the impact of local residents who earn money from the construction activity spending part of it within the metro area. The additional, annually recurring impacts of building 1,759 multifamily units in Ada County include $44.4 million in local income, $6.9 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 823 local jobs. These are ongoing, annual local impacts that result from the new homes becoming occupied, and the occupants paying taxes and otherwise participating in the local economy year after year. They also represent impacts that have been reduced to account for the natural vacancy rate that tends to prevail in multifamily properties (see page 23 of the Technical Documentation). Again, the ongoing impacts include an increase in property taxes that will typically start to take effect a year later than the rest of the ongoing impacts. These estimates were calculated assuming that new multifamily units built in Ada County have an average market value of $140,000; which includes $15,000 in raw land value and $11,000 in permit, hook-up, impact and other fees paid to local governments; and incur an average annual property tax of $2,195 per unit. As with the assumptions underlying the single-family impact estimates, this information was provided by the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 173 of 407 4 Detailed Tables on Single-family Construction The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 174 of 407 5 Impact of Building 4,540 Single-family Homes in Ada County, Idaho Summary Total One-Year Impact: Sum of Phase I and Phase II: Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $1,310,419,600 $397,656,000 $912,763,700 $110,859,400 20,615 Phase I: Direct and Indirect Impact of Construction Activity: Local Income Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $893,637,000 $303,294,100 $590,342,900 $77,297,500 12,894 Phase II: Induced (Ripple) Effect of Spending the Income and Taxes from Phase I: Local Income Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $416,782,600 $94,361,900 $322,420,800 $33,561,900 7,721 Phase III: Ongoing, Annual Effect that Occurs When New Homes are Occupied: Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $179,049,600 $41,118,400 $137,931,100 $34,792,100 3,343 1 The term local taxes is used as a shorthand for local government revenue from all sources: taxes, fees, fines, revenue from government-owned enterprises, etc. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 175 of 407 6 Impact of Building 4,540 Single-family Homes in Ada County, Idaho Phase I—Direct and Indirect Impact of Construction Activity A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $690,167,900 $235,343,800 $454,824,100 $46,000 9,863 Manufacturing $71,300 $3,300 $68,000 $38,000 2 Transportation $299,800 $145,400 $154,400 $23,000 7 Communications $5,755,300 $2,010,900 $3,744,400 $53,000 70 Utilities $1,359,800 $294,100 $1,065,700 $89,000 12 Wholesale and Retail Trade $71,542,400 $15,776,500 $55,765,900 $38,000 1,455 Finance and Insurance $12,814,500 $477,500 $12,337,000 $89,000 139 Real Estate $34,246,700 $29,489,000 $4,757,700 $42,000 113 Personal & Repair Services $3,535,900 $841,600 $2,694,300 $34,000 78 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $2,413,300 $931,400 $1,481,900 $32,000 46 Business & Professional Services $56,608,100 $13,151,700 $43,456,500 $53,000 816 Eating and Drinking Places $2,037,700 $334,700 $1,703,000 $23,000 73 Automobile Repair & Service $753,600 $226,700 $526,900 $34,000 15 Entertainment Services $444,000 $42,400 $401,500 $22,000 18 Health, Educ. & Social Services $80,200 $2,500 $77,700 $38,000 2 Local Government $2,520,300 $0 $2,520,300 $51,000 49 Other $8,986,200 $4,222,600 $4,763,600 $35,000 134 Total $893,637,000 $303,294,100 $590,342,900 $46,000 12,894 B. Local Government General Revenue by Type TAXES: USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $1,788,100 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $61,290,000 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $4,814,900 General Sales Taxes $300 Hospital Charges $304,900 Specific Excise Taxes $87,700 Transportation Charges $1,906,700 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $726,300 License Taxes $286,800 Other Fees and Charges $6,042,100 Other Taxes $49,800 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $75,084,900 TOTAL TAXES $2,212,600 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $77,297,500 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 176 of 407 7 Impact of Building 4,540 Single-family Homes in Ada County, Idaho Phase II—Induced Effect of Spending Income and Tax Revenue from Phase I A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $24,418,500 $8,924,100 $15,494,400 $46,000 336 Manufacturing $80,000 $4,000 $76,000 $37,000 2 Transportation $1,723,300 $835,700 $887,600 $23,000 39 Communications $22,507,900 $9,327,800 $13,180,100 $58,000 226 Utilities $7,790,200 $1,677,100 $6,113,100 $89,000 68 Wholesale and Retail Trade $61,162,800 $10,280,100 $50,882,800 $38,000 1,340 Finance and Insurance $13,016,200 $510,700 $12,505,500 $72,000 173 Real Estate $41,783,500 $17,317,800 $24,465,700 $42,000 582 Personal & Repair Services $15,436,100 $5,636,200 $9,799,900 $34,000 284 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $5,460,100 $2,107,300 $3,352,800 $32,000 104 Business & Professional Services $55,500,100 $16,137,800 $39,362,300 $45,000 883 Eating and Drinking Places $28,014,700 $5,467,400 $22,547,300 $23,000 991 Automobile Repair & Service $12,426,800 $3,739,000 $8,687,800 $34,000 252 Entertainment Services $3,398,200 $646,200 $2,752,000 $21,000 128 Health, Educ. & Social Services $69,064,400 $7,546,100 $61,518,300 $50,000 1,238 Local Government $46,433,000 $0 $46,433,000 $49,000 941 Other $8,566,800 $4,204,600 $4,362,200 $33,000 134 Total $416,782,600 $94,361,900 $322,420,800 $42,000 7,721 B. Local Government General Revenue by Type TAXES: USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $9,151,600 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $16,470,900 General Sales Taxes $1,500 Hospital Charges $1,001,000 Specific Excise Taxes $448,900 Transportation Charges $889,300 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $338,700 License Taxes $1,180,000 Other Fees and Charges $3,825,400 Other Taxes $254,800 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $22,525,200 TOTAL TAXES $11,036,700 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $33,561,900 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 177 of 407 8 Impact of Building 4,540 Single-family Homes in Ada County, Idaho Phase III—Ongoing, Annual Effect that Occurs as the Homes are Occupied A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $10,067,200 $3,681,800 $6,385,400 $46,000 138 Manufacturing $35,900 $1,800 $34,100 $38,000 1 Transportation $469,800 $227,800 $242,000 $23,000 11 Communications $10,277,800 $4,280,800 $5,997,000 $58,000 103 Utilities $3,676,100 $790,600 $2,885,400 $89,000 32 Wholesale and Retail Trade $28,639,800 $4,671,800 $23,968,000 $38,000 625 Finance and Insurance $6,730,900 $247,700 $6,483,200 $71,000 92 Real Estate $12,607,600 $5,225,400 $7,382,200 $42,000 175 Personal & Repair Services $6,447,200 $2,539,600 $3,907,600 $34,000 113 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $2,473,700 $954,700 $1,519,000 $32,000 47 Business & Professional Services $27,327,200 $8,463,200 $18,864,000 $46,000 410 Eating and Drinking Places $13,701,400 $2,585,700 $11,115,700 $23,000 493 Automobile Repair & Service $5,542,700 $1,667,700 $3,875,000 $34,000 112 Entertainment Services $2,125,400 $364,100 $1,761,300 $21,000 82 Health, Educ. & Social Services $27,993,400 $3,184,100 $24,809,300 $49,000 503 Local Government $16,372,700 $0 $16,372,700 $49,000 333 Other $4,560,800 $2,231,600 $2,329,200 $33,000 71 Total $179,049,600 $41,118,400 $137,931,100 $41,000 3,343 B. Local Government General Revenue by Type TAXES: USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $4,358,000 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $16,633,800 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $10,048,600 General Sales Taxes $700 Hospital Charges $632,800 Specific Excise Taxes $213,700 Transportation Charges $382,000 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $145,500 License Taxes $560,600 Other Fees and Charges $1,695,000 Other Taxes $121,300 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $12,904,000 TOTAL TAXES $21,888,100 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $34,792,100 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 178 of 407 9 Detailed Tables on Multifamily Construction The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 179 of 407 10 Impact of Building 1,759 Multifamily Units in Ada County, Idaho Summary Total One-Year Impact: Sum of Phase I and Phase II: Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $190,595,100 $60,505,300 $130,089,900 $26,498,700 2,953 Phase I: Direct and Indirect Impact of Construction Activity: Local Income Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $124,712,100 $46,506,300 $78,206,000 $21,439,700 1,747 Phase II: Induced (Ripple) Effect of Spending the Income and Taxes from Phase I: Local Income Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $65,883,000 $13,999,000 $51,883,900 $5,059,000 1,205 Phase III: Ongoing, Annual Effect that Occurs When New Homes are Occupied: Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Local Taxes1 Local Jobs Supported $44,392,400 $10,596,300 $33,796,300 $6,909,600 823 1 The term local taxes is used as a shorthand for local government revenue from all sources: taxes, fees, fines, revenue from government-owned enterprises, etc. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 180 of 407 11 Impact of Building 1,759 Multifamily Units in Ada County, Idaho Phase I—Direct and Indirect Impact of Construction Activity A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $102,404,100 $39,386,900 $63,017,200 $46,000 1,374 Manufacturing $6,800 $300 $6,500 $37,000 0 Transportation $22,900 $11,100 $11,800 $23,000 1 Communications $665,600 $229,100 $436,500 $52,000 8 Utilities $170,200 $36,900 $133,300 $89,000 1 Wholesale and Retail Trade $11,321,100 $2,498,000 $8,823,100 $37,000 239 Finance and Insurance $625,100 $25,000 $600,100 $81,000 7 Real Estate $2,889,400 $2,488,000 $401,400 $42,000 10 Personal & Repair Services $419,900 $99,900 $320,000 $34,000 9 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $255,100 $98,500 $156,600 $32,000 5 Business & Professional Services $4,608,100 $1,129,900 $3,478,300 $51,000 69 Eating and Drinking Places $131,600 $20,800 $110,700 $23,000 5 Automobile Repair & Service $94,900 $28,600 $66,400 $34,000 2 Entertainment Services $40,000 $3,800 $36,200 $22,000 2 Health, Educ. & Social Services $11,900 $300 $11,600 $39,000 0 Local Government $276,100 $0 $276,100 $55,000 5 Other $769,300 $449,200 $320,200 $31,000 10 Total $124,712,100 $46,506,300 $78,206,000 $45,000 1,747 B. Local Government General Revenue by Type TAXES: USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $141,400 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $19,349,000 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $671,900 General Sales Taxes $0 Hospital Charges $42,600 Specific Excise Taxes $6,900 Transportation Charges $266,100 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $101,400 License Taxes $26,400 Other Fees and Charges $830,100 Other Taxes $3,900 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $21,261,100 TOTAL TAXES $178,700 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $21,439,700 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 181 of 407 12 Impact of Building 1,759 Multifamily Units in Ada County, Idaho Phase II—Induced Effect of Spending Income and Tax Revenue from Phase I A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $3,617,900 $1,324,200 $2,293,600 $46,000 50 Manufacturing $13,400 $700 $12,700 $37,000 0 Transportation $281,500 $136,500 $145,000 $23,000 6 Communications $3,364,000 $1,391,400 $1,972,600 $58,000 34 Utilities $1,148,300 $247,200 $901,100 $89,000 10 Wholesale and Retail Trade $8,972,500 $1,513,100 $7,459,500 $38,000 197 Finance and Insurance $1,932,000 $75,500 $1,856,500 $72,000 26 Real Estate $6,146,100 $2,547,300 $3,598,700 $42,000 85 Personal & Repair Services $2,317,200 $835,500 $1,481,700 $34,000 44 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $834,600 $322,100 $512,500 $32,000 16 Business & Professional Services $8,400,600 $2,429,000 $5,971,600 $45,000 134 Eating and Drinking Places $4,119,600 $806,200 $3,313,300 $22,000 148 Automobile Repair & Service $1,815,000 $546,100 $1,268,900 $34,000 37 Entertainment Services $498,600 $94,400 $404,200 $21,000 19 Health, Educ. & Social Services $10,061,000 $1,099,600 $8,961,400 $49,000 181 Local Government $11,080,800 $0 $11,080,800 $56,000 198 Other $1,279,900 $630,200 $649,800 $32,000 20 Total $65,883,000 $13,999,000 $51,883,900 $43,000 1,205 B. Local Government General Revenue by Type TAXES: USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $1,348,800 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $0 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $2,493,400 General Sales Taxes $200 Hospital Charges $151,800 Specific Excise Taxes $66,200 Transportation Charges $140,600 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $53,500 License Taxes $174,200 Other Fees and Charges $592,800 Other Taxes $37,600 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $3,432,100 TOTAL TAXES $1,626,900 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $5,059,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 182 of 407 13 Impact of Building 1,759 Multifamily Units in Ada County, Idaho Phase III—Ongoing, Annual Effect that Occurs as the Homes are Occupied A. Local Income and Jobs by Industry Industry Local Income Local Business Owners’ Income Local Wages and Salaries Wages & Salaries per Full-time Job Number of Local Jobs Supported Construction $1,429,000 $536,800 $892,300 $46,000 19 Manufacturing $9,400 $500 $8,900 $37,000 0 Transportation $191,000 $92,600 $98,400 $23,000 4 Communications $2,493,100 $1,034,000 $1,459,200 $58,000 25 Utilities $480,200 $103,600 $376,600 $89,000 4 Wholesale and Retail Trade $7,426,700 $1,110,300 $6,316,400 $40,000 156 Finance and Insurance $1,368,800 $52,800 $1,316,000 $70,000 19 Real Estate $8,343,000 $3,457,900 $4,885,100 $42,000 116 Personal & Repair Services $1,326,200 $482,300 $843,900 $34,000 25 Services to Dwellings / Buildings $562,600 $217,100 $345,500 $32,000 11 Business & Professional Services $4,622,700 $1,310,400 $3,312,300 $42,000 79 Eating and Drinking Places $3,307,900 $648,000 $2,659,900 $22,000 118 Automobile Repair & Service $1,597,300 $480,600 $1,116,700 $34,000 33 Entertainment Services $601,200 $82,100 $519,100 $21,000 24 Health, Educ. & Social Services $6,510,800 $669,900 $5,840,900 $50,000 117 Local Government $3,467,900 $0 $3,467,900 $56,000 62 Other $654,600 $317,400 $337,200 $33,000 10 Total $44,392,400 $10,596,300 $33,796,300 $41,000 823 B. Local Government General Revenue by Type TAXES: USER FEES & CHARGES: Business Property Taxes $1,047,300 Residential Permit / Impact Fees $0 Residential Property Taxes $3,446,500 Utilities & Other Govt. Enterprises $1,556,400 General Sales Taxes $200 Hospital Charges $96,800 Specific Excise Taxes $51,400 Transportation Charges $94,700 Income Taxes $0 Education Charges $36,100 License Taxes $134,800 Other Fees and Charges $416,200 Other Taxes $29,200 TOTAL FEES & CHARGES $2,200,200 TOTAL TAXES $4,709,400 TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE $6,909,600 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 183 of 407 14 Background and a Brief Description of the Model Used to Estimate the Economic Benefits The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 184 of 407 15 In 1996, the Housing Policy Department of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) developed an economic model to estimate the local economic benefits of home building. Although at first calibrated to a typical metropolitan area using national averages, the model could be adapted to a specific local economy by replacing national averages with specific local data for key housing market variables. The initial version of the model could be applied to single-family construction, multifamily construction, or a combination of the two. Since 1997, NAHB has used the model to produce customized reports on the impact of home building in various parts of the country. As of February 2012, NAHB has produced over 800 of these customized reports, analyzing residential construction in various metropolitan areas, non- metropolitan counties, and states (see map below). Areas Covered by NAHB Local Impact Studies The dark green shading indicates studies covering metro areas and non-metro counties; the orange shading studies covering an entire state. The reports have analyzed the impacts of specific housing projects, as well as total home building in areas as large as entire states. In 2002, NAHB developed new versions of the model to analyze active adult housing projects and multifamily development financed with the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit, then in 2005 a version of the model that analyzes remodeling. Results from NAHB’s local impact model have been used by outside organizations such as universities, state housing authorities and affordable housing agencies: The Shimburg Center for Affordable Housing at the University of Florida used results from the NAHB model to establish that “the real estate taxes paid year after year are the most obvious long-term economic benefit to the community. Probably the second most obvious long-term economic benefit is the purchases made by the family occupying the completed home.” www.shimberg.ufl.edu/pdf/Newslett-June02.pdf Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 185 of 407 16 The Louisville Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) used results from the NAHB model to determine the initial one-year impact and the ongoing annual effect that occurs when new homes are occupied. This analysis was performed to help justify the creation of a commission to oversee the newly established AHTF to insure that it works at “finding creative ways to create a sustainable and renewable fund to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the Louisville community.” www.openthedoorlouisville.org/housing-trust/economic-growth The Illinois Housing Development Authority used the NAHB model to determine that “the Authority’s new construction activity in single and multifamily housing….resulted in the creation of 4,256 full-time jobs in construction and construction-related industries.” The Authority also used the NAHB impact model to determine the federal, state and local taxes and fees generated from new construction and substantial rehabilitation activity. www.ihda.org/admin/Upload/Files/94c0ecf7-a238-4be3-90bd-6043cfae81ea.pdf The Stardust Center at the Arizona State University used “the model used and developed by the NAHB to assess the immediate economic impacts of affordable housing” by phase including the construction effect, the construction ripple, and on-going impacts. This was done to show “that permanent, affordable and geographically accessible housing provides numerous benefits both to individual families and to the broader community.” www.orangecountyfl.net/NR/rdonlyres/efo5wiffiqvqqgn2s35shus5i4lwdgqbcxpck2dddnds 3msj5qs26ubzllsfl6s6rrwnmtkq4dypnjrdrdzei2llq5g/Socialeconomicimpacts.pdf The Center for Applied Economic Research at Montana State University used “results from an input-output model developed by the National Association of Home Builders to assess the impacts to local areas from new home construction.” The results show that “the construction industry contributes substantially to Montana’s economy accounting for 5.5 percent of Gross State Product.” The Housing Education and Research Center at Michigan State University also adopted the NAHB approach: “The underlying basis for supporting the implementation of this [NAHB] model on Michigan communities is that it provides quantifiable results that link new residential development with commercial and other forms of development therefore illustrating the overall economic effects of residential growth.” The Center for Economic Development at the University of Massachusetts found that “Home building generates substantial local economic activity, including income, jobs, and revenue for state and local governments. These far exceed the school costs-to-property- tax ratios. …these factors were evaluated by means of a quantitative assessment of data from the National Association of Home Builder’s Local Impact of Home Building model.” Similarly, the Association of Oregon Community Development Organizations decided to base its analysis of affordable housing on the NAHB model, stating that “This model is widely respected and utilized in analyzing the economic impact of market rate housing development,” and that, compared to alternatives, it “is considered the most comprehensive and is considered an improvement on most previous models.” www.aocdo.org/docs/EcoDevoStudyFinal.pdf Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 186 of 407 17 The Boone County Kentucky Planning Commission included results from the NAHB model in its 2005 Comprehensive Report. The Planning Commission used values from the impact model to quantify the increase in local income, taxes, revenue, jobs, and overall local economic impacts in the Metro Area as a result of new home construction. The NAHB model is divided into three phases. Phases I and II are one-time effects. Phase I captures the effects that result directly from the construction activity itself and the local industries that contribute to it. Phase II captures the effects that occur as a result of the wages and profits from Phase I being spent in the local economy. Phase III is an ongoing, annual effect that includes property tax payments and the result of the completed unit being occupied. Phase I: Local Industries Involved in Home Building Phase II: Ripple Effect Phase III: Ongoing, Annual Effect The jobs, wages, and local taxes (including permit, utility connection, and impact fees) generated by the actual development, construction, and sale of the home. These jobs include on-site and off-site construction work as well as jobs generated in retail and wholesale sales of components, transportation to the site, and the professional services required to build a home and deliver it to its final customer. The wages and profits for local area residents earned during the construction period are spent on other locally produced goods and services. This generates additional income for local residents, which is spent on still more locally produced goods and services, and so on. This continuing recycling of income back into the community is usually called a multiplier or ripple effect. The local jobs, income, and taxes generated as a result of the home being occupied. A household moving into a new home generally spends about three-fifths of its income on goods and services sold in the local economy. A fraction of this will become income for local workers and local businesses proprietors. In a typical local area, the household will also pay 1.25 percent of its income to local governments in the form of taxes and user fees, and a fraction of this will become income for local government employees. This is the first step in another set of economic ripples that cause a permanent increase in the level of economic activity, jobs, wages, and local tax receipts. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 187 of 407 18 Modeling a Local Economy The model defines a local economy as a collection of industries and commodities. These are selected from the detailed benchmark input-output tables produced by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The idea is to choose goods and services that would typically be produced, sold, and consumed within a local market area. Laundry services would qualify, for example, while automobile manufacturing would not. Both business-to-business and business-to- consumer transactions are considered. In general the model takes a conservative approach and retains a relatively small number of the available industries and commodities. Of the roughly 400 industries and commodities provided in the input-output files, the model uses only 97 commodities and 99 industries. The design of the model implies that a local economy should include not only the places people live, but also the places where they work, shop, typically go for entertainment, etc. This corresponds reasonably well to the concepts of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan Divisions, areas defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget based on local commuting patterns. Outside of these officially defined metropolitan areas, NAHB has determined that a county will usually satisfy the model’s requirements. For a particular local area, the model adjusts the indirect business tax section of the national input-output accounts to account for the fiscal structure of local governments in the area. The information used to do this comes primarily from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census of Governments. Wages and salaries are extracted from the employee compensation section of the input-output accounts on an industry-by-industry basis. In order to relate wages and salaries to employment, the model incorporates data on local wages per job published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Phase I: Construction In order to estimate the local impacts generated by home building, it is necessary to know the sales price of the homes being built, how much raw land contributes to the final price, and how much the builder and developer pay to local area governments in the form of permit, utility connection, impact, and other fees. This information is not generally available from national sources and in most cases must be provided by representatives from the area in question who have specialized knowledge of local conditions. The model subtracts raw land value from the price of new construction and converts the difference into local wages, salaries, business owners’ income, and taxes. This is done separately for each of the local industries. In addition, the taxes and fees collected by local governments during the construction phase generate wages and salaries for local government employees. Finally the number of full time jobs supported by the wages and salaries generated in each private local industry and the local government sector is estimated. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 188 of 407 19 Phase II: The Construction Ripple Clearly, the local residents who earn income in Phase I will spend a share of it. Some of this will escape the local economy. A portion of the money used to buy a new car, for example, will become wages for autoworkers that are likely to live in another city, and increased profits for stockholders of an automobile manufacturing company who are also likely to live elsewhere. A portion of the spending, however, will remain within, and have an impact on, the local economy. The car is likely to be purchased from a local dealer and generate income for a salesperson that lives in the area, as well for local workers who provide cleaning, maintenance, and other services to the dealership. Consumers also are likely to purchase many services locally, as well as to pay taxes and fees to local governments. This implies that the income and taxes generated in Phase I become the input for additional economic impacts analyzed in what we call Phase II of the model. Phase II begins by estimating how much of the added income households spend on each of the local commodities. This requires detailed analysis of data from the Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey, which is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics primarily for the purpose of determining the weights for the Consumer Price Index. The analysis produces household spending estimates for 52 local commodities. The remainder of the 97 local commodities enter the model only as business-to-business transactions. The model then translates the estimated local spending into local business owners’ income, wages and salaries, jobs, and taxes. This is essentially the same procedure applied to the homes sold to consumers in Phase I. In Phase II, however, the procedure is applied simultaneously to 56 locally produced and sold commodities. In other words, the model converts the local income earned in Phase I into local spending, which then generates additional local income. But this in turn will lead to additional spending, which will generate more local income, leading to another round of spending, and so on. Calculating the end result of these economics is a straightforward exercise in mathematics. Summary of Phase I Value of Construction + Services Provided at Closing + Permit / Hook-up / Impact Fees Model of the Local Economy Local Income and Taxes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 189 of 407 20 Phase III: Ongoing Impacts Like Phase II, Phase III involves computing the sum of successive ripples of economic activity. In Phase III, however, the first ripple is generated by the income and spending of a new household (along with the additional property taxes local governments collect as a result of the new structure). This does not necessarily imply that all new homes must be occupied by households moving in from outside the local area. It may be that an average new-home household moves into the newly constructed unit from elsewhere in the same local area, while average existing-home household moves in from outside to occupy the unit vacated by the first household. Alternatively, it may be that the new home allows the local area to retain a household that would otherwise move out of the area for lack of suitable housing. In any of these cases, it is appropriate to treat a new, occupied housing unit as a net gain to the local economy of one household with average characteristics for a household that occupies a new home. This reasoning is often used, even if unconsciously, when it is assumed that a new home will be occupied by a household with average characteristics—for instance, an average number of children who will consume public education. To estimate the impact of the net additional households, Phase III of the model requires an estimate of the income of the households occupying the new homes. The information used to compute this estimate comes from several sources, but primarily from an NAHB statistical model based on decennial census data. Phase III of the local impact model then estimates the fraction of income these households spend on various local commodities. The spending tendencies are estimated with CE data in a fashion similar to that described under Phase II. The model also estimates the amount of local taxes the households pay each year. These estimates are based on Census of Governments data with the exception of residential property taxes, which are treated separately, most often with specific information obtained from a local source. Finally, a total ripple effect is computed in a way similar to the procedure outlined above under Phase II. Summary of Phase II Spending on Locally Produced Goods and Services Model of the Local Economy Local Income and Taxes Local Income and Taxes from Phase I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 190 of 407 21 The details covered here provide a brief description of the model NAHB uses to estimate the local economic benefits of home building. For a more complete description, see the technical documentation at the end of the report. For additional information about the model, or questions about applying it to a particular local area, contact one of the following in NAHB’s Economics and Housing Policy Group: Robert D. Dietz, Chief Economist (202) 266-8285 rdietz@nahb.org Paul Emrath, Vice President, Survey and Housing Policy Research (202) 266-8449, pemrath@nahb.org Na Zhao, Housing Policy Economist (202) 266-8398 nzhao@nahb.org Summary of Phase III Spending on Locally Produced Goods and Services Model of the Local Economy Local Income and Taxes Income of Occupant in New Housing Unit + Increased Property Taxes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 191 of 407 Local Impact of Home Building Technical Documentation for the NAHB Model Used to Estimate Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated Paul Emrath Vice President Survey and Housing Policy Research Local Impact of Home Building Technical Documentation for the NAHB Model Used to Estimate Income, Jobs and Taxes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 192 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 193 of 407 Technical Documentation 1 Technical Documentation for the NAHB Model Used to Estimate Income, Jobs and Taxes The Housing Policy Department of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) maintains an economic model that it uses to estimate the local economic benefits of home building. The NAHB model is divided into three phases. Phases I and II are one-time effects. Phase I captures the effects that result directly from the construction activity itself and the local industries that contribute to it. Phase II captures the effects that occur as a result of the wages and profits from Phase I being spent in the local economy. Phase III is an ongoing, annual effect that includes property tax payments and the result of the completed unit being occupied. The model can be customized to a specific local economy by replacing key housing market variables. This document explains describes the sources of data used and explains how the estimates are generated. Modeling a Local Economy In the NAHB model, a local economy is defined as a collection of industries and commodities, selected from the 2007 benchmark input-output accounts produced by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). These accounts are generally based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), although BEA combines and otherwise modifies the NAICS categories for purposes of the input-output estimates. NAHB’s model uses the most detailed (6- digit) industry codes in order to parse industries and commodities as precisely as possible and include only those that are generally local in nature. BEA’s 2007 benchmark input-output tables contain a total of 389 industries at the 6-digit level of detail. NAHB’s local economy retains the following 99: IO Code Detailed Industry Name 1 111400 Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production 2 212310 Stone mining and quarrying 3 221100 Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 4 221200 Natural gas distribution 5 221300 Water, sewage and other systems 6 230301 Nonresidential maintenance and repair 7 230302 Residential maintenance and repair 8 233210 Health care structures 9 233411 Single-family residential structures 10 233412 Multifamily residential structures 11 323120 Support activities for printing 12 339950 Sign manufacturing 13 420000 Wholesale trade 14 441000 Motor vehicle and parts dealers 15 445000 Food and beverage stores 16 452000 General merchandise stores 17 485000 Transit and ground passenger transport ation 18 492000 Couriers and messengers 19 493000 Warehousing and storage 20 511110 Newspaper publishers 21 515100 Radio and television broadcasting 22 515200 Cable and other subscription programming 23 517110 Wired telecommunications carriers 24 517210 Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 194 of 407 Technical Documentation 2 25 518200 Data processing, hosting, and related services 26 519130 Internet publishing and broadcasting and Web search portals 27 524200 Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related activities 28 525000 Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 29 531000 Real estate 30 532100 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 31 532400 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing 32 533000 Lessors of nonfinancial intangible a ssets 33 541100 Legal services 34 541200 Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services 35 541300 Architectural, engineering, and related services 36 541400 Specialized design services 37 541511 Custom computer programming services 38 541512 Computer systems design services 39 541800 Advertising, public relations, and related services 40 541920 Photographic services 41 541940 Veterinary services 42 561100 Office administrative services 43 561200 Facilities support services 44 561300 Employment services 45 561400 Business support services 46 561600 Investigation and security services 47 561700 Services to buildings and dwellings 48 561900 Other support services 49 562000 Waste management and remediation services 50 611100 Elementary and secondary schools 51 621100 Offices of physicians 52 621200 Offices of dentists 53 621300 Offices of other health practitioners 54 621400 Outpatient care centers 55 621600 Home health care services 56 621900 Other ambulatory health care services 57 622000 Hospitals 58 624100 Individual and family services 59 624400 Child day care services 60 711100 Performing arts companies 61 711200 Spectator sports 62 712000 Museums, historical sites, zoos, and parks 63 713100 Amusement parks and arcades 64 713200 Gambling industries (except casino hotels) 65 713900 Other amusement and recreation industries 66 722110 Full-service restaurants 67 722211 Limited-service restaurants 68 811100 Automotive repair and maintenance 69 811200 Electronic and precision equipment repair and maintenance 70 811300 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment repair and maintenance 71 811400 Personal and household goods repair and maintenance 72 812100 Personal care services 73 812200 Death care services 74 812300 Dry-cleaning and laundry services 75 812900 Other personal services 76 813100 Religious organizations 77 2332A0 Commercial structures, including farm structures 78 2332B0 Other nonresidential structures 79 2334A0 Other residential structures 80 4A0000 Other retail 81 517A00 Satellite, telecommunications resellers, and all other telecommunications Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 195 of 407 Technical Documentation 3 82 5191A0 News syndicates, libraries, archives and all other information services 83 522A00 Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities 84 523A00 Securities and commodity contracts intermediation and brokerage 85 52A000 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 86 532A00 Consumer goods and general rental centers 87 54151A Other computer related services, including facilities management 88 5419A0 Marketing research & other miscellaneous professional, scientific, & tech. services 89 611B00 Other educational services 90 623A00 Nursing and community care facilities 91 623B00 Residential mental retardation, mental health, substance abuse and other facilities 92 624A00 Community food, housing, and other relief services, including rehabilitation services 93 722A00 All other food and drinking places 94 813A00 Grantmaking, giving, and social advocacy organizations 95 813B00 Civic, social, professional, and similar organizations 96 S00201 State and local government passenger transit 97 S00202 State and local government electric utilities 98 S00203 Other state and local government enterprises 99 S00700 State and local general government In contrast to the industry categories used in the previous (2002) version of the benchmark input-output tables, the 2007 version shows considerably more detail in the construction sector, and breaks retail trade into several categories. In the input-output accounts, commodities generally correspond to industries, with the exception of “state and local government passenger transit” and “state and local government electric service,” for which there is no distinct commodity (passenger transit and electric services are defined as input-output commodities irrespective of which industry produces them), so the local economy as defined in the NAHB model consists of 99 industries and 97 commodities. The above list includes industries in trade, construction, finance, transportation, and services— but excludes virtually all manufacturing, mining, and agriculture, under the presumption that the markets for these products are regional—if not national or international—in nature. The exclusion of many industries is a distinguishing feature of the NAHB local impact model and is consistent with the overall intent of the model: to analyze the impact of locating a housing unit and the household that occupies it in one place rather than another. From this perspective, a house built in Seattle, Washington should not cause additional airplanes to be built or additional software to be produced, even though the occupants of a home built in Seattle may use software produced in Seattle and travel on planes built in Seattle. Because these households would be likely to use these products the same way even if they lived in some other metropolitan area, use of these products is not a function of the home’s location. Hence, industries like software publishing and aircraft manufacturing are excluded from the model. Based on the industries and commodities described above, a “total local requirements” matrix is constructed that shows the total output required from each of the local industries to produce $1 of each local commodities. To show the derivation of this matrix, let c = a 97-element column vector of commodity outputs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 196 of 407 Technical Documentation 4 g = a 99-element column vector of industry outputs V = a 99×97 subset of the benchmark make table that shows how much of each commodity is produced by each industry h = a 99-element column vector showing how much scrap is produced by each industry U = a 97×99 subset of the benchmark use table that shows how much of each commodity used as an input by each industry. Coefficients for the wholesale trade commodity are set to zero, assuming that these transactions are often non-local in nature. The wholesale trade industry produces a considerable amount of the retail trade commodity. The effect of this is to retain retail trade in the model, irrespective of which industry produces it, but to exclude wholesale trade activities. The following matrices can then be defined through standard input-output algebra: B = U ĝ-1 the direct requirements matrix, showing the amount of each commodity needed as a direct input to produce $1 of each industry’s output. (The symbol ˆ indicates a matrix created from a vector by placing the vectors elements on the matrix diagonal.) This is simply the use table scaled by industry output. j = ĝ-1h a vector showing scrap as a fraction of each industry’s output. Many of the elements of this vector are zero in the NAHB local impact model, which excludes most of the manufacturing sector. D = Vĉ -1 a 99×97 market share matrix, or the make table scaled by commodity output. D shows the fraction of each commodity (excluding scrap) produced by each industry. F = (I-ĵ)-1D a 99×97 matrix showing, for $1 worth of each commodity, the fraction produced by each industry. In short, F is D adjusted for scrap. F is often called a transformation matrix, because it can be used to transform commodities into the output of industries and vice versa. Total Local Requirements = F(I-BF)-1 The total local requirements matrix translates local commodities into the output of local industries. The NAHB model is designed to capture only a fraction of the output: the fraction that becomes either income for local households or revenue for local governments. These fractions are estimated from a combination of value added components of the input-output tables, plus information taken from other BEA industry accounts. In the BEA accounts, the final price of a commodity is the sum of intermediate outputs plus value added by the industry. To avoid double counting, the NAHB model retains only the value added in each local industry for further analysis. BEA’s input-output accounts break value added into three components: compensation of employees, taxes on production and imports (TOPI), and gross operating surplus. In the NAHB model, local income is derived from compensation of employees and gross operating surplus. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 197 of 407 Technical Documentation 5 The following table shows information taken from BEA accounts used in this derivation: Wages & Salaries per $ of Employee Compensation Other Corp. as a % of Gross Operating Surplus Other Non- Corp. as a % of Gross Operating Surplus Farms 85.98% 77.63% 28.12% Mining, except oil and gas 82.18% 12.40% 71.60% Utilities 74.17% 9.32% 84.32% Construction 83.11% 68.10% 29.88% Miscellaneous manufacturing 71.19% 10.16% 87.83% Printing and related support activities 81.90% 11.75% 85.14% Wholesale trade 85.93% 15.89% 82.08% Motor vehicle and parts dealers 85.39% 27.06% 69.55% Food and beverage stores 81.55% 27.06% 69.55% General merchandise stores 81.30% 27.06% 69.55% Other retail 84.09% 27.06% 69.55% Transit and ground passenger transportation 81.66% 76.22% 22.04% Other transportation and support activities 81.76% 23.56% 74.53% Warehousing and storage 81.97% 34.38% 63.45% Publishing industries (includes software) 84.22% 14.36% 84.75% Broadcasting and telecommunications 81.49% 26.07% 71.94% Information and data processing services 84.23% 24.24% 74.30% Federal Reserve banks, credit intermediation, related act. 85.01% 1.98% 87.89% Securities, commodity contracts, and investments 87.89% -2.28% 107.02% Insurance carriers and related activities 84.36% 6.88% 120.64% Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 57.88% -16.43% 114.13% Real estate (estimated by NAHB) 85.90% 100.00% 0.00% Rental & leasing services and lessors of intangible assets 86.04% 32.70% 64.08% Legal services 84.92% 76.96% 21.03% Computer systems design and related services 87.90% 42.09% 53.54% Misc. professional, scientific, and technical services 86.62% 57.56% 40.53% Administrative and support services 84.67% 57.36% 40.59% Waste management and remediation services 79.35% 13.44% 84.75% Educational services 81.12% 39.22% 54.48% Ambulatory health care services 82.70% 53.75% 42.32% Hospitals 82.54% 42.00% 45.89% Nursing and residential care facilities 80.79% 42.00% 45.89% Social assistance 82.09% 48.30% 47.41% Performing arts, spectator sports, museums, related act. 86.80% 70.36% 28.48% Amusements, gambling, and recreation industries 84.18% 8.46% 90.01% Food services and drinking places 85.50% 38.55% 58.57% Other services, except government 85.92% 82.52% 15.81% State and local government enterprises 68.40% NA NA State and local general government 68.17% NA NA Due to data limitations, ratios from relatively broad categories are sometimes applied to more narrowly defined local industries. For example, ratios for the broad categories “farms” is applied to a much more narrowly defined local industry “Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production.” Treatment of real estate is less straightforward than it might be, because the input-output accounts provide one set of estimates for real estate with no detail within that relatively broad industry. When analyzing a local housing economy, it is desirable to account for residential real Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 198 of 407 Technical Documentation 6 estate brokers and property managers, each which has well-known distinctive characteristics. NAHB uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census to estimate a separate set of coefficients for residential real estate brokers. Coefficients derived this way allocate a relatively small 8 percent of value added to wages and salaries, because most realtor offices are organized as a group of businesses where each broker legally counts as proprietor rather than an employee. The modified coefficients are applied to broker fees that arise in the transaction of single-family homes built for sale (as opposed to custom homes built by a general contractor on home owners’ land) and individual multifamily condominiums to the ultimate owner-occupants. Any broker fees that that may be charged in the sale of multifamily rental buildings are assumed to be paid to non-local entities and excluded from the model. Similarly, owners of rental buildings are considered non-local and excluded. However, for obvious reasons, managing the properties needs to be done locally. To handle this, except for the broker fees mentioned above, the NAHB model treats payments made to the real estate sector (primarily rental payments made by tenants in new multifamily buildings) as revenue for non-local property lessors (the federal government’s term for what is elsewhere typically called a rental property owner) who then employ local businesses to manage the property. In practice this means subtracting about 57 percent of the rental payment and treating the remaining 43 percent as a local payment for management services. Again, this ratio was computed using detailed industry data from the 2007 Economic Census. A key feature of the NAHB local impact model is the way it translates the wages and salaries from BEA accounts into local jobs, measured in full-time equivalents (FTEs); i.e., enough work to keep a person employed full-time for a year, based on the hours typically worked by full-time employees in a given industry. Indeed, when users of NAHB’s local impact studies cite a single number from one of the studies, it is usually this one. In general, the translation is accomplished using data on wages per job in each local industry from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The QCEW provides data for each county in the country, although it may be suppressed in particular cases for some industries due to a small sample size. To reduce the chances of missing data and produce an estimate that can more easily be adjusted for inflation, annual rather than quarterly QCEW data are used. If annual data for a particular industry in a particular local area are missing, they are imputed based on national wages per job in that industry, adjusted by the ratio of local to national wages per job across all industries. If QCEW data are not yet available for the year of construction being analyzed (as is typically the case), wages per job in each industry is inflated using HUD’s estimates of median family income, which are available for the current year and for each state and local area in the country. Job counts in the QCEW are based on payroll employment and therefore include part-time as well as full-time workers. The QCEW job counts are converted to FTEs using the ratio of FTEs to jobs in each industry from BEA’s national industry accounts. The estimates of local income in the NAHB model exclude most corporate profits, based on the rationale that ownership of most corporations is national or international in scope. Even if a household living in a particular metropolitan area buys a product manufactured by a corporation located in in that metropolitan area, profits derived from the sale are likely to be distributed to shareholders living in other locations. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 199 of 407 Technical Documentation 7 The model makes an exception for subchapter S corporations, which tend to be smaller and more local in nature than C corporations. S corporations also tend to be relatively common in particular industries, such as residential construction. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides information on business receipts by form of business and industry, and this is used to decompose corporate profits into profits for S-corporations and C-corporations. The IRS tables provide relatively limited industry detail, so again percentages for a broadly defined industry are sometimes applied to several 6-digit NAICS industries. The S-corporation profits by industry are then counted as part of local income. In general, local government revenue is estimated industry by industry, as a function of both local income and TOPI. TOPI includes taxes imposed at the federal, state and local level. BEA national accounts show that, in the year of the most recent Census of Governments, 9.2 percent of TOPI is federal (almost all excise taxes and custom duties). The Census of Governments is then used to further decompose TOPI into 42.4 percent collected by state governments and 48.4 collected by local governments (the largest components of state and local TOPI being sales and property taxes). Thus, the NAHB model uses a base of 90.8 or 48.4 percent of TOPI in each local industry as a starting point, depending on whether a state or local economy is being analyzed. A distinctive feature of the NAHB model is the way it further employs Census of Governments data to customize the government finances to a particular area. Census of Governments data are available for each of the roughly 89,000 units of government in the U.S., and the NAHB model reads in every line item for every government within the local area being analyzed. Aggregated across all local (or state and local) governments in the U.S., the ratio of TOPI to personal income is 2.776 (or 6.595) percent. This ratio is also calculated for the area being analyzed and used to adjust TOPI by industry up or down. Personal income is used as the base of the ratio, because this is a measure that is available for every local area in the country. There are two substantial exceptions to this procedure, as discussed below in the sections on Phase I and Phase III. In the case of residential property taxes and sales taxes paid on construction materials, specific information is collected for the construction being analyzed and fed into the model instead. Census of Governments data is also used to customize taxes and fees paid by the workers and local proprietors who receive income as a result of the home building activity, and, where applicable, corporate income taxes to a local area. Aggregated over all local (or state and local) governments in the U.S., taxes and fees paid by individuals sum to 4.198 (or 7.843) percent of personal income. Again, equivalent ratios are calculated for the area being analyzed and used to customize the government revenue estimates. To the extent that S corporations pay taxes to state and local governments, these taxes are also counted on the assumption that stockholders of S corps reside in the same area as the company income. The general procedure for customizing government revenue to a specific local area (or state) can be summarized as follows: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 200 of 407 Technical Documentation 8 Personal taxes = 4.198% (or 7.843%) × Local Personal Income × Local Factor 1 Business taxes = 48.4% (or 90.8%) × TOPI in Local Industries × Local Factor 2 + 6.349% × Corporate Profits in Local Industries × Local Factor 3 where the three local factors are derived on a case by case basis from data in the most recent Census of Governments. In practice, Local Factor 3 will usually be zero, as few local governments impose a tax on corporate profits. The distinguishing aspect of this procedure is that it preserves the industry structure of the input-output accounts while being consistent with revenue being collected by all governments in the area of analysis, as reported by the governments themselves to the U.S. Census Bureau. Phase I: Construction As shown diagrammatically in “Background and a Brief Description of the Model Used to Estimate the Economic Benefits”, Phase I of the model feeds the dollar amount of construction and ancillary locally produced items into the income and tax matrices derived from the model total local requirements. Accounting for everything that goes into building a home and delivering it to its customer is more complicated than it may at first appear. For one thing, the Census Bureau subtracts several items from construction value before providing the numbers to BEA for use in the input-output and related GDP accounts. On new homes built for sale, the Census Bureau subtracts 1.1 percent of the sa les price for landscaping, 0.5 percent for appliances, 2.9 percent for realtor and brokers fees, and 2.7 percent for marketing and finance costs. There are equivalent subtractions for custom homes (i.e., homes where the builder functions as a general contractor for a home built on the customer’s lot). However, the landscaping and purchases of appliances and marketing/broker services associated with a newly built home clearly are attributable to the construction of the home. Phase I of the NAHB model therefore accounts for these items as separate purchases of the local construction, retail trade, and real estate industries. For retail trade, only the gross margin of appliance purchases are counted. Gross margins for different types of retailers are available from the Census Bureau’s Annual Retail Trade Survey. In addition, there are settlement or closing costs associated with transferring property from a builder to the ultimate owner. In a typical case, these costs are shared between buyers and sellers. Construction value as defined in the input-output accounts includes closing costs if they are paid by the seller, but not the buyer. When the local impact model was first developed, NAHB verified these details with economists at BEA. In order to estimate both closing costs as a fraction of the home’s price and the share of these costs the buyer pays, the NAHB model uses national average data compiled by the U.S. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 201 of 407 Technical Documentation 9 Department of Housing and Urban Development.3 The share of settlement costs paid for by the buyer for loan origination and discount fees, title and private mortgage insurance, and legal fees are counted as output of the local depository credit intermediation, insurance, and legal services industries, respectively. Another category of closing costs sometimes paid by the buyer is mortgage or deed transfer taxes. Phase I of the NAHB model does not automatically include an amount for transfer taxes. In most (but not all) instances, these taxes are imposed by state, rather than local, governments. To the extent that transfer taxes apply in a specific case, that information needs to be supplied by the local entity requesting the analysis. The local entity requesting the analysis is also asked to provide information on whether or not sales taxes are imposed on construction materials and supplies; and, if so, the relevant sales tax rate. The model then applies the relevant rate to 34.1 percent of construction value, assuming that materials account for that share of the final value of a housing unit. The figure of 34.1 was calculated from the ratio of materials to construction value for several categories of construction businesses in the Economic Census, including trade contractors. The calculation takes subcontracing into account, as a large fraction of the final construction value of a housing unit is subcontracted to businesses that may also purchase materials. Phase II: The Construction Ripple Phase I of the model translates home building activity into income for local workers and business proprietors, and revenue for local governments. This output serves as the input for Phase II, as part of the local income generated will be spent, generating more income, generating more spending, and so on. These spending ripples damp and eventually converge to a limit, which is the ultimate ripple or multiplier effect. To convert local income to local spending, the model requires information about local household spending tendencies. Detailed spending information at the household level is availa ble from the Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey, produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) primarily for the purpose of determining the weights for the Consumer Price Index.4 The CE consists of two different types of surveys: 1) an interview survey that collects data on monthly expenditures as well as information on income and household characteristics, and 2) a diary survey that collects data on weekly expenditures of frequently purchased items. These are two separate surveys, each designed individually with weights that aggregate to an estimate of total spending in the U.S. When it estimates aggregate measures of consumer spending, BLS combines results from the two different types of surveys in a manner it does not disclose. 3 Report to Congress on the Need for Further Legislation in the Area of Real Estate Settlements, 1981, Exhibits II-1 and II-6. 4 Technically, in the Consumer Expenditure Survey, the unit of measurement is actually not a household, but a Consumer Unit, a group of individuals who live in the same house and make joint purchasing decisions. There may be more than one Consumer Unit in a household. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 202 of 407 Technical Documentation 10 The NAHB local impact model uses only data from the interview survey, primarily to avoid the need for arbitrary decisions about which spending items to take from which survey. Based on its CE interview survey, BLS produces a public use microdata set consisting of quarterly files with household characteristics (including income), another set of quarterly files with income and other characteristics for each member of the household, and a set of fifty-one annual “EXPN” files with detailed information about various categories of expenditures. These detailed files allow NAHB to maintain a conservative approach and exclude spending on items that may often be purchased from a vendor outside the local area. For example, BLS collects information on spending while on trips and vacations away from home in a separate “ETRV” and “ETRE” file. The NAHB local impact model does not include any spending information at all from these files. NAHB processes the information from the EXPN files along with information on household characteristics and income to estimate spending tendencies on 52 locally produced commodities, as shown in the following table: Local Spending Extracted from the CE EXPN Files Local commodity IO Code CE File Description of items included in local spending 01 Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production 111400 ECRB Costs of all items and services for planting shrubs or trees, or otherwise landscaping the ground of the housing unit in which the consumer unit lives. 02 Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution 221100 EUTC Electricity bills for the housing unit in which the consumer unit lives, including if combined with natural gas and/or water, sewerage. This is also the default category for generally combined expenses with particular utility not specified. 03 Natural gas distribution 221200 EUTC Gas bills for the housing unit in which the consumer unit lives. 04 Water, sewage and other systems 221300 EUTC Water and/or sewage bills, including water combined with trash collection, for the housing unit in which the consumer unit lives. 05 Residential maintenance and repairs 230302 ECRB Costs of all items and services associated with building or repairing an addition to the house or a new structure including porch, garage or new wing; finishing a basement or an attic or enclosing a porch; remodeling one or more rooms; building outdoor patios, walks, fences, or other enclosures, driveways, or permanent swimming pools, inside painting or papering; outside painting; plastering or paneling; plumbing or water heating installations and repairs; electrical work; heating or air-conditioning jobs; flooring repair or replacement; insulation; roofing, gutters, or downspouts; siding; installation, repair, or replacement of window panes, screens, storm doors, awnings, etc.; and masonry, brick or stucco work; or other improvements or repairs for the housing unit in which the consumer unit lives. For the four categories of retail trade, only gross margins rather than total spending is put into the model. Gross mar gins are applied industry by industry. A single factor is used to reduce the amount to account for loss of business to local retailers to E-commerce and mail order business. The source is the most recent data in the Census Bureau’s 2012 Annual Retail Trade Report, released in 2014, 06 Motor vehicle and parts dealers 441000 EOVB Purchases of automobiles, including down payment and payment of principle on loans × 17.6% (gross margin for automobile dealers). 07 Food and beverage stores 445000 ETRF Cost of food or beverages at grocery, convenient or liquor stores during local overnight stays x 27.9% (gross margin for food and beverage stores). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 203 of 407 Technical Documentation 11 Local commodity NAICS Code EXPN File Description of items included in local spending 07 Food and beverage stores (cont.) 445000 EXPA Expenditure for food, non-alcoholic beverages and nonfood items at grocery stores, food and non-alcoholic beverages from places other than grocery stores, and all alcohol to be served at the home × 27.9% (gross margin for food and beverage stores). 08 General merchandise stores 452000 EAPA 50 percent of major appliance purchases (assuming other 50 percent purchased from other retail) x 26.3% (gross margin for general merchandise stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. EAPB 50 percent of purchases of other households appliances and other selected items (assuming other 50 percent purchased from other retail) x 26.3% (gross margin for general merchandise stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. EFRA 50% of purchases of home furnishings (assuming other 50 percent purchased from other retail) x 32.1% (gross margin for department stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business ECLA 50% of purchases of clothing and accessories (assuming other 50 percent purchased from other retail) x 32.1% (gross margin for department stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. EENT 50% of purchases of CDs or audio tapes, photographic film, video cassettes or tapes or discs, and books, but not through a mail order club or subscription x 32.1% (gross margin for department stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. 09 Other retail 4A0000 EUTC Bills for fuel oil, bottle or tank gas, or fuels not specifically identified, for the home in which the consumer unit lives x 37.8% (gross margin for nonstore retailers). ECRA Purchase of building materials and supplies, either for or not for a specific project x 34.7% (gross margin for building materials and supplies dealers). EAPA 50 percent of major appliance purchases (assuming other 50 percent purchased from general merchandise stores) × 28.2% (gross margin for electronics and appliance stores), adjusted for losses to E- commerce and mail order business. EAPB 50 percent of purchases of other households appliances and other selected items (assuming other 50 percent purchased from general merchandise stores) × 28.2% (gross margin for electronics and appliance stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. EFRA 50% of purchases of home furnishings (assuming other 50 percent purchased from general merchandise stores) × 46.6% (gross margin for furniture and home furnishing stores), adjusted for losses to E- commerce and mail order business. ECLA 50% of purchases of clothing and accessories (assuming other 50 percent purchased from general merchandise stores) × 45.8% (gross margin for clothing and clothing accessories stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. EVOT Purchases of gasoline and other fuels and fluids used in vehicles × 10.8% (gross margin for gasoline stations) EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to purchase prescription drugs and durable medical equipment × 30.0% (gross margin for health and personal care stores), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. EIHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures used to pay for prescription drugs, other nondurable medical products, and durable medical equipment × 30.0% (gross margin for health and personal care stores ), adjusted for losses to E- commerce and mail order business. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 204 of 407 Technical Documentation 12 Local commodity NAICS Code EXPN File Description of items included in local spending 09 Other retail (cont) 4A0000 EMDB Direct purchases of glasses, hearing aids, prescription medication, convalescent equipment, or other medical equipment × 30.0% (gross margin for health and personal care stores ), adjusted for losses to E- commerce and mail order business. EEDA Purchases of books or other equipment for elementary or high school for members of the consumer unit × 41.6% (gross margin for sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores), adjusted for losses to E- commerce and mail order business. EENT 50% of purchases of CDs or audio tapes, photographic film, video cassettes or tapes or discs, and books, but not through a mail o rder club or subscription (assuming other 50 percent purchased from general merchandise stores) × 41.6% (gross margin for sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores), adjusted for losses to E- commerce and mail order business. EMIS Expenses for flowers, potted plants, pet supplies and medicines, toys, and games, and hobbies, including if combined with computer software for games × 45.4% (gross margin for miscellaneous store retailer), and adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. EXPB Expenditures for cigarettes and other tobacco products × 29.4% (gross margin for all retailers excluding motor vehicle and parts dealers), adjusted for losses to E-commerce and mail order business. 10 Transit and ground passenger transportation 485000 EXPB Costs for taxis, limousine service, and public transportation, except while on a trip. 11 Newspaper publishers 511110 EENT Expenses for newspapers and other periodicals not through a subscription. 12 Wired telecom- munications carriers 517110 EUTA Bills from telecommunications companies for residential service, internet access, non-telephone rental and purchases, and 71.2% of bills for cable or satellite television service (financial data compiled ions Multimedia Research Group, Inc indicates that satellite had a 28.8% share of the combined cable/satellite market). EUTP Pre-paid phone card or public pay phone services. EUTI Bills from internet service providers for internet connection and service (excluding those away from home), miscellaneous combined expenses, and 71.2% of bills for cable or satellite television service. 13 Wireless tele- communications carriers (except satellite) 517210 EUTA Bills for mobile/cellular telephone service. EUTP Pre-paid cellular minutes. 14 Satellite, telecommunications resellers, and all other tele- communications 517A00 EUTA 28.8% of the bills from telecommunications for cable or satellite television service, plus bills for Voice over IP service. EUTI Bills from internet service providers for satellite radio, plus 28.8% of the bills for cable or satellite television service. 15 Data processing, hosting, and related services 518200 EUTA Bills paid to providers of applications, games or ringtones. 16 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 52A000 EHEL Interest paid on lump sum home equity loans, based only on the home in which the consumer unit lives. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 205 of 407 Technical Documentation 13 Local commodity NAICS Code EXPN File Description of items included in local spending 16 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation (cont) 52A000 EOPH Interest paid on home equity lines of credit, based only on the home in which the consumer unit lives. EXPB Charges for safe deposit boxes, checking accounts, and other banking services. 17 Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities 522A00 EOVB Interest payment on automobile loans. 18 Insurance agencies, brokerages, and other insurance related activities 524200 EINB Percent of premiums for all types of insurance other than health (percentage based on agent/brokers' share of industry). EIHB Percent of premiums for health insurance (percentage based on agent/brokers' share of industry). 19 Real estate 531000 RNT Total rental payments for the housing unit in which the consumer unit lives. OPI Ground or land rent, regular HOA fees, special payments for property management services—for the property in which the consumer unit lives. 20 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 532100 ERTV Expenses for renting vehicles, except if rented while on a vacation. ELSD Expenses for leasing vehicles. 21 Consumer goods and general rental centers 532A00 EAPA Expenses for renting major appliances. EAPB Expenses for renting other household appliances and selected items. EFRB Expenses for renting furniture. ECLD Expenses for renting clothing. EMDB Expenses for renting convalescent or other medical equipment. EENT Amount paid for rental of Blu-ray Discs, DVDs, or VHS tapes. 22 Legal services 541100 EMIS Expenses for services of lawyers or other legal professionals. 23 Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services 541200 EMIS Accounting fees. 24 Photographic services 541920 EENT Amount paid for film processing or printing digital photographs. EMIS Amount paid for professional photography fees. 25 Veterinary services 541940 EMIS Veterinarian expenses, including if combined with other pet services. 26 Investigation and security services 561600 EMIS Home security service fees. 27 Services to buildings and dwellings 561700 EAPA Charges for installing major appliances. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 206 of 407 Technical Documentation 14 Local commodity NAICS Code EXPN File Description of items included in local spending 27 Services to buildings and dwellings (cont.) 561700 EEQB Costs for pest control or repairing and servicing heating and air conditioning equipment. EMIS Gardening or lawn care, housekeeping, or o ther home services and small repair jobs around the house. 28 Waste manage- ment and remed- iation services 562000 EUTC Trash/garbage collection bills, including if combined with sewerage, and septic tank cleaning services, for the housing unit in which the consumer unit lives. 29 Elementary and secondary schools 611100 EEDA Tuition and other expenses for elementary or high school for members of the consumer unit. 30 Offices of physicians 621A00 EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to pay for physician and clinical services. EIHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures used to pay for physician and clinical services. EMDB Direct payments for eye care or physician services. 31 Offices of dentists 621200 EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to pay for dental services. EIHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures used to pay for dental services. EMDB Direct payments for dental care 32 Offices of other health practitioners 621B00 EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to pay for other professional services. IHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures used to pay for other professional services. EMDB Direct payments for services by medical professionals other than physicians, lab tests, and other medical care. 33 Home health care services 621600 EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to pay for home health care. EIHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures used to pay for home health care. 34 Hospitals 622000 EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to pay for hospital care. EIHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures used to pay for hospital care. EMDB Direct payments for hospital rooms or services. 35 Nursing and residential care facilities 623000 EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to pay for nursing home care. EIHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures used to pay for nursing home care. EMDB Direct payments for care in convalescent of nursing home. 36 Child day care services 624400 EEDA Expenses for nursery school or child day care centers for members of the consumer unit. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 207 of 407 Technical Documentation 15 Local commodity NAICS Code EXPN File Description of items included in local spending 36 Child day care services 624400 EMIS Expenses for babysitting, nanny services, or child care in the consumer unit's or someone else's home. 37 Performing arts companies 711100 ESUB Theater or concert season tickets. EENT Single admissions to movies, theaters, and concerts. 38 Spectator sports 711200 ESUB Season tickets to sporting events. EENT Single admissions to spectator sporting events. 39 Gambling industries (except casino hotels) 713200 EMIS Expenses for lotteries and games of chance. 40 Other amusement and recreation industries 713900 EEDA Recreational lessons and instruction for members of the consumer unit. ESUB Expenses for membership in golf courses. Country clubs, health clubs, fitness centers, or other sports and recreational organizations. EENT Fees for participating in sports. ETRF Amount paid for entertainment or admissions during local overnight stays 41 Full-service restaurants 722110 ETRF 50% of cost of meals, snacks, or beverages at restaurants, bars or fast food places during local overnight stays. EXPA 50% of expenditures for food and beverages at restaurants, cafeterias, cafes, drive-ins, etc. or t school for or pre-school for school-age children. 42 Limited-service restaurants 722211 ETRF 50% of cost of meals, snacks, or beverages at restaurants, bars or fast food places during local overnight stays. EXPA 50% of expenditures for food and beverages at restaurants, cafeterias, cafes, drive-ins, etc. or t school for or pre-school for school-age children. 43 All other food and drinking places 722A00 EMIS Food and beverage for catered affairs. 44 Automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes 8111A0 EVEQ Expenses for vehicle maintenance and repair. EVOT Expenses for towing and automobile repair service policies. 45 Electronic and precision equipment repair and maintenance4 811200 EEQB Cost for repairs and services to AV equipment (except if installed in a vehicle) and to computers and related equipment. 46 Personal and household goods repair and maintenance 811400 EEQB Costs for repairing or servicing miscellaneous items such as appliances, tools, photographic, sports, and lawn and garden equipment. EFRB Costs for repairing furniture. ECLD Costs for repairing or altering clothing and accessories, or repairing watches or jewelry. 47 Personal care services 812100 EIHB Share of health insurance premiums, after broker/agent share is subtracted, used to pay for other health, residential and personal care services. EIHC Number of persons covered by Medicare if in a senior household x Medicare expenditure per enrollee x the share of Medicare expenditures for other health, residential and personal care services. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 208 of 407 Technical Documentation 16 Local commodity NAICS Code EXPN File Description of items included in local spending 48 Death care services 812200 EMIS Expenses for funerals, burials, cremation, and purchase and upkeep of cemetery lots or vaults. 49 Dry cleaning and laundry services 812300 EXPB Expenses for clothing and other items at sent to drycleaners and laundry, as well as coin operated dry cleaning and laundry machines. 50 Other personal services 812900 ECLD Costs of clothing storage services. EVOT Fess for vehicle parking, boat docking and plane landing. EMIS Pet services. EXPB Expenses for haircuts, hair styling, manicures, massages, and other salon services. 51 Religious organizations 813100 ECNT Contributions to religious organizations. 52 Civic, social, professional and similar organizations 813B00 ESUB Expenses for membership in civic, service, or fraternal organizations. There is somewhat more detail in a few input-output industries than is available in a spending line from the CE files. For example, the CE files do not distinguish spending in limited service eating places from spending in full service restaurants. According to the 2007 Economic Census, total sales in each category was $182 to $192 billion—close to a 50-50 split. Therefore, half of spending in eating places is allocated to full service restaurants; the other half to the limited service places. Similarly, the CE files don’t distinguish items purchased in general merchandise stores from those purchased in more specialized retail outlets. For goods that likely could be purchased in either, again a 50-50 split is used, as shown for local commodities 08 and 09 in the table above. For all items included under any retail sales category, only the gross margins are included, and in most cases a further adjustment is made to account for loss of local sales to E-commerce and mail order business. These adjustments are based on information in the Census Bureau’s Annual Retail Trade Report for 2012. The report includes a table on gross margins by 6-digit NAICS code that can be used directly. The report also contains separate tables on total sales and mail order & E-commerce. An adjustment factor is calculated based on total E-commerce & mail order sales as a fraction of total retail sales, excluding food and beverage service and motor vehicle and parts dealers. For 2012, the adjustment factor is 1-322,543/4,344,140. In the above table, “adjusted for E-commerce and mail order loss” means that particular category of retail spending is multiplied by this factor. Insurance payments are separated into a share going to brokers and agents and the insurance companies, based on the proportional share of revenue reported in the latest Economic Census. The share going to brokers and agents is counted as local income. However, it is also assumed that the share going to insurance companies comes back in some cases as these companies pay medical costs for policy holders that go to health care providers in the local area. This is estimated using “Personal Health Care Expenditures by object & Source of Payment” reported by the Census Bureau in the Table 138 of the 2012 Statistical Abstract of the United States. A similar calculation is made for expenses covered by Medicare. The CE data include the number of household members covered by Medicare. Payments made by Medicare to local Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 209 of 407 Technical Documentation 17 health care providers are estimated using statistics on Medicare Enrollees from Table 146 of the 2012 Statistical Abstract, combined with the health care expenditure information from Table 138. The consumer spending variables used in the model are all in the form of average propensities to consume—that is, average fractions of before-tax income spent on various items. As shown in the table above, The EXPN files generate consumer spending estimates for 52 locally produced commodities. In addition, seven categories of local commodities produced by local government enterprises are appended to the list: 1 Local government electric service 2 Local government natural gas distribution 3 Local government water & sewerage 4 Local government passenger transit 5 Local government liquor stores 6 Local government sanitary services 7 Local government hospitals Although these seven extra commodities do not increase local spending in total, they allow the model to allocate consumption between the publicly produced and privately produced commodities based on information from the Census of Governments. In this sense, the model is consistent with both national household consumption patterns and revenue collected by all government enterprises in a particular local area. To this is added one other local commodity, general government, to account for tax and fee payments (computed in Phase II primarily from BEA personal income estimates and Census of Governments revenue data). The results can be collected in the 2×60 matrix, A: The elements in the first row of A show the average fraction of income spent on each of the 59 local commodities (including those produced by local government enterprises such as publicly owned utilities or hospitals). The “O”s and “1” in the second row indicates that no taxes are spent directly by the household on any of the first 59 commodities; 100 percent is spent on the local general government commodity. This two-row structure is designed to align with the output from Phase I of the model, which comes in the form of before-tax local income and local tax estimates. Several other matrices and vectors derived from the above concepts are needed to calculate the Phase II ripple or multiplier effect: W: a 60×99 matrix that translates local commodities into local income, G: a 60×99 matrix that translates local commodities into local government general revenue collected from persons, and    10...000 0a...aaa = 59321A Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 210 of 407 Technical Documentation 18 T: a 60×99 matrix that translates local commodities into local government general revenue collected from businesses therefore defines a 60×297 matrix x = a two element column vector containing local income and local taxes generated in Phase I a 297×3 matrix where i is a 99-element unit column vector, In summary, x is the income and tax output from Phase 1, A translates income and taxes into spending on particular commodities, L translates the detailed commodity spending into income and taxes in each of 99 local industries, and Y and Z are technical devices for summing results. Y collapses the components of a 297-element vector into a 3-element vector of income, personal taxes, and business taxes. Z converts a 3-element vector of this form into a 2-element income and tax vector. The row vector defined as x A shows how much, in dollar terms, people who earn income during Phase I spend on each of the 60 local commodities (including local government employees, whose paychecks are supported by taxes and charges for particular government-run enterprises). The calculation x ALYZ produces a 2-element local income and local tax vector of the same form as x . Postmultiplying a vector of this type by ALYZ will always produce a similar, 2- element income and tax vector. Either by construction, or by checking that both eigenvalues are smaller than 1, it is possible to show that ALYZ is a contracting matrix. This implies that the rounds below show successively smaller increments of income and taxes added to the local economy: . . .  = TGWL       = i00 0i0 00i Y ALYZ x K 1=k  :K Round ALYZ ALYZ ALYZ x :3 Round x 0 Round : ALYZ x :1 Round ALYZ ALYZ x :2 Round       10 10 01 = Z Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 211 of 407 Technical Documentation 19 The terms of this sequence can be summed in the usual manner to create an infinite series. Because ALYZ is a contracting matrix, the result is a convergent series, the limit of which is This is the final multiplied effect on local income and local taxes at the end of Phase II. The factor [I-ALYZ]-1 is a matrix version of the conventional Keynesian spending multiplier. Because x is reported in Phase I, it is subtracted from the effect reported in Phase II. For some purposes, especially estimating employment impacts, we are interested in tracking income in Phase II by industry. Calculations to accomplish this are based on the following sequence of 1×297 vectors: . . . Note that sequence begins with the spending vector x'AL—that is, it excludes the income and taxes that have already been captured in Phase I. The limit of the series defined based on this sequence is This is a 297-element row vector, the first 89 elements containing the final, multiplied effect on local income by industry generated during Phase II. As explained above, income by industry can be separated into business owners’ income and wages and salaries, and the wages and salaries converted to full-time job equivalents. From the standpoint of local governments, it may be desirable to track individual sources of revenue, such as particular fees and taxes. To facilitate this, it is useful to have a three element local income and local tax vector, where the tax revenue is decomposed into taxes collected from persons and taxes collected from businesses. Consider the following sequence of such 3-element vectors: . . . ][-1YZAL-I ALx YZAL ALx 1-K 1=k  :K Round ZALY ALYx K 1=k  :K Round YZAL ALx :2 Round ALYx :1 Round ZALY ALYx :2 Round ][-1ALYZ-I 'x ALx :1 Round Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 212 of 407 Technical Documentation 20 This sequence begins after Round 0, implicitly excluding income earned and taxes paid during Phase I. The limit of the infinite series defined by this sequence is This is the final, multiplied effect on local income, local government revenue collected from persons, and local government revenue collected from businesses in Phase II of the model. The tax structure for a particular local area, derived primarily from Census of Governments data as described above, can be applied to this result in order to decompose local government revenue into particular types of taxes and fees. Phase III: Ongoing Impacts Another distinctive feature of the NAHB model is the way it uses CE and other data to model the average behavior of occupants that differs based on the type of housing being built. At present, there are six basic variants of the NAHB model designed to handle the following types of construction: 1. Generic Single-family 2. Generic Multifamily 3. Active Adult 4. Family Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) 5. Elderly LIHTC 6. Remodeling The remodeling version of the model does not in general incorporate ongoing impacts, so it requires no occupant income estimates. For the other five versions of the model, separate occupant income estimates are derived in a way that vary with location as well as with the type of units being built. The derivations are based on relationships between average income and standard variables that are typically available at the local level. The methods for establishing these relationships are summarized below. Generic Single-family. Regression of average income of home owners on area median family income and average value of the units using American Community Survey (ACS) microdata. Generic Multifamily. Regression of average income of home owners on area median family income and average rent using ACS microdata. Active Adult. Average income of movers into age-restricted owner occupied units and average income of all home buyers are computed from American Housing Survey (AHS) microdata, and the ratio of the two averages is used to adjust home buyers’ income for the active adult case. Family LIHTC. Average incomes of all movers into rental units who have less than 60 percent of median family income for the U.S. as a whole, computed from CE data. Elderly LIHTC. Average incomes of all elderly movers into rental units who have less than 60 percent of median family income for the U.S. as a whole, computed from CE data. ][-1 ZALY-I ALYx Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 213 of 407 Technical Documentation 21 The ACS is the Census Bureau’s replacement for the long form questionnaire that until 2000 was used to collect information on income and structure type in the decennial Census. The AHS, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and conducted by the Census Bureau, is the federal government’s primary vehicle for collecting detailed information about housing units and their occupants at the national level. The ratios and regression results listed above allow the model to be simultaneously customized to a particular area and a particular type of construction by inputting specific local information that is generally available. When customizing to a local area, median family income for that particular area is used. HUD produces median income estimates for all parts of the country in a timely fashion as part of the process it uses to establish income limits for various housing programs. When it is necessary to translate rents into value or vice versa, the median cap rate from the Rental Housing Finance Survey (RHFS), also funded by HUD and conducted by the Census Bureau, is used. In addition to average income, estimated spending tendencies for movers into each type of construction are needed. Separate spending vectors are estimated for each using household information available in the CE data. The table on the following page shows average local propensities to consume computed from the 2012 CE. This modeling of average spending by different types of households soon after they move in is another distinguishing feature of the NAHB local impact model. In addition to the function they serve in the local model, average spending tendencies computed from CE data have also proven to be of interest for their implications at the national level.5 Compared to home buyers, renters tend to spend more of their incomes locally—partly due to the tendency of lower-income households to spend a greater fraction of their incomes on necessities, but also due to rental payments that go to a local owner, or owner employing a management company with a local presence. The equivalent housing expense for a home buyer would be a mortgage payment. Because mortgage payments typically are made to non-local owners of the mortgage through non-local servicers, they are excluded from the spending estimates in the NAHB local impact model. Average propensities to spend on virtually all categories of local health care services are higher for households moving into construction designed for older residents (age-restricted active adult and elderly LIHTC). As was described in Phase II, seven categories of commodities produced by local government enterprises are added to the model, and a share of local spending (which may be zero) is allocated to these enterprises instead of private producers based on revenues reported in the Census of Governments for each local government enterprises in the area. 5 See, for example, the December 2008 Special Study “Spending Patterns of Home Buyers,” written by Natalia Siniavskaia and published by NAHB in Housing Economics.com. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 214 of 407 Technical Documentation 22 Average Local Spending Computed from CE Data Output of industry purchased locally All House- holds New Home Buyers New Multifamily Renters Active Adult Buyers New Family LIHTC New Elderly LIHTC 1 Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production 0.129% 0.172% 0.000% 0.176% 0.000% 0.000% 2 Electric power generation, transmission, and distr. 2.689% 2.410% 0.002% 3.428% 0.000% 0.000% 3 Natural gas distribution 0.674% 0.499% 0.000% 0.723% 0.000% 0.000% 4 Water, sewage and other systems 0.793% 0.802% 0.000% 1.108% 0.000% 0.000% 5 Residential maintenance and repair 3.059% 2.087% 0.000% 3.567% 0.170% 0.072% 6 Motor vehicle and parts dealers 1.218% 1.439% 5.098% 1.447% 1.408% 1.190% 7 Food and beverage stores 4.829% 3.303% 4.446% 3.567% 8.573% 8.793% 8 General merchandise stores 0.745% 0.840% 1.271% 0.723% 1.129% 0.437% 9 Other retail 3.119% 2.494% 3.088% 2.906% 3.896% 4.069% 10 Transit and ground passenger transportation 0.190% 0.030% 0.269% 0.028% 0.990% 0.990% 11 Newspaper publishers 0.027% 0.016% 0.042% 0.042% 0.057% 0.096% 12 Wired telecommunications carriers 2.392% 1.770% 1.878% 2.588% 2.868% 4.441% 13 Wireless telecom. carriers (except satellite) 2.081% 1.809% 3.565% 1.811% 3.323% 2.435% 14 Satellite, telecom. Resellers & all other telecom. 0.323% 0.249% 0.620% 0.335% 0.472% 0.494% 15 Data processing, hosting, and related services 0.003% 0.002% 0.000% 0.002% 0.006% 0.000% 16 Monetary authorities, depository credit intermediation 0.437% 0.298% 0.000% 0.366% 0.000% 0.000% 17 Nondepository credit intermediation+related activities 0.417% 0.616% 0.906% 0.463% 0.381% 0.327% 18 Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related activities 0.407% 0.387% 0.722% 0.462% 0.291% 0.288% 19 Real estate 8.301% 2.048% 27.078% 1.292% 33.130% 34.324% 20 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 0.795% 0.775% 0.000% 0.348% 0.426% 0.000% 21 Consumer goods and general rental centers 0.070% 0.055% 0.041% 0.046% 0.104% 0.030% 22 Legal services 0.335% 1.185% 0.006% 0.163% 0.852% 0.055% 23 Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll 2.512% 1.939% 0.250% 1.691% 4.895% 0.904% 24 Photographic services 0.045% 0.039% 0.257% 0.017% 0.054% 0.015% 25 Veterinary services 0.236% 0.199% 0.006% 0.209% 0.149% 0.104% 26 Investigation and security services 0.024% 0.042% 0.055% 0.066% 0.009% 0.015% 27 Services to buildings and dwellings 0.385% 0.389% 0.093% 0.666% 0.181% 0.119% 28 Waste management and remediation services 0.219% 0.217% 0.000% 0.283% 0.000% 0.000% 29 Elementary and secondary schools 0.212% 0.314% 0.000% 0.134% 0.060% 0.022% 30 Offices of physicians 4.361% 2.732% 3.879% 5.881% 3.595% 10.321% 31 Offices of dentists 0.787% 0.693% 0.416% 1.036% 0.698% 1.082% 32 Offices of other health practitioners 0.670% 0.387% 0.280% 0.812% 0.453% 1.269% 33 Home health care services 0.884% 0.395% 0.625% 1.123% 0.755% 2.585% 34 Hospitals 3.761% 2.482% 5.133% 5.953% 2.682% 9.324% 35 Nursing and community care facilities 0.974% 0.386% 0.592% 1.140% 0.791% 2.808% 36 Child day care services 0.202% 0.345% 0.632% 0.013% 0.183% 0.000% 37 Performing arts companies 0.191% 0.235% 0.353% 0.403% 0.279% 0.062% 38 Spectator sports 0.070% 0.071% 0.109% 0.020% 0.156% 0.007% 39 Gambling industries (except casino hotels) 0.068% 0.036% 0.005% 0.083% 0.128% 0.351% 40 Other amusement and recreation industries 0.335% 0.490% 1.146% 0.416% 0.350% 0.058% 41 Full-service restaurants 2.415% 1.902% 3.289% 2.020% 4.756% 2.625% 42 Limited-service restaurants 2.415% 1.902% 3.289% 2.020% 4.756% 2.625% 43 All other food and drinking places 0.107% 0.699% 0.007% 2.638% 0.034% 0.008% 44 Automotive repair and maintenance 1.713% 1.289% 2.595% 1.961% 1.799% 1.746% 45 Electronic and precision equip. repair & maintenance 0.022% 0.019% 0.000% 0.031% 0.012% 0.005% 46 Personal and household goods repair & maintenance 0.105% 0.078% 0.027% 0.131% 0.084% 0.154% 47 Personal care services 0.144% 0.070% 0.107% 0.183% 0.121% 0.403% 48 Death care services 0.278% 0.067% 0.029% 0.163% 0.524% 0.259% 49 Dry-cleaning and laundry services 0.264% 0.103% 0.225% 0.116% 0.886% 0.752% 50 Other personal services 0.745% 0.707% 0.678% 0.859% 1.163% 0.988% 51 Religious organizations 0.746% 0.821% 0.746% 1.205% 0.337% 0.415% 52 Civic, social, professional, and similar organizations 0.011% 0.005% 0.000% 0.009% 0.000% 0.002% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 215 of 407 Technical Documentation 23 Also as described in Phase II, Census of Governments data are used to estimate most categories of tax and fee revenue generated for general (non-enterprise) governments in the area. The exemption is residential property taxes. Perhaps surprisingly, residential and non-residential property taxes are not reported separately. Moreover, some states have restrictions on rate increases, or other laws that tend to make property tax rates different on new construction. Particular developments (for example, those financed by the LIHTC program) may also be granted special forms of property tax relief. For these reasons, when customizing the local impact model to a specific area, information about property taxes on the units being built must be supplied by the entity requesting the analysis. Phase III of the model counts only property tax on the value of construction. Unless specific information is provided for an individual project or jurisdiction, this is calculated assuming that the raw land would be taxed at the same rate if not developed. Any residential property tax from existing units is treated as unrelated to the new homes being analyzed and excluded from the government revenue impact estimates. Non-residential property taxes are treated much like other categories of government revenue, except that the aggregate for a jurisdiction to be estimated from a larger aggregate in the government data that does not distinguish residential from non-residential. This is accomplished by subtracting an estimated 53.37 percent from total property taxes to account for residential share of property taxes. The estimate is calculated as follows, from data available for 2012 in the ACS, RHFS and the Census Bureau’s Summary of State and Local Government Tax Revenue (SSLGTR): Aggregate real estate taxes paid by homeowners: $206.04 billion (ACS) Estimate for homeowners not reporting: 5.93 billion Estimated real estate taxes paid on rental housing 41.85 billion (ACS and RHFS) Total residential real estate taxes $253.82 billion Total property taxes $475.83 billion (SSLGTR) Residential share 53.37% The estimate for homeowners not reporting in the ACS is based on the number of non-reporters multiplied by median tax payment for those who do report. The estimate for rental units is based on the number of rental units in the ACS multiplied by median tax per rental unit in the RHFS. Multifamily Phase III impacts are reduced to account for vacant units. By default, the single- family version of the model assumes that units are intended for owner-occupancy and have negligible vacancies. In the Census Bureau’s Housing Vacancy Survey homeowner vacancy rates are usually in the neighborhood of only one percent. For multifamily units, the average multifamily rental annual vacancy rate over the prior decade and average annual multifamily homeowner vacancy rate over the prior decade are used, depending on whether the units are condominiums or rental apartments. In other respects, Phase III treats condo buyers the same as single-family home buyers (the income and spending tendencies discussed above being based on buyers of owner-occupied housing units, irrespective of structure type). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 216 of 407 Technical Documentation 24 Although vacancy rates are known to fluctuate, the model estimates annual ongoing impacts that are expected to persist for an extended period, so a long-term “natural” measure of vacancy rates is more appropriate for Phase III than a very current, possibly anomalous, number. The reduction for vacancies is applied to all Phase III multifamily impacts except for property taxes, which are assumed to be paid by the owner of the property, whether the units are occupied or not. Local spending and taxes (including fees and charges paid to local government entities) generate income for local residents, and this income will be spent and recycled in the local economy, much as in Phase II of the model. Let xn denote the initial income and tax column vector for new home occupants, An denote the matrix formed from the consumption spending patterns of new home occupants, and otherwise maintain the notation used in Phase II of the model. Then consider the following sequence: . . . The sum of these terms forms an infinite series that converges to the limit When results are reported for Phase III the income earned by the occupants is subtracted from the final multiplied effect, so that only income generated for occupants of housing units already existing in the area is counted. Note that, were new home occupants to spend the same fraction of their incomes on the various local commodities as average households, An = A and the formula would simplify to The formula that produces a 297-element vector, the first 99 of which contain the added income by industry, for Phase III is Again, the income in each industry can be disaggregated into business owners’ income and wages and salaries, and the wages and salaries converted to full time jobs. These exclude any jobs filled by occupants of the new housing units. ALYZ LYZA 'x K 1=k nn  :K Round ]][)([-1 nn ALYZ-ILYZA-A+I 'x ][1 - nn YZAL-I LA 'x ALYZ ALYZ LYZA 'x nn : Round 3 LYZA 'x nn :1 Round 'xn :0 Round ][-1 n ALYZ-I 'x ALYZ LYZA 'x nn :2 Round Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 217 of 407 Technical Documentation 25 The formula that produces a 3-element vector showing the final, multiplied effect on local income, local government general revenue from persons, and local general government revenue from business generated in Phase III is As in Phase II, the last two elements of the final 3-element vector can be disaggregated to show revenue generated by particular types of taxes, fees, and charges. The primary difference in Phase III is that the increase in residential property tax revenue (which is introduced into the model as a separate input independent of the Census of Government computations) needs to be subtracted before the decomposition procedure can be applied. Final Notes All of the matrix operations in the NAHB local impact model are performed using the O-Matrix package provided by Harmonic Software. The O-Matrix code used to generate Phase III impacts for single-family construction and the code used to compute a local total requirements matrix for a previous iteration of the NAHB model are published on the Harmonic Software web site as notable uses of the O-Matrix package (http://www.omatrix.com/userstories.html). The technical documentation on the NAHB model used to estimate the local income, jobs, and taxes generated by home building was prepared by Paul Emrath, Vice President of Survey and Housing Policy Research. For questions on the technical documentation, or on NAHB’s impact of home building models in general, he may be contacted in NAHB’s Economics and Housing Policy Group by phone at 202-266-8449, or by email at pemrath@nahb.org. ]1- ZALY-ILYA'x nn [ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 218 of 407 The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Comparing Costs to Revenue for Local Governments December 2018 Housing Policy Department Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 219 of 407 2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 220 of 407 1 Introduction Home building generates local economic impacts such as income and jobs for local residents, and revenue for local governments. It also typically imposes costs on local governments—such as the costs of providing primary and secondary education, police and fire protection, and water and sewer service. Not only do these services require annual expenditures for items such as teacher salaries, they typically also require capital investment in buildings, other structures, and equipment that local governments own and maintain. This report presents estimates of the metro area impacts of home building in Ada County, Idaho. The report presents estimates of the impacts of building 4,540 single-family and 1,759 multifamily housing units, based on construction activity in Ada County during the one-year period from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. The local economic benefits generated by this level of home construction activity are reported in a separate NAHB document.1 This report presents estimates of the costs—including current and capital expenses—that new homes impose on jurisdictions in the area and compares those costs to the revenue generated. The results are intended to answer the question of whether or not, from the standpoint of local governments in the area, residential development pays for itself. Figure 1. Boise City, Idaho MSA 1 “The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated,” completed by NAHB in December 2018. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 221 of 407 2 The comprehensive nature of the NAHB model requires a local area large enough to include the labor and housing market in which the homes are built. The local benefits captured by the model, including revenue generated for local governments, include the ripple impacts of spending and taxes paid by construction workers and new residents, which occur in an economic market area. For a valid comparison, costs should be calculated for the same area. A local labor and housing market generally corresponds to a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Based on local commuting patterns, OMB has identified the Boise City MSA as a metro area consisting of five counties (Ada, Boise, Canyon, Gem and Owyhee) in the State of Idaho (see Figure 1). In this report, wherever the term local is used, it refers to the five-county metro area. Costs Compared to Revenue: Total This section summarizes results for both single-family and multifamily construction. Detail by structure type follows, but for many purposes a combined analysis of both types may be most appropriate. Market areas generally require a mix of housing types to accommodate residents of different income levels, different occupations, and who are at different stages in their professional careers. Although it’s possible to analyze single-family and multifamily construction separately, such an approach does not reflect the typically integrated character of residential development. In the first year, the 4,540 single-family and 1,759 multifamily housing units built in Ada County result in an estimated $148.2 million in tax and other revenue for local governments,2 $7.6 million in current expenditures by local government to provide public services to the net new households at current levels, and $122.0 million in capital investment for new structures and equipment undertaken by local governments The analysis assumes that local governments finance the capital investment by borrowing at the current municipal bond rate of 4.09 percent.3 In a typical year after the second, when increased property tax payments become fully phased in,4 the single-family and multifamily units result in $41.7 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, and $15.2 million in local government expenditures to continue providing services at current levels 2 This assumes that homes are occupied at a constant rate during the year, so that the year captures most of the annual revenue generated by the new residents participating in the local economy. 3 The analysis assumes that there is currently no excess capacity, that local governments invest in capital before the homes are built, and that no fees or other revenue generated by construction activity are available to finance the investment, so that all capital investment at the beginning of the first year is financed by debt. This is a conservative assumption that results in an upper bound estimate on the costs incurred by local governments. The particular interest rate is based on the Bond Buyer Municipal Bond Index, which is based on prices for 40 long-term municipal bonds. 4 This jurisdiction typically defers increases in property on new construction for a year. For that reason, no extra property revenue is included the first year, and only half of the ultimate increase is included in the year two. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 222 of 407 3 The difference between government revenue and current expenditures is defined as an “operating surplus.” In this case, the first-year operating surplus is large enough to service and pay off all debt incurred by investing in structures and equipment at the start of the first year by the end of the first year. After that, future operating surpluses will be available to finance other projects or reduce taxes. After 15 years, the homes will generate a cumulative $722.0 million in revenue compared to $349.6 million in costs, including annual current expenses, capital investment, and interest on debt (Figure 2). Costs Compared to Revenue: Single-family Construction This section summarizes results for single-family construction only. The relevant assumptions about the Single-family homes built (including their average price, property tax payments, and construction-related fees incurred) are described in the NAHB report, The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated. In the first year, the 4,540 single-family homes built in Ada County result in an estimated $119.9 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, $6.0 million in current expenditures by local government to provide public services to the net new households at current levels, and $99.1 million in capital investment for new structures and equipment undertaken by local governments The analysis assumes that local governments finance the capital investment by borrowing at the current municipal bond rate. In a typical year after year after the second, when increased property tax payments become fully phased in, the 4,540 single-family homes result in $34.8 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, and $12.0 million in local government expenditures needed to continue providing services at current levels. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 223 of 407 4 The difference between government revenue and current expenditures is defined as an “operating surplus.” In the case of single-family construction, the operating surplus generated during the first year is large enough to service and pay off all debt incurred by investing in structures and equipment at the beginning of the first year by the end of the first year. After that, future operating surpluses will be available to finance other projects or reduce taxes. After 15 years, the homes will generate a cumulative $598.7 million in revenue compared to $279.2 million in costs, including annual current expenses, capital investment, and interest on debt (Figure 3). Costs Compared to Revenue: Multifamily Construction This section summarizes results for multifamily construction. As with the section on single- family construction, relevant assumptions about the units built can be found in The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated. In the first year, the 1,759 multifamily housing units built in Ada County result in an estimated $28.2 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, $1.6 million in current expenditures by local government to provide public services to the net new households at current levels, and $22.9 million in capital investment for new structures and equipment undertaken by local governments The analysis assumes that local governments finance the capital investment by borrowing at the current municipal bond rate. In a typical year after the year after the second, when increased property tax payments become fully phased in, the 1,759 multifamily units generate $6.9 million in tax and other revenue for local governments, and $3.2 million in local government expenditures needed to continue providing services at current levels. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 224 of 407 5 The difference between government revenue and current expenditures is defined as an “operating surplus.” As was the case for single-family, the operating surplus associated with multifamily construction is large enough to service and pay off all debt incurred by investing in structures and equipment at the beginning of the first year by the end of the first. After that, future operating surpluses will be available to finance other projects or reduce taxes. After 15 years, the units will generate a cumulative $123.2 million in revenue compared to $70.3 million in costs, including annual current expenses, capital investment, and interest on debt (Figure 4). Method Used to Estimate Costs The method for estimating local government revenue generated by home building is explained in the attachment to The Metro Area Impact of Home Building in Ada County, Idaho: Income, Jobs and Taxes Generated. This section describes how costs are estimated. The general approach is to assume local jurisdictions supply residents of new homes with the same services that they currently provide, on average, to occupants of existing structures. The amount that any jurisdiction spends is available from the Census of Governments, where all units of government in the U.S. report line item expenses, revenues, and intergovernmental transfers once every five years to the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. Census of Governments accounts can be aggregated for every local government in the Boise City metro area. In this case, however, the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho was able independently to obtain data on expenses incurred by the Idaho County Highway District (ACHD) for the one-year period from October 2017 through September 2018. NAHB compared ACHD’s overall budget minus capital improvements to the current expense line item for ACHD from the Census of Governments, and used the former (which was somewhat higher). This makes use of the data that are most recent, and follows NAHB’s conservative approach that seeks to avoid understating government expenses. Any transportation costs incurred by a Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 225 of 407 6 government entity in the Boise City MSA other than ACHD were handled the usual way, using Census of Government data, and added to the costs for ACHD. NAHB then used the resulting aggregate estimates to calculate total annual expenses per single-family and multifamily housing unit (Table 1): Table 1. Total Annual Local Government Expenses per Housing Unit Single-family Multifamily Education 469 277 Police Protection 494 359 Fire Protection 258 188 Corrections 94 68 Streets and Highways 257 148 Water Supply 40 24 Sewerage 81 47 Health 105 77 Recreation and Culture 241 175 Other General Government 606 441 Electric Utilities 5 3 Total 2,650 1,807 In deriving the above estimates, water supply and sewerage expenses are allocated based on gallons of water consumed per day by single-family and multifamily households. Education is allocated based on average number of public school children age 5 through 18. The remaining expenses listed in Table 1 are assumed to be proportional to household size and are allocated to single-family and multifamily units based on average number of persons per household.5 There are several factors present in most parts of the country that tend to reduce education expenses per housing unit. The first is the average number of children going to public schools present in the units. According to the American Community Survey, there is, on average, only a little over one public school child for every three households in the U.S. The number is about 0.4 per household for single-family and under 0.2 per household for multifamily. So education costs per housing unit are lower than costs per pupil, simply because there is less than one pupil per household. Beyond that, state governments typically pay for some public school expenses in the form of intergovernmental transfers. In the latest Census of Governments, local governments in 5 Information about water consumption comes from Water Demand Trends in the Multifamily Housing Sector, a study undertaken in 2017 by Jack Kiefer and Lisa Krentz for the Water Research Foundation http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Index3.aspx. Information about household size and number of public school children comes from the 2016 Public Use Microdata Sample of the American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 226 of 407 7 aggregate across the Boise City metro area spent about $656 million in current expenses on education. However, over 80 percent of this was offset by $555 million in state-to-local intergovernmental transfers for education. In addition to current expenses, providing services to residents requires that local governments make capital expenditures for items such as schools and other buildings, equipment, roads, and other structures. The process employed by NAHB to estimate capital costs involves several steps. The general approach is to apply parameters from a conventional economic model (a production relationship, where costs are expressed as a function of labor and capital) estimated with state level data to information for a specific local area. State and local government capital in each state can be derived through a procedure that has been established over several decades in the technical literature on public finance (see the technical appendix for details). The parameter estimates are then applied to a local area, where information is available for every variable except capital. The local capital stock then emerges as a residual in the calculation. Consistent with the approach used to estimate current expenses, the amount of capital in each category is expressed as the amount necessary to accommodate an average single-family or average multifamily housing unit. On the advice of the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho, expense data obtained directly from ACHD were used to override calculations based on the Census of Governments for streets and highways. In particular, ACHD’s latest annual spending on capital improvements was divided by the metro area’s current annual level of housing starts6 (from NAHB’s state and metro forecast). This assumes that ACHD’s capital improvement spending is relatively consistent from year-to-year and undertaken solely for the purpose of accommodating new residential construction in the market area. The results are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Local Government Capital per Housing Unit Single-family Multifamily Schools 6,423 3,788 Hospitals 386 280 Other Buildings 649 471 Highways and streets 11,008 6,344 Conservation & development 1 1 Sewer systems 2,211 1,296 Water supply 129 76 Other structures 663 482 Equipment 356 259 Total 21,826 12,997 6 Housing starts for individual metropolitan areas are not available from a government source, but are estimated in NAHB’s state and metro housing forecast. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 227 of 407 8 To implement these numbers, several conservative assumptions are made to avoid understating the costs. In contrast to the way current expenses were handled, intergovernmental transfers are generally not taken into account here—it is assumed that local governments undertake all capital investment without any help from the states. It is further assumed that none of this demand for capital can be met through current excess capacity. Instead, local governments invest in new structures and equipment at the start of the first year, before any homes are built. To the extent that this is not true—that, for instance, some revenue from impact or other fees is available to fund part of the capital expenditures—interest costs would be somewhat lower than reported here. To compare the streams of costs and revenues over time, the analysis assumes that half of the current expenses and half of the ongoing, annual revenues are realized in the first year. This would be the case if construction and occupancy took place at an even rate throughout the year. Revenues in the first year also include all of the one-time construction impacts such as impact and permit fees. As mentioned in earlier sections, the difference between revenues and current expenses in a given year is defined an operating surplus. At the start of the first year, capital investment is financed through debt by borrowing at the current municipal bond interest rate,7 and the interest accrues throughout the year. Each year after that, the operating surplus is used first to pay the interest on the debt, if any exists, then to pay off the debt at the end of the year. Results for the 4,540 single-family homes are shown in Table 3, for the 1,759 multifamily units in Table 4, and for single-family and multifamily combined in Table 5. The difference between revenues (the third column) and all costs, including interest on the debt, is shown in the last column. Again, the analysis assumes that any operating surplus is being used to service the debt, and then to retire as much debt as possible at the end of the year. For either single-family or multifamily construction considered in isolation—as well as for the more realistic combined scenario that analyzes both types of structures together—revenue net of costs and interest is positive every year, beginning with the first. In fact, in all three cases (Table 4, 5 and 6) revenue net of costs and interest is sufficient to pay off all debt by the end of the first year. In the combined case (Table 6), revenue net of costs generated by the 4,540 single-family and 1,759 multifamily homes is roughly $26 million per year. Net revenue falls temporarily in year 11, due to a cost that local governments incur at that time as capital equipment purchased at the start of the first year becomes fully depreciated and needs to be replaced. All other capital investment consists of structures of various types, and the effective service life for any type of structure is considerably longer than a single decade. 7The interest rate on municipal bonds is the monthly Bond Buyer long-term Municipal Bond Index available on the Bond Buyer Web site: https://data.bondbuyer.com/MarketStatisticsArchive/Search_MBI/11?Name=Municipal%20Bond%20Inde x. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 228 of 407 9 Table 3. Results for 4,540 Single-family Homes Year Current Expenses Revenue Operating Surplus Capital Investment Start of Year Debt Outstanding End of Year Interest on the Debt Revenue Net of Costs and Interest 1 6,016,300 119,938,500 113,922,200 99,090,100 0 4,054,000 10,778,100 2 12,032,500 26,475,200 14,442,700 0 0 0 14,442,700 3 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 4 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 5 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 6 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 7 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 8 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 9 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 10 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 11 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 1,617,200 0 0 21,142,400 12 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 13 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 14 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 15 12,032,500 34,792,100 22,759,600 0 0 0 22,759,600 Table 4. Results for 1,759 Multifamily Housing Units Year Current Expenses Revenue Operating Surplus Capital Investment Start of Year Debt Outstanding End of Year Interest on the Debt Revenue Net of Costs and Interest 1 1,588,900 28,230,200 26,641,300 22,861,600 0 935,300 2,844,400 2 3,177,700 5,186,300 2,008,600 0 0 0 2,008,600 3 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 4 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 5 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 6 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 7 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 8 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 9 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 10 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 11 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 455,500 0 0 3,276,400 12 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 13 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 14 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 15 3,177,700 6,909,600 3,731,900 0 0 0 3,731,900 Table 5. Combined Results for 4,540 Single-family and 1,759 Multifamily Units Year Current Expenses Revenue Operating Surplus Capital Investment Start of Year Debt Outstanding End of Year Interest on the Debt Revenue Net of Costs and Interest 1 7,605,200 148,168,700 140,563,500 121,951,700 0 4,989,300 13,622,500 2 15,210,200 31,661,500 16,451,300 0 0 0 16,451,300 3 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 4 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 5 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 6 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 7 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 8 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 9 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 10 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 11 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 2,072,700 0 0 24,418,800 12 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 13 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 14 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 15 15,210,200 41,701,700 26,491,500 0 0 0 26,491,500 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 229 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 230 of 407 Paul Emrath Vice President Survey and Housing Policy Research Comparing Costs to Revenue for Local Governments Technical Appendix on Estimating Capital Owned and Maintained by Local Governments Technical Documentation for the NAHB Model Used to Estimate Jobs and Taxes Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 231 of 407 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 232 of 407 Technical Appendix on Estimating Local Capital Owned and Maintained by Local Governments This appendix explains the method used to estimate the age and dollar value of local government capital by function (education, water and sewer services, etc.). The general approach is to estimate economic relationships using state-level data and then apply parameters from the state-level estimates to local data. First, a cost share equation based on conventional production theory is described for the structures associated with each function of government. In the equations age of capital is used as a proxy for technologic change. Age of capital, in turn, is estimated as a function of population growth. The following derivations apply to any one of the ten categories of state and local government capital—e.g., highways or school buildings—tracked in the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) wealth data files. For simplicity, the notation suppresses an explicit reference to capital type. In cases where some detail of the model pertains to a particular type of capital or function of local governments, the text will make that clear. Let y = output; L= labor, w = the price of labor, and r = the price of capital, and consider a general translog cost function:8 (1) cit = β0 + βw ln wit + βr ln rit + βy ln yit + βa ait + ½ βww (ln wit)2+ βwr ln wit ln rit + ½ βrr (ln rit)2 + βwy ln wit ln yit + βry ln rit ln yit + βwa ait ln wit + βra ait ln rit + βyy (ln yit)2 + βya ait ln yit + βaa ait2 In the case where the firm is a government, yit is essentially unmeasurable, so it seems reasonable to assume linear homogeneity in output. This simplifies the translog specification considerably: (2) cit = β0 + βw ln wit + βr ln rit + ln yit + βa ait + ½ βww (ln wit)2+ βwr ln wit ln rit + ½ βrr (ln rit)2 + βwa ait ln wit + βra ait ln rit + βaa ait2 Specification (2) still requires an estimate of ln yit. However, application of Shephard’s Lemma generates the following two-equation system: (3) sL, it = wit L it /c it = ∂ ln c it /∂ ln wit = βw + βww ln wit + βwr ln rit + βwa ait (4) sk it = rit kt /c it = ∂ ln c it /∂ ln rit = βr + βwr ln wit + βrr ln rit + βra ait By estimating cost shares rather than the cost function itself, the ability to estimate β0, βa, and βaa (essentially nuisance parameters) is lost. Also lost is some precision, in the sense that a lower-order approximation is being estimated.9 The advantage is relief from the need to supply values for the unobservable yit. 8 See, for example, Walter Diewert and Terry Wales (1987), “Flexible Functional Forms and Global Curvature Conditions,” Econometrica, 55, 43-68. 9 See Henri Theil, The System-Wide Approach to Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 151. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 233 of 407 Economic theory implies several restrictions. Symmetry: βwr is the same in both equations Linear homogeneity in input prices: βw + βr = 1; ½ βww + βwr + ½ βrr = 0; βwa + βra = 0. The restrictions are imposed in the usual way. One of the factor prices (wit) is used as a numeraire; and only one share equation (sL, it ) is estimated, leaving parameters of the second, if needed, to be recovered by simple algebra. The resulting estimating equation is (5) sL, it = wit L it /(wit Lit + rit kt) = βw + βwr ln (rit /wit) + βwa ait + βI’Iit where Iit is a vector of indicator variables that may be added to equations for some government functions to account for outliers among specific states and time periods. More detail is provided when the regression results are discussed. Model (5) can be estimated with any standard regression package, provided state-level annual data for L, w, and r can be specified. Series beginning in 1987 for the first two are available from the Government Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. For r, standard practice is followed by assuming cost of capital is the sum of three terms: maintenance (meaning, in this case, all non-labor operating costs), interest, and depreciation. (6) rit = xit /kit + фit+ ξt where xit is the difference between total current expenditures and labor costs, фit is an interest rate for appropriate types of tax-exempt public-purpose government bonds, and ξt is the national depreciation rate from BEA’s wealth accounts. To estimate the cost share equations, the same annual interest rate series фt is used for all states. Because the preferred series not available until 1990, two different sources are used to construct the 1987–2001 annual interest rate series фt. From 1987 through to the end of 1989, the JP Morgan Revenue Bond Index (RBI) is used. The JP Morgan RBI data are monthly. An annual interest rate is constructed by taking the average of the 12 monthly observations for each calendar year. From 1990 to the present the Merrill Lynch 20 Year AAA GO series is used. The Merrill Lynch data are provided weekly. An annual interest rate is constructed by taking the average of the 52 observations in each calendar year. To insure that there is no discontinuity in the series, the annual interest rate from the JP Morgan RBI index for the years 1987 1988 and 1989 is multiplied by the average of the annual ratio of the Merrill Lynch 20 Year AAA GO series divided by the JP Morgan RBI index the for the years 1990 to the present. That ratio turned out to be 0.93. The reason the ratio is less than one is largely because the Merrill Lynch index has a duration that is on average 5 years shorter than the JP Morgan RBI Index. The final index was chosen following consultation with bonds specialists at both JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch. Although there are hundreds of thousands of unique muni-bonds, and most are rarely if ever traded, the experts felt that a 20 year maturity seemed appropriate and that the ML GO AAA series was probably best for this purpose. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 234 of 407 In order to make the cost share equations operational, it’s necessary to apportion equipment among the other nine types of capital for which it’s possible to approximately match capital with expense and employment data by function of government. In general, a year-zero approach is employed, basing the analysis on the ratio of structures to equipment when both are brand new. Suppressing the cross-sectional (state) subscript, capital k required for a specific local government function is the sum of structures ks and equipment ke: (7) kt = kst + ket where kst = ks0 (1-ξs)as, ket = ke0 (1-ξe)ae or, equivalently, (8) ks0 = kst (1-ξs)-as, ke0 = ket (1-ξe)-ae Brand new equipment is allocated to brand new structures based on the relative total year-zero values of structures. From this, a ratio z can be derived, which will be the same for all local government functions (or structure types): (9) z = ke0/ks0 = ket (1-ξe)-ae kst -1(1-ξs)as The average z ratio for 50 states plus the District of Columbia in the most recent year for which we can compute it (1998) is .11642. This number is used below to help derive estimates of government-owned equipment and structures for a particular local area. The blended ages and depreciation rates for total capital (structures and equipment) were used to compute the independent variables in the estimating equations. The nine equations (one for each function of government) were estimated, using data for the period where complete state-level government employment and finance data were available—1987 through 1998. The procedure converged quickly (in four iterations). Results are shown in Table 3. Fit of the model was improved by including a number of indicator variables, up to three per equation. These are identified as I1, I2, and I3 in Table A1 and defined in Table A2. Not all of the cost equations contain an indicator variable, and each indicator captures only a small number of states. Several variables simply indicate that an observation is for the state of Alaska, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the technology of providing some government services in Alaska would be different than in many other states. In the case of housing, New York appears to be an isolated outlier, and again that is not especially surprising. Other indicators capture a small number of states in New England or the Rocky Mountain area. The conservation series showed a clear break between 1991 and 1992 in Arizona. The Census Bureau instituted some procedural changes involving the collection and reporting of government finance data beginning in 1992. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 235 of 407 In the equations above, age of the capital stock appears as an explanatory variable. This is not readily available, even at the state level. A commonly used approach employs perpetual accounting, investment, and depreciation rates to base-year estimates.10 The procedure used here begins with that approach, but then relates the investment rates to population growth rates, one of the few items for which consistent time series are available for individual U.S. counties. From BEA national wealth data, the following are available or can easily be computed: ξ = real annual rate of depreciation (defined broadly, as BEA does, to include a normal rate of obsolescence and retirement of assets)  = monthly depreciation rate, a simple algebraic transformation of ξ. Nt = real, net (of depreciation) rate of investment in year t, t=1946,…,2000. 10 As in Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “State-Specific Estimates of State and Local Government Capital,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 185-210. β w β wr β wa I1 I2 I3 Adj R2 Residential -0.5454 -0.1082 0.0051 0.1531 0.2150 .453 (.0001)(.0001)(.0158)(.0001)(.0001) Education -0.3801 -0.1391 0.0156 .545 (.0001)(.0001)(.0001) Hospital 0.5682 -0.1413 -0.0247 -0.1793 .506 (.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001) Other Buildings 0.3970 -0.1655 -0.0368 .784 (.0001)(.0001)(.0001) Streets & Highways -0.0345 -0.0723 -0.0110 0.2072 .598 (.4529)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001) Conservation 0.1846 -0.0524 -0.0017 0.3443 -0.2017 0.1210 .483 (.0165)(.0001)(.6021)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001) Sewer -0.4148 -0.0861 0.0018 .522 (.0001)(.0001)(.1985) Water -0.0336 -0.1077 -0.0169 .413 (.5780)(.0001)(.0001) Other Structures -0.2342 -0.1112 -0.0111 0.39629 .566 (.0021)(.0001)(.0004)(.0001) Table A1. Regression Results: Cost Share Equations Capital type Variable Condition for I=1 Residential I1 state=AK I2 state=NY Hospital I1 state=AZ, NH, or VT Streets & Highways I1 state=AK Conservation I1 state=AK I2 state =NY or CT; or state=AZ and year < 1992 I3 state=ID, MT, ND, or WY Other Structures I1 state= NE, NY, or WA Table A2: Indicator Variables for Cost Share Equations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 236 of 407 From data compiled by the Governments Division of the Census Bureau, and ratios employed by BEA to analyze this data, the following can be computed for state i and t=1977,…,1999: vnit = real investment in new assets state i in year t. veit = real investment in existing assets state i in year t. vit = real investment in state i in year t = vnit + veit. xit = current expenditures associated with the relevant type of capital state i in year t. From standard Census Bureau data it is possible to compute it = population growth in the state relative to the national rate; i.e., it = 1 11          i it i it it it     The starting point consists of initial end-of-year estimates of the real capital stock, k0i 76 , determined by allocating capital to each state according to its share of current expenditure, xi 77. This procedure, the one employed for example by Holtz-Eakin (1993), is used here only for the purpose of supplying initial values to be modified in subsequent iterations. Perpetual inventory accounting can be used to calculate the following recursively for t=1977,…,1999: (10) k0i t+1 = k0it (1-ξ) + vit+1(1-)6 This assumes that investment made during period t+1 depreciates an average of 6 months by the end of the period. Then relative (to the national rate) net real rates of investment can also be computed: (11) 0i t = 1 0 1 0 1      t it itit Nk kv The goal is to obtain estimates of parameters j and q in the following regression relationship: (12) 0i t = q Q q qjit J j j D     1 0 1 0  where J is the longest lag considered and the Dq are indicator (dummy) variables. The hypothesis underlying this specification is that a state’s rate of investment (relative to the national rate) is a function of past rates of its population growth (also relative to the national rate), with indicator variables to account for anomalies in some states due to peculiarities that are difficult to observe and quantify. Inspection of the pair wise correlations between  i t and it-j reveal that they begin to decline at or before the lag reaches eight years, depending on the type of capital. Thus, model specification for each type of capital began by tentatively considering population growth effects up to J=8. The final specification varies from case to case. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 237 of 407 As a practical matter, the final specifications employ averages of population growth rates lagged over several years. Over the course of several experiments, the sum of the coefficients on the population variables never changed substantially when an average was substituted for a series of individual lags. Coefficients on individual lags tended to fluctuate widely and lack statistical significance, due to collinearity. The use of averages thus aids interpretation without impacting the marginal impacts predicted by the equations in a meaningful way. Three indicator variables were used in all but the hospital capital equation, which employed four. In most cases, indicator variables flag relatively few states (Table A3). Given initial estimates, it’s possible to begin the perpetual inventory accounting process at an earlier date. If we assume that the World War II period was atypical and restrict ourselves to post-war population data, an 8-year lag in (12) implies that 1954 is the first year for which we can obtain state investment estimates. Hence, state capital stocks in 1953 are estimated by allocating the national capital stock in that year according to its share of the U.S. population, then estimating state investment in the years from 1954 through 1976 recursively according to (13) v0it = k0it-1 (ξ + Nt 0i t ) where 0i t is estimated from (12). In words, (13) says that investment is enough to cover depreciation, plus another term which is the net national rate of investment multiplied by a relative factor specific to state i. It is then possible to combine (13) with (10) to derive estimates of the capital stock for the years 1954 through 1976 in most states. (Lack of complete data for in earlier years pushes the first estimate for Alaska forward to 1962.) Capital Category DVERYHI=1 DHIGH=1 DLOW=1 DVERYLOW=1 1 Equipment DC, WY AZ, CO, MT, UT AR, NH, RI 2 Residential Buildings DC, HI, MA, NY CT, DE, RI CO, FL, ID, NM, TX, UT, VT, WY 3 Educational Buildings WY HI, NM, TX CA, VT, WI 4 Hospital Buildings WY AL, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, KS, NY, OH, WA AR, CT, DE, IL, KY, ME, OR, UT, WI, WV AZ, VT 5 Other Buildings DC, WY HI, MD AR 6 Highways and Streets WY DC, IA, MN, MT, ND, NE AR, ME, NH, SC, VT 7 Conservation & Development HI, WY AZ, LA, MT AL, NY, OK, TN, VA 8 Sewer Systems & Structures DC, NY, WA MA, MD, NJ, OH, RI, WI AR, NC 9 Water Supply Facilities CO, DC, SD, WY FL, NV DE, NH 10 Other Structures DC NE NH Table A3: Indicator Variables for Relative Investment Rate Equations Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 238 of 407 In this way revised estimates k1i 76 are derived, and these can be used to restart the process by repeating steps (10) through (13). This results in successively revised estimates k1i t and 1i t for t=1977,…,1999; parameters 1j and 1q; v1i t for t=54,…,76; and k2i 76. This ends the first iteration. This process can be repeated until either a convergence criterion is satisfied. The particular criterion used was an average absolute percentage change in the ki 76 no greater than 10-10 between iterations. The procedure was carried out for all 10 BEA categories of state and local government capital. Each of the ten equations converged in fewer than 10 iterations. The final estimates are shown in Table A4. Equipment Residential Education Hospital Buildings nec Iterations to Convergence 8 6 6 6 6 Final Regression Coefficients (p-values): Constant -0.2590 0.5460 -0.0227 0.3663 0.5439 (.0003)(.0001)(.8295)(.0001)(.0001) Lagged relative population growth rates: Population lag 1 0.4337 0.3852 0.1336 (.0001)(.0001) (.0001) Population lag 2-5 0.1707 0.0662 0.0212 (.1225) Population lag 2-8 0.6865 0.0961 (.0001) (.0002) Population lag 6-8 0.0805 0.1270 (.0532) (.0009) State indicator variables: DVeryhi 5.6639 2.9842 7.2485 4.1282 1.7082 (.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001) DHigh 1.2733 0.7862 1.6538 1.4240 1.3839 (.0002)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001) DLow -1.3392 -0.8119 -1.2254 -0.8407 -0.6383 (.0001)(.0001)(.0003)(.0001)(.0001) DVerylow -1.7778 (.0001) Adjusted R2 .432 .426 .311 .323 .402 Table A4. Final Regression Results: Dependent Variable=Relative Investment Rate Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 239 of 407 The estimated pre-1977 investment series can be spliced onto the 1977-1999 data and the results used to estimate the average age of capital, by type, in each state. The procedure is as follows. First, set the average age of capital in state equal to the national average for 1953. Then, use perpetual accounting to recursively calculate the average age in subsequent years: (14) ai t+1 = [(ai t +1) kit (1-ξ) + ½vnit+1(1-)6 + apt veit+1(1-)6]/k0i t+1 where apt is the average age of the relevant type of private capital, in accord with the method used by BEA which assumes that existing assets purchased by governments are “typical”. The process of deriving estimating capital stock estimates for a particular local area begins by adapting the average age equation (14) to location m: amt = [(amt-1 +1) kmt-1 (1-ξ) + gt vmt(1-)6]/[kmt-1 (1-ξ) + vmt(1-)6] where gt =   i it i i itit v vepavn5. , that is, the average end-of-the year age of total assets (including both new and used) purchased by all states in the country during the period. Streets C&D Sewer Water Other Iterations to Convergence 6 6 6 6 8 Final Regression Coefficients (p-values): Constant 0.8370 0.0938 0.4386 0.2036 0.2754 (.0001)(.0617)(.0001)(.0001)(.0016) Lagged relative population growth rates: Population lag 1 0.1967 0.2253 (.0001)(.0030) Population lag 2 0.0950 (.0371) Population lag 2-5 0.2462 (.0001) Population lag 5 0.0516 (.1461) Population lag 2-8 0.4270 0.5368 (.0001)(.0001) Population lag 3-8 0.2653 (.0001) Population lag 6-8 0.0770 0.0701 (.0318)(.0594) State indicator variables: DVeryhi 4.955 2.387 1.348 2.270 13.405 (.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001) DHigh 1.340 1.223 1.025 0.396 5.981 (.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0206)(.0001) DLow -0.684 -0.785 -0.745 -0.126 -2.172 (.0006)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001)(.0001) Adjusted R2 .502 .338 .268 .496 .528 Table A4. Continued Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 240 of 407 Then (13) is substituted into the average age formula and the capital factor is eliminated in order to obtain (15) amt =  6 6 1 11 111     mtt mtttmt N Nga Equation (13) can be used to estimate mt from local relative population growth factors mt . Starting with the national average age for 1954 as initial estimate of the average age of the capital stock in m, (15) can be applied to calculate amt recursively for subsequent years. The result is a recipe for estimating the age of the capital stock for a particular local area. To be implemented, the recipe requires only data on local population growth. Given the age estimate—along with estimates of the parameters βw, βwr, and βwa from the cost share equations, capital depreciation rates ξt from BEA, a current rate on tax-exempt bonds фmt , and values for wmt, Lmt, and xmt that can be obtained for any unit of government from data bases maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau—capital kmt is the only unknown in the local cost share equation (16) [wmt L mt + xmt + (фmt+ξt) kmt][βw + βwr ln ((xmt/kmt+ фmt +ξt)/wmt ) + βwa amt + βI’Imt] = wmt L mt However, it’s necessary to account for the fact that capital in (16) consists of both structures and equipment. Equations (7), (8), and (9) imply that (17) kmt,s = mt kmt and kmt,e = (1-mt) kmt where (18) mt = [1 + z(1-ξe)amt,e(1-ξs)-amt, s]-1 By using the 1998 state average value (.11642) for z, it’s possible to compute mt from BEA’s depreciation rates and the estimated ages of structures and equipment. In turn, mt can be used to compute (19) amt = amt, s kmt,s / kmt + amt, e kmt,e / kmt = mt amt, s + (1-mt) amt, e and (20) ξmt = mt ξt, s + (1-mt) ξt, e for the blended age and depreciation rate of capital, respectively. Substitution into (16) yields a formula that can be applied in practice: (21) [wmt L mt + xmt + (фmt + mt ξt, s + (1-mt) ξt, e) kmt][βw + βwr ln((xmt/kmt+ фmt + mt ξt, s+ (1-mt) ξt, e)/wmt)]+βwa (mt amt, s+ (1-mt) amt, e) + βI’Imt] = wmt L mt This is the formula used to estimate kmt, the dollar value of a particular type of government capital in a particular local area. Because capital appears twice in the nonlinear expression, a closed form solution for it does not exist. Finding the solution is a one-dimensional problem, however, so kmt can be recovered through elementary numerical methods. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 241 of 407 1 Chris Johnson From:Kasper Larsen <kasper.f.larsen@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 13, 2019 2:16 PM To:Chris Johnson Subject:Written Testimony For Public Hearing on Amendment to to the Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Plans To Whom It May Concern, Regarding the The public hearing is for the purpose reviewing and considering proposed amendments to the Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Plans and proposed Ordinance amendments to the corresponding Impact Fee Schedules 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 67-8206: I'm very much in favor of instituting an impact fee, to offset the significant need for capital investments in services and infrastructure to support the significant growth experienced by Meridian. I would also request that the impact fee not be limited to Police, Fire and Parks and Recreation but also include impact fees to offset needed capacity expenditures to expand water, power and gas capacity expansions, new road construction and most importantly of all - new schools. I understand that school funding is handled by the school district, and much of the road construction is funded by the Ada County Highway District, but I would recommend an impact fee that would then go into a special purpose development fund (or funds) that could then be used to support/co-fund school and road construction, to accelerate and encourage new construction. Respectfully, Kasper Larsen 462 E. Lake Creek St, Meridian ID 83642 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 242 of 407 REQUEST TO POSTPONE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 19-1827 Re: Meridian City Ordinance No. 19-1827 Dear Mayor DeWeerd and Meridian City Council, I am OPPOSED to Ordinance 19-1827 as it is currently structured because I do not believe it accurately reflects or incentivizes Meridian's future growth to the cover associated costs. The Building Contractors Association (BCA) has stated the increased demand for and trend to build smaller homes. The current impact fees analysis grossly underestimates the amount that will be collected because it relies on information from 2014-2018, when house sizes were larger. Consequently, the city will not collect enough impact fees to adequately fund this future development. A subsequent increase to current homeowner's property taxes to bridge this inevitable shortfall is not an acceptable solution. The impact fee committee needs to revisit these assumptions and produce projections based on a variety of development combinations. The City has just started its budget process and is finalizing the new Comprehensive Plan. The outcome of both these processes SHOULD play a crucial role in how impact fees are structured. To implement an impact fee structure before these processes are complete is premature and shortsighted. The new impact fees are not effective until October 1, 2019, so let's take the time to get it right. Meridian's rapid growth is putting a tremoundous strain on our current infrastruture and this is an opportunity to make a course correction. The impact fees need to be raised to a level commesurate with future projected growth so current homeowners are not taxed out of their homes. It should also incentize developers to build homes and developments that residents prefer based on their input to the new Comprehensive Plan. I respectfully ask that City Council delay any action until the budget process, new Comprehensive Plan, and Future Land Use Map have been approved and the Council understands all implications of such as they relate to impact fees. Signed, Name* First Last Address Street Address required to be counted as valid) Street Address Line 2 City State Postal / Zip Code United States Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 243 of 407 By clicking below, I understand my name and address will be submitted to the Meridian City Council on this petition and become part of public record. I agree Verification* I'm not a robot reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms www.123formbuilder.com/form-4876904/impact-fee-ordinance 2/2 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 244 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:123FormBuilder <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201911:29AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:\[MyForm (2)\] NameAlicia Muhlestein Address584 W Dreyfussst Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.80.191 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1713:29:27oniPhoneunknown EntryID: 1 Referrer: http://m.facebook.com FormHost: http://www.123formbuilder.com/form-4876904/impact-fee-ordinance 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 245 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:YahizaWaller <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201912:34PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromYahizaWaller NameYahiza Waller Address4185W GrayFox Street EagleIdaho 83616 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.27.152.10 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1714:33:31oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 246 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:SusanLinam <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:06AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromSusanLinam NameSusan Linam Address775 STHORNWOOD WAY MERIDIAN ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.119.203.30 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:05:47onChrome75.0.3770.90 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 247 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DouglasHumphrey <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20195:35PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDouglasHumphrey NameDouglas Humphrey Address693 WDreyfuss Ln Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.51.97 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1719:35:00onChrome74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 248 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:ChadJacobsen <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20196:48PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromChad Jacobsen NameChad Jacobsen Address403 W Broderick Dr Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom166.137.8.115 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1720:48:04oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 249 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JeanmarieAmbrosio <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20191:05PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinance fromJeanmarieAmbrosio NameJeanmarie Ambrosio Address693 WDreyfuss Ln Meridian Idaho 83646-4725 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.51.97 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1715:04:54onChrome75.0.3770.90 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 250 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:RobinWilleman <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:02AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromRobinWilleman NameRobin Willeman Address230EastLake HazelRoad Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.38.50 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:02:14onChrome73.0.3683.90 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 251 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:PatrickBrown <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20193:12PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromPatrick Brown NamePatrick Brown Address5558 N Mitchum Ave Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.116.52.158 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1717:11:30oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 252 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:David Blomberg <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:04AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDavidBlomberg NameDavid Blomberg Address2433 E Cyanite Dr Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom66.194.66.130 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:04:18onInternet Explorer11.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 253 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AmberWoolner <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20193:07PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAmberWoolner NameAmber Woolner Address4272 W Bolton Drive EagleIdaho 83616 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom172.58.41.198 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1717:07:20oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 254 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JamieClaiborn <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:52AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJamie Claiborn NameJamie Claiborn Address5212S Marsala Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.121.217.139 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:52:03oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 255 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:FarrahStorli <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20196:38PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromFarrahStorli NameFarrah Storli Address886 WArcherfield Dr Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.63.240 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1720:37:57onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 256 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JennifferCard <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20196:28AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJennifferCard NameJenniffer Card Address6031 N BoothAvenue Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.116.54.200 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1808:28:04onFirefox67.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 257 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:RobertCarrico <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201911:59PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromRobertCarrico NameRobert Carrico Address3994 EVantagePointe Ln Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.126.31.178 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1801:59:13oniPhone12.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 258 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DylanCard <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20196:29AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDylanCard NameDylan Card Address6031 N BoothAvenue Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.116.54.200 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1808:28:40onFirefox67.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 259 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BarbaraBadigian <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20193:22PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBarbara Badigian NameBarbara Badigian Address5965N. Arliss Ave Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom216.190.47.102 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1717:21:49onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 260 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MichaelLange <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:56AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMichaelLange NameMichael Lange Address3690 E. Vantage Pointe Ln. Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom207.173.159.28 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:55:43oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 261 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:KellieElliott <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:05AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKellieElliott NameKellie Elliott Address4199 SLeanato Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom204.229.11.54 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:05:04oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 262 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:GregoryReynolds <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201912:43PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromGregoryReynolds NameGregory Reynolds Address1166 WBacall St Meridian Id83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom172.58.44.210 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1714:42:42onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 263 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AnnetteHunter <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:55AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAnnetteHunter NameAnnette Hunter Address12668 WGisborne Street Boise ID 83709-6193 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.18.218 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:54:44oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 264 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:ChristieHerwy <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20196:37PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromChristieHerwy NameChristie Herwy Address2373 E Taconic Dr Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.29.148 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1720:37:12onInternetExplorer11.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 265 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:Jamie Jacobsen <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20192:42PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJamie Jacobsen NameJamie Jacobsen Address403 WestBroderickDrive Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom166.170.5.60 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1716:41:46oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 266 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:GeneFox <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:19AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromGeneFox NameGene Fox Address582 s. Woodhaven Meridian Id83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.0.96 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1802:18:44oniPad12.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 267 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DanaeFails <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:10AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDanaeFails NameDanae Fails Address6125 N Demille Ave Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.48.100 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:09:47onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 268 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:SergeyKashubin <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:25AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromSergeyKashubin NameSergey Kashubin Address2607 E Decameron ln Meridian Idaho83643 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom204.229.8.115 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:25:23oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 269 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BethDuron <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20195:10AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBethDuron NameBeth Duron Address982 NW 5thAve Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom184.99.107.50 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1807:09:39oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 270 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:RobinCard <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20196:27AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromRobinCard NameRobin Card Address6031 N BoothAvenue Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.116.54.200 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1808:26:58onFirefox67.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 271 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:Emily Jensen <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20193:47PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromEmilyJensen NameEmily Jensen Address4094 East Arch Drive Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom204.229.2.195 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1717:47:12onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 272 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AnthonyLicari <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201912:04PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAnthony Licari NameAnthony Licari Address5304 NLange Ave Meridian ID83636 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.238.156 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1714:04:05oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 273 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CharlesRay <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:07AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCharlesRay NameCharles Ray Address5669 S. Graphite Way MeridianId. 83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom160.3.14.76 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:07:08onFirefox67.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 274 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CelesteFox <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201910:07PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCelesteFox NameCeleste Fox Address582 S Woodhaven AVe Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.0.96 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1800:06:47onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 275 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BeckyLicari <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201912:03PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBeckyLicari NameBecky Licari Address5304 NLange Ave MeridianIF83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.238.156 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1714:03:13oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 276 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:KellyCarpenter <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:31AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKellyCarpenter NameKelly Carpenter Address5991 N ArlissAve Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom72.24.99.174 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:31:24oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 277 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BillMcCall <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:10AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBillMcCall NameBill McCall Address2443 E Mores Trail Drive Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.27.206.244 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:09:52onFirefox67.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 278 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JerryFails <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:17AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJerryFails NameJerry Fails Address6125 N Demille Ave Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.48.100 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:16:32onSafari11.1.2 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 279 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:KathiBaumgartner <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20198:21AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKathiBaumgartner NameKathi Baumgartner Address2310E Lake Hazel Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom216.64.128.1 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1810:21:18onEdge16.16299 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 280 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CelesteFox <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 20196:40PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCelesteFox NameCeleste Fox Address582 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.0.96 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1720:39:51onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 281 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LisaHamer <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Monday, June17, 201912:07PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLisaHamer NameLisa Hamer Address5213 N Mitchum Ave Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.51.248 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1714:07:27oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 282 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MeganGeorge <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:21AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMeganGeorge NameMegan George Address2277 E Lodge TrailDr Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.27.199.225 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:21:19oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 283 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CarolDavis <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:28AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCarolDavis NameCarol Davis Address740 W Producer Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.170.51 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:27:48oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 284 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CheTibbets <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:53AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCheTibbets NameChe Tibbets Address5353S Twilight Mist Way Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom172.58.79.221 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:53:24oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 285 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LaddieTlucek <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:47AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLaddieTlucek NameLaddie Tlucek Address5866 S. Graphite Way Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom160.3.10.163 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:47:07onChrome74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 286 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LisaBroderick <lisapb864@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:43AM To:C.JayColes Subject:REQUESTTOPOSTPONE CITYORDINANCE NO. 19-1827 Re: MeridianCityOrdinanceNo. 19-1827 DearMayorDeWeerdandMeridianCityCouncil, IamOPPOSEDtoOrdinance 19-1827asitiscurrentlystructured becauseIdonotbelieve itaccurately reflects orincentivizes Meridian'sfuturegrowth tocoverassociatedcosts. TheBuildingContractorsAssociation (BCA) hasstatedtheincreased demandforandtrendtobuildsmallerhomes. The currentimpactfeesanalysisgrosslyunderestimatestheamountthatwillbecollectedbecauseitreliesoninformation from2014-2018, whenhousesizeswerelarger. Consequently, thecitywillnotcollectenoughimpactfeestoadequately fundthisfuturedevelopment. Asubsequentincrease tocurrent homeowner'spropertytaxestobridgethisinevitable shortfallisnotanacceptable solution. Theimpactfeecommittee needstorevisittheseassumptions andproduce projections basedonavarietyofdevelopment combinations. TheCityhasjuststarteditsbudgetprocessandisfinalizingthenewComprehensivePlan. Theoutcome ofboththese processesSHOULDplayacrucialroleinhowimpactfeesarestructured. Toimplement animpactfeestructurebefore theseprocessesarecompleteispremature andshortsighted. ThenewimpactfeesarenoteffectiveuntilOctober1, 2019, sothere isampletimetogetitright. Meridian'srapidgrowthisputtingatremendousstrainonourcurrentinfrastructureandthisisanopportunitytomake acoursecorrection. Theimpactfeesneedtoberaisedtoalevelcommensurate withfutureprojectedgrowthsocurrent homeownersarenottaxedoutoftheirhomes. Itshouldalsoincentivize developers tobuildhomesanddevelopments thatresidentspreferbasedontheirinput tothenewComprehensivePlan. IrespectfullyaskthatCityCouncildelayanyactionuntilthebudgetprocess, newComprehensivePlan, andFutureLand UseMaphavebeenapprovedandtheCouncilunderstands allimplicationsofsuchastheyrelatetoimpactfees. Thankyouforyourconsideration LisaBroderick 2331E. LodgeTrailDrive Meridian, ID83642 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 287 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MarciRood <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:38AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMarciRood NameMarci Rood Address2371 East Cyanite Drive Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom160.3.11.39 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:38:10onInternetExplorer11.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 288 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LisaBroderick <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:45AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLisaBroderick NameLisa Broderick Address2331 E. Lodge TrailDr MERIDIAN ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom160.3.14.209 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:44:30onChrome74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 289 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:GaryBenscoter <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:49AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromGaryBenscoter NameGary Benscoter Address3356 S Lyford Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom160.3.8.229 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:48:45onSafari12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 290 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LisaBroderick <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20199:44AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLisaBroderick NameLisa Broderick Address2331 E. Lodge TrailDr MERIDIAN ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom160.3.14.209 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1811:43:56onChrome74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 291 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:GregSabala <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:06AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromGreg Sabala NameGreg Sabala Address1735 E. Mary Lane Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom207.170.246.2 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:06:08onInternet Explorer11.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 292 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:PattyHagler <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:07AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromPattyHagler NamePatty Hagler Address7200 S. Locust Grove Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom15.65.252.21 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:07:07onChrome74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 293 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BetteMonteith <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:12AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBetteMonteith NameBette Monteith Address2376 E Clifton Drive Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.207.40 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:12:11onEdge18.17763 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 294 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:Kallie Komoda <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:12AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKallie Komoda NameKallie Komoda Address2559 EMount EtnaDrive Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom204.229.8.229 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:12:12oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 295 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:HelenTjemsland <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:19AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromHelenTjemsland NameHelen Tjemsland Address2311 E. MoresTrail Dr Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.155.211 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:18:52onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 296 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JoyBlomberg <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:23AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJoyBlomberg NameJoy Blomberg Address2433 ECyanite Drive Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom66.194.66.130 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:22:58onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 297 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MichelleBurk <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:28AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMichelleBurk NameMichelle Burk Address6109 S Tarrega Ln Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.200.122 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:28:09onChrome75.0.3770.70 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 298 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MarthaMundt <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:29AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMarthaMundt NameMartha Mundt Address716 southtiburon ave Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.205.79 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:29:02oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 299 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AmyGratiot <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:30AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAmyGratiot NameAmy Gratiot Address673 STruss Ave Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom216.147.240.253 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:30:03onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 300 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BradCoates <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:31AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBradCoates NameBrad Coates Address12808 WAucklandSt Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.30.26 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:31:28oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 301 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:RayKoval <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:30AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromRayKoval NameRay Koval Address742 South Torino Ave Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.40.210 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:29:43onEdge18.17763 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 302 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LyndaNafsinger <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:32AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLyndaNafsinger NameLynda Nafsinger Address648 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom72.24.179.216 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:31:42onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 303 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CourtneyPowell <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:32AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCourtneyPowell NameCourtney Powell Address764 S Crosstimber ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.119.203.139 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:32:19onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 304 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:TimOliver <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:33AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromTimOliver NameTim Oliver Address1677 E Pegram Street Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.190.213 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:32:34onChrome 74.0.3729.159 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 305 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JordanRice <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:40AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJordanRice NameJordan Rice Address2324 E Bowstring st Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.54.126 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:40:20oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 306 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:TRISHAFEIGEL <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:42AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromTRISHAFEIGEL NameTRISHA FEIGEL Address2363 E CLIFTON DR MERIDAIN ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom70.103.160.37 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:41:31onEdge17.17134 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 307 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MikeLandsperger <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:44AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMikeLandsperger NameMike Landsperger Address1726 East Pratt St Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.119.203.246 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:43:48onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 308 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MatthewRurup <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:45AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMatthew Rurup NameMatthew Rurup Address2243 EastBowstring Street Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.149.67 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:44:44onChrome75.0.3770.89 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 309 of 407 C WeR TAN Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 310 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DavidRoberts <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:37AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDavidRoberts NameDavid Roberts Address2203 E. Bowstring St. Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom204.98.42.170 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:37:26onChrome75.0.3770.90 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 316 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:EstherLeClaire <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:25AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromEstherLeClaire NameEsther LeClaire Address1923 E Pratt St Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.213.179 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:24:53oniPadunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 317 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:T.L. Cays <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:31AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromT.L. Cays NameT.L. Cays Address2595 E. MountEtna Drive Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.27.25.238 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:30:52onFirefox66.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 318 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CameronKeller <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:59AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCameron Keller NameCameron Keller Address2185 ETaconic Dr. Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.119.114.130 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:58:53onEdge17.17134 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 319 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BrianRosco <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:50AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBrianRosco NameBrian Rosco Address2218 EGreiner St Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.30.2 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:49:46oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 320 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BreanneRosco <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:49AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBreanneRosco NameBreanneRosco Address2218 EGreiner St Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.30.2 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:49:17oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 321 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JerryColivas <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:48AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJerry Colivas NameJerry Colivas Address515 s. Thornwood Way Meridian Id83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom216.190.47.101 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:47:46oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 322 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BobCooper <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:53AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBobCooper NameBob Cooper Address791 W Laughton Dr Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.80.140 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:53:26oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 323 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:ErnestBader <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:02PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromErnestBader NameErnest Bader Address624 S. Woodhaven Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom10.21.156.94 (Reserved) at2019-06-1814:02:01onEdge16.16299 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 324 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DanielQuezada <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:47AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDanielQuezada NameDaniel Quezada Address2226 EGreiner St Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom209.141.119.190 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:46:35oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 325 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:ChrisOkarma <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:48AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromChrisOkarma NameChris Okarma Address625 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian Id83643 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom216.190.47.77 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:47:31oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 326 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BreanneRosco <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:49AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBreanneRosco NameBreanneRosco Address2218 EGreiner St Meridian Id83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.30.2 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:48:44oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 327 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:MarilynBiery <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:11PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromMarilynBiery NameMarilyn Biery Address853 E. PennsylvaniaDr. Boise ID 83706 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.153.46 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:10:50onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 328 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LaniWageman <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:20PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLaniWageman NameLani Wageman Address5662 S Graphite Way Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom160.3.14.226 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:19:46onChrome75.0.3770.90 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 329 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CharlesBoyd <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:15PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCharlesBoyd NameCharles Boyd Address493 E Shafer View Dr Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.30.111 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:14:51onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 330 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:KevinEhle <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:51AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKevinEhle NameKevin Ehle Address738 STiburon Ave Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.3.218 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:50:39onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 331 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:RobynLarson <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:19PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromRobynLarson NameRobyn Larson Address5256 South Tavistock Avenue Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.58.115 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:19:23onChrome75.0.3770.89 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 332 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:SandyLindberg <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:18PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromSandyLindberg NameSandy Lindberg Address1900 E Pegram St Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.186.122 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:18:03onChrome67.0.3396.87 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 333 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:PamelaRussell <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:15PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromPamelaRussell NamePamela Russell Address2244 East Greiner St Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.34.43 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:14:37oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 334 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:RosalindaNava <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:25PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromRosalinda Nava NameRosalinda Nava Address446 S Trunnel Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.35.4 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:24:53oniPhoneunknown 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 335 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AndreaStoffle <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:30PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAndreaStoffle NameAndrea Stoffle Address669 S. Crosstimber Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.207.173 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:30:02onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 336 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:GregMitchell <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:34PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromGreg Mitchell NameGreg Mitchell Address8900 WJoplin Rd Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom166.137.246.60 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:34:21oniPhone11.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 337 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AmberMcGinnis <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:33PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAmberMcGinnis NameAmber McGinnis Address8900 WJoplin Rd Meridian Id83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom166.137.246.60 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:33:07oniPhone11.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 338 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DavellTurner <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:55AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDavellTurner NameDavell Turner Address648 S. Torino Avenue Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom67.60.117.151 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:55:22onSafari12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 339 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JanMcIntyre <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:54AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJanMcIntyre NameJan McIntyre Address2219 ELATTICE DR MERIDIAN Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom209.141.118.202 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:53:41onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 340 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JonTurner <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201910:57AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJonTurner NameJon Turner Address648 S. Torino Avenue Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom67.60.117.151 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1812:56:46onSafari12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 341 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:David Hollander <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:18AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDavidHollander NameDavid Hollander Address2304EClifton Dr Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom67.60.9.89 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:18:09onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 342 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LorrieSomazzi <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:26AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLorrieSomazzi NameLorrie Somazzi Address1896 E Bowstring St Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom216.190.47.77 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:25:39onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 343 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DaleBrown <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:10AM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDaleBrown NameDale Brown Address735 S. Crosstimber Ave. Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.219.227 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1813:09:41onInternetExplorer11.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 344 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AndreaShelton <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:41PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAndreaShelton NameAndrea Shelton Address2498 ECyanite Drive Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom184.155.77.22 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:41:12oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 345 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CherylReynolds <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:27PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCherylReynolds NameCheryl Reynolds Address646 STiburon Ave Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.116.143.71 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:27:01onFirefox67.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 346 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LuciaMelbon <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:27PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLuciaMelbon NameLucia Melbon Address1277 W Brando Street Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.108.122 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:27:25onChrome 74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 347 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:RalucaIordanescu <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:11PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromRaluca Iordanescu NameRaluca Iordanescu Address4908 N BrimleyWay Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom67.60.178.68 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:11:29onChrome74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 348 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:GlennaPolk <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:11PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromGlennaPolk NameGlenna Polk Address858W.Crosby Dr Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.27.79.173 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:11:09onSafari12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 349 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:CrystalIkebe <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:10PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromCrystalIkebe NameCrystal Ikebe Address1791 Comisky Meridian Id83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.53.3 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:10:24oniPhone12.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 350 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:DonaldEnnis <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201912:53PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromDonaldEnnis NameDonald Ennis Address835 E Segundo St. Meridian Idaho83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.49.201 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1814:53:05onEdge17.17134 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 351 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:JohnStefan <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:43PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromJohnStefan NameJohn Stefan Address566 S ThornwoodWay Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom67.60.9.99 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:42:55onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 352 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BarryMcCahill <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:31PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromBarryMcCahill NameBarry McCahill Address6525 N. Lonicera Way Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom70.160.245.179 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:30:40onSafari12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 353 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:ValDaigle <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:34PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromValDaigle NameVal Daigle Address4134 W LostRapids Dr Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.34.217 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:34:16oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 354 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:LynneBurks <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:59PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromLynne Burks NameLynne Burks Address1633 E Pegram St Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom204.229.8.72 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:58:57oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 355 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:IreneCurran <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:50PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromIreneCurran NameIrene Curran Address6578 N. Spurwing Way Meridian ID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.65.244 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:49:59oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 356 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:KrisYacks <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20191:49PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKrisYacks NameKris Yacks Address2343 E Clifton Drive Meridian Idaho83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom24.117.50.45 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1815:48:44onSafari12.0 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 357 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:HollyAlderman <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20192:07PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromHolly Alderman NameHolly Alderman Address1904 E. Pratt St. Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.213.179 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1816:07:21oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 358 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:SandyBokenkamp <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20192:07PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromSandyBokenkamp NameSandy Bokenkamp Address1870 W. Claire Dr. Meridian ID38646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.208.36.15 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1816:06:34oniPhone12.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 359 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:KathleenLittle <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20192:07PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKathleen Little NameKathleen Little Address465 S. Trunnel Ave. Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom45.33.223.60 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1816:06:38onChrome74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 360 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:ElizabethBrightwell <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20192:09PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinance fromElizabeth Brightwell NameElizabeth Brightwell Address2352 E. Clifton Dr. Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom172.58.40.214 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1816:08:48onChrome73.0.3683.90 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 361 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:ValerieStefan <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20192:24PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromValerieStefan NameValerie Stefan Address566 S ThornwoodWay Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom67.60.9.99 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1816:23:36onChrome 74.0.3729.169 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 362 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:KarenMullins <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20192:27PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromKarenMullins NameKaren Mullins Address3083 W Tenuta St Meridian IdahoID83646 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom174.216.25.128 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1816:27:19oniPhone12.1.1 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 363 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:AndreaLau <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20193:00PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromAndreaLau NameAndrea Lau Address694 STiburon Ave Meridian ID83643 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom65.129.31.23 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1817:00:20onChrome74.0.3729.157 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 364 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:SusanEllis <noreply@123formbuilder.io> Sent:Tuesday, June18, 20193:02PM To:MeridianCityClerk Subject:ImpactFeeOrdinancefromSusanEllis NameSusan Ellis Address2283 E. Clifton Drive Meridian ID83642 United States Iagree Themessagehasbeensentfrom75.174.195.90 (UnitedStates) at2019-06-1817:01:43onChrome75.0.3770.89 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 365 of 407 ChrisJohnson From:BillParsons Sent:Tuesday, June18, 201911:00AM To:ChrisJohnson Cc:CalebHood Subject:FW: ImpactFees FYI BillParsons, AICP | Planning Supervisor CityofMeridian | CommunityDevelopmentDept. 33E. BroadwayAve., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 | Fax: 208-489-0571 BuiltforBusiness, DesignedforLiving All e-mailmessages senttoorreceived byCityofMeridiane-mailaccounts aresubject totheIdaholaw, inregards toboth releaseandretention, andmaybe released uponrequest, unlessexempt fromdisclosurebylaw. From: GeneReynolds <greynold2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June18, 201910:01AM To: planninginquiries <planning@meridiancity.org> Subject: ImpactFees IrequestyoudelayavoteonthisissueuntilthecompletionoftheComprehensivePlan. VikkiReynolds 7838S. TranquilityLane Meridian, ID 1 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 366 of 407 Chris Johnson From: Sally Reynolds <sally_a_reynolds@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 5:31 PM To: mayortammy; Anne Little Roberts; Treg Bernt; Luke Cavener; Genesis Milam; Joe Borton; Ty Palmer; Meridian City Clerk Subject: Impact Fee Ordinance Attachments: 2018 06 18 Impact Fee.pdf Good Evening Mayor Tammy and City Council, Attached is the list of residents who would like to see the Impact Fee Ordinance revisited and not approved until the budget and comprehensive plan are complete. Thank you, Sally Reynolds, MIDNA As I downloaded this, two more people signed it: Kathleen Lewis 714 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian Idaho 83642 United States and Dan Bojanowski 6620 N Tree Haven Way Meridian Idaho 83646 United States Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 367 of 407 REQUEST TO POSTPONE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 19-1827 Re: Meridian City Ordinance No. 19-1827 Dear Mayor DeWeerd and Meridian City Council, I am OPPOSED to Ordinance 19-1827 as it is currently structured because I do not believe it accurately reflects or incentivizes Meridian's future growth to the cover associated costs. The Building Contractors Association (BCA) has stated the increased demand for and trend to build smaller homes. The current impact fees analysis grossly underestimates the amount that will be collected because it relies on information from 2014-2018, when house sizes were larger. Consequenfiy, the city will not collect enough impact fees to adequately fund this future development. A subsequent increase to current homeowners property taxes to bridge this inevitable shortfall is not an acceptable solution. The impact fail committee needs to revisit these assumptions and produce projections based on a variety of development combinations. The City has just started its budget process and is finalizing the new Comprehensive Plan. The outcome of both these processes SHOULD play a crucial role in how impact fees are structured. To implement an impact fee structure before these processes are complete is premature and shortsighted. The new impact fees are not effective until October 1, 2019, so let's take the time to get it right. Meridian's rapid growth is putting a tremendous strain on our current infrastructure and this is an opportunity to make a course correction. The impact fees need to be reined to a level commensurate with future projected growth so current homeowners are not taxed out of their homes. It should also incentivize developers to build homes and developments that residents prefer based on their input to the new Comprehensive Plan. I respectfully ask that City Council delay any action unfit the budget process, new Comprehensive Plan, and Future Land Use Map have been approved and the Council understands all the implications of such as they relate to impact fees. Signed. Sally Reynolds, MIDNA Susan Karnes. MIDNA Data Name -First Name -Last Atldress-Street Addreas Address-StmelA Address-Citv Address -State Addrass-P Address -Country IP Country EnW ID Status 2019-06-1819:09:51 Ken Frederick 3340 E Columbia Rd Meridian ID 83642-724 United States I arra: 63.230.126.174 143 Finished 2019-06-18 19:04:55 Jol-vnn Aldine, 1744 W McGlincheV St Me don ID 83646 United States I agree 65.129.152.88 us 142 Finished 2019-06-1818:49:39 Gene Fox 582 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian ID 83642 United States I arms 65.129.0.96 141 Finished 2019-06-1818:48:25 William Schultz 3292 E Salcombe Dr Meritlian ID 83642 United States I agree 174.227.143.38 us 140 Finished 2019-06-1818:41:40 Linda Basile 268 E Cholla Hills St Meridian Idaho 83646 United States I agree 75.174.64.63 139 Finished 2019-06-1818:36:47 Ken Suqarman 6352 N Sweet Vallev Ave Meritlian Id 83846 United States agree 24.117.147.225 us 138 Finishetl 2019-06-1818:28:06 Nancy Sugarman 6352 N. Sweet Vallev Ave Meridian Idaho 83646 United States agree 24.117.147.225 137 Finished 2019-06-1818:08:46 Theodore SwartzbaUgh 857 E Yucca Canyon St Meritlian Idaho 83646 United States agree 98.180.225.129 us 136 Finishetl 2019-06-1818:06:45 Ted Bohlman 5730 S. Gmohke Wav Meridian Idaho 83642 United States aoree 160.3.12.151 135 Finished 2019-06-18 18:03:55 chadie cmbtree 490 s woodhaven ave meritlian ID 83642 United States I aqree 75.174.128.29 us 134 Finished 2019-06-18 18:03:38 Samh Jacobson 535 S Trunnel Ave Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I agree 75.174.229.137 133 Finished 2019-06-1818:0030 Susan Nickel 2273 W Teano Dr Meritlian Idaho 83 46 United States I agree 172.58.43.79 US 132 Finished 2019-06-1818:00:10 Danette Phelan 2316 E Clifton Dr Meridian ID 83642 United States agree 174.196.133.157 131 Finished 2019-06-1817:50:38 Lance Newell 2938 W EIk Stream Strset Meridian Idaho 83646 United States I agree 184.99.118.80 us 130 Finished 2019-06-1817:4900 Jeanne Newell 2938 W EIk Stream Street Meridian Idaho 83646 United States I aoree 184.99.118.80 129 Finished 2019-06-1817:42:59 T.nvs Batley 624 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian ID 83642 United States I agree 107.77.245.5 us 128 Finished 2019-06-18 17:39:26 Tiffani Clinger 2123 E Taconic Dr Meridian ID 83642 United States I so.: 160.3.173.73 127 Finished 2019-06-18 17:29:12 Jen Munzer 1275 E Tuttle St Meridian Idaho 83646 United States 24.116.245.45 us 126 Finished 2019-06-1817:26:14 Minnie Langlois 3652 W Vanderbilt Dr Meridian ID 83646 Unclad States ore: agree 24.117.51.144 us 125 Finished 2019-06-1817:24:08 MariWn Nelson 732 S Truss Ave Meritlian ID 83642 United States I agree 72.24.179.113 us 124 Finishetl 2019-06-1817:22:35 Chris Sitvester 2155 W. Astonte St. Meridian ID 83646 United States I agree 24.116.245.252 us 123 Finished 2019-06-1817:22:17 Wendv Webb 2299 E Lodqe Trail Dr Meritlian ID 83842 United States I some 75 174.1 38 237 us 122 Finished 2019-06-1817:14:13 Ste'hanie Jeffries 7095 N Tree Haven Place Meridian ID 83646 United States I agree 174.208.5.118 121 Finished 2019-06-18 17:0630 darnel miller 2031 w boulder bar dr. meridian Idaho 83646 United States I agree 24.176.244.175 us 120 Finished 2019-06-18 17:05:11 Kaila Houslev 5295 S. W aviand Avenue Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I aoree 65.129.56.89 119 Finished 2079-06-78 77:01:43 Susan Ellis 2283 E. Clifton Drive Meritlian ID 83642 United States I aqree 75.174.195.90 us 118 Finished 2019-06-1817:00:20 Andrea Lau 694 S Tiburon Ave Meridian ID 83643 United States I some 65.129.31.23 117 Finished 2019-06-18 16:57:32 Richard Frisby 783 S Trunnel Ave Meddler ID 83 42 United States I agree 67.60.145.45 us 116 Finishetl 2019-06-18 16:49:01 Chase Newman 1278 W Olds River Dr Meridian ID 83642 United States I agree 174.208.18.219 115 Finished 2019-06-1816:27:19 Karen Mullins 3083 W Tenure Sl Meridian Idaho ID 83646 United States I agree 174.216.25.128 us 114 Finished 2019-06-1816:23:36 Valede Stefan 566 S Thomwood Wav Meridian ID 83642 United States I aoree 67.60.9.99 us 113 Finished 2019-06-18 16:08:48 EI zabeth Brightwell 2352 E. Clifton Dr. Mer ID 83642 United States I agree 172.58.40.214 us 112 Finished 2019-06-18 16:07:21 Holly Alderman 1904 E. Pratt St. Meridian ID 83642 United States I some 75.174.213.179 111 Finished 2019-06-18 16:06:38 Kathleen Little 465 S. Trunnel Ave. Meritlian ID 83642 United States I agree 45.33.223.60 us 110 Finished 2019-06-1816:06:34 Sand, Bokenkamo 1870 W. Claire Dr. Meridian ID 38646 Untied States agree 174.208.36.15 109 Finished 2019-06-1815:5857 Lynne Burks 1633 E Peqmm St Meritlian ID 83642 United States agree 204.229.8.72 us 108 Finishetl 2019-06-1815:49:59 Irene Curran 6578 N. Sourwina Wav Meridian ID 83646 United States I aoree 174.208.65.244 107 Finished 2019-06-1815:48:44 Kris Yacks 2343 E Clifton Drive Meritlian Idaho 83842 United States I agree 24.117 50 .45 us 106 Finished 2019-06-1815:42:55 John Stefan 566 S Thomwood Wav Meridian ID 83642 United States I agree 67.60.9.99 105 Finished 2019-06-1815:34:16 Val Daiqle 4134 W Lost Rapids Dr Meritlian ID 83646 United States I agree 174.208.34.217 us 104 Finishetl 2019-06-1815:30:40 Bar McCahill 6525 N. Lonicera Wav Meridian ID 83646 United States I some 70.160.245.179 103 Finished 2019-06-1815:27:25 Lucia Melbon 1277 W Brando Street Mentllen ID 83646 United States agree 65.129.108.122 US 102 Finished 2019-06-1815:27:01 Chert Revoolds 646 S Tiburon Ave Meridian ID 83642 United States I aoree 24.116.143.71 101 Finished 2019-06-1815:12:07 William White 518 South Tonno Ave Meritllen ID 83 42 United States agree 66.194.66.130 us 100 Finished 2019-06-1815:11:29 Raluca Iordanescu 4908 N Bdmlev Wav Meridian Idaho 83646 United States agree 67.60.178.68 99 Finished 2019-06-1815:11:09 Glenna Polk 858 W.CroSbV Dr Meridian ID 83646 United States Iagree 174.27.79.173 us 98 Finished 2019-06-1815:10:24 Crystal Ikebe 1791 Comiskv Meridian Id 83646 United States I aoree 75.174.53.3 us 97 Finished 2019-06-1814:5305 Donald Ennis 835 E Segundo St. Meritlian Idaho 83646 Untied States I aqree 24.117.49.201 us 96 Finished 2019-06-1814:41:12 Andrea Shelton 2498 E Cvanite Drive Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I acres 184.155.77.2295 Finished 2019-06-1814:34:21 Grac Mitchell 8900 W Joplin Rd Meritlian ID 83646 United States agree 166.137.245.60 us 94 Finished 2019-06-1814:33:07 Amber McGinnis 8900 W Joplin Rd Meridian Id 83646 Untied States agree 166.137.246.60 us 93 Finished 2019-06-18 14:30:02 Andrea Stoma 669 S. CroSSfimb.r Ave Meritlian ID 83642 United States acre: 75.174.207.173 us 92 Finished 2019-06-18 14:24:53 Rosalinda Nava 446 S Trunnel Ave Meridian ID 83642 United States aoree 174.208.35.4 us 91 Finished 2019-06-1814:19:46 Lani Wageman 5662 S Gmphite Wav Meritlian Idaho 83842 United States I acres 160.3,14.226 us 90 Finishetl 2019-06-1814:19:23 Robvn Larson 5256 South Tavistock Avenue Meridian ID 83642 United States I acres 174.208.58.115 89 Finished 2019-06-1814:1803 Sandy Lindbem 1900 E Pegram St Meritlian Idaho 83642 United States I aqree 24.117.186.122 us 88 Finishetl 2019-06-1814:14:51 Charles Bovd 493 E Shafer View Dr Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I agree 174.208.30.111 us 87 Finished 2019-06-18 14:14:37 Pamela Russell 2244 East Greiner St Meritlian Idaho 83642 United States I aqree 174.208.34.43 us 86 Finished 2019-06-1814:10:50 Marihm Me, 853 E. Pennsvtvania Dr. Boise ID 83706 United States I acme 75.174.153.46 85 Finished 2019-06-1814:02:01 Ernest Bede, 624 S. Woodhaven Ave Me in ID 83642 United States I agree 10.21.156.94 84 Finishetl 2019-06-1813:58:53 Cameron Keller 2185 E Taconic Dr. Meridian ID 83642 United States I agree 24.119.114.130 83 Finished 2019-06-1813:5326 Bob Cooper 791 W Laughton Dr Merkllen ID 83646 United States I agree 24.117.80.140 us 82 Finished 2019-06-18 13:49:46 Brian Rosco 2218 E Greiner Sf Meridian ID 83642 United States I some 65.129.30.2 us 81 Finished 2019-06-18 13:4917 Bmanne Rosco 2218 E Greiner St Meritlian ID 83642 United States I aqree 65.129.30.2 us 80 Finished 2019-06-18 13:47:46 Jen Colivas 515 s. Thomwood Wav Meridian Id 83642 United States I some 216.190.47.101 78 Finished 2019-06-18 13:46:35 Daniel Ouezada 2226 E Greiner St Meritlian ID 83642 United States I agree 209.141.119.190 us 77 Finished 2019-06-1813:37:26 David Roberts 2203 E. Bowsbing St. Meridian ID 83642 Untied States aoree 204.98.42.170 us 76 Finished 2019-06-1813:3052 T.L. CaV, 2595 E. Mount Etna Drive Meritlian ID 83642 United States agree 174.27.25.238 us 75 Finished 2019-06-1813:25:39 Lorne Somazzi 1896 E Bowstring St Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I aoree 216.190.47.77 us 74 Finished 2019-06-18 13:2453 Esther LeClaire 1923 E Pratt St Meritlian Idaho 83842 United States I acre: 75.174.213.179 us 73 Finishetl 2019-06-1813:18:09 David Hollander 2304 E Clifton Dr Meridian ID 83642 United States I agree 67.60.9.89 72 Finished 2019-06-18 13:09:41 Dale Brown 735 S. Cross6mber Ave. Meritlian ID 83642 United States I acres 75.174.219.227 us 71 Finished 2019-06-1812:56:46 Jon Turner 648 S. Torino Avenue Meridian ID 83642 United States I aoree 67.60 17 70 Finished 2019-06-1812:55:22 Davell Turner 648 S. Torino Avenue Meritlian ID 83642 United States I aqree 11111 67.60.117.151 us 69 Finished 2019-06-1812:53:41 Jan Mclntvre 2219 E LATTICE DR MERIDIAN Idaho 83642 United States I some 209.141.118.202 68 Finished 2019-06-1812:5039 Kevin Ehle 738 S Tiburon Ave Meritlian Idaho 83 42 United States I agree 174.208.3.218 US 67 Finishetl 2019-06-1812:47:31 Chris Okarma 625 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian Id 83643 United States I agree 216.190.47.77 66 Finished 2019-06-18 12:47:18 Richard Pride 451 S Truss Ave Me on ID 83642 United States I agree 67.60.145.152 us 65 Finished 2019-06-1812:44:44 Matthew Rum' 2243 East Bowstring Street Meridian ID 83642 United States I aoree 75.174.149.67 us 64 Finished 2019-06-18 12:43:48 Mike Landsoerger 1726E StPraft St Meritlian Idaho 83642 United States I agree 24.119.203.246 us 63 Finished 2019-06-1812:41:31 TRISHA FEIGEL 2363 E CLIFTON DR MERIDAIN ID 83642 United States I some 70.103.160.37 62 Finished 2019-06-1812:4020 Jordan Rice 2324 E BowSbinq St Meritlian ID 83642 United States I agree 174.208.54.126 us 61 Finished 2019-06-1812:32:34 Tim Oliver 1677 E Peorem Street Meridian ID 83642 Untied States I.. . 24.117.190.213 us 60 Finished 2019-06-1812:32:19 Courtnev Powell 764 S Cross6mberave Meritlian ID 83642 United States agree 24.119.203.139 us 59 Finishetl 2019-06-1812:31:42 Lvnda Nafsinrer 648 S Woodhaven Ave Meridian ID 83642 United States arm 72.24.179.216 us 58 Finished 2019-06-1812:31:28 Brad Coates 12808 W Auckland St Meritlian ID 83842 United States I acre: 174.206.30.26 us 57 Finished 2019-06-18 12:30:03 Amv Gratiot 673 S Truss Ave Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I acres 216.147.240.253 56 Finished 2019-06-1812:29:43 Rev Koval 742 South Torino Ave Meritlian Idaho 83642 United States I sores 75.174.40.210 US 55 Finishetl 2019-06-1812:29:02 Martha Mundt 716 south tibumn ave Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I agree 75 7420 79 us 54 Finished 2019-06-1812:28:09 Michelle Burk 6109 S Tarr:ga Ln Meridian ID 83642 United States I agree 75.174 20 122 us 53 Finished 2019-06-1812:22:58 Jov Blomberg 2433 E Cvanite Drive Meridian ID 83642 United States I some 66.194.66.130 52 Finished 2019-06-18 12:1852 Helen Tlemaland 2311 E. Mores Trail Dr Meritlian ID 83642 United States I sores 75.174.155.211 us 51 Finishetl 2019-06-1812:12:12 Kallie Komoda 2559 E Mount Etna Drive Meridian ID 83642 United States I agree 204.229.8.229 50 Finished 2019-06-1812:12:11 Bette Monteith 2376 E Clifton Drive Meritlian ID 83642 United States I agree 75.174.207.40 us 49 Finished 2019-06-1812:07:07 Path Hagler 7200 S. Locust Grove Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I aoree 15.65 25 21 us 48 Finished 2019-06-1812:0608 Gras Sabal. 1735 E. Mery Lane Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I agree 207.170.246.2 us 47 Finished 2019-06-1811:53:24 Che Tibbets 5353 S Twilichl Mist Wav Meridian ID 83642 United States I sores 172 .58 9.221 46 Finished 2019-06-1811:48:45 Gary Benscoter 3356 S Lvfom Ave Meritlian ID 83642 United States I agree 160.3.8.229 us 45 Finished 2019-06-18 11:47:07 Laddie Tlucek 5866 S. Graohfte Wav Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I agree 160.3.10.163 44 Finished 2019-06-18 11:44:30 Lisa Broderick 2331 E. Lodge Trail Dr MERIDIAN ID 83642 United States I sores 160.3.14.209 us 43 Finished Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 368 of 407 2019-06-1811:38:10 Marci Rood 2371 East Cvamte Drive Meridian Idaho 83642 United States agree 160.3.11.39 us 41 Finished 2019-06-1811:27:48 Carol Davis 740 W Producer Meridian ID 83646 United States sores 24.117.170.51 40 Finished 2079-06-18 11:21:19 Megan George 2277 E Lotlge Trail Dr Meridian ID 83642 United States agree 174.27.199.225 u5 39 Finished 2019-06-18 11:09:52 Bill McCall 2443 E Mares Trail Drive Meridian Idaho 83642 United States I some 174.27.206.244 38 Finished 2019-06-18 11:07:08 Charles Rev 5669 S. Grachim W av Mend n Id. 83642 United States agree 160.3.14.76 us 37 Finishetl 2019-06-1811:05:47 Susan Linam 775 S THORNW OOD WAV MERIDIAN ID 83642 United States l agree 24.119.203.30 36 Finished 2019-06-7811:05:04 Kellie Elliott 4199 S Leenato Ave M:ritlien ID 83642 United States agree 204.229.11.54 us 35 Finished 2019-06-1811:04:18 David Blomberg 2433 E Cvanite Dr Meridian Idaho 83642 United States aurae 66.194.66.130 us 34 Finished 2019-06-1811:02:14 Robin Will man 230 East Lake Hazel Road Meridian Idaho 83642 United States acre: 174.208.38.50 us 33 Finished 2019-06-1810:55:43 Michael Lance 3690 E. Vantace Pointe Ln. Mardian ID 83642 United States I aaree 207.173.159.28 32 Finished 2019-06-1810:54:44 Annette Hunter 12668 W Gisbome Street Boise ID 83709-615 United States I agree 174.208.18.218 us 31 Finished 2019-06-1810:52:03 Jamie Claibom 5212 S Marsala Ave Meridian ID 83642 Untied States I some 65.121.217.139 30 Finished 2019-06-1810:31:24 Kelly Carpenter 5991 N Adia9 Ave Meridian ID 83646 United! States I agree 72.24.99.174 us 29 Finishetl 2019-06-1810:25:23 Semev Kashubin 2607 E Decameron In Meridian Idaho 83643 United States agree 204.229.8.115 us 28 Finished 2019-06-1810:21:18 Kathi Baumgadner 2310 E Lake Hazel Mendian ID 83842 United States as. 216.64.128.1 us 27 Finished! 2019-06-18 10:16:32 Jen Fails 6125 N Demille Ave Meridian Idaho 83646 United States I aom 24.117.48.100 26 Finished 2019-06-18 10:09:47 Danae Fails 6 25 N Demille Ave Meridian ID 83646 United States I agree 24.117.48.100 us 25 Finishetl 2019-06-18 08:28:40 Divan Card 6031 NBooth Avenue Meridian ID 83646 United States I acre. 24.116.54.200 24 Finished 2019-06-18 08:28:04 Jenniffer Card 6031 N Booth Avenue Meridian ID 83646 United States I agree 24.116.54.200 us 23 Finished 2019-06-18 08:26:58 Robin Card 6031 N Booth Avenue Meridian ID 83646 United States I some 24.116.54.200 Us 22 Finished 2019-06-18 07:09:39 Beth Duron 982 NW 5th Ave Mendi.n ID 83 42 United States I agree 184.99.107.50 us 21 Finished 2019-06-18 02:18:44 Gene Fox 582 s. Woodhaven Meridian Id 83642 United States I agree 65.129.0.96 20 Finished 2019-06-18 01:59:13 Robert Cardco 3994 E Vantaqe Pointe Ln Merklien ID 83642 United States I aqree 174.126.31.178 us 19 Finished 2019-06-18 00:06:47 Celeste Fox 582 S Woodhaven AVe Meridian ID 83642 United States I some 65.129.0.96 us 18 Finished 2019-06-17 20:4804 Chad Jacobsen 403 W Broderick Dr Meridian ID 83646 United States I aqree 166.137.8.115 us 17 Finished 2019-06-17 20:39:51 Celeste Fox 582 S Woodhaven Ave Mencian ID 83642 United States I agree 65.129.0.96 16 Finished 2019-06-77 20:37:57 Farrah Stodi 886 W Archerfield Dr Meritlian Idaho 83646 United States agree 65.129.63.240 us 15 Finished 2019-06-17 20:37:12 Christie Heovv 2373 E Taconic Dr Meridian ID 83642 Untied States I a.m. 174.208.29.148 14 Finished 2019-06-1719:35:00 Douqlas Humphrey 693 W Drevruss Ln M:rklien ID 83646 United! States agree 24.117.51.97 us 13 Finished 2019-06-17 17:47:12 Emily Jensen 4094 East Arch Drive Meridian Idaho 83646 United States agree 204.229.2.195 us 12 Finished 2019-06-1717:21:49 Barbara Batlician 5965 N. Adiss Ave Meritlian Idaho 83846 United States Ize: 216.190.47.102 us 11 Finishetl 2019-06-1717:11:30 Patrick Bmwn 5558 N Mftchum Ave Meridian Idaho 83646 United States I agree 24.116.52.158 Us 10 Finished 2019-06-1717:07:20 Amber Woolner 4272 W Bolton Drive Eaqle Idaho 83616 United States I agree 172.58.41.198 us 9 Finished 2019-06-17 16:41:46 Jamie Jacobsen 403 West Broderick Drive Meridian Idaho 83646 United States agree 166.170.5.60 us 8 Finished 2019-06-1715:04:54 Jeanmene Ambrosio 693 W Drevruss Ln M:ridian Idaho 83646-47: United States I agree 24.117.51.97 us 7 Finishetl 2019-06-1714:42:42 Gmgory Revnolds 1166 W Bacall St Meridian Id 83646 United States I agree 172.58.44.210 6 Finished 2019-06-1714:3331 Yah¢: Waller 4185 W Gray Fox Street Eagle Idaho 83616 United States l agree 174.27.152.10 us 5 Finishetl 2019-06-1714:07:27 Lisa Hamer 5213 N Mitchum Ave Meridian ID 83646 United States I agree 24.117.51.248 4 Finished 2019-06-17 14:04:05 Anthony Licari 5304 N Lange Ave Merklian ID 83636 United States I aqree 75.174.238.156 us 3 Finished 2019-06-1714:03:13 Becky Licarl 5304 N Lange Ave Meridian IF 83646 United States"' 75.174.238.156 2 Finished 2019-06-1713:29:27 Alicia Muhlestein 584 W Drevtua. at Menrium Idaho 83646 United States agree 24.117.80.191 us 1 Finished Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 369 of 407 D N I N D 3 r J a 10 V ONi V V N N O tml A trail N p N11 3 LWi ONo N N tm.I W p N�1 N V N A m m P N o o O m j Ol W 4Wi N m I A m m m N b yN N N N N N O Nn m D bJ + A m j t N� O A N !.1 3 ON1 N o m JOV V tmD N N a 3 9. W A m t inn o' A A N N O m q N u t AJ N N Ol Omi Ol N N 0 O Z T W V+ N o O Ol A O T E m m J o W D U m yyA�1 W N A ONi � N N O n 3➢ P NP I., 11t b !J Ol b+ N N N N m V N N N N m NWN IYlV11 LLW1t 3 NW N m V Ol m J N A N N N N m o o 0 L P S N N A m OWo N J N + N 0 N Ul +� N N I(µmn m I10 N J + A trail ONAi m m fNJ V � A N U N m_ IIrj 1 - yy � Ny O b J A b A N A i0 o_ o W ONVi N o X.t 0 5 n aAi u s m m D D D N D D D ZZ D a D}� D D ZZ D Z,Z 2D D <0 0 a a a n n d 4 3 y^ o a '� v00 s a zz z F z D D D 9 D z z D D z D s z z D z m N z z D D z D z z D D o o e 9 T O m m z j} m kO A N m N m W IOC V V m m W N Nq A+ m A W Ira V J N m O A N A V p ( !n 1mn N P- P m N m m + Ui Ay Oral m � N N W A � N 10 N lAii ONo rap N N m J O N m A mO m N m +'1 O V W V N Of V Omi pA W J NV A O (Nn NNA N A N O trail O J b 41 A IV; Nm N V A Iy O Ib m J ONS +� O A W I O IW m P V m N A V NfNJJ W+ fNii A �+ N+ m+ N fNil N N Ap N1w 1.N V rapp INo N N N W ON lJ <T ' _-- - m b + m b p A m W O lOii m A m (m�il A N 0o N m (Vii m V ONo A O o •fmJ tNmOO Nf b m b OWW fWil OO O�1 � O O V I�pp^ N A m N N T A SAO 4 N A pram m W N P A b N 4 N J A m D o m IJ P m 1 m Y u O 1. W 8- V W OWi V W m W fJ N J + N m Al N A W O1 m b A OWi m b V IP m Am N W N O+ O S N 41 A tmu W O+ m - �* do - N NW�j m _-A !J s >L 1. A J V Og A IpWA b A O N N N N b N A N t1� MM �q �5a! T b N NN>>mWl FFqqmmi. NN NN m 0 !Wa W A A N N W V N V 1pn A V N a W m N V V o Nm N N m m m N T Nn N W 4U1 W N N > 4 A1 O1 o A �rryW.� O O� E A a y Omo A A Ira A (N.1 N trail A W N m ��q H N b ra �Np fyn NO1 1W.1 W Ol Opo mN tA.l A N N m N W fOq 19 n N p N. f1Wig1 ic In A 4vm1i A J W J m Ol ON A N A m m V N Olml L V m IJ J N A N A N P N+ m W 1V0 LWmi p N OWi (J A W A + A ONl ZI �y W A N N W m In N N O OWo N N N' J N W m m lNii N m ��Aqq W N ��������mmmmnnnn Ian +1 N m {m V 1W -.12 y1 2 O 1. N V W N g In W m N N N N N N o N T W N N N N O A L�'-� m S m N m _ u g _ � .2 P N N N'N � A 0 A D fr NNo m Noe IA O O V 0 0 ololo ��W V O 2-..o �- O O 0 O lo lo Oo 3 D 3 Z W I N J O N N Y WN N N O INO O N j iei !N N N A 1N0 V N a N >J O> Ni o o A E3 V N !+ fO N m m (NT j b N N AVp+� W V 0 W� z o o m n m c I fail M N8 Wp Y N O V N N W+ P N 1�-i J N i0 Iiz-:y, W O A W N s A o A N m A N A W ;--I A 0 P O N+ o m N m �-. 3 No N12 (1� �W q V NO N J b A AJ m (NO V + Omi w I.V N> N D yA N 1vJni N J R V N N N 3 N W N N O� WN W fO.1l V A No O r N m ONWi A ff ! o o 0 O fOJ� O N L N m N 0N0 N n N O N z o c m' 0 W p �O vNi N W N b O N m IT N y W. O V m N m N N W mJ W OJI t0 N A N N TN 0 o J 0 fJll A m y W aL N O fP z 2 �. 0 d x m m S d m a 20 N m 0 " a 0 fY sS `� 9 3 n n 3 na 3 m — n> O O m 0 N A ' 3 x A c m m m o �5 a £ fn 0� a 0 a d d m A W n m .a a 2Et 1 0 0 P m 0 W. m n 3 a e y N z z N z E Y z m z m o v s F '° 7 m o o 8 a 4 _o — S�o • S S 1 Im O N N N p A Obi fJJ fWil O� LI V N� !fo fWif N tIN N'� � m N b� b m m O b N N A m ONo N v N V W O N Ot A v V INJ NN m p W P J O 4f J OWI N N a OIW V N - N b L �p IO O O N NF. N b WI N N N O O O W Jim 18is N V N A at N N IV O W N N O A W N A b+ WO WW J Oal a m m W N J-10N {q _ jN N OI N N N N m T N v T V OI A N W W A N W N M N N f2o OVi A _ XI is w. - N �I.pI IA O V A b IA N tvJ A fJ �OOaqII N m J O m W N N V V N V A V N M JJ IJ A I.I tAo A (J N ��rNp Im O O fN.l N A W Y W N �I m .Ni N 1!1� N f� sw W N b 1lpppNNIII b A N J Of V b � I�h.-I r fail �n � m rAi m kn � O JJ � OOII mm Fq J J OI m N OI p 0 N IJ CI V- N W Z m F (n n N N N = O N 00 A W LD 3 A N N Ol l0 m A N 00 00 O m N P. W W N m N m W A D A V Q) 00 V V lD W N N 00 O N l0 00 lD 00 O V N c .p V V- 00 O m V 01 N N F N O .A O N U7 N N V U9 .A N Ql F J N A W W N N lD N N A O uJ v o N o lD n N V 00 N m T N O m 00 W O N V V W D m N N N N N w W W N W m N W W M M m W l0 Ql Dl W T 13 C IT 3 �­ "1 am N 00 .p LnN N Ol N O T 3 lc F, c N N V 00 � N N W N00 N N W N I lD 00 lD Ln N J lf7 N U'1 P I-+ m O N .A m 00 m W W N I� W 00 N O O O O O O O O O O O V> V> Vl V> V'� N N W 00 N p m A N O lD O lD In N N A A W m Ln O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O Vr N V) Vt i/f F- N F. O W I� O Ol A- 00 lD 00 ,p I-' N O N m W J Ol 00 00 V N m 00 N m Q1 A N N N 00 W O N O O O N W A 0 0 T T T T T S � m m mm m m m m m D W W W W W N ISIlD N 00 N V N Q1 N N 0 0 0 0 0 D D D D D D r r r r r r N II N it N II N II N II Z m F (n n N N N = O N 00 A W LD 3 A N N Ol l0 m A N 00 00 O m N P. W W N m N m W A D A V Q) 00 V V lD W N N 00 O N l0 00 lD 00 O V N c .p V V- 00 O m V 01 N N F N O .A O N U7 N N V U9 .A N Ql F J N A W W N N lD N N A O uJ v o N o lD n N V 00 N m T N O m 00 W O N V V W D m N N N N N w W W N W m N W W M M m W l0 Ql Dl W T 13 C IT 3 �­ "1 am N 00 .p LnN N Ol N O T 3 lc F, c N N V 00 � N N W N00 N N W N I lD 00 lD Ln N J lf7 N U'1 P I-+ m O N .A m 00 m W W N I� W 00 N O O O O O O O O O O O V> V> Vl V> V'� N N W 00 N p m A N O lD O lD In N N A A W m Ln O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O Vr N V) Vt i/f F- N F. O W I� O Ol A- 00 lD 00 ,p I-' N O N m W J Ol 00 00 V N m 00 N m Q1 A N N N 00 W O N O O O N W A 0 0 EIDIANn-- AHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 8 A Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19-1827 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(E)(2), 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 Meeting Notes: No - fedmel- I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 8.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - T hird Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: An Ordinance To Amend T he M unicipal C ode Of T he City O f M eridian, C ounty Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending T itle 10, C hapter 7, S ection 12(E )(2), M eridian C ity C ode, K nown As T he M eridian Impact F ee Ordinance F ee S chedule; To P rovide F or An Amendment To T he P olice, F ire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee S chedules; And P roviding An E ffective D ate. C ouncil Notes: AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate O rdinance Ordinance 6/7/2019 RE V I E WE RS : Department Reviewer Action D ate Clerk.J ohnson, Chris Approved 6/12/2019 - 5:44 A M Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 370 of 407 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 0—/m7 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, MILAM, PALMER 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(E)(2), 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 Raftelis ("Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections in order to determine the demand for police, -fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by Consultant, dated March 28, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts ofvarious 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 proposed 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 4 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, if the adopted fee is less than the fees proposed under the methodology set forth in the Impact Fee Study, 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 April 12, 2019 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, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT —Page 2 of 4 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. Section 2. The Impact Fee Study set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is hereby approved. Section 3. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(E)(2) of the Meridian City Code is REPEALED AND REPLACED as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: E. 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 1st day of October, 2019: Impact Fee Schedule Effective October 1, 2019 Residential (per individual dwelling unit) by Square Feet of Climate -Controlled Floor Area Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Total Fees 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 For multi -family residential structures the fee is based on the average size of units for the entire building. i.e. total building square feet of climate controlled space divided by the total number of individual dwelling units Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Total Fees Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — Page 3 of 4 Section 4: That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7 remain unchanged. Section 5: This Fee Schedule shall be in effect on the 1st day of October, 2019, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this) day of J�ne_ , 2019. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of .7orc , 2019. APPROVED: Tammy e er�i, Mayor ATTEST: �Q�RTED gUG,S T Ll 'q CRY or IDAHO SEAL �. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — Page 4 of 4 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Page 5 of 4 EXHIBIT A Development Impact Fees Study Final Report March 28, 2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 375 of 407 227 W. Trade Street, Suite 1400 Charlotte, NC 28202 www.raftelis.com March 28, 2019 Mr. Todd Lavoie Chief Financial Officer City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave Meridian, Idaho 83642 Subject: Development Impact Fees Report Dear Mr. Lavoie, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) is pleased to provide the 2019 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian. After collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Raftelis recommends several changes to improve consistency with Idaho’s enabling legislation, including: • Updated development projections and land use assumptions based on Meridian data • Documentation of current infrastructure standards and projected need for additional facilities • Proportionate fees for two types of nonresidential development and five size thresholds for residential development Our report summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements, to be funded by development impact fees, along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible Comprehensive Financial Plan. It has been a pleasure working with you and we thank City staff for engaging with quality information and insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian. Sincerely, Dwayne Guthrie, PhD, AICP Manager Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 376 of 407 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act .................................................................................................................. 8 Proposed Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Citywide Parks ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Recreation Buildings ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Proposed and Current Impact Fees ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 15 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................................ 16 Police Impact Fees ............................................................................................................................................................... 17 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Excluded Costs ......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Current Use and Available Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards ......................................................................................................................... 18 Police Infrastructure Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Police Development Fees ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Projected Revenue for Police Facilities.................................................................................................................................... 20 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police ................................................................................................................................. 21 Fire Impact Fees ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Existing Standards for Fire Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Fire Infrastructure Needs ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Revenue Credit Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees .................................................................................................................................. 24 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 27 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 28 Fee Implementation and Administration ............................................................................................................................. 29 Cost of CFP Preparation ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Development Categories ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Credits and Reimbursements .................................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 31 Service Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Summary of Growth Indicators ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Proportionate Share ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit ........................................................................................................ 33 Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Jobs and Nonresidential Development.................................................................................................................................... 35 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 377 of 407 Executive Summary Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need, benefit, and proportionality . • First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital improvements. • Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the fee paid should not exceed a development’s proportionate share of the capital cost. As documented in this report, the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the projects identified in this study taken from Meridian’s Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, Raftelis determined service units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth- related capital costs. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth “an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth.” The enabling legislation calls for three integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA) for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan, which the City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The LUA (see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition, the CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with service units by residential size thresholds. The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility type (i.e., parks/recreation, police and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards, the projected need for improvements to accommodate new development, the updated DIF compared to current fees, revenue projections and funding strategy for growth-related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian. Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements, which have been met by the City of Meridian, as documented in this study. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, “development impact fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development.” Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 378 of 407 67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report, with more detailed information maintained by City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third, the Idaho Act states the cost per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types of applicable credits that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b) review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d) file periodic reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study. Proposed Impact Fees Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian’s 2019 impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are made during the adoption process, Raftelis will update the fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions. Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2019 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian. As discussed in Appendix A, Raftelis recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, based on climate-controlled space. In contrast, the 2013 study used a “one size fits all” approach, whereby all housing units paid the same DIF. The 2019 size threshold that matches the average fee according to the 2013 method is a residential dwelling with 2501 to 3200 square feet. As shown below, the average fee per dwelling increased from $2,017 in 2013 to $2,943 in 2019, which is an increase of $926 (46%). In addition, the 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.47 in 2013 to $0.56 in 2019, which is an increase of $0.09 per square foot (20%). Type of Impact Fee Service Area Incremental Expansion (current standards) Cost Allocation Parks and Recreation Facilities Citywide Park Improvements and Recreation Centers Residential Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings Functional Population and Inbound Vehicle Trips to Nonresidential Development Fire Facilities Citywide Fire Stations and Apparatus Functional Population and Jobs Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 379 of 407 Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Citywide Service Area Park and Recreation Facilities Police Facilities Fire Facilities Proposed Total (2019) Existing Total (2013) Increase or Decrease % Change Residential (per housing unit) by Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Floor Area 1000 or less $781 $56 $258 $1,095 $2,017 ($922) -46% 1001 to 1500 $1,361 $98 $450 $1,909 $2,017 ($108) -5% 1501 to 2500 $1,770 $128 $585 $2,483 $2,017 $466 23% 2501 to 3200 $2,098 $152 $693 $2,943 $2,017 $926 46% 3201 or more $2,447 $177 $809 $3,433 $2,017 $1,416 70% Nonresidential (per square foot of building) Commercial $0.00 $0.24 $0.64 $0.88 $0.47 $0.41 87% All Other $0.00 $0.05 $0.41 $0.46 $0.47 ($0.01) -2% Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 380 of 407 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees The 2019 updated impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure standards for improved acres of parks and floor area of recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area. Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development. Figure PR1 documents recent cost factors per acre for park improvements and land. Based on four park site acquisitions, land for parks in Meridian is expected to cost approximately $61,000 per acre. City staff confirmed this land cost factor is reasonable and consistent with a recent land valuation of $65,000 per acre quoted for expansion of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. As shown in the table below, park improvements have been averaging $241,000 per acre. Figure PR1: Cost Factors for Park Improvements Citywide Parks Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR2, the current infrastructure standard is 2.91 acres per 1,000 residents. At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for citywide park improvements. To maintain current standards over the next ten years, Meridian will improve 102.3 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately $24.65 million. Estimated Costs Park Name Acres Land Improvements Discovery Park 27.00 $405,184 $8,261,000 Reta Huskey Park 8.92 $680,007 $1,495,126 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50 $1,274,995 $1,382,621 Hillsdale Park 9.53 $857,700 $1,622,282 Total Costs 52.95 $3,217,886 $12,761,029 Weighted Average Cost per Acre => $61,000 $241,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 381 of 407 Figure PR2: Citywide Parks Standards and Need for Improved Acres Existing Parks Improved Acres Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.2 Settlers Park 57.7 Heroes Park 30.1 Discovery Park 27.0 Fuller Park 23.2 Bear Creak Park 18.8 Tully Park 18.7 Storey Park & Bark Park 17.9 Gordon Harris Park 11.1 Hillsdale Park 9.5 Reta Husky Park 8.9 Jabil Soccer Fields 8.4 Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.5 Seasons Park 7.1 Chateau Park 6.7 Renaissance Park 6.5 Champion Park 6.0 Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.6 8th Street Park 2.8 Centennial Park 0.4 Total => 332.2 Allocation Factors for Parks Improvements Cost per Acre $241,000 Residential Proportionate Share 100% Service Units Population in 2019 114,102 Infrastructure Standards for Parks Improved Acres Residential (per person) 0.00291 Park Needs Year Population Improved Acres Base 2019 114,102 332.2 Year 1 2020 121,126 352.7 Year 2 2021 126,812 369.2 Year 3 2022 132,163 384.8 Year 4 2023 136,845 398.4 Year 5 2024 140,190 408.2 Year 10 2029 149,248 434.5 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 102.3 Growth Cost of Parks => $24,654,300 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 382 of 407 Recreation Buildings Figure PR3 lists current floor area for recreation centers. Based on input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, Meridian should expect to spend at least $225 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current standards, Meridian will need 17,096 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost approximately $3.85 million. Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected growth costs, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Proposed and Current Impact Fees At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs due to growth. The projected need for acres of improved parks and square feet of recreation centers was addressed above. The need to acquire an additional five acres of land for parks is based on staff’s comparison of the existing inventory of undeveloped park sites (i.e., 97 acres) to the projected need for 102 additional acres over the next ten years. In addition to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park impact fee fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $26,168,471 divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $744 per service unit. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per Existing Recreation Centers Square Feet Meridian Community Center 4,200 1 Meridian Homecourt 51,303 1 Total to Include in Current Standards 55,503 Allocation Factors for Recreation Centers Building plus Land Cost per Square Foot* $225 Residential Proportionate Share 100% 2019 Meridian Population 114,102 * Based on local developer estimate. Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.49 Recreation Center Needs Year Population Square Feet Base 2019 114,102 55,503 Year 1 2020 121,126 58,920 Year 2 2021 126,812 61,686 Year 3 2022 132,163 64,288 Year 4 2023 136,845 66,566 Year 5 2024 140,190 68,193 Year 10 2029 149,248 72,599 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 17,096 Growth Cost for Recreation Buildings => $3,847,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 383 of 407 dwelling. The row highlighted light green indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling, which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Park Improvements acres 102 $241,000 $24,654,000 Park Land acres 5 $61,000 $305,000 Recreation Centers sq ft 17,096 $225 $3,847,000 Total => $28,806,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,656,132 Net Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Population Increase 2019 to 2029 35,146 Cost per Service Unit $744 Residential Impact Fees (per dwelling) Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Parks & Recreation Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $781 $1,113 ($332) -30% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $1,361 $1,113 $248 22% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $1,770 $1,113 $657 59% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $2,098 $1,113 $985 88% 3201 or more 3.29 $2,447 $1,113 $1,334 120% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $2,099 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 384 of 407 Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive approximately $26.15 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and impact fee revenue. Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue Ten-Year Growth Cost => $26,168,471 Parks Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential $2,098 Year per housing unit Hsg Units Base 2019 42,345 Year 1 2020 44,445 Year 2 2021 46,145 Year 3 2022 47,746 Year 4 2023 49,145 Year 5 2024 50,145 Year 10 2029 54,811 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 Projected Revenue => $26,150,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 385 of 407 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to existing development. Existing parks and recreation centers are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Total impact fee funding of approximately $28.8 million represents a growth share of 80%, requiring approximately $7.28 million from other revenue sources over the next ten years. Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Parks and Recreation Needed Planned Improved Acres 102.3 151 Building Sq Ft 17,096 22,000 FY Description Amount Units Cost 2020 West Meridian Regional Park - Design $500,000 2022 West Meridian Regional Park - Construction 47 acres $5,147,500 2021 New Community Center - Design & Construction Documents $500,000 2023 New Community Center - Construction 22,000 square feet $5,000,000 2027 Margaret Aldape Park - Design $994,000 2029 Margaret Aldape Park - Construction 70 acres $10,012,500 2021 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Design $500,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 2 - Construction 25 $5,160,000 2023 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Design $500,000 2025 Discovery Park, Phase 3 - Construction 25 acres $5,160,000 2022 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Design $185,000 2024 Brundage/Graycliff Park - Construction 9 acres $1,906,500 2021 Additional Land Acquisition 5 acres $525,000 Total Cost => $36,090,500 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $28,806,000 Growth Share => 80% Existing Development Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $7,284,500 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 386 of 407 Police Impact Fees The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards for police buildings. Proportionate Share In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1, functional population was used to allocate public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is like the U.S. Census Bureau’s "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction. It also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Meridian are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential development. Based on 2015 functional population data for Meridian, the cost allocation for residential development is 73% while nonresidential development accounts for 27% of the demand for fire infrastructure. Figure P1: Functional Population Excluded Costs Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. The City’s CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety Demand Units in 2015 Demand Person Residential Hours/Day Hours Population* 91,360 61% Residents Not Working 55,961 20 1,119,220 39% Resident Workers** 35,399 20% Worked in City** 7,231 14 101,234 80% Worked Outside City** 28,168 14 394,352 Residential Subtotal 1,614,806 Residential Share => 73% Nonresidential Non-working Residents 55,961 4 223,844 Jobs Located in City** 36,676 20% Residents Working in City** 7,231 10 72,310 80% Non-Resident Workers (inflow commuters) 29,445 10 294,450 Nonresidential Subtotal 590,604 Nonresidential Share => 27% TOTAL 2,205,410 * 2015 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. ** 2015 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 387 of 407 equipment that do not meet the minimum useful life requirement in Idaho’s Impact Fee Act. Current Use and Available Capacity In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian has determined that police building space will require expansion to accommodate future development. Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development. Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police. For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average-weekday, vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and nonresidential development, along with FY18-19 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services, as documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of $333 per square foot (provided by City staff). The cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY18- 19 service units, the standard in Meridian is 0.26 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development, Meridian’s standard is 0.06 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development, on an average weekday. Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards Police Infrastructure Needs Idaho’s development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3, projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles. Meridian will need 12,161 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten-year, growth-related capital cost of police buildings is approximately $4.05 million. Police Buildings Square Feet PSTC (half) 7,250 Admin Building 33,000 TOTAL 40,250 Source: City of Meridian Police Department. Police Buildings Standards Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share (based on functional population) 73% 27% Growth Indicator Population Avg Wkdy Veh Trips to Nonres Dev Service Units in FY18-19 114,102 179,607 Square Feet per Service Unit 0.26 0.06 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 388 of 407 Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Police Development Fees Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per development unit is also shown in the table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 2017). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with nonresidential development within Meridian, trip ends (entering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using a basic 50% adjustment factor. In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act), less the projected police impact fee fund balance expected at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of $2,633,140, divided by the projected increase in population from 2019 to 2029, yields a cost of $54 per residential service unit. Impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light blue indicates the updated police fee for an average-size dwelling is $152 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit. The latter was derived by dividing the projected increase in population by the projected increase in housing units over the next ten years. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Buildings - Residential 0.26 Sq Ft per person Buildings - Nonresidential 0.06 Sq Ft per trip Police Buildings Cost $333 per square foot Infrastructure Needed Veh Trips to Police Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings (sq ft) Base 2019 114,102 179,607 40,250 Year 1 2020 121,126 184,062 42,328 Year 2 2021 126,812 188,819 44,080 Year 3 2022 132,163 193,625 45,749 Year 4 2023 136,845 198,637 47,258 Year 5 2024 140,190 203,714 48,427 Year 10 2029 149,248 231,013 52,411 Ten-Yr Increase 35,146 51,406 12,161 Growth Cost of Police Buildings => $4,050,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 389 of 407 fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit Projected Revenue for Police Facilities Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately $2.6 million (see the upper portion of Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Police Buildings square feet 12,161 $333 $4,050,000 Outdoor Training Facility 23% $690,000 Total => $4,740,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,125,463 Net Growth Cost => $2,633,140 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $1,922,192 Nonresidential $710,948 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $54 Nonresidential (vehicle trips) 51,406 $13 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Housing Unit Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $56 $223 ($167) -75% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $98 $223 ($125) -56% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $128 $223 ($95) -43% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $152 $223 ($71) -32% 3201 or more 3.29 $177 $223 ($46) -21% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Ends per KSF Trip Adjustment Factors Proposed Police Facilities Fees Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 37.75 50% $0.24 $0.12 $0.12 100% All Other 9.00 50% $0.05 $0.12 ($0.07) -58% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $154 Nonresidential Floor Area Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot $0.10 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 390 of 407 approximately $2.5 million in police development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and development fee revenue. Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the next ten years. Impact fees will pay for approximately $4.74 million, representing a growth share of 59%. Other revenue sources will be required to fund approximately $3.26 million in police facilities over the next ten years. Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Police Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities => $2,633,140 Police Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office & Other Services $152 $50 $240 $50 $50 per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Year Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $1,895,000 $130,000 $336,000 $64,000 $85,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $2,510,000 Buildings Description Square Feet Total Cost Training Facility Classroom 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 1 3,000 $1,000,000 Administrative Building Expansion Phase 2 3,000 $1,000,000 Substation 6,000 $2,000,000 Total => 15,000 $5,000,000 Cost per Square Foot => $333 Outdoor Facilities Description Cost Outdoor Training Facility $3,000,000 Total => $8,000,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $4,740,000 Growth Share Funded by Impact Fees => 59% Share to be Funded by Other Revenues => $3,260,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 391 of 407 Fire Impact Fees After evaluating calls for service data to general types of development, Raftelis recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development. Existing Standards for Fire Facilities Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police Department, floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. The standard for fire buildings is 0.44 square feet per person and 0.46 square feet per job. Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase communications equipment with a useful life of at least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and communications equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department. Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was allocated 73% to residential and 27% to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every additional resident will require Meridian to spend approximately $62 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately $64 for additional fire vehicles and equipment. Fire Stations Square Feet Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 7,040 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 6,770 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 7,077 Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) 7,360 Fire Station # 6 0 PSTC (half) 7,250 Training Tower @ Station #1 6,523 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744 Fire Admin Space (City Hall) 13,511 TOTAL 68,975 Allocation Factors for Fire Stations Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% Population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations Square Feet Residential (per person) 0.44 Nonresidential (per job) 0.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 392 of 407 Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles Fire Infrastructure Needs The City’s Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian, fire facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development over the next ten years, Meridian will expand fire buildings by 20,859 square feet and spend $2.93 million to expand the fleet of fire vehicles. Fire Apparatus and Equipment Coding Total Cost Engines FE $5,148,000 Ladder Truck LT $1,600,000 Pickup Trucks PT $539,659 Other Vehicles OV $287,700 Communications Equipment CE $2,112,284 TOTAL $9,687,643 Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications Residential Share 73% Functional Nonresidential Share 27% population Population in 2019 114,102 Jobs in 2019 40,575 Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications Apparatus and Communications Residential (per person) $61.98 Nonresidential (per job) $64.46 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 393 of 407 Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities Revenue Credit Evaluation Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian’s legislative policy decision to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources. Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thousand square feet of floor area are also documented in the Land Use Assumptions. To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. The row highlighted light orange indicates the updated impact fee for an average-size dwelling is $693 (truncated), which assumes 2.82 persons per housing unit and a cost of $246 per additional person. Please see Appendix A for supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian (note: the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.82 divided by 3.11). The blue arrow shown in the table below Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs Fire Station s - Residential 0.44 Sq Ft per household Fire Station s - Nonresidential 0.46 Sq Ft per job Fire Station Cost $535 per square foot Fire Apparatus/Communications - Residential $61.98 Cost per person Fire Apparatus/Communications - Nonres $64.46 Cost per job Facilities Needed Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and Year Jobs Stations Communications Base 2019 114,102 40,575 68,975 $9,687,643 Year 1 2020 121,126 41,612 72,551 $10,189,837 Year 2 2021 126,812 42,677 75,549 $10,610,907 Year 3 2022 132,163 43,768 78,411 $11,012,890 Year 4 2023 136,845 44,887 80,990 $11,375,214 Year 5 2024 140,190 46,035 82,993 $11,656,541 Year 6 2025 143,578 47,214 85,030 $11,942,532 Year 7 2026 144,996 48,421 86,209 $12,108,228 Year 8 2027 146,413 49,659 87,403 $12,275,860 Year 9 2028 147,831 50,929 88,611 $12,445,618 Year 10 2029 149,248 52,231 89,834 $12,617,376 Ten -Yr Increase 35,146 11,656 20,859 $2,929,733 Cost of Fire Stations => $11,160,000 Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications => $2,930,000 Total Growth Cost => $14,090,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 394 of 407 compares the updated fee for the average size dwelling to the average impact fee per housing unit based on the allocation methodology from the 2013 impact fee study. In contrast to the “one size fits all” flat fee of $695 for all dwellings, the updated methodology proposes lower impact fees for smaller, more affordable units, along with a higher fee for dwellings with 3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space. Proposed nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2019 study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). The previous study had a single fee for all types of nonresidential development. The average fire impact fee per square foot for nonresidential development increased from $0.35 in 2013 to $0.46 in 2019. Based on the 2019 fee schedule, a new warehouse would be in the category of All Other. This fee category assumes 1.50 jobs per thousand square feet of floor area. To convert the fee to an amount per square foot, we divide by 1000 then multiply by the cost factor per job ($274). The result is $0.41 (truncated) per square foot. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 395 of 407 Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities 2019 Input Variables Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Units Growth Quantity Over Ten Years Cost Factor per Unit Growth Cost (rounded) Fire Stations square feet 20,859 $535 $11,160,000 Fire Apparatus dollars $2,930,000 Total => $14,090,000 Professional Services Cost => $18,603 Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2019 => -$2,241,236 Net Growth Cost => $11,867,367 Residential 73% Nonresidential 27% Residential $8,663,178 Nonresidential $3,204,189 Cost per Service Unit Residential (persons) 35,146 $246 Nonresidential (jobs) 11,656 $274 Residential Impact Fees (per housing unit) Square Feet of Climate- Controlled Space Persons per Hsg Unit Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change 1000 or less 1.05 $258 $681 ($423) -62% 1001 to 1500 1.83 $450 $681 ($231) -34% 1501 to 2500 2.38 $585 $681 ($96) -14% 2501 to 3200 2.82 $693 $681 $12 2% 3201 or more 3.29 $809 $681 $128 19% Nonresidential Impact Fees (square foot of building) Type Jobs per 1,000 Sq Ft Proposed Fire Facilities Fee Current Fees Increase or Decrease % Change Commercial 2.34 $0.64 $0.35 $0.29 83% All Other 1.50 $0.41 $0.35 $0.06 17% Comparison to 2013 Method Housing Unit Increase 2019 to 2029 12,466 Impact Fee per Housing Unit $695 Nonresidential Sq Ft Increase 2019 to 2029 6,960,000 Impact Fee per Square Foot) $0.46 Cost Allocation Allocated Cost by Land Use Growth 2019 to 2029 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 396 of 407 Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities Over the next ten years, fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire infrastructure, which has a ten-year growth cost of $11,867,367 (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately $11.82 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. The revenue projection assumes implementation of the proposed fire fees and that development from 2019 to 2029 is consistent with the land use assumptions described in Appendix A. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities => $11,867,367 Fire Impact Fee Revenue Average Residential Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and Other Services $693 $410 $640 $410 $410 Year per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF Base 2019 42,345 9,070 4,890 4,450 5,890 Year 1 2020 44,445 9,300 5,010 4,560 6,040 Year 2 2021 46,145 9,540 5,140 4,680 6,190 Year 3 2022 47,746 9,780 5,270 4,800 6,350 Year 4 2023 49,145 10,030 5,410 4,920 6,510 Year 5 2024 50,145 10,290 5,550 5,040 6,680 Year 6 2025 51,159 10,550 5,690 5,170 6,850 Year 7 2026 52,071 10,820 5,830 5,310 7,030 Year 8 2027 52,984 11,100 5,980 5,440 7,210 Year 9 2028 53,898 11,380 6,140 5,580 7,390 Year 10 2029 54,811 11,670 6,290 5,720 7,580 Ten-Yr Increase 12,466 2,600 1,400 1,270 1,690 Projected Revenue => $8,640,000 $1,070,000 $900,000 $520,000 $690,000 Total Projected Revenues (rounded) => $11,820,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 397 of 407 Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire station floor area by approximately 25,000 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately $4.38 million. The total cost for these projects is approximately $17.75 million. The growth cost funded by impact fees is $14.09 million over ten years, which is 79% of the total cost. An additional $3.66 million in other revenues will be required to fully fund the Fire Department’s CFP for growth-related improvements. Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities Fire Stations Square Feet Total Cost Purchase Land for Fire Station #7 $500,000 Design Fire Station #7 $800,000 Build Fire Station #7 12,500 $5,387,500 Purchase Land for Fire Station #8 $250,000 Design Fire Station #8 $800,000 Build Fire Station #8 12,500 $5,637,500 Total => 25,000 $13,375,000 Cost per Sq Ft Based on Stations #7 & #8 => $535 Fire Apparatus Units Total Cost Quint Truck 1 $1,600,000 Heavy Rescue Vehicle 1 $800,000 Fire Engine Station #7 1 $572,000 Fire Engine Station #8 1 $572,000 Vehicle for EMS Captain 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Fire Inspector/Investigator 1 $63,000 Vehicle for Battalion Chiefs 1 $63,000 Alternative Response Unit 2 $642,000 Total => 9 $4,375,000 Total => $17,750,000 Growth Cost Funded by Impact Fees => $14,090,000 Growth Share => 79% Funded by Other Revenues => $3,660,000 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 398 of 407 Fee Implementation and Administration Consistent with best practices and Idaho’s enabling legislation, Meridian updates capital improvements and development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory Committee, then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the City should redo the fee calculations. Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible, tracking funds according to first in, first out accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure. Cost of CFP Preparation As stated in Idaho’s enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. This minor cost ($18,603 per infrastructure type) was added to the 2019 Meridian impact fees. Development Categories Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building, the average size threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate-controlled floor area for the entire building, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment complexes and some residential development provide common areas for use by residents, such as exercise rooms and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not subject to additional impact fees. Also, Section 67-8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential building, that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to residential buildings, Raftelis recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to additional impact fees. The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density (i.e. jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area), as documented in Appendix A. “Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial development. All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial). An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian’s impact fee study. For residential development, impact fees are based on average persons per Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 399 of 407 housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the average number of jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian’s elected officials for their consideration. Credits and Reimbursements A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience, Raftelis recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area. The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 400 of 407 Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian’s 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho’s enabling legislation 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.” Service Areas To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees, the City of Meridian has evaluated collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the entire incorporated area. Raftelis recommends one citywide service area for Meridian impact fees. Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines “service area” as: “Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles, or both.” The City’s adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as modified over time. Summary of Growth Indicators Population, housing unit, jobs and nonresidential floor area are the “service units” or demand indicators that will be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are consistent with Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan, which is more general and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be periodically updated (e.g. every 5 years). Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19 data. In Meridian, the fiscal year begins on October 1 st . Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing units and nonresidential floor area, as shown in Figure A1. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than projected, fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if development is faster than anticipated, the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development. Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years, the impact fee study assumes Meridian’s population increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.7% per year. Over the next ten years, jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 2.6% per year, which is from the Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2010 to 2040. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 401 of 407 Figure A1: Annual Development Projections Proportionate Share The term “proportionate” is found throughout Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67-8202(2) states the intent to, “Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;” Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(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…” Meridian, Idaho FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY23-24 FY28-29 FY38-39 Fiscal Year Begins Oct 1st 2019 2020 2021 2022 2024 2029 2039 Base Yr 1 2 3 5 10 20 Total Population City of Meridian 114,102 121,126 126,812 132,163 140,190 149,248 164,187 Annual Increase 7.2% 6.2% 4.7% 4.2% 2.4% 1.0% 1.0% Housing Units Single Family 35,911 37,649 39,056 40,381 42,367 46,229 54,516 Annual Increase 5.6% 4.8% 3.7% 3.4% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Multi-Family 6,434 6,796 7,089 7,365 7,778 8,582 10,322 Annual Increase 6.6% 5.6% 4.3% 3.9% 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% Total Housing Units 42,345 44,445 46,145 47,746 50,145 54,811 64,838 Annual Increase 5.7% 5.0% 3.8% 3.5% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% Persons per Hsg Unit 2.69 2.73 2.75 2.77 2.80 2.72 2.53 Jobs (by place of work) Industrial 7,501 7,693 7,890 8,092 8,511 9,656 12,430 Commercial 11,455 11,748 12,048 12,356 12,996 14,746 18,982 Institutional 4,133 4,238 4,347 4,458 4,689 5,320 6,848 Office & Other Services 17,486 17,933 18,392 18,862 19,839 22,509 28,976 Total Jobs 40,575 41,612 42,677 43,768 46,035 52,231 67,236 Annual Increase 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% 2.6% Jobs to Housing Ratio 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 1.04 Nonresidential Floor Area (square feet in thousands) Industrial 9,070 9,300 9,540 9,780 10,290 11,670 15,030 Commercial 4,890 5,010 5,140 5,270 5,550 6,290 8,100 Institutional 4,450 4,560 4,680 4,800 5,040 5,720 7,370 Office & Other Services 5,890 6,040 6,190 6,350 6,680 7,580 9,760 Total KSF 24,300 24,910 25,550 26,200 27,560 31,260 40,260 Avg Sq Ft Per Job 599 599 599 599 599 598 599 Avg Jobs per KSF 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 402 of 407 Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho’s Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1). “All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new development. In the following sections, Raftelis describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential development. Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a “long-form” questionnaire. Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds makes fees more proportionate and facilitates construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.85 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures with two or more units average 2.00 year-round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes, which have two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.76 year-round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts. Raftelis recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according to the number of year-round residents per housing unit. Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, Raftelis recommends residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size. Custom tabulations of Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics Units in Structure Persons House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate Single Unit * 81,202 27,793 2.92 28,448 2.85 89% 2% All Other ** 6,765 3,379 2.00 3,378 2.00 11% 0% Subtotal 87,967 31,172 2.82 31,826 2.76 2% Group Quarters 4,864 TOTAL 92,831 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024, B25032, B25033, and B26001. *Single unit includes attached and detached. ** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 403 of 407 demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro-Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, Raftelis derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control totals for Meridian. As shown above, the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that Meridian averages 2.76 persons per housing unit. Figure A3: Persons by Bedroom Range DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, Raftelis used the 2018 Ada County Assessor’s residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e., two, three, and four or more bedrooms). Raftelis recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, Raftelis derived the estimated average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1000 square feet or less) has an estimated average of 1.16 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate-controlled space), the average is 3.63 persons per housing unit. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area by the total number of dwellings in the building. Recommended Multipliers (2) Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing (1) Units (1) Housing Unit Mix 0-1 48 39 1.30 2.8% 2 353 194 1.92 14.1% 3 1,598 678 2.48 49.2% 4+ 1,614 467 3.64 33.9% Total 3,613 1,378 2.76 100.0% (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdat a Sample for ID PUMA 701 (2012-2016 5-year database). (2) Recommendedpersons per housing unit are scaled to make the average derived from PUMS survey data match the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.76 persons per housing unit). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 404 of 407 Figure A4: Persons by Square Feet of Living Space Jobs and Nonresidential Development In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential development. Raftelis uses the term “jobs” to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure A5, color shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes the will be used by Raftelis to derive average weekday vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, Raftelis averaged Light Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing (ITE 150) to derive an average of 1,209 square feet per industrial job. The prototype for future commercial development is an average-size Shopping Center (ITE code 820). Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 427 square feet per job. For institutional development, such as schools, daycare and churches, the impact fee study assumes an average of 1,076 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is an Elementary School (ITE 520). For office and other services, an average-size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 337 square feet per job. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 405 of 407 Figure A5: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends Figure A6 indicates 2015 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type of nonresidential, are from Meridian’s Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau’s online web application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel information obtained from Ada County. ITE Land Use / Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit Per Emp 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.05 1.63 615 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.93 2.47 1.59 628 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.74 5.05 0.34 2,902 520 Elementary School 1,000 Sq Ft 19.52 21.00 0.93 1,076 530 High School 1,000 Sq Ft 14.07 22.25 0.63 1,581 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.72 3.79 2.83 354 620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.64 2.91 2.28 438 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 9.74 3.28 2.97 337 760 Research & Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.26 3.29 3.42 292 770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325 820 Shopping Center (avg size) 1,000 Sq Ft 37.75 16.11 2.34 427 857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 32.21 1.30 771 Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 3.35 4.05 0.83 1,209 * Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition (2017). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 406 of 407 Figure A6: Jobs and Floor Area Estimates Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18, 2019 – Page 407 of 407 EIDIANI DA HO ?- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 9 Project File Name/Number: Item Title: Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: