2021-09-14 Work Session
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 4:30 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Luke Cavener
Mayor Robert E. Simison
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
1. Bainbridge Subdivision No. 12 Pedestrian Pathway Easement
2. Jocelyn Park Subdivision No. 1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 1
3. Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement - Barnett Property
4. Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement - Barnett Rentals, LLC
5. Paramount Village Center Subdivision Pedestrian Pathway Easement
6. Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision Pedestrian Pathway Easement
7. Final Plat for Chewie Subdivision (FP-2021-0036) by Kent Brown Planning,
Located on the North Side of W. Franklin Rd., Midway Between N. Ten Mile Rd. and
N. Linder Rd.
8. Final Plat for Prevail Subdivision No. 3 (FP-2021-0044) by Schultz Development,
Located Approximately ¼ Mile South of E. Amity Road, East of S. Meridian Rd.
9. Lemp Pathway Permanent Easement Contracts Between the City of Meridian and
Edgar R. Barnett/Barnett Rentals, LLC (Parcels R5147490611 & R5147490701)
10. Development Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Vincent Rigby
(Owner/Developer) for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) Rezone
11. Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Sky Mesa East, LLC to Accept
Payment and Equipment in Lieu of Installing Streetlights at Sky Mesa Subdivision
No. 4
12. License Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Ada County Highway District
to Allow a Painted Center Line Along the Five Mile Pathway
13. Resolution No. 21-2285: A Resolution Reappointing Camden Hyde to the Meridian
Parks and Recreation Commission, Raeya Wardle to the Meridian Arts
Commission, and Joseph Leckie to the Meridian Transportation Commission; and
Providing and Effective Date
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\]
DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\]
14. Community Development Department: Multi-Family Open Space Comparison
Motion with final language made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
15. Parks and Recreation Department: Lakeview Golf Course Strategic Master Plan
Discussion
EXECUTIVE SESSION
16. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure
as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code.
Motion to enter executive session made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman
Cavener.
In to executive session: 5:44pm
Out of executive session: 6:04pm
ADJOURNMENT 6:04pm
Item#1.
Meridian City Council September 14, 2021.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday,
September 14, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica
Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Steve Siddoway, Bill Parsons, Caleb Hood,
Shawn Harper, Pam Orr and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday,
September 14th, at 4:31 p.m. We will begin today's City Council workshop --work session
with roll call attendance.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Simison: Next item up is the adoption of the agenda.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I'm still very excited for the opportunity to make a motion to adopt the agenda as
published.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The
ayes have it and the agenda is adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Bainbridge Subdivision No. 12 Pedestrian Pathway Easement
2. Jocelyn Park Subdivision No. 1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
Page 4
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 2 of 24
Easement No. 1
3. Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement - Barnett Property
4. Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement - Barnett Rentals, LLC
5. Paramount Village Center Subdivision Pedestrian Pathway Easement
6. Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision Pedestrian Pathway Easement
7. Final Plat for Chewie Subdivision (FP-2021-0036) by Kent Brown
Planning, Located on the North Side of W. Franklin Rd., Midway
Between N. Ten Mile Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
8. Final Plat for Prevail Subdivision No. 3 (FP-2021-0044) by Schultz
Development, Located Approximately '/4 Mile South of E. Amity Road,
East of S. Meridian Rd.
9. Lemp Pathway Permanent Easement Contracts Between the City of
Meridian and Edgar R. Barnett/Barnett Rentals, LLC (Parcels
R5147490611 & R5147490701)
10. Development Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Vincent
Rigby (Owner/Developer) for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) Rezone
11. Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Sky Mesa East, LLC to
Accept Payment and Equipment in Lieu of Installing Streetlights at Sky
Mesa Subdivision No. 4
12. License Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Ada County
Highway District to Allow a Painted Center Line Along the Five Mile
Pathway
13. Resolution No. 21-2285: A Resolution Reappointing Camden Hyde to
the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, Raeya Wardle to the
Meridian Arts Commission, and Joseph Leckie to the Meridian
Transportation Commission; and Providing and Effective Date
Simison: First up is our Consent Agenda.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Grateful for the opportunity to make --
Page 5
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 3-24
Simison: We lost you.
Cavener: So excited and so privileged that his mic went to mute.
Hoaglun: Did we lose him completely? Well, Mr. Mayor, I will go ahead and make the
motion that we -- I move to adopt the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and Clerk
to attest.
Cavener: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the Consent Agenda. Is there any
discussion? If not, all favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and
the Consent Agenda is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Simison: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item]
14. Community Development Department: Multi-Family Open Space
Comparison
Simison: So, the next item up will be the Community Development Department multi-
family open space comparison. I will turn this over to Mr. Parsons.
Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Happy to be back in front of you.
Hopefully you have had a chance to review that memo that I sent out the beginning of
August. So, if you recall I was in front of you on July 27th. We got to the finish line of
nailing down a lot of the changes that we were proposing to the UDC and during that
hearing the Council actually made a couple of motions and changed some of the multi-
family standards that we were proposing as part of the draft changes. At that hearing I
committed to you that I would go ahead and vet those changes and understand the -- so
that you could get a clearer picture of what -- what those changes would mean moving
forward. In that memo I detailed out how we got to that, what we used. There were some
assumptions that we used. We used densities between six and 40. We used
developments between a half an acre to up to 20 acres and, then, also we just had a flat
rate of 250 square feet of open space per multi-family unit. I really have to give kudos to
Brian McClure. He's the one that kind of generated the open space calculator that I use
to get the information that was provided in that memo. It was a team effort between
myself, Caleb and Brian to try to get you that information, so that -- to help you make an
informed decision as to whether or not you like the changes that you had. So, in today's
discussion I really want to keep it at high level. I don't want to go into all the parameters.
But I do just want to summarize exactly those tables that I did put in the memo for you.
Page 6
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 4 of 24
So, currently the slide that's before you are the -- the draft standards. You can see here
the graph on the left-hand side -- upper left hand I should say is the motion that Council
made to require all multi-family developments of five acres or greater to provide an overall
open space -- a flat rate of -- essentially of 18 percent and, then, the graphic in the lower
right-hand corner is the same thing, just that the fact that you guys require ten percent for
anything less than five acres. So, what this really shows you is if you have an overall flat
rate the open space does not change based on the density, it only changes based on the
acreage and I think that's a pretty important distinction here based on the motion that you
made here. As I transition to the next slide, these are the current standards and you can
see here from the exercise that I did, using those parameters that I just explained to you,
you can see here that with the standards that we currently have in code, which is the ten
percent plus the per unit ratio, you can see here that we -- as density increases and
acreage increases we do get more open space and I think that was the vision or the intent
when we set out to change the code is really to make sure that the more dense you go
the more quality and the better open space that you get and that's --that's what we believe
you get with having a flat -- a baseline -- a baseline, a base rate and a per unit amount of
open space per residential unit. So, that's, essentially, what I had to share with you in
that memo. Hopefully you guys found value in that exercise. I certainly did. It was
something -- I know Council Woman Strader actually called me on the phone and we
went over this memo in detail. We also talked about some ways that we can help inform
the customers -- or at least educate our customers and -- or applicants on what amount
of open space would be required for these types of developments and I had discussed
with her the idea of creating an open space calculator and putting that on the website, so
that when a developer asked what would be required as part of a residential development
or multi-family development they could put in their parameters here, their -- their number
of units, their acreage and, then, they would get a ballpark figure what amount of open
space they would need to provide as part of their open space. We feel that's the better
way to communicate open space with the community. It's pretty similar to what we have
now with our fee calculator. Someone calls us up and says what does it cost to get a
building permit in Meridian, you go to the Community Development website, you go and
plug in your parameters and you get a ballpark estimate of what your building permit fees
will be. So, again, I will -- if-- if the Council supports that direction I will certainly continue
to work with Brian and get something like that up and running on our website as soon as
possible. I know in my memo to you it was staff's preference to stick with currently what
we have in code. Certainly I wanted to get this information in front of you before we
finalize the ordinance. I want to make sure that you guys are comfortable with the
direction that we are going here and with that I will conclude my comments and stand for
any further questions you may have.
Simison: Thank you. Council, comments, questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just a comment and I will -- I will take the blame, because I think it was a --
Page 7
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 5-24
anytime we can simplify and make things easier it's better with our customers and our
partners in the community, but clearly the flat percentage of open space just didn't work
once you look at kind of what they had compared to that proposal. So, I talked about it in
a lot of detail with the planning staff and I feel like what we have in code is better. I do
feel like putting that calculator on the web would be really important though. It is really
complicated and I think, you know, when -- when people come before us and they say,
well, we have 20 percent open space, it's double the minimum, I think it's important to cut
through that. That's not really the minimum, because it includes that density calculation.
So, I was -- based on the analysis that was done by Bill and Brian and everybody, I would
-- I would rather go with what we have in code now that they proposed.
Simison: Well, since I was one of the people that also discussed this I will give my two
cents. I understand one creates more and one creates less. I'm still a fan of the flat. I
think maybe our multi-family was too much open space to a certain extent, you know, but
I think that's really the policy question for Council is, you know, what is an appropriate
level of open space? Do you feel like what you have been seeing in the developments
is the appropriate amount or not? Was it utilized in the way that you think it should be?
Not? That's probably the best -- from my viewpoint the best way I can encourage you all
to look at this is if you have been happy with what you are receiving, then, probably not
need to change it. So, food for thought.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I guess a question for Bill. In preparation for before Council I know we have
got an open space committee coalition. Have we shared any of this with them and
solicited any feedback?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of Council, we have not. No. I took that direction from the
last hearing and went -- went forward.
Cavener: Okay.
Parsons: But I also just want to just preface the Council that, you know, this section of
code we have also rolled in alternative compliance. So, again, if there is those in-fills or
situations where this code doesn't work for every project, there is always that case-by-
case basis of where they can go through that alternative compliance process as well. I'm
sorry. Mayor, Council, Caleb just reminded me that, again, these aren't new changes.
This is what was already shared with the group when we had the open space committee.
So, it's -- it's nothing new, it's just kind of sharing with you that -- the changes you
proposed and what we already have,just give you that --that information to make -- allow
you to make that informed decision. Really more of a vetting the changes versus what
we currently have in the books.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Page 8
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 6 of 24
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Bill, is that the -- is that the ask, then, that your recommendation is don't pivot
like you had planned, stick with the current standards, and this data sort of supports the
reasons why?
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- from -- at least from our standpoint
of doing the exercise we feel that what we currently have gets to what -- the desire the
community has as far as providing open space commensurate to -- to density. So,
keeping that ten percent base rate and that per unit count does that better in our opinion.
And so, again, I had -- I think the rub that came from the Council was just that the minimum
15 percent, that if the project was -- if the project had more open space than what was
the 15 percent, then, that we would cap them at 15 percent and that wasn't the intent.
But certainly that has been removed. I think that was loud and clear from what I remember
-- recall from the July 27th hearing that you guys did want to strike that 15 percent
contingency and then -- and we went back and forth as to what the right amount was and,
again, you gave staff the direction to come forward and see if that makes sense and what
we provided here we -- clearly shows you that -- that the baseline open space and the
per unit count provides -- gives you that -- that greater amount of open space and it
spreads it across projects a little bit better, too, than just having a base rate. A flat rate I
should say.
Simison: Mr. Hood, are you looking to say something?
Hood: Mayor, if you will allow me, just -- and you didn't direct the question to me,
Councilman Borton, but I guess the reason for the memo from my perspective -- I'm not
disagreeing with Bill, but it was just to show you the implications if you were to move
forward with the discussion the action that you took from six weeks ago or whenever that
was. So,just to show you how that would play out. Because there was a lot of discussion
about, okay, well, this hypothetical project, what would we get and so this was really just
meant to show you, again, on the ground what that would look like and, then, also the
tool, the calculator that Bill mentioned and Councilman Strader alluded to, to put that on
the website potentially to make it easier to figure out how much would be required. So, I
don't know that we have a real recommendation or asking you to rethink anything, just
wanted you to be fully aware of the implications of action -- any action you take.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: To comment, I -- I agree with you. I think looking at this data helps. I appreciate
you doing it before a decision is made. I think it-- I mean it helps articulate consequences
of the decision that might not have connected with the intent, so --
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Page 9
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page , of 24
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Bill, I just -- I think Exhibit 5 was clear to me and let me -- I
just want to make sure I understood it correctly that you had in the -- in the full deal and
that was under the 18 percent overall open space for developments of greater than five
acres, the average open space per unit square foot was 431 and, then, under our current
open space standards greater than five acres, plus the ten percent -- plus -- the ten
percent plus open space per unit, which is our current standard, came out to 489 square
feet per -- per unit. So, we did lose there and our whole intent at the time was to try and
increase it. The more dense the -- the -- the development the greater the open space
and we didn't -- we didn't quite do that, did we?
Simison: Well, I guess the question would be --we did it based upon the other standards.
If your intention was to increase it based on the current standard, then, the answer would
have been no.
Hoaglun: Right.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: So, was the rub of this looking for direction from Council to finally pick a lane and
stay with the current standard as recommended or remain on the path of what we had
earlier proposed?
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that's where we want to land
tonight is we want to get this one to the finish line and get the ordinance approved and
get something in effect. So, it -- yes, the ball is in your court. You have the data in front
of you. Staff is just looking as to whether or not you liked what you did on the 27th versus
what we currently have on the books and tell us which way to move and based on that
direction I will make sure that Legal gets the correct Exhibit 5, as Councilman Hoaglun
pointed out to you. I do have a lot of those changes already made, so it doesn't take a
lot of time to get those in -- into effect. So, I have both versions ready to go contingent
upon what this body wants to do.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: There we go. I have been having some audio issues. Can you guys hear me
okay?
Simison: Yeah. We can.
Bernt: Okay. Good. I'm okay with -- with the proposal. If -- if there isn't anymore
Page 10
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 8 of 24
discussion or any other opinions, I guess we can -- Bill, do you need some type of an
approval today or just direction? Do we need to vote? What are you looking for?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think what we did is we did vote on what
direction you wanted. So, if you are --and I think what Bill has stated is that we --currently
the standard is that ten and 18 is what you had moved forward with. If that's a change
now for you, I think we would need to vote on it again.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Borton: Sorry. Bill was kind of cutting out on Zoom. Just so I understand, do you need
a motion or --
Nary: Yes.
Strader: Okay. Does anyone else want to discuss or do you want me to -- I can make a
motion or we could vote on it. I think there is a couple people we haven't heard from,
so --
Simison: And you can always discuss after you make the motion.
Strader: Sure. Okay. So, then, I would move that we go back to the concept we had in
the existing code. A minimum open space of ten percent, plus the calculation based on
density and with the caveat I think you guys were going to clear up the language that
there wasn't a lesser of 15 percent concept. Hopefully that's -- that makes sense.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I think I'm tracking the motion. I think I'm supportive. I
think that last piece is important. So, 15 percent is the floor, not necessarily a ceiling or
anything like that. So, I'm good with that then.
Simison: The motion is to not change current code. Correct? Am I mis --
Nary: Yes.
Simison: Okay. That's -
11
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 9-24
Cavener: So I was tracking it. So, I'm supportive. Thank you.
Simison: All right. If there is no further discussion, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, aye; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes and Bill has his direction.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
15. Parks and Recreation Department: Lakeview Golf Course Strategic
Master Plan Discussion
Simison: Okay. Next up is Item 15, Parks and Recreation Department Lakeview Golf
Course strategic master plan discussion. Turn this over to Mr. Barton.
Barton: Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Pleasure to be here this afternoon. We are
bringing forward a presentation and discussion on the -- the strategic master plan for
Lakeview Golf Course and the presentation and discussion is really centered around four
focus areas. One being the management structure, the capital improvement plan, playing
fees and, then, food and beverage services. Before I turn it over to Ed Getherall from the
National Golf Foundation, who put the report together with his team and help from our
stakeholder input and community surveys, I would just like to introduce who we have here
this afternoon. We have Ed Getherall that's going to be leading the presentation. Forrest
Richardson from Richardson and Danner Golf Course Architects and, then, we also have
Shane Shaffer, who is the new golf course superintendent, and Ryan Roberts, who is the
general manager at the golf course. So, if there is any questions that you have regarding
anything going on -- of course Steve's here. I think we have a good team that can help
answer any questions or concerns you have and the expertise and boots on the ground.
So, with that I'm going to turn it over to Ed Getherall to lead the presentation.
Getherall: Good evening, Mayor, Council and staff. Happy to be here. It's a nice -- nice
break from the hot humid weather in Florida. Am I controlling this or --
Johnson: Use the arrow on the keypad is the easiest way.
Getherall: Okay. This seems frozen. There we go. Yeah. There we go. Very good.
Thank you for having me here tonight. It's been a long process. Excuse me. And we are
happy to talk about the findings. It's been an exciting process. Very in depth process.
We started off with trying to understand the whole scenario with the situation analysis.
There was, obviously, the acquisition through Western Ada Recreation District. There is
the history of the golf course. We wanted to understand the location factors and -- and
the objectives of the city with respect to the ultimate acquisition of the property. So, there
were several key components to the project. The physical evaluation and
recommendations that Forrest Richardson, who is current president of the American
Page 12
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 10—24
Society of Golf Course Architects. I like to say that. There is only a month left in his
tenure, so I like to get that in as often as possible. But given that you inherited a very old
asset with old infrastructure, we wanted to -- we anticipated that would be a big part of
the study and it was and we wanted to also look at strategic -- strategies going forward to
help make this sustainable. We did understand from the early going that the city wanted
this to be economically self sustaining, environmentally self sustaining, et cetera. At the
very least to have high cost recovery. So, we provided a big picture strategic focus on
the four areas that Mike mention, but also gave guidance on eight or ten other operational
areas, such as marketing and staffing and things like that and we assisted in the
budgeting process. Also provided a market analysis, both the national overview and,
Lord, has that changed in the last 18 months and also a local market analysis -- a local
slash regional market analysis. Then, of course, there was the extensive public
engagement. I spoke to all of you at one time or another -- or Richard Singer did. Excuse
me. We also had the online surveys and met with the golf course focus group several
times throughout the process. Three or four times. Spoke to homeowners association
representatives. So, that was pretty vigorous and we will talk about that a little bit more
later on. So, I wanted to start off with what we are seeing globally on a national basis.
Doesn't make sense, does it? But we wanted to see on a national basis -- golf was
trending downward for a good, you know, ten to 15 years in terms of participation, in terms
of number of golfers. Sixteen hundred plus golf facilities closed between 2005 and 2020.
A lot of that was due to oversupply. A lot of real estate related golf courses were built in
the 1990s and early 2000s trying to sell real estate. So, you had an oversupplied public
market. So, we saw a lot of golf course closures. That made the news. I mean that's
what the media wants to write about is, you know, things that are kind of negative and so
you read a lot about that. There was a lot of attrition. You know, we had the Tiger boom
in golf in the late '90s and the number of golfers peaked at about 30 million and we have
lost about six million or so until the recent surge in the subsequent couple of decades.
But a lot of things were going good even prior to the pandemic. We saw an increase in
the junior population. Also increasing diversity of junior participants across all different
types of people. More girls, more minorities, et cetera. And, then, there is the increase
in off-course participation and I don't know how many of you have been to a TopGolf, but
they have become very popular. It's, essentially, a nightclub that, you know, also has a
golf component and there has been, you know, dozens of knockoffs on that and also there
is ways that that's being carried through to existing golf facilities by introducing technology
on the driving range, et cetera. And, again, even prior to the pandemic NGF does
participation research every year -- twice a year, actually, and we identified a huge pool
of interested nongolfers that we call late -- they represent latent demand for golf. So, in
March of 2020 when the world changed over the next six or eight weeks golf courses
were closed all over the world and at that time if we had predicted what would occur over
the next, you know, 16 to 18 months nobody in their right mind would have predicted it,
but because golf was one of the few activities -- it opens earlier than most other activities.
It's socially distant by nature and, you know, just being out in the open, I think people
craved that and we just had a surge like nobody could have predicted in both demand
and new participants, in last golfers coming back to the game and we gained 60 million
rounds in 2020, which is incredible given that golf was closed for almost six weeks across
the country. The demand has increased -- has continued into 2021, although it's muted
Page 13
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 11 —24
a little bit from what it was a year ago right now, but it's still going very strong and that
leads me into the local market analysis. There is a lot of positives to say about, you know,
the greater Treasure Valley golf market. One thing greatly in your favor is, you know, the
tremendous growth rate in population. If you don't see anymore golf courses built and
this population keeps growing like it is, just by -- you know, organically you are going to
see better supply-demand ratio. You also have a robust diverse economy, favorable golf
climate. You know, essentially a year around climate. You don't lose a lot of days to
weather compared to most northern climate markets. Your supply-demand ratio is
already very strong. I think what we tracked in the Ten Mile market around Lakeview is
61 percent more golfing households available to support each 18 holes of public golf than
in the nation overall and the market averaged about 38,000 rounds per regulation 18
holes compared to the nation -- national average of 31 ,500. So, that's very impressive.
You do have high quality public competition. The two city of Nampa courses, especially
Ridgecrest, Banbury, and Falcon Crest and River Birch and the two Boise courses --
municipal courses as well. So, you have high quality competition at relatively low fees. I
mean a lot of people have observed there seems to be a ceiling on fees in this market.
Several people observed some of these courses in our market where we are from in
California, Florida, Seattle, you know, these fees would be at 80, 90, 100 dollars at some
of these courses. Lakeview we think -- you know, we made the point in the report -- it's
no surprise. I think KemperSports made the same observation -- that in its current
condition it certainly lags behind most of its competitors at this time, but that's not to say
that, you know, it can't improve considerably and compete for more daily fee play. So,
back to the stakeholder engagement. There were several components. One was the
golfer survey that Kemper initiated in December using NGF golf set program. The results
of that were not good, but they weren't necessarily surprising. I mean the main thing that
people had a problem with was the conditions of the golf course. You know, nothing really
stood out in terms of poor customer service or anything else, although I think talks about
the private -- the previous operator. You know, there wasn't a lot of happiness there with
the lack of investment, but overall the negative thoughts all tied back to the --to the quality
of the golf course conditions. So, there were really no surprises, but, then, it leaves a lot
of room for improvement. We also spent a lot of time on the phone and doing video
interviews with -- with some of you folks and the WARD chairman. The golf course focus
group several meetings. Again, with Parks and Recreation commissioners. We spoke
with the Cherry Lane Village and Ashford Greens and a few of the other HOAs and also
the ladies and the men's golf associations at Lakeview and they -- they were the most
colorful and actually quite helpful in some of the responses they provided, so -- and, then,
there was the community online survey, which focused a lot on usage and awareness of
the golf course and of the restaurant. We had about 120 responses and we got -- you
know, that was quite favorable in terms of, you know, if you improve these things we will
be there and we will really participate in this golf course even more frequently than we do
now. It's skewed a little bit older in terms of the response -- respondents. I think about
half or more were 65 or older and I think about 55 percent had median household income
above 100,000. So, I mean that's a good piece of information. You know, you may be in
a position where you have to raise, you know, prices at the restaurant. We know what
the -- what the restaurant industry is facing in today's world. So, I think that you may be
able to get away with some -- some price increases there. And, then, finally, there was
Page 14
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 12 of 24
the town hall meeting held at Lakeview with the -- I think Mayor Simison attended, as well
as Steve and Mike, and that was -- that was well attended as well, although I guess some
of the feedback was a little focused on things that we really didn't need to look at that
much, but -- so, overall, I mean we try -- in the report we have ten or more pages talking
about the results of our public engagement across groups. There was a lot of feedback.
I think even in all my conversation with you all and with most of the people we spoke to,
people are positive and very happy that the city will be stewarding the golf course going
forward. They believe it's -- you know, it's an exciting opportunity and, you know,
obviously, they want to see everything happen at once in terms of improvements, but they
also recognize that that's not going to happen and I think they are going to be very happy
and I think they are going to be very happy as -- you know, as these improvements -- and
we have seen this in a lot of places we have worked at a city or a county, whoever, shows
a commitment to improving things and they keep people informed and we are doing this
this year, we are doing this next year -- you know, you have already done new carts. Or
I don't know if they are here yet, but you got new carts, new equipment, so people notice
these changes and it also opened up the door to, you know, make fee increases as
necessary to keep up with inflation if nothing else. As you all know the golf course --
excuse me -- the golf course suffered from years of neglect, lack of investment. This is
not uncommon at all when you have a lessee in the latter years of a contract. We see it
all the time. Especially if they had no intent of renewing a lease. So, basically, you were
handed a property that needs millions and millions of dollars of improvements. All the
infrastructure -- and Forrest will talk about this more. All the infrastructure is past its
expected useful life. So, you know, that's to be expected and I don't think anybody here
is surprised at that. Another couple things that came out was from -- a lot of the people
said that we want to see broader community participation, even nongolfers. Not just --
not necessarily just at the restaurant, but, you know, how do we bring nongolfers out here
to participate in activities when golf isn't being played. Everybody loves the clubhouse,
especially the outside part of the clubhouse. They felt it's a real community gathering
place and, you know, in the sense that they don't get it at the golf course necessarily. So,
that's a real positive. A lot of people mentioned somehow finding a way to expand outdoor
space, because they enjoy it so much. And, then, another issue, which, hopefully, will
just be a temporary thing -- some of this ties to all the new golfers we had last year -- not
just a Lakeview, but all across the country was some of the behavior on the course. Some
of it is just the ignorance of golf rules. Some of it is -- well, just blatant and, you know, it
has to be addressed from -- you know. And, then, there is trespassing. It is a public park
in a sense, but it's also -- you have to -- you have to draw the line. You don't want, you
know, school kids being in danger, because they are taking a shortcut to go to the school
bus. So, that was a common theme that shows up as well. So, the four major areas that
Mike alluded to -- again, in the report -- it's a lengthy report. There is a lot more detail in
other areas, but these are four that we wanted to concentrate on for the executive
summary and for the presentation is the management structure -- this says long-term
management structure, but the short-term structure is part of this as well. The preliminary
capital plan, which Forrest went at in great detail. Golf play fees. And, then, the food and
beverage operation. So, with the management structure there is an extensive narrative
in the report about the different options. These -- these here are self operation,
management contract, operating lease and concession agreements are the four most
Page 15
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 13 of 24
common ways that municipalities manage or operate their golf courses and there is
several variations on a theme with these, so I'm just going to go through those quickly.
The self operation is, essentially, when you have all public employees at the golf course.
Usually -- you know, sometimes we consider -- there is some exceptions if you had a
contract, teaching professional, or something like that, we still consider that self operation.
It involves the maximum level of city control at the golf course, but there could be a lack
of expertise, especially when you are new to the game, you just acquired a golf facility,
so that can -- you know, that can be taken care of over time certainly by hiring key
employees who, then, help hire other employees, but the main stumbling block for most
cities and counties is the lack of golf expertise. The management contract. There is a lot
of advantages to it. Right here I'm just listing a couple. Usually there is -- when you are
shooting from a public pay structure to a private pay structure there is considerable
savings, at least on the benefit side, sometimes on the wages side as well. And it depends
on what market you are in. If you were in the Bay area you -- say if you went from a public
structure to a private structure you might save 30, 35 percent in your labor budget, you
know, just by making that change. But here we did a calculation here, the Finance
Department did, and there would be some savings, but, you know, not -- not as great as
you would see in some other markets and the main benefit of the management contract
is the expertise. The national companies -- Indigo and KemperSports and Touchstone
and OB Sports, they have expertise, they have purchasing power, they have, you know,
benefits in getting -- in procuring things, goods and services, and hiring people, marketing
strategies, you know, access to national marketing teams and strategies. So, those are
some of the benefits. The problem is -- or not a problem, but a limitation is if you have a
bad year-- let's say you have a bad year with the greens, you lost your greens or you just
have a terrible weather year or some other unforeseen circumstance, you still have the
obligation of that -- of that management fee. Operating lease is what was the structure
prior to this. You own the land, but you had an operator there for -- or several operators
over the -- over the decades. So, in theory, this is very much attractive and it's become,
you know, much more attractive to some -- to cities and counties, because they are losing
money and they think it's an easy button. No, we will just lease this out. We will just
privatize it. But they are not going to stay-- the operators are not going to stay in a lease
when they are losing money. So, it's only shedding risk theoretically, but as soon they
start losing money -- and we have seen some -- even some national operators that
happened down in Florida, Brevard County, just with no notice dropped out of the lease
for five golf courses and it -- it was actually a national management company and -- but
in a good -- in a good case situation, though, if it's a good cash flowing property, you get
a good operator in there, they make a rent payment to you, they take care of some or all
the capital, depending on the length of the lease, so it can be a good thing, if it's a good
cash flowing facility. If it's not, then, it's -- it's a little nebulous as to how that would work
out. And, then, there is concession agreements. The most typical ones we see are for
food and beverage and for the pro shop, but we also see private maintenance contracts.
So, for instance, you could have a private maintenance contract, but the city runs the golf
or the city do the maintenance and you have a private concessionaire for the golf. So,
there is many variations on a theme. So, our recommendation --again, there is a lot more
explanatory narrative in the report, but we thought at least for the short term -- you know,
the reason you got into this with a -- with a management agreement is to manage the
Page 16
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 14 of 24
transition of the golf course to the city and, you know, if you get experts involved on how
to do staffing and budgeting and et cetera -- so, you are in the middle of that now and we
see no reason to discontinue that. You are, as I understand it, on a month-to-month basis
and you don't know what the operation looks like right now. I think the food and beverage
is up -- really up in the air. I mean it could be anything from a money loser to a good profit
center or it could be minimal -- minimalist type service to a full service restaurant. So, I
think until you get a handle on this operation as it stabilizes and also as you start making
the capital improvements, then, you can reevaluate your options. Right now your options
are open. You could always go to city self operation at some point as you get a real good
handle on -- on -- on the operation and especially the food and beverage and the pace at
which the capital improvements will be made. Then a longer term possibility would be
you stick with the management agreement, but you do more of what we call a hybrid
agreement where it's a -- the fixed fee part of the compensation is lower and, then, there
is a variable component that's based on performance incentive, such as reaching certain
gross revenue thresholds or customer service based thresholds, things like that. So, the
city would be on the hook for a lower fixed compensation and some variable component
that the operator would be at risk for. And I'm going to turn it over to Forrest shortly here.
The capital area -- capital recommendations we thought were really critical. Not just
because the infrastructure is out of date, but there are a lot of safety issues on this course.
You have very narrow hall corridors, fairway corridors, and a lot of homes lining up the
fairways. So, there are a number of safety issues and, you know, the more we got into
this, the more we realized that this capital plan is critical and it's critical to your improving
your financials in the future. So --
Simison: Before we -- Council, any questions on the management structure piece that
you would like to ask at this point in time?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I was hoping that we would get an analysis and perhaps there wasn't one,
because there are too many unknowns or it's not technically a long term management
plan, but I would really like to see if the city invests in the capital improvements that are
recommended over the next five years or so what--what value, then, is created such that
it could be sold off to a private investor/owner and the city no longer manages it? I know
there is a lot of unknowns in that, because you don't know what the future value of the
course is going to be that far out.
Getherall: Right.
Perreault: Is there any way you could do an assessment in that regard if -- if we -- if we
take the full recommendations -- maybe -- maybe with some of the -- the long range
capital enhancements and maybe without -- and is there -- is there a formula or a way for
us to analyze whether it would be kind of a marketable course that we can sell and, then,
not continue to manage long term?
Page 17
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page —of 24
Getherall: Well, I don't think there is any formula, but I will say that -- I mean what you
don't want to do is invest six or seven thousand dollars -- or six or seven million dollars of
the city's money and, then, turn it over to a private lessee. I mean that's the last thing in
the world you want to do. If you were going to consider another lease I would --you know,
I would lean towards, you know, looking at a long-term lease and acquiring significant
capital investment.
Perreault: I apologize. I meant to sell the course, not to --
Getherall: To sell it outright. Oh, well, I doubt that would happen. Again, the only way I
think it would happen is if you -- you -- you spent all the money on the improvements and,
then, you sell it, I don't know that you would recouped the money. There is not a big
market for golf courses right now, unless it's, you know, a private club. I mean golf is
thriving right now, but I think it has to be more of a proven cash flow type situation where
they are -- they are evaluating on a multiple -- the value is a multiple of the net cash flow
and you don't have that here. You don't have reliable history. But if you had five years
where it was cash flowing 300,000 net a year, then, you would probably have somebody
interested. They would look at it. But I think to get to that point where you are net cash
flowing you would be putting a lot have capital improvements into it. If you put the money
-- the capital into it, we think this -- this can be a profitable facility. So, if you are going to
commit to spending that money I think it makes sense to hold onto the asset. But if you
want somebody else to invest in it, then, maybe you go out to the street -- I mean I don't
know that you would have any interested buyers, to be honest with you. You might find
an interested lessee that would take it on on a long term lease if -- you know, they were
going to -- if you give me 30 years, then, I will -- I will do the irrigation system this year, I
will do this in years three to five, I will do -- it's not the way golf is going right now though.
It's getting away from that, to be honest with you. There is no -- there is no easy button
when you are in a situation where the course needs this -- this much money and I don't
think a private owner-- you know, the sales we are seeing happen today are people land
banking golf courses, because they want to -- you know, they see a shot down the road
to redevelop it as housing or something else. So, you may -- you may get -- you know,
somebody will say, well, I will take a chance on this, maybe we will get some housing out
of this five or ten years down the road. So, it's not a big market. It's a low margin business
to begin with. So, there is not a big market for buying golf courses as golf courses.
Especially at this price point. You know, nobody is going to get rich off of this golf course,
so -- unless there was some ulterior motive --future land use change or something, I don't
see that as an option realistically.
Simison: Council, any other questions on the management aspect? Okay.
Getherall: So, I will turn it over to Forrest. We basically broke up the capital improvement
plan into five tiers. Ideally -- and we tell every client this. Ideally you would like to do it
all at once if you had the money, so you don't have to tear up the golf course multiple
times. But obvious -- and most municipalities don't have that luxury. So, we put it into
tiers -- prioritized tiers. One being some of the startup costs, maintenance equipment,
golf carts. Safety mitigation is very important. And, then, Forrest will speak to the different
Page 18
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page ——24
tiers of improvements, including some long range potential capital enhancements that
may help draw more of the community to the golf course.
Richardson: Thanks, Ed. Mayor, Council, Forrest Richardson. Thank you for having me
and I recognize some of you from the Zoom calls that we have had over the last eight
months or so. Before I go further you might not know, but it's Thank A Golf Course
Superintendent Day nationally, so I would like to thank Shane especially for being here,
since he's the only golf course superintendent here, but -- this is -- I would leave most of
my time for questions that you might have. As Ed mentioned, it's a very in depth report.
I would direct you to page 113 of the NGF report. Our role as golf course architects in
this case is to support NGF to help them understand the complexity and the scope of
what maybe needs to happen to this asset that you have acquired and page 113 is the
life cycle chart that was adopted several years ago by all of golf's major bodies to help
owners understand at what interval different components of golf courses wear out and
unlike buildings and other parts of our built environment, golf courses that are very unique
to themselves and that the components wear out at very different intervals and in different
regions they wear out sooner or later. In your case here in Boise I can tell you that there
are no components of this asset that are not past their useful life cycle and I regret having
to tell you that. However, I remain -- I grew up on public golf courses and I'm a huge
believer in their benefit to communities. One of the things sometimes that we have failed
to recognize is that of the 35,000 rounds or so on Lakeview it's the amount of quality time
that people are spending. So, golf is very unique in that regard. Four and a half hours in
some cases. And when you factor that time in these open spaces are extremely important
to communities and I see it all over the west, which is primarily where -- where we work
-- about how valuable courses can be to families and to senior citizens and to people that
maybe ordinarily wouldn't get outside as much and that time factor is very very very
important. So, I remain excited for you and I applaud you for acquiring this -- this asset.
As Ed mentioned, there are people out there that might look at things like this and say,
well, let me develop them or I will hold on to them, but in this case I think keeping it a
public golf course is -- is quite a benevolent thing for you to do. So, we put the capital
improvements into buckets, if you will. They involve replacing the irrigation system and,
then, doing things like drainage and fairway work, rough work, tee construction. And, by
the way, tee construction would also have a diversity component, as we feel that Lakeview
really needs forward tees to bring kids and people into the game that can have a more
fun time on the golf course than where the tees currently are located. There is all sorts
of infrastructure to do with the golf course. There is also the clubhouse needs work and
-- and these are listed in the report. You also have, as many of you know, an aqua range.
So, just a little bit of history. When the club -- when the golf course was built in 1979 it
had a grass range and, then, when the second nine was built in 1997, converted to the
aqua range and so there are issues with that lake and the aqua range that need to be
resolved. Some of that very closely related to the irrigation system and, then, long term
we feel that one of the things that's very important in public golf is that there be
opportunities for bringing new players into the game. So, we have given you some ideas
in the future that you could look at reconfiguring portions of the course to make areas
available to have more of a family oriented new golfer beginning and -- and a component
of the facility that would take less time, so people that might come home from work let's
Page 19
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 11 of 24
say and have a few hours could go enjoy, rather than committing to an entire 18 hole
round. Real briefly just some pictures to help break up the -- the text. This is the original
golf course called Cherry Lane. This is from 1992 from Google's archive and you can see
the -- the yellow line there represents the -- where the newer nine was eventually
constructed. This is your asset as it is today. We think of it in two parts. The west nine,
which is the white holes and, then, the yellow nine down in the eastern part, which is the
back nine, and you will notice something very striking about this, is that the east nine is
very tight and the homes are much closer to the -- to the golf holes and in the survey that
NGF did most of the comments about, you know, the golf course is right on top of my
house and everything -- well, guess where those comments mostly came from? They
came from the eastern part of the property. The golf course was designed by Robert
Baldock who was a well known figure in the west designing golf courses. We think that
he might have been strong armed by the original home developer to maximize those lot
counts and things, which happens, but, unfortunately, that's the reality. So, what we have
done in -- in our work is given you a head start so your staff has a -- let me go back here.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm going to go back -- so, that your staff has a little bit of head start on how
to mitigate some of these safety issues. So, we -- we did a safety analysis, in addition to
looking at all of the components of the course, and, of course, I will answer any questions
about that. I'm not going to go into detail about every single thing that needs to be done,
because there is a lot of them, but if you look at the safety analysis you will see these little
red triangles. They represent in some cases a very small easy thing, like maybe planting
a few more trees or just moving a tee or working with staff on setting up the course to try
to help mitigate some those -- those areas where errant balls are leaving the facility and
I mentioned to you that we looked in the future, so I will real quickly share this slide is this
yellow area represents an area proximal to the clubhouse that we think could be, long
range, a wonderful little short practice area that could be fun for families and events and
outings and we conceptually call that the Zenger nine hole practice course and we gave
you a little taste of what it might look like. Again, these are just concepts, but the -- the
important part is that you think to the future of this facility and, again, bringing kids and
people in that don't play golf currently we think should be one of the goals that Meridian
would have for the golf course. So, with that, again, you have these buckets. I like to
think of the -- the work that we have done here looking at the capital needs as giving your
staff and Kemper currently, your management group, a road map of the future. Certainly
there is a lot of work to be done. One of the cautions that we have made over and over,
not just to Meridian, but to all of our clients is making sure that things dovetail. So, when
you go to replace the irrigation system you want to make sure that you are not spending
that good money, for instance, with the notion that cart paths might need to be redone or
bunkers or a tee might need to be built, you need to have everything in one master plan
and we have given you the roadmap for that, but the next step is to bring together the
consultants, get to a competitive bidding state where you can start making these
improvements. I will also just tell you that right now it's -- there is a supply chain issue
and it hasn't bypassed golf. We are -- we are seeing the same things that other people
have seen. So, I can't tell you if that will quiet down. I'm sure eventually it will quiet down,
but right now it doesn't happen to be a buyer's market, so we have contractors that are
extremely busy, because, as Ed mentioned, we have a robust golf economy. A lot of
people have saved money and haven't spent it and now they are ready to spend it and,
Page 20
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 18 of 24
then, we also have this problem of not being able to get things -- like I can tell you that
working in Anchorage for the city of Anchorage, it's almost impossible to get drainage pipe
anyway in Anchorage, but we certainly can't get any right now. So, we have raided the
Lowe's, the Home Depot, and every -- even the U.S. Army and Air Force to be able to try
to finish a project for the city of Anchorage. So, I would encourage you just on the side
of getting competitive bids, I think one of the pieces of advice I could give you and leave
you with is -- is just work sooner. Try to -- try to get ahead start on things and I think you
will save money if you get a head start on things and give yourself more time to make
decisions on these capital improvements. So, with that any questions? I will turn it back
over to Ed or did you want to pause and take some questions on the capital part?
Simison: Yeah. Let's see if Council has any questions at this point in time.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Share with us from your experience on how other courses have handled the large
capital replacement of irrigation. What's the least painful way you have seen that being
done?
Richardson: From an interruption point of view?
Borton: Yeah.
Richardson: Well, there is--there is so many different trains of thought on that. Of course
the outright closure of a golf course and doing the work all at once has a benefit typically
from a cost point of view. However, most the qualified golf course builders and irrigation
consultants in today's world understand the realities of keeping courses open. So, you
-- you have a choice of going for almost on a hole by hole basis. One of the complexities
at Lakeview is that you have to keep the old system operating while the new system is in
place. So, what we would do typically is put in a new pump station and get that working
and it might in your case charge the old system, as well as the new system and these are
things yet to be resolved, but it is possible to go hole by hole, keep the course open, get
the new system in and, then, magically turn it on. I would guess having been at Lakeview
and -- and understanding the complexities of the irrigation system, that you might be
better off looking at a nine by nine approach where you close nine holes and work on, for
instance, the west nine and, then, go to the east nine. What I think would be in your best
interest would be to work with your irrigation consultant and your staff and your -- and
your -- your whole team to maybe go bid that work and ask the contractors to bid it in
different ways, because one of the things that we find in golf course construction is
different contractors will have different approaches and one might be advantageous to
you from a revenue point of view to keep the course open. I think that's what you are
asking. So, there are flexibilities, but I think that probably in the end you might benefit
from a nine by nine approach, at least that's how I have kind of phrased -- phrased it in
my vision, so --
Page 21
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 19 of 24
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: First, thanks for being here and I know Council have probably dived deep into
the very detailed report that you have put together for us and appreciate kind of giving us
some -- some high level pieces of that. You didn't touch on this in your presentation, but
it's in the report and it piqued an interest in me, the trade-offs and the benefits of kind of
the -- the accounting of the golf operation, the general fund versus an enterprise fund
versus a special fund. Can you maybe talk Council through the pros and cons of that and
maybe -- I don't -- there is not a recommendation in there, but maybe be giving Council
an idea for cities that run municipal golf courses really well what that philosophy is.
Getherall: Sure. It's -- and it's public policy, so we try not to make a recommendation.
We try to present, you know, the pros and cons. We did -- we have done a couple of
municipal golf courses over the last decade and only about half are covering their costs
on site. Then when you throw in capital costs and maybe for enterprise funds, the general
fund will charge enterprise fund for indirect, you know, allocated overhead, et cetera, and
that put -- makes it even less likely, when you overlay that, about a third of our
respondents were making money and this -- you know, among enterprise funds and
general funds. So, the problem is if you go to enterprise fund and, then, you start losing
money and losing a lot of money and you have an accumulated deficit in the fund and
you are basically robbing Peter to pay Paul. I mean we literally did a job in Florida where
they-- whatever the debt is at the end of the year they just do a transfer in to match it and
that's considered a revenue item, that's how they get by the auditors, because an
enterprise fund is supposed to pay for itself. So, it's very transparent to voters and to
everybody else when it's an enterprise fund and even somewhat as a special revenue
fund. In the general fund it's generally a line item within parks and recreation or public
works or what have you and sometimes we will look at city CAFRs, C-A-F-R-s, and we
will search for golf and sometimes we don't see golf and said, oh, it's a general fund
operation. So, it's not even listed anywhere in the CAFR. So, it's not transparent and to
be honest with you, sometimes golf courses can be more successful as a general fund,
because, you know, they are not worried about spending the money they need to spend
to improve the facility, whereas in an enterprise fund if it's already losing money
operationally now it has capital needs. It becomes very contentious. So, we are going to
throw more money at the golf course when they already owe -- when there is already a
negative 1.2 million dollar balance in the golf fund and unless you are pretty confident
that the golf course is going to be profitable, you could be putting yourself behind the eight
ball from the beginning under enterprise fund accounting. Special revenue fund is kind
of an offshoot of that. It's not intended to pay -- to pay for everything the golf course
needs, it's just intended to have high cost recovery and a lot of golf courses -- even to
lose money they generally have higher cost recovery than -- than other recreation
amenities within the city. So, let's say a golf course is losing a couple hundred thousand
dollars, but they have 90 percent cost recovery and, then, you look at other city services
that have 50 percent cost recovery or zero percent, it kind of puts it into context. But if
we had to make recommendation, you know, I would say put it in the general fund, you
Page 22
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 20 of 24
know, a lot less problems or special revenue fund, like I said. I don't know if that -- if that
construct exists in Idaho, but it can be -- it can become a shell game with an enterprise
fund that's losing money. You know, we just did a study for the city of Sunnyvale,
California. They had three years in a row losing a million and a half dollars and we did a
subsidy analysis for them. They wanted to know, first of all, is that high. We said, yes,
that's very high and at the end of every year they would just transfer the money and to
wipe out the deficit and I said this -- you know, it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. So, it's
-- that's an extreme example, but, believe it or not, they made -- they are going to make
money this year with the pandemic. They made up a million and a half dollar deficit
somehow, because they added 40,000 rounds on their -- on their 27 holes. But it's really
a public policy issue. We just did -- we did work in Mission Viejo, California, that acquired
a golf course and we recommended the same thing to them. Said if you don't want -- if
you don't want a lot of headaches, then, don't set this up as an enterprise fund, unless
there is a strong expectation that it can carry its cost.
Cavener: Great. Thank you.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thanks. I thought it was an interesting report. I was wondering, I -- you know,
can you give us an example of what is the most profitable public golf course you have
ever seen? What is a great example of a city -- if that -- if that has existed. That's a big
leap. What -- what did that look like? What's a good case study of a great example of a
successful public golf course and what--what would be the lessons learned that we could
take away from that?
Getherall: Yeah. There is a lot of -- I mean there is some extreme examples, like Torrey
Pines, you know, city of San Diego is Torrey Pines hosted U.S. Opens and, you know,
what -- what else? Bethpage Black in New York -- New York State courses. But if you
are not talking about super premium unis, there is an exam -- there is some examples
down in south Florida. Osprey Point, which is Palm -- a Palm Beach county facility, they
netted over two million dollars on 36 holes. It's in a dense population and it's in a market
that's seen a lot of closures of-- of other public golf courses, but they do things right. It's
-- you know, they are not charging 80, 90 -- or I guess they are about 80, 90 dollars in
season, which is winter in Florida. But they have resident rates, discounted resident rates,
and they present a really nice product. I guess that's the bottom line is it's -- it's a visually
stunning property. They present a really nice product. They keep it in good shape. But
a lot of it ties down to the market. If you have a lot of bodies -- I mean Southern California,
for instance, the LA -- LA County and all these city courses, they are not in the greatest
condition most of them, because they are turning 80, 90 thousand rounds a year on 18
hole courses merely because the bodies are there and LA County collects 15 million
dollars a year in rent payments. All their facilities are leased. So, they are collecting 15
million in rent payments from their lessees and their lessees are still making money and
it's because they are -- you know, just an incredible amount of golfers in that market. So,
Page 23
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 21 —24
I wouldn't say there is any one thing, but, you know, obviously, good management, good
customer service and a real -- and a desirable product are basically the keys.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, a quick follow up.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: So, you have analyzed our market and you have seen the challenges and
constraints around the setup of our golf course. What is the best case scenario for the
City of Meridian? Do you think it's possible for this golf course to be profitable? If we
made all the investments in the three tiers of capital improvements, how long do you think
it would take us to break even? Do you think it could become profitable at some point
based on what you have seen?
Getherall: I think so. I mean if we have any reliance at all on the previous numbers from
the lessee I think we only had one year that we thought was -- was reliable. It showed
close to break even in FY-18 or '19. You know, I -- I'm willing to say anything is possible.
I just talked about a million and a half dollar turnaround in Sunnyvale, California, with --
with a golf course that's also beaten down. You know, everything is shot at that golf
course. But you may -- for all I know you may be profitable this year. I mean we haven't
seen the recent numbers, but I know you have been, you know, doing a lot of rounds of
golf. I think the X factor this year, other than the facility improvements, are the food and
beverage operation. You know, you have a lot of homes in direct proximity to that golf
course, a lot of opportunity for nongolf food and beverage business. It has to be at the
appropriate margins and the labor market has to stabilize and you have to get a real good
analysis of the input costs and make sure you can charge enough to make a profit on the
food and beverage and, you know, do special events around that. But Forrest talked
about with the Zenger course, that's an opportunity to get nongolfers there and, you know,
to do program and contests and what have you and you have the built-in customer base
of these people living in the mile square neighborhoods, especially these season pass
holders, you know, you -- you wouldn't be able to survive without them, because there is
some parts of this golf course that are just not appealing to avid golfers that -- the
narrowness of the fairways, the lack of challenge if you are a really good golfer. If you
are a really bad golfer there is -- there is an issue with, you know, losing 20 balls into --
into people's yards and -- and houses. So, that's not to say you can't do, you know,
40,000 rounds and have a strong season ticket base and do well in the restaurant. So,
think -- yes, I think this can be profitable. If it's not expected to pay for its -- its capital
cost, its debt service, then, I think it can make money -- break even or make money on
the ground with improvements for sure and you better be ready to raise rates, of course,
when it's -- when it's a much improved facility.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Can you go into a little more detail about the hybrid management structure
Page 24
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 22—24
from the management company's standpoint? Do they -- what would be their incentive
to join in the risk and do they require a certain number of years of profitability before
agreeing to that? Can you give us some more details on that?
Getherall: Yeah. That's a great question. I don't think you would find a management
company anywhere that would agree to that right now until they saw -- not just because
of all the capital needs, et cetera, but because you didn't have a reliable history of
financials from the prior operator. So, it would probably take, you know, two to three years
of, you know, we think we can keep this going and we would like to participate in the
upside, rather than just take a flat management fee. So, they would have to believe in
the upside of the facility. You know, again, another thing in your favor I talked about earlier
is the population growth in this market. You know, if no new golf courses open, then, you
know, you are going to get your fair share of those -- you know, that -- that new demand
and some of these people were coming from pricier golf markets, so maybe organically
the green fees are going to, you know, start rising in this market as well as more people
come in from more expensive markets. But it would take I think several years of cash
flow to -- for an operator to say, yeah, we will share in this, we will take -- we will take a
piece of the risk.
Simison: Council, any other questions? Is that everything or is there still a wrap up?
Getherall: We actually had a few more areas I can go through real quickly or if you want
to -- about three more --
Simison: We have an Executive Session we will want to get to, so if you want to go
through them quickly and we can see -- and we can always reschedule a Zoom portion
for anything that doesn't get covered and follow up in an additional week.
Getherall: Okay. I will just go through these real quickly. On the golf playing fees, we
basically said keep the playing structure -- the fee structure the same for the -- for the
time being. As improvements are made, you know, you could start contemplating small
fee increases. But you also want to try and capture inflationary increases just to keep up
with what's going on in the world now. You mentioned replacing the VIP pass program
with an internal loyalty program, so you don't have to pay that outside vendor the money
for it and, again, as an improvement program moves forth there should be some room --
some fee increases at that time. Food-beverage we talked about already tangentially. If
things normalize in the world, which hopefully someday soon they will, and you can get
employees and you can get supplies and input costs come down, you could, you know,
really look at that restaurant as a potential profit center and, really, a community gathering
place. So, if that doesn't happen, then, you got to think about a more basic food and
beverage operation that you think of when you think of a municipal golf course. But that
will kind of be a shame and in a sense given all the homes in the immediate proximity and
the lack of food and beverage operations in proximity to the golf course. And, then, the
third option that we see a lot of golf courses do is a private concession and we have even
seen that when a management company is in place, but the food and beverage is
privatized. It's not that common, but we have seen that as well. Closing thoughts. Do
Page 25
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 23 of 24
we have time? Okay. Yeah. As we mentioned, the golf -- the golf course presents both
opportunities and challenges. You have some key public policy decisions to be made.
You have to come up with some money -- quite a lot of money to make these
improvements. But it's a good market, it's a growing market, and strong loyal fan -- or
player base already from the mile square neighborhood. So, opportunity to broaden the
engagement and broaden the appeal of the facility with, you know, events -- nongolf
events and some -- you know, I think the Zenger course would be a great idea. It's the
way golf is going to bring new kids -- more kids into the game and more nongolfers into
the game and families to the -- to the golf course and, then, at the end, you know -- and
this goes to the question earlier. Does -- or we think it does have a chance to break even
or make a profit and its key differentiators right now -- or its -- you know, the value, its
walkability and the community feel to the facility, but, you know, with -- with continued
facility infrastructure improvements we think, you know, we think it could draw more
outside play as well. And that is it.
Simison: Council, any final questions or comments? Okay. Thank you very much. Steve,
Shane, anything else from you at this time? All right. Perfect. Well, thank you very much.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
16. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from
disclosure as provided in Chapter 1, Title 74, Idaho Code.
Simison: So, Council, with that we are at Item 16.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Move we go into Executive Session pursuant to Idaho State Code 74-206(1)(d).
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to go into Executive Session. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. We will go into Executive Session.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (5:44 p.m. to 6:04 p.m.)
Page 26
Meridian City Council Work Session
Item#1. September 14,2021
Page 24—24
Simison: Council, do I have a motion?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we come out of Executive Session.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to come out of Executive Session. All in favor
signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and we are out of Executive
Session.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6.04 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
9 / 28 / 2021
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Page 27
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Bainbridge Subdivision No. 12 Pedestrian Pathway Easement
Page 3
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-135637
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=6 CHE FOWLER 09/15/2021 10:32 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
Bainbridge Subdivision No.12
ESMT-2021-0084
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of September, 20 21 , between Brighton Development
Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as"Grantee";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian
desires to establish a public pathway;and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and
provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway;and
WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described
herein;and
NOW,THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows:
THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property,
described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway
easement for multiple-use non-motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such
facilities at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns
forever.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any
permanent structures,trees,brush,or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for
this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated
herein.
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto,that
the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the
easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV.01/01/2020
Item#1.
Project Name(Subdivision):
Bainbridge Subdivision No. 12
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 20 , between Brighton Development
Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian
desires to establish a public pathway; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and
provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and
WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described
herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows:
THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property,
described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway
easement for multiple-use non-motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such
facilities at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns
forever.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any
permanent structures,trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for
this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated
herein.
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that
the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the
easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV.01/01/2020
Page 4
Item#1.
then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or
which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall
be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful
right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet
possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and
year first hereinabove written.
GRANTOR: Brighton Development Inc.
By: oat n . Wardle, President
STAT F IDAHO )
) ss
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on g a (date) by Jonathan D. Wardle
(name of individual), [complete the following i signing in a representative capacity, or strike
the following if signing in an individual capacity] on behalf of Brighton Development Inc.
(name of entity on behalf of whom record was executed), in the following representative
capacity: President (type of authority such as officer or trustee)
(stamp)
Notary Signature
SHARI VAUGHAN My Commission Expires:--- — I-ao a
N®tary Public-state of Idaho
€gtfirnission Number 20181002
My€gmmission Expires Jun 1, 2024
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV.01/01/2020
Page 5
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-14-2021
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-14-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, )
. ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 9-14-2021 (date) by Robert E. Simison
and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City
Clerk,respectively.
Notary Signature
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Item#1.
km
E N G I N E E R I N G
August 6,2021
Bainbridge Subdivision No.12
Project No.20-145
Legal Description
City of Meridian Pathway Easement
Exhibit A
A parcel of land for a City of Meridian Pathway Easement situated in the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 27,Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being
more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section 27,which bears
S89°17'35"E a distance of 2,647.29 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of
said Section 27;
Thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 27, N89°17'35"W a distance of
1,188.00 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said northerly line,S00°42'24"W a distance of 72.00 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the
southerly right-of-way line of West Chinden Boulevard (State Highway 20/26);
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line,S00°42'24"W a distance of 2.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Thence S00°42'25"W a distance of 14.00 feet to a point;
Thence N89°17'35"W a distance of 34.14 feet to a point;
Thence S74°00'28"W a distance of 41.80 feet to a point;
Thence N89°17'35"W a distance of 486.82 feet to a point;
Thence N00°42'26"E a distance of 14.00 feet to a point;
Thence S89`17'35"E a distance of 484.77 feet to a point;
Thence N74°00'28"E a distance of 41.80 feet to a point;
Thence S89°17'35"E a distance of 36.19 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said description contains a total of 7,879 square feet, more or less, and is subject to any existing
easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied.
Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part hereof.
a ,a12459 0 ow
�9 a� OF
L. 9A1'1'�
CS .6• zo21
5725 North Discovery Way • Boise,Idaho 83713 • 208.639.6939• kmengllp.com
Page 7
Item#1.
\CAD\SURVEY\EXHIBITS\20-145 CITY OF MERIDIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT.DWG,AARON BALLARD,816/2021,KYOCERATASKALFA 4550CI KX.PC3,--
�I N
Z O
c
I� Z \P C7
O I I n r-
NI
I m I me
I I DOO ® p m. I In
0 �
I 0
Z
,v Ln I I 70' N
N M x x M D O O
nr', O O 0 0 c c
U � � � �\
- z z
o o rn z o o I
I-_ M M cn
II r p ODD C 0 C
�r7 a Z = 3 (n S I <
K: K C7 Z co � IZ NO V ' \ ,� _S
m m D -� D G (D 72'
—ZI -�C D N' Q I M Iz
> r r Y O Q7 \I rn
z z > =3 0) I
rn rn I0W
V1 p O Cr 00 ODrn vP, co <
I
O U) NOG N v � Q cNDIC;
(D N
co o% M s
p rnLA
n N
N OD 1 ` U \
cfl ONCP N
WP W �a L v
C,i
? � cola-
WEn
S00'42_24"W
IR
��I 72.00' (TIE) z z
cDIL' n0p-1
N J � NtoEn pCC)
14.00' y"� S00'42'24"W D o o p o M I�`' z c-'
o
S00'42'24"W 72.00' (TIE) "' � N N o OD I C I
N
D -> p I`° cmizZ
bN o -Ic0
p p o DO Ltl-l
rn
K
N p 1zv —Zi
N N
C71 W
N Z
M
0 y m
EXHIBIT B - City of Meridian Pathway Easement
OD
m Z Bainbridge Subdivision No. 12
3 m A �"
N O 2 Z
v 1.=am O
m
TI
w Situated in a portion of the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of
wW< —
D z o Section 27, T4N., R1W., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, ID
Q
Page 8
Item#1.
Title: Date:07-12-2021
Scale: 1 inch= 100 feet File: Deed Plotter.des
Tract 1: 0.181 Acres: 7879 Sq Feet:Closure=n89.1735w 0.00 Feet: Precision>1/999999: Perimeter= 1154 Feet
001=s00.4225w 14.00 004=n89.1735w 486.82 007=n74.0028e 41.80
002=n89.1735w 34.14 005=n00.4226e 14.00 008=s89.1735e 36.19
003=s74.0028w 41.80 006=s89.1735e 484.77
Page 9
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Jocelyn Park Subdivision No. 1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No.
1
Page 10
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-135643
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 CHE FOWLER 09/15/2021 10:33 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
Jocelyn Park Subdivision No. 1
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 1
ESMT-2021-0093
THIS Easement Agreement, made this 14th day of between
September 2 021
CW-JPark,LLC.,A Delaware Limited Liability Co. ("Grantor") and the City of Meridian, an Idaho
Municipal Corporation ("Grantee");
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of-
way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described;
and
WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through
underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and
WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to
time by the Grantee;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantor,
and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby give, grant and
convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and
maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following
described property:
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B)
The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of
sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their
i-naintenance, repair and replaceinent at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free
right of access to such facilities at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of-way unto the said
Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever,
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNIDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto,
that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area
of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs
and maintenance, However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or
restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there
in violation of this easement,
Sanitary Scwcr and Water Main Easement REV,0 1/0 1/2020
Item#2.
THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees that Grantor will not place or allow to be placed
any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area
described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the
purposes stated herein.
THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the right-
of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of
any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted
which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and
become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized
and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that Grantor has a
good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that Grantor will warrant and forever
defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons
whomsoever.
THE COVENANTS OF GRANTOR made herein shall be binding upon Grantor's
successors, assigns, heirs,personal representatives,purchasers, or transferees of any kind.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their
signatures the day and year first herein above written.
GRANTOR:
CW-JPark,LC,a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Jim Sansbum,V.P. of Finance of Hayden Homes Idaho LLC,Under Power of Attorney
e"n
STATE OF )
) ss
County of AA6- )
0C%CYIV'}'GQ
This record was acknowledged before me on p1 � ( late) by Jim Sansburn, on behalf of
CW-JPark, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, in the following representative capacity:
V.P. of Finance of Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Under Power of Attorney.
l� 090AL STAMP
SER Y D ANE GUTHRIE
E NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON1x'=.�e,�`` l� \� csw_ `Q
`e
COMMISSION NO.987928 Notary Signature
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 20,2023 My Commission Expires:..YVNCA �? ao.aoa3
Sanitary Sewcr and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020
Page 12
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-14-2021
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-14-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, )
: ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 9-14-2021 (date) by
Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in
their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively.
Notary Signature
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022
Sanitary Scwcr and Water Main Eascmcn[ REV.01/0 1/2020
Item#2.
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Jocelyn Park Subdivision
City of Meridian Sanitary Sewer & Water Easement #1
An easement being located in the NE '/4 of the NE '/n of Section 25, T.3N., RAW., B.M., City of
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NE '/4 of the NE
%(E 1/16 corner), from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northeast corner of the NE
%4 of said Section 25 bears South 89°21'45" East a distance of 1320.00 feet;
Thence South 89°21'45" East along the northerly boundary of said NE '/4 of the NE '/4 a distance of
107.76 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said boundary South 0°38'15" West a distance of 987.27 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence South 89d34'43" East a distance of 30.00 feet to a point;
Thence South 0'25'17" West a distance of 30.74 feet to a point;
Thence North 89033'20"West a distance of 30.00 feet to a point;
Thence North 0'25'17" East a distance of 30.73 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said easement contains 922 square feet(0.021 acres) more or less and is subject to any other
easements existing or in use.
Clinton W. Hansen, PLS ���L LA Np S
Land Solutions, PC
April 1, 2021 r` � 15 I R GFm
0
r 1 118 Q
�f�y9T e 0 F
TOE W
Jocelyn Park Subdivision
L231I Cal 'CjJ t101"l� Meridian Sewer&water Easement
Land Surveying and Consulting
Job No.20-59
Page 1 of 1
Page 14
I
►tem#2. EXHIBIT B
JOCELYN PARK SUBDIVISION
CITY OF MERIDIAN SANITARY SEWER & WATER EASEMENT #1
24�1153' E 1/16 BASIS OF BEARING
1/448"W ` �— S89'21'45"E 1320,00' W. VICTORY RD. 24 s
25 107.76' 121Z24'
25• .f0
>3
V)
N
tl0
O -
3
Ln
co
r7
o�
cn.
POINT OF
BEGINNING 30.00'
S89'34 43 E
=' 922 SF
0.021 AC.' o
N8 30.00'
30.00
Z
—
�OGE�`M P PRK s MER���AN r1F! W. WINNIPEG ST.
01 251 50' 100,
,D�P4 LAlyQ� mmmj
T� �
0. 11118 om
of IUt10f1I
wp,�`' Land Surveying and Consulting
231 E.5TH U.,STE,A
MERIDIAN,ID 83642
(208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 Fax
www.landsolutions,biz JOB NO 20-59
Page 15
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement - Barnett Property
Page 16
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-135773
BOISEIDAHO Pgs=5 ANGIE STEELE 09/15/2021 11:49 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement - Barnett Property
ESMT-2021-0094
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of Septembcr20 21 . between Edgar R. Barnett
hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Grantee";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian
desires to establish a public pathway; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and
provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and
WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described
herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property,
described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway
easement for multiple-use non-motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such
facilities at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns
forever.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any
permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for
this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated
herein.
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that
the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the
easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 0 1/0 1/2020
Item#3.
then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or
which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall
be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful
right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet
possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and
year first hereinabove written.
GRANTOR:
- ��� ;:9� —
Edgar R. ett,Owner
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on OVK/,�&! (date) by Edgar R. Barnett .
(stamp) - .. - -- ,�✓�
Not/ y Signature
Wee*
Nld Commission Expires: D��P'��o �
�5:-DYEp. .
�
my
ON
OMMM In
�
%•;sS.ON NO��;.••
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020 Page 18
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-14-2021
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-14-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, )
: ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 9-14-2021 (date) by Robert E. Simison
and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City
Clerk, respectively.
Notary Signature
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Dlope ID:71B85C9F-9D5D-4729-A2B4-5D9C149C1D7C
Item#3.
601 Sherman Ave,Suite 1
KELLER Coeur d'Alene,ID 83814
A S S O C I A T E S ' (208)758-8601
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
of
SIDEWALK EASEMENT
EDGAR R.BARNETT
TO
CITY OF MERIDIAN
That portion of Lots 14 and Lot 13, Block 2 of Larkwood Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, filed in Book
58 of Plats at pages 5494 and 5495, and Amended by an Affidavit recorded January 15, 1991, as Instrument No.
9102501, records of Ada County, Idaho, being situated in the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30,
Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 30, from which the South 1/4 corner of said Section bears
North 89°46'27"West, 2,632.50 feet; thence along the south line of said Section North 89°46'27"West, 229.92
feet;thence leaving said south line North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of said
Lot 14; thence along the east line of said Lot 14 North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING:
thence leaving said east line North 89°46'27" West, 135.40 feet;
thence 33.96 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 65.00 feet and a central angle
of 29°56'02"; said curve having a long chord which bears North 74°48'53" West, a chord distance of 33.57 feet;
thence 28.75 feet along the are of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet and a central angle of
29°57'09"; said curve having a long chord which bears North 74°49'26" West, a chord distance of 28.43 feet,
more or less, to the easterly boundary line of Tustin Subdivision No. 2, according to the plat thereof filed in Book
108 of Plats at pages 15190-15192, as Instrument No. 2015-040515,records of Ada County, Idaho;
thence along said east line North 00°25'24" East, 12.00 feet;
thence leaving said east line 34.98 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 67.00
feet and a central angle of 29°54'45"; said curve having a long chord which bears South 74°48'14" East, a chord
distance of 34.58 feet;
thence 27.69 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 53.00 feet and a central angle of
29°56'02"; said curve having a long chord which bears South 74°48'53" East, a chord distance of 27.38 feet;
thence South 89°46'27" East, 135.45 feet, more or less, \ ,kNLLANZ)
to the east line of said Lot 14; OcjS G\STER�OG�QL
thence South 00°25'24" West, 12.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. o�g emsv o
a- 13257 X
Containing 2,377 square feet or(0.055 acres), more or less. 8 Ada 5047 N� Zo
OF SOP CD
COPP��
Page 20
[doclog/file location] GROWING POSSIBILITIES
r
o
sv) o
X w N Ob'O b/ 3/I ObIJ 1911007 'N N ce)
W W cn o ,6Z'Z59Z R.Lk9Zo00N - - - ,y OR
co
QCIO) m o ss
0
o ti
= a 2 p ; �� ti o F. 0 0 Lo U- O
Q �_ N N CV O U
v CY) I Q c9 A, W
w N
W CO 0 �s S
Z o cu S o�
Qucu
a ��Od
0
LU
N l/d— — — —l/d— — — —l/d— — — —��d
3�.t Z.SZ oON
°O
0 o
W v w w L££00066'ON
elf¢ ih 'Itih '1SNIlNEIMSV3 1
cwi] m Lo rn ao � 2i3MOd OHV ,09 m0 1
v v
O Z Z N 0 6+ o
co N U Q 0 0
j0 \ o
J V:
H T M m
z O W .. O04
W u^i v r 00 0Di :: F- 3 m
Co CO m � N N O N N
V J
w = o V omo
rn
¢ U W Y z z O
w ¢ N °' 'n c" - U 1N3W3SH3 U 0
z
w ;° L lyM3aISZ� ,v � a Z
U N N N N m w
O J J
Zb
0 0 0 0 o Z� 0 NIVM341S col 0 I
ui Lo � ai cQ� W J
q co (D to V
CL O 0 W
w Lo � a W a
rn r rn (D U cj
W M N m N V .. O It
J N or)
I
N
w I Q
r W
a j U U 0£b50 M'ON 3 Z Q
r U 1SNIlN3IMSV3 v ° W Z
n
213MOd OHHaI.09 2 O
- - -vd- - - -i/d- - - -vd- - - -1/ —vd - U ( F-
n 6l Z Z cn
= 1N3W3Sd3 W Z 5
(� JNIISIX3,0£ z CY
q w i 0 w Y 1
n z N N OO O U m Q Q
n a m o o \ I z O O m
c z � I W Z Z O W
m a
~ F=- o o \ J CL a O W
w o 0
] Z W Poryry���
J J
J U m m
coa a FO
J Z J J
J
n Page 21
6mp'Iaaed Paweg Aem41ed ueipuay,00y°ojnV0NN80AA A3AunS\SAeM4led ueipuayq S00-560Kz\:r
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement - Barnett Rentals, LLC
Page 22
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-135664
BOISEIDAHO Pgs=5 ANGIE STEELE 09/15/2021 10:42 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
Lemp Pedestrian Pathway Easement -
Barnett Rentals, LLC.
ESMT-2021-0095
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of 0 21 r , between SeptembF' en Barnett Rentals LLC
Meridian,
2
hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Grantee";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian
desires to establish a public pathway; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and
provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and
WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described
herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property,
described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway
easement for multiple-use non-motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such
facilities at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns
forever.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any
permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for
this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated
herein.
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that
the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the
easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Item#4.
then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or
which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall
be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful
right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet
possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and
year first hereinabove written.
GRANTOR: Barnett Rentals LLC
Sharlot Barnett, Manager
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 0
0 (date) by Sharlot Barnett
(name of individual), [complete the following if signing in a representative capacity, or strike
the following if signing in an individual capacity] on behalf of Barnett Rentals LLC
(name of entity on behalf of whom record was executed), in the following representative
capacity: Manager (type of authority such as officer or trustee)
(stamp) 4
i/�~J
No'�ry ignature
608694899 k y Commission Expires:
••• DEL ••� 'J S ���t� 1 /I �
1ZXPIR!!S 10 i
•
•
�••,`SSjON N ��••
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Page 24
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-14-2021
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-14-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, )
: ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 9-14-2021 (date) by Robert E. Simison
and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City
Clerk, respectively.
Notary Signature
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
DocuSign Envelope ID:71B85C9F-9D5D-4729-A2B4-5D9C149C1D7C
Item#4. 601 Sherman Ave,Suite 1
ELLER Coeur d'Alene,ID 83814
A S S O C I A T E S ' (208)758-8601
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
of
SIDEWALK EASEMENT
BARNETT RENTALS LLC
TO
CITY OF MERIDIAN
That portion of Lot 15, Block 2 of Larkwood Subdivision,according to the plat thereof, filed in Book 58 of Plats
at paged 5494 and 5495, and Amended by an Affidavit recorded January 15, 1991, as Instrument No. 9102501,
records of Ada County, Idaho, being situated in the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 4
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 30, from which the South 1/4 corner of said Section bears
North 89°46'27" West, 2.632.50 feet; thence along the south line of said Section North 89°46'27" West, 229.92
feet;thence leaving said south line North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet, more or less,to the southwest corner of said
Lot 15;thence continuing along said west line North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
thence continuing along said west line North 00°25'24" East, 12.00 feet;
thence leaving said west line South 89°46'27"East, 146.17 feet, more or less,to a point on the west line of
Quitclaim Deed recorded August 2,2018, Instrument No. 20 1 8-0729 1 7, records of Ada County, Idaho;
thence along said west line South 00°13'33" West, 12.00 feet;
thence leaving said west line North 89°46'27" West, 146.21 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 1,754 square feet or(0.040 acres), more or less.
L LA ND
Gj G\S TER �G
13257
�o
1 4� 04��... ATE OF \10
��CF COPP�S
Page 26
[doclog/file location] GROWING POSSIBILIT
Item#4.
OR ss arOM 3AOMD isnoO7 'N
0
Z W��O do �� - - - - - - °; M
a
S f N LLO OU o \
J N ('7 Mtu I M
O A,17
/a —nnoa Moa Moa m
O
y I
3 o
c Lo
N
co
°° V I z,-Tfc) �
f y N N rnIv
oQ UO >i,w2cism o �Z
CN
rn
m
Via• Q Lo zb N
U J
Ill cl`- N
W � � Q
Q Z
a w C)
Q N N ..
`I w
Z Z co
W
W z `�' �' Z
O v IM_ Q
� N `'' O C
w w �"'•, 1N3W3S`d3 a �
(n w o Z � Q >IldM3aIS Zl Z
JQQ O m O
W Iq
co _ 00 0£ 00 0£ 1 v
Y C f O O I/d- - - -l/d- - - /d — - -
a Z Z N N Q 6, 3J7Z.9Z ON
M J 0 O7 N J w O I
W w J O
a w
_ C
1 m w N
� J Q L W
m w
Z :L-- LLl o I
o Z w U F- 0� 1N3W3Sb'3
U) r Z Q ONIISIX3.0£
U X Q W Z I
o � o � w o
W
L) o 1° U O F-
03 W Z U L££00066-ON
W Z 1SNI1N3W3St/3co
Q m 2 0 Y U 2!OMOd OHHdI.09 0
O W Z Q N
N IL UmQ �-
o rl-
O O� O� m w I 0
o >- uZ, � � o w I
� ~ w 000 w U
�O A
b �
Ucom
M M O
m
o_
O l/d— — — —l/d T — — —l/d— — — —l/d— — — --1/d— — — —l/d— — —
> I
cry M
cn
Page 27
U Bmp'laoied sleluaa lloweg 6em4led uelpualq\pypolnylgNlNaOM A3ANnS\s6emyled ueipualry SO
O
D
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Paramount Village Center Subdivision Pedestrian Pathway Easement
Page 28
Item#5.
M*- IE Community Development Department
Easement Submission Form and Checklist
ProjectInformation
ProjectName: Linder Rd Sidewalk Widening at Paramount Village Center
Location/streetaddress: N. Linder Road - between Cayuse Creek and Linder Village
Applicant/Contact Information
Applicant: Katie Phone:208-846-9189
Applicant e-mail: Katie@goMGM.com cell: 208-955-2675
Owner/Grantor Information
Owner/Grantor name:Kevin Amar, Paramount Professional Center HOA President phone: 208)278-4359
Owner/Grantor address:
City:Meridian State:ID Zip:
Owner/Grantor e-mail:kevin@biltmoreco.com
Tyne of Easement:Check Applicable Box Permanent Easement: Fv] Yes Eko
Cross Access Pedestrian Pathway
Fire Department Turn Around Sanitary Sewer
Fire Emergency Access Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
Fire Lane Temporary Construction
Fire Substandard Street Water Main
Irrigation Jurisdiction Welcome Sign
Release,Vacation, Abandonment Other
STAFF USE ONLY:
Record ID#
Staff approval: Date:
THIS EASEMENT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY EXECUTED
ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE TWO OF THIS CHECKLIST.ONCE THE SUBMITTAL IS
DEEMED COMPLETE,STAFF WILL PROCESS THE REQUIRED EASEMENT FOR RECORDING.
i City processing note: Remove the submission form and checklist before scanning easement for Accelaprocessing.)
Pagel of 2
Community Development. 33 E.Broadway Avenue,Ste. 102 Meridian,Idaho 83642
Phone:208-887-2211 Fax:208-887-1297 www.meridianciiy.om Page 29
Item#5. IDIA 'v-'
Utility Easement Execution Inatructions and Checklist:
Please follow these instructions to avoid delay in the processing of your easement:
1. ❑Identify the associated Project name in the box in the upper left corner of the first page.
2. ❑If the Project will include more than one easement of any particular type(Sewer,Water, or
Water and Sewer combined), or if future numbered easements are anticipated in the same project,
please identify the sequential number of this easement in the box in the upper left corner of the first
page.
3. l]Leave the date of the easement blank. This will be completed by the City Clerk.
4. [:[Identify the Grantor in the space provided on the first line of the easement.
5. ❑Grantor's signature on Page 2 must be properly notarized, and the notary acknowledgement
must indicate the capacity in which the Grantor is signing. For Example:
a. For LLC:
This record was acknowledged before me on (date)by John Smith,on behalf of
Smithland Properties. LLC in the following representative capacity:Member or Mana er.
b. For Corporation:
This record was acknowledged before me on (date)by John Smith,on behalf of
Smithland Properties,Inc in the following representative capacity:President.
c. For Individual:
This record was acknowledged before me on (date)by John Smith.
c. For one entity on behalf of another enti :
The Notary should line-through the pre-printed notary block on the easement and attach
a correct form of compound acknowledgment that is in compliance with the
requirements of Idaho Code 51-116A. (A sample may be available on Meridian's
Community Development website under"Forms").
6. ❑Exhibit A(Legal Description) must be identified at the top as "EXHIBIT A"and the caption
should match the name of the Project and Easement Number as identified in the box on Page 1.
7. ❑Exhibit B (Easement Depiction or Map)must be identified at the top as"EXHIBIT B"and the
caption should match the name of the Project and Easement Number as identified in the box on
page one.
If you have any questions about these instructions please contact Ted Baird in the City of Meridian
Legal Department at 208-898-5506,
Page 2 of 2
Community Development. 33 E.Broadway Avenue,Ste. 102 Meridian,Idaho 83642
Phone:208-887-2211 Fax:208-887-1297 www.meridiancity.ore Page 30
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-135644
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 CHE FOWLER 09/15/2021 10:34 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
Paramount Village Center Subdivision
Pedestrian Pathway Easement
ESMT-2021-0096
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT
Paramount Professional
THIS AGREEMENT, made this -14th day Of September20 21, between Center Owners Assoc.
hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as"Grantee",-
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian
desires to establish a public pathway; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and
provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and
WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described
herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows:
THE GRANTOR does hereby grant to the Grantee an easement on the following property,
described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway
easement for multiple-use non-motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such
facilities at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns
forever.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any
perinanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for
this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated
herein,
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that
the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the
easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,
Pedestrian Pathway Easement V. 01/01/2020
Item#5.
then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or
which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall
be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful
right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet
possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and
year first hereinabove written.
GR Vev�iEmar,
President Paramount Professional Center Owners Association
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on -911'912i(date) by
(name of individual), [complete the following if signing in a representati-0 ^apaca ,j,o-shrike
the following if signing in an individual capacity] on behalf of �/a�(lomi V yl)- o al
(name of entity on behalf of whom record was executed), in the following representative C4YI*I t r
capacity: (type of authority such as officer or trustee) DWVICrG
0N. t�AlH'i, OIS�CIQ�'101'l
......,,.F�
_ WCOMMISSION = Si afore
s : EXPIRES 8-23 2024
�, • = My Commission Expires:
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Page 32
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-14-2021
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-14-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, )
: ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 9-14-2021 (date) by Robert E. Simison
and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City
Clerk,respectively.
Notary Signature
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Item#5.
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
This common area lot is legally described as all of Lot 2, Block 1, Paramount Village Center
Subdivision as depicted on the Plat recorded in Book 95, Pages 11665 through 11668 in the
office of the Recorder, Ada County Idaho.
Page 34
�. EXHIBIT B p
Item#5. i o W
W
i� y, mR NNE
gr
SIT
R I I i �I$7��( O "i$ 1{�¢�¢j� y�'
�d Z w iLj S o
00 �
j M
pp z rem -G�� m<w11Ys =g
O �
Z
t=n
V?
LD tt) W9 d
'�^
yJ
O rV• rc
Z Q ��I"'w Kill
0 IU 5$gS�
2 In �
Kati
Wa
z Qom goo ImM
0� 0. d- � �y'9Q i0uu
4L� 0 �d Li
r �
�POM
a.9 ry o
W m
2
O Q f
m Q Fn t 10N N 0 1 S I A i a a RS 1 Nno4VVhlV d
LJ
W
�
rr r
r
Zp W O S= ! z
(n O
�„ rR'a[� I rs'►tt o9711 tarsi ' I f O ¢
< W torcBos a to.rcaon I !w p 761LLJ
I I al m
a
J id 'gyp
r
m �� Isc•i rs►u sera tc'sL I I�#j�z IU Z �
�d mz►t ato,arocs ,00ro►t Jnto,sc.Bos
31 JI a lS'BB i OOZ�t 7( s un 0►t AWL I Q <
CP
ty A .06'98►3,St.5S.ODH „cy
Yi rA y r`
I•. OV02I a3QNI1 'N ,L8'884 3,54,S5.OGN —— ——
y g
ONNdNl3 e D 1 IQd -W
'
........................................•......................................,pg'lS9L Y.SISt005...........,..............................•.........•.........
............,...........••'
OMW3e d0 SISVe
Page 35 y
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision Pedestrian Pathway Easement
Page 36
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-135667
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 ANGIE STEELE 09/15/2021 10:44 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision
ESMT-2021-0089
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of September 2021 , between Wadsworth Meridian LLC
hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Grantee";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian
desires to establish a public pathway; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and
provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and
WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described
herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property,
described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway
easement for multiple-use non-motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such
facilities at any and all times.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns
forever.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any
permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for
this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated
herein.
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that
the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements.
THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the
easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Item#6.
then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or
which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall
be completely relinquished.
THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and
possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful
right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet
possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and
year first hereinabove written.
GRANTOR: Wadswo eridian LLC
Ilk-I-a.i.t
STATE OF 6')
) ss
County of AOff )
,a.ik- C ,k-e
This record was acknowledged before me on (date) by
(name of individual), [complete the following if signing in a representative capacity, or strike
the following if signing in an individual capacity] on behalf of Wadsworth Meridian,LLC
(name of entity on behalf of whom record was executed), in the following representative
capacity: 0 nC-) (type of authority such as officer or trustee)
(stamp)or
DEBBIE D MONROE Notary Signature
o NOTARY PUBUC-STATE OFUTAH My Commission Expires:
.6 �S COMMISSION#703325
r..
COMM.EXP. 11-15-2022
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Page 38
GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN
Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-14-2021
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-14-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, )
: ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 9-14-2021 (date) by Robert E. Simison
and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City
Clerk, respectively..
Notary Signature
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022
Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020
Item#6.
t%
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Page 1 OF 1
LAND
GROUP
August 16,2021
Project No.: 119025
EXHIBIT"A"
WADSWORTH MERIDIAN SUBDIVISION
PATHWAY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
An easement located in Government Lot 1 in the Northeast Quarter of Section 5,Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 5 of said,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, (from which
the North Quarter Corner of said Section 5 bears South 89°39'20" West, 2656.46 feet distant);
Thence South 89°39'20" West, a distance of 497.37 feet on the north line of said Section 5;
Thence South 00°20'40" East, a distance of 80.92 feet to a point on the southerly right of way line of
East Ustick Road, said point being common with the westerly boundary of Parcel"B", as same is shown
on Record of Survey No. 6418, Instrument No. 104016722 of Ada County Records;
Thence on the westerly and southerly boundary line of said Parcel "B"for the following courses and
distances:
Thence South 01'05'59" West,a distance of 263.32 feet;
Thence South 81°54'00" East, a distance of 24.72 feet;
Thence South 84°06'00" East, a distance of 393.80 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence North 13°44' 56" East, a distance of 5.07 feet;
Thence North 26'54' 25" East, a distance of 33.92 feet;
Thence North 01' 14' 39" East, a distance of 146.91 feet;
Thence North 43°45' 21"West, a distance of 5.66 feet;
Thence North 01° 14' 39" East, a distance of 130.33 feet to a point common with an existing
sidewalk easement, recorded as Instrument Number 2021-007979 of Ada County Records;
Thence South 44°33'01" East, a distance of 28.85 feet on said existing sidewalk easement;
Thence leaving said pathway easement,South 35°42'04"West, a distance of 4.73 feet;
Thence South 01° 14' 39"West,a distance of 260.41 feet;
Thence South 26°54' 25"West,a distance of 35.50 feet;
Thence South 13'44' 56"West,a distance of 1.52 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of
said Parcel"B";
Thence North 84°06' 00" West,a distance of 14.13 feet on said southerly boundary of Parcel
"B"to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described Easement contains 4,872 square feet more or less.
PREPARED BY: ti0�G,LAP OS�
The Land Group, Inc. W
James R. Washburn
7880 0
a 8-16-2021
o
7F OF�OP�
P.WA�
462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 2(
Page 40
Item#6.
NORTH 1/4 CORNER NE CORNER
SECTION 5 SECTION 5
T.3N.,RA E.,B.M. T.3N., RA E., B.M.
S.32 E. USTICK ROAD S.32 S.33
T.4N.,R.1E.,B.M. _ S89°39'20"W 2656.46'
1/4 S.5 2159.09' T.3N.,R.1E.,B.M. 497.37' - ROW LINE ESTABLISHED
FROM ROS#7139 S.5 S.4
ROW DEED L7 I 1
q
INSTR.No.2020-116678 I '5
0
I I
L8 I
PATHWAY EASEMENT ---1/cl 11
AREA:±4,872 SQ.FT. I I I W
C„ I N
PARCEL"B" LA 3: 1
ROS 6418
"' I M
100 �I I
o
IN r
wI IN
v i it I
L2 Z
L4 I
— — — S84°06'0�393_80, L3 J�I
_ L9
P 0 B_
JL11` L10 I I
Line Table Line Table
LINE BEARING LENGTH LINE BEARING LENGTH
Li S00020'40"E 80.92' L7 S44033'01"E 28.85' LAND
L2 S81054'00"E 24.72' L8 S35042'04"W 4.73' WrQ��o �G T
L3 N13044'56"E 5.07' L9 S26054'25"W 35.50' a 7880
L4 N26054'25"E 33.92' L10 S13044'56"W 1.52' 8-16-2 0 21
s� o
L5 N43045'21"W 5.66' L11 N84006'00"W 14.13' `may TE OF SOPS
WA�
L6 N01014'39"E 130.33'
E
a Exhibit "B" o ioo' 200'
Horizontal Scale: = 100' Project No.:119025
" Date of Issuance:08/16/2021
it
THE Meridian Multi-Use Pathway Easement TM
mo LAND Wadsworth Meridian LLC o
a� mom GROUP
TOM
a
LL J 2 Page 41
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Final Plat for Chewie Subdivision (FP-2021-0036) by Kent Brown Planning,
Located on the North Side of W. Franklin Rd., Midway Between N. Ten Mile Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
Page 42
Item#7.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Topic: Final Plat for Chewie Subdivision (FP-2021-0036) by Kent Brown Planning, Located
on the North Side of W. Franklin Rd., Midway Between N. Ten Mile Rd. and N. Linder
Rd.
Request:
Final Plat consisting of six (6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of land in the I-L zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Page 43
Item#7.
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN ---
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 9/14/2021 Legend mf®
9 R' 4
DATE' Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council L-O RUT
R=40 L
R-BRUT C=C R- R-8 C-N R 15
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
C-G
208-884-5533 R1
L_0 C-N RUT � L R1 I=L
SUBJECT: FP-2021-0036
R-40 RUT TN=C C-G TN'R C-N �
R-15
Chewie Subdivision ITN'R
LOCATION: The site is located on the north side of W. TNC �R1
RA R
Franklin Road; midway between N. Ten T C t RUT Rig R 4 €
Mile Road and N. Linder Road,in the S
E RI
'/z of Section 11,Township 3N.,Range H- E
1 W �Rtl)!UT M-E RUT -
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final plat consisting of six(6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of land in the I-L zoning district.
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Owner:
Adler AB Owner XI,LLC—865 W. Emerald, Suite 200,Boise,ID 83704
B. Representative:
Kent Brown,Kent Brown Planning—3161 Springwood Drive,Boise,ID 83712
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the preliminary plat as
required by UDC 11-6B-3C.2. The submitted plat includes the same number of buildable lots as
approved with the preliminary plat.
Staff finds the proposed final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as
required.
IV. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section
VI of this report.
Pagel
Page 44
Item#7.
V. EXHIBITS
A. Preliminary Plat(date: 11/13/2020)
3
gFI---- -—
ap Iq.
S O'35'23`W 3)6.29'
I I
mil I
N O'3239'f 35e 1 '� I
YID I IM (mA
cz
0322t w n5,]I'
C
cn
O
Z
�288
- £a �� 3
� A � N£ film �L z f`1i a
8=i Y
Page 2
Page 45
Item#7.
B. Final Plat(date: 3/29/2021)
Q �, N.ffN XLE ROAO uN a9arreo
O
�§ Y�$sy,. ___35dV T pp 5s ________N O'00'20'E 1498.29' 109]86�
Irlil —__—__ _____________ ________—_
i i�lfl O !I f I
_---------� t
599e99 w 3,9� I �
i
939 r�l m
l s a�c•ar w 3 �S —
F �
141Ty
i 1=q0
i z
1------ -- ---J A
o3V'23'W s7&29' I i o' m
Z A fn
_ Z
I moo
L0251 U H O'SY39'E I! I ' O y Z
1
i 1 O N O
I N 932'38'E 356.14'
_ 5 032'3Y W 7s7.82' A J
j I N
HA
p^9 z
E s asz'2 w 175.71'
unPLarrEo
w n+ w.L85S'h"R ROAD S C =
o
Iom � D —s • • ooB
G
� 4
° , z g
�asc)vz
Page 3
Page 46
Item#7.
N 0'32'38"E 356A `1
N YiT]9'E
- N BEN"ANK AYFAflA t— i�ze az' I
m JJ_
b 4N p'IT'$20 `g., Y, znoN `�
> 00 ots i= �� an a im p. I
nD A te W.
"•m �� � me E
F,2 1
,X � I'I� - I
y� I I
�_��
a� �g ; ^6� I I II
m goys>s 5 $em I
a� A
I I
z a �m 3 Ada
S D32.21-W 7-M71'
I I I
I II I �
\L------------------ m
Ln
�Ic m
o_
5
O
z
,— ----------------------------
I I
MUM
c 1■ I � H� g
S
"spa
�275331
I
'sE us: N4 I I
-
N
m -
z
C)
p��zzo
c>oz
Page 4
Page 47
Item#7.
r
m � �
------------- ---_--- — --- 3,6„-- Tr 6�r
I I I
°n m1 ode oo$
cc
� s � m m � II 6s• II I I II
� II � IIN �� I III
s � s II i >� •" � Ili I
III
® 000 i �I� I III
� � • � � Ii,9' it l �I 4 ` li 0 I
A s
I
� II I 496G• v I I II
II I � s on6.3�•W 6�6� � I I�
I I I I
I I I I I —li
li
r � I
S 0352r W 376.29' II 1
`--__ __ ______________ __ ____.__________..................
lid
y o
m-oA
m �.
r�
-labuz
Page 5
Page 48
Item#7.
C. Landscape Plans(date: 12/2/2020)
##a g> �➢ �m�"�$i¢4;x' See'�i�'a� Y s O
lama
� $s M S N WWI ?aa I
s z 9a ?� �� �� D a� LC
OUR
e 7g 4 3,� p 01; i 1 5 r4u��a�3a�; O II
loop
zp
loll;
a-k
a I ,
HOMES
i Rxxa
�� ?�w�^
Mks rs :fige� �a, #a ���?� � } 1,9r€s
eti�ti� T gw g�F d^I m
n a OWN ng R?�
r ew fi a �e'Not
.o t at &a lei
will vkQ�5 ss l s °a �94 p
m z
."I o
cc
WE R
�� 9sum
a �kT �s
s A qb?,o O m 1
g c?q �'#i F� a I z
1 �Z4��%F 90 'u4�bf MAY §d{O n
I ,
I 1
is
I
g CHEWIE SUBDIVISION
r FRANKLIN ROAD
. �• ` i MERIDIAN, IDAHO
OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT UBMITTAL ....... ...... �..,...,.,. ...,.. ..,,..,
Page 6
Page 49
Item#7.
n _,® L� WEST FXED 9MITi STREET -- - -- —
No KEY MAP
i
PLANT SCHEDULE
Lf •w w
Jo z
e O
7 w
opoQ
x
- p Q
mzzQ
U W Z�W
LL
= U
LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LEGEND U O
REQUIREMENTS i
Z
a
a � a
_ FI FI IJN ROAD
_.
- /)LANDSCAPE PLAN-AREA QNE
e
WEST TEil SMITH STR-
LAUD
VIL
I
— L C
iA KEY MAP
PLANT SCHEDULE
,..
0z
o o¢oz
o mzz<
O W Z p w
LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LEGEND U °
- REQUIREMENTS
! 33p
r eu any
CALLOU7 LEGEND
FRMIKLIN ROAD
- /TILANDSCAPE PLAN-AREA TWO
L1.2
e
Page 7
Page 50
WEST FRED SMITH STREET
PLANT SCHEDULE
AluwE
T y m.
0
o
>0<
z
_U,Ew
LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LEGEND
L)
.1 REQUIREMENT$ z
id T�U:I
CALLOU7 LEGEND
4�D
T;="At,
0 HPIANKLIN MAP
LIS
WEST FRED aMrrH STREET
N:
KEY MAP
PLANT SCHEDULE
�p
0
.............
0,
73 �o
<
4i)
LjZQ,
L)
LA106I LANDSCAPE LEGEND
z
REQUIREMENTS
FI—KILIN WITER —RIAL
!
0 i
CALLOUT LEGEND
X
�OAPL PLAN�1,11LA FOUR
_1.4
Page 8
Item#7.
VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning Division
Site Specific Conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this
development: H-2020-0120 (PP);A-2020-0194 (CZC/DES);A-2020-0188 (PBA).
2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat by March 23, 2023,
within two(2)years of the date of approval of the preliminary plat(March 23,2021), in
accord with UDC 11-6B-7, in order for the preliminary plat to remain valid or a time
extension may be requested.
3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature,have the Certificate of Owners and the
accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized.
4. The final plat shown in Section V.B,prepared by Land Solutions, stamped on 03/29/21 by
Steven C. Wellington, is approved with the following conditions:
a. Note#7: Revise to state the landscape easement is required on both the north and the
south side of W. Fred Smith Street, and depict said easement on the plat;
b. Add the instrument numbers for easement notes 8-10,as shown on Sheet 3 of 5.
c. Note#6: Revise to say West Franklin Road instead of East Franklin Road; also include
the City of Meridian.
d. Revise Note#10 to note a cross-access easement and maintenance agreement since no
private street has been applied for OR apply for Private Street approval prior to final plat
signature.
5. Prior to City Engineer signature on this final plat,revise the landscape plans shown in Section
V.C,prepared by Breckon Land Design, dated 12/02/21, as follows:
a. Show the required 20-foot landscape buffer along the north side of the extended collector
street(W. Fred Smith Street).
b. Show the existing access points from Lots 3 &4, Block 1 to Franklin Road to be closed
as required with the preliminary plat.
c. Remove the landscaping shown adjacent to the Morrow property along W. Fred Smith
Street as it is not part of the plat and will not be installed.
6. Prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat,the applicant shall provide the recorded
cross-access and maintenance agreement with West Ada School District(WASD) and
Republic Services to allow these agencies to utilize the private driveway across Lot 2,Block
1 to access W. Fred Smith Street.
7. Prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat,provide planning staff with proof of a cross-
access easement between Lot 4,Block 1 and the Morrow property and show/note said
easement on the plat.
8. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review and Certificate of Zoning
Compliance approval for all future structures within the subdivision,where applicable,prior
to applying for building permits on each site.
9. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat
and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for
compliance.
Page 9
Page 52
Item#7.
A. PUBLIC WORKS
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1. No permanent structures including but not limited to trees,bushes, fences, buildings, etc. shall be
allowed in any City utility easement. It appears there are multiple spots where trees and shrubs are
in conflict with the utility easements,these must be removed.
2. The applicant shall provide geotechnical or soils information to be reviewed prior to signature of
the final plat.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to
the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall
coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms
of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains
is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials
shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development.
The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development,
coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of
the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer,an owner may post a performance surety for
such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC
11-5C-3B.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,
landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat.
6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final
plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the
City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City
of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or
bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community
Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more
information at 887-2211.
7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of
20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration
of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the
owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health
improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy,a surety
agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C.
Page 10
Page 53
Item#7.
9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that
may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B.
14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage
facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD.
The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance
with the approved design plans.This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy
is issued for any structures within the project.
17. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per
the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved
prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project.
18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be
installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan
set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's
work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental
Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator
at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting.
19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of
way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a
single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather
dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall
be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the
form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x
11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be
sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the
plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,and approved prior to
signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
21. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well
Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The
Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in
Page 11
Page 54
Item#7.
the development, and if so, how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their
abandonment.
22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment
procedures and inspections.
23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
development plan approval.
24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC
11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any
other applicable law or regulation.
Page 12
Page 55
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Final Plat for Prevail Subdivision No. 3 (FP-2021-0044) by Schultz Development,
Located Approximately% Mile South of E.Amity Road, East of S. Meridian Rd.
Page 56
Item#8.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Topic: Final Plat for Prevail Subdivision No. 3 (FP-2021-0044) by Schultz Development,
Located Approximately 1/4 Mile South of E. Amity Road, East of S. Meridian Rd.
Request:
A final plat consisting of 18 single family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.25 acres of land in
the R-8 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Page 57
Item#8.
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT !A H O
DATE: 9/14/2021 y
Legend
TO: City Council ElProject Location
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner --------
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: FP-2021-0044
Prevail No. 3 Subdivision Final Plat i
PROPERTY LOCATION:
The site is located approximately 1/4 mile
south of E. Amity Road, East of S. -----,
Meridian Road, in the NW 1/4 of the NW '
%4 of Section 31, Township 3N.,Range
1 E.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A final plat consisting of 18 single family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.25 acres
of land in the R-8 zoning district,by Schultz Development. This is the final plat for the
Prevail North preliminary plat(H-2021-0021);Ada County is requiring it be final platted
as the third phase of the Prevail Subdivision ft.a. Percy Subdivision).
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Schultz Development LLC
B. Owner:
Triple D Development, Inc. —PO Box 2670, Eagle, ID 83616
C. Representative:
Matt Schultz, Schultz Development LLC—PO Box 1115, Meridian, ID 83680
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed final plat consists of 18 building lots and 2 common lots in the R-8 zoning
district. The submitted final plat matches the preliminary plat approved by City Council in lot
number, lot size, and open space.
The Applicant has also received Alternative Compliance approval (A-2021-0174) to reduce
the required landscape buffer common lot along Meridian Road/SH 69, per the preliminary
Page 1
Page 58
Item#8.
plat conditions; the overall landscape buffer is at least 50' wide exceeding UDC
requirements.
Because the number of building lots and the amount of common open space is the same as in
the approved preliminary plat, staff finds the proposed final plat to be in substantial
compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required by UDC 11-6B-3 C.2.
IV. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in
Section VI of this report.
Page 2
Page 59
V. EXHIBITS
A. Preliminary Plat(dated: May 7, 202 1)
1 7
Os p
4
42,
@
----------------- --�gg�
-------------
E-4
<
Y
----------
t
Page 3
Item#8.
B. Final Plat(dated: August 4, 2021)
€= o x c$
gEv
£
w�w's x°ea3,w h�g ag - o>
��a A r � �� —x°'z°'m•w � I I � ��' � ��
$pp�€z� \\ 1 fm .55i CYL� ® $i O • � O O d O I � w
� I m----N°'2a31•w-- i
-
�-,o
Q O
so i sso �ink
I I � 6 O �$l�� � � � � W w W 'r W a ; W '•' W .
_ I W r ____xo•x°•a,w._._ � R R f 3 r � _$ $ _�' _ fl e d ;� Y
liZ I I� � Q I$I O r � 'x "- ,� � 's � � � „ 's ^ � § •g �• w h � g
—o xow9,w °18888� O I • • � �F a�
g 8 8 889n8 F 9
7 sx¢YpORTAVE S
�q z�N
a.
m'##� 3 Y
ti O� -xo7a3rw---, I g o o o 3� asUF
z I a gsc� z
i o
W L�9 n°za3,w �Ia� e - � oe Wa<eLL �o� �
o s o =„ was'"'§
IL
n m� �o's�
LL�P, Ica _
5 <��€
€ ;. eaQ€ a N¢a �
�-a�, �. g k g' -
18 2
m� �a a= _.
-4LI; 5
�s
f �, ������< ���< <o z 'spa s • �. g§� �x
,0010E 3.951i.°M _ 1 'UM tiUIS'IAIQ&fl S'
'm r ��,00'LOL 3,95.LLANO _ - � 7IYl3Hd $ EYOT
m
$y qR H� II
as WOO"'s
o a _ A ,is Irea M 9s isve y
axlav3e so 55re
Page 4
Page 61
C. Landscape Plan(dated: August 9, 2021
SINEMOOCI NouongsNoo-
9S9 OHVCII NVICIIH�Ih
CIV08 NVIOIU�IVA S OC;[S
S 'ON NOISIAicions -IIVA3
NV1c] �JdVOSCJNV�
Z17 1
E" W '2
V.t
LL
LU
LL
cc
z
S Zoo)
•
m
fl�i P s
- I!
LL
HdM
C) Co
LL
H
Ut
�p 7,
gm
LL, 52"N.104
MY LLJ
LL
Li
LL
M
�u! O,
'6�2
�tv �
15 1 Rik,
R'4�f,1�
M.H
N'N �N
�LL w
u� psi
z
.... .. 7: cc
,,E�3,
Page 5
S1Nawnooa Nouondl-N
SWAG NVOSONIS
V
', a ....... ZKS9 0WOMMORLIV, i 12-71M.
--it
GV0d NVIGIU3N S 0S
E ON NOBNOWS -TVAL
m-1
Nil d 4 11 1
14111,
4
Nq
I SOR i 10 ;11 1 pill! 1
AT 11 aRR 1 H
"N
to Ohl 1 1 1gi a pd,"1 1,
ISO I a MR I I gj 1
a - I a
M01 I HAM
I w
01h 1
His, 110101 Oil 10 III= z M
1 d
d t'l j Hill
01110 too cps
ly 1
I z
will
Lu
4
IL -Ul tl
w_q
pstzi�i
gs g gig
MTN 111
d L
v
�r 7 m w `� � �, J ���y�U -J��/��J
LU
Atwo
lot
Page 6
Item#8.
VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning Division
1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval associated with this site: H-
2021-0021 (Prevail North Subdivision); and DA Inst. #2021-126848.
2. The applicant has until two years following City Council approval of the preliminary plat(July 6,
2021)to obtain City Engineer signature on this final plat, or apply for a time extension in accord
with UDC 11-613-7.
3. The final plat prepared by Idaho Survey Group,LLC, dated 8/04/2021, shall be revised as
follows:
• Add a plat note stating: "Subdivision is subject to a City of Meridian Development
Agreement recorded as Instrument No. 2021-126848."
• Label the irrigation district easement for the rerouted lateral along the north property
boundary.
4. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall provide a letter from
the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of
mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, at(208) 887-1620 for more information.
5. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat does not
relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
6. The applicant shall construct single family detached dwellings in accord with the recorded
development agreement.
7. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit a public
access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Meridian Road to the Planning
Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a
minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side).
8. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be
submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial
compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14.
B. Public Works Division
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1. Sewer services must tie into the sewer main at 90 degrees, or come out of a manhole. The sewer
service for Lot 33,Block 1 currently does not meet this requirement.
2. No permanent structure including but not limited to trees,bushes,fences,streetlights,and buildings
shall be allowed in a City utility easement. Currently there are trees and shrubs shown within the
water easement area.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to
the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall
coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms
of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains
is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials
shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
Page 7
Page 64
Item#8.
2. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development.
The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development,
coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
3. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of
the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for
such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC
11-5C-3B.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,
landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat.
6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final
plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the
City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City
of Meridian. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or
bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community
Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more
information at 887-2211.
7. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of
20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration
of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the
owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health
improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy,a surety
agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C.
9. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
10. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that
may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-413.
14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage
Page 8
Page 65
Item#8.
facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD.
The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance
with the approved design plans.This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy
is issued for any structures within the project.
17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per
the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved
prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project.
18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be
installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan
set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's
work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental
Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator
at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting.
19. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of
way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a
single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather
dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall
be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the
form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x
11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be
sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the
plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to
signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
21. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well
Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The
Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in
the development, and if so, how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their
abandonment.
22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment
procedures and inspections.
23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
development plan approval.
24. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC
11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any
other applicable law or regulation.
Page 9
Page 66
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Lemp Pathway Permanent Easement Contracts Between the City of Meridian
and Edgar R. Barnett/Barnett Rentals, LLC (Parcels R5147490611 & R5147490701)
Page 67
Item#9. Mayor Robert E. Simison
E IDIAN�- City Council Members:
Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun
Joe Borton Jessica Perreault
1� �► r i O Luke Cavener Liz Strader
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Simison and City Council
FROM: Mike Barton,Parks Superintendent
DATE: Sept 1,2021
RE: Permanent Pathway Easement Purchases
On the north side of McMillan Road just west of Locust Grove Road there's an unimproved [pathway]
segment along a critical walkingibiking route for students attending Heritage Middle School. This stretch
becomes so muddy in the winter that students are often observed walking along the roadway on McMillan
where there are no existing pedestrian facilities. Because the site is unlikely to develop in the near future,
staff are proposing a paved pathway from the end of the existing pathway at the Tustin Subdivision across
two privately owned parcels to the intersection at Locust Grove Road.
The first step in pathway construction is gaining owner permission to cross the two private parcels. To
this end,we have negotiated the purchase of two pathway easements. Funds are available in our existing
budget for this easement purchase and also for pathway construction.
The accompanying easement purchase documents have been reviewed and approved by our Legal
department. Dedicated easements for the same parcels,which also appear on this consent agenda,have
likewise been approved by staff through our standard review process.
At this time we are seeking Council approval of two Permanent Easement Purchase Contracts for the
Barnett and Barnett Rentals properties in order to complete this mile of pathway along McMillan Road.
Page 68
City of Meridian
33 East Broadway Ave., Meridian, ID 83642
PERMANENT EASEMENT CONTRACT
Project Description: Lemp Pathway Easement- Barnett Property
Parcel#and Owner: R5147490611 Edgar R. Barnett
Date of Offer: 24 August 2021
THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT, made this 14th day of September 2021, between the City of
Meridian, acting by its Mayor and Council, herein called"CITY"and Edgar R. Barnett, herein called
"GRANTOR".
WHEREAS, subject to the terms outlined below, GRANTOR agrees to deliver to the CITY a Permanent Public
Easement, to allow for construction of a 10' wide paved pathway segment, included herewith as Exhibit"A"
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. CITY shall pay GRANTOR such sums of money and/or benefits as are set out below:
ITEM DESCRIPTION AREA GROSS VALUE VALUATION EASEMENT VALUE
(Ft2) /Ft2) FAC'TQR ($)
Permanent Easement 2377 $3.10 79% $ 5,821.50
In consideration of the GRANTOR'S agreement to utilize a valuation of$3.10 per square foot of the
property, based on current assessed value of$376,900 or $135,041.20 per acre.
2. TOTAL EASEMENT CASH SETTLEMENT AMOUNT $ 5.821.50
3. This Contract shall not be binding unless and until executed by the Mayor and/or their authorized
representatives. The parties have herein set out the whole of their agreement, the performance of which
constitutes the entire consideration for the granting of said easement and shall relieve the CITY of all further
claims or obligations on that account or on account of the location, grade, construction and maintenance of the
proposed easement improvements.
4. The parties whose names appear below as Grantors, covenant and warrant that they are the OWNERS of the
property to which this document applies, are fully authorized to execute this document and forever bind
themselves,their successors and assigns and the subject property to the terms set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this contract the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MERIDIAN GRANTOR
By: By:
Robert E. Simison,Mayor 9-14-2021 Ed .Barnett, Owner
ATTEST:
Chris Johnson,City Clerk 9-14-2021 Date: 2�Z
Date approved by Council: 9-14-2021
1 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID:71B85C9F-9D5D-4729-A2B4-5D9C149C1D7C
601 Sherman Ave,Suite 1
KELLER Coeur d'Alene,ID 83814
A S S O C I A T E S ' (208)758-8601
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
of
SIDEWALK EASEMENT
EDGAR R.BARNETT
TO
CITY OF MERIDIAN
That portion of Lots 14 and Lot 13, Block 2 of Larkwood Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, filed in Book
58 of Plats at pages 5494 and 5495, and Amended by an Affidavit recorded January 15, 1991, as Instrument No.
9102501, records of Ada County, Idaho,being situated in the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30,
Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 30, from which the South 1/4 corner of said Section bears
North 89°46'27"West, 2,632.50 feet; thence along the south line of said Section North 89°46'27"West,229.92
feet;thence leaving said south line North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet, more or less,to the southeast corner of said
Lot 14;thence along the east line of said Lot 14 North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING:
thence leaving said east line North 89°46'27" West, 135.40 feet;
thence 33.96 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 65.00 feet and a central angle
of 29°56'02"; said curve having a long chord which bears North 74°48'53" West, a chord distance of 33.57 feet;
thence 28.75 feet along the arc of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet and a central angle of
29°57'09"; said curve having a long chord which bears North 74°49'26" West, a chord distance of 28.43 feet,
more or less,to the easterly boundary line of Tustin Subdivision No. 2, according to the plat thereof filed in Book
108 of Plats at pages 15190-15192, as Instrument No. 2015-040515,records of Ada County, Idaho;
thence along said east line North 00°25'24" East, 12.00 feet;
thence leaving said east line 34.98 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 67.00
feet and a central angle of 29°54'45"; said curve having a long chord which bears South 74'48'14" East,a chord
distance of 34.58 feet;
thence 27.69 feet along the are of a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 53.00 feet and a central angle of
29°56'02"; said curve having a long chord which bears South 74°48'53" East,a chord distance of 27.38 feet;
thence South 89°46'27" East, 135.45 feet, more or less, �\O�.�P•LLAN�SG
to the east line of said Lot 14; �g �0STEEgcc SQL
0 e- o 1�
thence South 00°25'24" West, 12.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. DocuSi9 efty 13257 �
Containing 2,377 square feet or(0.055 acres), more or less. 5047
9TE OF SOP
colp
2of3
[doclog/file location] GROWING POSSIBILITIES '
m z m o
Z m
F- W _w -o
m aD o
C1 N a N co
W Wf0 cu _ _ _
0 - - -6Z-ZS9Z 3..Lk9Zo00N ��OR
o � Cl) M Cl) �J S
tf
LOU �o °y
¢ 0, N 0 U
O
a 3o U . 1 -3 R M 4 (V
Z, C14
� 0 N
W
c U
Z o
a �Qd,
m �' �
Z, oo'o£ oo'o£ w
¢ ) - — — —l/d —l/d— — — —l/d— — — —lId O
(D w 3„tiZ.SZo0N ---- 00
o C9 3
w v Z w w L££00066'ON
Lu Q �� 'v M 1SNI1N3W3Sb3
ro v v v v b3MOd OHV(11.09 0
D O= Z Z N U .6+ o
ca U
L) It b
O �
J = O • coLo It
\ .�— m
Z I W OCN
J i v, M [ O N ~ I(D
U ri 0 v r- \ � N
0 C7 N M N N I�
w � O co Q
[0 U 04� 'Olt'
N 0D J zoo Q
ti Z Z Q
w Q o o v o U 1N3W3Sd3 U o 0:) 4:
w
to �°,�, QLr) 1I-IVM301S�Z6 a Z Z
U N N N N m W
14i o ";f n J J
j 0 0 0 0 �` z Zti J
Cl Lo � � c Q W 0JildM3aISAl I
0 LL
W a z a
~ � � � Z � cn
Z 00 �' N
W M N M N I CJ 0 N W r
J h
U C
OQ I (Ni
W I ¢
U U U U U 0£1790 M'ON Z Q
am '1SNI1N3W3SV3 U W z
0 2i3MOd OH`ddl M ::> 0
—vd— — — —vd— — — —l/d— l/d U
N 6l Z Z (n
1N3W3SV3 W z
N JNIISIX3,0£ Z 0
O w i I Z 0 W Z Q
N o z I-
N Z Um ¢
0� v Q N `D LL LL m z
Q m mZ � 0 I I I W � ZO W
70 co _ W 000 ¢
w 0 o o � J IL m H W
Z Z C4QQ
Q
J w
J
a J U m m
> W M M a � �
C Z J J
Li
C J
_m
7
L) 6mP'MJed Oweg 6emWd uelpu0py\OtlOO/ny�ONI)480M.S3AHnS\s6em41ed u-n-vy 500-S6os Lzu
Item#9.
City of Meridian
33 East Broadway Ave.,Meridian, ID 83642
PERMANENT EASEMENT CONTRACT
Project Description: Lemp Pathway Easement-Barnett Rentals LLC
Parcel#and Owner: R5147490701 Barnett Rentals LLC
Date of Offer: 24 AuLlust 2021
THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT, made this a SY day of �c 21, between the City of
Meridian, acting by its Mayor and Council, herein called"CITY" and Barnes LLC, herein called
"GRANTOR".
WHEREAS, subject to the terms outlined below, GRANTOR agrees to deliver to the CITY a Permanent Public
Easement,to allow for construction of a 10' wide paved pathway segment, included herewith as Exhibit"A."
NOW THEREFORE,the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. CITY shall pay GRANTOR such sums of money and/or benefits as are set out below:
ITEM DESCRIPTION AREA GROSS VALUE VALUATION EASEMENT VALUE
(Ft2) ( /Ft2) FACTOR ($)
Permanent Easement 1,754 $7.65 79% $ 10,600.30
In consideration of the GRANTOR'S agreement to utilize a valuation of$7.65 per square foot of the
property, based on current assessed value of$460,300 or $333,068.20 per acre.
2. TOTAL EASEMENT CASH SETTLEMENT AMOUNT $ 10,600.30
3. This Contract shall not be binding unless and until executed by the Mayor and/or their authorized
representatives. The parties have herein set out the whole of their agreement,the performance of which
constitutes the entire consideration for the granting of said easement and shall relieve the CITY of all further
claims or obligations on that account or on account of the location, grade, construction and maintenance of the
proposed easement improvements.
4. The parties whose names appear below as Grantors, covenant and warrant that they are the OWNERS of the
property to which this document applies, are fully authorized to execute this document and forever bind
themselves, their successors and assigns and the subject property to the terms set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this contract the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
GRANTOR
By: By: gq,4,�
Robert E. Simison,Mayor Sharlot Barnett,Manager
ATTEST: Date:
Chris Johnson,City Clerk
Date approved by Council:
Page 1 of
Page 72
Dlope ID:71B85C9F-9D5D-4729-A264-5D9C149C1D7C
Item#9.
601 Sherman Ave,Suite 1
KELLER Coeur d'Alene,ID 83814
ASSOCIATES ' (208)758-8601
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
of
SIDEWALK EASEMENT
BARNETT RENTALS LLC
TO
CITY OF MERIDIAN
That portion of Lot 15, Block 2 of Larkwood Subdivision,according to the plat thereof, filed in Book 58 of Plats
at paged 5494 and 5495, and Amended by an Affidavit recorded January 15, 1991,as Instrument No. 9102501,
records of Ada County, Idaho, being situated in the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 4
North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, City of Meridian, Idaho, described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section 30, from which the South 1/4 corner of said Section bears
North 89°46'27"West, 2.632.50 feet; thence along the south line of said Section North 89°46'27" West, 229.92
feet;thence leaving said south line North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said
Lot 15; thence continuing along said west line North 00°25'24"East, 30.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
thence continuing along said west line North 00°25'24" East, 12.00 feet;
thence leaving said west line South 89°46'27"East, 146.17 feet, more or less, to a point on the west line of
Quitclaim Deed recorded August 2,2018, Instrument No. 2018-072917, records of Ada County, Idaho;
thence along said west line South 00°13'33" West, 12.00 feet;
thence leaving said west line North 89°46'27" West, 146.21 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 1,754 square feet or(0.040 acres), more or less.
L lANosG
Gj G\ST
DOCU 13257
zcEl oa _ �TF OF \0` Gj
%,cE COPP��
2 ol'3 Page 73
[doclog/file location] GROWING POSSIBMT� �
Item#9.
J�,oOR ,ps aVOM 3AOMD isnoo7 'N
0
N
u. O
N_ o c) a �,�,
g N
4 M
ZOis v>d `— �P QJG U Cl)s, O , 4,,
you /a o
�M08 mob MOif m I M
�( O
oLo
0 N
M
v `°
00 V Zl o
y � N
N
rnCO
a R OU XlyM341S M o Iz
Lf) m O>
W Lij
L Zti cli
N
U J —
U w F- N
Q OJ Z $
a w � U
`I `° W I
W co X
z W U) Z 0 O
G LD
N ce)Cl) O
W � N r , 1N3W3SV3 d �'
NIVM301S.Z6
Q W o z ai 2
Q
W M m _ rr�^^ AO'OE LO W I �I
C '0 LL,
h— c) cD vJ I/d— — — —l/d— — — —l/d — — — — ————— J
_ J o aoi w (N CN Q ll 3.,tZ,SZ oON
U Q w O LL
m e' `� —1 � V
w �
a o
m W N
J In
0
U) o r o V
0
T I Z w o
0 2 z w a U O� 1N3W3SV3
v X a�i W Z JNIISIX3,OE
c
O) W :E C O 2 O
`r Q .S o U W
U U' 1=-
o ¢ z Z LEC00066_ON 0'
It W 0 � � z � 1SNIlN3W3Sd3 Eo
00 m U 213MOd OH` (11,09 cv
rn Ll._ C) m z Q N
LL LL m w
O o I
o 0 0 LL
z I— O w I
zza U)
J U J 0- 0- O W
n
7O 0
n �
c
000
a
O �l/d- - - -l/dT - - -l/d- - - -l/d- - - --I/d- - - -Il/d- - - /
> I I
r-- o
c c`'> c')
m I I I I � Page 74
U Bmp•l�ied sleluaa llaweg,(emyled ueipuaNOyOolny\ONINLIOM A3A21l1S\sRemyled uelppaW SOB-S606 LZ\:f
O
77
C� E IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Development Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Vincent Rigby
(Owner/Developer) for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) Rezone
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-135666
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=33 ANGIE STEELE 09/15/2021 10:43 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian
2. Vincent Rigby, Owner/Developer
TT4IS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this Agreement), is made and entered into
this 14th day of September , 2021, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal
corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called CITY whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue,
Meridian,Idaho 83642 and Vincent Rigby, whose address is 4163 Philomena Drive,Meridian, ID
83646, hereinafter called O"ER/DEVELOPBR.
1. CITALS:
1.1 WHEREAS,Owner is the sole owner,in law and/or equity,of certain tract of
land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho,described in Exhibit"A",which is
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full,
herein after referred to as the Property; and
1.2 WHEREAS,Idaho Code § 67-6511A provides that cities may,by ordinance,
require or permit as a condition of zoning that the Owner and/or Developer
make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject
Property; and
1.3 WHEREAS, City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of
Section 11-58-3 of the Unified Development Code ("UDC"), which
authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re-zoning of
land; and
1.4 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer has submitted a Modification to remove the
property listed in the attached Exhibit "A" from the existing Development
Agreement(Instrument# 111024535)to be bound by this new agreement to be
consistent with the proposed development plan, under the Unified
Development Code, which generally describes how the Property will be
developed and what improvements will be made; and
1.5 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer made representations at the public hearing
before the Meridian City Council, as to how the Property will be developed
and what improvements will be made; and
1.6 WHEREAS, the record of the proceedings for requested Development
Agreement Modification held before the City Council, includes responses of
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—3175 N.TEN MILE(H-2020-0122) PAGE 1 OF 7
government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian
planning jurisdiction, and includes further testimony and comment; and
1.7 WHEREAS, on the 8th day of June, 2021, the Meridian City Council
approved certain Revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Decision and Order ("Findings"), which have been incorporated into this
Agreement and attached as Exhibit`B"; and
1.8 WHEREAS,the Findings require the Owner/Developer to enter into a new
Development Agreement on only the subject property listed in Exhibit"A"
before the City Council takes final action on final plat; and
1.9 WHEREAS,Owner/Developer deem it to be in its best interest to be able to
enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered
into voluntarily and at its urging and request; and
1.10 WHEREAS, The subject property listed in Exhibit "A" shall no longer be
subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreements (Inst.
#111024535)upon the property owner(s) entering into this new agreement.
1.11 WHEREAS,City requires the Owner/Developer to enter into a development
agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the
subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this Agreement,herein being established as a result of evidence received by
the City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government
subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from
affected property owners and to ensure zoning designation are in accordance
with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian on December
19, 2019,Resolution No. 19-2179, and the UDC, Title 11.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth
herein,the parties agree as follows:
2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals,are contractual and
binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words,terms,and
phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for,unless
the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise:
3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian,a party to this Agreement,
which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of
Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose
address is 33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho 83642.
3.2 OWNER/DEVELOPER: means and refers to Vincent Rigby, whose
address is 4163 Philomena Drive, Meridian, ID 83646 hereinafter called
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-3175 N.TEN MILE(H-2020-0122) PAGE 2 OF 7
OWNER/DEVELOPER,the party that is developing said Property and shall
include any subsequent developer(s)of the Property.
3.3 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s)of Property located
in the County of Ada,City of Meridian as in Exhibit"A"describing a parcel to
be rezoned and bound by this Development Agreement and attached hereto
and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length.
4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right
to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed
under the UDC.
4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without
modification of this Agreement.
5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
5.1. Owners/ Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the
following special conditions:
a. Show the access to Ustick as an entrance-only and include appropriate signage
and striping to inform patrons that it is not an exit for the site; work with
ACHD on any allowed curbing within the right-of-way to help ensure this
access is for ingress only;
b. The proposed access to N. Ten Mile Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-
out only access;
C. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application submittal, the
landscape plan shall show landscaping between the detached sidewalks and
the back of curb abutting the adjacent arterial streets, Ustick and Ten Mile
Roads,per UDC 11-3B-7;
d. Show the required landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residential use to
be 30 feet wide instead of 20 feet along the southern boundary and the
southwest boundary adjacent to parcels R2833240190 and R2833240180,
respectively;
e. The allowed uses on the subject site shall be limited to professional services,
personal services, and healthcare and social services.
6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD This Agreement must be fully executed within six (6)
months after the date of the Findings for the annexation and zoning or it is null and void.
7. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF
ZONING DESIGNATION:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-3175 N.TEN MILE(H-2020-0122) PAGE 3 OF 7
7.1 Acts of Default. Either party's failure to faithfully comply with all of the
terms and conditions included in this Agreement shall constitute default under
this Agreement.
7.2 Notice and Cure Period. In the event of Owner/Developer's default of this
Agreement, Owner/Developer shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of
written notice from City to initiate commencement of action to correct the
breach and cure the default, which action must be prosecuted with diligence
and completed within one hundred eighty(180)days;provided,however,that
in the case of any such default that cannot with diligence be cured within such
one hundred eighty (180) day period, then the time allowed to cure such
failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the
curing of the same with diligence and continuity.
7.3 Remedies. In the event of default by Owner/Developer that is not cured after
notice as described in Section 7.2,Owner/Developer shall be deemed to have
consented to modification of this Agreement and de-annexation and reversal
of the zoning designations described herein, solely against the offending
portion of Property and upon City's compliance with all applicable laws,
ordinances and rules, including any applicable provisions of Idaho Code §§
67-6509 and 67-6511. Owner/Developer reserve all rights to contest whether
a default has occurred. This Agreement shall be enforceable in the Fourth
Judicial District Court in Ada County by either City or Owner and/or
Developer, or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the
parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or
in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements,
conditions, and obligations contained herein.
7.4 Delay. In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed
hereunder by either Owner/Developer or City is delayed for causes that are
beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance,
which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or
similar causes,the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount
of time of such delay.
7.5 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by Owner/Developer of any one or
more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the default and
defaults waived and shall neither bar any other rights or remedies of City nor
apply to any subsequent default of any such or other covenants and conditions.
8. INSPECTION: Owner/Developer shall, immediately upon completion of any
portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement or by City
ordinance or policy,notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written
approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Property.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-3175 N.TEN MILE(H-2020-0122) PAGE 4 OF 7
9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record this Agreement,
including all of the Exhibits, and submit proof of such recording to Owner/Developer, prior to the
third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re-zoning of the Property by
the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the
ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby,the City
shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement.
10. ZONING: City shall,following recordation of the duly approved Agreement,enact a
valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein.
11. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds,
irrevocable letters of credit,cash deposits,certified check or negotiable bonds,as allowed under the
UDC, to insure the installation of required improvements, which the Owner/Developer agree to
provide, if required by the City.
12. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued
in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed,completed,and accepted by the City,
or sufficient surety of performance is provided by Owner/Developer to the City in accordance with
Paragraph 11 above.
13. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owners and/or Developer agree to
abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian unless otherwise provided by this Agreement.
14. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall
be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United
States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as
follows:
CITY: with copy to:
City Clerk City Attorney
City of Meridian City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave. 33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Vincent Rigby
4163 Philomena Drive
Meridian, ID 83646
14.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other
party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section.
15. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto
concerning this Agreement,the prevailing party shall be entitled,in addition to any other relief as may
be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent
jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall
survive any default,termination or forfeiture of this Agreement.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-3175 N.TEN MILE(H-2020-0122) PAGE 5 OF 7
16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time
is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term,condition and provision hereof,and that
the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default
under this Agreement by the other parry so failing to perform.
17. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives,
including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding
on the Owner and/or Developer,each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in
the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property,or portions
thereof,except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor
owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein
expressed. City agrees,upon written request of Owner and/or Developer,to execute appropriate and
recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City,in its sole and reasonable discretion,had
determined that Owner/Developer have fully performed their obligations under this Agreement.
18. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement
and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein.
19. DUTY TO ACT REASONABLY: Unless otherwise expressly provided,each party
shall act reasonably in giving any consent,approval,or taking any other action under this Agreement.
20. COOPERATION OF THE PARTIES: In the event of any legal or equitable action
or other proceeding instituted by any third parry (including a governmental entity or official)
challenging the validity of any provision in this Agreement, the parties agree to cooperate in
defending such action or proceeding.
21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements,
agreements,condition and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject
matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or
written, express or implied, between Owner/Developer and City, other than as are stated herein.
Except as herein otherwise provided,no subsequent alteration,amendment,change or addition to this
Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or
their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to City, to a duly adopted
ordinance or resolution of City.
21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re-zoning of the subject
Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the
City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the
notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the
time of the proposed amendment.
22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT:This Agreement shall be effective on the
date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in
connection with the re-zoning of the Property and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-3175 N.TEN MILE(H-2020-0122) PAGE 6 OF 7
[end of text; signatures, acknowledgements, and Exhibits A and B follow]
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have herein executed this agreement and made
it effective as hereinabove provided.
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
incent y
CITY OF MERIDIAN ATTEST:
By:
Mayor Robert E. Simison 9-14-2021 Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-14-2021
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss:
County of Ada )
On this_A,.day of Snow, 2021,before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,personally
appeared Vincent Rigby known or identified to me to be the person who signed above and acknowledged to me that he
executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHERE vN o set
�0
my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this
certificate first above written. ��. ' ' ' ' •.
Notary Public for
t
•;�,,.oAVBL�G ti`O•� Residing at: /°Je�•�/•a�, TD
5t26��o 0 My Commission Expires: 5' 46
STATE OF IDAHO ) r�rE 0-F 1 O Pa
ss
County of Ada )
On this 14th day of September ,2021,before me, a Notary Public,personally appeared Robert E.
Simison and Chris Johnson,known or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,
who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City,and acknowledged to me
that such City executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this
certificate first above written.
Notary Public for Idaho
Residing at: Meridian, Idaho
Commission expires: 3-28-2022
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—3175 N.TEN MILE(H-2020-0122) PAGE 7 OF 7
EXHIBIT A
A. Rezone Exhibit and Legal Description
Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
Ma,5cyn &
924 3"'St.So.Nampa,Ill 83651
5 c>C is fc--5 Ph(208)454-0256 Fax(208)467-4130
amail:dholdwy ,[j1mrmulSla!5P3cimcx.u+
FOR: McCarter-Moorchousc
JOB NO.:A131920
DKITI: October 15,2020
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land being a portion.of Government Lot 1 of Section 3,'Township 3 North,Range I West
)vast,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described t:s follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 1,said corner being S 89°07'06"E a distance
of 2G40.66 Fect from the N LA of Section 3;
Thence N 99'07'22"W a distance of 285.88 feet along the north boundary of Government Lot 1;
Thence S 00°23' 51"W a distance of 0l.00 Feet to a point on the northerly right of Way of Ustick Road;
Thence S 89'07'22"E a distance of 30.12 feet thong the northerly right of way of Ustick Road to the
110INT OF BEGINNING;
T11crice S 89'07'22"E a distance of 167.57 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road;
Thence S 47'20'44"E a distance of 42.40 Feet a€nog the nmrtherly right Of WEly of Ustick Road to a
point on the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road;
Thcncc S 00'24'09"W a distance of 275.57 feet along the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road to a
point on the northerly boundary of Firelight]:states;
Thence along the northerly boundary of Firelight L'states the following courses and distances;
Thence N 89'36' 15"W a distance of 1.13.16 feet;
Thence N 00'23' 51"R a distance of 110.07 feet;
f:
t.
Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
PNge I oft
3175 N. Ten Mile Rezone H-2020-0122
Thenec N 89107' 59"W a distance of 85.77 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 8 Block 2 of Firelight
Estates;
'thence N 00'23'5 1"E a distance of 194.72 feet along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 Block 5 of
Englewood Crock Estates Subdivision No. l extended to the POINT OF SEC INNING.
This parcel contains 1.1 G acres more or less.
SUBJECI-FO:All existing rights of way and easements of record or implied appearing on the above-
dcseribed parcel of'land.
LA
c U
rc
/? D
ea. c13 t✓ -�
s,�af/ �1�ia
�55C7C�fi3�'[� fne
Professional Engineers,land Surveyors and Planners
Page 2 o€2
PARCEL EXHIBIT
A PART OF THE NE 114,SECTION 3,T.3 N.,R. 7 W.,SM
MERIDIAN,IDAHO
2020
0 50 too 2.00
l
Scale: 1"-100'
NW Corner
N1/4 Comor Ce'rcrnment NE Corner
Secilon 3 S89'06'501E Lot I S89'07'22'C US71CK ROAD Covernmcnt
N8907'22''N --- Lot f
1034.35' I
I
I I
589-0 7'22'!:"
L2 _ 167.57' op I a
I I
� 2
h � I
I� I
Porcal Lina Table o I PARCEL 5 1
2I -+1.16 AC,
Line i Lanyth Diroctlon
L1 ei.00 S0'23'51V J n x t
L2 30.12 S89'0722E N89'07'59"W o N jIf
N1 i 85.77� I
� I i
O 1 O I
LEGEND z
i
N893S�fS t
p CALCULATED POINT SE Corner
ra FOUND BRASS CAP UONWENT 713.16' cove Loi 1rnment
ED FOUND ALUxfINUM CAP MONUMENT
FOUND 5/8"iRM P!N
_ DEED LINE
—---— SECTION LINE
McCARTER MOOREHOUSE
PARCEL EXHIBIT
.a,xi Auvvze
DW Na AUMW HWHIT
Masan& `H".■� swi[: Y"�700' eev.
SSDCIa CS y ppdJb^"ONW
a8 1OC"ORO
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (:�VE Nty
AND DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request to Rezone a 1.16 acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district
commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of
constructing an approximate 10,000 square foot office building in lieu of residential development
and a Development Agreement Modification to replace the existing agreement(Inst.#111024535)
and enter into a new agreement to develop the site consistent with the proposed development plan,
by Mason &Associates.
Case No(s). H-2020-0122
For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 25,2021 (Findings on June 8,2021)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 25, 2021, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 25,2021,incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 25, 2021,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of May 25, 2021,incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as
Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by
ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,
which was adopted December 17, 2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be
signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(3175 N.Ten Mile Rezone—FILE#H-2020-0122) I
Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party
requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of May 25,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon
the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for Rezone and Development Agreement Modification is hereby
approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of May 25,
2021,attached as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration
Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or
short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature
on the final plat within two (2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined
preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-6B-7A).
In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an
orderly and reasonable manner,and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat,
such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two (2)years, may be considered for
final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-613-713).
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City
Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up
to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all
extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined
preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City
Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time
extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 11-
6B-7C).
Notice of Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the applicant
shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the
requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and
commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For
conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City
Engineer within this two(2)year period.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(3175 N.Ten Mile Rezone—FILE#H-2020-0122) 2
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.G.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as
determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director
or City Council may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11(UDC 11-513-6F).
Notice of Development Agreement Duration
The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a
development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development
agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or
rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request.
A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development
agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in
accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the
property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the
modification.
A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the
agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement
to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval
period.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 25,2021.
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(3175 N.Ten Mile Rezone—FILE#H-2020-0122) -3-
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 8th day of June
2021.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TREG BERNT VOTED
COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED
MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-8-2021
Attest:
Chris Johnson 6-8-2021
City Clerk
Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City
Attorney.
By: Dated: 6-8-2021
City Clerk's Office
FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FOR(3175 N.Ten Mile Rezone—FILE#H-2020-0122) -4
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT E IDIAN -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 5/25/2021 Legend (1
DATE: ii --
�® Project Location '
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 _?
SUBJECT: H-2020-0122 f 6
3175 N. Ten Mile Rezone . c
LOCATION: The site is located at 3175 N. Ten Mile -
Road,the southwest corner of the Ten
Mile and Ustick Road intersection, in the u
NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 3, _,�• `
Township 3N.,Range 1W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to rezone a 1.16 acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district commensurate with a
provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate
10,000 square foot office building in lieu of residential development and a Development Agreement
Modification to replace the existing agreement(Inst. #111024535)and enter into a new agreement to
develop the site consistent with the proposed development plan,by Mason&Associates.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 1.16
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(3-8 du/ac)
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant land
Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial—Office
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) One(1)building lot
Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one phase
Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 7,2020— 1 attendee and 1 letter received
attendees:
History(previous approvals) AZ-10-005 (ACHD Ten Mile);DA Inst.#111024535
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
Page 1
Description Details Page
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two accesses are proposed,both to the adjacent Arterial
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Streets—Access on Ustick is limited to a Right-in only by
Proposed) ACHD;Access to Ten Mile is proposed as a right-in/right-
out access.
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No stub street connections are available due to site location
Access and existing development. Cross-access is not feasible or
proposed.
Existing Road Network Yes
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing sidewalk;buffer is not properly vegetated currently
Buffers
Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are proposed or required.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 0.5 miles from Fire Station#2
• Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal
of 5 minutes.
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and
turnarounds.If right-in only access is removed,Fire desires it
to become an emergency-only access.
Police Service
• Concerns None
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services N/A
• Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunkshed
• Estimated Project Sewer See application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining Balance 14.08
• Project Consistent with WW Yes
Master Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed
• Services are installed to site from W.Niemann Drive from
the West.
Water
• Distance to Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 2
• Estimated Project Water See application
ERU's
• Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with Water Yes
Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns •There is no water infrastructure shown in this application.
•There are two existing water stubs:one to the north off of
Ustick;and one to the east off of Ten Mile.Any stub that is
not used is required to be abandoned.
Page 2
1 1 1
■■IIIII��I11111111 � � �' . _
�111 1111111 I ,
�w� 11111 I�■ rirr c� 1
Is
ME
hh
r ■ loop r '�` —J �."
USTICK - USTIf
�fl nu��■ � ;JI■ri UII��a■■1 � I r. �.. Jr; � r r . '
�■■■ ■■1 ��■■:: ��■:'�■ a ',:. 1 �,
a MEN N
rim
un ■■N Z,■ ■ �■ ' 1 Z+,I '
■1■■■■■■■r :�■■■ram ■■■ ■ _ �✓�
== �11= ■r■■ ■■■■■�� i etc.f. ��o� �! •
■■11 Is ri,■i ■ ■wnm- . �r
� .1\■i � �i�:.■■ maw - t ! v,�a..s�}'
at ■ ■�I.ills
- • - • �w■� 1� � - • - • I �11111 1■11111
MIKE
� � r1111r■ ■1■IIIr�
� ■■IO�J 111111■■ i
1111 rr,1[■ ■In in11 rj
�� . ��■■■■1 �� �+1� irin
h _ I��► Illl1 l•�III ,
���■1■11■1111■/I r■ ;jinn
�■■1111■111'= . �� 1 ununnn� � ��
Go-
Ir
■1 11!■111■■ I�.
7 ■nmrn��+
\■■■■ ■■I■ ■ � ii�■■■ ■ �1111 uninrri r�rrnn�■RUSTIC-�• mng •� m ■a
■■■A■�■ 1 J ■ ■ I■ 11 nmrF un Ji ii ii Ill■ n 1:
7■ 1 ■■ ■■■111■ r ■nu�■1 Q, ;1„li ■y ■n■.■� nrp■.
■■■rt[�■■ / F ■ ■I n.r ■�■n ■ r ■u■_.�■ nn�Is
■■■■I ■ ■■■■■■ i fn■■r�ll �i�i n isMEN
i■■ 'N qn ::
�!■ ■■ 1/ Z ■■ n ■■■■1 ■■ ■ur■.�Ira � �Z. ■o■rn■■ r■ ■I
■■■■ ■ ■ ■■! a r1�ILn■�r� i■111■■■11
■ un■u
1 ■
YJ ■■■r ■■' r■■■■■■■ uq IIIJjj�■■n•_uu.Waun1lrtn n■It�Jrr
■■■■ ■ F �■■■■ ■■! r■IIIIIIIIIIIIIr ■�n■n===`err■ mills.
■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■N■■■■ w a■q='-` run mum
NOR
rrrr111■r :1...� nn■ ■n■
■■■tl��fl, ■11■■ OEM NONEr■rrrurl►.� :a ■:.::. Ip ml- ' n■■n■■• ♦ q�1��C o r
,1 ► ■ ■■r���� ■■.j ■/ ■■■■■■is 1w■���a
■■ ■■ ■■■■■■ �p !.1■.1•uii:may' � ■■i■■u= w■�':i
�■■ ■� ♦ rw■Gonr■ .� ■■frnu11 •
�■
!■ ■■ ■■■■■s �qi� i Ilan ir: Ni.rrrnr��� •� r'son
�i �! w1■■rl■■■■/■ • ♦ rrA1■alrjl •.: =■■rrn ■�: ♦ �■�r
-
I-
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 3/12/2021 5/7/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 3/9/2021 5/4/2021
Site Posting 3/20/2021 5/7/2021
Nextdoor posting 3/9/2021 5/3/2021
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /�pplan)
Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross
densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the
provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public
services.
The subject site is somewhat of a residentially zoned outparcel due to the fact it located on a hard
corner of two arterial streets and has no local street access to be utilized. The Meridian
Comprehensive Plan has a provision to allow properties less than two acres in size (subject site
is 1.16 acres) that have the access constraints to request a Rezone from a residential district to
the Limited Office (L-O) district. The existing site constraints and this provision of the
comprehensive plan are the reasons for the Rezone request.
The L-O zoning district and office uses are not inherently allowed or compatible within the MDR
future land use designation. However, with the allowed provision, office uses may occur with
added requirements that deal with mitigating any noxious uses or incompatibilities of having an
office near single-family residential. The Applicant has submitted a site plan that shows
compliance with all dimensional standards for a commercial development and within the L-O
zoning district. With the proposed site plan and proposed use of a dental office (a principally
permitted use within the L-O zoning district) Staff finds the proposed Rezone and use to be
generally consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Part of the site design shows a landscape buffer adjacent to the abutting residential which is a
requirement of the existing Development Agreement(DA)for the subject site. This DA was
required when the property was annexed into the City for ACHD in 2010.As Staff analyzed the
subject application and site history, Staff realized that a Development Agreement Modification is
also required due to the original DA being for a residential development and not a commercial
development. Therefore, the proposed Rezone and office use are not generally consistent with the
existing DA. DA Modifications only require Council action so,following the Commission hearing
the Staff recommends the Applicant submit a DA Modification application to run concurrently
with this Rezone application for the purpose of entering into a new DA, subject to proposed
development plan and new DA provisions in Section VIII.A below.
The Applicant has submitted a concurrent DA Modification application since being heard at the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing; as noted above, the new DA provisions are provided
below in Section VIII.A1.
Stafffinds the proposed project and site design to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Page 4
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /�pplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics.
"Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through
buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices" (3.07.01A). The
proposed commercial project sets the building as far away from the existing residential as is
physically possible. In addition, the Applicant is showing the required landscape buffer adjacent
to the existing homes to the south and west. Because of the proposed layout and landscape
buffering, the proposed building and use should be compatible with the surrounding residential
uses, especially after Staff's recommended revisions discussed in later sections regarding the
fencing and landscape buffer width.
"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer,
police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for
this project site due to the existing stubs abutting the site,per Public Works comments. This
project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal by being within half a mile of a
Fire Station. School capacity is not a factor in a commercial development. A project of this small
size should not impact the abutting transportation corridors but the Applicant's proposal to
utilize an entrance that is part of a turn-lane for the main intersection is not supported by code.
Staff finds that the existing development of the immediate area and proposed use create
conditions for adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project.
"Support the inclusion of small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential
developments as part of the development plan,where appropriate."(3.06.02A). The proposed use
directly abuts residential homes but has no shared accesses with these homes. However, there is
easy pedestrian access to the proposed dental office from the adjacent subdivisions via the local
and arterial sidewalks. Locating a neighborhood commercial use like that of a dental office near
residential with easy pedestrian and vehicle access meets the intent of this comprehensive plan
policy.
"Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and
integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D).
With the proposed building elevations showing a 22'high building at its maximum and the
required landscape buffer to the adjacent residential uses, the proposed use should be integrated
with the existing neighborhood.
"Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.0113).Proposed project is maintaining the existing detached
sidewalks along Ustick and Ten Mile and shows sidewalk connections from building entrance to
the arterial sidewalks. The proposed pedestrian accesses should be adequate for the proposed
use.
"Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and
complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing
a commercial development that places the building the furthest away from the residential it can
be and proposes a 20 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the homes. The site design and
landscaping should provide for a use that is complementary to the existing homes.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in order
support the proposed office use.
Page 5
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are no existing structures on site. Subject site has two water stubs to the property and a
sewer service line stubbed to it from the west through a driveway located on an adjacent City
owned property.No other site improvements are known at this time.
D. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations of the proposed single-story commercial
building. The submitted elevations show a single story building approximately 22' to top of plate
in the area of the building that directly abuts the intersection; this area is meant to hold the corner
of this intersection. The remaining portions of the building are approximately 17.5' in height.
Overall the building is shown with varying parapet heights, a stone material banding along the
bottom of the building,horizontal wall modulation, and a main field material that appears to be
stucco. The south facing elevation also shows awnings and windows nearly the length of the
building lending itself to a modern storefront feel.
New commercial buildings require Administrative Design Review prior to building permit
submittal so Staff will perform a more complete analysis of the proposed elevations at the time
of that application submittal. Staff recommends the north facing elevation incorporate an
additional field material to satisfy one or more of the architectural standards.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is a dental office within a proposed commercial building approximately 10,000
square feet in size. This use is a permitted use within the requested L-O zoning district per UDC
Table 11-2B-2.
The existing DA provision that requires a 20'landscape buffer adjacent to the three existing
residences to the south and west. The submitted site plan shows this buffer with adequate
landscaping and therefore compliance with this provision.A number of the parking spaces are
facing directly towards one of the homes and there is an existing wood fence located along the
shared property lines. Because the proposed use would have more vehicular traffic than
residential, Staff finds that the proposed landscaping and existing wood fencing may not be
enough screening to mitigate light and noise pollution from the proposed dental office and
parking lot. City of Meridian does not allow double fencing so if any solid fencing were to be
required it would have to replace the existing fencing and may require this Applicant work with
the adjacent homeowner if the fence is not owned by this land owner, convoluting the process and
end result. The Applicant should work with the adjacent homeowners to replace the wood fencing
with privacy vinyl fencing.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The proposed site plan shows compliance with all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted
plan for the proposed L-O zoning district as outlined in UDC Table 11-213-3.
The submitted site plan shows parking space at the required 19'depth and 9'width with all drive
aisles being at least 25'wide to accommodate two-way traffic and adequate space for emergency
services. In addition, the main drive aisle in the center of the site is at least 41'wide which is well
beyond the required width.
As noted above, the Applicant is showing the DA required 20'landscape buffer but Staff believes
there is a better use of the site area when the drive aisle width is also considered. For example, to
further mitigate any issues with the proposed office use and parking spaces abutting the
residential homes, the Applicant could widen the landscape buffer that abuts 3079 N. Firelight
Place (the home at the southwest corner of the site). The Applicant could widen this buffer to 30'
Page 6
wide and pull the proposed parking spaces even further from the fence. Increasing the buffer
width and therefore requiring additional landscaping is a better alternative to replacing the
existing fencing. Staff recommends that a wider landscape buffer be required to help minimize
noise and light pollution.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Access to the site is proposed via two connections to the adjacent arterials—one right-in only
access is proposed to Ustick and one right-in/right-out access is proposed to Ten Mile. The
proposed access to Ustick does not meet ACHD policies but was a negotiated access at the time
the property sold. The proposed access to Ten Mile does meet ACHD policy and is recommended
for approval by ACHD within their staff report. See their report in Section VIII.D for more
detailed information on the ACHD site specific conditions of approval.
Staff supports the proposed and limited access to Ten Mile Road commensurate with the
approval from ACHD. In addition to the access to Ustick not meeting ACHD policy, the City
can restrict access for the development further despite ACHD previously granting the access
with the sale of the property. The proposed access to Ustick is proposed as an entrance only
into site but there would be no true way to restrict vehicles from utilizing it as an exit as well.
In addition, this access point is directly within a right-hand turn lane on Ustick which furthers
the safety issues associated with this access point. Therefore, through UDC 11-3A-3,Staff
recommends the proposed Ustick access not be approved and instead utilize it as an emergency
only access barricaded with knockdown bollards, to be approved by Meridian Fire.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table I I-
3C-6B for nonresidential uses. Commercial uses require 1 space for every 500 square feet of
gross floor area.
The Applicant's submitted site plan shows a total of 42 parking spaces which exceeds the 20
spaces that are required at a minimum for the proposed building size of approximately 10,000
square feet.
I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17):
5-foot wide detached sidewalks are existing along both arterial streets(Ustick and Ten Mile)in
accord with UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards.No changes to these sidewalks are required or
proposed. The Applicant is also showing sidewalk connections from the front of the building to
the arterial sidewalks, as required by code.
Stafffinds the existing and proposed sidewalks meet UDC requirements.
J. Landscaping(UDC I1-3B):
The Applicant is proposing landscaping regulated by three code sections due to their locations,
Buffers Along Streets, Parking Lot Landscaping, and Landscape Buffers to Adjoining Uses (UDC
11-3B-7, 11-3B-8, & 11-3B-9,respectively).
The Applicant is proposing a 20'landscape buffer to the abutting residential uses as required by
the existing Development Agreement. However, the requested L-O zoning district also requires
this buffer per the dimensional standards of the zone.As noted in Section V.F, Staff recommends
this buffer be enlarged to 30'to place the proposed parking spaces further away from the
residences. The proposed parking lot landscaping appears to meet UDC requirements as outlined
in UDC 11-3B-8. The submitted site plan does not show landscaping between the existing
detached sidewalk and back of curb. This area of the site is also required to be landscaped in
Page 7
accord with UDC 11-3B-7. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to correct this with the
CZC submittal.
K. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I5):
The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the required landscape
buffers in accord with 11-3A-15. This irrigation will provide for healthier and sustained
landscaping that is an integral buffer between the proposed use and the existing residences.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Rezone and Development Agreement Modification
per the recommended DA provisions in Section VII and the Findings in Section IX of this staff
report.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 1, 2021. At the public
hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Rezone request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: William Mason,Mason&Associates—Applicant Representative; Stephen
Rankin,Neighbor,
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: William Mason; Stephen Rankin.
d. Written testimony: One(1)piece-discussing potential of noise and light pollution to
adjacent residential; mention of a desire to require the Applicant replace the existing
wood fence with an 8-foot CMU block wall.
e. Staff presenting,application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s) public testimony
a. Concern over the location of the access to Ten Mile being too close to the existing
residence to the south.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. Fire access concerns, if any,but specifically to the recommended reduction in drive aisle
width to approximately 30';
The kind of uses that could reside within building beyond a dentist office;
Different options of mitigating noise and lightbeyond wideningthe required landscape
buffers adjacent to residential;
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on May 25, 2021. At the public hearing,the Council
moved to approve the subject Rezone and Development Agreement Modification requests.
1. Summary of the City Council public hearing:
a. In favor: Jessica Petty.Applicant Representative/Architect;Vincent Rigby.
Applicant/Owner.
b. In opposition:None
c. Commenting: Jessica Petty;Vincent Rigbv;Alexis Rankin.neighbor; Stephen Rankin
neighbor.
d. Written testimony:None since Commission meeting.
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
Page 8
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. Location of proposed access to Ten Mile and its proximity to the existing residence
directly south of the subject site:
b. What options are there to move this access further north:
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by City Council:
a. Clarification on proposed use, allowed hours of operation per zoning request, and if
other uses may be allowed within the same building;
b. Is Staff amenable to an increased buffer along the southern boundary consistent with
Staff s existing recommendation along the southwest boundary;
C. How can access to Ustick be constructed and restricted in order to prevent patrons from
exiting to Ustick:
4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation:
a Modify condition VIII.Al.a to allow it as an entrance-only access and include
appropriate and adequate signage for the entrance only access from Ustick and to work
with ACHD and Planning Staff on the appropriate curbing to restrict this access safely_
b. Modify condition VIII.Al.d to note the 30-foot buffer shall be adjacent to the south
boundary and the existing home abutting the southwest corner of the site:
Page 9
VIL EXHIBITS
A. Rezone Exhibit and Legal Description
Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
5 924 3'd St. So. Nampa, ID 83651
AS J5 O C 1 a tE S Ph(208)454-0256 Fax(208)467-4130
e-mail:dholzhey@masonandassociates.us
FOR: McCarter-Moorehouse
JOB NO.:AU1920
DATE: October 15,2020
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land being a portion of Government Lot 1 of Section 3,Township 3 North,Range 1 West
East,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 1,said corner being S 89'07' 06"E a distance
of 2640,66 feet from the NIA of Section 3;
Thence N 89'07'22"W a distance of 285,88 feet along the north boundary of Government Lot 1;
Thence S 00'23' 5 1"W a distance of 61.00 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Ustick Road;
Thence S 89'07' 22"E a distance of 30.12 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 89'07'22"E a distance of 167.57 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road;
Thence S 470 20'44"E a distance of 42.40 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road to a
point on the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road;
Thence S 00'24'09"W a distance of 275.57 feet along the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road to a
point on the northerly boundary of Firelight Estates;
Thence along the northerly boundary of Firelight Estates the following courses and distances;
Thence N 89'36' 15"W a distance of 113.16 feet;
Thence N 00'23' 51"E a distance of 110.07 feet;
Mason Fy
associates 1"=�
Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
Page t of 2
Page 10
Item#10.
Thence N 89'07' 59"W a distance of 85.77 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 8 Block 2 of Firelight
Estates;
Thence N 00'23' 5 1"E a distance of 194.72 feet along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 Block 5 of
Englewood Creek Estates Subdivision No. 1 extended to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains 1.16 acres more or less.
SUBJECT TO:All existing rights of way and easements of record or implied appearing on the above-
described parcel of land.
�1XIL LA
ST
O
Q.
(P
®�TF OF MVP
�19�N 110I:L`A�
Mason �.
Associates
Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
P.gc 2 of 2
Page 11
Page 100
PARCEL EXHIBIT
A PART OF THE NE 114,SECTION 3,T.3 N.,R. 1 W.,BM
MERIDLAN,IDAHO
2020
0 50 100 200
Scale.-
NW Corner
N1/4 Corner Government NE Corner
Section 3 S89'06'50"E Lot 1 S89'07'22"E Government
--USTICK ROAD
N8 85-.T,"W tot 1
1320.39' 1034.38' I 285.88'
�
I
I I
S89"O7'22 E
12 I -_167.57' r2 2�`R� I W
i
g
I Z
41 I I ti
� I
MIµ
Parcel Line Table o I O1 PARCEL 5
zl t1.16AC. o i
Line I ength Direction 3! of
! C
L1 61,00 SO'23'51"W o h Z
� I
L2 30.12 S89.07'22"E N89.07'59"W o a
85,77'� 1
W I
I
�Ip I
.V l I
LEGEND I
z
I
N8936_15
p CALCULATED POINT I SE Comer
0 FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENT 113.16 GovLotemment
FOUND ALUMINUM CAP MONUMENT
® FOUND 5/8"IRON PIN
___ DEED LINE
SECTION LINE
MCCARTER MOOREHOUSE
PARCEL EXHIBIT
a°e No. AU1920
vmreeelonar>:nalnea�, ° �'I0 A11920 E}011H1T
lend Sunsynrs
aSOCI fyy_ bPtanneis SCALE: 7=100 REv. Q
'1/{SSOGIa LPS 0?""2MA6'*{4Vw FIELD BOOK NO.
�,SI@Nlm�lm�A'�
DRAM BY: DA 7E:
Cs 11013012020
Page 12
B. Concept Site Plan
I
' W- U TI CK RQ
- � I
- a I
� I
y I
I
} w I
w
� ° I
I
� b I
c a I
I
I
I
a � I
Page 13
C. Conceptual Building Elevations
0
0
i
0
0
- -- _
_
O
N
O
A.>a ...._. 004
Page 14
U
_-_-_--- _ _-_-_-_-_-
ti
i
u -A I an
�—
3
� r
I �
tUL C :_ J
Og
0
0
1
LIL0Rti
Ft. 11111
LD
o �
e
}
o
ELI
Page 15
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall apply for a concurrent Development
Agreement Modification application to run concurrently with this Rezone application and
replace the existing Development Agreement. At a minimum the following DA provisions
shall be included in the new DA:
a. Show the access to Ustick as an emergeney entrance-only access and include
appropriate signage and striping to inform patrons that it is not an exit for the site:
work with ACHD on any allowed curbing within the right-of-way to help ensure this
access is for ingress only;
b. The proposed access to N. Ten Mile Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out only
access;
c. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application submittal,the landscape
plan shall show landscaping between the detached sidewalks and the back of curb
abutting the adjacent arterial streets,Ustick and Ten Mile Roads,per UDC 11-3B-7;
d. Show the required landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residential uses to be 30
feet wide instead of 20 feet along the southern boundary and the southwest boundary
adjacent to parcels R2833240190 and R2833240180,respectively;
e. The allowed uses on the subject site shall be limited to professional services,personal
services, and healthcare and social services.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 There is no water infrastructure shown in this application. There are however two existing
water stubs, one to the north off of Ustick Road, and one to the east off of Ten Mile Road.
Any stubs that are not to be used will need to be abandoned per Meridian Public Works
Standards.
1.2 Sanitary sewer service is available in W.Niemann Drive to the West.
1.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). By entering into a development agreement with the City of
Meridian,the applicant agrees to use the City of Meridians recycled water supply as the
source of irrigation water. Further,the applicant agrees to provide for secondary backup
water to provide service when recycled water is not available. Once development plans have
been submitted to the city for review,the city will model the recycled water system and make
a final determination regarding our ability to supply reclaimed water to the development. If
the city can serve the development with recycled water then recycled water must be utilized
as the irrigation source of water, a secondary or backup source must also be provided. If the
city can't serve the development then the primary source of irrigation water should come
from surface water irrigation sources if available. The applicant shall be responsible to
construct the recycled irrigation system in accordance with Department of Environmental
Quality(DEQ)recycled water rules and regulations, and Division 1200 of the City of
Meridian Supplemental Specifications and Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works
Construction. These requirements do not wave the applicants responsibilities or obligations to
irrigation districts.
Page 16
1.4 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and or building permit application.
Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards.
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall
be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard
forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit
an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description
prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of
the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development
plan approval.
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing
surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a
single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for
the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to
evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-
1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic
service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering
Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used
for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of
Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
Page 17
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this
subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-31-1.
2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been
installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required
before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings
per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and
approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the
project.
2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,
which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact
Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
Page 18
2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount
of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,
cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service
for more information at 887-2211.
C. NAMPA-MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https:llweblink.meridiancil .oorg/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224336&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=224863&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lu
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a
full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application.In order to grant
an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property from the R-4
zoning district to the L-O zoning district and subsequent development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, if the applicant complies with the requirements outlined above.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the proposed use comply with the
applicable regulations, specifically the purpose statement of the requested L-O zoning
district.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare;
Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, if the applicant complies with the requirements outlined above.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not
limited to,school districts; and
Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on
the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City.
5. The annexation (as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Not applicable; application is for a Rezone.
Page 19
77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Sky Mesa East, LLC to Accept
Payment and Equipment in Lieu of Installing Streetlights at Sky Mesa Subdivision No. 4
Mayor Robert Simison
wl IDIAN� City Counci Members
Tre Bernt
Joe Borton
Public Works i C� A H O Luke Cavener
Brad Hoaglun
Department Jessica Perreault
Liz Strader
TO: Mayor Robert Simison
Members of the City Council
FROM: Jared Hale—Engineering Project Manager
DATE: 8/31/2021
SUBJECT: AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT PAYMENT IN LIEU OF INSTALLING
STREETLIGHTS AT SKY MESA SUBDIVISION NO. 4
REQUESTED COUNCIL DATE: 9/14/2021
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Move to:
1. Approve the attached agreement with Sky Mesa East, LLC
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS
Jared Hale, Engineering Project Manager 489-0370
Clint Dolsby, Assistant City Engineer 489-0341
Warren Stewart, City Engineer 489-0350
Laurelei McVey, Director of Public Works 985-1259
I1I. DESCRIPTION
A. Background
One of the site-specific conditions of approval for the Sky Mesa Subdivision No.
4 was to provide sufficient funds for the installation of street lighting along S.
Eagle Road. The streetlights will be installed once the road is widened by 2
additional travel lanes.
Page I o
g f 2
B. Proposed Proiect
Pursuant to the attached agreement with Sky Mesa East,LLC the City has accepted
the estimated amount of$14,100.00 and three City approved 35' poles with 12'
mast arms and LED fixtures, required to install those streetlights on S. Eagle
Road. These funds will be used to install the provided streetlights when the road
is widened by two travel lanes in conjunction with a future ACHD project between
E. Amity Road and E. Lake Hazel Road. Sky Mesa East, LLC is in favor of this
solution. They have signed the attached agreement, paid the $14,100.00 and
provided the three street light poles and attachments.
IV. IMPACT
A. Strategic Impact:
This agreement is in alignment with the Public Works Department's Strategic Plan
2010-2015 Objective ENG-12, which is to increase street lighting throughout the
City to enhance the safety of our citizens in a fiscally responsible manner.
B. _Service/Delivery Impact:
This agreement will increase the street lighting along S.Eagle Road while ensuring
that the lights are installed at the appropriate time and in the appropriate location.
C. Fiscal Impact:
Per this agreement the City has received $14,100.00 and three City approved 35'
poles with 12' mast arms and LED fixtures. This is the estimated amount required
to install the three lights along S. Eagle Road. and these funds will be reserved for
that specific purpose.
V. TIME CONSTRAINTS
Council approval of this agreement will allow Sky Mesa East, LLC to finalize the
agreement, set aside the funds to install the street lights and meet this portion of the
lighting requirements for final plat approval.
VII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Agreement to Accept Payment in Lieu of Installing Streetlights on S. Eagle Road at
Sky Mesa Subdivision No. 4.
Approved for Council Agenda: 1�AJ2 rz \l S4P—UJ&gjt
Page 2 of 2
AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT PAYMENT AND EQUIPMENT IN LIEU OF INSTALLING
STREETLIGHTS AT SKY MESA NO. 4 SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT for streetlight installation, made this ��k day of July, 2021 between the City of
Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, whose address is
33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter "City"), and Sky Mesa East, LLC 729 S.
Bridgeway Place, Eagle, ID 83616, (hereinafter"Sky Mesa East").
WHEREAS,Sky Mesa East has received from City, conditional approval of the Final Plat for the
Sky Mesa No. 4 Subdivision, Case No. FP H-2020-0063; and,
WHEREAS, One of the Site Specific Conditions of Approval of City's approval of FP H-2020-
0063 is to install streetlights on all public roadways per the City of Meridian Improvement Standards
for Street Lighting; and,
WHEREAS, Sky Mesa East is currently unable to install the required streetlights on S. Eagle
Road in front of the Sky Mesa No. 4 Subdivision because S. Eagle Road has not been built out to its
ultimate width; and,
WHEREAS, once S. Eagle Road is improved, City is willing to install the required streetlights if
Sky Mesa East has paid to City the estimated amount necessary to install the streetlights.
NOW THEREFORE,THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Sky Mesa East shall pay to City the amount of $14,100.00 and provide City three (3) City
Approved 35' poles with 12 ' mast arm and Meridian Approved LED fixtures as the amount
necessary to install the required streetlights.
2. City agrees to accept the three 35' uninstalled poles and the amount set forth in Article 1 in
lieu of requiring Sky Mesa East to install the three (3) streetlights on S. Eagle Road frontage
of Sky Mesa No. 4 Subdivision.
3. Upon delivery of the poles and payment of the amount in Article 1 by Sky Mesa East to City,
Sky Mesa East's requirement to install the three (3) streetlights on S. Eagle Road shall be
considered satisfied.
4. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
heirs, successors and assigns, and shall survive any transfer by Sky Mesa East of Sky Mesa
East's Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties shall cause this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
officers the day and year first above written.
Sky Mesa-Fast, LLC CITY OF MERIDIAN
By: - By
J es H. Hunter, Manager Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-14-2021
77
C� E IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: License Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Ada County Highway
District to Allow a Painted Center Line Along the Five Mile Pathway
C�
fIEN .D L4,,
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda
From: Kim Warren, Parks and Recreation Meeting Date: Sept 21, 2021
Presenter: n/a Consent Agenda Item Estimated Time: n/a
Topic: License Agreement with Ada County Highway District to allow a painted center line
along the Five Mile Pathway
Recommended Council Action:
Consent Agenda Item. Requesting approval of License Agreement.
Background:
Now that there are several miles of continuous paved pathway along the Five Mile Creek, staff
would like to paint a dashed yellow center line along the length of the Five Mile Pathway through
the City. Our intention is to support wayfinding along the pathway, especially in parts of town
where the route is less evident— on Fairview Avenue, for instance, through existing
developments, or where our standard 10' wide pathway is located within public roadway rights-
of-way.
Staff has solicited a contractor's bid to provide a center stripe along the pathway, and the City is
free to stripe all City-owned and/or maintained facilities. In order to stripe pathway segments
where they lie within ACHD rights-of-way, the City must enter into a License Agreement that will
grant formal permission for this improvement.
An agreement depicting a standard striping detail and locations where this will occur within ACHD
facilities is attached for your consideration.
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-151287
BOISEIDAHO Pgs=16 ANGIE STEELE 10/19/2021 09:19 AM
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO FEE
(space reserved for recording)
Property Management No. RWLA2021-0052
Location: Five Mile Pathway
LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (the uAgreement") is made and entered into this
14th day of September , 20 21 , by and between the ADA COUNTY
-1 —IG -—WAY DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the state of Idaho, ("ACHD") and
Ci!y of Meridian , ("Licensee").
WITNESSETH -
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged by the parties:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.1 ACHD owns and has exclusive jurisdiction over the public right-of-way,
located in Ada County, Idaho, municipally described as Five Mile PgLth
Ten Mile Rd & Ustick Rd going East Southeast to Pine Ave & Locust Grove Rd. more
particularly described and/or depicted on Exhibit"A" attached hereto (the"Right-of-Way").
1,2 Licensee desires a license to use the Right-of-Way for the limited purposes
hereinafter set forth, and, for the consideration and on the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth, ACHD is willing to extend such license to Licensee.
SECTION 2. LICENSE: LICENSE NOT EXCLUSIVE.
2.1 On the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, ACHD hereby extends to
Licensee a license on, over, across and under the Right-of-Way for the following uses
and purposes ("Authorized Use") and no others as more particularly described on Exhibit
"C"attached hereto. The parties contemplate that upon further development by Licensee,
any additional licenses requested by Licensee shall be incorporated into this License
Agreement by means of an addendum signed by both parties.
CH-2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 1
(11/13/08)
Licensee to maintain a painted dashed yellow centerline along the Five Mile
Creek Pathway from the SW corner of the Intersection at Pine Avenue and Locust
Grove, west/northwest for several miles, to and including the Pathway segment
on the new Five MilelCreek Roadway Bridge at Ten Mile Road.
Licensee to contact Digline Inc., prior to start of construction. Licensee to
contact Construction Services at 387-6280 to verify if a construction permit is
required.
2.2 This Agreement does not extend to Licensee the right to use the Right-of-
Way to the exclusion of ACHD for any use within its jurisdiction, authority and discretion
or of others to the extent authorized by law to use public right-of-way. If the Right-of-Way
has been opened as a public Highway (as used in the Agreement the term "Highway" is
as defined in Idaho Code § 40-109(5)) Licensee's Authorized Use is subject to the rights
of the public to use the Right-of-Way for Highway
purposes. Licensee's Authorized Use is also subject to the rights of holders of easements
of record or obvious on inspection of the Right-of-Way and statutory rights
of utilities to use the public right-of-way. This Agreement it is not intended to, and shall
not, preclude or impede the ability of ACHD to enter into other similar agreements in the
future allowing third parties to also use its public rights-of-way, or the ability of ACHD to
redesign, reconstruct, relocate, maintain and improve its public rights-of-way and
Highways as authorized by law and as it determines, in its sole discretion, is appropriate.
SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION, OR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. Any repairs
or maintenance, of the Licensee's improvements currently located in the Right-of-Way or
the installation or construction of improvements by Licensee in the Right-of-Way as
permitted by the Authorized Use, (the "Improvements"), shall be accomplished in
accordance with designs, plans and specifications approved in advance and in writing by
ACHD as required to satisfy applicable laws, its policies and good engineering practices.
In approving such plans and specifications, ACHD assumes no responsibility for any
deficiencies or inadequacies in the design or construction of the Improvements, and the
responsibility therefor shall be and remain in Licensee.
SECTION 4. WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL STATEMENT BY LICENSEE. Licensee
acknowledges and agrees that the license granted herein is temporary, and merely a
permissive use of the Right-of-Way pursuant to this Agreement. Licensee further
acknowledges and agrees that it specifically assumes the risk that the license pursuant
to this Agreement may be terminated before Licensee has realized the economic benefit
of the cost of installing, constructing, repairing, or maintaining the Improvements, and
Licensee hereby waives and estops itself from asserting any claim that the license is in
any way irrevocable because Licensee has expended funds on the Improvements and
CH-2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 2
(11/13/08)
the Agreement has not been in effect for a period sufficient for Licensee to realize the
economic benefit from such expenditures.
SECTION 5. TERM.
5.1 The term of this Agreement will commence on the day of
, 20_, and will continue until terminated by ACHD, with or without cause,
which termination shall be effective following THIRTY (30) DAYS advance written notice
of termination given to Licensee. Upon expiration of the THIRTY (30) DAYS, ACHD shall
record a Revocation of Master License Agreement in the Official Real Property Records
of Ada County, Idaho.
5.2 If Licensee defaults in the performance of any obligations incumbent upon
it to perform hereunder ACHD may terminate this Agreement and the rights extended to
Licensee hereunder at any time, effective at the end of THIRTY (30) days following the
date ACHD shall provide written notice of termination to Licensee, which notice shall
specify such default(s). Licensee shall have such THRITY (30) day period to correct and
cure the specified defaults, and if so corrected and cured, to the satisfaction of ACHD,
this Agreement shall not be terminated but shall continue in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. FEE. There is no fee for the Licensee's Authorized Use of the Right-of-
Way under this Agreement.
SECTION 7. MAINTENANCE; FAILURE TO MAINTAIN; RELOCATION OF UTILITIES.
7.1 At its sole cost and expense, Licensee shall maintain the Improvements in
good condition and repair and as required to satisfy applicable laws, the policies of ACHD
and sound engineering practices. Licensee shall have access over, across and under
the Right-of-Way for the purposes of accomplishing such repair and maintenance.
7.2 If the Highway on and/or adjacent to the Right-of-Way is damaged as a
result of:
(i) the performance by Licensee of the maintenance required by section 7, or
the failure or neglect to perform such maintenance; and/or
(ii) Licensee's design, installation or use of the Improvements, regardless of
cause;
at its sole cost and expense Licensee shall forthwith correct such deficiency and restore
the Highway and the surface of the Right-of-Way to the same condition it was in prior
CH-2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 3
(11/13/08)
thereto, and if Licensee shall fail or neglect to commence such correction and restoration
within twenty-four (24) hours of notification thereof, ACHD may proceed to do so, in which
event Licensee agrees to reimburse ACHD for the costs and expenses thereof, including,
without limitation, reasonable compensation for the use of staff and equipment of ACHD.
7.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7.2, should an emergency exist
related to the Licensee's use of this license which threatens the stability or function of the
Highway on or adjacent to the Right-of-Way or the safety of the public use thereof, ACHD
shall have the right to immediately perform, on behalf of, and at the cost of Licensee
necessary emergency repairs.
7.4 Licensee will be responsible for the relocation of any existing utilities located
on the Right-of-Way as may be required in connection with any construction or installation
of Improvements by Licensee in the Right-of-Way.
SECTION 8. RELOCATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. If during the term of this Agreement
ACHD requires, in its sole discretion, at any time, and from time to time, that the Highway
on and/or adjacent to the Right-of-Way be widened and/or realigned, redesigned,
improved and/or reconstructed, Licensee hereby accepts responsibility for all costs for
relocating, modifying or otherwise adapting the Improvements to such realignment and/or
relocation and/or reconstruction if required by ACHD, which shall be accomplished by
Licensee according to designs, plans and specifications approved in advance by ACHD
in writing; provided ACHD gives Licensee adequate written notice as necessary to allow
Licensee to redesign, relocate, modify or adapt the Improvements to the realignment
and/or relocation and/or reconstruction of the Highway and also licenses Licensee such
additional area of its right-of-way, if any, as may be necessary for the proper operation of
the Improvements.
SECTION 9. PERMIT. If the proposed construction and installation of the Improvements,
or any reconstruction, relocation or maintenance thereof requires Licensee to obtain a
permit under ACHD policies, Licensee shall first obtain such permit from ACHD
(Construction Services Division) before commencing such work, and pay the required
fees and otherwise comply with the conditions set forth therein.
SECTION 10. NO TITLE IN LICENSEE. Except as expressly provided herein, the terms
and conditions of this Agreement shall not create any type of property right, title or interest
in Licensee in or to the Right-of-Way other than the right to temporarily use the same
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION 11. NO COSTS TO ACHD. Any and all costs and expenses associated with
Licensee's Authorized Use of the Right-of-Way, or any construction or installation of
Improvements thereon, or the repair and maintenance thereof, or the relocation of
CH-2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 4
(11/13/08)
Improvements or utilities thereon, or the restoration thereof at the termination of this
Agreement, shall be at the sole cost and expense of Licensee.
SECTION 12. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. Licensee agrees to pay all special
assessments and personal property taxes that may be levied and assessed on the
Improvements during the term of this Agreement.
SECTION 13. RESTORATION ON TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement,
Licensee will promptly remove all Improvements and restore the Right-of-Way to at least
its present condition. Should Licensee fail or neglect to promptly remove the
Improvements and restore the Right-of-Way, ACHD may do so, and assess Licensee for
the costs thereof. Provided, ACHD and Licensee may agree in writing that some or all of
such Improvements are to remain on the Right-of-Way following termination, and by
entering into such an agreement Licensee thereby disclaims all right, title and interest in
and to the same, and hereby grants such Improvements to ACHD, at no cost. Further
provided, if the Authorized Use of the Right-of-Way under this Agreement is for
landscaping in ACHD right-of-way and the irrigation and maintenance thereof, and the
general purpose government with jurisdiction has adopted ordinances, rules and
regulations governing the landscaping and maintenance of such right-of-way by owners
of the adjacent property, to the extent such owners are obligated to maintain and irrigate
the landscaping Licensee need not remove the same from the Right-of-Way.
SECTION 14. INDEMNIFICATION. Licensee hereby indemnifies and holds ACHD
harmless from and against any and all claims or actions for loss, injury, death, damages,
mechanics and other liens, arising out of the failure or neglect of Licensee, Licensee's
employees, contractors and agents, to properly and reasonably make Authorized Use of
the Right-of-Way or properly construct, install, plant, repair or maintain the Improvements
thereon, or that otherwise result from the use and occupation of the Right-of-Way by
Licensee, and including any attorney fees and costs that may be incurred by ACHD in
defense of such claims or actions indemnified against by Licensee hereunder. For claims
or actions arising out of failures or neglect occurring during the term of this Agreement,
Licensee's obligations pursuant to this section shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 15. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW; WASTE AND NUISANCES PROHIBITED. In
connection with Licensee's use of the Right-of-Way, throughout the term of this
Agreement Licensee covenants and agrees to: (i) comply and observe in all respects any
and all, federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations,
including, without limitation, those relating to traffic and pedestrian safety, the Clean
Water Act and/or to the presence, use, generation, release, discharge, storage or
disposal in, on or under the Right-of-way of any Hazardous Materials (defined as any
substance or material defined or designated as hazardous or toxic waste, material or
CH-2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 5
(11/13/08)
substance, or other similar term, by any federal, state or local environmental statute,
regulation or occurrence presently in effect or that may be promulgated in the future); (ii)
obtain any and all permits and approvals required by ACHD or any other unit of
government; and (iii) commit no waste or allow any nuisance on the Right-of-Way.
Licensee covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold ACHD harmless from and against
any and all claims, demands, damages, liens, liabilities and expenses (including without
limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees), arising directly or indirectly from or in any way
connected with the breach of the foregoing covenant. These covenants shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. ASSIGNMENT. Licensee, upon the prior written consent of ACHD, may
sell, assign or otherwise transfer this Agreement. Upon execution of the Assignment, the
assignee assumes all obligations, warranties, covenants and agreements of Licensee
herein contained.
SECTION 17. ATTORNEYS' FEES. In any suit, action or appeal therefrom to enforce or
interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs incurred
therein, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
SECTION 18. NOTICE. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing and be
delivered in person, or by United States Mails, postage prepaid, or by public or private
24-hour overnight courier service (so long as such service provides written confirmation
of delivery), or by facsimile verified by electronic confirmation. All notices shall be
addressed to the party at the address set forth below or at such other addresses as the
parties may from time to time direct in writing by notice given the other. Any notice shall
be deemed to have been given on (a) actual delivery or refusal, (b) three (3) days
following the day of deposit in the United States Mails, (c) the day of delivery to the
overnight courier, or (d) the day facsimile delivery is electronically confirmed.
If to ACHD: Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Attn: Right of Way Division
If to Licensee: City of Meridian
33 E Broadway
Suite 206
Meridian, ID 83642
SECTION 19. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement, the license herein
extended, and the covenants and agreements herein contained shall inure to the benefit
CH-2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 6
(11/13/08)
of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their successors and, if consented to by
ACHD under section 16, Licensee's assigns.
SECTION 20. EXHIBITS. All exhibits attached hereto and the recitals contained herein
are incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein.
SECTION 21. RECORDATION. This Agreement shall be recorded by ACHD upon
execution in the Official Real Property Records of Ada County, Idaho.
SECTION 22. Warranty of Authority to Execute.
22.1 The person executing this Agreement on behalf of ACHD represents and
warrants due authorization to do so on behalf of ACHD, and that upon execution of this
Agreement on behalf of ACHD, the same is binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit
of, ACHD.
22.2 If Licensee is not a natural person, the person executing the Agreement on
behalf of Licensee represents and warrants due authorization to do so on behalf of
Licensee, and that upon execution of this Agreement on behalf of Licensee, the same is
binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit, of Licensee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day, month and year first set forth above.
CH-2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 7
(11/13/08)
A A COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
By: David Serdar
Its: Right of Way Supervisor
STATE OF ILAHO �
County of Ada �
�:� p ,
On this day of �.,.:��: _,.,�;.. �� ., before me,
° a Notary Public In and for the State of Idaho, personally
appeared, David Serdar known or identified to rye to he the light of Way/ Supervisor for
the Ada County Highway District, the person who executed this instrument on behalf of
said District, and acknowledged to me that the Ada County Highway District executed the
same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, t have hereunto .yet my hand and affixed my official sea/
the day and year first above written.
NSKiAr�$���� Notary Public for Idaho
Residing at:
® oiARYMy commission expires: ty
W PUBV �
�1�� �ftf�tl �vpl'
V
C€ -2021
MASTER UCENSE AGREEMENT-Page 8
(11/1 3/Gu)
LICENSEE :
PQ°a EDAUG BY : Rob ®rtE . imison , Mayor 9- 14-2021
ATTE : r c;,y or w
�.�►�i EKIDIAN
IOAHO/
}
ris ohn irk 981aV4 1
�R;'Drthe TR�PSJ
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss .
COUNTY OF ADA )
On this 14th day of September, 2021 , before me , Charlene Way , a Notary Public in and for the
State of Idaho personally appeared , Robert E . Simison and Chris Johnson , known or identified
to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk who executed this instrument , and acknowledged to
me that he executed the same .
IN WHITNESS WHEREOF, I have herunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the
day and year first above written.
CHARLENE WAY Notary Public for Idaho
COMMISSION 67390 Residing at: Meridian, Idaho
NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires : 3=28=2022
MSTATE OF IDAHO
Y COMMISS ON EXPIRES 3/28/22
Ivow
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A — Depiction of ACHD ' s Right-of-Way
Exhibit B — Authorized Use of Right-of-Way
The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) is committed to compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and related regulations and directives. ACHD assures that no person shall on the grounds of
race, color, national origin, gender, disability or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any ACHD service, program or activity.
CH -2021
MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 9
( 11 / 13/08 )
i
"Exhibit A"
, ,
de
40
14,
41
de dP
1r i '0,
edr
I i , r0
40
� 41'
_ w , OI de 1', � �
d �d , , 4#
or
f
or
Imo/ e -"IP
. 1 l }
R # OP
4-
40' O�4
dOO
+41
s �
{ �0.
/ I I I
/ /�,l 01 l
` /
Lp
IP 40' 40'
41 LF •
�
'
i
s ! i1
OP P
+, /
40 f
40
✓ /
/ 0i /
,, l ,,+-i
Org, �
f. I 4I 11 j
Op 4F 0 0", e? Op"
10
! ,01
� / + 4e
/ I -e .
/ / � V
de
1
! I,
j ;
OF �I
tr O
This map is a representation of features on the ground and is not survey-grade l
1: 384
accurate.ACHD shall not be liable for any inaccuracies thereon. OP/
"Exhibit A"
910
r � ,
910
x ,V
e* OF
o 9
,
e 140 '� T '
all
'0
01/ el Ile
't + r Of • }
f I
,S 0
40
OP
This map is a representation of features on the ground and is not survey-grade x' 1:768
accurate.ACHD shall not be liable for any inaccuracies thereon.
"Exhibit A"
r,#1 51 51 /5� •51, T r �� ��9 ..
n4_4 r46,,
51a.
IM 2275
-� .1 2A 0
I Z47 l 5
268 - 2S) .292 se
A.
2�b0 1 is f1 <4� O fl 2�282
2 W 1 � '.
218 3 �,
60 2 282 re. 82
'��} 2'1 3
6 6 2�7G 290
)50 240 282 -
6 250 y U 250 �S�Q 296 2�?0 2-90 19f} 291) 170
250 250 29ia 'AL
'1�317 _ 917-29.U�19f1 x. 2.16g -
'
. r � ir ►' rir ' am'esourt D,r. r
* Gil - 2189
1 � 1
207
2 20641 . >. � 207 ,
F
111 234 y, 2.16 � .� +2� 200 � 2� � + 2068. �
24 114 2362058
a
1�28 20 # 9. 2 2060 � a
132 I� 2 2 1'2�63 a0 201
20G2 `W51,
202 a� .i }2 5�3 ry -r10_64 03
��'s`4 2032 093
* .
vy 2039 2037
' S0 25 2 30 202S 2059
2,1c'0 2035 8 242 _
k {' 240w 44 �40-2 - 2020 E E lbridq� St
180 ♦ 'E Elbridg&sg.
•* . 148 142 �170 �#41
2� �� � ��i� � ' �' + � •�� ;fig. 41�7 �� .t.
14ca_i
• 146, 144 � : 176 •i-i• °� 71273�2D1� -��5 4
2 158 if, I 74 1''2 3 69 -
154 156 1_172 247- 2 255 2
1G2 168 '.
5GGI
IDS 2.1
` 2 3J
This map is a representation of features on the ground and is not survey-grade 1 2 2 0 2 S 6 1: 1,536
accurate.ACHD shall not be liable for any inaccuracies thereon. _ .;" 350-
I � y
y_y H �' I�Iv'i e. Ira1�� !:'. _ _ ,, • i
IL
dt
�� lt'.'Ir �# �' _ k 7� - — � +� �_.�w�a�l I T �.• T i - Fr l � i �'�+ I
Lao
r .,ice 1'
r ��+'"'-� �} - �yi���r� �:,�� ;�•1� .ayL�+'�'{[+•�� i T'Till
J�--� � •.l� ) Y-
+
715 r �, J •+ �, „fir a k In
7IV,
UN
41
-�:I is �� r� - _�I � � 'k �•-±+� �
IR I' AAAJ
r' ors } ,low
wl
— —.
bill!
JF _ —
yti :sue lI
•�,��_� �' �►'e •#��'� fir+ � _ xr '
LAr
�� � �r ��st �s k t•i � •���'yr .y
�4 � ':*+
`ot
imw .I* �- T_ �� s '�'if a �4�• L � ' _� ti
"Exhibit A"
4 . .
ice' ' .100"de1i ��/�
r , #
*40�0 • . . r
! , . 010.
• i . '
ii `ems r fy # i
## ## ## ##/#!# ## ## #f#/ ## #### #f# # # # ## /## # ###/## #j# ###I# # # #JF# # # If#
s
♦ i . r ' i 'r ,0 i , r i r 'r '. r ,#4F �i 4"i #, , , i i , , r , , r
# ! #
## -01
i # ce# 01 ##
i###
/#4e#i fi# # ## # ## r # # ##'0 # # # �/ # - ## # 4j # i# # ##I# ##, ## # I # # ♦ # ## # I # j # # ###
OF
# # # # ! ',
4 41 4' 40' 4 � l 4, 'lam !, / / ! / / / /
A OIL
# ! / # / ♦ / / # # # # /
4- ## ## ## #i## # # ####i##i# ## #1 #i #i## # # J i # i # #i #i # #J #e / #/
/ ♦ # / ♦ / / # I / / # I ♦ l ! / ♦ !
♦ ! ! # # # .# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ♦ ♦ #*11 # # ! # # !#
# #!##! / ## !#I## OF
#######r##i###### ##i I ## #!##!#I 40'# ####X { # ## ####/## #I ## #�##/##I
#### 40,
I#/ #/ #/### ## / ###/##i# Idf I op do III
/# Yj /# I /# # ## /# / # ## ♦ ###/ ##III#i# ## I##/de #!#I#/
#### ### # ###j##### / #/##/# # ##/##!#/!#/# #/#! #/j#/ I Ij! ! I +# #j#I}I
I / ii r- -
# Ile, i j## ## #r #j # ## #i #ice#r## # r##r# # i r ## ## ## j # �
# I# ## /######i## # #/ #i #i# ## I�###i I# II ##I ##
df +1 .
r
• '0
40' op
{ , �
# ##,#i / ## #i�# ## i,4i,411111111
### or
. .
40
, r, i ## iIIIP ,#i, ##j !# #, #,##,##� # ,
C� ",1 1
ee
' / /
le
140
, i
C l # J' # 411 J #/ / ♦ .
01
# #/ #41 ## ## r
!# I# # / /# 40
•##I##/#J#1# f###/#!# ## !
i } ii#i 1: 384
This map is a representation of features on the ground and is not survey-grade ## # # # # # # #
accurate.ACHD shall not be liable for any inaccuracies thereon. # #, ,#i ###,#/ ! i#j+"0'
EXHIBIT A Exhibit B
FIVE MILE PATHWAY
STRIPING
SCALE:1"=1'
Located in the State of Idaho,Ada County,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TYPICAL 10-FOOT
WIDE PATHWAY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4"BROKEN YELLOW
PAINTED LINE
I
(T LINE,9'GAP)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit B
% ' Reta FIVE MILE PATHWAY STRIPING EXHIBIT
Hus y �r CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Ten Mile ark 12 May 2021
'Trailhub
Settler I
USTICK RD. Park*%l L
C u dty
di
Fa Hity
♦ Tully
W ♦ Park I
Q _
I
Lakeview
I
Golf Course
Q Stree
' Z Park E. AMES CT.
a L__j
z
� a
Legend
CHERRY LANE FAIRVIEW AVE.
i
Existing Pathway Ada County Sidewalk Facilities I
— — Long-Term Route 0 to receive centerline striping
Micro Path No striping shall occur on any
pedestrian facilities that do not
On Street Route meet the 10' width standard �.
— — Proposed Pathway
PINE AVENUE EAST TO
Meridian Parks 1 LOCUST GROVE INTERSECTION
PINE AVE. 1-
Five Mile Pathway
Railroad 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
77
C� E IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 21-2285: A Resolution Reappointing Camden Hyde to the
Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission, Raeya Wardle to the Meridian Arts Commission, and
Joseph Leckie to the Meridian Transportation Commission; and Providing and Effective Date
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 21-2285
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN REAPPOINTING CAMDEN HYDE TO THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION, RAEYA WARDLE TO THE MERIDIAN ARTS
COMMISSION, AND JOSEPH LECKIE TO THE MERIDIAN TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 4 establishes the Meridian Parks and
Recreation Commission;
WHEREAS, Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 2 establishes the Meridian Arts
Commission;
WHEREAS, Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 7 establishes the Meridian
Transportation Commission;
WHEREAS, Meridian City Code Section 2-1-1 establishes roles, responsibilities,
membership and terms of appointment for all Meridian City Commissions;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian recognizes and values the unique
perspective and input of the youth of the Meridian community within the City, and to that end
Meridian City Code § 2-1-1(c)(2) states that a youth member may be appointed to Commissions;
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the reappointment of Camden
Hyde as a Youth Member to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission; Raeya Wardle as a
Youth Member to the Meridian Arts Commission and Joseph Leckie as a Youth Member to the
Meridian Transportation Commission, to be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; and
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 Camden Hyde be reappointed as
a Youth Member to the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission;Raeya Wardle be reappointed
as a Youth Member to the Meridian Arts Commission, and Joseph Leckie be reappointed as a
Youth Member to the Meridian Transportation Commission for terms of one year,expiring August
31, 2022.
YOUTH COMMISSIONER REAPPOINTMENTS-LECKIE TO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,HYDE TO PARKS&
RECREATION COMMISSION AND WARDLE TO ARTS
COMMISSION
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 14th day of September,
2021. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 14th day of September,
2021.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By:
Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk
YOUTH COMMISSIONER REAPPOINTMENTS-LECKIE TO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,HYDE TO PARKS&
RECREATION COMMISSION AND WARDLE TO ARTS
COMMISSION
77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Community Development Department: Multi-Family Open Space Comparison
C�
fIEN .D L4,,
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda
From: Bill Parsons, Community Development Meeting Date: September 14, 2021
Presenter: Bill Parsons Estimated Time: 20 Minutes
Topic: Multi-Family Open Space Comparison
Recommended Council Action:
Final direction on UDC/City Code regarding open space requirements for multi-family
development.
Background:
On July 27, 2021, City Council approved modifications to the open space and amenity standards
for residential projects. During that meeting, Staff and City Council discussed various options for
ensuring multi-family developments would provide adequate open space and amenities. Council
instructed Staff to do a comparison of the multi-family changes and share those findings before the
ordinance is approved.
The data shared with City Council on July 27th demonstrated that the current standards provided
appropriate open space as density increased, however the minimum requirement of 15%was
reluctantly supported. Therefore,the Council increased the minimum open space to 18% for all
developments 5 acres or larger; 10% for developments less than 5 acres and removed the
standard that required a specific amount of open space based on the square footage of each
dwelling unit. In an effort to vet the changes, staff was asked to do a comparison of these changes
to ensure the City is getting the desired amount of open space the community expects.
Below are various tables that compare the current and proposed standards. The assumptions used
in compiling the data include:
• density ranges between 8 and 40 dwelling units per acre (it is very rare that we see projects
below or above this range);
• projects that range in size from 0.5 acres and 20 acres (it is rare that we see projects below or
above these sizes) and
• an average of 250 sq. ft. of open space per unit (unit size between 500 and 1200 sq.ft.).
Blank areas in the tables below indicate values that fall outside of these assumptions.As noted
below, a flat percentage of open space yielded the same amount of open space if a denser project
was developed on the same acreage as a less dense one. This directly correlates to a reduction in
open space per unit and may prioritize density over quality open space.
In summary, the data suggest having a combination of both a flat rate percentage as well as a per
unit open space requirement provides for a better spread of open space across a wider range of
project sizes and densities. This is especially true for higher density projects and when
considering inclusion of street buffers. This combined approach to open space helps ensure the
City is getting the desired open space more commensurate with density. Therefore, Staff would
like to discuss these findings with Council at the September 14th meeting before approving the
ordinance associated with the UDC text amendment.
Exhibit 1: 18% Overall Open Space required for Developments > 5 Acres
Project Size(Acres)
Un' 0. 7� 7� 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
0
25 0.4 0.51
50 `0.4 0.5 wr 0.9 1.1
75 10.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6
4L-
100 16 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
125 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7
150 Mk7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2
175 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.
200 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
225 .1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
250 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
275 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
300 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
325 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
350 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
375 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
400 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
425 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
450 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
475 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.6
500 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 , 3.2 3.4 3.6
Average amount of open space per unit is 431 sq. ft. This is a net loss of approximately 59 sq. ft.
less from current standards. Per unit distribution of open space ranges from 198 (most dense) to
941 (least dense) sq. ft. of open space.
Exhibit 2: 10% Overall Open Space required for developments < 5 Acres (project larger than 5
acre shown for comparison only).
Project Size(Acres)
Un' 0. 7 1 Li Li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
0
25 0.
50 ` 0.2 0.3 -'W 0.5 0.6
75 2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
100 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
125 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
150 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
175 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
200 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
225 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
250 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
275 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
300 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
325 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
350 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
375 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
400 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
425 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
450 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
475 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
500 1.3 1.4 1.5 1 1.6 1.7
Average amount of open space per unit is 239 sq. ft. This is a net loss of approximately 250 sq. ft.
less from current standards. Per unit distribution of open space ranges from 110 (most dense) to
523 (least dense) sq. ft. of open space.
Exhibit 3: Open Space required, Current Standards > 5 Acres (10% + OS per unit)
Project Size(Acres)
u n' 0. 2J 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
0
25 ` &. 0.
50 l 0.5
75 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.
Iff
100 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 IF 1.7 1.8
125 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
150 IL.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
175 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0
200 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1
225 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3
250 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
275 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6
300 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
325 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9
350 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0
375 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2
400 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3
425 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
450 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6
475 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
500 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
Average amount of open space per unit is 489 sq. ft. Per unit distribution of open space ranges
from 360 (most dense) to 773 (least dense) sq. ft. of open space.
Exhibit 4: Open Space required, Current Standards < 5 Acres (OS per unit) (project larger than 5
acre shown for comparison only).
Project Size(Acres)
U n' 0. 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
0
25
50 0.3 0.31IF 0.3?
75 I 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
100 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.64W.6 0.
125 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 _
150 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
175 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
200 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
225 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1 1.3 1.3
250 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
275 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
300 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
325 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
350 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
375 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
400 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
425 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
450 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
475 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
500 a 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9,
Average amount of open space per unit is 250 sq. ft. Per unit distribution is always 250 sq. ft.
Exhibit 5: Summary Open Space Table:
Description Average OS per Min (sq.ft.) Max(sq.ft.)
Unit(sq.ft.)
18% Overall Open Space for 431 198 941
Developments >5 Acres
2: 10% Overall Open Space for
239 110 523
developments<5 Acres
Current Open Space Standards >5 Acres 489 360 773
(10%+OS per unit)
Current Open Space Standards<5 Acres 250 250 250
(OS per unit)
77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Parks and Recreation Department: Lakeview Golf Course Strategic Master
Plan Discussion
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
C� E IDIANT City Council Members:
.1� Joe Burton Genesis Milam
Ty Palmer Luke Cavener
i u A H O Treg Bernt Anne Little Roberts
August 18, 2021
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mike Barton, MPR Parks Superintendent
RE: Draft Strategic Master Plan for Lakeview Golf Course
We are bringing forward a presentation and discussion on the draft Master Plan for Lakeview
Golf Course that has been prepared by the National Golf Foundation. The plan and presentation
are centered around four primary focus areas—management structure, capital improvement plan,
playing fees and the food and beverage service. In addition to the public/stakeholder engagement
the draft plan has been discussed with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Golf
Course Focus Group. We look forward to presenting the findings and having a discussion with
the Mayor and Council regarding the process and content of the plan.
i
r
Lakeview GC Strategic Master Plan Study
Prepared for
�� IDIi
Presented by:
Ed Getherall
Director of Consulting
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc.
NGF - KEEPING GOLF BUSINESSES AHEAD OF THE GAME SINCE 1936
501 NORTH HIGHWAYA1A, JUPITER, FL 33477
PHONE: 561-744-6006 • FAX: 561-744-9085 • www.NGF.org
Purpose and Key Objectives
➢ Identify strategies that will help Lakeview Golf Club attain
financial sustainability (maximum cost recovery) while
providing a high-quality recreation amenity for Meridian :
➢ Develop a prioritized facility improvement plan that
addresses infrastructure and deferred maintenance
deficiencies and enhances Lakeview GC's marketability
➢ Provide strategic guidance on key areas such as:
➢ Short- and long-term management structure
➢ Playing fees / market positioning
➢ Food and Beverage operations
➢ Marketing
➢ Ways to engage non-golfers
➢ Gauge community / stakeholder opinions
Study Components
➢ Situation Analysis
➢ Physical Evaluation and Recommendations (CIP)
➢ Operations Review and Recommendations
➢ "Big Picture" Strategic Focus
➢ Best Practices
➢ Assistance with Budgeting
➢ Market Analysis
➢ National Overview and Trends
➢ Local / Regional Market — Demo/Econ + Competitive
➢ Extensive Public / Stakeholder Engagement
3
._.�_ ket Analysis - National Trends
➢ Attrition among infrequent golfers
➢ Golf course closures continue to greatly outpace openings
➢ Surge in capital investment for existing facilities
➢ Increasing diversity of junior participants and beginners
➢ Increase in `off-course' participation (Topgolf)
➢ Large pool of interested prospects
➢ Impacts of Covid-19 pandemic — 2020-21
➢ Large surge in participation and demand; pricing power
➢ Inflation and labor difficulties
Page 147
4
ket Analysis - Local / Regional Findings
➢ Among fastest growing markets — 4 X national growth rate
➢ Robust, diverse economy and favorable climate
➢ Lakeview GC 10-mile primary trade area has 61 % more golfing
households per 18 holes of public golf than the overall nation
➢ Estimated average of 38,000+ annual rounds per 18 regulation
holes, competitive subset compares favorably to national
average of — 31 ,500
➢ High-quality public competitors, including City of Nampa's
Ridgecrest and Centennial; Banbury GC; Falcon Crest GC
➢ Despite high quality, very affordable rates
➢ Opportunity, after improvements, to differentiate on strong
value, walkability, sense of community
5
Public / Stakeholder Engagement
Golfer Survey
Phone and Video Interviews / Focus Groups with:
➢ Current and former public officials — including Mayor
Simison, City Council members, Parks & Recreation
commissioners, WARD Chairman, and City staff
➢ Golf Course Focus Group
➢ Lakeview GC Men's and Ladies' Golf Associations
➢ HOA representatives
r Community Online Survey
`Town Hall' meeting held at Lakeview GC
6
Public / Stakeholder Engagement
➢ Most are happy about City decision to take over Lakeview
➢ Believe it represents an exciting opportunity — looking forward
to improvements City will make
➢ Golf course suffered from neglect, lack of investment over
years and decades
➢ Some would like to see broader community participation
➢ Behavior on course, "trespassing" need to be addressed
➢ Clubhouse (esp. patio) is a very nice community gathering
place, but also needs refreshing
Page 150
7
Key Areas of N G F Study
➢ Four key master plan areas of focus for Executive
Summary:
➢ 1 ) Long-Term Management Structure;
➢ 2) Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan ;
➢ 3) Golf Playing Fees; and
➢ 4) Food and Beverage Service
Page 151
8
Key Areas of Study - Management Structure
➢ Extensive narrative about most common municipal golf
operating structures in report
➢ Self-Operation (public employees)
➢ Management Contract
Operating Lease
➢ Concession Agreements
9
Key Areas of Study - Management Structure
➢ Extensive narrative about most common municipal golf
operating structures in report.
➢ Self-Operation (public employees):
➢ Maximum City level of control
➢ Lack of expertise
➢ Management Contract:
➢ Expertise; savings on labor expense
➢ Obligation of management fee regardless of facility economics
➢ Operating Lease:
➢ Shed operating risk; perhaps some private capital
➢ Near-complete loss of control of operation
➢ Concession Agreements: most typically Pro Shop, F&B.
10
Key Areas of Study — Management Structure
➢ Recommendation :
➢ On balance, management contract appears to be
best fit, at least for short term .
➢ Continue interim agreement with current operator.
➢ City can re-evaluate options after the operation
stabilizes.
➢ Management with a variable compensation
component may be negotiable and desirable at
that time.
Key Areas of Study - Capital Improvement Plan
➢ Evaluation by Forrest Richardson , current president of
the American Society of Golf Course Architects
➢ Current conditions, needs, and extensive Safety Analysis
➢ Preliminary CIP in five (5) Tiers:
➢ Start-Up Costs — Maintenance equipment, golf carts,
and safety mitigation .
➢ Tier 1 Capital Replacements
➢ Tier 2 Capital Replacements / Improvements
➢ Tier 3 Capital Replacements / Improvements
➢ Long-Range Capital Enhancements
Page 155
12
Key Areas of Study - Capital Improvement Plan
➢ Tier 1 : Includes irrigation system replacement and new ground water
well; renovation of existing back 9 restroom. Est. Cost = —$3.6 million.
➢ Tier 2: Includes drainage solution for fairways and roughs; tee
reconstruction; allowance for cart paths. Est. Cost = —$900K.
➢ Tier 3: Includes continued construction of infrastructure,
including greens and bunkers; new clubhouse roof and
replacement of 3 HVAC units. Est. Cost = —$840K.
➢ Long-Range Capital Enhancements
➢ Lake / aqua range construction solution
➢ Construction of new accessible restroom near #5 Tee
➢ Short game practice area relocation and enhancement
➢ 9-Hole "Zenger" Practice Course
➢ Est. Cost = —$2.2 million
Page 156
13
Key Areas of Study - Golf Playing Fees
➢ Keep basic structure for short term, but consider inflation-
indexed increases after FY 2022.
➢ Emphasis on tee sheet management, reducing
discounted fees; utilize pricing power when have it.
➢ Replace VIP Pass program with internal loyalty program.
➢ Concur with $1 cart fee increase due to new fleet.
➢ Lakeview GC may be able to command higher fees as
improvement plan is implemented over next several
years.
Page 157
14
Key Areas of Study - Food and Beverage Operations
➢ Because located in residential community, not a "basic"
operation like found at majority of municipal golf courses.
➢ Popular venue in the past, but unclear if made profit on
-$500,000 in revenue.
➢ In "normal" environment, potential profit center.
➢ Difficulties hiring and retaining personnel, including key
positions like Kitchen Manager.
➢ Discussed two primary options:
➢ Scaled back — reduced hours, grab-and-go; premade sandwiches;
burgers; hot dogs. Highest margins are on alcohol.
➢ "Go Big" — requires labor market to normalize and facility to be
able to charge enough for appropriate margins. Riskier.
➢ Potential third option - private concession.
Page 158
15
Closing Thoughts
➢ Lakeview GC presents both challenges and opportunities for
the City of Meridian.
➢ Key public policy decisions to be made.
➢ Facility requires extensive improvement and will always be
subject to uncontrollable external variables.
➢ Strong golf market with rapid population growth and strong
economy.
➢ Loyal, "fall-out-of-bed" customer base.
➢ Opportunity to broaden appeal and engagement to the
community, including non-golfers.
➢ Differentiate based on value, walkability, "community" aspects.
➢ Chance to breakeven or make a profit.
Page 159
16
Lakeview GC Strategic Master Plan Study
Prepared for
�� IDIi
Presented by:
Ed Getherall
Director of Consulting
National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc.
NGF - KEEPING GOLF BUSINESSES AHEAD OF THE GAME SINCE 1936 Page 160
501 NORTH HIGHWAYA1A, JUPITER, FL 33477
PHONE: 561-744-6006 • FAX: 561-744-9085 • www.NGF.org
Lakeview Golf Club
Master Plan Consulting
City of Meridian, ID
Gllli
Final Report
Prepared For:
City of Meridian
33 East Broadway Ave
Meridian,ID 83642
Prepared By:
_N_�_ _FCONSULTING
NATIONAL GOLF FOVMOr1T10H
501 N.Highway Ala
Jupiter,FL 33477
(561)744-6006
September 2021
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE.........................................................................................................1
EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................................2
Situation Overview/Project Background.............................................................................................2
MarketAnalysis....................................................................................................................................2
Public/Stakeholder Engagement.........................................................................................................3
Key Areas of Study and Recommendations..........................................................................................3
ManagementStructure..................................................................................................................................3
Lakeview GC Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan.................................................................................6
GolfPlaying Fees.........................................................................................................................................7
Food and Beverage Service..........................................................................................................................8
SummaryStatement............................................................................................................................ 10
SITUATION OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................12
ProjectBackground.............................................................................................................................12
Lakeview Golf Club Facility Overview..............................................................................................12
LakeviewGolf Club Overview...................................................................................................................12
Clubhouse...................................................................................................................................................13
SiteOverview.............................................................................................................................................13
OperationsOverview..........................................................................................................................15
Operating Structure and Oversight.............................................................................................................15
Fees/Pricing..............................................................................................................................................15
Operating Results/Rounds Played,Revenues,and Expenses...................................................................15
Lakeview Golf Club FY2021-2022 Operating Budget and Projections.....................................................16
MARKET ANALYSIS—EXTERNAL FACTORS AFFECTING DEMAND FOR GOLF..............19
National Golf Industry Overview........................................................................................................19
KeyTrends in Demand...............................................................................................................................19
GolfCourse Supply....................................................................................................................................20
OtherMeasures of Health...........................................................................................................................20
National Golf Industry Overview Summary...............................................................................................21
Local/Regional Market Overview.....................................................................................................21
Defining the Primary Trade Area for Lakeview Golf Club........................................................................21
Demographics.............................................................................................................................................22
Local Golf Demand and Supply Indicators................................................................................................23
Local Economic and Climate Factors Affecting Demand for Golf............................................................24
CompetitiveGolf Market....................................................................................................................25
Significant Findings—Competitive Public Golf Market(18-Hole or Greater)..........................................26
Local/Regional Market Summary.....................................................................................................28
PUBLIC/STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.....................................................................................29
Golfer Survey(NGF GolfSAT) ..........................................................................................................29
Page 162
Phone and Video Interviews/Focus Groups......................................................................................29
Public Officials,Golf Course Focus Group Members,Lakeview GC Associations..................................29
HOARepresentatives.................................................................................................................................32
Golfers(across segments)...........................................................................................................................32
CommunityOn-Line Survey...............................................................................................................33
SurveyResults............................................................................................................................................33
Town Hall Meeting at Lakeview Golf Club........................................................................................39
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN......................................................................................................40
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................40
GolfCourse Evaluation.......................................................................................................................41
EvaluationMethodology............................................................................................................................41
Existing Conditions,Needs,and Recommendations..................................................................................42
Clubhouse Assessment and Recommendations..................................................................................60
Recommended Immediate Repairs—Short Term.......................................................................................60
Recommended Repairs—Intermediate Term.............................................................................................60
Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan-Lakeview Golf Club...........................................................61
Preliminary Probable Cost Estimates.........................................................................................................61
Lakeview GC Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan...............................................................................62
NGF-Forrest Richardson Capital Improvement Plan—Cost Summary......................................................66
Capital Improvement Plan—Phasing Considerations.................................................................................66
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................67
City Accounting of the Golf Operation...............................................................................................67
Basics of General Fund vs.Enterprise Fund Accounting...........................................................................67
Management Alternatives...................................................................................................................69
Golf Playing Fees/Market Positioning..............................................................................................72
GolfCourse Staffing...........................................................................................................................73
Food and Beverage Services...............................................................................................................75
Marketing and Direct Selling..............................................................................................................77
Utilizationof Technology...................................................................................................................81
Player Development and Programming..............................................................................................82
Lakeview GC Golf Associations and Leagues...........................................................................................82
JuniorGolf Programs.................................................................................................................................83
CustomerService................................................................................................................................85
Communication...................................................................................................................................85
OtherOperational Issues.....................................................................................................................86
Paceof Play Management..........................................................................................................................86
Recordkeepingand Reporting....................................................................................................................86
Golf Course Ambassador Program.............................................................................................................87
Accessibility...............................................................................................................................................88
POTENTIAL OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB ON MERIDIAN
....................................................................................................................................................................89
Page 163
APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................................90
Appendix A—National Rounds Played Report ..................................................................................91
Appendix B—Local Demographic, Demand and Supply Data..........................................................97
Appendix C—Lakeview Golf Club Primary Competitors Information............................................ 100
Appendix D—Community Online Survey........................................................................................ 102
Appendix E—Golf Course Exhibits.................................................................................................. 107
Exhibit 1 -Original 9 Holes.....................................................................................................................107
Exhibit 2-Existing Course Layout and Conditions.................................................................................108
Exhibit 3 -Practice Range and Lake Conceptual Study...........................................................................109
Exhibit 4-Recommended Safety Mitigation Measures(preliminary).....................................................110
Exhibit 5 -Zenger 9H Practice Course Concept and Associated Changes...............................................III
Exhibit 6-Zenger 9H Practice Course Concept.......................................................................................112
Appendix F—ASGCA Life Cycle Chart .......................................................................................... 113
Appendix G—Clubhouse—Short-Term Repair/Replace Cost Estimates....................................... 114
Bent Nail Inspections Executive Summary..............................................................................................114
ImmediateRepairs Summary...................................................................................................................115
FutureRepairs Summary..........................................................................................................................116
Replacement Reserve Summary...............................................................................................................117
Page 164
Introduction and Purpose
The City of Meridian,Idaho ("City")retained NGF Consulting("NGF")to help assess operations and
capital needs of the City's 18-hole Lakeview Golf Club("Lakeview GC")with the ultimate goal of
developing strategies to ensure the financial sustainability of Lakeview GC under City operation as a
municipal golf facility.NGF's role is to assist the City with strategic master planning for Lakeview GC
and producing a"guiding document"that comprises a market analysis,feedback from extensive
stakeholder engagement, a prioritized capital plan, and best business practice recommendations for
operations. The objective of the study is to create a plan for Lakeview GC that can help the City achieve
the goal of operating it on a self-sustaining basis(without taxpayer support),while also providing high-
quality and affordable recreation to Meridian residents and visitors.
The City requires this independent, expert analysis to provide direction to the City regarding key elements
of its stewardship of Lakeview GC, including,but not limited to:
► Do the facility and market analyses indicate there will be sufficient demand—from both daily fee
players and passholders -to result in operations that are financially self-sustaining?
► What capital improvements are needed to make Lakeview GC more marketable beyond the
immediate"mile-square"neighborhoods?How much are they likely to cost, and how should they
be prioritized?
► How should the City manage Lakeview Golf Club beyond the period for the interim management
contract?For example, should self-operation be a consideration, or should the City look to enter
into a longer-term agreement with the current management company?
► What operational best practices will help the facility achieve the goal of self-sustainability?
To answer these and other questions,NGF conducted a comprehensive study that included a market
analysis,physical review of assets,community/stakeholder engagement, and operations review. The latter
component comprised elements such as: management structure; fee analysis(daily fees,passes, etc.);
marketing and direct selling; customer service;use of technology;player development and programming;
staffing; and, food and beverage services.
The NGF market and operations analysis, as well as community engagement,was managed by Ed
Getherall,MBA,Director of Consulting,with assistance from Senior Director of Consulting,Richard
Singer and Research and Consulting Administrator Jodi Reilly. The site analysis,physical evaluation and
capital improvement planning was managed by Forrest Richardson,Principal,Forrest Richardson and
Associates("FRA"). In addition to Mr. Richardson's site tours,the consultants attended virtual meetings
with City and golf course staff,including the Golf Course Focus Group, and conducted a multi-faceted
community engagement process. We also collected materials to aid in understanding the local market
area,including economic, demographic,and climatological data.
Page a 165
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
Executive Summary
This section comprises NGF Consulting's summary of key findings and recommendations related to the
City of Meridian's current and future operation of its 18-hole Lakeview Golf Club,based on our review
and analysis in the winter and spring of 2021. Full detail, along with supporting narrative and exhibits,is
found in the body of the report and the Appendix.
SITUATION OVERVIEW/ PROJECT BACKGROUND
In the body of the report,NGF presents a situation analysis of Lakeview Golf Club intended to provide
the appropriate background and context for later analysis and discussions. The situation analysis
comprises three elements -project background, facility overview, and operations overview. The latter two
components are discussed in the report, and the project background is summarized here.
The City of Meridian has long owned the land that Lakeview GC sits on,and has leased the golf course
out to private operators,the last of whom sold the leasehold interest and improvements—including the
clubhouse built around 2000-to the Western Ada Recreation District(WARD) for about f$1.4 million.
WARD may be disbanded in the next few years and has an agreement with the City to convey the
assets/improvements to the City. In the interim,the City has entered into a License and Management
Agreement with the District to operate and maintain the golf course. The City subsequently entered into a
short-term third-party management agreement with national golf course operator,KemperSports
Management("KemperSports", "KSM", or"Manager"),to manage and maintain the facility.
Management retained much of the existing key staff, including the current General Manager and the
Superintendent(subsequently retired).
Extensive engagement with customers of Lakeview Golf Club by NGF during the study process revealed
a negative perception of previous management,focused primarily on the extremely lean maintenance
budget and the relative lack of investment in the facility subsequent to the addition of the new clubhouse
about 20 years ago. Extensive community engagement revealed that stakeholders have high expectations
that the City will improve Lakeview GC,which is viewed as an important addition to the City's public
recreational amenities.
MARKET ANALYSIS
To assess the current positioning and potential market opportunities for Lakeview Golf Club under City
ownership,NGF analyzed key"external"factors that have the potential to affect demand for golf. The
overview includes NGF's macro perspective of the US golf industry. On a local/regional basis,we
analyzed area demographic and economic factors,as well as golf supply and demand indicators,that
characterize the trade area. Detailed analysis is presented in the report,with summary below.
The Treasure Valley golf course market is characterized by active golf courses for this climate region,
attributable to high quality golf courses at very affordable green fees. Golf courses in the Valley benefit
from a vibrant economy and very high-growth population from which to draw players.With rapid
population growth,already favorable(compared to overall U.S.)golf demand-supply ratios should grow
more favorable over time,barring further golf course development.With more affluent households
moving to the area,the apparent ceiling on green fees in this market may go higher over time.
Despite the relative robustness of the market,Lakeview GC has been reliant on its"built-in"season
passholder base for survival,with daily fee play at `rack rates' accounting for only about a quarter or so of
total plays. The course,in its current condition, draws much of its daily fee play through various forms of
discounting(e.g.,VIP Card). The key to Lakeview GC being able to successfully increase market share—
Page 166
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
especially in terms of daily fee play—appears to be substantially improving the product through major
capital investment.
PUBLIC / STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
A key component of this study was a vigorous,multi-faceted public and overall stakeholder engagement
campaign. The process yielded very useful information and feedback-including several recurring themes
—for the City as it begins its stewardship of Lakeview Golf Club. The overall vibe with respect to the
City's decision to take control of the assets and management of Lakeview GC was very positive,with
most we spoke to excited about the opportunity it presents. Details of the feedback provided can be found
in the body of the report.
The various components of the engagement process are listed below.
► Golfer Survey
► Phone and Video Interviews/Focus Groups with:
■ Current and former public officials—including Mayor Simison, City Council members,
Parks&Recreation commissioners,WARD Chairman, and City staff.
■ Golf Course Focus Group
■ Lakeview GC Men's and Ladies' Golf Associations
■ HOA representatives
► Community Online Survey
► `Town Hall' meeting held at Lakeview GC
KEY AREAS OF STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the body of the report,NGF provides a detailed assessment of current conditions,preliminary capital
improvement plan(CIP), and administrative and operational recommendations aimed at providing
guidance to the City as moves forward with its stewardship of Lakeview Golf Club. Below are summary
narrative and recommendations related to four key master plan areas of focus: 1)Long-term Management
Structure; 2)Preliminary CIP; 3) Golf Playing Fees; and 4)Food and Beverage Service.
Management Structure
Below are descriptions of the most typical management/operational options for public agency(i.e.,
"City"as referred to below)golf courses. In our experience,there is no ideal operating scenario that fits
all situations, and each public entity must arrive at its own unique approach to operation and maintenance.
Summaries of the most common management options are shown here,with more detail in the report.
► Self-Operation: The City is in direct control of the golf operation,and all golf course staff are
public employees,with on-site management reporting to a City staff member. The municipality
earns all revenues,and is responsible for all expenses and capital improvements.
• The primary advantage is that the City has control of the day-to-day operation of the
golf course for maximum benefit to the community.
• The chief potential disadvantages include the potential lack of expertise in overseeing
and operating a golf course,and that finding,hiring, and retaining qualified personnel
can be a cumbersome and time-consuming process.
► Full-Service Management Contract-Fixed Fee: This option—the current structure at
Lakeview GC -involves the City hiring a single,independent third-party to manage all aspects
of the golf course in exchange for a pre-determined fixed management fee. The municipality
Page„e 167
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
earns all revenues,is responsible for all expenses, funds capital improvements, and pays a
management fee to the operator.
• Key potential advantages to this strategy include: savings with a private labor vs. public
labor expense structure and the benefit of professional management.
• The potential disadvantages include some loss of City control over day-to-day
operations,and the obligation of the fixed management fee,regardless of yearly
variations in performance.
► Full-Service Management Contract-Fixed Fee+Variable Component(i.e.,"Hybrid"):
These"hybrid"feature compensation to the contractor that comprises both a fixed fee
component and an additional incentive-based, or variable,component(most typically gross
revenue-based)that allows the operator and City to share in the risk of the operation.
► Operating Lease: Some municipalities lease their entire golf facilities to a private operator in
exchange for an annual(or monthly/quarterly) lease payment and/or capital improvement
considerations. (Former arrangement at Lakeview GC).
• The potential advantages of this option from the municipality perspective are the
avoidance of financial subsidy of the golf course,the collection of lease payments, and
some level of capital investment by the lessee.
• The key disadvantage for a municipality is that it has very little control on the day-to-
day operations,including policies,procedures, and golf playing fees.
► Concession Agreements: These are similar to lease agreements and can come in several types
or combinations. The typical areas of operation for concession agreements include Pro Shop,
Food and Beverage, and Golf Course Maintenance and involve the municipality contracting for
one, some, or all of these services.
• Concessions allow a municipality to shift some risk and payroll to one or more private
entities that also have specialized expertise in that particular revenue center.
• A potential disadvantage of this structure is that there may be a misalignment of
interests between concessionaires, or between a concessionaire and the municipality
operating the golf course.
NGF Commentary and Recommendation
It is not practical to precisely quantify the benefit to facility revenue of the management contract
structure,but NGF experience has been that the majority of municipalities entering into these agreements
enjoy a net benefit—after management fee -that accrues through the advantages listed above, as well as
access to regional/national marketing and purchasing programs,procurement advantages, etc.
Additionally,many of our municipal clients find it a great benefit to have an outside company act as both
an emissary and as a"buffer"between facility customers and City staff/officials.
On the expense side, savings under a private structure can be considerable with respect to labor costs,
largely due to savings on employee benefits. In the case of Lakeview GC,the City staff s direct
comparison analysis of the cost of currently budgeted staffing showed that,under City self-operation,the
labor cost would be 13%higher than under the current management contract. (The annualized
management fee,including reimbursement for accounting system, is currently$108,000). On the other
hand,the City has $166,000 worth of items in the FY22 budget that would be subject to 6% sales tax
under the current operating structure;under self-operation,the City would not pay tax on these items,
resulting in savings of$9,960.
Another consideration when deciding between self-operation and management agreement is that,
regardless of operating structure, some City staff will have responsibilities related to: oversight; liaising
with the management company; stewardship of capital improvement projects; accounting; customer
relations;human resource issues, etc. There are no"benchmarks"that exist that can predict whether the
Page 168
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
City of Meridian will require additional staff to perform these functions. In some cases—mostly with
multi-course systems -the increased workload cannot be absorbed, creating the need for additional
municipal staff. Each city must do an internal assessment of current staff resources in the context of
additional responsibilities that will have to be taken on by one or more people. (We note that the City of
Idaho Falls,which owns and operates three 18-hole regulation golf facilities,has a staff person—the
Director of Golf Operations—that oversees all three facilities. However,he also functions as the Head
Golf Professional at Pinecrest Golf Course).
There is no"one size fits all" solution to choosing a management structure. Each municipality must weigh
the various pros, cons, and other variables related to factors such as desired level of control over day-to-
day operations, operating expense differences, ease of hiring/firing,how"nimble"the City is with
respect to procurement of goods and services,public policy objectives, and potential revenue advantages
of outside professional management. While about 45%of municipal golf courses in the US are self-
operated,the national trend is clearly towards third-party management.NGF's US Golf Facility Database
(every facility updated annually), supplemented by extensive periodic survey research of municipal golf
facilities, shows that the percentage of municipal golf facilities managed by third-party vendors
(excluding full-facility leases) steadily increased from less than 15% in 2010 to about 25%in 2020.
The City had several purposes in mind when it decided to enter into a short-term agreement with a private
management partner to manage Lakeview GC. First and foremost, it was the most logical and efficacious
way to manage the transition of the golf course operation from the previous lessee to the City, including
the onboarding of employees. Also,the City desired to see the NGF master plan report prior to making
key long-term strategic decisions. So, in consideration of City objectives,NGF's evaluation of Lakeview
GC in the context of various potential advantages and disadvantages of each structure, and current
uncertainties with respect to the labor situation,timing of capital improvements, etc.,we conclude that an
interim management agreement is, on balance,the most advantageous short-term operating structure for
Lakeview GC.
The City is in the midst of what will be a multi-year learning curve with respect to Lakeview GC and
there is simply not enough information about the potential of Lakeview GC—and too many unpredictable
variables(e.g.,the labor market)—to make a decision about long term management at this point. Once the
City has made some of the high-priority capital improvements recommended in this report and established
a reliable financial performance baseline for the facility, informed decisions about long-term management
can be made.
Finally,one of the chief concerns expressed by the City to NGF about the private management structure
was providing sufficient financial incentive to improve the performance of the golf facility. In light of this
concern,if the City ultimately decides that a management agreement is the preferred structure for the
long-term management of Lakeview GC, it may wish to explore with its management partner a fee
arrangement that includes both fixed and variable components,with the latter based on the achievement
of mutually-determined performance objectives(most commonly,reaching established gross revenue
thresholds). There are several reasons that the City should not expect the current agreement to include a
variable compensation component in the short term,including:
► There is no reliable financial performance history for Lakeview GC,and,therefore,no
reasonable baseline on which to establish gross revenue thresholds;
► The current condition of the golf course, as well as uncertainty over food and beverage
operations,preclude constrain optimal performance; and
► There are likely to be several interruptions in normal service due to construction impacts over
the next several years as the City implements the recommended capital improvement plan.
Once the Lakeview GC facility and operation"stabilize"(i.e., after most of the major capital
improvements have been completed)and a reliable and achievable financial performance baseline can be
established,the variable compensation structure becomes much more plausible.
Page„e 169
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
Lakeview GC Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan
Due to the age and condition of the Lakeview Golf Club, critical components of the overall golf course
master plan report were an assessment of current conditions and preparation of a prioritized,preliminary
capital improvement plan(CIP) for the facility. Detailed findings and recommendations are included in
the body of the report,with supporting exhibits in the Appendix.
NGF Consulting retained Golf Course Architect Forrest Richardson, current president of the American
Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA),to perform the review and help NGF with the CIP. He
found that essentially all of the golf course infrastructure and components are past their expected useful
life,as prior operators invested very little in the golf course. Additionally,there are deferred maintenance
items throughout the golf course, and customer rate course conditions very poorly across all features.
Based on the evaluation,the NGF team concluded that, in order to successfully increase rounds played
and revenues at Lakeview GC, especially among those Valley golfers that do not live immediately
proximate to the golf course,the golf course product must be greatly improved.
The NGF team's preliminary capital improvement plan is divided into five"buckets", listed in order of
the consulting team's assessment of priority need. The first,highest priority bucket comprises start-up
capital costs, followed by three prioritized tiers of improvements and concluding with what we have
termed `longer-range capital enhancements. Summary descriptions are provided below. The full plan and
supporting narrative are provided in this report.
Start-Up Capital Costs
The items with the highest priority for Lakeview Golf Club operations are capital start-up costs that
comprise"mission-critical"items-maintenance equipment replacement and golf carts—that will be
required this golf season.NGF also believes the mitigation of safety issues identified in this report should
be completed as soon as possible. Start-up capital costs total$435,000.
Tier 1 Capital Replacements
The next priority bucket of improvements comprises additional replacement maintenance equipment as
identified by the management company, as well as the critical replacement of the irrigation system,
including addition of a ground water well.Also included is renovation of the existing on-course restroom
structure near Hole#s 12 and 13 for accessibility and ADA compliance. The preliminary estimate for
these items, including architectural and engineering allowance for future improvements, is $3.63 million.
Tier 2 Capital Replacements/Improvements
Proposed Tier 2 capital improvements include a drainage solution for fairways and roughs,tee
reconstruction, and an allowance for construction of cart paths (material and extent of coverage TBD).
The preliminary estimate for these Tier 2 items,including architectural and engineering allowance for
Tier 3 improvements,is$902,000.
Tier 3 Capital Replacements/Improvements
Proposed Tier 3 capital improvements include continued construction of golf course infrastructure
components,namely greens and sand bunkers. Also included are some site and landscape work, as well as
replacement of the clubhouse roof and three HVAC cooling units. Tier 3 improvements are estimated to
total $841,000.
Long-Range Capital Enhancements
Long-range enhancements to the golf course include the lake/aqua range construction solution described
in the narrative of the report, construction of a new accessible on-course restroom near the existing Hole
#5 tee area, short-game practice area relocation and upgrades, and the `Zenger' 9-hole Practice Course.
Timing would depend on funding availability. (NGF recommends creating a Capital Reserve Fund,with
annual contributions equivalent to 5%of yearly gross operating revenues). The long-term items total
$2.17 million.
[
Page 170
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
Preliminary Estimated Cost Summary
Following are summary observations regarding the cost estimates for the NGF-FRA preliminary,capital
improvement plan for Lakeview Golf Club(see disclaimer in body of report):
► The total"all-in"estimated cost of the recommended capital plan is just under$8 million,
including new golf carts,replacement maintenance equipment,and longer-range capital
enhancements that include work on the aqua range/lake,new permanent on-course restroom, and
optional player development/practice related improvements that NGF believes will be beneficial
to Lakeview GC and the Meridian community.
► Of the$8 million plan total, $2.17 million is allocated for the longer-range capital enhancements
as noted above,including the proposed"Zenger"9-hole practice course. If the City decides not to
go forward with these optional investments or to defer them for future years,the total cost of the
capital program—including the start-up costs—is about$5.8 million.
► Subtracting out the start-up costs, comprising safety mitigation items,maintenance equipment,
and golf carts, as well as the proposed longer-range enhancements,costs to complete base
improvements to the golf course(including nominal amounts for the clubhouse)are estimated to
total $4.9 million.
Golf Playing Fees
The Meridian/Treasure Valley area is a low-fee market, despite some very high-quality public golf
courses. There seems to be a"fee ceiling"at play,though perhaps that will rise over time with the influx
of new golfers from pricier markets. In its current condition, and with characteristics such as narrow
corridors with many fairways double-loaded with homes, Lakeview GC offers an inferior product to its
competitors. This makes it difficult for Lakeview GC to compete effectively for daily fee market share
except through significant discounting of fees off of rack rates (e.g.,VIP Pass program).
Season pass fees for Lakeview GC may be high relative to the quality of the golf experience offered.
However,with Lakeview GC acting effectively as a community or HOA golf course and most
passholders living in immediate proximity to the club,their frequency of play very high,thus lowering
the effective rate per round at Lakeview GC. Additionally,passholders take up many of the tee times that
are most desirable for daily fee players. The combination of a significant number of heavily discounted
daily fee rounds and very active passholders has resulted in an average golf playing fee revenue of only
f$10 per round for about three-quarters of total rounds played at the facility. (For comparison,the
average green fee revenue per round for`rack' daily fee rounds was about$28).
NGF Recommendations
In light of market and facility factors discussed in the report,NGF makes the following recommendations
for daily green fee and season pass pricing at Lakeview GC:
► For the short term,the City should retain the basic fee structure that is intact now and focus on
reducing discounting and taking advantage of pricing power when Lakeview GC has it(e.g., as
it has during the pandemic)
► In the intermediate term beyond FY 2021-22,the City should consider adjusting daily and
season pass fees each year only to account for inflation in expenses. (Inflation continued to
accelerate in June 2021;the Labor Department said June's consumer-price index increased 5.4%
from a year ago,the highest 12-month rate since August 2008). It is an industry best practice to
adjust fees modestly at least biennially to reflect a higher cost of producing rounds of golf and/
or market competitive dynamics. The key to sustaining fee increases will be offering enhanced
value with continued facility improvements, such as those that have already occurred(e.g.,new
cart fleet and maintenance equipment). Current customers are loyal to the convenience of
Page ge 171
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
Lakeview GC, so despite dissatisfaction among some golfers that prices are too high for the
product offered,we believe that inflation-adjusted fees should be sustainable.
• After Lakeview GC is significantly improved,it may be able to sustain a higher market
position that goes beyond just inflation-based increases. However,there is a lot of
quality competition in the market for daily fee play, and demand will likely be much
more elastic than it is for passholders.
► NGF concurs with the budgeted$1 increase in cart fees; a key will be to keep up with market-
established fees now that Lakeview GC will have a new,high-quality fleet.
► Based on analysis provided to NGF,we believe management should focus on creating an
internal loyalty/frequent player program, and on practicing active internal yield management to
offer discounted play during slow demand periods,rather than renew the VIP Pass program.
Management conveyed that about 65%of the revenue for the pass(currently priced$179 for 12
months) goes to the program,with Lakeview GC taking about 35%. Even if the internal loyalty
program offered all of the same benefits as the VIP Pass,Lakeview GC collecting 100%of
revenue for the pass should result in an increase in the average daily rate for daily fee rounds.
► One of City's goals with respect to the stewardship of Lakeview GC is to expand access and
participation to the broader community. When the golf course is significantly improved and the
City is ready to make a concerted push to attract more"outside"play,adjustments to the season
pass program may be necessary in order to free up desirable tee times. For example, over time
one or more of the following options can be analyzed and considered for implementation:
• Limit the number of passes available for sale.
• Introduce a weekday-only(either M-Th or M-Fri)pass that is more affordable but
eliminates weekend play.
• Institute a per-round surcharge for the tee times that are in highest demand, such as
weekend mornings. (NGF observed that many current passholders are retired, affording
them more flexibility on the days of the week they play).
Food and Beverage Service
The food and beverage operation at Lakeview GC is substantial for a public golf course, with annual
gross revenues exceeding $500,000 in FYI 9. This is due to the large volume of non-golfer related
demand from the local neighborhoods surrounding the golf course. The feedback from the stakeholder
engagement phase of this project indicates that the restaurant, and particularly the shaded outdoor patio,is
viewed as a nice,tight-knit community gathering place that could become even more popular with some
refreshing,potential expansion of outdoor space, and marketing outreach to the local community.
NGF Commentary
Food and Beverage service at a public golf course is not necessarily intended to be a profit center,but
rather to support the primary business of selling green and cart fees. For instance, food and beverage
carts,in isolation,are often money losers for a golf course,but this is a service that is expected by golfers,
who might otherwise play elsewhere. Most successful food and beverage operations at public golf courses
are those that offer simple,quick,and inexpensive service that is convenient to the round of golf.
On the face of it,there would appear to be a good opportunity to grow the food and beverage business at
Lakeview GC and turn it into a profit center. It has a built-in customer base of both golfers and non-
golfers,and there is not much competition from casual restaurants in the area,the most notable exception
being Rudy's on McMillan, a sports bar-themed pub/restaurant located about 2 miles away;the next
closest restaurants are about 3 to 4 miles away.
The manager's preliminary program for Lakeview GC that was shared with NGF includes strategies for
increasing awareness, drawing events through direct sales efforts, engaging the community with specials
Page a 172
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
and theme nights, and potentially building a stand-alone brand identity for the restaurant.Additionally,
management was already underway with an analysis of costs associated with food and beverage, so that
actions—such as adjustments to service hours, staffing levels,menus,prices, etc.-could be taken to take
the money-losing operation to breakeven or profitability.
With that background as context,NGF notes that a number of things have changed—largely prompted by
the pandemic and the associated stimulus measures -that has prompted a potential change in direction for
food and beverage service at Lakeview GC, and also led to a temporary closing of the kitchen.
Specifically,new challenges have been overlaid on what was already a challenging aspect of the golf
facility business. The most important of these are the inability to hire and retain staff,and rising food,
labor, and other costs.
Potential Directions for Food and Beverage Service at Lakeview GC
There are a lot of unknowns regarding the future of the Food and Beverage operation at Lakeview GC.
NGF essentially sees two fundamental ways the City can go with the food and beverage operations,with
different levels of financial risk:
1.) Under this scenario,the pandemic's effects on restaurant dining dissipate, input costs stabilize,
reliable workers—including a Kitchen Manager—will become available, and the restaurant
returns to full service. In the short/intermediate term,however, food and beverage service at
Lakeview GC continues to offer only premade items,hot dogs/brats, and beverages. This level of
service is likely sufficient for golfers, at least for the short term,but essentially shuts out non-
golfing diners. If/when"normalcy"returns,the City and management can proceed with plans to
make the full-service bar/restaurant into a profitable part of the overall golf course operation.
This strategy would very likely mean higher prices so that unprofitable parts of the business
(essentially everything except for alcohol)would produce positive margins, and those increased
prices would be absorbable by customers.
The City could give this option a"trial period", i.e., 6 months to a year,to see if the operation can become
profitable, and then reevaluate at the end of that time. To give this strategy a fair chance of being
successful,we recommend refreshing the interior and the patio and looking at alternatives to enlarge
outdoor, shaded space,while having the new Marketing Coordinator work to draw meetings and other
events.
2.) The other option assumes that the food and beverage service at Lakeview GC will likely not be
profitable as a full-service restaurant. In this case, serving golfers would be top priority, and this
would be accomplished through a permanently scaled-down version of Food and Beverage
service. This type of operation would be more in line with other market public golf courses, such
as the City of Nampa's Centennial GC,that are not located within residential communities and
which have simple"snack bar"service that requires minimal staffing. This model involves
reduced financial risk, due to the much lower expense profile, and still offers the chance at
breakeven or profitability,especially since higher-margin alcohol sales reportedly account for
about 55%or more of Food and Beverage revenues at Lakeview GC.
At this writing,the City had hired a local caterer/restaurateur as a paid consultant to manage food and
beverage operations at Lakeview GC for the short term, at least while the current labor shortage exists.
This brings up an additional possible direction for food and beverage service at Lakeview GC: The City
issuing a Request for Proposal(RFP) or Request for Expression of Interest(RFEI)to gauge the potential
of leasing the food and beverage operation to a local restaurateur.
Food and beverage concessions are common at municipal golf courses,though less so when there is a
separate management company in place for all other aspects of the golf operation.While each situation is
different and there are many variables involved(e.g.,whether facility capital investment is expected), a
`typical' food and beverage concession agreement would pay the municipal owner in the range of 6%to
10%of gross revenues. If the City was to consider seeking a private operator,NGF recommends it wait
Page 173
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—
until the uncertainty over the cost and availability of labor,the potentially transitory nature of inflation in
input costs,and whether the pandemic may worsen during the fall/winter comes into clearer focus.
The bottom line is that unless Food and Beverage has traditionally been profitable,or seemingly has
potential to become a strong profit center,the reduced-service option will offer the least financial risk,
assuming golf customers do not flee in droves to other golf courses as a result. A limited menu focusing
on premade sandwiches, `grab-n-go',hot dogs, etc. can perhaps be supplemented by a food truck, at least
during high demand times and for special events, and possibly as a permanent addition.Also,outside
tournaments, such as charity events,can be catered.
General Recommendations
Following are some general recommendations for food and beverage operations at Lakeview GC. Some
recommendations will be more applicable than others,depending on the ultimate scale of the operation.
► Analyze and closely monitor input costs and operating margins for food and beverage items,and
for special events, such as theme nights.
► Evaluate demand by time of day,day of week,and month of the year, and adjust hours of
operation and staffing accordingly.
► Increase Food and Beverage patronage of golfers and non-golfing homeowners.
• Engage the HOAs to increase exposure via email,website, etc.
• Promote the restaurant amenity as a value to HOA members.
► Continue with themed dining events—Valentine's Day dinner, Sunday Brunch, etc. -if it is
determined incremental net revenues can be achieved.
► Send weekly email reminders advertising specials, especially to"mile square"community.
► Increase demand and improve revenue generation during the off season through service/menu
modifications, special events, etc.
► Monitor customer trends and behaviors, and adjust service and offerings accordingly.
► Increase awareness and engagement:
• Increase signage for visibility to those outside"mile square";put a sign on the
clubhouse.
• Undertake paid social media campaigns.
► Create a standalone identity for the bar/grill,including separate webpage, social media, etc.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Lakeview Golf Club presents both challenges and opportunities for the City of Meridian,Idaho. On one
hand,the NGF team has documented a high level of deferred maintenance and capital needs that will
require a multi-million investment to address.Additionally,the City is faced with a number of key public
policy decisions related to issues such as the long-term management structure of the facility,the
accounting methodology by which to measure financial results, and the direction to take the food and
beverage operation in. Finally,as with any business in any given year,golf course performance is at the
mercy of uncontrollable external factors, such as weather variations, economic factors (such as current
labor shortage), etc.
On the other hand,Lakeview GC operates in a strong public golf market that is benefitting from one of
the highest population growth rates in the country, as well as the pandemic-related demand surge in golf
interest and participation. Additionally,the facility enjoys a robust, loyal"built-in"customer base from
the mile-square neighborhoods. Finally,the City has an opportunity to broaden the appeal of the facility
in the community by increasing the engagement level of non-golfers through special events and programs,,
Page 174
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
and potentially the future addition of a venue such as the `Zenger' 9-hole practice course concept
recommended by the NGF team.
Though the budget for the FY21-22 fiscal year shows an operating loss of about($241,000),NGF
believes there is a chance for Lakeview GC to achieve breakeven or profitable operations in the future.
First,recommended investments in the golf facility must be made to improve the golf experience and the
marketability of the product.Additionally, season passholders must continue to sustain the facility with
the reliable yearly cash flows and the facility will also have to add±5,000 daily fee rounds from the
broader market. Finally, chances at overall facility profitability would be much greater if the food and
beverage operation,which is under stress due to external factors,was to become a profit center.
Despite some limitations and constraints,we believe that,with facility improvements and a strong
programming element,Lakeview Golf Club will have a good opportunity to fill a niche in this market,
differentiating itself on its playability,user-friendliness,walkability, and sense of community, as well as
by offering"something for everyone".
Page 175
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
Situation Overview
In this section,NGF comprises a summary situation analysis of the City's Lakeview Golf Club intended
to provide the appropriate background and context for the analysis and discussions in this report. More
intensive discussions of the physical assets and operations are presented later in this report. All findings
are based on the NGF team's review in the winter and spring of 2021.
The situation analysis comprises the following sections:
► Project background;
► Summary facility overview; and
► Summary operations overview.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Meridian has long owned the land that Lakeview GC sits on,and has leased the golf course
out to private operators,the last of whom sold the leasehold interest and improvements—including the
clubhouse built around 2000-to the Western Ada Recreation District(WARD) for about$1.4 million.
The City has never been actively engaged in the golf course operation; in later years of the lease
agreements,the City collected a$6,000 annual rent payment.
WARD may be disbanded in the next few years and has an agreement with the City to convey the
assets/improvements to the City. In the interim,the City has entered into a License and Management
Agreement with the District to operate and maintain the golf course. The City subsequently entered into a
short-term third-party management agreement with national golf course operator,KemperSports
Management("KemperSports"or"KSM"),to manage and maintain the facility. The agreement includes
a flat monthly fee of$7,000,plus$2,000 per month as reimbursement for KSM's financial accounting
package, for a total of$9,000 monthly. Management retained much of the existing key staff, including the
current General Manager and the Superintendent(subsequently retired).
Extensive engagement with customers of Lakeview Golf Club by NGF during the study process revealed
a negative perception of previous management, focused primarily on the fact that the last lessee ran the
golf course on an extremely lean budget and invested little money in capital after building the clubhouse
about 20 years ago. Stakeholders have high expectations for the City improving Lakeview GC,which is
viewed as an important addition to the City's public recreational amenities.
LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB FACILITY OVERVIEW
Following is an overview of the Lakeview Golf Club, including a summary description of golf course and
support amenities. Later in the report,we provide a detailed assessment of current conditions, capital
needs, and recommended improvements.
Lakeview Golf Club Overview
The 18-hole,par-72 course, formerly known as"Cherry Lane Golf Club",was originally built in 1979 as
a 9-hole course,designed by Robert"Bob"Earl Baldock(1908 -2000). Appendix E,Exhibit 1. This
original nine is now played as the back nine of the current 18-hole layout. Baldock's son,Robert Lee
Baldock, assisted his father with the original work.Nine additional holes were added in 1997. It is
uncertain whether either of the Baldocks were involved with that expansion work,although we assume
they may have at least planned the full 18 holes. As part of the new nine holes, an aqua-range was
constructed to replace the practice area that had been part of the original 9-hole course in 1979.
Page 176
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
Lakeview Golf Club Scorecard
Tees Rating Sloe Yardage
Blue 70.4 131 6376
White 68.3 125 6008
Red 64.4 114 5180
Lakeview GC includes the following basic amenities and support structures:
► Golf course— 18-hole,par-72 golf course;
► Practice aqua driving range(not full length);
► Practice putting green and short game area;
► Clubhouse(includes cart storage at basement level);
► Golf maintenance building;
► Permanent restroom between Hole Nos. 14 and 15;
► Portable on-course restrooms (3); and
► Parking lot—approximately 120 spaces.
Clubhouse
The single-story clubhouse at Lakeview GC was built in approximately 2000 and totals about 5,500
square feet under air. The building has a concrete slab,and the structure is poured concrete. The
clubhouse comprises the following key elements: pro shop,bar/lounge area,men's and women's
restrooms, and offices. The inside seating capacity of the bar/lounge is about±70. The facility also
features a very popular outside patio area with capacity for about±50. The patio,which has been used for
wedding ceremonies in the past, features a 10-foot bubbling fountain.
Site Overview
The Lakeview GC is located on W. Talamore Road in Meridian, ID. The"mile square"in which the club
is situated is bordered on the west by N. Black Cat Rd., on the north by W.Ustick Rd., on the east by N.
Ten Mile Rd., and on the south by W. Cherry Lane. Surrounding land uses in proximity to the club,
including the mile-square neighborhoods, are largely residential, especially to the east,northeast and
south. Housing values in the subdivisions proximate to the golf club, as in the Treasure Valley in general,
have been steadily rising due to the influx of new buyers, including many from pricier markets out of
state. The majority of residents are aged 50 and higher,with a mix of snowbirds,empty nesters, etc.
Lakeview GC is about 20 minutes west of Boise and is easily accessible via major arterials, including US
26 (Chinden Rd) about 2.5 miles to the north, and several 1-84 interchanges—N. Ten Mile Rd. about 2.25
miles to the SSE, S. Meridian Rd. 3.5 miles to the southeast, and Idaho Center Blvd. 3.5 miles to the
southwest.
Page 177
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
Aerial Image
� E w
1�• �� fdia� ` _� �w ��` �sr1
�` .eat F � „�•y�,��� S Ei�y1k
�„,
���I y � =kia�� .•�.lL.�a T.T. ��,��}.T�'`~��.�1�4�� � f
,;9asj _Y£��s� ���„P�'syrhllµ•.� �sv-
A'-Yam,
_ -0 �.:•.
�.r
a n
Google Earth image of Lakeview GC in Meridian,ID, showing mile-square communities,as well as surrounding
residential areas.I-84 is to the south.
Location—Regional Context
4 0
oieie ee anise nnerk -- a e.s�, y u Hldtle s ings
a. w NICCIebn iyi. 61or o, FnNe s
—mil �,r5Mln1 --,m n__oaltlwell Linooln Rn H•.Y V .
l 5 Y _. wch nae� d lity
° _ � usi�sx ad zLake�Ne zGolf Club V z n J'+.o
Hem eaveRo � cnerry�n S-ry ®:.
Boise
. _ -®m. �_-�—=�,®•ids - .,:m..a� = w�aa�.ee ae' _
-
_
�y��I o...a�.�an �.aa wax .aa xYeA ex��aaa
%I -
��_
Map showing Meridian,ID and surrounding cities,including Nampa to the west and Boise to the east.
Page 178
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
OPERATIONS OVERVIEW
Following is a high-level summary of operations at Lakeview Golf Club,based on information provided
to NGF by the City and golf course management.
Operating Structure and Oversight
As of November 2020,the golf course assets are leased by the City from WARD and managed by
national golf facility operator KemperSports Management under a short-term fee-for-service agreement.
Most of the current employees were employed by the lessee and retained by the management company,
including the key positions of General Manager(formerly golf professional)and Superintendent
(subsequently resigned).
The golf facility is part of the Parks and Recreation Department,and oversight at the City level is
provided by the Parks Superintendent. The Superintendent reports to the P&R Director,who in turn
reports to the Mayor. A Golf Course Focus Group -comprising a mix of golf course representatives,
citizen representatives, elected officials(including the Mayor and two City Council members), and P&R
staff—meets periodically and serves in an advisory role.
Fees / Pricing
Lakeview GC offers golf play on both a daily fee and season pass(`membership')basis.Non-discounted,
or `rack', daily green fees are affordable,with 18-hole,adult walking rates ranging from$29 to $39, and
per person cart fees of$15 for 18 holes and$10 for 9 holes. (Daily trail fees for private carts are $13).
Unlimited play 7-day passes (cart not included)cost$1,449 for singles, $2,249 for married couples and
$2,349 for families(children under 17). A `Half Price' pass entitling holders to 50%off walking green
fees is$449.An annual Trail Pass for private carts costs $549.
Analysis reveals that a significant percentage of daily fee rounds at Lakeview GC are sold at less than
rack rates,due to various discounts available through programs such as BOGO and the VIP Pass. The
Teetiming.com 2021 VIP Passes offer golf punch cards for Lakeview GC at$179. (Other area courses,
such as Boise Ranch and TimberStone also participate). The pass entitles the holder to ten(10) free 18-
hole rounds,valid any day after 12:00 noon. Additionally,the card benefits include 10 Buy-1-Get-1 Free
18-or 9-hole rounds,valid anytime, and$1 off any size bucket of range balls throughout the year. Later
in the report,we will discuss Lakeview GC fees in the context of the competitive market.
Operating Results /Rounds Played, Revenues, and Expenses
Lakeview GC is a fairly typical public golf facility in that it derives revenues from green and cart fees
(including season pass dues), as well as driving range,merchandise, food and beverage sales, lessons, and
other miscellaneous revenues, such as rentals. The level of gross food and beverage revenues at Lakeview
GC is significantly higher than that of an"average"municipal golf course, owing largely to the large
volume of non-golf customers living in direct proximity to the facility,
The financial performance information shared by the last lessee with the City was limited. The current
manager, after going through all available records, surmised that only the results from fiscal year 2018-19
provided some degree of reliable insight. Based on this limited historical information,the following can
be surmised about Lakeview GC performance:
► The facility hosted about 30,300 rounds in FYI 9,increasing in FY20 by 28%to just under 39,000
rounds, due to the pandemic-related demand lift that the golf industry experienced. Management,
after analyzing point-of-sale(POS)reports, estimates that passholder and highly discounted daily
fee rounds(e.g.,VIP rounds) accounted for about 75%of play at Lakeview GC, and these rounds
generate an average of just over$10 per round.
Page 179
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—I
► The facility generated between$1.4 million and$1.5 million in total gross operating revenues in
FY19. Though POS accounting was difficult to follow,the approximate breakdown by gross
revenue category is estimated at:
• Daily green fee+passholder dues—36%
• Cart rentals (including trail fees)— 11%
• Food and Beverage—37%
• Pro shop (includes merchandise,rentals,lessons,miscellaneous)— 13.5%, about 60%of
which appears to be merchandise sales
• Driving Range—2.5%
► Total FY19 Operating Expenses and Cost of Goods Sold broke down as follows:
• Cost of Goods Sold: $405,767
• Total operating expenses: $915,464, including:
■ An extraordinarily low$207,000 in Course Maintenance
■ About$641,000 in total labor expense, about 70%of total expenses
► These reported revenue and expense figures resulted in net operating income(cash basis before
depreciation)of about$118,600.
► Depreciation expense was reported at$99,125,making Lakeview GC very close to a break-even
operation in FY19, as reported.
Lakeview Golf Club FY2021-2022 Operating Budget and Projections
Under the prior lease agreement, Lakeview GC was operated on a very lean basis,most glaringly on the
golf course maintenance side.NGF has observed that this is a typical scenario in the final years of a lease
agreement when the lessee(or lessor)has no intent of renewing/extending the agreement. So,the
historical revenue and, especially, expense budgets provided cannot be considered reliable or desirable
guidelines for future budgets, especially under the expected much higher service level for Lakeview Golf
Club under City stewardship.
Below are some summary assumptions driving the Lakeview Golf Club budget prepared by management
for the 2021-22 fiscal year. Management noted that, in the absence of reliable historical financial
information,point-of-sale reports were used as the basis for developing rounds and revenue assumptions.
Even those reports were incomplete, due to the use of two POS systems. On the operating expense side,
payroll projections reflect current staffing plans,recommended new positions, and minimum wage or
parity driven increases. Expense budgets were informed by the management company's experience
operating the course, supplemented by market benchmarking data gathered from the Boise and Nampa
municipal golf course budgets. The budget does not include any expenses paid directly by the City.
Operating Revenues
► Due to the pandemic-driven demand increase in the golf industry, estimated Lakeview GC golf
rounds for FY20 were 29%higher than for FY19.As things return to"normalcy",it is unclear
how much of the Covid-related lift will"stick"after competition for consumer recreation and
discretionary spending increases. Therefore,FY22 rounds are budgeted to decline 11%
compared to 2020. The decline is projected to be primarily among daily fee rounds,which are
projected to return to 2019 levels.
► The resulting 34,607 rounds are 13%higher than FY19,but the decrease over FY20 levels
results in$130,000 less facility gross revenue than achieved in FY20.
Page 180
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
► Price increases are not contemplated in the budget,pending decisions about capital investments
in the product. The NGF GolfSAT survey fielded in December 2020 revealed a negative Net
Promoter Score and satisfaction scores in the 1 percentile(i.e.,worse than 99%of facilities
benchmarked), so demand may be highly elastic with fee increases, especially on the daily fee
side.
► Cart revenues are projected to increase by 10%, attributable to increased utilization and a
programmed price increase(6.7%)associated with investment in new cart fleet.
► Range and Pro Shop revenues per round are consistent with recent historical results.
► Food and Beverage will return to historic levels of activity. That activity generates one-third of
Lakeview GC revenues,but is budgeted at a loss for FY22. (Management is working with staff
to evaluate pricing and offerings to better optimize margin).
Operating Expenses
Payroll Expense Drivers
► Facility payroll(inclusive of taxes and benefits)is proposed to increase, attributable to:
• Course Maintenance(increase of$74,000)
■ Conversion of existing full-time,year-round Laborer to Lead position at an
hourly rate of$18
■ Conversion of existing full-time, seasonal Irrigation Specialist to full-time,year-
round at an hourly rate of$18
■ Increase the FT Laborer starting hourly rate from$11 to $15
■ Increase the PT Laborer starting hourly rate from$11 to $14
■ Increase Superintendent salary to $66,000 annually
• Carts/Range (increase of$12,000)
■ Increase employees by$2/hour(start rate $10.50), associated with assumed
increase in Federal minimum wage as of l/l/2022
• Food and Beverage(increase of$42,000)
■ Increase all front-of-house employees by$2/hour(start rate$8.50)associated
with assumed increase in Federal minimum wage as of l/l/22—total $19,000
■ Increase in rates for all kitchen positions to match market and improve
recruitment/retention of staff
• Pro Shop(increase of$71,000)
■ Increase all employees by$2/hour(start rate $10.50)associated with assumed
increase in Federal minimum wage
■ Pass-through of lesson revenues paid to golf professionals
■ Promotion of staff person to Operations Manager(Feb 2021 - $16K)
• Administration and Marketing
■ Increase in General Manager salary to $66,000 (Nov 2020 - $15K)
■ Addition of part-time,year-round Marketing Coordinator at$15/hour,total of
23,000; offsetting expense savings of$14,000 by eliminating ForeUp marketing
support contract(effective 8/2021)
• Employee Benefits(e.g.,health insurance; $94,000 increase)
Page 181
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
Other Expenses
Management reported that other operating expenses were the most difficult for which to make
comparisons to the FY19 data(again,due to the prior recordkeeping). Below are listed the budget
variances based on what could be deciphered from reported FY19 actual results.
► Other operating expenses,with budget increases noted:
• Course and Grounds
■ Fertilizer/Chemical budget benchmarked to be consistent with courses in the
market—increased by$13,000
■ Dryject aeration service($15,000 increase)
■ Increased irrigation repairs and maintenance($12,000)
■ Goose control($5,000,new in 2021)
■ Increased equipment repairs and maintenance,plus allowance for equipment
rental($30,000 budgeted)
■ Deferred maintenance and repairs -$15,000
• Pro Shop
■ Range balls($10,000)
■ Allowance for purchase of rental clubs and pull carts ($3,000)
• Administration
■ Repair and Maintenance($12,000)
■ Accounting service($24,000)
■ Travel($12,000)
■ Employee meals($12,000)
EBITDA
Management's budget for the FY21-22 fiscal year showed an operating loss of($147,005),before
management fees and irrigation taxes. After adding these two expenses,the total net loss on operations on
a cash basis(depreciation excluded)is about($241,000). In order to achieve breakeven operations,NGF-
recommended investments in the golf facility must be made to improve the golf experience and the
marketability of the product so that an additional 5,000- 6,000 daily fee rounds can be attracted from the
broader market. Additionally, season passholders must continue to sustain the facility with the reliable
yearly cash flows from dues, and the food and beverage operation must become a profit center.
Summary
Making accurate pro forma projections for a golf facility operation can be difficult,due to the number of
uncontrollable variables that can affect both the revenue and expense side of the operation in any given
year, such as weather variations and economic factors; i.e.,inflation(especially in labor costs). It becomes
even more difficult when there is not a reliable history from which to draw knowledge from, and when, as
is the case with Lakeview GC, a new operating model and service standard are being introduced.
NGF has reviewed the management's assumptions,in the context of our experience with similar
municipal golf operations(including several in this regional market)and finds them to be reasonable and
conservative based on expected inputs and information known at this time. Much of the outcome is reliant
on the pace and nature of facility improvements(especially those related to playing conditions), as well as
on the degree to which the pandemic-induced demand surge in golf may be transitory. Finally,the food
and beverage operation is under stress at this writing,due to factors such as turnover in key positions,the
inability to find willing workers,and increasing wages. Therefore, its potential as a generator of positive
net income is highly in doubt at this time. EEI
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
Market Analysis — External Factors Affecting
Demand for Golf
To assess the current positioning and potential market opportunities for Lakeview Golf Club under City
ownership,the environment in which the facility operates must be understood. Below,NGF Consulting
provides a summary of key"external"trade area factors that have the potential to affect demand for golf.
The overview includes NGF's macro perspective of the U.S. golf industry. On a local/regional basis, we
analyze area demographic and economic factors, as well as golf supply and demand indicators,that
characterize the trade area for Lakeview GC.
NATIONAL GOLF INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
While some participation headwinds persist for golf,the industry continued its macro stabilization trend
over the 2016—2019 period. The game remains popular and has a deep well of interested prospects.
While golf s pay-for-play green fee revenues and other spending will always be vulnerable to outside
forces, such as weather and the economy,its chief challenge remains getting more of those non golfers
who express interest in playing(`latent demand) to actually give golf a try, and converting more
beginners into committed participants.Golf is also having trouble attracting and retaining young adults
(i.e.,Millennials); though this segment continues to account for a large percentage of annual play and
spending, factors like debt and competing recreational activities have suppressed golf demand from this
segment.
As we will see below with national rounds played for 2020, golf has received a strong,though perhaps
temporary,boost from the Covid-19 crisis.While preliminary research indicates that the number of
golfers has not changed markedly, some new golfers have joined the game(especially in junior segment)
and rounds activity by existing golfers has increased significantly, due to many factors,not the least of
which is the fact that golf is an outdoor activity that is conducive to social distancing. It will be up to
golfs stakeholders,including the major associations, course management companies,and those on the
front lines—golf professionals, instructors,and other staff—to make sure that a strong percentage of new
and reactivated golfers stick with the game.
Key Trends in Demand
Participation-The national golfer number(defined as those people that had played at least one round of
golf the prior 12 months) showed net attrition since 2012,declining by about±1.2 million to 23.8 million
people in both 2016 and 2017 before rebounding to 24.2 million in 2018,24.3 million in 2019, and 24.8
million in 2020. Overall,the number of golfers has declined by nearly 6 million since peaking at 30.6
million in 2003. Research shows that this attrition was primarily among occasional/less committed
golfers. However,the vast majority of"core"golfers remain in the game.
Rounds Played 2019-2021—Nationally,2019 rounds played(year-over-year)were up by 1.5%,
according to Golf Datatech. Remarkably, despite nationwide Covid-1 9-related golf course shutdowns
beginning in March,national rounds played surged in 2020 after reopening,finishing 13.9%(about 60
million rounds) ahead of 2019's numbers. The 4-state region comprising Idaho,Wyoming,Montana, and
Utah finished up 2020 up by 20.4%. (see Appendix A tables). Through April 2021,national rounds were
up 43.8%over 2020,with the 4-state region up by 29.3%
Baby Boomer Effect and Generation G(the"Golf Generation")—As Baby Boomers age and retire
over the next 15 years or so,we expect to see a measurable increase in total rounds played in the U.S.
Boomers -born between 1946 and 1964 -are currently 56 to 75 years old. About 6 million of them are
golfers;that's approximately 1/4 of all golfers, and they currently play about 1/3 of all rounds. While not
Page_e 183
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—1
technically a generation,the 46-65 age cohort is the most vital group for the golf industry, accounting for
the most golfers,rounds and spend in the industry—more than$9 billion in total annually. Generation G
includes younger Boomers and older members of Generation X.
Golf Course Supply
The number of course closures has outweighed new openings for 14 consecutive years during the ongoing
balancing of supply and demand. According to NGF data, since the market correction in golf course
supply began in 2006,there has been a 10%cumulative reduction of U.S. golf courses in terms of 18-hole
equivalents(18HEQ). In 2019 there were 279.5 permanent closures(18HEQ),about 40%higher than the
level experienced in the prior two years. For perspective, golf supply grew by 44% from 1986-2005. The
demand for land to develop residential and commercial real estate is influencing the supply correction in
golf. Closures tend to be more value-oriented,public facilities in the best-supplied areas: Florida, Texas,
Ohio, California, and New York had the most closures in 2019 and all rank among the top six states with
the most golf courses.
Other Measures of Health
Other metrics to consider when measuring the health and trajectory of golf include:
Investment in Facilities: Investment in major renovation projects has replaced new construction as the
largest source of U.S. golf course development activity.NGF tracked more than 1,200 major renovations
completed since 2006,totaling—$3.75 billion in spending.
Increasing Diversity: The junior golf population showed moderate attrition,dropping from 2.7 million in
2017 to 2.5 million in both 2018 and 2019. Junior golfers continue to show a transformation in diversity.
About 34%of golfers age 6-17 are females,up from 17%in 1995 (23% of all golfers are women). Also,
about 25%of junior golfers are non-Caucasian,up from only 6%in 1995. A similar trend is observed
among young adult(18-34)or Millennial golfers, of which about a quarter are female and a quarter non-
Caucasian. The highest diversity is among beginning golfers(see below).
Beginners: The number of beginners rose to a record 2.6 million in 2017 and 2018, surpassing the record
set in 2016 and representing an increase of about 600,000 since 2014(beginners fell slightly to 2.5
million in 2019). The last two years have set records and exceeded the year 2000,when Tiger Woods was
in his prime and drawing newcomers to the game in unprecedented numbers.About 35%of beginning
golfers are women,and 26%are non-Caucasian(compared to 18%of total golf population).
Off-Course Participation: Driven primarily by the popularity and growth of Topgolf,a non-traditional
form of golf entertainment,there were an estimated 23 million off-course participants(only those
activities that involve hitting a ball with a golf club)in 2019,up by 2 million from 2017. In 2020,the
number grew to 24.3 million,nearly half of whom did not play on a golf course.
Latent Demand: Overall interest in playing golf remains very high.NGF survey research indicates that
the number of non-golfers who say they are"very interested"in taking up golf—which had doubled
between 2014 and 2018 (CAGR of f 15%),increased by an additional 1 million in 2019 to 15.7 million
people, and in 2020 to just under 17 million, as many beginners were attracted to the game during the
pandemic.
Dedicated: Several years ago,NGF developed a scale to gauge participant engagement with golf.NGF
annual golfer survey research indicates that the number of dedicated golfers has remained steady at 20
million for the past 8 years. These dedicated golfers are responsible for±95%of rounds played and
spending. Those who are more engaged are significantly more likely to continue playing.
rpage 184
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
National Golf Industry Overview Summary
It is difficult to conclude how the national trends discussed above will affect any particular golf course,as
we cannot definitively predict which,if any, of these trends will continue. On balance,however,we
believe that a continuation in the growth of beginning golfers, successful activation of the large cohort of
non-golfers that have expressed interest in playing("latent demand")by golf operators and organizations,
such as National Golf Foundation(through its"Welcome2Golf'program), and the continued golf course
supply correction towards equilibrium, should have a positive effect on the golf facility industry.
In terms of the potential long-term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic,it is way too soon to tell what,if
any, lasting effects on golf participation and demand will be. With less competition from other sports and
activities,the pandemic, at least in the short term,has had a very positive effect on golf demand,with a
significant rise in new and returning golfers manifesting in fuller tee sheets across the U.S.Another
outcome has been higher average green/cart fees for those facilities able to practice dynamic pricing.
Remarkably,year-end figures from Golf DataTech show that the US golf industry increased by about
60,000 million rounds in 2020, despite widespread shutdowns of golf courses in March and April. (Of
course,those facilities with large food and beverage and, especially,banquet operations have suffered the
most,though reduction in expenses has helped to somewhat mitigate loss in revenue). Ultimately,post-
pandemic success at retaining new golfers depends largely on operators successfully engaging these
customers and giving them a reason to continue playing even after new avenues of recreation and
entertainment become widely available again.
LOCAL / REGIONAL MARKET OVERVIEW
Below we provide an overview of local demographic,golf demand,and golf supply measures and metrics
for the Meridian/Ada County area.NGF Consulting utilizes predictive models as benchmarks for
estimating potential market strength. Refer to Appendix B tables.
Defining the Primary Trade Area for Lakeview Golf Club
A number of factors assist in determining the expected market area for a golf facility. In addition to the
quantity,quality, and nature of the subject facility and competitive facilities in the area,the availability of
highway and major thoroughfare infrastructure,traffic patterns, economic and demographic factors, and
the propensity for golfers to travel to play golf all play a role in establishing the primary market area for a
golf facility.
Based on NGF's analysis of the Lakeview GC in the context of the factors cited above—and taking into
account the significant percentage of play derived from members living in immediate proximity to the
club-we expect that the Lakeview GC currently draws the majority of its daily fee play from a market
comprising a 15-mile radius of the golf course. In addition to Meridian,this area includes Star and Eagle
to the north,Nampa and Caldwell to the west,Kuna to the south, and Boise to the east.
rpage 185
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
Demographics
Below,NGF provides key observations regarding the population,median age, and median household
income trends for the immediate 2-mile market, as well as the 5-, 10-and 15-mile market radials and Ada
County. (See Appendix B for source tables).
2-Mile Radial Market for Lakeview GC
Following are NGF summary observations regarding the demographic profiles of the immediate 2-mile
submarket around the Lakeview Golf Club.
► Population: There were an estimated 24,000+residents living within 2 miles of the golf course
in 2019, including more than 1,900 golfers, according to NGF's proprietary Demand Model. The
projected compound annual growth rate in population of 2.64%is nearly 4 times that projected
for the overall US through 2024.
► Median Household Income: MHI in the immediate 2-mile market for Lakeview GC is about
1.65%lower than the national median of$63,709.In general, higher income people are more
likely to participate in golf, and they play more frequently than lower income residents.
► Median Age: The median age in the 2-mile market is just under the national median of 38.3
years. In general,the propensity to play golf with greater frequency increases with age,making
older markets more attractive to golf facility operators, all other factors being equal.
Broader Submarkets and Ada County
Following are NGF summary observations regarding the demographic profiles of the 5-, 10-, and 15-mile
submarkets and Ada County.
► Population: There were approximately 121,000 people living within 5 miles of Lakeview GC
in 2019. As expected,population density increases in the broader rings, as Nampa and Boise
proper are included. The 10-and 15-mile markets have populations of about 448,000 and
638,000,respectively,while Ada County is home to 469,000 people. As with the 2-mile market,
the projected compound annual growth rate in these broader markets are nearly 4 times higher
than that of the nation through 2024.
► Median Income: Median Household Incomes in the 5-and 10-mile radials around Lakeview
GC are 9.7%and 2.0%lower,respectively,than the corresponding national figure. Incomes in
the 15-mile market and the Boise City-Mountain Home-Ontario core-based statistical area
(CBSA) are f 7%lower than the US mark. Earlier we noted the positive correlation between
income and golf participation.
► Median Age: Other than 2-mile"fall out of bed"market,we observe median ages in the local
submarkets that are moderately lower than the national median of 38.3 years. Other factors being
equal,we would expect the average golfer in these markets to play less frequently compared to
the national benchmark for this measure.
rpage 186
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
Local Golf Demand and Supply Indicators
Below is a summary of key findings regarding the public golf demand and supply profile in the trade area
for Lakeview GC. This information is derived from the NGF Demand Model(based on ongoing NGF
golf participation research),NGF U.S. Golf Facilities Database, and NGF Golf Market Analysis Platform
(GolfMAP).
► Golf Participation Rate: Household golf participation rates in all of the submarkets are either
right at the national benchmark, slightly below it(15-mile radial, CBSA), or slightly above it(5-
mile market,Ada County). The same dynamic is observed for rounds demand potential per
household.
► Number of Golfers and Average Rounds Played per 18 Holes: The 10-mile primary market
contains 43,000+golfers,while 15-mile has nearly 59,000 and the CBSA about 67,500. Based
on facility self-reported and modeled activity levels, average annual rounds played per 18 holes
of golf in the 10-mile primary market and Ada County is±26,000. This compares to the national
average of about 31,500.
► Golf Supply and Supply-Demand Ratios: There are 11 total golf facilities within 10 miles of
Lakeview GC, including 8 public(3 municipal,including Lakeview GC),totaling 198 holes. The
broader 15-mile radial comprises 20 total golf facilities(342 holes), including 15 public (7
municipal). The NGF database reveals a net loss of 18 golf holes in the 10-mile primary market
over the previous decade,with the Foxtail Golf Course and Driving Range in Meridian closing
in 2015,while the CBSA has added 27 total holes during that time. Despite a seeming
abundance of golf courses, supply-demand ratios show that the 10-mile primary trade area for
Lakeview GC has 61%more golfing households per 18 holes of public golf than the overall
nation. The CBSA overall has 18%more golfing households per 18 holes than the US
benchmark.
► Latent Demand: People who express an interest in playing golf but have not yet started include
former golfers and those who have never tried. The demographic profile of latent demand tends
to be more female and younger than the population as a whole. Surveys show these golf-
interested non-golfers cite several barriers to entry into golf, including the cost and social aspects
(no one to play with).NGF research projects nearly 67,000 interested non-golfers living within
the defined 10-mile radial market. These interested non-golfers represent a rich well of
"prospects", some of whom can be activated with creative programming aimed at inviting and
"onboarding"them into the game.
7age 187
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
Local Economic and Climate Factors Affecting Demand for Golf
Sources: Miscellaneous online; City of Meridian.
Following is a summary of key economic factors that have the potential to affect demand for golf in the
Meridian/Ada County area.
► WalletHub ranked Meridian as the seventh-fastest growing city in the country; it is now the
second largest city in Idaho with a population of just under 107,000 as of 2019.Nampa earned
the No. 46 spot in the overall rankings,while Boise trailed at No. 174. In the ranking segregated
by city size,Nampa was part of the"small city"category for areas with fewer than 100,000
people. Both Meridian and Boise were included in the"midsize city"category,which included
cities with populations between 100,000 and 300,000 people. The Boise Metro area, comprising
five counties,is the third largest in the northwest,with about 750,000 people.
► Meridian finished No. 9 on Money's list of the"Best Places to Live in America,"for 2019.
Meridian and the rest of the Treasure Valley benefits from a high quality of life, including low
crime rate, abundant cultural and recreational amenities,natural beauty, favorable weather, and
relatively low cost of living.
► As a result of the population growth,the housing market has been hot,resulting in rising prices.
The average home price in Meridian for 2019 was$343,528, an increase of 7.4%over 2018's
figure of$319,758. With a spate of new construction,Meridian is more expensive than most of
its neighbors,including Boise, Garden City,Nampa, and Caldwell
► Transportation: The Boise Airport serves more than 3 million travelers each year. The major
interstate serving the Treasure Valley is 1-84,which runs through Boise, Meridian,Nampa and
Caldwell. The interstate is supplemented by federal highways 20,26 and 30, as well as state
highways 21,44 and 55. The average commute time is just 22 minutes,providing residents with
more discretionary time than is observed in larger metro areas.
► Supplementing golf demand from permanent residents are: (1) The area's corporate and public
employers, civic groups, churches and charities(active with tournaments and outings); (2)
Visitors to the Treasure Valley area. In a down year for travel,nearly 2 million passengers went
through Boise Airport, and the market is popular destination for corporate meetings and
conventions. (NGF research shows that roughly one-third of golfers play when traveling).
► Meridian's largest private employers include St. Luke's Health Services (1,500 employees), Citi
(1,300),Blue Cross of Idaho(1,000), Scentsy(1,000), and AmeriBen(700).From a regional
perspective,Micron Technology-a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Boise-employs
6,000 in the Treasure Valley,while other large regional employers include Saint Alphonsus
Health System,Hewlett Packard,J.R. Simplot Company, and IDACorp(Idaho Power).
► Climate: The Meridian area enjoys four seasons, including a relatively mild winter and summers
that feature about 50 days with a high above 90 degrees. Average high temperatures are coldest
in December and January, at just below 40 degrees. The hottest months are July and August,
when average highs are in the upper 80s. Golf courses generally remain open year-round,with
periodic closures due to weather. Meridian averages about 11 inches of rain and 10 inches of
snow per year,with 211 sunny days.
► Minimum Wage: The Idaho minimum wage is a relatively low$7.25—matching the Federal
number- and was last changed in 2008,when it was raised$0.70 from$6.55 to $7.25. The State
minimum wage is likely to increase in coming years as the Federal minimum wage is raised;
increases have been factored into the Lakeview GC budget.
► Higher Education: Boise State University is the largest university in Idaho,with 790 full-time
faculty and 26,000+students. The College of Western Idaho has a total enrollment of 31,000+.
7age 188
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
COMPETITIVE GOLF MARKET
The quality level of public golf facilities in the Treasure Valley is generally very good, including—to
varying extents -the 7 facilities identified by NGF(with input from management,Lakeview GC golfers,
and area golf operators)as most competitive to Lakeview GC. The list is intended to be a representative
subset—based on factors such as price point, quality, and amenities offered:
► Banbury Golf Course— 18H Daily Fee—Eagle
► Boise Ranch Golf Course- 18H Daily Fee—Boise
► Centennial Golf Course - 18H Municipal—Nampa
► Falcon Crest Golf Club-36H Daily Fee—Kuna
► Redhawk Golf Course 18H Daily Fee—Nampa
► Ridgecrest Golf Course-27H Municipal—Nampa
► River Birch Golf Course- 18H Daily Fee—Star
Examples of regional secondary competitors(all 18-hole regulation courses)to Lakeview GC include the
City of Boise's Quail Hollow and Warm Springs golf courses, Shadow Valley GC in Boise,Eagle Hills
GC in Eagle, and Purple Sage GC and TimberStone GC—both in Caldwell. Summary information
regarding the primary competitors,including golf course description and estimated annual rounds played,
are shown in the table on the following page. Additional tables with daily green and annual/season pass
fee information can be found in the tables in Appendix C.
Competitive Facilities Map
U.S.Golt Facilities t
TYPE I
Daily F- River Birch Golf Course
z �
vMunicipal „� W9aaconL,gllIRd Hidden Springs�
j Private Limited = fL
°•' t7 s
vrtirace a = ;
++.
QF� x
star W Slate S, yv� CL
I x
l m Banhury Golf Course
In Rd I
Highway 20128 CQIn1 City v a
C
< u cc v s 0
u a 2 rod
o Y Lakeview Go'If Clu6
n �lJshek Rd
_C Cherry Ln x w o W Fairview Ava z tR11 W4,„
Meridian '+Y .
l z x T tiy�nivrardsi � -5r
Ridgecrest Golf Course L f4jrihl n W F,anAIln Ra BUiS@7 Fy
C 3
Centennial Golf Course _ G�rye4J5 v 3
l E C]w�iaa�Rd a Cv prl d Rd u
G
l b A • W:I b J
i E Vw"Rd
� •4
� •v sus ; � LL L: N
a dr I W Amity Rd E Amity Rd
m Boise Ranch Golf Course,Inc. sy rvL
l �
RedHawkGolfCourse = , �
n s F f.olumh.a Rd
-4Gr E Lmwps Ln r
Falcon Crest GolfClu6
not Flat Rd r
I
a
Kuna Rd W IKona Rd KGtI� E Kuna Rd
7age 189
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
Item#15.
Facility Summary Information—Lakeview GC Competitive Set
Location Est.
Golf Facility Location Type Year Par/ Front Tee/ Relative to 2020 Tee
Open Slope Back Tee Lakeview GC Rounds Stations
Pla ed
Lakeview Golf Club Meridian MU-18H 1978 72/131 5,367/6,521 - 37,000 15
Banbury Golf Course Eagle DF-18H 1999 71/149 4,522/6,908 5.3 miles NE 42,000 25
Boise Ranch Golf Course Boise DF-18H 1994 71/125 5,266/6,607 8.0 miles SE 37,000 25
Centennial Golf Course Nampa MU-18H 1988 72/116 5,483/6,655 5.0 miles W 40,000 25
Falcon Crest Golf Club(27R+9E) Kuna DF-36H 2O01 72/122 5,463/7,089 10.4 miles S/SW 57,000 100
Redhawk Golf Course Nampa DF-18H 2O09 71/127 4,089/6,730 10.5 miles SW 34,000 40
Ridgecrest Golf Course(Champ.18H) Nampa MU-27H 1996 72/134 5,186/6,918 4.5 miles W 46,731 60
River Birch Golf Course Star DF-18H 1 2O04 73/119 5,537/6,974 7.1 miles N 32,000 40
*Air miles from subject site,rounded to half-mile;actual driving distances will likely be greater.
Type:DF—Daily Fee;MU—Municipal;R—Regulation;E-Executive
Significant Findings — Competitive Public Golf Market (18-Hole or Greater)
NGF Consulting research indicates the following significant findings for the Lakeview Golf Club
competitive public access golf market:
► While Lakeview Golf Club has been described to NGF as a"fun"course, in its current condition,
and with characteristics like narrow corridors with many fairways double-loaded with homes,the
golf course is inferior in quality to its competitors. This makes it difficult for Lakeview GC to
compete effectively for daily fee market share except through significant discounting of fees(e.g.,
VIP program). However,the built-in"captive audience"-comprising golfers living in the homes
within a square mile of the facility- significantly boosts activity levels at Lakeview GC,primarily
through annual passes.
► Lakeview GC's high-quality competitors include the City of Nampa's Centennial and Ridgecrest
courses,Banbury,Boise Ranch, and Falcon Crest. These courses are newer than Lakeview GC,
do not have homes lining the fairways, are more aesthetically pleasing, and offer a superior
price/value proposition to Lakeview GC.
► Despite offering vastly different golf experiences than Lakeview GC does, Centennial and
Ridgecrest—due to their value and proximity—may be the two most important competitors to
Lakeview GC in the context of daily fee market share. Each offers strong value,with Ridgecrest a
particularly good and challenging golf experience for its price point. Management told NGF that
both courses had been on the upswing since about 2017 in terms of rounds played,and each saw
additional rounds(and a lot of new customers) during the pandemic-fueled upswing in 2020. The
trend is attributed to the strong population growth in Nampa and the Treasure Valley.Unlike
Lakeview GC,the Nampa course are predominantly daily fee courses,with only an estimated
20%to 25%of total rounds coming from passholders.
► Nampa's lease agreement with the state on the nearly 500 acres of land at Centennial and
Ridgecrest expires at the end of this calendar year.NGF was told by a couple of market sources
that Ridgecrest was in danger of closing at the end of the lease,but further research indicates the
city hopes to continue leasing the property and potentially own the golf course in the future.
rpage 190
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
Item#15.
► More than one operator we spoke to noted,and NGF concurs,that the high-quality golf courses in
this market would be positioned at considerably higher green fees in many other markets(e.g.,
Bay Area,Phoenix-Scottsdale, Seattle, Portland, southern California, south Florida).Anecdotally,
these operators noted that a lot of the new resident golfers coming to the Treasure Valley from
some of these very same markets have expressed this observation.
► Average peak season(`prime time')walking green fees among the market competitors fall within
a relatively tight range. On the lower end,weekday 18H green fees range from the upper$20s
weekdays/mid$30s weekends at facilities such as Centennial, Redhawk and River Birch,to mid
$30s weekdays/low-mid$40s at Boise Ranch,Ridgecrest, and Lakeview GC (latter is $39
weekends). So,Lakeview GC falls in the middle tier by the criterion of`rack' pricing, though we
previously noted that a large volume of daily fee rounds at the club are played through various
discount programs, such as VIP. At the high end of the range,Banbury GC is at$43.50/$53 for
walking 18H rounds.Most clubs offer junior, senior and twilight rates,and fees are generally
discounted 10%to 20%during the short winter season.
► Cart fees also group within a small range of$15 to$17 (per person, shared cart)for 18 holes, and
$10 to$12 for 9 holes. Most facilities allow private carts and have both annual and daily trail fees
available,with the latter generally in the same cost range as 18H cart fees.
► All of the golf facilities in the identified primary competitive subset offer season passes that allow
for unlimited play(cart not included). Several also offer weekday-only passes. For unlimited 7-
day individual passes,Banbury GC,which limits the number of passes sold, is easily the highest
priced at$2,999. The other facilities fall within a range of$985 for Centennial and$1,850 for
Redhawk. Lakeview GC, at$1,499, is similarly priced to Falcon Crest($1,399 for Championship
Course only), Ridgecrest($1,450), and Boise Ranch($1,600). Also,the price of the Lakeview
GC pass is marginally higher than the cost for the City of Nampa's pass that includes both
Centennial and Ridgecrest.
• While the season price fee for Lakeview GC is high relative to the quality of the golf
experience offered,the fee reflects that the club's membership is very local and very
active, due to the convenience of the course location.With Lakeview GC acting
effectively as a community or HOA golf course,the frequency of play of its passholders
is likely higher than that of most or all of its competitive set,thus lowering the effective
rate per round at Lakeview GC. With members playing a high average number of golf
rounds each year,the average effective green fee per member round is very low
compared to daily fee(non-passholder)rounds.
► With an estimated average of 38,000+annual rounds per 18 holes (short courses at Falcon Crest
and Ridgecrest excluded),the competitive subset compares favorably to the national average of
about 31,500(all types), and the facilities are especially active in comparison to many non-
Sunbelt markets. The market operators we spoke to reported seeing many new customers in 2020,
due to both the pandemic and the continued influx of new residents into the Treasure Valley. The
most active facilities in the market are Ridgecrest,Falcon Crest,Banbury, and Falcon Crest.
rpage 191
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
Item#15.
LOCAL /REGIONAL MARKET SUMMARY
Following are key NGF takeaways from the Meridian/Treasure Valley market analysis:
► The Treasure Valley golf course market is characterized by very active golf courses for this
climate region,attributable to high quality golf courses at very affordable green fees. With more
affluent households moving to the area,the apparent ceiling on green fees in this market may go
higher over time.
► Golf courses in Meridian and the Valley benefit from a vibrant economy and very high-growth
population from which to draw players. With this rapid population growth, already favorable
(compared to overall U.S.)golf demand-supply ratios should grow more favorable over time,
barring further golf course development.
► Despite the relative robustness of the market,Lakeview GC has been reliant on its"built-in"
season passholder base for survival,with daily fee play at `rack rates' accounting for only about
a quarter or so of total plays. The course, in its current condition, draws much of its daily fee
play through various forms of discounting(e.g.,VIP Card).
► The key to Lakeview GC being able to successfully increase market share—especially in terms
of daily fee play—appears to be substantially improving the product through major capital
investment. However, even with major improvements,Lakeview GC will still lag most
competitors,due to the nature of the golf course,with its tight corridors and fairways double-
loaded with homes.
► Still,we believe that with facility improvements and a strong programming element, Lakeview
GC will have a good opportunity to fill a niche in this market, differentiating itself on its
playability,user-friendliness,walkability, and sense of community, as well as by offering
"something for everyone"through creative programming and potential addition of amenities
such as the Zenger Short Course.
rpage 192
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2
Item#15.
Public / Stakeholder Engagement
As noted in the introduction to this report,public and overall stakeholder engagement was an important
part of the overall master plan study process. It is very important to the City to hear from various
constituents as it begins its stewardship of the golf course. Below are NGF summary findings focusing on
important recurring themes gleaned from the various components of the engagement process. Responses
are not attributed to individuals to protect privacy.
GOLFER SURVEY (NGF GOLFSAT)
In December 2020, shortly after taking over management of Lakeview GC,KSM fielded the NGF
GolfSAT golfer survey. The survey results revealed some of the worst scores,benchmarked against like
facilities,that NGF has observed. Satisfaction was particularly low for course condition factors,while
convenience of location was the only factor that was rated and benchmarked very positively.
PHONE AND VIDEO INTERVIEWS /FOCUS GROUPS
NGF staff conducted one-on-one interviews or hosted Zoom meetings with a variety of people that have
some connection to Lakeview Golf Club to ascertain feelings and opinions about the City's acquisition of
golf course assets and future stewardship of the facility. Summary findings follow.
Public Officials, Golf Course Focus Group Members, Lakeview GC Associations
NGF consultants spoke via telephone to±20 individuals comprising a cross-section of representatives
from these various groups.Additionally,we conducted Zoom meetings with representatives of the Men's
Golf Association,the Ladies Golf Association, and the Cherry Lane HOA. Summary observations follow.
Current and Former Public Officials
The group included the Mayor,members of City Council(including the City's Liaison to Parks),Parks
and Recreation Commissioners,the P&R Department Youth Commissioner,WARD Chairman, City
Finance Director, and a former Mayor. The overall vibe with respect to the City's decision to take control
of the assets and management of Lakeview GC was very positive,with most we spoke to excited about
the opportunity it presents.
Some of the more resonant and/or recurring themes that came out of the discussions:
► The golf course reflects on the City's image and the quality should measure up to other
communities' golf courses(Nampa's courses, especially Ridgecrest,was brought up several
times as a comparison), and also uphold the standard of other City of Meridian parks—visually
and operationally—as a point of pride.
► Lakeview GC should be operated as a municipal golf course with professional practices and
standards.
► There is almost universal recognition that the Lakeview GC facility requires multiple millions of
dollars in improvements, due to the aged-out condition of its infrastructure.
► Lakeview GC should remain"entry level"on both the skill required and the price. The facility
should be about accessibility, and not be exclusionary in any way. Should be more marketing to
the broader community to create awareness and engagement.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—2 Page 193
Item#15.
► The facility should be a welcoming place for kids and beginning golfers. Good practice facilities
and active programming, especially for youths(e.g.,The First Tee,programs through the West
Ada School District), is very important.
► The idea of potentially adding a new forward tee,enhanced practice facilities, and possibly a
new 9-hole practice course,was very well-received.
► The golf club should not be about non-golf food and beverage events such as weddings; also,it
should not have a"night club"atmosphere. On the other hand,most people expressed that the
restaurant can be a focal point of the club as a community gathering place, especially if the
atmosphere was upgraded.
► The City should focus on the golf course's benefit to older folks. It is an integral part of the
quality of life for many of the local residents above age 60.
► The discussion of the idea of the golf course as public accommodation vs. for-profit business
was a frequent one. While some thought there should be a breakeven or even profit imperative,
others thought that a subsidy would not be a bad thing and that the golf course"should get the
same resources and attention as other parks that benefit the broader community". There was
agreement that City leaders need to reach consensus on this issue.
► Most constituents we spoke to were in favor of continuing professional outside management,
rather than trying to operate it with City employees.
► One of the common themes revolved around access to the golf course by non-golfers,protocols,
behavior,etiquette, etc.:
• Examples that came up included"trespassers"(dog walkers,kids taking established
paths to shorten walking distance to school,neighbors walking on course before or after
hours to practice chipping,and putting).
• Poor golfer behavior was cited by some(balls in backyards,broken windows,jumping
fences, and urinating in yards).
► Community neighbors are an essential voice and partner to the City, and this should be
acknowledged. The City must be transparent with messaging about rules/protocols(e.g.,break a
window, leave a note), expectations,who to call when something goes against protocols,what
the City's liability is in different situations, etc. The City should clearly convey and reinforce its
values related to being respectful, etc.
Lakeview Golf Club Associations
As would be expected from the Men's and Ladies' Golf Associations that are highly engaged with the
golf course,we received much more granular feedback about golf course conditions, service levels,
management, etc.than we received from non-golfing community stakeholders. Key NGF observations
from engagement with these representatives,who were conveying the prevailing views of their members:
► They expect quick and steady improvement to the golf course under City management, and for
the golf course to "grow into"the fee levels being charged so they're justified based on market
competitive factors.
► The social aspect at Lakeview GC is as important as the golf. The City should enhance and
promote the"real community atmosphere"that exists there.
► Most spoke highly of the clubhouse as a gathering place,but also noted the need for much
improvement in the food and beverage operation:
• The bar/restaurant is understaffed,resulting in poor and inconsistent service, especially
during busy times(e.g.,after league play).Not having a dedicated bartender is a key
reason for this.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 194
Item#15.
• The kitchen is not big enough to handle the busier times,thus slowing service.
• People turn out for themed food nights such as Taco Tuesdays. There should be specials
for leagues,who are a"good revenue opportunity", and also daily specials to attract
more locals to the restaurant. The Friday Night 9-Hole Couple Chapman—a new
couple's night event—was cited.
• The food is good,but some would like to see at least one full meal option(e.g.,multi
course with veggies, salad, etc.); others would like to see some more healthy options to
the bar/fried food fare.
• Nearly everyone loves the outdoor space and would like to see it expanded. Ideas
expressed include installing folding doors to extend open air space and extending the
patio more towards range.
• The interior of the clubhouse is dated and not aesthetically pleasing. It needs new paint,
new A/C, furnishings and fixtures,updated restrooms,and a general refreshing. The
patio should be expanded and fixtures replaced.
► The golf course needs a lot of work and is priced too high for its condition. They would gladly
pay current fees if conditions were greatly improved and most recognize that the fees are worth
it because of the convenience of the location.
► The on-course restrooms must be improved,and there is a need for a nice permanent, accessible
restroom for ladies on the Front 9.
► The members noted seeing a lot of new customers in 2020 that were"given no directions or
instructions". Reportedly,examples of poor behavior cited include carts being driven onto the
greens, golfers being inappropriately dressed(though there appears to be no dress formal code),
lack of etiquette, children driving golf carts,playing in the bunker sand, etc.
► There is a need for golf course ambassadors(i.e.,marshals)that have sufficient support from
management to enforce the rules. Ambassadors,if well-trained and backed up with appropriate
authority,would be a big help in ensuring proper etiquette and behavior, as well as acceptable
pace of play.
► Perception of people living near the course that it is their"playground"or backyard; need to
communicate rules,repercussions through the HOAs.
► Service standards, organization and communication need to be improved in the pro shop and
food and beverage operations.
► The golf course should have an accessible restroom on the Front 9 (one member noted that
spouse is in a wheelchair and has to go back to clubhouse to use a restroom).
► Maintenance crew"works tails off'but is just not equipped properly.
► A few voiced concerns that, as older passholders stop playing,they are not being replaced. "We
need new blood,but many moving in from other areas are not golfers".Management needs to try
to bring these newcomers into the game.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 195
Item#15.
HOA Representatives
NGF was able to speak with,via phone or video meeting,representatives of several of the homeowners'
associations of the communities within the mile-square of Lakeview GC. Some of the themes that
emerged are as follows:
► "Nice little course,fun to play"; also, a"friendly gathering place",but prices are too high. A
resident discount on golf and food and beverage would increase community participation.
► One of the residents spearheaded the organization of a blood drive at Lakeview GC,marketing it
via bulletin boards, at the clubhouse, in the HOA newsletter,etc. She mentioned that it would be
good for the community and the golf course to hold more non-golf events at Lakeview GC, such
as a food truck, farmer's market, etc.,during slower days, such as Mondays and Tuesdays. The
club should also test a Sunday Brunch.
► Most like the food(prime rib is very popular) and the patio,but don't like the indoor"bar"
atmosphere.
► There is not enough wait staff,especially on nice weather days and/or if there is a function.
Some of the employees are unfriendly,but it's "probably because they're overworked". Even
just one more staff person would help a lot during busy days/times.
► A few mentioned that the pro shop service is inconsistent and that staff could communicate
better. Some employees were singled out as being unhelpful,while others were cited as"extra
nice and helpful".
► Course infrastructure is in bad condition. The irrigation system, equipment, and cart paths are in
very poor condition; some golfers use the grass, due to potholes in the cart paths as they don't
want to damage their private carts.
► New players don't know or care about proper golf etiquette. There is also an issue with people
"trespassing"on the golf course.
Golfers (across segments)
Additional salient comments from o�across the engagement segments:
► Lakeview GC lags far behind the competition in terms of quality.
► There is a need for better communication(e.g.,via newsletter,periodic emails,etc.)between the
City,golf course management, and golfers.
► There is very little awareness of the presence of Lakeview GC in the broader Meridian/Valley
area. Many who do know about it believe it's a private club.
► Golfers from within the local residential areas have a sense of entitlement for special privileges
(e.g.,playing in fivesomes, always having preferred tee times available to them). Daily fee
golfers from outside the immediate community are not made to feel welcome.
► Management lax on rules enforcement,teaching of etiquette;no oversight of behavior on the
golf course.
► The former lessee ran the facility on a shoestring and didn't invest capital and was dismissive of
complaints.
► The City appears to be showing a commitment to improving things. They are excited about the
possibilities.
► And a somewhat salty comment,but one that may truly capture the essence of Lakeview GC in
its current condition, and the loyalty of its core customer base: `It's a `s_y'course, but it's our
s— y course".
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 196
Item#15.
COMMUNITY ON-LINE SURVEY
NGF developed an online survey(refer to Appendix D)that was primarily targeted at residents of the
communities in the"mile-square"area around Lakeview GC. The survey was intended to gauge
awareness,usage, and satisfaction levels for the golf course and the restaurant. It is hoped that the
information gathered will be useful to the City and to management as they formulate strategies to improve
Lakeview GC and,ultimately,to ensure that the facility can be self-sustaining operationally.
The online link to the survey was placed on the City website, discussed at the Town Hall meeting at
Lakeview GC, and distributed to the local community through various avenues,with help from some of
the various HOAs around the golf course. For example, Cherry Lane HOA broadcast the link on their
Facebook and Nextdoor accounts,while Ashford Greens HOA had NGF(via phone) and the Parks
Superintendent(in person)talk about the survey at a recent mention at an HOA Board meeting. At the
time of this analysis, a total of 123 completed surveys had been received(final number was 127). While
not a statistically valid sample size,the response does provide enough directional guidance to be helpful.
Survey Results
Following is a summary of the survey results,including: (1)Respondent Profile; (2) Questions and
Frequencies; (3)NGF Observations; and(4)Discussion of`other' answers and open-ended questions.
Respondent Profile
The following table summarizes the profile of the survey respondents.
Demographics of Responders % of Total
Overall 123 responses
Gender
Male 59.5%
Female 40.5%
Age
18-34 4.9%
35-49 15.4%
50-64 32.5%
65+ 47.2%
Household Income before taxes
<$100k 44.9%
>$100k 55.1%
Less than$50,000 5.1%
$50,000-$74,999 17.3%
$75,000-$99,999 22.4%
$100,000-$149,999 35.7%
$150,000-$199,999 12.2%
$200,000-$249,999 4.1%
$250,000 or more 3.1%
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 197
Item#15.
Questions and Frequencies
Below are the survey questions and resulting frequencies of answer choices.
Do you, or does anyone in your household,play golf?
• Yes—71.5%
• No—28.5%
Have you,or has anyone in your household,played golf at Lakeview Golf Club in the past 24 months?
• Yes- 85.2%
• No— 14.8%
About how many times have you or your other household member played golf at Lakeview GC in the
past 24 months?
• 1-7 times—34.7%
• 8-24 times— 18.7%
• 25-49 times— 17.3%
• 50-99 times— 10.7%
• 100 times or more— 18.7%
Where do you, or your golfing family member,play most often?
• Lakeview GC Golf Course—61.4%
• Centennial Golf Course(Nampa)—8.0%
• Banbury Golf Course (Eagle)—4.5%
• Eagle Hills Golf Course (Eagle)—3.4%
• Shadow Valley Golf Course(Boise)—3.4%
Are you, or is anyone in your household, an annual passholder at Lakeview Golf Club?
• Yes—28.7%
• No—71.3%
What would prompt you or your golfing family member to play at Lakeview GC more frequently?
• Improved course conditions—60.2%
• Improved customer service—22.7%
• Improved amenities/services(e.g., on-course restrooms,restaurant,clubhouse
restrooms)—45.5%
• Specials targeted to residents of my subdivision-52.3%
• More golf events/programs— 18.2%
• More non-golf events/programs— 11.4%
• Not sure—9.1%
• Other(please explain)— 18.2%
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 198
Item#15.
Are you aware that Lakeview GC has a bar/restaurant that is open to the general public?
• Yes—95.1%
• No—4.9%
Please choose the phrase below that best describes how you or someone in your household has patronized
the Lakeview Golf Club restaurant.
• I/we have dined there—42.7%
• I/we have gone there only for beverages or cocktails—3.4%
• I/we have attended an event/theme night(Taco Tues.,Prime Rib Night)—8.5%
• I/we have had food and beverages and also attended an event(s)there—34.2%
• 1/we have not patronized the restaurant— 11.1%
About how many times have you or your household member patronized the restaurant at Lakeview GC in
the last 12 months?
• None(0 times)— 16.5%
• 1-2 times—20.4%
• 3-5 times—29.1%
• 6-10 times—7.8%
• 11-20 times—9.7%
• 21 times or more— 16.5%
What would prompt you or a family member to patronize the restaurant at Lakeview GC more frequently?
• Better overall menu—48.3%
• Availability of healthier choices—26.7%
• Improved customer service—25%
• Improved ambience(e.g., decor,restrooms, etc.)—39.7%
• Not sure— 15.5%
• Other— 18.1%
Why haven't you or a family member patronized the restaurant at Lakeview GC?
• Generally, eat at home and/or have food delivered—23.1%
• Have other favorite restaurants nearby—23.1%
• Haven't heard good things about it— 15.4%
• Prefer more upscale(fine)dining—0%
• Need healthier choices—7.7%
• Don't like the ambience/atmosphere— 15.4%
• Not interested—7.7%
• Not sure— 15.4%
• Other(please explain)-38.5%
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 199
Item#15.
How interested would you be in participating in specialized programming at Lakeview GC for community
residents(e.g., discounted golf lessons for beginners, free clinics, `9 and Wine' socials,closest to the pin
contests, etc.)?
• Very interested—39.0%
• Interested—22.0%
• Moderately interested— 13.8%
• Slightly interested— 12.2%
• Not interested— 13.0%
Whether you're a golfer or not,we'd like to know your thoughts about any programs, events, activities,
etc.that you think will promote patronage of Lakeview GC among the broader Meridian community(i.e.,
non-golfers and people that reside beyond the immediate neighborhoods around the course). Please
(check all that apply).
• Golf events/programs, such as discounted golf lessons for beginners,free clinics, `9
and Wine' socials,closest to the pin contests—60.3%
• Non-golf events and activities, such as movie nights, social gatherings, etc.—47.1%
• Not sure—25.6%
NGF Observations
Key NGF observations regarding the results of the online neighborhood survey:
► Just over 45%of respondents were from Ashford Greens,while 2 1%were from Cherry Lane,
and a smattering were from other HOAs. About 18%responded that they did not live in any of
the surrounding neighborhoods.
► As we expected, a strong majority-71.5% -of people who took the time to complete the survey
were golfers. Of these, about 29%said they or a household member were a season passholder at
Lakeview GC. (Perhaps a stronger contingent of the non-golfing neighbors would have
participated if there was an efficient way to distribute the link to most of the homeowners).
► 85%of the responding golfers had played at Lakeview GC in the prior 24 months—again, an
expected result.
► There is certainly a"heavy half'among the golfers in terms of their frequency of play at
Lakeview GC,with about 47%reporting that they'd played there 25 times or more in the prior
24 months,more than 29%playing 50 times or more,and nearly 1 in 5 playing 100 times or
more in the last couple of years. Of those that reported playing at Lakeview GC 50 times or
more, 82%are season passholders.
► Of the golfers, 6 1%play most often at Lakeview GC; those that don't spread the wealth among
area golf courses,including Centennial(8%),Banbury(4.5%), and Eagle Hills and Shadow
Valley(each 3.4%).
► When asked what would prompt them to play at Lakeview GC more frequently, 60%noted
improved course conditions, 52%chose"specials targeted to residents of my subdivision",
45.5%mentioned"improved amenities/services",while about 23%picked"improved customer
service".
► A vast majority of respondents are aware that Lakeview GC has a bar/restaurant open to the
public; of these, only 11%have not patronized the restaurant on some level—i.e.,for dining,
special events, etc. About two-thirds who have patronized the restaurant visited 5 times or fewer
in the prior 12 months,while 26%were there an average of about one time per month or more.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 200
Item#15.
► When asked what would prompt them to use the bar/restaurant more frequently,just under half
checked"better overall menu", and about 40%chose"improved ambience". About 1 in 4 chose
"improved customer service"and"availability of healthier choices".
► When asked what would prompt them to use the bar/restaurant more frequently,just under half
checked"better overall menu", and about 40%chose"improved ambience". About 1 in 4 chose
"improved customer service"and"availability of healthier choices".
► There was strong interest expressed in participating in specialized programming at Lakeview GC
for community residents(e.g., discounted golf lessons for beginners, free clinics, `9 and Wine'
socials, closest to the pin contests),more than 60%either interested or very interested, and only
13%not interested.
► Similarly,respondents—whether golfers or non-golfers—were asked about any programs,
events, activities,etc. that they think will promote patronage of Lakeview GC among the broader
Meridian community.
• More than 60%cited the specialized programming listed in the previous question.
• Almost half think that non-golf events and activities, such as movie nights and other
social gatherings,would help promote patronage of Lakeview GC to the broader
community.
Comments Related to `Other' Options and Open-End Question
Several survey questions gave the option of`Other(please explain)'. There was also one open-end
question. Following are some of the common themes that emerged:
Q7—Excluding reduction in time constraints you may have,what would prompt you or your golfing
family member to play at Lakeview GC more frequently?
► Too expensive
► Marshaling, or lack thereof
► Other:
• Course has a very cliquish"locals only"vibe
• Some of the staff must be let go....
• Turnover in kitchen is abysmal
Q 11 -What would prompt you or a family member to patronize the restaurant at Lakeview GC more
frequently?
► Employees have not consistently worn masks/respected Covid protocols
► Consistent hours of operation
► Sufficient and consistent staffing to improve service
► Other:
• Separation between dining and lounge
• Employees should be allowed alcohol on day off
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 201
Item#15.
Q 12—Why haven't you or a family member patronized the restaurant at Lakeview GC?
► New to the neighborhood and haven't had time
► Forget it's there as an option
Q 15 -Please briefly share any concerns you have about Lakeview Golf Club that you believe the City
needs to address/prioritize as part of its stewardship of the facility. (Open-end).
► Course conditions across many categories(irrigation, cart paths, and tees)
► Lower fees/specials for residents
► Food and Beverage/restaurant management
► Restaurant—menu;update/ambience; service levels
► Neither golf course or restaurant are welcoming to non-regulars
► Need permanent on-course restroom
► Management staff/better communication
► Use of the property by non-golfers
Q16—Whether you're a golfer or not,we'd like to know your thoughts about any programs, events,
activities,etc. that you think will promote patronage of Lakeview GC among the broader Meridian
community(i.e.,non-golfers and people that reside beyond the immediate neighborhoods around the
course).
► Patio entertainment/live music on patio
► Employees should be allowed to drink when not working
► "We have a great community;patrons will show for any event,but without proper staff it will
fail".
► Advertising with coupons
► Golf league for beginning women golfers
► Space permitting,activities like Pickleball; Card Room or TV lounge in Clubhouse (currently no
draw there)
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 202
Item#15.
TOWN HALL MEETING AT LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB
A well-attended `Town Hall' meeting was held at the back patio of Lakeview Golf Club on April 21,
2021, from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Mayor Simison and Parks and Recreation staff provided an update to the
community on progress,plans, and opportunities for public participation as the City works to evaluate the
club's current and future needs and develop a Master Plan for the coming years. The City released a press
release prior to the event, an excerpt of which was:
"We've had the opportunity to work with consultants to better evaluate Lakeview GC's needs over the
past few months,"said Mayor Robert Simison. "This Town Hall Meeting will provide us the chance to
update community members,neighbors, and customers on these efforts, as well as gather feedback and
insight from those who frequent the club. Lakeview Golf Club is Meridian's only public golf course, and,
as such,we think it is important to keep the public informed and involved when making decisions for its
future."NGF team member Forrest Richardson followed the meeting online.
Feedback from the attendees did not focus on"big picture"public policy issues around the City's
ownership of Lakeview GC (with exception of an attendee questioning the need to pay a management
company from out-of-state),but rather on specific operational-level issues at the golf course. Themes
included:
► Neighbors not happy with behavior of some golfers
► Poor course conditions
► Need for more affordable green and pass fees
► Errant balls
► Employees not being able to have an alcoholic beverage at Lakeview GC, even when not working
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—3 Page 203
Item#15.
Capital Improvement Plan
Due to the age and condition of the Lakeview Golf Club, a critical component of the overall golf course
master plan report NGF is preparing for the City of Meridian,Idaho is the prioritized Capital
Improvement Plan(CIP). Essentially all of the golf course infrastructure and components are past their
expected useful life, as the prior lessee invested very little in the golf course itself. The results of the
golfer survey(NGF Golf5AT)fielded by KemperSports in December were among the poorest we've ever
measured-benchmarked against 100,000+completed surveys -and the worst ratings related to golf
course conditions. (These findings were borne out by NGF's virtual focus groups with the Men's and
Ladies' Golf Associations). Finally,the condition and insufficiency of maintenance equipment makes the
capital plan a priority, as do the safety issues identified by the NGF team in this report.
In short,we believe that in order for management and the City to successfully increase rounds played and
revenues at Lakeview GC, especially among those Valley golfers that do not live immediately proximate
to the golf course,the golf course product must be greatly improved. The NGF team's recommendations
in this section are intended to help the City achieve that goal.
This section is organized into the following main components:
► Introduction;
► Golf Course Evaluation—existing conditions, identified needs,recommendations(includes
maintenance building, equipment, golf cars);
► Clubhouse Summary Evaluation—identified short-term needs and recommendations based on
inspection by independent contractor; and
► Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan—3-Year plan,prioritized,with preliminary cost estimates.
INTRODUCTION
NGF Consulting subcontracted Golf Course Architect Forrest Richardson,ASGCA,to provide an
evaluation of the existing golf course for the purpose of helping the City identify needs and priorities.
The City recognizes that the facility has significant deferred capital improvement work that would
ordinarily have resulted in replacement of components of the course(features, irrigation, drainage,etc.)
by this time. Given that the original nine holes has now been in service for 42 years, and the newer nine
holes for 24 years,there are distinctions made to account for these age differences.
The City has previously contracted with Baer Design Group to provide a baseline study of the existing
irrigation system. The Baer report addresses irrigation infrastructure and issues with pumping,control,
and reliability. It is expected that Baer Design Group will follow-up on its initial reporting with a more in-
depth analysis following NGF Consulting findings.
While Mr. Richardson conducted the work related to the golf course and its components, evaluation of the
clubhouse building and its major components was done by Boise-based inspection company,Bent Nail
Inspections, on February 22, 2021. Summary findings and preliminary cost estimates for recommended
repairs/replacement are presented later in the report.
Finally,replacement needs for golf carts and golf course maintenance equipment were determined
based on conversations with the manager's regional vice president and Lakeview GC staff, including the
long-time superintendent, and visual inspection of the equipment by Mr. Richardson during his visit.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 204
Item#15.
GOLF COURSE EVALUATION
Evaluation Methodology
Golf Course Architect Forrest Richardson,ASGCA,visited the facility over two days,January 15th and
16th,202 1. Operations and maintenance staff were consulted,including the General Manager and
Superintendent,who provided a tour of the course to Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson also visited five local golf facilities to familiarize himself with public sector and public
"daily fee"courses that compete for business with Lakeview GC(Banbury Golf Course,Ridgecrest Golf
Club, Centennial Golf Course,River Birch Golf Club and Shadow Valley Golf Club).At the onset of the
evaluation, available mapping, aerial photography, and historical aerials were acquired.
The emphasis of the evaluation includes the following:
► Overall golf course condition and needs (features and infrastructure);
► Turf conditions;
► Notable safety issues;
► Water storage(reservoir)and irrigation;
► Practice facilities(existing and future opportunities);
► Arbor assets(trees and landscaping);
► Maintenance facility condition and needs; and
► ADA Compliance issues and concerns.
Mr. Richardson's consulting scope was to document and quantify present conditions and expected golf
course improvement needs.His reporting breaks down the various features and infrastructure by outlining
and prioritizing these identified needs, and preparing preliminary probable cost estimates (by general
category)that take into account how improvement work may be carried out by the City. (See Appendix E,
Exhibit 2 for a visual of existing course layout and conditions).
It is important to recognize that these preliminary probable cost estimates are for budgeting and
subsequent planning efforts as the City begins to develop funding approaches for the facility. At the heart
of subsequent planning efforts will be a"Final Improvement Plan"that is prepared to more completely
identify all areas of needed improvement and further refine probable costs. This plan is likely a joint
venture of the following consultant specialties:
► Golf Course Architect(e.g.,Forrest Richardson and Associates);
► Irrigation Consultant/Designer(e.g.,Baer); and
► Civil Engineer—for preliminary water delivery, lake and other engineering/planning.
The distinction between this current NGF-FRA evaluation report and a"Final Improvement Plan"is
primarily that the formalized improvement plan will combine all of the final determined needs into one
document that covers recommended improvements to golf course components, irrigation/lakes,and
buildings/structures, as well as any more modest changes that can be made by in-house(i.e., golf course
and/or City)labor and staff. Additionally,the"Final Improvement Plan"will solidify phasing to meet the
City's needs and ability to fund improvements.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 205
Item#15.
Existing Conditions, Needs, and Recommendations
Golf course components wear out at different intervals. For example,putting greens may have an overall
expected life span of 30 or more years but could last longer with better care and protocols for aerification
and topdressing. Irrigation systems typically last 20-30 years,but certain components may last
significantly longer. Sand bunkers(and associated drainage)require significant renovation, often in as
short a period of time as 7-10 years. (See Appendix F for Golf Course Lifecycle Chart).
New approaches to renovation of golf infrastructure and features have focused on better longevity.
Irrigation pipe is now HDPE type,with a much longer life expectancy. Sand bunker construction using
hard liners beneath the sand layer have proven to double the lifespan of bunker drainage and typical
issues with bunkers that lead to reconstruction needs.
The following categories are broken down by general area of the facility,with some features combined
into related categories. Recommendations accompany each area covered below. (See Appendix G for a
summary table showing all of the recommendations,how the NGF team believes they should be
prioritized, and preliminary cost estimates).
Water Delivery, Reservoir (Lake), Pumping, and Irrigation Systems
It is essential to understand that the irrigation system is wholly integrated as part of the facility's practice
area.When the course was expanded from 9 to 18 holes in the 1990s,the large lake feature was
constructed and its use doubles as a reservoir for water storage and as an"Aqua Range"where players hit
floating golf balls. These"floaters"are collected when balls float to the shore(a fountain in the center is
helpful in steering balls towards shore) and then made available the following day. The Aqua Range itself
has significant safety concerns, due to length that,at about 200 yards,is insufficient to prevent some
golfers from exceeding the hitting area. Balls leave the golf premises, and,despite poles and netting, some
balls land in residential lots.
K
The larger area of the main lake is used as an aqua range
where players hit floating balls from a tee area into the lake.
During the winter,when no water is in the larger lake area,
traditional(non-floating)golf balls are currently being used,
then collected before spring when this lake is again full.
The logistics of getting water to the course is via the"Eight Mile Canal,"which is an irrigation water
canal that distributes water to multiple users. The golf facility is one such user and receives water through
a manual gate located left of the 18th fairway. This manual gate allows water to flow into the primary
(main) lake where it is then drawn into the pumping system. Water is measured using Miner's Inches and
is then converted to gallons used.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 206
Item#15.
ice: x
Y{+r64
Water is supplied to the course by way of a canal system
called the"Eight Mile Lateral,"of which this feeding ditch
is the point at which water is allowed to flow into the main
irrigation lake.
Water is available only from mid-April through mid-October. In the"no water"season(winter months), a
small well is activated and produces approximately 300 gallons per minute. An isolated reservoir was
developed several years ago, so the well water during the winter could be managed in a significantly
smaller lake area,allowing proper intake to the pump system. The two lake areas are separated by a dam
that isolates water between the main lake and the smaller"winter only"portion. During winter months,
this smaller lake is kept as full as possible,while the main lake area is allowed to dry up.
The pump station is located in the far back corner of the lake/Aqua Range area and is served by a power
transformer. The Baer report cites issues with the pump system, including its condition and intake
apparatus. Currently there is significant manual labor involved in separating and controlling water levels
between the two lake areas.
1° r ;
_ r 7
y -
The pump station house adjacent to the small portion of The intake pipe from the isolated reservoir of the main
the main irrigation lake that has been isolated to provide lake system.
a winter reservoir for irrigation water needs.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 207
Item#15.
As noted in the Baer Group report,the irrigation system is predominantly far past its useful lifecycle.
While some mainline pipe may be preserved for more function,there is virtually no other component
group that is salvageable. At present,the system is held together through constant repairs and the know-
how of just a few key employees who have worked with the system for the past several decades. If these
employees were to leave,the City would be very hard pressed to find anyone with adequate knowledge to
keep the system operating to any efficient level.
Water Delivery,Reservoir(Lake),Pumping,and Irrigation Systems Recommendations
Fundamental to the entire irrigation storage and Aqua Range is an undertaking to design and engineer a
better configuration for the lakes. The consulting team has created a preliminary conceptual plan,
"Practice Range and Lake Conceptual Study",that accompanies this report. Appendix E,Exhibit 3. This
conceptual plan shows how the primary lake can be improved and would be separated from a second lake
area that would be at a slightly higher elevation to the larger lake. This way golfers using the Aqua Range
would tee off above the main lake. The main lake would be allowed to deplete seasonally unless a
secondary source of water could be found.
A"land bridge"between the two lakes would be shaped with target greens so golfers will focus on these
targets. These targets accommodate play at roughly 140-220 yards depending on where the range tees are
situated. One target is intended to appear as an island, even though it is connected by land to the land
bridge.Additional floating targets could be placed in front of this land bridge.
We recommend floating golf balls (also lower compression for limited flight distance)be used at all
times,unlike the present where floating golf balls are used during the summer season and then"regular"
golf balls used when the lake is drained. Because the facility has limited distance for the practice range,
we feel it is imperative that the City instigate such measures, combined with signage and management so
the practice area is operated safely and consistently. The mixing of ball types is not a best practice and
may lead to confusion on how players use the practice area. Reverting to one type of ball,with less
compression and distance, is the only way to mitigate the situation. Poles and netting,while they may be
raised,are subject to breaches,bird damage, and other factors that may allow future issues to persist.
Behind the land bridge, at the slightly higher elevation,the farther lake is intended to be kept full
throughout the year. We believe it is doubtful that lake could be kept full with just the existing, small well
during the winter season. Therefore, a secondary source of water—perhaps a second well could be
added. Regardless,the flexibility of the conceptual design allows a much smaller upper lake to be full at
all times,pending a secondary source of water. Whereas the lower lake, if allowed to deplete in the
winter,could be much more aesthetically pleasing with the addition of the target greens across the land
bridge.
Safety Analysis
The Lakeview Golf Club is a contrast of two nines. The original nine(c. 1979)was built with some
corridors(area devoted to each golf hole, or series of holes) significantly narrower than typical guidelines.
While there are no hard and fast standards for width of golf play corridors, some best practices do exist
and are adjusted for factors, such as elevation above sea level(affects hitting distance by players),terrain,
wind, length of tee shot,presence of penalty areas(sand,water hazards),natural land features and the
type of player using the facility. At Lakeview GC some widths from adjacent residential lots are only
f200-feet across the primary landing area of holes(par-4s and par-5s),whereas an expected width would
be closer to the f300-360-foot range. Some consideration is given to the age of the Lakeview GC facility
as best practices at the time the course was built may have been less than today. However,the corridor
widths are a significant concern and are addressed below in specific areas.
Corridor width concerns are especially evident at Hole Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16.Forrest Richardson,
ASGCA has worked on several courses designed by Robert Baldock and notes that this condition is
unusual because most Baldock designs are generally well-planned. One presumption is that the residential
developer of the original nine holes may have directed more narrow hole corridors in order to maximize
housing lots. This is but one theory on why widths are especially narrow in some areas.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 208
Item#15.
Regardless of the background,there exist areas of concern on both the original and more recent(c. 1997)
nines. Staff reports that damage to adjacent homes is a regular occurrence and that a few homeowners
have reported being hit with errant balls, although this is rare. The problems are significantly more
realized on the back nine. The corridors for golf holes have been generally evaluated, and Mr. Richardson
provides the following preliminary mitigation measures, each to be studied in greater detail and integrated
to a final"Improvement Plan"as defined above.
One of several erected nets along residential lots that
prevent some errant balls from hitting private property.
While this is not uncommon on courses with residential
homes adjoining fairways,many corridor widths at
Lakeview GC are less than desirable.We recommend
mitigation measures to reduce the number of errant balls.
Safety Mitigation Recommendations- Golf Holes/Errant Balls
Please refer to the Appendix E,Exhibit 4, "Recommended Safety Mitigation Measures(preliminary)"to
locate the following specific recommendations. (Note:All numbers correspond to current/existing hole
numbering).
1.1 Add trees to the left side of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
1.2 Add trees left of fairway landing area.
1.2 Revise the existing lake to eliminate water penalty area front of No. 1 green;this will promote
safer approach shots to the green at the first hole.
2.1 Add trees to the left side of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
2.2 Add a sand bunker(diagonal to tee shot)at the left of the fairway landing area that clearly aims
the tee shot farther rightward.
2.3 Expand the improved fairway to the right, encouraging shots farther right.
3.1 Relocate No. 3 green(related to making room for a short, 9-hole practice course); a secondary
benefit is changing the slight-dog-leg right hole to a straight hole with less impact to adjacent
homes. This also shifts the green away from the access trail that connects Harbor Point Drive
with Moon Lake Street as used by residents.
5.1 Add trees to the right side of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach
heights.
5.2 Add a sand bunker(diagonal to tee shot)left of the second shot landing area that clearly aims the
approach shot farther rightward.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 209
Item#15.
6.1 Add trees to the left side of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
8.1 Shift primary tee(s)to the left along property limits, creating an angle away from the right side of
the hole. Add trees to right side of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach
heights.
8.2 Add a sand bunker(diagonal to tee shot)at the right of the fairway landing area that clearly aims
the tee shot farther leftward and also"pinches"the landing area between this new bunker and the
pond,thus promoting a shorter"lay-up"tee shot by some players.
8.3 Strengthen the greenside bunker at the front right of the green to promote an angle to the green
from farther left of the fairway.
9.1 Split existing Hole No. 9 into two holes (replacing existing Hole No. 4,removed to facilitate the
short 9-hole practice course); new No. 8 will remain a par-5 to a new green.
9.2 Construct a new set of tees playing to the existing No. 9 green,but expanded rightward;this new
hole will mitigate conflicts left of existing No. 9 and will create two more enjoyable and playable
holes.
10.1 Strengthen the greenside bunker at the front left of the green to promote an approach away from
the homes at the left of the green area.
11.1 Add trees to both sides of tees; assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
11.2 Consider more definition of the drainage basins that cross the fairway,perhaps adding sand
bunkers that will"pinch"the landing area,thus promoting a shorter"lay-up"tee shot by some
players.
11.3 Add trees left of the second shot landing area to encourage play farther right, away from the
homes.
12.1 Add trees to both sides of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
12.2 Add two sand bunkers at both edges of the fairway,providing a visual cue to players from the tee.
14.1 Raise and align tees and add more tees to gain better view of the fairway. Add trees to both sides
of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
14.2 Add a sand bunker as an aiming crutch for players on their second shot; this will serve as both a
"target"and also a guide to the proper distance for a shot of played shorth of the canal hazard.
15.1 Add trees to both sides of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
16.1 Add a sand bunker(diagonal to tee shot)at the left of the fairway landing area that clearly aims
the tee shot farther rightward.
17.1 Add forward tee(s)to allow shorter club selection,thus promoting better accuracy from the tee to
the green.
18.1 Add trees to both sides of tees to assist in knocking down errant shots before they reach heights.
P.1 Conduct further study and consider implementing significant changes to the Aqua Range that will
limit hitting distance. Proposed changes include: (1)Creating targets that are placed f 140-220
yards from the primary tee area; and(2)Reserving the farther back area as a buffer to existing
residential lots. (See Appendix E,Exhibit 3).
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 210
Item#15.
Other Areas of Concern
The above recommendations cover errant ball issues,which we consider to be the primary issue in terms
of safety at the Lakeview Golf Club. Other areas of safety include the following:
► Bridges- Some of these span canals and may need guard-rails or re-working to provide safer
approaches and conditions.
- N
F
S
Bridges that span canals should be evaluated for This walking bridge at Hole No. 18 should be
replacement or fitted with appropriate side rails. removed in favor of having all players use an
appropriate bridge with sufficient side rails.
► Tree roots at playing surface -In some areas,tree roots are present at the turf elevation and
pose a risk to golfers when playing shots.
Tree roots are exposed or near the turf surface in
many areas.This poses a hazard to players,
maintenance equipment,and irrigation lines.
► Lack of cart paths-Issues associated include wet/muddy areas along tees and greens that may
pose a hazard to players. Also,not having defined paths on which to mandate cart traffic in
certain areas(examples: canals, lake edges, etc.)result in an inability to control cart usage across
the golf facility.
► Public crossing of the course in certain areas where neighbors get from one street to another.
Tees
Existing tees are universally uneven and exhibit poor drainage.Nearly all tees are crowned but pockets
also exist within the tees, and staff reports that they collect water after irrigation and rain events. A few
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 211
Item#15.
tees are poorly aligned and may contribute to errant balls. Overall,tee size is adequate,yet all of the golf
holes require forward tees to accommodate players of varying abilities. The existing course yardage from
the forward tees measures 5,180 yards, and this ideally should be closer to 3,500 yards. At least one new
forward tee should be added at all holes to provide proper length for players who are unable to reach
holes in regulation strokes(e.g.,kids,beginners, elderly).
Nearly all tees are crowned with uneven surfaces.
Tees should be generally flat,aligned to the center
of the golf hole,and of adequate size to spread
wear across the surface.
Recommendations:
► Re-surface and align all tees, adding some surface area to specific tees(such as par-3s where
wear and tear is significant).
► Add f 18 new forward tees-at least one at each golf hole to provide a more inclusive golf
experience for beginners,youth, and players who cannot hit as far.
Sand Bunkers
It appears that there were never any fairway bunkers on the course. Greenside bunkers total 28, and there
is one practice sand bunker. All bunkers are well past their useful lifecycle and are in need of being fully
reconstructed with new edges, some expansion areas, and all-new drainage. A few of the existing bunkers
may be eliminated based on further design study.At present there is a pattern of"left"and"right'
bunkers at a majority of greens. This redundancy can be mitigated by elimination of some bunkers.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 212
Item#15.
"AL&
Sand bunkers are a hallmark of golf,adding both interest and
challenge.All Lakeview GC sand bunkers are past their
useful lifecycle and are in need of complete rebuilding,
including sub-surface drainage,edging,and restored depth.
Drainage may be accomplished by a sump basin beneath each bunker, or there may be an outfall drainage
pipe installed to a nearby lake or existing drainage basin. Additional bunkers should be considered on
some holes as a way to help direct players visually from the tee. In most instances,these will be fairway
bunkers placed strategically as part of an overall"Final Improvement Plan"that will carry forward the
findings of this evaluation.
Recommendations:
► Rebuild most existing bunkers,preferably using a hard liner system that will prolong the life span
of sand bunkers and help conserve sand with drainage via sumps or as outfall pipe to lakes or
existing drainage basins.
► Add strategic bunkers to help guide players and serve as mitigation measures to errant ball issues
at specific locations.
Greens
Greens on the original 9 holes(east area,now the back-nine) are generally suffering from excessive
thatch. These greens appear to have been built on a blend of native soils and sand, although this is
unconfirmed. Staff notes that these greens present the greatest issues,including the thatch build up and
severe gradients (slopes). Some areas of the greens cannot be set with a hole location as the slopes are too
much to prevent balls from rolling off. This is frustrating and causes pace of play issues, so staff uses only
areas of the greens that can be set to prevent such roll-offs. This leads to excessive wear in areas of the
greens and is not good for long-term sustainability of the green conditions.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—4 Page 213
Item#15.
Greens on the front(east)nine need reconstruction,due to a
variety of rootzone issues,including poor maintenance prior
to the current staff s efforts.Under previous management in
the 1980s-90s,excessive thatch was allowed to develop and
this has led to an upper layer of organics that cannot be
removed without significant rebuilding.Also,as shown
here,slopes(gradients)are excessive in many places and
there are few places to locate a hole where balls do not run
off of the surface.
Greens on the newer 9-holes(west area,now the front nine) are likely built with a modified"California
Type"green construction using more sand and a herringbone drainage tile pattern at the subgrade.
Drainage sumps are likely below the low points of each green area. These details are unconfirmed. Staff
notes that these greens behave better and require less measures to keep in good condition.
Total green surface area is f2.0 acres as reported by staff. Green sizes are predominantly small.Many
appear to have lost surface area over the years,which is a common problem. Green speeds are generally
8-9 by the Stimpmeter measure method. This is mostly to do with gradients that cannot withstand faster
speeds. Faster speeds, even if nominal,would likely help elevate the facility from a competitive
perspective. To accomplish this, a full renovation and rebuilding project would need to be undertaken.
The NGF team does not recommend full rebuilding at this time but does recommend resurfacing of the
older greens(back nine, east portion).
Overall, greens are well maintained considering their age and the issues present. Staff does a good job of
managing and preserving the rootzone. Poa annua is present in>20%of the green areas with balance
comprising bentgrass. Aerification is now being performed once per year with 5.5-inch core type tines
and backfilling with pure sand. This practice is correct and should be continued.
Recommendations:
► Enlist a qualified agronomic consultant to update findings that have been previously reported by
the USGA Green Section(reports dated 2002 and 2006).
► Re-surface the older(back nine)greens -perhaps removing a significant portion of the upper
level rootzone- and re-contour these greens with expansion as needed.
► Instigate selective renovation and expansion of greens on the newer nine(front nine).
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 214
Item#15.
Fairways and Roughs
The total of managed turgrass at the golf course is reported by staff to be f 130 acres. Turf is generally in
good condition with decline attributed mostly to drainage and irrigation issues. The grassed areas
(including tees)are a combination of bluegrass,ryegrass, and bentgrass.
Poor drainage is the primary issue across all fairway and rough areas. This leads to poor turf health,
rutting from carts and equipment, and unhappy customers, due to standing water. The Lakeview GC site
is predominantly flat with very nominal gradients across the course. Surface water from rain events and
irrigation cycles ponds in pockets and has little surface slope to drain off to lower areas,ponds, or one of
several drainage basins that were built primarily to take residential area drainage from rooftops and
streets. Many areas of heavy play are wet,including approaches to greens.
s -
Most fairway areas are flat with little gradient to Turf and fairway areas do not receive even
move surface water(drainage).In a few places, distribution of irrigation,due to an older system
depressions are part of the system of drainage, with poor spacing of heads. This causes ponding,
mostly to handle runoff from streets and which in turn leads to turf health issues,such as
neighborhood areas.In these areas,water ponds salt build-up,rutting,and soil compaction.
and eventually percolates into the ground. Conversely,dry areas that do not get adequate
water result in turf decline,due to dry soil
conditions.
-'iWAwkk
.F r
The area along a residential street where drainage enters the
golf course.The golf course provides an important role in
dewatering the residential areas.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 215
Item#15.
Staff reports that soils do drain but that many areas are slow draining with clays and caliche layers
present. The old irrigation system exasperates drainage issues, as the coverage is very uneven with many
overlapping areas that receive too much water.
We believe the remedy for drainage at Lakeview GC is to install a system of sumps,which would likely
be augured holes of approximately 20 inches in diameter by approximately 15-20 feet in depth. These
sump holes would ideally be of ample depth to reach a gravel or permeable layer of soil types where
surface water could filtrate. Sumps constructed by this method are typically fitted with an HDPE
perforated pipe of±10-inches in diameter,which is then installed with surrounding 3/8-inch washed
gravel. A properly fitting drainage grate is attached to the top. Sufficient volume of the pipe and gravel
system is adequate to dewater even large areas.
A series of drainage tiles(trenches with gravel and pipe)can interconnect multiple sumps constructed as
described above. The layout for such a system on flat sites is often designed in the field after applying a
significant volume of water. Using this method,the Golf Course Architect,with insight from the Golf
Course Superintendent, is able to devise a plan that can mitigate most of the significant drainage
problems. This method is also lower in cost, as augured holes are usually easy and can be installed
quickly. Once mapped and fitted with trace wire, such a system of multiple sumps and interconnected
tiles can be added to by maintenance staff as new problem areas are identified. The allowances noted in
capital investment assume that a series of sumps as described would be installed with a minimal amount
of connected drain tiles at the onset. Following Year 3,additional drain tiles would be added by
maintenance staff as part of annual"special project"maintenance. This is best practice as it is often
impractical to engineer a complete drainage system across a predominantly flat site. Rather,identifying
drainage"hot spots"in the field is much more practical and overall saves cost in the method described.
Note: The NGF Consulting team believes it is especially critical that such a drainage improvement plan
be installed in sync with any new irrigation work. Trenching and disturbance of the fairways and roughs
will be double the inconvenience if done under two separate contracts and periods. Timing of
improvements for maximum efficiency and minimum course disruption is another benefit of a"Final
Improvement Plan"that comprises work plans from all consultants brought together in one set of
documents for bidding.
Recommendations:
► Resolve widespread drainage issues with a formal plan for drainage as described above,
implementing a series of sumps and interconnected drainage tiles.
► Fill smaller pockets(pot-holes)with sand, including sand removed from bunkers as part of a
bunker renovation plan and project.
► Continue best practices for turfgrass management in concert with subsequent agronomic reports
and recommendations.
Cart Paths
For the most part,the Lakeview Golf Club has no formal path system except for short spans of paths,
mostly around the clubhouse area. Where"paths"do exist,they are gravel or compacted soils and have no
formal edging to hold non-turf materials within the path area.As a result, areas of heavy use and access
are rutted and muddy(or dusty)and have an unkempt look. In some areas, such as along tees and greens,
areas are very wide because there is no defined area on which carts are expected to drive and maneuver.
Some areas are worn with no turf as wide as 20-30 feet.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 216
Item#15.
�a
. 71
Formal cart paths are needed,at Example of area in front of a green Another result of cart traffic without
minimum,along tees and greens where,without formal paths,carts formal paths is continued wear
where players drive too close to maneuver and park wherever it seems patterns that add significantly to
slopes. The lack of cart paths results convenient.The result is a mess for maintenance cost.
in rutting and worn turf,in addition to staff to repair,not to mention a poor
causing slippery areas. experience for the golfer.
Recommendations:
► Develop a plan for installing formal paths,which will help maintain better conditions during wet
days when carts should ideally be mandated to stay on paths. Also, investigate various surfaces
such as asphalt, concrete or compacted decomposed granite.
► Implementing the plan ideally over time,on a phased basis driven by funding and course
interruption.
Lakes and Ponds
Staff reports that all lakes and ponds leak into the ground. The volume of water lost is unknown but
would be significant if the condition is present in all water bodies. Original lining of the main lake and
smaller ponds may have used Bentonite,although this is unconfirmed. Leaking adds to the issues of
keeping ponds full. In addition to the primary irrigation lake(Aqua Range) and its smaller isolated
portion,there are three smaller ponds at existing Hole Nos. 4, 7, and 8. The pond at No. 4 is separated
into two areas with a small connection inlet.
When water from the Eight Mile Canal is unavailable,ponds are allowed to dry up. Staff reports that,in
months when water is readily available,these smaller ponds are manually filled. When dried up,they
become unsightly and their edges pose a safety issue, as they are unstable and slippery. One solution is to
eliminate these smaller ponds,but homeowners enjoy them in the summer months and now consider them
an integral part of the neighborhood landscape. As covered in the proposed short course concept,the pond
at existing Hole No. 4 would be fully reconstructed into a smaller series of ponds and connecting streams.
Other ponds should be evaluated for improvement work.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 217
Item#15.
tea. A016-
The three ponds on the western(back)nine are all decorative in nature.
They provide little to no value to golf strategy,and are certainly not
sustainable in terms of water use.Many of the shorelines are
deteriorating,and study should be undertaken to address any long-term
needs.These ponds are artificially filled in the spring as water is
available,and they are kept full until fall.Aesthetics in the winter
months is not good,as shown in the photo.
Recommendation:
► Further study lakes and ponds to determine whether leaking is an issue warranting remedy. At the
main lake,we presume that rebuilding and reconfirmation would also rectify lining and any
leaking. Eventual improvement is subject to a well-crafted plan and associated engineering.
Trees (Arbor Assets)
The primary issue with existing trees is root intrusion to irrigation infrastructure and greens.At some
areas, as noted,roots are present at the surface. This poses a danger to golfers when swinging, as roots are
not always evident and the result can be wrist injuries. Pine needle scale is reported by staff and will
affect numerous Scotch Pines. Overall,trees are a definite asset to the course and should continue to be
managed. The City arborist has inventoried the trees and is actively managing the Lakeview GC assets as
workload allows. However,we note that the City arborist may have most of his or her focus on plant
health;ultimately,Lakeview GC will likely need to be evaluated by an arborist with golf course
experience who will recommend a management plan that fits in with overall golf course plan, safety
considerations, etc.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 218
Item#15.
- ' 77 �-
<�,
Trees help define the course,yet many existing varieties are
inappropriate based on their shedding,root habits,and ability
to withstand soil conditions.As part of a"Final Improvement
Plan",the NGF team recommends that the City integrate a
Tree Management Protocol that identifies specific varieties to
use in the future,along with a specific planting plan for
additional trees that help mitigate safety issues.
Recommendations:
► Engage a certified arborist.
► Integrate a tree inventory to a"Final Improvement Plan."
► Develop a formal program for removal,replacement and pruning; arrive at a palette of tree
varieties to use going forward as the course is improved.
ADA Compliance (Course Areas)
Our evaluation did not find any major ADA compliance issues on the golf course or practice areas(i.e.,
non-building portions of the facility). Some tees may need more gentle slopes to meet ADA guidelines.
When formal cart paths are installed,they will need to meet ADA guidelines. The practice areas all
appear to be accessible. When the short game area is renovated, along with its practice bunker,the
features will need to be accessible.
Based on a general assessment,portable restrooms, and the older permanent restroom, do not appear to
meet ADA guidelines (e.g.,width of entry door, access from cart path, etc.)This should be evaluated by
the City's ADA compliance officer, or a consultant qualified for that review. The maintenance building
may have accessibility issues, and should be evaluated along with the on-course restrooms.
Recommendations:
► Conduct a formal evaluation of ADA compliance of the on-course restrooms and maintenance
facility.
► Plan for future ADA compliance improvements along with course-wide renovations and
replacements.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.-Lakeview GC Master Plan Study-5 Page 219
Item#15.
Maintenance Facility
The existing maintenance facility appears adequate in terms of its size and basic configuration. It is
lacking certain equipment and safety features that need to be fully inventoried by a qualified consultant.
As examples, a lift for working on equipment is needed, as are some basic safety requirements to meet
O.S.H.A. minimum standards. Fuel storage appears adequate, although the existing installation should be
addressed along with the other noted areas.
Recommendations:
► Conduct a formal evaluation of the maintenance facility,including all minimum requirements,
such as O.S.H.A., local fire codes and chemical storage.
► Add a separate chemical storage locker or pod building to the grounds.
► Plan for future compliance improvements along with course-wide renovations and replacements
as part of an overall improvement budget.
Maintenance Equipment and Golf Cars
Another critical component to the master improvement plan for Lakeview GC is to address the significant
need for replacement equipment needs—specifically, some"mission-critical"items that are necessary for
Lakeview GC to remain a viable golf course under City of Meridian stewardship. Though we would
typically consider these items to fall under"start-up"capital for a new owner taking over a golf course,
for purposes of this report,we have included them in the overall improvement plan and prioritized them at
the top of the list,based on: conversations with the Lakeview GC superintendent; review of the
equipment list showing age, condition and number of hours in service(maintenance equipment);the
visual inspection of golf carts and maintenance equipment by NGF team member Forrest Richardson;
and, extensive industry experience.
It is apparent to the NGF team that the City is essentially"starting from scratch"with respect to carts and
maintenance equipment at Lakeview GC. We have seen this dynamic on numerous occasions when a
municipality is"handed the keys"after a long period of leasing assets to a private operator. Some lessees
invest little in golf course assets in the final years of their agreements, and that certainly appears to be the
case with Lakeview GC.We believe that the City's investment in carts and equipment falls under the
category of necessary start-up costs to maintain a good quality, competitive municipal golf course. During
the course of our stakeholder engagement for this study,numerous golfers noted the poor condition of
maintenance equipment, and several referenced oil leaks on the fairways on greens, as well as ruts/
unevenness on the putting surfaces attributed to the mowers.
Having a fleet of reliable, quality carts in good condition ties directly to revenue generation and Lakeview
GC's ability to compete effectively in a crowded market that includes many high-quality choices for daily
fee golfers. Additionally,a new fleet could justify a modest fee increase for cart rentals. Finally, an
important consideration for municipal clients that are new to the business of golf is that the golf carts are
very public-facing, and reflect on the image of the City in the minds of customers.
In our view,good-quality maintenance equipment and a reliable irrigation source are the lifeblood of the
golf course operation. Having poor-conditioned equipment that is in continual need of repair and under
threat of breakdown results in inefficiencies and poor playing conditions, a dynamic that makes it difficult
to compete for market share. (NGF golfer surveys consistently show that course conditions—especially
greens -are the most important factor for golfers when choosing a place to play). Good golf course
maintenance conditions also correlate positively to surrounding home values and the brand image of the
municipal owner.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 220
Item#15.
The NGF team has reviewed the priority equipment list prepared by management company staff,
including those items labeled as"ASAP", such as the rough mower,the two greens mowers, and the
light-duty utility vehicle.We concur that the cart and equipment items requested by management are both
reasonable and essential to the operation of Lakeview GC and to the City's successful stewardship of the
golf course asset.
On-course Restrooms
There are three portable sanitary facilities that have been placed on the course. These are located between
Hole Nos. 4-5, 8-9, and 14-15. A permanent structure is located between Hole Nos. 12-13.None appear
to meet ADA guidelines. At minimum,accessible portable units should replace those portable units that
are not accessible. An evaluation of the permanent structure should be made to see if it can be made
accessible.
Ultimately,permanent structures should be available between Hole Nos. 14-15 (existing,upgraded or
reconstructed), and adjacent to the existing No. 5 tee area,where it would also eventually serve the
proposed short practice course if it is developed between Hole Nos. 3-4.
Recommendations:
► Replace the existing three portable units with portable accessible units(eventually to be removed
in favor of just two permanent structures as noted below).
► Upgrade or reconstruct the permanent restroom between Hole Nos. 14 and 15 based on a formal
evaluation.
► Plan for a future permanent structure near existing Hole No. 5 tees(see above).
Practice Area Amenities
The Aqua Range(practice area)is discussed above with specific recommendations that we feel will yield
a safer and overall better practice experience. Even with limited flight(lower compression)"floater"golf
balls,the Aqua Range can be a fun and enjoyable practice amenity for the City to operate as part of the
facility.
f
The practice range tees have been backed up to View from the"patio"range tees looking out to
the clubhouse patio area in order to try and the aqua range.
provide ample length to hitters.Even this does
not provide enough length.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 221
Item#15.
The existing short game area is very limited and well undersized. Ultimately, a re-design of both the short
game area and the practice putting green would serve to create a more useable, flexible, and enjoyable
area for players to hone their game and warm up before playing.
ti a ki d
,e
The putting green is well located but undersized A very small green was added to the facility to
for a municipal course with the degree of play serve as a short game practice area. This is not
that Lakeview GC receives. only poorly located from a safety standpoint,but it
is far too small for any meaningful use by the
public.Eventually,a larger area should be planned
for this use.
Recommendation:
► Based on initial evaluation,we recommend the City study expanding and/or relocating the short
game area,perhaps west of the existing practice putting green.
New Golfer Development Opportunities
As shown on Appendix E,Exhibits 5 and 6, "The Zenger 9-Hole Practice Course Concept and
Associated Changes"and"The Zenger 9-Hole Practice Course Concept", Golf Course Architect Forrest
Richardson,ASGCA has conceptually provided a layout for a short 9-hole"Practice Course"that could
be added to Lakeview GC. The potential name is based on the original founding of Meridian, Idaho by the
Zengers. The Zenger's impact in the history of Meridian can be gleaned from this article in the August
19th, 1893 Idaho Statesman:
"D.L. Bradly, the well know farmer-blacksmith, informs THE STATESMAN that the town of Hunter has
changed its name and will now be known as Meridian, it being located precisely on the Boise meridian.Mr.
C.G. Zenger, the proprietor of the new town, came in yesterday and filed the plat with the county recorder.
A store is already in operation there, and another is being built.A lodge of Odd Fellows has been organized
at that place, and they will erect a commodious hall this fall. Mr. Bradly says the wheat crop on Five Mile
Creek is very good. Grasshoppers consumed the greater part of the second clover crop, but the third crop of
alfalfa promises well."
Mr. Richardson's concept plan shows removal of the existing No. 4 hole,which will be"made up"in the
routing by splitting the existing No. 9 Hole into two holes—a new par-5 of better playable length and a
new par-3. Yardage of the 18-hole course would be preserved at f6,200-yards and par-72. The resulting
new holes—a par-5 of approximately 500 yards and a par-3 of 140 yards would add interest and
accommodate the concept for this new feature.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 222
Item#15.
These changes would open an area of approximately six acres that Mr. Richardson shows as this new 9-
hole short course area. This concept would help differentiate the Lakeview GC facility,providing a
marketing edge that would add appeal to the City's asset. The concept for a short course would help in the
following areas:
► Player development for new players,to introduce golf to beginners
► As a youth area to help train young players
► As a practice course for seasoned players,to build short game techniques
► As a fun"family golf experience" for casual golfers(and non-golfers) of all ages
► As a teaching facility for professional staff
The design of this short course is shown with five greens offering a flexible layout that can be set-in in
multiple ways. As a 9-hole course,play is par-25 with two holes at"Par-2"lengths. The first,Hole No. 2,
is a chipping hole where play begins from off the green surface to a hole 25-35 yards away. The second
such hole is No. 7 where play begins from the green surface to a hole 25-40 yards away. The concept for
a"Par-2"was first introduced in 2001 (Routing the Golf Course, John Wiley and Sons) and has been since
implemented on creative golf course concepts.
The balance of this area is made up of seven par-3s ranging in length from 60 to 100 yards,with tee-
flexibility to allow play from forward tees. The existing pond system is re-designed into a pleasing series
of smaller ponds with interconnecting streams. It is intended that this pond system would ideally be kept
full during the entire year,which remains dependent on the ability to increase water access in the winter
months. Initial estimates are that the required volume of the proposed system is roughly 50%of the
existing ponds in this location.
By locating this short course concept near the clubhouse and main access,Lakeview GC would not only
benefit from a new amenity,but also one that can be managed efficiently by operations staff. Potential
funding could be explored by a number of available grant-based programs, including First Tee,USGA
Good for the Game, Tiger Woods Foundation, and the Wadsworth Foundation.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—5 Page 223
Item#15.
CLUBHOUSE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NGF was informed that no due diligence in the form of inspections had been done by Western Ada
Recreation District(WARD) in advance of its purchase of the Lakeview GC improvements from the last
lessee.We engaged Full Nail Inspections of Boise, Idaho to perform an inspection of the clubhouse at
Lakeview GC. The Summary Report and Full Report by Bent Nail Inspections are provided as separate
documents,with a summary exhibit of short-term repair/replace recommendations shown in the
Appendix G Exhibit.
Bent Nail's recommended repairs of a significant nature that are not considered"immediate"are shown
below as being necessary in Years 2-3, and are included in the capital improvement plan. More immediate
issues identified during the inspection are explained in the accompanying Bent Nail reports and are listed
in Appendix G.NGF considers these to be relatively minor repairs/maintenance items of a nature that
would typically be expected to be funded out of start-up costs or the annual operating budget(e.g.,
`Equipment Repairs&Maintenance' line item). (Note:NGF does not attest to the accuracy of the
reporting or cost estimates provided by Bent Nail).
Recommended Immediate Repairs — Short Term
Summary of immediate repair needs for the clubhouse,based on inspection by the contractor:
Immediate Clubhouse Repairs(source: Bent Nail)
Electrical Issues $500
Roof Repairs $250
Drainage(see inspection report exhibit) $2,000
Sheetrock Repairs $2,000
Miscellaneous Items(see inspection report exhibit) $1,500
Total Immediate Repairs $6,250
Recommended Repairs —Intermediate Term
Based on the inspection report prepared by Bent Nail Inspections and provided to the City separately,the
following items will likely need to be addressed in the next 2 to 3 years, as per Bent Nail (Appendix G):
► Roof replacement-$23,000
► Air Conditioning Units—replace 3 @ $5,000 each=$15,000
► Cart storage entry Sump Pump -$2,500
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—6 Page 224
Item#15.
PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB
Below we present the NGF team's preliminary capital improvement plan for Lakeview Golf Club based
on the assessment of the golf course current conditions and recommended solutions presented earlier in
the report.For maximum benefit, the plan would ideally be completed in entirety over a 3 year period.
However, as with the majority of municipalities that NGF consults for, the City of Meridian will not be
able to fund all improvements over the next few years. In recognition ofpotential funding constraints, the
NGF team has presented the plan in the context offive prioritized and sequential "buckets"(more later)
so that the City can plan funding appropriately.
We believe the recommended improvement plan, if fully implemented,addresses Lakeview GC's major
capital needs for at least the next 10-15 years,though unexpected repairs are always possible. For
potential capital needs beyond the next few years,NGF recommends the Ci , set up a CIP set-aside fund
equivalent to 5%of facility gross revenues to create a reserve for future repairs, equipment replacement,
etc.
We note that two recommended facility enhancements—construction of a new short practice area and
construction of a 9-hole practice course("the Zen eg_r")-are prioritized as longer-term priorities only
because they are not"mission-critical"to operating the golf course. Based on golf industry trends and the
feedback we heard from several key stakeholders regarding the "community"aspect of Lakeview GC and
the desire to have the facility be inviting to younger people,the NGF team believes strongly that these
optional improvements would be highly beneficial to the experience at Lakeview Golf Club. The Zenger
practice course, in particular, could not only help bring more non-golfers to enjoy the City's new
recreation amenity,thus broadening the facility's appeal to the overall community(as more and more
municipal golf courses are doing),but should also be revenue-positive after its initial cost is amortized.
Additionally, some items that were originally prioritized by the NGF team as necessary shorter-term
improvements—namely,the conceptual plan to reconstruct the lake and aqua range, and the construction
of a new accessible on-course restroom—are shown in `Long-Range Capital Enhancements'.
Preliminary Probable Cost Estimates
Golf Course
Probable cost estimates for the golf course components are based on the current report and evaluation
leading up to the findings,as well as cost input from City staff on some items, such as the irrigation
system,cart paths, and ground well.As noted,these are preliminary and have been estimated based on
projections of the Golf Course Architect without detailed planning, engineering, surveys, or details.
The preliminary nature of the estimates lends them to be used as a guide for subsequent architectural and
engineering(A&E)planning that will refine cost estimates and show how the improvements can be
carried out over time.Architectural and Engineering costs as shown are for un-allocated components, i.e.,
overall A&E fees and costs for each year. Certain other improvement work as shown may also have A&E
costs associated as part of the lump sum amounts provided for those components.Allocation of A&E
costs are to be determined based on refined design plans.
The cost estimates in the table below begin with start-up capital costs. The plan assumes allowing
adequate time to prepare the detailed architectural and engineering plans, followed by construction
documents consisting of the following:
rpage 225
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—6
Item#15.
Engineering:
► Survey Mapping(topographical,LIDAR and aerial)
► Lakes Engineering(lining/sealing, edges and water storage calculations)
► New well site(if feasible)
► Engineering Specifications
Golf Course Architect:
► Golf Course Features and Improvement Plans
► Greens and Features Details
► Drainage Plan
► Turfing Plan
► Tree Plan
► Golf Course Specifications
Irrigation Designer
► Pump System
► Irrigation Replacement/Improvement Plans
► Irrigation Specifications
Detailed A&E plans should also involve an industry operations consultant to assist the City and Operator
with such factors as(i)phasing and interruption to play and revenue; and(ii)impacts to use,player
attraction/retention, and associated incremental net revenues.
Maintenance Equipment and Golf Carts
Golf cart and maintenance equipment cost estimates were provided by the manager,based on their
research of both used and new golf course maintenance equipment, as well as bids attained on a new fleet
of golf carts. The NGF team reviewed these costs and concludes that they are reasonable and within
industry norms.
Lakeview GC Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan
The preliminary capital improvement plan is divided into five"buckets"(see below), listed in order of the
consulting team's assessment of priority need. The first,highest priority bucket comprises start-up capital
costs, followed by three prioritized tiers of improvements and concluding with what we have termed
`longer-range capital enhancements. Summary descriptions are provided below. The full plan with cost
estimates is presented below,while the support narrative was provided earlier in this report.
1) Start-up Costs
2) Tier 1 Capital Replacements
3) Tier 2 Capital Replacements/Improvements
4) Tier 3 Capital Replacements/Improvements
5) Longer-Range Capital Enhancements
rpage 226
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—6
Item#15.
Start-Up Capital Costs
The items with the highest priority for Lakeview Golf Club operations are capital start-up costs that
comprise"mission-critical"items-maintenance equipment replacement and golf carts—that will be
required this golf season.NGF also believes the mitigation of safety issues identified in this report should
be completed as soon as possible. Start-up capital costs total$435,000.
Tier 1 Capital Replacements
The next priority bucket of improvements comprises additional replacement maintenance equipment as
identified by management, as well as the critical replacement of the irrigation system,including addition
of a ground water well. Also included is renovation of the existing on-course restroom structure near Hole
#s 12 and 13 for accessibility and ADA compliance. The preliminary estimate for these items,including
architectural and engineering allowance for future improvements, is $3.63 million.
Tier 2 Capital Replacements/Improvements
Proposed Tier 2 capital improvements include a drainage solution for fairways and roughs,tee
reconstruction, and an allowance for construction of cart paths (material and extent of coverage TBD).
The preliminary estimate for these Tier 2 items,including architectural and engineering allowance for
Tier 3 improvements,is $902,000.
Tier 3 Capital Replacements/Improvements
Proposed Tier 3 capital improvements include continued construction of golf course infrastructure
components,namely greens and sand bunkers. Also included are some site and landscape work,as well as
replacement of the clubhouse roof and three HVAC cooling units. Tier 3 improvements are estimated to
total$841,000.
Long-Range Capital Enhancements
Long-range enhancements to the golf course include the lake/aqua range construction solution described
in the narrative of the report, construction of a new accessible on-course restroom near the existing Hole
#5 tee area, short-game practice area relocation and upgrades, and the `Zenger' 9-hole Practice Course.
Timing would depend on funding availability. (As noted in the report,NGF recommends creating a
Capital Reserve Fund,with annual contributions equivalent to 5%of yearly gross operating revenues).
The long-term items total$2.17 million.
NGF-Forrest Richardson Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan for Lakeview Golf Club
NGF cautions that the estimates are not actual opinions of cost based on final planning,engineering, and
bid documents. Rather,the NGF team's estimates are intended to provide only"preliminary planning
level guidance"based on the technical"on the ground"experience of the consultants. Costs in golf course
renovation/constructions are always highly fluid, and especially so in the spring and summer of 2021,
due to pandemic-related inflation pressure on materials, components,fuel, labor, etc. Other factors that
must be taken under consideration are the timing of the improvements, and the rapidly rising costs being
experienced in Meridian and the Treasure Valley due to the growth boom.
rpage 227
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—6
Item#15.
NGF Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan-Lakeview Golf Club
Items/Areas Est.Costs Notes
STARTUP COSTS
Golf Course Maintenance Equipment $140,000
(See separate itemized spreadsheet prepared by Manager)
Golf Carts $235,000
54 new(net of trade)
Course Safety Mitigation
Detailed Plans (Golf Course Architect) $20,000
Tree Additions $20,000 (Allowance for±40 new trees)
Bridge Replacement/Upgrade Allowance $20,000 (Allowance only)
TOTAL STARTUP COSTS $435,000
TIER 1 CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS
Golf Course Maintenance Equipment(Deferred Start Up Costs) $465,000
Irrigation System
Pumping and Irrigation Systems Plans(Irrigation Designer) $85,000
Ground water well $250,000
Pump System $350,000 Incl.structure
East Nine Irrigation System(Full Replacement) $1,300,000 Full replacement,w/turf
reduction
West Nine Irrigation System(Upper Layer Replacement) $1,100,000 Less main lines and some laterals
A&E for Capital Replacements/Improvements $50,000
On-course Restrooms ADA Compliance
Renovate Existing Structure(Hole Nos. 12 and 13) $30,000 (Allowance)
TOTAL TIER 1 CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS $3,630,000
TIER 2 CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS/IMPROVEMENTS
Drainage-Fairways and Roughs
Golf Course Construction(East Nine) $80,000 Sump method(Allowance)
Golf Course Construction(West Nine) $80,000 Sump method(Allowance)
Cart Paths
Detailed Plans (Engineer) $12,000
Golf Course Construction(East Nine) $150,000 (Allowance-surface TBD)
Golf Course Construction(West Nine) $150,000 (Allowance-surface TBD)
Tees
Golf Course Construction(East Nine) $200,000 (20)Re-surfaced,(10)new
Golf Course Construction(West Nine) $180,000 (16)Re-surfaced,(8)new
A&E for Capital Replacements/Improvements $50,000
TOTAL TIER 2 CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS/ $902,000
IMPROVEMENTS
rpage 228
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—6
Item#15.
TIER 3 CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS/IMPROVEMENTS
Greens
Golf Course Construction(East Nine) $405,000 (9)Fully reconstructed,Modified
USGA
Golf Course Construction(West Nine) $120,000 Expansions only(Allowance)
Sand Bunkers
Golf Course Construction(East Nine) $120,000 (15)New,Incl.removals
Golf Course Construction(West Nine) $120,000 (15)New,Incl.removals
Course Site/Landscape
Trees Removal,Additions $20,000 Additional to safety mitigation
trees
Lake and Ponds Further Evaluation(Engineer) $15,000 Aqua Range,short course
excluded
Golf Clubhouse Replacements
Roof Replacement $23,000
HVAC -3 cooling units @ $5,000 each $15,000
Cart Entry Sump Pump $3,000
TOTAL TIER 3 CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS/ $841,000
IMPROVEMENTS
LONGER-RANGE CAPITAL ENHANCEMENTS
On-course Restroom-Build New(Existing Hole No. 5 Tee Area) $350,000 Allowance
Lake/Aqua Range Construction
Architectural and Engineering $60,000
Construction $450,000
Artificial Mat Surface and Tee Construction $35,000
New Golfer Development- "Zenger" 9-Hole Practice Course Allowance only
Detailed Plans (Golf Course Architect) $80,000
Engineering Allowance(Civil) $45,000 "Zenger Practice Course"
Golf Course Construction/New Irrigation $800,000 Incl.ponds,water streams
Changes to Existing Hole Nos. 3 and 9 $225,000
Practice Area Amenities Upgrades
Detailed Plans (Golf Course Architect) $5,000
New Short Game Area(West of Existing Practice Green) $120,000 Relocated short game area
TOTAL LONGER-RANGE CAPITAL ENHANCEMENTS $2,170,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $7,978,000
Total without Longer-Range Enhancements $5,808,000
Total without Longer-Range Enhancements and Start-Up Capital $4,908,000
Pay l _e 229
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—6
Item#15.
NGF-Forrest Richardson Capital Improvement Plan— Cost Summary
Following are summary observations regarding the cost estimates for the NGF-FRA preliminary,capital
improvement plan for Lakeview Golf Club:
► The total"all-in"estimated cost of the recommended capital plan is just under$8 million,
including new golf carts,replacement maintenance equipment,and longer-range capital
enhancements that include work on the aqua range/lake,new permanent on-course restroom, and
optional player development/practice related improvements that the NGF team believes will be
beneficial to Lakeview GC and the Meridian community,but which can be deferred until funding
becomes available.
► Of the$8 million plan total, $2.17 million is allocated for the longer-range capital enhancements
as noted above,including the proposed"Zenger"9-hole practice course. If the City decides not to
go forward with these optional investments or to defer them for future years,the total cost of the
capital program—including the start-up costs—is about$5.8 million.
► Subtracting out the start-up costs,comprising safety mitigation items,maintenance equipment,
and golf carts, as well as the proposed longer-range enhancements,costs to complete base
improvements to the golf course(including nominal amounts for the clubhouse)are estimated to
total$4.9 million.
Capital Improvement Plan — Phasing Considerations
Performing golf improvement work in phases may be accommodated,but is likely to have impact in
terms of higher cost and a longer duration of interruption to golf uses. One"lump sum"contract awarded
to a qualified builder will always generate the most cost-efficient outcome. It is often popular in
municipal work to develop full plans and specifications for the full complement of work, and then request
optional bids for various scenarios related to phasing. For example,the City could request a lump sum bid
to do all work and place a time constraint on the work but also request bidders to propose phasing that
would allow a certain number of holes to remain open at all times. In this case the duration may be two or
more years,but the City still enjoys benefits of a lump sum contract for the full renovation scope.
Golf renovation projects involve infrastructure and work to features(greens,tees,bunkers, etc.)that
dovetail to one another.An example is irrigation work,which, if isolated into a separate (sole)contract,
will typically be very inefficient because the installation of drainage and other similar work can be done
along with irrigation trenching and installation. Additionally, if new tees and bunker renovation work are
to be performed, irrigation heads and lines need to be installed accordingly. So, separating tee, green, or
bunker work from irrigation replacement results in additional money being spent to rework mis-matched
areas.
While detailed plans can often facilitate such phasing of different types of work to the course, it is far
more efficient to phase"sections"of the golf facility, completing all improvement work for each
"section"as part of one phase. The"section"approach can involve a series of holes (even individual
holes),or dividing the course into halves, such as front and back nine phases. Factors such as business
interruption,revenue loss, and required maintenance of turfgrass that will be preserved should be
considered when phasing sections of a golf course is contemplated.
The NGF team recommends that the City of Meridian determine the scope of work and then contract a
full set of Construction Documents(CDs)for all areas: golf course renovation,irrigation,drainage, etc.
Once these CDs are in hand, it will then be possible to solicit competitive bids from qualified golf course
builders (i.e., GCBAA members, or certified members) and to do so with an eye toward how the course
will be closed and/or portions kept open for use.
rpage 230
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—6
Item#15.
Operational Considerations and
Recommendations
Below,NGF provides summary recommendations for key facets of the Lakeview Golf Club operation.
Some of these recommendations—especially those related to marketing and direct selling—are likely to
be much more resonant after renovation of the facility.NGF has focused its operational recommendations
for Lakeview Golf Club on `big picture' decisions faced by the City in its stewardship of the facility.
Other more granular recommendations focus on industry `best practices'; we note that many of these
practices are either already in place or in planning(with some variation)by the management company.
Findings and recommendations are presented below for consideration by the City.
CITY ACCOUNTING OF THE GOLF OPERATION
How the City ends up accounting for the Lakeview Golf Club operation is a matter of public policy.
However,to provide appropriate background,we present the following summary discussion on common
forms of public agency accounting for golf.
Basics of General Fund vs. Enterprise Fund Accounting
Municipalities may account for golf course activities within the general fund, or as either an enterprise
fund or special revenue fund. Following is a summary discussion of these three methods.
General Fund
Municipal golf operations that are funded as an annual budget line item within the general fund(most
typically within the Parks and Recreation Department)are generally not expected to be self-sustaining
through user fees. In other words,they are on equal footing with other public recreation amenities and
services,with taxpayer dollars supporting operational and capital investment needs that are not expected
to be funded by user fees. (NGF experience over hundreds of municipal operations reviews has repeatedly
shown that golf, even if supported by general fund dollars,nearly always has the highest"cost recovery"
of a public agency's recreation offerings). And,unlike most enterprise funds,no indirect costs(more
below)are assigned to the golf operations,presenting a truer picture of on-site performance.NGF has also
observed that golf facilities accounted for within a municipal general fund can usually be budgeted for the
operating and capital expenses they require, assuming the funding is available(i.e., general fund is
healthy).
Enterprise Fund
An enterprise fund establishes a separate accounting and financial reporting mechanism for municipal
services for which a fee is charged in exchange for goods or services.Under enterprise accounting,the
revenues and expenditures of the service are segregated into a separate fund with its own financial
statements,rather than commingled with the revenues and expenses of all other governmental activities.
An enterprise fund is established by a municipality to account for operations of a business-like activity,
such as a water utility, airport, or recreation, like a golf course.
Enterprise accounting ensures transparency that allows a community to demonstrate to the public the
portion of total costs of a service that is recovered through user fees and that which is supported by tax
dollars and/or some other source of funds. At year-end,positive net income is retained in the fund(for
purpose of funding future deficits, capital improvements, etc.). Conversely, if the enterprise fund incurs
an operating loss and does not have sufficient fund balance to cover it,the general fund(or another
enterprise fund)may have to execute a"transfer in"to cover the deficit.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—67 page 231
Item#15.
Special Revenue Fund
Less commonly, a municipal golf system may be accounted for as a Special Revenue Fund,particularly in
cases where full cost recovery through user fees is not anticipated.A special revenue fund is an account
established by a government to collect money that must be used for a specific project. Special revenue
funds provide an extra level of accountability and transparency to taxpayers that their tax dollars will go
toward an intended purpose.
Key Considerations in Choosing Accounting Structure for City Golf Operations
While the accounting for golf enterprise funds varies across municipalities, a majority of municipalities
charge their golf enterprise fund `indirect' costs for services provided, such as insurance, legal,human
resources, finance, and information technology(IT).NGF experience, and recent municipal golf research
that includes 2019 operating results,has shown that this layer of cost,which is incremental to the golf
course's on-site operating expenses, is often the difference between a golf course operating at a loss or a
profit,especially when general fund charges are disproportionate to actual services being provided.
In addition to allocating indirect service costs,the municipality may also allocate a portion of salaries for
positions involved in oversight and administration of the golf enterprise fund;these vary by title across
municipalities,but may include positions such as Parks&Recreation Director,Parks&Recreation
Assistant Director,Finance Director,Director of MIS/IT, etc. Indirect charges are generally allocated
based on a measure, such as the number of employees,budget or some other basis. While our observed
range has varied widely,NGF's extensive body of work with public sector clients has shown that,for
municipalities with a single 18-hole golf course,the indirect cost and salary allocation most commonly
falls in the range of between$75,000 and$125,000 per year.
A final consideration is that even those municipal golf courses and systems that are set up as enterprise
operations will often find that some of the `public accommodation' aspects of running municipal golf
courses are at odds with the goal of financial self-sustainability. Examples include green fees and/or
season passes that are priced below `market rate' (e.g.,resident rates),complimentary play for certain
constituents, and,more generally,municipal officials instituting or upholding policies that are not
representative of best business practices but rather based on public policy.
NGF Commentary
The decision on how to account for the operations of Lakeview Golf Club is one of public policy and is
based on the City's vision of what the golf course represents to both facility patrons and those residents
that do not use the facility.We do note that there is a trend-reflective of how difficult it is for any given
municipal golf operation to cover all of its expenses with user fees and other associated revenues -of
public agencies changing their accounting for golf from enterprise fund to general fund, often at the same
time that they"write off'accumulated fund deficits or forgive interfund loans in the face of years of
operating deficits.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—68 page 232
Item#15.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Lakeview Golf Club is presently operated under a short-term fee-for-service management agreement with
KemperSports Management.NGF Consulting has noted a decided trend over the last 10 to 15 years away
from full municipal self-operation,with cities,counties, etc. turning to a variety of partial or full
privatization structures, such as concession arrangements, operating leases,or,most commonly, fee-for-
service agreements, such as the one the City of Meridian has entered into.
Below are descriptions of the most typical management/operational options for public agency(i.e.,
"City"as referred to below)golf courses. In our experience,there is no ideal operating scenario that fits
all situations, and each public entity must arrive at its own unique approach to operation and maintenance.
The most common management options are shown below(these are not intended to be exhaustive, as
there are hybrids and variations thereof).
00- Self-Operation: In this form of management,the municipality is in direct control of the golf
operation, and all golf course staff are public employees,with on-site management reporting to a
City staff member. The municipality earns all revenues, and is responsible for all expenses and
capital improvements.
• The primary advantages are: the City has control of the day-to-day operation of the golf
course for maximum benefit to the community; and,there is no obligation to pay an
annual management fee(though the City retains all risk associated with low revenue and
/or high expense).
• The chief potential disadvantages/challenges include: the potential lack of expertise in
overseeing and operating a golf course; finding,hiring, and/or retaining qualified
personnel can be a cumbersome and time-consuming process; and,the likelihood that
there will be less of a"buffer"between golf course patrons and the City(in contrast to
having a private operator on site).
00- Full-Service Management Contract-Fixed Fee: This option involves the municipality hiring
a single,independent third-party to manage all aspects of the golf course in exchange for a pre-
determined fixed management fee—typically in the range of 4-6% of facility gross revenue. The
municipality earns all revenues, is responsible for all expenses, funds capital improvements, and
pays a management fee to an operator.
• Advantages to this strategy include potential savings with a private labor vs.public labor
expense structure;the benefit of professional management; ease of procurement of
goods and services, and,access to national purchasing,marketing programs, etc., if a
larger national firm is chosen).
• The potential disadvantages include some loss of City control over day-to-day
operations; lack of a performance-based financial incentive for the operator under a
fixed-fee arrangement(we note,however,that public employees may not have financial
incentive in the operation either,beyond job retention); and,the obligation of the fixed
management fee,regardless of yearly variations in performance.
00- Full-Service Management Contract-Fixed Fee+Variable Component(i.e.,"Hybrid"):
Increasingly,NGF Consulting has been observing management agreements in which total
compensation to the contractor comprises both a fixed fee component and an additional
incentive-based, or variable, component(most typically gross revenue-based)that allows the
operator and municipality to share in the risk of the operation. The basic structure of the
management agreement is the same—the municipality earns all revenues,is responsible for all
expenses,and pays a management fee. However,the principal potential advantage of this
"hybrid" scenario is financially incentivizin. the he operator with respect to the revenue
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—69 page 233
Item#15.
performance of the golf facility. The variable part of the compensation may also be partly tied to
meeting other performance standards, such as those related to customer service, etc.
► Operating Lease: Some municipalities lease their entire golf facilities to a private operator in
exchange for an annual(or monthly/quarterly) lease payment and/or capital improvement
considerations.NGF experience tells us that these agreements,in order to be sustainable through
good years and bad,must be win-win,where the operator has a chance to recoup investment
(which reverts to the municipality at lease end) in the golf course, equipment and structures, and
make a yearly profit.
• The advantages of this option from the municipality perspective are the avoidance of
financial subsidy of the golf course(at least in theory—we have seen many an operator
vacate a lease prematurely),the collection of rent/lease payments each year, and,
depending on the length of the contract and rent terms,having an outside party pay for
some level of needed capital improvements.
• The key disadvantage for a municipality is that it has very little control on the day-to-
day operations,including policies,procedures, and fees. However,these agreements can
be crafted in such a way so as to preserve some public purpose for the golf facility(e.g.,
accommodations for local high school teams)and to ensure certain quality and
conditions are met by the operator.
► Concession Agreements: These are similar to lease agreements and can come in several types
or combinations. The typical areas of operation for concession agreements include Pro Shop,
Food and Beverage, and Golf Course Maintenance and involve the municipality contracting for
one, some, or all of these services.
• Concessions allow a municipality to shift some risk and payroll to one or more private
entities that also have specialized expertise in that particular revenue center.
• A potential disadvantage of this structure is that there may be a misalignment of
interests between concessionaires, or between a concessionaire and the municipality
operating the golf course.
NGF Commentary and Recommendation
On the revenue side of the equation, it is difficult to precisely quantify the benefit of hiring an expert
outside management company. However,NGF has found,through many years of working with municipal
clients,that in the majority of cases the cost of the annual management fee more than pays for itself
through advantages such as the expertise of the large national operators,the benefits of access to regional
/national marketing and purchasing programs,procurement advantages, etc.Additionally,many of our
municipal clients find it a great benefit to have an outside company act as both an emissary and as a
"buffer"between facility customers and City staff/officials.
On the expense side, savings can be considerable with respect to the labor budget,though the degree is
variable depending on market and local labor laws.We have frequently seen savings of 15%to 25%or
more when compared to a fully public pay and benefit structure. In the case of Meridian and Lakeview
GC,the City provided preliminary estimates that show the approximate extra labor cost if the City were to
operate the golf course with public employees. City staff s direct comparison analysis of the cost of
currently budgeted staffing showed that,under Cit, self-operation,the labor cost would be 13%higher
than under the outside management structure due to the additional cost of employee benefits. (The
annualized management fee,including reimbursement for their accounting system, is currently$108,000).
On the other hand,the City has $166,000 worth of items in the FY22 budget that would be subject to 6%
sales tax under the current operating structure;under self-operation,the City would not pay tax on these
items,resulting in savings of$9,960.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—70 page 234
Item#15.
We do emphasize that,though there may be financial advantages to the outside management structure and
the City will be relieved of the day-to-day operating responsibility of the golf course,under both self-
operation and third-party management scenarios,some City staff will remain significantly involved with
responsibilities related to overall oversight, liaising with the management company, stewardship of
capital improvement projects, accounting, customer relations, human resource issues, etc. This level of
involvement will be especially high in this transition period of taking over stewardship of the golf asset.
Another consideration when deciding between self-operation and management agreement is that,
regardless of operating structure, some City staff will have responsibilities related to: oversight; liaising
with the management company; stewardship of capital improvement projects; accounting; customer
relations;human resource issues, etc. There are no"benchmarks"that exist that can predict whether the
City of Meridian will require additional staff to perform these functions. In some cases—mostly with
multi-course systems -the increased workload cannot be absorbed, creating the need for additional
municipal staff. Each city must do an internal assessment of current staff resources in the context of
additional responsibilities that will have to be taken on by one or more people.We note that the City of
Idaho Falls,which owns and operates three 18-hole regulation golf facilities,has a staff person—the
Director of Golf Operations—that oversees all three facilities. However,he also functions as the Head
Golf Professional at Pinecrest Golf Course. The City of Boise, in contrast, employs a dedicated Golf
Operations Manager to oversee its golf system,which comprises two 18-hole regulation courses.
There is no"one size fits all"solution to choosing a management structure. Each municipality must weigh
the various pros, cons, and other variables related to factors such as desired level of control over day-to-
day operations, operating expense differences, ease of hiring/firing,how"nimble"the City is with
respect to procurement of goods and services,public policy objectives,potential revenue advantages of
outside professional management, etc. While about 45%of municipal golf courses in the US are self-
operated,the national trend is clearly towards third-party management.NGF's US Golf Facility Database
(every facility updated annually), supplemented by extensive periodic survey research of municipal golf
facilities, shows that the percentage of municipal golf facilities managed by third-party vendors
(excluding full-facility leases) steadily increased from less than 15% in 2010 to about 25%in 2020.
The City had several purposes in mind when it decided to enter into a short-term agreement with a private
management partner to manage Lakeview GC. First and foremost,it was the most logical and efficacious
way to manage the transition of the golf course operation from the previous lessee to the City, including
the onboarding of employees. Also,the City desired to see the NGF master plan report prior to making
key long-term strategic decisions. So, in consideration of City objectives,NGF's evaluation of Lakeview
GC in the context of various potential advantages and disadvantages of each structure, and current
uncertainties with respect to the labor situation,timing of capital improvements,etc., we conclude that an
interim management agreement is, on balance,the most advantageous short-term operating structure for
Lakeview GC.
The City is in the midst of what will be a multi-year learning curve with respect to Lakeview GC and
there is simply not enough information about the potential of Lakeview GC—and too many unpredictable
variables(e.g.,the labor market)—to make a decision about long term management at this point. Once the
City has made some of the high-priority capital improvements recommended in this report and established
a reliable financial performance baseline for the facility, informed decisions about long-term management
can be made.
Finally, one of the chief concerns expressed by the City to NGF about the private management structure
was providing sufficient financial incentive to improve the performance of the golf facility. In light of this
concern,if the City ultimately decides that a management agreement is the preferred structure for the
long-term management of Lakeview GC, it may wish to explore with its management partner a fee
arrangement that includes both fixed and variable components,with the latter based on the achievement
of mutually-determined performance objectives(most commonly,reaching established gross revenue
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—71 page 235
Item#15.
thresholds). There are several reasons that the City should not expect the current agreement to include a
variable compensation component in the short term,including:
► There is no reliable financial performance history for Lakeview GC, and,therefore,no
reasonable baseline on which to establish gross revenue thresholds;
► The current condition of the golf course, as well as uncertainty over food and beverage
operations,preclude constrain optimal performance; and
► There are likely to be several interruptions in normal service due to construction impacts over
the next several years as the City implements the recommended capital improvement plan.
Once the Lakeview GC facility and operation"stabilize"(i.e., after most of the major capital
improvements have been completed)and a reliable and achievable financial performance baseline can be
established,the variable compensation structure becomes much more plausible.
GOLF PLAYING FEES /MARKET POSITIONING
We note that the Meridian/Treasure Valley area is a low-fee market, despite some very high-quality
public golf courses. There seems to be a"fee ceiling"at play,though perhaps that will rise over time with
the influx of new golfers from pricier markets. In its current condition, and with characteristics such as
narrow corridors with many fairways double-loaded with homes,Lakeview GC offers an inferior product
to its competitors. This makes it difficult for Lakeview GC to compete effectively for daily fee market
share except through significant discounting of fees (e.g.,VIP Pass program) off of rack rates.
The built-in"captive audience" of local golfers living very close to Lakeview GC significantly boosts
activity levels at the club,primarily through purchase of season passes.And while all of the golf facilities
in the identified primary competitive subset offer season passes that allow for unlimited play(cart not
included),they remain,unlike Lakeview GC,primarily daily fee golf courses, while Lakeview GC
functions very much like a semi private golf course. While season pass fees for Lakeview GC may be
high relative to the quality of the golf experience offered,most passholders live in immediate proximity to
the club and are very active,resulting in a low effective rate per round played.
With Lakeview GC acting effectively as a community or HOA golf course,the frequency of play of its
passholders is likely much higher than that of most or all of its competitive set,thus lowering the effective
rate per round at Lakeview GC.Additionally,passholders take up many of the tee times that are most
desirable for daily fee players. The combination of a significant number of heavily discounted daily fee
rounds and very active passholders has resulted in an average golf playing fee revenue of only f$10 per
round for about three-quarters of total rounds played at the facility. (For comparison,the average green
fee revenue per round for `rack' daily fee rounds was about$28).
With daily fee play at `rack rates' accounting for only about a quarter or so of total rounds, a key to
successfully increasing daily fee market share appears to be substantially improving the product through
major capital investment. However, even with major improvements,Lakeview GC will still lag most
competitors due to the nature of the golf course,with its tight corridors and fairways double-loaded with
homes. Still,we believe that with facility improvements and a strong programming element, Lakeview
GC will have a good opportunity to fill a niche in this market, differentiating itself on its playability,user-
friendliness,walkability, and sense of community, as well as by offering"something for everyone".
NGF Recommendations
In light of market and facility factors discussed in the report,NGF makes the following recommendations
for daily green fee and season pass pricing at Lakeview GC:
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—72 page 236
Item#15.
► For the short term,the City should retain the basic fee structure that is intact now and focus on
reducing discounting and taking advantage of pricing power when Lakeview GC has it(e.g., as
it has during the pandemic)
► In the intermediate term beyond FY 2021-22,the City should consider adjusting daily and
season pass fees each year only to account for inflation in expenses. (Inflation continued to
accelerate in June 2021;the Labor Department said June's consumer-price index increased 5.4%
from a year ago,the highest 12-month rate since August 2008). It is an industry best practice to
adjust fees modestly at least biennially to reflect a higher cost of producing rounds of golf and/
or market competitive dynamics. The key to sustaining fee increases will be offering enhanced
value with continued facility improvements, such as those that have already occurred(e.g.,new
cart fleet and maintenance equipment). Current customers are loyal to the convenience of
Lakeview GC, so despite dissatisfaction among some golfers that prices are too high for the
product offered,we believe that inflation-adjusted fees should be sustainable.
• After Lakeview GC is significantly improved,it may be able to sustain a higher market
position that goes beyond just inflation-based increases. However,there is a lot of
quality competition in the market for daily fee play, and demand will likely be much
more elastic than it is for passholders.
► NGF concurs with the budgeted$1 increase in cart fees; a key will be to keep up with market-
established fees now that Lakeview GC will have a new,high-quality fleet.
► Based on analysis provided by management,we believe the City should focus on creating an
internal loyalty/frequent player program, and on practicing active internal yield management to
offer discounted play during slow demand periods,rather than renew the VIP Pass program
(provided through TeeTiming.com). Management conveyed that about 65% of the revenue for
the pass(currently priced$179 for 12 months) goes to the program,with Lakeview GC taking
about 35%. Even if the internal loyalty program offered all of the same benefits as the VIP Pass,
such as free rounds or BOGO(`Buy One Get One'),Lakeview GC collecting 100%of the
revenue for the pass should result in an increase in the average daily rate(ADR) for daily fee
rounds.
► One of City's goals with respect to the stewardship of Lakeview GC is to expand access and
participation to the broader community. When the golf course is significantly improved and the
City is ready to make a concerted push to attract more"outside"play,adjustments to the season
pass program may be necessary in order to free up desirable tee times. For example,over time
one or more of the following options can be analyzed and considered for implementation:
• Limit the number of passes available for sale.
• Introduce a weekday-only(either M-Th or M-Fri)pass that is more affordable but
eliminates weekend play.
• Institute a per-round surcharge for the tee times that are in highest demand, such as
weekend mornings. (NGF observed that many current passholders are retired, affording
them more flexibility on the days of the week they play).
GOLF COURSE STAFFING
For the FY21-22 operating budget prepared by management,there will be sixteen(16)total full-time
year-round staff(defined as 32+hours for 8+months),three(3)fulltime seasonal staff(32+hours for less
than 8 months), and twenty-two(22)total part-time staff,including the key new position of Marketing
Coordinator.
Fulltime Equivalent(FTE) staffing includes:
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—73 page 237
Item#15.
► Course and Grounds(5)—Positions are Superintendent,which is the only salaried position,
Irrigation Specialist(formerly seasonal),Assistant Superintendent, Crew Leader, and Laborer.
► Pro Shop(2)—General Manager and Operations Manager.
► Food and Beverage(5) -Includes vacant Kitchen Manager position.
NGF notes the following high-level observations and recommendations for staffing at Lakeview GC:
► NGF has noted a trend in the golf facility industry towards more use of part-time and seasonal
staff,and this is evident at Lakeview GC in the new budget.For example, in terms of FTEs,
Lakeview GC's budgeted staffing for golf course maintenance(KSM's `Course and Grounds')
ranges from three(3) during January through March,to eight(8)for May through October.
Similarly, in the Pro Shop, staffing ranges from a low of six(6)FTEs January through March to
as high as thirty(30)in June and July. Food and Beverage is also seasonal,but with much
narrower swings in FTEs,bottoming out at six(6)in the winter months, and peaking at eleven
(11)for the summer months.
► While each property is unique,key on-site full-time staff positions at a `standard' 18-hole
municipal golf course generally include a full-time Director of Golf(DOG)/General Manager,
Superintendent, and Golf Shop Manager. Depending on variables such as the scale of the food
and beverage operation,number of holes (9 vs. 18),extent of golf programming, etc.,key staff
may also include some combination of the following positions (not exhaustive):
• Head Golf Professional
• Assistant Golf Professional—especially if DOG functions as the Head Golf Professional
• Kitchen Manager
• Head Chef
• Assistant Superintendent/Crew Foreman
• Mechanic
• Irrigation Spray Technician
► In the early summer of 2021,the staffing for the Food and Beverage operation at Lakeview GC
was very much in flux,due to staff turnover and the inability to bring new employees on,which
is a problem being felt across the country,particularly in the hospitality and service industries.
This problem is very salient at Lakeview GC, as one of the recurring themes that came out of our
stakeholder engagement was that the restaurant was understaffed,resulting in inconsistent and
poor service levels during busier demand times. The lack of a dedicated bartender and sufficient
wait staff were cited as key service bottlenecks.
► NGF likes the addition of the part-time Marketing Coordinator position, as this on-site
marketing person can cross train on several aspects of the business and provide agility,
flexibility, and efficiency. (The current General Manager formerly had a versatile marketing
person who did other things, such as backing up counter). Keeping social media interactions
fresh, direct selling of both golf and non-golf events, and building mutually beneficial
relationships in the community should all be key parts of this position's responsibility.
NGF Commentary
Determining efficient staffing levels for Lakeview GC is obviously best left to the on-the-ground facility
manager. However,NGF notes that the budgeted staffing levels seem appropriate for the expected service
levels for a municipal golf course at this price point. (The biggest wild card at Lakeview GC with respect
to staffing is the Food and Beverage operation; more on this below). Maintenance staffing has been tricky
at Lakeview GC,due to the aged-out equipment and infrastructure -especially the irrigation system—that
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—74 page 238
Item#15.
resulted in great inefficiencies with respect to maintenance, and sometimes lack of equipment for workers
to ride.With new maintenance equipment and,ultimately, a new irrigation system should come efficiency
and predictability on the staffing side.
FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES
The food and beverage operation at Lakeview GC is substantial for a public golf course at this price point,
with annual gross revenues exceeding$500,000 in FY19. This is due to the large volume of non-golfer
related demand from the local neighborhoods surrounding the golf course. Food and beverage service at
the Lakeview GC clubhouse includes the bar/restaurant and outside patio. Seating capacities are
approximately 70 inside and 50 outside. The restaurant is open seven days a week,with the kitchen
generally closing at 7 p.m.on non-event nights, and closing after the last customer—about 9 p.m. in
summer. Lakeview GC has a call-ahead phone at#9 tee and has a beverage cart.
The relatively small kitchen and limited seating capacities constrain the ability to do larger non-golf
events,though events, such as small weddings,have been hosted in the past. The small kitchen also
negatively affects service times during busier periods, such as after league play. The interior of the
restaurant is dated and needs refreshing(e.g.,new paint, carpeting, furniture and fixtures), as well as new
HVAC system,updated restrooms,and sewer system repairs.
The feedback from the stakeholder engagement phase of this project, including both online survey results
and one-on-one phone calls/video meetings,indicate that the restaurant, and particularly the shaded
outdoor patio, is viewed as a nice,tight-knit community gathering place that could become even more
popular with some refreshing,potential expansion of outdoor space, and marketing outreach to the local
community. In addition to the patio crowd,there is a contingent of customers that enjoys the indoor bar.
Finally,theme nights like Taco Tuesdays and Prime Rib Friday are reportedly quite popular and busy,
though—based on incomplete records available—may not have been profitable.
NGF Commentary
Food and Beverage service at a public golf course is not necessarily intended to be a profit center,but
rather to support the primary business of selling green and cart fees. For instance, food and beverage
carts,in isolation,are often money losers for a golf course,but this is a service that is expected by golfers,
who might otherwise play elsewhere. Most successful food and beverage operations at public golf courses
are those that offer simple,quick,and inexpensive service that is convenient to the round of golf.
On the face of it,there would appear to be a good opportunity to grow the food and beverage business at
Lakeview GC and turn it into a profit center. It has a built-in customer base of both golfers and non-
golfers, and there is not much competition from casual restaurants in the area,the most notable exception
being Rudy's on McMillan, a sports bar-themed pub/restaurant located about 2 miles away;the next
closest restaurants are about 3 to 4 miles away.
Management's preliminary program for Lakeview GC that was shared with NGF includes strategies for
increasing awareness, drawing events through direct sales efforts, engaging the community with specials
and theme nights, and potentially building a stand-alone brand identity for the restaurant.Additionally,
the manager was already underway with an analysis of costs associated with food and beverage, so that
actions—such as adjustments to service hours, staffing levels,menus,prices, etc.-could be taken to take
the money-losing operation to breakeven or profitability.
With that background as context,NGF notes that a number of things have changed—largely due to the
pandemic and the associated stimulus measures -that has prompted a potential change in direction for
food and beverage service at Lakeview GC, and also led to a temporary closing of the kitchen.
Specifically,new challenges have been overlaid on what was already a challenging aspect of the golf
facility business. The most important of these are the inability to draw and retain staff, due to a tight labor
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—75 Page 239
Item#15.
market affected by factors such as extended federal unemployment benefits, and rising food, labor, and
other costs.
In other words,there are a lot of unknowns regarding the future of the Food and Beverage operation at
Lakeview GC.NGF essentially sees two fundamental ways the City can go with the food and beverage
operations,with different levels of financial risk:
1.) Under this scenario,the pandemic's effects on restaurant dining dissipate, input costs stabilize,
reliable workers—including a Kitchen Manager—will become available, and the restaurant
returns to full service. In the short/intermediate term,however, food and beverage service at
Lakeview GC continues to offer a reduced level of service that is likely sufficient for golfers, at
least for the short term,but essentially shuts out non-golfing diners. If/when"normalcy"returns,
the City and management can proceed with plans to make the full-service bar/restaurant into a
profitable part of the overall golf course operation. This strategy would very likely mean higher
prices so that unprofitable parts of the business(essentially everything except for alcohol)would
produce positive margins,and those increased prices would be absorbable by customers.
The City could give this option a"trial period", i.e., 6 months to a year,to see if the operation can
become profitable, and then reevaluate at the end of that time. To give this strategy a fair chance
of being successful,we recommend refreshing the interior and the patio and looking at
alternatives to develop a more permanent shade solution,while having the new Marketing
Coordinator work to draw meetings and other events.
2.) The other option assumes that the food and beverage service at Lakeview GC will likely not be
profitable as a full-service restaurant. In this case, serving golfers would be top priority, and this
would be accomplished through a permanently scaled-down version of Food and Beverage
service,perhaps similar to what is in place now. This type of operation would be more in line
with other market public golf courses, such as the City of Nampa's Centennial GC,that are not
located within residential communities and which have simple"snack bar" service that requires
minimal staffing. This model involves reduced financial risk,due to the much lower expense
profile, and still offers the chance at breakeven or profitability,especially since higher-margin
alcohol sales reportedly account for about 55%or more of Food and Beverage revenues at
Lakeview GC.
At this writing,the City had hired a local caterer/restaurateur as a paid consultant to manage food and
beverage operations at Lakeview GC for the short term, at least while the current labor shortage exists.
Another possible direction for food and beverage service at Lakeview GC is for the City to issue a
Request for Proposal(RFP)or Request for Expression of Interest(RFEI)to see if there is potential
interest in a local/regional restaurateur leasing the food and beverage operation at Lakeview GC.
Food and beverage concessions are common at municipal golf courses,though less so when there is a
separate management company in place for all other aspects of the golf operation.While each situation is
different and there are many variables involved(e.g.,whether facility capital investment is expected), a
`typical' food and beverage concession agreement would pay the municipal owner in the range of 6%to
10%of gross revenues. (These percentages may be driven lower if the current labor shortage and
inflationary pressures end up being more than transitory). If the City was to consider seeking a private
operator,NGF would recommend it wait until the uncertainty over the cost and availability of labor,the
potentially transitory nature of inflation in input costs, and whether the pandemic may worsen during the
fall/winter comes into clearer focus. With so many potentially unfavorable variables currently at play,
the City would likely not receive proposals with terms favorable to the them until things"normalize"
somewhat. This is especially true given that it is unclear if the food and beverage operation at Lakeview
GC can be profitable even without these constraints.
NGF experience has shown that public golfers—especially at value-oriented golf courses such as
Lakeview GC -are generally satisfied if they can sit down with friends or playing partners and get a
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—76 page 240
Item#15.
sandwich or hot dog, along with beverage of choice. Many operators across the country that we've spoken
to during the 14 months or so since reopening after pandemic-forced closure have found that"less can be
more"in terms of food and beverage profitability.In other words, forced to operate with reduced staff and
limited take-out menus,many were able to still make a profit while continuing to sell rounds of golf.
The bottom line is that unless Food and Beverage has traditionally been profitable, or seemingly has
potential to become a strong profit center,the reduced-service option will offer the least financial risk,
assuming golf customers do not flee in droves to other golf courses as a result.A limited menu focusing
on premade sandwiches, `grab-n-go',hot dogs, etc. can perhaps be supplemented by a food truck, at least
during high demand times and for special events, and possibly as a permanent addition.Another
consideration is that limited food service could hamper the Marketing Coordinator's ability to draw larger
golf outings,though Lakeview GC has not historically hosted many of these. The disadvantage can be
mitigated somewhat by allowing outside caterers for these events, as long as the golf course has exclusive
right to sell the alcohol.
Of course,there is also a two-sided public policy aspect to the decision of which direction to go with
Food and Beverage service at the golf course. On one hand, if the City opted for the scaled-back `snack
bar' version of food and beverage at Lakeview GC,the reduced service will likely disappoint a lot of
patrons of the restaurant that live in the surrounding residential communities. Conversely, if the City were
to go"all-in",do all it can to try to make the full-service restaurant a profit-maker,and subsequently lose
money anyway, other residents of Meridian that are not patrons of Lakeview GC would be subsidizing the
restaurant.
MARKETING AND DIRECT SELLING
Management has submitted the FY22 operating budget for Lakeview GC, and it includes a marketing
budget of about$32,000(includes Marketing Coordinator salary). This is equivalent to about 2.0%of
projected gross revenue,which seems sufficient for Lakeview GC in its current condition, especially since
much of the budget will be directed to low-cost digital channels. Additionally,marketing will be bolstered
by coordination with the City's Communications Department. After the City ultimately completes large-
scale capital improvements at the facility,there will be greater need for enhanced direct selling and
marketing, as well as promotions, such as Grand Reopening events.
NGF reviewed management's preliminary marketing plan,Lakeview GC Sales and Marketing
Opportunities for 2021, and presents a summary of key potential initiatives and areas of focus below,
based on documentation and discussions with the manager's regional staff. (After recent discussions with
City staff and regional staff, we note that some of the thinking below may have evolved—especially as it
relates to plans for the food and beverage operation at Lakeview GC, based on the current labor situation
across much of the hospitality and service industries, as well as general inflationary pressure).
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—77 page 241
Item#15.
General Opportunities
► Create a local staffing resource for marketing and sales support, also ensuring local control of
social media, SMS, email,content creation,etc. (Enacted with funding of a part-time Marketing
Coordinator position in the budget).
► Improve customer data capture through emails and texts (SMS), supported by staff training and
incentives.
► Consider creating a Loyalty/Frequent Player program, such as one that awards points per$
spent across all revenue channels). Potentially integrated with a mobile app.
► Promote Lakeview GC's"differentiators"(e.g.,now a City property,new golf carts, and future
capital improvements)to generate new daily fee rounds
Explore rebranding of the property,including rethinking the name and logo.
Community Engagement
► Increase engagement and transparency with the Golf Course Focus Group and empower them to
be ambassadors.
► Take advantage of synergies with the City Communications and Parks and Recreation
Departments.
• Use of P&R program guide,website, social channels, etc.
• Outreach to P&R about Lakeview GC player development programs;promote programs
in the spring and summer catalogs
• Explore opportunity for P&R events at Lakeview GC
► Chamber of Commerce—Explore marketing and networking opportunities;broadcast property
updates to a wider audience;potential opportunity to host Chamber events at Lakeview GC, such
as golf outings,happy hour events, etc.
Food and Beverage
► Increase Food and Beverage patronage of golfers and non-golfing homeowners.
• Engage the HOAs to increase exposure via email,website, etc.
• Promote amenity as a value to HOA members
► Themed dining events—Valentine's Day dinner, Sunday Brunch, etc., if it is determined
incremental net revenues can be achieved.
► Weekly email reminders for Food and Beverage specials, especially to surrounding community.
► Increase demand and improve revenue generation during the off season; this may require
modified schedule and/or available menu.
► Monitor customer trends and behaviors.
► Increase awareness and engagement:
• Increased signage for visibility to those outside"mile square";put a sign on the
clubhouse
• Paid social media campaigns
► Analyze whether to create a standalone identity for the bar/grill.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—78 Page 242
Item#15.
Digital Marketing/Advertising/Social Media
► Create a more sustainable posting schedule/strategy
• Utilize more branded content and less graphics/generic content
• Theme content—motivation Monday,tip Tuesdays, etc.
• Need to utilize more video content and Instagram stories
• Look into Hootsuite for use at Lakeview GC
► Monitor and engage on our social channels—comment,like,reshare(engage our followers).
► Website updates -routinely audit for outdated content; explore SEO upgrade possibilities.
Outings and Events
► Try to attract new golf outings if incremental revenues justify them.
► Promote deals,public events,player development, etc.
► Cultivate Food and Beverage events from community.
NGF Commentary and Recommendations
A marketing emphasis can be critical for a golf course to create awareness, increase activity levels, and, in
some cases, correct misperceptions in the market. (In Lakeview GC's case, due to its"cloistered"location
within a dense residential community,there has been some lack of awareness of the facility, as well as a
perception among a contingent of market golfers that the facility is not open to the general public).
Strategies can include advertising to raise awareness and forge a brand image, developing a public
relations campaign to tout facility improvements, and increasing utilization of web,print, and social
media.An effective and comprehensive marketing plan incorporates research,planning, strategy,market
identification,budget, advertising,timetable, and follow-up, such as tracking to adequately gauge
effectiveness of various campaigns and vehicles.
Ideally,the City and golf course management could simply increase marketing for Lakeview GC to draw
more daily fee play from the broader market. However,we believe such efforts with the course in its
current condition would be unproductive.Aside from condition issues, Lakeview GC presents marketing
challenges in that it is not appealing to many low-handicap golfers because of its flat, aesthetically plain
characteristics, as well as narrow hole corridors and the prevalence of fairways that are"double-loaded"
with homes. On the flip side,the golf course can be too challenging for high-handicap golfers that may
find it very difficult to keep balls in play and avoid hitting homes with their shots.
Because the Lakeview GC product is inferior to competing golf courses in the Valley market,the short-
term marketing focus should probably be on raising the spend of current customers through creation of a
frequent player/loyalty program and vigilant yield management(see prior discussion). For the short/
intermediate term, some marketing messaging can be tied to completed improvements, such as the new
cart fleet,to hopefully stimulate trial among area golfers that have not played at Lakeview GC.
Though we believe Lakeview Golf Club is at a disadvantage when it comes to successfully marketing to
the broader Valley market,it does benefit from an engaged, active,and loyal core customer base,largely
comprising season passholders living in the surrounding subdivisions.While the loyalty is primarily due
to the convenience factor for this"captive audience",these core customers are, effectively,the lifeblood
of Lakeview GC.And while this group does not require much marketing effort to retain them,the older
golfers that eventually will play less frequently or stop playing will need to be replaced from this
community that has an increasing number of new faces.
In summary,NGF believes that the City of Meridian and its golf facility management team face a
challenge trying to build market share with a product that significantly lags the market in terms of golf
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—79 page 243
Item#15.
experience and competes for daily fee play primarily on price.As such,positive results from marketing
initiatives may be greatly muted,at least until Lakeview GC is greatly improved. Below,NGF offers
some `best practice' marketing and programming considerations for implementation at Lakeview GC:
► Marketing Plan and Focus—Management should, at least every couple of years,refine the
marketing plan,including a synopsis of prior year results,review of the competitive landscape,
proposed rates and programs, and planned marketing strategies. Plans should also include clearly
defined goals and a tracking mechanism to gauge the effectiveness of the various strategies and
marketing vehicles.
► Direct Sales—Direct selling to recruit and facilitate outside leagues,golf outings and non-golf
events such as corporate meetings, small banquets/receptions, and events is an important tool
for today's proactive golf operator. These events can provide a supplemental income source and
result from active outreach to local organizations, such as businesses, churches,civic
organizations, chambers of commerce,etc.Now that the City operates Lakeview GC, it would
also seem a good place to host some City off-site meetings.
► Branding/Rebranding—Management has noted to NGF that preliminary discussions with the
City have been held around potentially rebranding Lakeview Golf Club because of its lack of
awareness and the perception among some that it's a private club. (Certainly,its isolated
location within the surrounding neighborhoods contributes greatly to these issues).A key
question that arises for NGF is whether now is the appropriate time to change the facility's
name, logo, etc.
• For the short term,we believe it would be more effective to broadcast news about
improvements as they are made,while at the same time reinforcing the"open to the
public"message.
• Lakeview GC in its current condition should probably best be positioned for the short
term along the lines of it being"a nice little course, fun to play",and at a good value.
• The timing of a potential rebranding may be optimal in conjunction with grand
reopening events after the golf course is renovated in a significant way.
► Food and Beverage—At this writing,it is uncertain which direction the City and management
will go in relative to the scale of the Food and Beverage operation at Lakeview GC. If some
form of scaled-back operation continues, due to labor/inflationary pressures,we recommend
that the City and management explore utilizing a food truck at Lakeview GC, at least during
high demand times and for special events, and possibly as a permanent addition. The use of food
trucks is becoming more common at golf courses,and we have seen this type of service be
successful.
Assuming the kitchen is reopened and full-service restaurant is re-established,we make the
following recommendations:
• Focus marketing on the"mile-square"surrounding communities and promote and
enhance the grill's community atmosphere and reputation as a friendly gathering place.
Position as a place like"Cheers"(i.e.,where everybody knows your name). The patio is
a strong asset, and should also be upgraded(fixtures,etc.), and its potential expansion
explored.
• In order for marketing to be successful in drawing new customers,the ambience and
decor will need to be upgraded,the menu refreshed,and service levels enhanced. Quite a
few stakeholders we spoke to noted that the interior was stale and had a"barroom"feel,
and that service was very slow during busy times.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—80 page 244
Item#15.
• A key focus of the new Marketing Coordinator's will be to market programs and events
to the community,though profit margins will dictate the extent to which these events are
held.
► Website—See discussion under `Utilization of Technology'.
► Email Database - See discussion under `Utilization of Technology'.
► Social Media—In today's marketing environment,maintaining a strong social media presence is
important,though it does require time and dedication. Ideally, a staff person at both the golf
course and the City would be responsible for updates and fresh content(e.g., specials/promos,
events/contests,tournaments, facility improvements,news about the Lakeview GC Lakers PGA
Junior League team,etc.)for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. to keep golfers -especially
younger ones -engaged with the facility.
► Loyalty/Frequent Player Program -NGF agrees with the manager that a loyalty/frequent
player program should be developed for Lakeview GC,perhaps in conjunction with a mobile
app. These programs involve a low-fee(i.e., $50 - $99 annually)or no-fee"membership"that
entitles the holder to green fee and pro shop discounts or allow them to accumulate points that
can later be applied toward purchases.NGF generally recommends driving volume by offering
discounted green fees through a vehicle such as this,rather than through deeply discounted
multi-play packages, such as those offered at Lakeview GC.
UTILIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY
Like virtually all aspects of society and business, golf is undergoing a digital transformation. As such, it is
imperative to take advantage of today's tools to help efficiently manage and market a golf facility.
Technology is one of the most important tools available to a golf course management team to build a
larger customer database, create customer loyalty, and boost revenue.
NGF Commentary and Recommendations
NGF experience tells us that a large,national management company is up to date on all of the latest
technology. However, as a general guideline for City staff,NGF offers the following high-level
observations and recommendations regarding some of the most common and effective ways that
technology is being put to use at successful public golf courses.
E-mail Communications—E-mail databases are essential in today's golf market place, as a means of
staying in touch with the golfer customer base. E-mail marketing,with the exception of word-of-mouth
and free advertising, is the most cost-effective advertising possible and is essential for effective practice
of yield management to sell tee time inventory that might otherwise go unfilled.NGF recommends that
pro shop staff continue to build the Lakeview GC customer email database by soliciting addresses when
golfers come into the shop and when they book tee times via phone. Addresses can also be collected via
the online tee time reservation and through an `eClub' on the website.
Website and Internet—The Internet is the most cost-effective form of advertising for golf facilities.
Lakeview GC-golf.com is the address for the dedicated website for Lakeview Golf Club. (NGF did not
observe a link to the Lakeview GC website on the City of Meridian website). The Lakeview GC website,
part of the contract with foreUp Marketing Services, includes the essential elements NGF recommends
for public golf course websites, including current rates,tee time reservation portal, separate tab for the bar
and grill,news on instruction and programs, calendar of events, and online store.Also very important is
search engine optimization(SEO), as many golfers—especially those visiting or new to an area—will
turn first to Google or another search engine to locate a place to play. In the case of Lakeview GC,NGF
searched the phrases `Golf in Boise' and `Golf in Treasure Valley,Idaho', and Lakeview GC appeared
10'on the list. However,Lakeview GC appeared first on the list when the phrase `Meridian Idaho Golf
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—81 page 245
Item#15.
was searched,which is, of course,highly desirable, especially since the Lakeview GC location is isolated
within a residential community.
Mobile App—Consider developing a smartphone application that includes yardage guides and allows
golfers to receive text alerts broadcast from the email system. The average person checks their cell phone
150 times per day. Having a mobile application facilitates connecting with the customer and can be
especially appealing to young adults.
Point-of-Sale System- Comprehensive utilization of a quality, golf-oriented point-of-sale(POS) system
helps management understand its customer profile segments,while also providing assistance in marketing
and customer tracking. The efficiency of software for tee time reservations, operations/accounting
reporting,retail point-of-purchase reporting, and overall management information systems has advanced
dramatically in recent years and can help improve overall performance. Some of the key features of
industry leading POS systems-often underutilized by operators—are summarized in the bullets below.
► Creation of customer profile segments,including play and spending patterns,to help effectively
practice yield management and implement targeted email marketing campaigns(i.e., data
mining),rather than one-size-fits-all email blasts.
► Integrate social media tools into email marketing. This can be done automatically through
delivery tools that automatically integrate to the leading social media forums, such as Facebook,
Twitter,Instagram, etc.
There are also vendors that do not provide POS but offer comprehensive services that manage all aspects
of online marketing efforts.For example,they may provide software that integrates information collected
from the POS,tee sheet,website,mobile applications,booking engine,and social media networks to help
general managers better understand and market to their customers.
PLAYER DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAMMING
Lakeview Golf Club is very active in player development and programming, including individual and
group lessons (available through General Manager/Director of Golf and Assistant Golf Professional),
active golf associations and leagues,and extensive junior programming. Following is a summary of key
activities beyond individual/group instruction.
Lakeview GC Golf Associations and Leagues
► The Lakeview GC Ladies Golf Association(LLGA)has about 120 members. They have a
Ladies Day(tee times blocked, formerly a shotgun)every Tuesday morning from March through
October,with as many as 60 players. There are groups available for both competitive play(18
holes) or `Grins and Giggles' (9 holes). Additionally,the association hosts monthly golf events,
including the July Member-Guest Tournament and August Club Championship.
► The Lakeview GC Men's Golf Association(LMGA)reported about f 160 members. The group
has two"crews"that have regular weekly outings(2-5 tee times blocked): the Tuesday-
Thursday-Sunday crew that goes off at 11:30 a.m., and the Super Seniors,who play M-W-F at
10 a.m. in winter,and 8:30 a.m. in summer. The association also hosts 6 to 7 annual Men's
tourneys,averaging 40-50 players.
► Additionally,there are a variety of men's and women's leagues that play regularly during the
year, comprising mostly season passholders.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—82 page 246
Item#15.
Junior Golf Programs
As noted, Lakeview GC staff is very active with junior programming,including:
► `Operation 36' -Kids receive 8 practice sessions and 4 play days during the program.New
students receive a starter pack that includes a bag tag to track their progress. All kids also get
access to the Op36 mobile app that is used for training, self-training,and keeping track of their
progress through the program.
► TGA(Teach, Grow,Achieve)—During these spring and summer camps,kids receive group
instruction in the morning, and the full-day campers play the course in the afternoon after lunch
each day. The program is intended to cultivate qualities such as sportsmanship,perseverance,
and leadership.
► PGA Junior League—Combines great instruction and fun matches for the Lakeview GC Lakers
in the PGA Junior League.Kids receive a packet that includes a team jersey and play in 2-person
matches against other teams at Lakeview GC.
► Lakeview GC Junior Golf Association is a family-oriented series of summer Wednesday golf
tournaments that culminate with the Junior Club Championship.
NGF Commentary and Recommendations
Cultivating new golfers is not only key to the future of golf but has also proven to be an immediate
generator of revenues for facilities. PGA of America data shows that the successful player development
program produces at least 200 new golfers per facility.NGF has found that the public golf facilities that
are most successful tend to be very active in adult player onboarding and development, as well as other
"grow-the-game"initiatives. Creative programming is especially effective in onboarding new players
from segments (e.g.,women and millennials)that represent strong latent demand for the game but that
may not prefer to be introduced to the game in traditional ways, such as individual lessons.
NGF summarizes below some of the industry best practice type recommendations for enhancing player
development, onboarding, and overall programming once the facility is sufficiently staffed(i.e.,with the
addition of 1-2 assistant professionals and/or contract instructors).
► Junior Golf Program: As noted earlier,Lakeview GC has a robust junior golf program.NGF
considers a very active junior program to be a best practice and a key to success for any public
golf course. In addition to offering individual and group lessons and clinics,NGF believes that
having programs such as those offered at Lakeview GC (Operation 36,PGA Junior League), as
well as others such as First Tee STEM Links and Drive, Chip and Putt, is an integral part of
municipal golf.
► Increasing Women's Participation: Work to increase women's participation, as females are
strongly represented among the latent demand cohort.At present,women account for about 20%
of golf participants,but 40%of beginners. There are many reasons why female golf participation
is low,but increasing participation from women is one of the keys to maximizing revenue. The
most common issues relate to golf course difficulty,retail selection, on-course services
(restrooms, drinking fountains), food/beverage selection, and customer service.
Recent NGF studies related to women and golf revealed several facets that were key in their
consideration of where and how much to participate in golf. Both the PGA and NGF have found
through experience that adding a food and beverage component to female-oriented programming
can significantly improve traction. Most important,it is crucial to listen to what they want and
incorporate it into instructions,programming and events. Creating leagues is another effective
strategy,as is having a regular calendar of events. (Lakeview GC is active in this area,though
most participants appear to be passholders).
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—83 Page 247
Item#15.
NGF identified several common characteristics that female-friendly golf facilities exhibit:
• Golf courses that are not too overly difficult, and have a most forward tee of less than
4,600 yards with no"forced carries"of over 60—80 yards.
• Restrooms(cleaned several times a day)at least every six holes on the golf course;
features and items should include mirror, soap, lotion, sunscreen,Band-Aids, etc.
• Ball washers on the forward tees.
• At least one female instructor and a golf staff that takes a consistent approach to all
players regardless of gender.
• Help with selecting equipment and even women-only demo days and/or women-only
custom fitting days.
• The availability of women's club rental sets.
• Programs that allow more social and/or family involvement.
► Lessons and `Onboarding': Operators should work directly with the PGA of America,LPGA,
and First Tee on programs that have a proven track record, and how to best implement and
promote them. Examples include Get Golf Ready; Drive Chip and Putt;First Tee;PGA Junior
League; LPGA-USGA Girl's Golf, and LPGA's Teaching Her. Of course,a critical element to
success is transitioning new players from learning to playing.
► Golf Events: Creative golf-themed events,on both the golf course and the driving range, are
becoming more and more popular with operators looking to make golf more fun for less
committed golfers. One of the major initiatives to grow activity that NGF recommends is
specialized programming and events aimed at onboarding or simply increasing the patronage of
young adults.National NGF research(Golf and the Millennial Generation)has shown this to be
a demographic segment that favors "experiential"events (i.e.,those that young adults can
"socialize")that combine golf, fun, and a social component. Examples of actual events that NGF
has observed recently include:
• A weekly 9-hole Thursday Scramble that had 13 teams(52 participants)generated about
$2,500 in direct revenue,plus additional bar revenue before and after the event.
(Lakeview GC had a successful `Friday Night Chapman' couples' event that combined 9
holes of golf with food and beverage). Also, a 2-Person Scramble was held June 12t'',
though it was restricted to members of the LMGA and LLGA.
• `Balls and Beers' at the driving range. Participants paid a small fee for the event,which
featured a craft beer truck,music, contests,unlimited range balls for an hour, and a golf
professional providing quick lessons and tips.
• Weekly(or even daily)contests, such as longest drive,hole-in-one, or closest to the pin
can be very popular, especially when combined with food and beverage and music.
• `9 and Wine' golf training programs for women's groups are a particularly popular and
effective way to engage beginning women golfers and non-golfers.
► Events for Non-Golfers—One of the City's goals with respect to its stewardship of Lakeview
GC is to engage more of the Meridian non-golfing community in the facility. Special or regular
events such as scavenger hunts,movie nights, Karaoke night,Meet your Neighbor Night, Green
Market, etc. could be a good way to make non-golfers participate in Lakeview GC.
► Miscellaneous-Below are some additional thoughts to increase golf participation through
programming.
• With junior programming,make an effort to get the moms out to the course.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—84 page 248
Item#15.
• Make sure older,used golf equipment is available free of charge for beginners,and
possibly for other needy prospects via donation or at a deep price discount.
• Consider offering reduced fee lessons (perhaps limited to one per person, subsidized by
City) for residents as a means of increasing golf participation.
• Encourage participants to bring a friend.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Results of the extensive customer/stakeholder engagement phase of the master plan study revealed much
room for improvement in customer service at Lakeview Golf Club,though significant improvement under
City stewardship was noted by most participants.All employees go through the KemperSports
orientation. The two 2-hour sessions comprise several training modules, including: General Company
Orientation;Harassment and Sensitivity Training; and Proprietary KSM Service modules. Additionally,
customer service protocols are taught through KSM's proprietary"True Service"program.
NGF Commentary and Recommendation
Strong customer service can be a key differentiator in building customer loyalty. (Though the NGF golfer
survey results showed a higher level of satisfaction with the customer service level at Lakeview GC than
with the golf course conditions,they also showed there is room for improvement). High level service at a
golf course begins the moment the golfer sets foot on the property,beginning with a friendly welcome
(especially for faces that staff may not have seen before).NGF recommends continual staff training and
establishment of customer service standards and measurable metrics—monitored through periodic NGF
GolfSAT surveys and occasional secret shoppers -to make sure that the standards are being consistently
met or exceeded.
COMMUNICATION
A strong culture of communication goes hand-in-hand with strong customer service at a municipal golf
course. At Lakeview GC,this is multi-faceted and includes communications among golf course staff
members,between staff(golf course and City)and customers,between golf course staff and the Golf
Course Focus Group, and between staff and the communities around the golf course. With KSM still new
to the Lakeview GC property—and all of the employees new to the management company-improvement
in communications among staff members and to the golf course customers should improve organically.
Perhaps the more challenging aspect will revolve around communicating about what is permissible and
what is not with respect to behavior,golf course access, etc. A very common theme of the stakeholder
engagement,especially among golfers and neighbors of the golf course,was perceived misbehavior of
golfers and other individuals. Pervasive examples cited to NGF included:
► Lack of knowledge of golfer etiquette/proper behavior(balls in backyards,broken windows,
driving carts on greens, letting kids drive carts,kids playing in bunkers, and urinating in yards).
► "Trespassing"by non-golfers—people on bikes, fence jumpers, dog walkers,kids on the course
at night,kids taking shortcuts to school bus stop,homeowners walking on course before or after
hours to practice chipping,putting,etc.
► Perception of people living near the course that the golf course is their playground or backyard.
NGF Commentary and Recommendation
In terms of communications between golf course staff members, as well as between staff members and
facility customers, continued staff training is the key. If there is a project scheduled that may disrupt play,
the most important thing staff can do to mitigate dissatisfaction is to communicate with patrons ahead of
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—85 page 249
Item#15.
time. Some things cannot be avoided,but customers will generally be understanding as long as
"surprises"are kept to a minimum and they are made to feel they are vested partners in the golf course.
In terms of communications with golfers regarding etiquette,rules, etc., as well as with neighbors
regarding course access,the golf course staff and the City should present a united front and must be
transparent with messaging about rules,expectations,protocols, safety guidelines, etc. For example,there
should be a policy on what is considered trespassing for this essentially public park that has many access
points,to include:
► What's allowed,what is not;
► What the City's liability is in certain situations;
► What protocols and expectations are(e.g.,break a window or solar panel, leave a note);
► Rules,protocols for reporting infractions; and
► Penalties/repercussions.
Policies,repercussions, etc. should be communicated through various channels,including social media,
golf course and City websites,mobile apps,through the HOAs, and with on-course signage(e.g.,
"proceed at own risk"). The City, as part of these communications, should also convey what its values are
related to being respectful of others.
OTHER OPERATIONAL ISSUES
Pace of Play Management
Pace of play is very important to golfers, as evidenced by the results of tens of thousands NGF GolfSAT
golfer surveys completed over the years that show it is an important factor for golfers in choosing one
course over another. Slow pace of play at Lakeview GC was indicated as an issue in the stakeholder
engagement phase of this study, including the golfer survey and the focus groups with the Men's and
Ladies Golf Associations. Some of this is attributable to the significantly increased demand in 2020,
including among novice golfers and those unfamiliar with Lakeview GC. Ideally,pace of play should be a
constant that can be relied upon by golfing consumers at any day or time. This then allows the City and its
operator to market this hallmark as a quality to be expected at the facility.
NGF Commentary and Recommendation
While there is no magic bullet that can be pressed at a busy municipal golf course that has customers with
all manners of skill levels,there are some things that can be tried to speed up play and mitigate the
occasional pace issue, such as golf course ambassador training programs and retention of paid player
assistants.NGF believes the City should consider obtaining a Pace Rating that will allow the operator to
understand better what the course layout and conditions are capable of delivering. The USGA Pace
Rating,which can be obtained through the Idaho Golf Association, calculates a target completion time
(time par)for each golf hole,taking into account the length and difficulty of the hole, as well as and other
attributes of play. Time pars allow players to keep track of when they are expected to arrive at each tee.
Other things the City could consider to improve pace of play if it becomes a worsening issue that begins
to affect demand for daily fee play at Lakeview GC—especially after major facility improvements -
include lengthening the tee time interval during traditionally slow play periods(drawback is reducing
capacity), and bringing in a pace of play consultant to study play patterns,layout, etc.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Ideally,reporting to the City will provide baseline measures of how the golf course is performing and
trending with respect to key metrics,while also facilitating more informed decision-making by City staff
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—86 page 250
Item#15.
and officials when it comes to funding operational and physical enhancements at the golf course in the
future. Most important,the accounting and reporting system should have appropriate protocols,
redundancies,and safeguards in place to ensure that any discrepancies in numbers between the golf
course and the City are minor, detected soon after occurring,and easily reconciled.
NGF Commentary and Recommendations
Following are some NGF best practice recommendations(most of these may already be in place at
Lakeview GC)related to recordkeeping and reporting for a municipal golf course:
► Accurate categorization and recording of all rounds played by type(e.g.,passholder, daily fee
`rack',VIP, other discount categories, complimentary,tournament/event)—along with the
attendant revenue—will provide an accurate baseline for facility activity levels and per-round
revenue center trends, as rounds played are the most fundamental unit of measure at a public
golf course.
► Protocols should be established for recording of transactions; i.e.,how payments are recorded,
how inventory is received and expensed,what types of transactions can be put into `Customer
Clearing', etc.
► All staff involved in golf course finances—at both the golf course and the City—should learn the
fore UP POS system,or whichever other system management decides to adopt.NGF suggests a
half-day or day-long training session to understand the capabilities, functionalities and utilities
of the POS system vis a vis recording of transactions,voiding of transactions,reporting,
inventory management,etc. (Ongoing training of golf course staff, as needed,to make sure the
system is being used correctly).
► Create weekly,monthly, quarterly and annual reporting templates - some with intent of
reconciling numbers, others aimed at providing concise and useful `at-a-glance' summaries for
City staff and officials.
Golf Course Ambassador Program
We have discussed several times in the report that there appears to be a significant need at Lakeview GC
for a golfer education and golf course ambassador(i.e.,marshal/player assistant)program. The club
formerly had a couple of marshals,but they apparently did not have the support of management, and thus
had little clout with the players. Especially with the influx of new players (some new to both golf and
Lakeview GC) in 2020, a lack of etiquette and course knowledge has resulted in some inappropriate and/
or unsafe behavior on the course, as well as round times as long as 5.5 hours during peak demand times.
NGF Commentary and Recommendation
Management should institute a formal golf ambassador program to help educate players and enforce some
order out on the golf course. While rarely a panacea, a program with"teeth"(i.e.,well-trained marshals
with perceived"clout") should be helpful in maintaining order and moving players along at an
appropriate pace. It is critical that the ambassadors have full back-up and support from management so
that golfers know they have the authority to enforce the rules. Complement the ambassador program with
an education campaign to provide golfers instructions on etiquette, course layout,etc. The education
begins in the pro shop(or with a starter), and can be supplemented by printed rules sheets placed on carts,
above urinals in the restrooms,in the pro shop, etc., and by digital messaging on cart GPS screens, etc.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—87 page 251
Item#15.
Accessibility
The issue of accessibility came up in NGF focus stakeholder meetings for this project. For example, it
was brought up that neither Lakeview GC nor other Valley public golf courses provide access to a
mobility-assisted golf cart.Additionally, one person who has a physically challenged spouse noted that he
had to return to the clubhouse if he had to use the restroom, due to the lack of an accessible permanent
restroom at Lakeview GC. The NGF team's Lakeview GC capital plan recommends improvements to the
existing on-course restroom(back 9),including making it ADA compliant; this is considered a short-term
improvement need by NGF and the City.Additionally,we have recommended that a new,permanent,
accessible restroom be constructed on the front 9.
NGF Commentary
While NGF does not profess to have comprehensive knowledge of the latest protocols regarding
compliance with ADA regulations,the general guideline that golf courses operate under is that all areas of
a course that must be"accessible"must be done so by a standard golf cart. These areas include in and
around the clubhouse and the practice tees(e.g.,via wheelchair along paths to access a portion of the tee).
There must be a point of entry into a practice bunker and green, and the putting green itself. On the
course, all restrooms,rain shelters, and at least one of the two most forward tees on every hole must be
accessible from a cart path. There must be curb openings of 4-5 feet every 100 feet or less at 4-5 feet,or
no curbs at all.
The following article should be helpful: https://www.usga.org/content/usaa/home-pate/course-
care/forethegolfer/2418/accommodating=golfers-with-disabilities.html
Excerpted from this article are suggestions to make a golf facility more inclusive and accessible to people
with disabilities:
► Develop a written plan of how your facility will accommodate golfers with disabilities.
► Work towards developing a training program for staff members who will assist disabled golfers.
► Evaluate the facility for accessibility, identifying potential barriers to access and creating a
continuous pathway throughout the golf course.
► Produce a map of the accessible routes provided through the golf course.
► Prioritize work to remove existing barriers and to provide access to all putting greens,the
practice facility, and at least one teeing surface on each hole.
► Develop a written policy regarding the use of single-rider assisted mobility vehicles and golf
carts during inclement weather.
► Make available a mobility-assisted cart.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—88 page 252
Item#15.
Potential Overall Economic Impact of Lakeview
Golf Club on Meridian
Golf courses have a financial impact on local economies beyond their on-site revenue generation ftom
operations. These impacts(including `multiplier effects')derive from:
► Job creation/employee compensation
► Large capital improvement/renovation expenditures (planned for Lakeview GC)
► Local expenditures on supplies/materials
► Golf course-driven tourism/hospitality spending
► Residential real estate—new construction in golf communities,plus housing premiums
► Local tax generation(local sales tax,higher property tax, due to housing premiums)
► Fundraising- Charitable golf events
In 2017,NGF did an economic impact analysis for the city of Prescott,Arizona's 36-hole Antelope Hills
Golf Course.While the facility generated about$3 million in direct on-site revenues and produced a small
annual deficit after city administrative charges, our analysis showed a total of$7.3 million in impact to
the Prescott economy, excluding effects on real estate and tax generation. In addition to direct economic
impact,Antelope Hills also results in jobs and compensation,both at the golf course and as a result of the
effect the golf course operations have on the local hospitality industry.
For Lakeview Golf Club,economic impact beyond those related to on-site operations is somewhat
constrained because it is not a regional"destination"golf course that draws more players from outside of
the city to play there and spend money in Meridian restaurants,gas stations,lodging properties, etc.
However, a rehabilitated Lakeview GC is likely to result in increased home values,especially for those
houses that have golf course frontage.
Independent of direct and indirect financial impacts of the golf course operation,there are other benefits
that accrue to a municipality that owns and operates a golf course. Lakeview Golf Club is now an
important part of the open space program for the City of Meridian.
The value of the golf course land to the City of Meridian includes the following aspects:
► Open space land
► Organized public recreation(golf and potential future recreation amenities)
► Potential public meeting space(clubhouse)
► Environmental enrichment(habitat,wetlands, etc.)
rpage 253
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—8
Item#15.
Appendices
A:National Rounds Played Report
B: Local Demographic, Demand and Supply Data
C: Lakeview GC Primary Competitors Information
D: Community Online Survey
E: Golf Course Exhibits
F: ASGCA Life Cycle Chart
G: Clubhouse—Short-Term Repair/Replace Cost Estimates
rpage 254
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Stu
APPENDIX A-NATIONAL ROUNDS PLAYED REPORT
End of Year 2020
# •'��� National Golf Rounds Played Report
Bala FeChL
,V1A- ;
1 �11
.I 'un11 nn nnUmml:ou
■�#���t I� _ _. :SIIIY I i i1F:II
`` !l am µ r 11 ]`aL•'.I a•!I! 1 Iwl 1 ..'.'y 1 I!!f IItIIu
U.S. TOTAL
DECEMBER 2020 YTD 2020
Mountain +37.3% +13.9%
ROUNDS +30.2%
TEMP-0.7' AS�TM01til central PRECIP-5296 East North Central
ROUNDS +84.6% New England
Park TEMP +1.7° ROUNDS +15.6
PRECIP-29% TEMP-12° MEROUNDS +101.1%
PRECIP-3fi%
4
ROUNDS +53-9{ ( TEMP +2_4°
TEMP-0-5' PJT NH PRECIP-14%
PRECIP-26% ND
UN Wt R MA
ID 11 NY CT
so
WY Mid Atlantic
OH PA ICJ ROUNDS+66-6%
IL IN TEMP +0.i`
UT DE PRECIP-8%
—Ir oce MD
KSmaWV
VA
� KY
HI
TN South Atlantic
ROUNDS +25-9°fi
TEMP d.5°
PRECIP-34%
LEGEND:
Outline cdors represent regions.Round pereen ages compares
December242)to DacemlSer 2019_
1°WARM ER Tern YOY -4.7fi1 increase in Rounds Played'
1'RWN increase vo =2.296 Decrease in Rounds Played'
9ased on WTI's historical analysis of weather eartditions for all US South Central
markets.Resuhs may vary by region-
ROUNDS +33-59fi
TEMP-3.5'
W�2.0%
0%and higher PRECIP +17%
ween-1.9%and+1.9%and lower
season + + d
wea
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—9
National Golf Rounds Played Report
f 1 oil
111 !III III
''JJ1.!-Y 1 11 � IMX � I I. I:i 1111111 'III 1.I 11 11J I 1 11111'i
L I II f-I II 1 t Ippp111lR u Ir 11 1 'Jpp 4 W1111I_ !I 1
11 lI II XII 1 1 I". I1� 11,li, la •I. �I@ 11 1�1 '1::
1 I LI
!+ I I IR1 1 11 I FI 1 1 1 11 1! 1 FI 1 4 IN + {
Data rech
DEC YTD DE EMBER 2020 DEC YTO
PACIFIC 63.9% 4.8% SOUTH ATLANTIC 26.9% 8.4%
CA 58.3% 5.6% DEC YfTD DE. DC, MD 56.1% 7.7%
Los Angeles 45.6% UNITED STATES 37.3% 13.9% Wash ingtonlBaitimore 75.2%
Orange County 32.3% * PUBUC ACCESS 34.7% 12.4% FL 19.0% 6.9%
Palm Springs 19.2% * PRIVATE 45.2% 19.9% .Jacksonville 27.1%
Sacramento 106.8% Orlando 23.7%
San Diego 6D.0% EAST NORTH CENTRAL 16.8% 14.6% Tampa 20.3%
San FranciscolOaklartd 13D.9% IL 28.6% 15.4% Palm Beach 12.5%
HI -8.4% -32.7% Chicago 16.9% Naples?F[Myers 19.8%
OR 79.8% 22.2% IN 47.1% 23.5% MiamiJFt.Lauderdale 10.5%
Portland 87.1% MI -9.1% 7.1% GA 47.7% 14.6%
WA 67.0% 3.6% Detroit -5.5% Atlanta 51.8%
Seattle 87.6% * OH 3.0% 14.0% NG 29.5% 6.8%
Cincinnati 0 29-2% ` Greensboro?Raleigh 50.9% R
MOUNTAIN 30.2% 14.3% Cleveland -26.6% SC 31.6% -0.2%
A2 26.9% 12.2% WI NA 19.9% Charleston 65.7%
Phoenix 29.9% Hilton Head 63.4%
CO 43.3% 19.9% Myrtle Beach 15.6%
Denver 5.90/0 SOUTH CENTRAL 33.6% 20.3% VA,WV 56.9% 21.3%
ID,WY, MT, UT 52.9% 20.4% AL 37.6% 5.a%
NM 25.5% 2.0% AR. LA. I S 36.8% 19.4% MID ATLANTIC 66.6% 18.0%
NV 36.8% -3.6% OK 33.3% 24.3% NJ 80.8% 15.8%
Las Vegas 36.9% * KY_TN 38.2% 22.6% NY 72.7% 20.6%
TX 30.7% 21.4% New York City 77.5%
WEST NORTH CENTRAL 84.6% 23.1% DallasJFt. Worth 37.9% PA 52.1% 16.3%
KS, NE 87.9% 20.0% Houston 2G.0% Philadelphia 52.3%
ND,S❑ NA 24.4% San Antonio 37-7% Pittsburgh 1 1.9%
MN NA 23.6%
MinneapolislSt.Paul NA NEW ENGLAND 101.1% 17.1%
IA. MO 72.60/6 24.6% GT, MA. RI 100.3% 18.11111%
St Louis 7Q_3% Boston 80A%
Kansas City 147.5% * Not reporting YTD 2020 ME, NH; VT NA 15.0%
The percentages represent the differences in number of rounds played comparing December 2020 to December 2019
For more information contact Golf Datatech-golfroundsplayed@golfdatatech.com or call 407-944-4115
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.-Lakeview GC Master Plan Study-9
Dal LNational Golf Rounds.�j'.. - 11".
Pla ed Report
�- '
atech bib do 4
US 2020 vs. 2019 YTD THROUGH DECEMBER
Mountain +13.9%
ROUNDS *14.3% West North Central
East North Central
ROUNDS +1d.3
lial�fic
ROUNDS +23.135 New England
ROUNDS +17.!Lj
ROUNDS +,I.a%
A
Mid Atlantic
ROUNDS +113.095
`V ~ MD
HE �,
South Atlantic
ROUNDS +8.496
LEGEND:
Oullirre colors represent regions.Round percenlages corllparss
year to date 2020 to year to dale 21319_
1,WARMER Temp YOY=0.76%Increase in Roun&f Played'
1'RAIN intraase YOY=2.2%decrease in R0u nds Played'
`Based on WTI's histori;al anekysi6 of*eathe+conditions for Al US South Central
markets,Res,dts may wary by rri m
ROUNDS
+2.0%and higher 1. ..l /� �
tfatween-Iq%and+1.9% �/ eatl ertrendsM)` N[2F NbL
-2.0%and lower _� sf. L
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—9
April 2O21
MGM
� � National Golf Rounds Played Report
f� BalaFft L dl"I!_ri �lur.irf i e r w mllllnrlll• r r r. w;i ui n rmu
p 9 '. I, lir„ ;. i'[� 1„:! 'I IIiiI�
tr r. n'o'n'n "n I n I' .r'. l u• i 1' u'
U.S. TOTAL
Mountain APRIL 2021 YTD 2021
L
UNDS +33.6% +81_4% +43_8 New England
TEMP+0.6' EROUNDS+117.7%
PRE CIP+7% West North Central ErwiP+4.9'
ROUNDS+43.2% East North Central -4
ECIP-22%
Pacific TEMP +2.4' ROUNDS+160.4%
ROUNDS+197.9% PRECIP+22% TEMP+4.3'
TEMP+0.3' PRECIP-24% ~
PRECIP-72%
HI Mid Atlantic
i ROUNDS+329.5%
TEMP+3.9'
DE PRECIP-29%
M1
1
South Atlantic
LEGEND: FUNDS +40.1%
Outline colors represent regions.Round percentages comparea TEMP-0.3'
April2021 to Apr- 2020. PRECIP 49%
V WARMER Temp YOY=0.76%Increase in Rounds Plr yed
1"RAIN increase YOY=2.2%Decrease in Rounds P'a}rx South Central
"Based on VYTI's historical analysis ofweather or.liti—isforall ROUNDS+46.1%
US markets.Resutts may vary by region TEMP-0.6'
+2.0%and hi her_- PRECIP+5%
between-1.9%'Aa , . 9% I�w���
-2.0%and ,VJer hNeothertrencs4 1VIGF DaCl1I.
L
Off Season ,S*}�#
A4r�Jr!i AQ s aalp�e(�tn,aed aaMual+raalrkElaar Omq ft a mm*of ifte Umftd Se aa&TW rm*alrbm amm PC 0-d Ehf Nmw
nm d1s ssasp—Ar-2M mods do 7919mkmWbmammhhmdmMmmdbm NbWmbWmbi raM�dosed Aa AArdabr aFM=fhs hrrsf ai'gasulsr dmin m nmrmfrp,orfds Is soa srmis6Ja
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—9
National Golf Rounds Played Report
,w_ �. � ;,rwn
**� �. , r l 1 1 i ■ 1 i `I „ r , r ," ,' r ,1 r r 1 j f, ',.
APRIL 2021
APRIL YTD APRIL YTD
PACIFIC 197.9% 66A% SOUTH ATLANTIC 40.1% 78.6%
CA 207.3% 63.5% APRIL YTD DE, DC, MI] 62 5% 29A%
Los Angeles UNITED STATES 87A% 43A% WashingtonlBaltir-ore
Orange County PublicAooma 93.1% 48A% FL 43.5% 13A%
Palm Springs Private 46.6% 30.0% Jacksonvill
Sacramento Orlando
San Diego EAST NORTH CENTRAL 160A% 147.2% Tampa
San FranciscclOakland IL 624A% 313.0% Pal. 1 Biac"
HI 959.6% 36A% Chicago t tAapi--lFt Myers
OR 15.6% 37.2% IN 28A% 46.3% 1,,::z,nil Ft.Lauderdale
Portland t tMI 264.1% 219.6% 21.2% 25.1%
WA 562.1% 141.2% Detroit Atlanta
Seattle OH 103A% 1117% INC 49.2% 27.2%
Cincinnati GreensborolRaleigh
MOUNTAIN 33.6% 21.5% Cleveland SC 84.0% 28.9%
AZ 27A% 15.3% WI e70.M, 7A.5% Charleston
Phoenix Hilton Head
CO 11.1% 5.3% Myrtle Beach
Denver t t SOUTH CENTRAL 46.1% 32A% VA, WV 4A% 10.3%
ID, WY, MT, UT 27.2% 29.3% AL 34.0% 27A%
NM 48.3% 33.7% AR, LA, MS 6.0% 21.5% MID ATLANTIC 328.5% 153.2%
NV 311.3% 51.3% OK 63.5% 22.7% NJ 4876.6% 257.0%
Las Vegas KY, TN 71.6% 56.7% NY 204A% 93.1%
TX 51.5% 30A% New York City
WEST NORTH CENTRAL 43.2% 39A% Dai -is1Ft. Worth PA 264.5% 175.9%
KS, NE 19.0% 21.7% rivuston Philadelphia
ND,SD 18.1% 22.5% San Antonio Pittsburgh
MN 76.0% 773%
Min neapolislSt.Pa ul t t NEW ENGLAND 117.7% 88.7%
IA, MO 57A% 4 M. CT, MA, RI 56.7% 43.9%
5t Louis Not reporting YTD 2021 Boston
Kansas City ME, NH, VT 100.0% 1061.0%
Th.r percentages represent the differences in number of rounds played comparing April 2021 to April 2020
For more information contact Golf Datatech golfroundsplayed@golf-datatech.com
Mmab 7eel0 hVW los-rlorrrb grrrldbW rid f pmnhkg r dlmm~ mdr offt Lkffi dllmim&71r rmu*of dM q I &7A0W dr a W0B*otgaf~11 ON oud no am�ts
MW ddf 0WWW iq 2M MMWh elm 1p70Nrmdd 8&oondrl elk nad MdWft
--I"National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.-Lakeview GC Master Plan Study-9
Item#15.
INE-M INEIRE�najareWC National Golf Rounds Played Report
1 Y rn:nmlll'!IIII�I r
� ,.
`'IMo.■ :,. i „r r r ii i rl l 1 d r r
0
U5 2021 vs. 2020 YTa THROUGH APRIL
Mountain
+ 3.8% ew _n and
ROUNDS +21.5°k R NDS +88.74G
Racific West North Central
ROUNDS ROUNDS 139.4% East North Centr
+ ROUNDS +147.2% IL
�HI + Mid Atlantic
ROUNDS +153.24fi
DE
•
South Atlantic
LEGEND: Ok ROUNDS +18.6%
Outline colors represent regions.Round percentages compares
year to date 2a2 to year to date 21120.
V WARMER Temp YOY=0.76°k Increase in Rounds P4 yed
t"RAIN increase YOY=2.2%Decrease in Rounds P'a)ryd'
South Central
"Eased on WTI's historical analysis otweather or.liti,.istorall
U5 markets.Results may vary by region ROUNDS +32.4
+2.0%and hi her_
between wer-1.99U -Ma
-2.0%and 9°� r�
wea hertrenc s [ii +.*-.-• atatf� L
• T--
Off Season t•�*t�'� C,
A4nctr 2W bWm key*--m aproephr Mid V"am ok" Ampmhm mmo of"URW se a&Ift mm*erom aArmmoM 04e"ft proem of pap~groughm ft ON-W
nm mWm c V=firQ 2M m®ds io 3 droc- bm a t 1n not ffr11191116Ja
Page_c 260
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—9
Item#15.
APPENDIX B - LOCAL DEMOGRAPHIC, DEMAND AND SUPPLY DATA
2-mile 5-mile 10-mile 15-mile Ada
Lakeview Golf Club CBSA U.S.
ring ring ring ring County
Summary Demographics
Population 1990 Census 3,730 19,823 154,894 272,742 205,766 319,586 248,584,652
Population 2000 Census 12,218 51,247 252,256 395,756 300,888 464,825 281,399,034
CAGR 1990-2000 12.60% 9.96% 5.00% 3.79% 3.87% 3.82% 1.25%
Population 2010 Census 20,409 91,964 367,994 535,621 392,365 616,561 308,745,538
CAGR 2000-2010 5.26% 6.02% 3.85% 3.07% 2.69% 2.87% 0.93%
Population Estimate 2019 24,178 121,520 448,173 638,396 469,025 727,337 326,955,948
Population 2024 Projected 27,539 138,321 510,730 728,062 535,136 828,445 338,366,389
CAGR 2019-2024 2.64% 2.62% 2.65% 2.66% 2.67% 2.64% 0.69%
CAGR 2010-2024 2.16% 2.96% 2.37% 2.22% 2.24% 2.13% 0.66%
Median HH Income(2019) $62,676 $69,921 $62,394 $59,202 $65,364 $59,322 $60,523
Median Age(2019) 38.1 36.4 36.3 36.2 37.5 36.8 38.2
Ethnicity 0.069
White 92.4% 90.2% 87.2% 86.4% 88.5% 86.2% 70.1%
African American 0.8% 1.2% 1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 1.4% 13.4%
Asian 1.4% 1.9% 2.3% 2.3% 2.9% 2.3% 5.8%
All Other 5.4% 6.7% 9.2% 9.9% 6.9% 10.2% 10.7%
Hispanic Population
Hispanic 7.9% 9.0% 12.5% 13.8% 8.6% 14.0% 17.6%
Not Hispanic 92.1% 91.0% 87.5% 86.2% 91.4% 86.0% 82.4%
CAGR=Compound Annual Growth Rate
2-mile 5-mile 10-mile 15-mile Ada
Lakeview Golf Club CBSA U.S.
ring ring ring ring County
Golf Demand Indicators
Total Households 7,608 42,941 164,558 240,594 183,375 274,902 125,541,798
Number of Golfing Households 1,036 6,068 22,297 31,659 26,041 36,435 17,484,590
Projected Golfing Households(2024) 1,135 6,577 23,944 33,852 28,150 38,924 18,258,060
Projected Annual Growth Rate 1.80% 1.60% 1.40% 1.30% 1.60% 1.30% 0.90%
Seasonal Golfing Households 3 35 111 182 175 495 748,477
Latent Demand/Interested Non-Golfers 2,980 18,271 66,858 98,521 77,532 108,792 47,425,600
Household Participation Rate 13.60% 14.10% 13.50% 13.20% 14.20% 13.30% 13.90%
Number of Golfers 1,928 12,523 43,112 58,787 47,252 67,542 24,241,030
Rounds Potential(resident golfers) 25,559 154,314 566,354 792,324 644,185 927,829 434,080,100
Estimated Course Rounds 25,263 174,347 288,827 512,064 409,858 658,773 434,084,100
(in-market supply)
Demand Indices
Golfing Household Participation Rate 100 104 100 97 104 97 100
Seasonal Golfing Households 7 14 12 13 16 31 100
Latent Demand/Interested Non-Golfers 97 103 103 108 114 104 100
Rounds Potential per Household 99 106 102 97 104 100 100
(resident golfers)
Page 261
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.-Lakeview GC Master Plan Stu
Item#15.
2-mile 5-mile 10-mile 15-mile Ada
Lakeview Golf Club CBSA U.S.
ring ring ring ring County
Golf Supply
Golf Facilities
Total 1 6 11 20 16 25 14,604
Public 1 4 8 15 11 20 10,896
Public: Daily Fee 1 2 6 9 9 13 8,377
Public: Municipal 0 2 2 6 2 7 2,519
Private 0 2 3 5 5 5 3,708
Public Golf Facilities by Price Point
Premium(>$70) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,428
Standard($40-$70) 1 4 7 12 9 15 4,081
Value(<$40) 0 0 1 3 2 5 5,387
Golf Holes
Total 18 117 198 342 288 441 247,815
Public 18 81 144 252 198 351 179,760
Public: Daily Fee 18 36 99 144 162 234 137,760
Public: Municipal 0 45 45 108 36 117 42,000
Private 0 36 54 90 90 90 68,055
Non-Regulation(Executive and Par-3) 0 27 36 36 36 45 19,872
Net Change*
Net Change in Holes past 5 years 0 9 0 18 9 18 -14,346
Percentage Total Holes Past 5 Yrs 0.00% 8.30% 0.00% 5.60% 3.20% 4.30% -5.50%
Net Change in Holes past 10 Years 0 -9 -18 0 0 27 -21,888
Percentage Total Holes Past 10 Yrs 0.00% -7.10% -8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 6.50% -8.10%
*Numbers may include courses under construction and temporarily closed at the end of the year.
Page 262
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Stu
Item#15.
2-mile 5-mile 10-mile 15-mile Ada
Lakeview Golf Club CBSA U.S.
ring ring ring ring County
Supply-Demand Ratios
Households per 18 Holes
Total 7,608 6,606 14,960 12,663 11,461 11,220 9,119
Public 7,608 9,542 20,570 17,185 16,670 14,098 12,571
Public: Daily Fee 7,608 21,471 29,920 30,074 20,375 21,146 16,404
Public: Municipal 0 17,176 65,823 40,099 91,688 42,293 53,804
Private 0 21,471 54,853 48,119 36,675 54,980 33,205
Premium(>$70) 0 0 0 0 0 0 72,630
Standard($40-$70) 7,608 9,542 21,941 19,248 18,338 16,661 28,779
Value(<$40) 0 0 0 160,396 183,375 91,634 32,225
Golfing Households per 18 Holes
Total 1,036 934 2,027 1,666 1,628 1,487 1,270
Public 1,036 1,348 2,787 2,261 2,367 1,868 1,751
Public: Daily Fee 1,036 3,034 4,054 3,957 2,893 2,803 2,285
Public: Municipal 0 2,427 8,919 5,277 13,021 5,605 7,493
Private 0 3,034 7,432 6,332 5,208 7,287 4,625
Premium(>$70) 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,115
Standard($40-$70) 1,036 1,348 2,973 2,533 2,604 2,208 4,008
Value(<$40) 0 0 0 21,106 26,041 12,145 4,488
Household Indices
Total 82 71 162 137 124 121 100
Public 60 75 161 135 131 111 100
Private 0 64 163 143 109 163 100
Premium(>$70) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Standard($40-$70) 26 32 74 65 62 56 100
Value(<$40) 0 0 1,035 504 576 288 100
Golfing Household Indices
Total 82 74 161 132 129 118 100
Public 60 78 161 130 137 108 100
Private 0 66 162 138 114 159 100
Premium(>$70) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
Standard($40-$70) 26 34 74 63 65 55 100
Value(<$40) 0 0 1,030 488 602 281 100
Rounds per 18 Holes
Rounds Potential(resident golfers) 25,559 23,741 51,487 41,701 40,262 37,871 31,530
Estimated Course Rounds 25,263 26,823 26,257 26,951 25,616 26,889 31,530
(in-market supply)
Page 263
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.-Lakeview GC Master Plan Stu
Item#15.
APPENDIX C -LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB PRIMARY COMPETITORS INFORMATION
Lakeview GC Golf Course Primary Competitors Daily Fee Rates
18H Peak Season 9H Peak Season 18H Senior 9H Senior Green 18H Junior 9H Junior Twilight Cart Fees Range Fees
Green Fees Green Fees Green Fees Fees Green Fees Green Fee Green Fee (18H/9H/Trail) (Sm,Md,Lg)
(Mon-Th/Fri-Su) (Mon-Th/Fri-Su) (Mon-Th/Fri-Su) (Mon-Th/Fri-Su) (Mon-Th/Fri-Su) (Mon-Th/Fri-Su) (Mon-Th/Fri-Su)
Facility
Lakeview GC $34/$39 $24/$29 $29/n/a $21/n/a $14/$16 $9/$ll 18H$29 daily $15/$10/$13 $4/$7/$9
9H$21 daily
Mon-Thurs$46/ Mon-Thurs$30/ $18/$12/$17 $6/-/$12
Banbury GC Fri-Sun$56 Fir-Sun$36 $4 off/$4 off $2 off/$2 off 50%off/n/a 50%off/n/a $35/$41 10-18-Hole 13 Lg$125
rides:$155
Boise Ranch GC Mon-Th$35/Fri Mon-Th$26/Fri $30/n/a n/a $25/n/a n/a $29 daily n/a not advertised
$39/$44 $27/$29
Centennial GC $27/$33 $22/$22 n/a n/a $17/$17 n/a $22 daily $16/$10/$15 $3.50/$7/$14
$20 spectator
Falcon Crest Mon-Tues$35
(Championship Course) Wed-Thurs$40 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $35 daily $17/-/- not advertised
Fri-Sun$50
Mon-Thurs$30 Mon-Thurs$20 Mon-Thurs$26 $21/$10/
Redhawk GC Fri-Sun$36 Fri-Sun$23 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fri-Sun$29 $20.15$132: $6/-/$12
10-round pass
Mon-Thurs$34 $17/$17 Mon-Thurs$31
Ridgecrest GC Fri-Sun-$41 (Exec.9) Fri-Sun-$41 n/a $24/24 n/a $26/$26 $16/$10/$15 $6/$8/$10
Mon-Thurs$30 Mon-Thurs$21 Mon-Thurs$28 Mon-Thurs$21 Mon-Thurs$15 Mon-Thurs$10.50 Mon-Thurs$23
River Birch GC Fri-Sun$37 Fri-Sun$25 Fri-Sun$35 Fri-Sun$25 Fri-Sun$18.50 Fri-Sun$12.50 Fri-Sun$29 $18/$12/n/a $6/-/$12
Page_e 264
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—10
Item#15.
Lakeview GC Golf Course Primary Competitors Annual Pass Rates
Property Single Couple Family 1/2 Price Junior Trail cart Senior Single Senior Couple Range
Lakeview $1,449 $2,249 $2,349 $499 $299 $549 n/a n/a n/a
GC
Banbury* Limited/Unlimited Limited/Unlimited Limited/Unlimited $699(1/2 green n/a $625 Limited/Unlimited Limited/Unlimited 13 Lg buckets
$2,499/$2,999 $3,299/$3,899 $3,399/$4,099 fees,no restrictions) $2,499/$2,999 $3,099/$3,699 $125
/
Boise Ranch WD only/7-days WD WD$10 GF/WE $350(trail)only/7-days WD only/7-days 1/2 off GF WD only $700(cart available but not n/a $350
$1,000/$1,600 $1,700/$2,550 $1,950/$2,800 $425 $250 ass advertised
Centennial $985/$1,4501 $555(spouse n/a $500(1/2 green $265 n/a n/a n/a $370
+)/$9501 fees)'
All All36H/Champions All36H/Champions Range
Championship
36H/Champions only only $475(1/2 green fee, Champions Only included in
Falcon Crest only $1,900 spouse+/ $1,100 child $10 Twi fee) only n/a $1,199 n/a 36H
$2,900/$1,399 $700+ +/$200+ $499 membership
Mon-Th/7-days Mon-Th/7-days Mon-Th/7-days $550(1/2 green Mon-Th/7-days Mon-Th/7-days Range Punch
Redhawk* $1,450/$1,850 $2,100/$2,500 n/a/$3,100 fees,no restrictions) n/a $550 $1,400/$1,750 $2,000/$2,400 Card$125
Ridgecrest $1,300/$1,4501 $800(spouse+)/ n/a $425(9 pass)/ $100(9 pass) $400 n/a n/a $400
$950 $500 /$300
$625(single) Range Card
WD only/7-days WD only/7-days $450(1/2 green /$925 WD only/7-days WD only/7-days
River Birch* $1,450/$1,825 $1,975/$2,475 n/a fees,no restrictions) n/a (couple)/ $1,350/$1,725 $1,875/$2,275 $125(26
$600(trail) tokens)
*Tax not included
1.Includes Centennial GC and Rid ecrest GC access
Page_e 265
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—10
Item#15.
APPENDIX D — COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY
Following is the Word version of the online community survey fielded for this study. Please note that this
version does not convey the programmed survey"logic"and that not all respondents were directed to
every question.
"The National Golf Foundation is conducting a review of Lakeview Golf Club("Lakeview GC")for the
City of Meridian. One of the key objectives the City has is to increase patronage of the golf course and
restaurant among residents of the subdivisions located around the golf course. We value your input and
ask you to please take a few minutes to answer this survey related to Lakeview GC,regardless of whether
you have ever patronized the golf course or the restaurant. For completing the survey,you will receive a
coupon for one free appetizer at the Lakeview GC restaurant(valid with purchase of a full price entree)
and be entered into a drawing for(1) foursome of golf(valid M-F, green fees only, cart not included).
Thank you for your participation".
Q 1 Thank you for participating! Let's begin. Which homeowners' association do you belong to?
o Ashford Greens
o Brenda Estates
o Cherry Lane
o Dakota Ridge
o Englewood Creek Estates
o Golf View Estates
o Lakes at Cherry Lane
o Snake River
o Wilkens Ranch
o Other(please specify)
o I don't live in any of these neighborhoods
Q I B What is your home ZIP code?
Q2 Do you, or does anyone in your household,play golf?
o Yes
o No
Q3 Have you,or has anyone in your household,played golf at Lakeview Golf Club in the past 24
months?
o Yes
o No
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—10 page 266
Item#15.
Q4 About how many times have you or your other household member played golf at Lakeview GC in the
past 24 months?
o 1-7 times
o 8-24 times
o 25-49 times
o 50-99 times
o 100 times or more
Q5 Where do you,or your golfing family member,play most often?
♦ BanBury Golf Course(Eagle) (Drop-down menu choices)
Q6 Are you,or is anyone in your household, an annual passholder at Lakeview Golf Club?
o Yes
o No
Q7 What would prompt you or your golfing family member to play at Lakeview GC more frequently?
(Check all that apply)
O Improved course conditions
O Improved customer service
O Improved amenities/services(e.g., on-course restrooms,restaurant, clubhouse restrooms)
O Specials targeted to residents of my subdivision
O More golf events/programs
O More non-golf events/programs
O Not sure
O Other(please explain)
Q8 Are you aware that Lakeview GC has a bar/restaurant that is open to the general public?
o Yes
o No
Q9 Please choose the phrase below that best describes how you or someone in your household has
patronized the Lakeview Golf Club restaurant?
o I/we have dined there
o I/we have gone there only for beverages or cocktails
o I/we have attended an event/theme night(e.g., Taco Tuesday,Prime Rib Night)
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—10 Page 267
Item#15.
o I/we have had food and beverages and also attended an event(s)there
o I/we have not patronized the restaurant
Q 10 About how many times have you or your household member patronized the restaurant at Lakeview
GC in the last 12 months?
o None(0 times)
o 1-2 times
o 3-5 times
o 6-10 times
o 11-20 times
o 21 times or more
Q 11 What would prompt you or a family member to patronize the restaurant at Lakeview GC more
frequently? (Choose all that apply)?
O Better overall menu
O Availability of healthier choices
O Improved customer service
O Improved ambience(e.g., decor,restrooms, etc.)
O Not sure
O Other
Q12 Why haven't you or a family member patronized the restaurant at Lakeview GC? (Choose all that
apply)
O Generally, eat at home and/or have food delivered
O Have other favorite restaurants nearby
O Haven't heard good things about it
O Prefer more upscale(fine)dining
O Need healthier choices
O Don't like the ambience/atmosphere
O Not interested
O Not sure
O Other(please explain)
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—10 Page 268
Item#15.
Q 14 How interested would you be in participating in specialized programming at Lakeview GC for
community residents (for example, discounted golf lessons for beginners, free clinics, `9 and Wine'
socials, closest to the pin contests, etc.)?
o Very interested
o Interested
o Moderately interested
o Slightly interested
o Not interested
Q 15 Please briefly share any concerns you have about Lakeview Golf Club that you believe the City
needs to address/prioritize as part of its stewardship of the facility.
Q16 Whether you're a golfer or not,we'd like to know your thoughts about any programs,events,
activities,etc. that you think will promote patronage of Lakeview GC among the broader Meridian
community(i.e.,non-golfers and people that reside beyond the immediate neighborhoods around the
course). Please check all that apply.
O Golf events/programs, such as discounted golf lessons for beginners, free clinics, `9 and Wine'
socials, closest to the pin contests
O Non-golf events and activities, such as movie nights, social gatherings, etc.
O Not sure
O Other(please explain)
Q 17 Final few questions. In what year were you born?
♦ 2010 ... (Drop-down menu choices)
Q18 Please indicate your gender.
o Male
o Female
o Other/prefer not to say
Q 19 Which category best represents your total annual household income before taxes?
♦ Less than$50,000 ... (Drop-down menu choices)
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—10 Page 269
Item#15.
Thank you.As a small token of our appreciation,we're going to... 1)provide you a coupon for one free
appetizer at the Lakeview GC restaurant(valid with purchase of a full price entree); and 2) enter you into
a drawing for(1)foursome of golf(valid M-F, green fees only, cart not included)
EMAIL Please provide your name and email so that we can contact you about the coupon, drawing and/or
any follow-up communication...
o First Name (3)
o Email Address (4)
Interested in staying up-to-date on news, events/programs, specials at Lakeview GC,then please click the
button below.
O Yes,I'm interested in more information from Lakeview GC (1)
Drawing winners will be notified in approximately 2-3 weeks.
CLICK HERE to be re-directed to the special restaurant offer from Lakeview GC. The offer will open in
a separate tab/window. You can save the image or print. And be sure to click the'Submit Survey'button
below!
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—10 Page 270
Item#15.
APPENDIX E — GOLF COURSE EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 - Original 9 Holes
------------
- -
I
L l E11EW
GOLF
COURSE
igzl -hales
"Cherry Lane Golf Flub„
c. 1992 image)
Narth
t
Alrm
FcOMSULTING
ti t.
r'
For preimiaary planning and F aliLilive purpm¢ only.
!ill dimensions are aapronimate.Based ba proaided aerial de .
y Prepared 2-3-211 Not 0&distribumnwithoLa64-appK".
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study— 10 Page 271
—."�'I - •I - .. ;�'. � 1 .. �.�� s� - - � � � 'Y i ��:_ '�" � I sir - ��'•j[ ���---.yam J�i✓ ` ��-�g t I
s "; - ➢'Y-iG`�'�.�' � s �•' � ! ' ., -i c .I � '� -_ :{.. '�"^ j _f �-��- ii r�~� r 1 ly ...yP a .;�. y
Oki 1 ! V,;=--
fir- -.7� .:�?f:'-•' -;r ' .R _4
- ' 3 .- - .� _• - - f � it 1.-t` - } `` 1
LAKEVIEW
� t� - ® '.. • ���8,�'J t r a� r it� � 1 � •� ,7. � az_.s� _
GOLF
COURSE
Existing Course Layout
& Condit '
Ar
Jr
44,
r i�. h 1 ° � � r� a�,r-s6..a �x _lF J+ll_�1..1L31--�_lK� ' - rt �� .r ff�, ■x�r�I /��r�;
ram,.
_ r 4". - � _ ����,,•t;� Kam' � � ss . . :
f ! 1 � I � '�} 1 �`r ..��.,T� � ' ..4g. �` ��"' • � a�- .�:� �.� �. < �..W - s-� 1 � I' �� 11� 1. �.
- _ � t .,rod ,, �►r'L�y�F�- _ s �•"� � 1 r "'
.jr
5 _
MrsFCONSULtING
rr
J 4.
ii c
Item#15.
Exhibit 3 - Practice Range and Lake Conceptual Study
ll
Reclaim
ApproachlFwy. -
Exist.No.i
` Pars L KE IEW
Exist.Practice GOLF
F
Putting Green -.
Target Greens
COURSE
y (on land bridge
New Tee
# between lakes)
Are a �
Y ,• y k "` Practice Range
Lake
JConc6ptual Study
Au
"-_ Lower Lake r
Seasonally FullIT
r' +Ir
r r
�# Upper Lake
♦ i i I: PJways Full
' r r
4
r �r�cv�strirr�r�
{ Pump Station
cation
Exist.No.1.0
•.. Exist.No.i s Par-4
Par-4
- jyp F�-rpr ruin-r;pkrinirim:nrd _-ribilil;purp�-a,� l:lirri=_nsi-n}
�': -� .•off �
' :+ � i' - -r..=.ppra:im-13.2-33a�n pr,�•ia�a-Sri-1a.=.1-;=Sri-1a-1�'-�]'S'.
�=r - j. ', w. Prp nd=-r== N' ,,l f r:iciribntivri,•iifivui:ii': pP
r :• I.
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.-Lakeview GC Master Plan Study-10 page 273
i F ' MWI&TTIMMAn t o
i_ I rr±rr
1 4 } L + • 11" '� _ •\� _ `S.' �{ I � �4 � �q:'F 4 �� - T
—52
COURSE
K •x -
LAKEVIEW
lk
J. GOLF
1p
22
. _ — •; r ! - �+ . .644 - 12 F tiM {(f�.�J, 1. � -
F a M 11
Recommended
,'•rt i ',�.tKiS.+Ifl
• •1 ti r k a{`. Y
Measares
92
Iq, _- i 'rr ! +�b� -r L y BY a i .•SCLI o1 11201,
,
122
-
I' v 5 r ti
LitiwrmFc a
jAl
#
usuLrimrw
Aw
4{ '� �!��;F �.rs—s-11 h...� � �i �,' r�..• �f' _ � 4 � �2 ��f' i y_ � pa�wr
wr
{ pYcah�o�ol!
T141,
�. _ ..
c Y _ i1 FI
(1j{
v ...
J.
16
9�Hole Practice
.�C, f M •' k;Qi L w-..3dSiL .1_tl4 �..3 ,r•4�. 7, - , J
KEVIEW
r �Ilr
0.
COURSE
-_
The Zenger
Par-.3 Hole
•A 4
�: J , Conc6pt Associated
Changes
Riob.
�i
dlp
-- ♦ ��`� .^'..fir :-s. ;� '�
, 1 � Op' - � 4i. ;:.� ,ate.. '!r
M.
r j f'- �I kfiQC.
'•h, :��j:..3� Ff -.$�..'� d i1Cr1 T�CTr
4--
*:'
Item#15.
Exhibit 6 - Zenger 9H Practice Course Concept
- r
C�IWIE T�
�F T
L KE IEW
Fielacated � s
E _ fUa.3 Green
- _ GOLF
COURSE
ti ti
• E i IZh do CHR IS-r IAN ZENGi11 The
rJ��}+�) �}+�.�
�"ioa:.afrn—rku�d�an,idada 4' { 44 Th �r G lL G f
tj
-Hole Practice Course
Fecirculating
Pond&Stream
.., Exist.Par-5y� y rJ�rtl
heW NO.4 y �;
New Cart ,t
Path
THE ZENGER PRACTICE COURSE —�
HOLE FAR BACK FWD \ ` I of
1 3 100 75 f NGFCONSULTima
2 2 3530YYTJWIII Gass FPuvl•}•vr
3 3 80 65
3 90 60
5
5 3 70
6 3 60 45 45 ,
7 2 40 25
8 3 75 55
9 3 95 80
25 645 515 . .
�
' 2 , Ali. ii 2r i.-i= _ _n'' rc =i i= = 1
Pr3p rA 1---2'- dvI rAU rib urivIhvuI vir.-pprv.--I Fvrpr=liriiri-r;pl ririrff-ri f ibilii'; ll:iirc= ir
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—11 Page 276
Item#15.
APPENDIX F - ASGCA LIFE CYCLE CHART
GOLF COURSE ITEMS
NOW LONG SHOULD PARTS OF THE GOLF COURSE LAST?
No two golf courses are alike except for one thing!deferring replacement of key items can lead to greater
expense in the future,as well as a drop in conditioning and player enjoyment-The foliowing information
represents a realistic timeline for each item':longevity,
Component life spans can vary depending upon location of the golf course,quality of materials, original
installation and past maintenance practices- The American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA)
encourages golf course leaders to work with an ASGCA member,superintendents and otliers to assess their
course's components.
I E.
Greens(1 l 15-30 years
Bunker Sand 5-7 years
Irrigation System 10-30 years
Irrigation Control System 10-15 years
Pump station 75-26P years
Cart Paths-asphalt 12} 5-10 years for longer)
Cart Paths-concrete 15-30 years(or longer)
Practice Range Tees 5-10 years
Tees 15-20 years
Corrugated Metal Pipes 15-30 years
Bunker Drainage Pipes(3) 5-10 years
Mulch 1-3 years
Grass(4) Varies
NOTES t11 Sam$(factm can weigh irtta the decision to replacegreens:accllmuiaport of+ayerenn the sdrfaco otlhe origina+conslruclion
the desire to convert to newgrasses and response to Omngas in the game team art architeciura!s[andpom[{hks the onNractrort between green
speed arrd hole Iocs6msl. 0 Assumes an-poiag ffwmwnarrce beginnirrp t-2 yeafs after installation. IN rrpicaNr replaced because the
sand is-00rg chamgad—Whole ohs machinery is[hereto Change sand,its ohart a good time to replace the drainage pipgs as well. l4I As naw
grasses enter the msrkM+aca—far example,those that are mare drought and disease toterant—feplardrtg maybe appropriare.depenOng
Upon the site.
ASGCA thanks those at the USDA Green Section, Golf Course Builders Association ofArnerica,
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America and various suppliers for their assistance
in compiling this information.
The materials presented on this chart have been reviewed by the following Allied Associations of Golf:
GCSAIPA009
M
For more information, contact ASGCA at 1262� : rr or visit www.AS13CA.org
DATA COMPILED BV ASGCA,125 NORTH EXECUTIVE DRIVE,SUITE=BROOKFIELD,Wf 53DQ5
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—11 page 277
Item#15.
APPENDIX G— CLUBHOUSE — SHORT-TERM REPAIR/REPLACE COST ESTIMATES
Bent Nail Inspections Executive Summary
Property Condition Report
Lakeview Golf Course Main Facility
Bent Nail lnspeckionsProjerk# 1201
Tuesday,February 23,2021
1.0 ExecutiveSummary Pagel
General Property IdentifiFation Surnrnery
Item Description
Property Name Lakeview Golf Course
Property Address 420D VV Talamore Blvd.Meridian Idaho 93646
Type of Fa cility Club House,light office,restaurant,cart storage underground
Site Area
Number of Buildings 1
Number of Stories 1with cart barn under in the basement/garage
Building Area ApproxSF 5,500 Sgfft est.+garage area
Year Constructed 2() 0 Est.
General Construction
Date of Site Visit Monday,February 22,2021
Summary of Recommended Expenditures
1.1 Immediate Repairs Summary
Total Cost
Time Period for Repair DTo 1 Year
Total Immediate Repair Cost ! $ 6,250.00
2.0 Future Repair Summary
Total Cost
Time Period for Repair 3to 10 Years
Total Future Repair Cost $ 40,500.00
F'ayl _e 278
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—11
Item#15.
Immediate Repairs Summary
Bent Nail Inspections Bent Na it I nspect ions Prowt it Lzo1 Tuesday,Febr ua ry Z3,ZO Z1
LL IrnrnediateRepa ifs Cost Table Page
Prowt! LakeviewGoIfCourseMainFacility Building lslkrea 5,50DSquareFoot
Location! 4ZODW Ta[arnofeBldd_MefidiaN Ida ho8354B No.of Blebs! 1
Typeof Clubhouse,light office,restaurant,.cartstorage underground Property Age 20M Year
Facility
No.Stories Iwrthcartbarnunderinthebasement{garage
1-1 ElectrieaIissues 1 $ 500.00 $ 50DDD GFCl out lets,open junct ion boxes
1-z Roof 1 $ Z50.Oo $ Z50.Oo Coup le ofirnrnediateroofrepaifs.
Dra i nage-Grou nd o n t he west side of t he bu ildi ng slopes towa rd
1-3 the foundatianandpef odic waterentfyis noted into theSW 1 $ 2.OoD.Oo $ 2.OoD.Oo
IcornerstarageroomandbasementLitiLko--
1-4 SheetrockRepaus 1 $ 2.o00.00 $ 2.o00.00 Miscthroughoutthe building andgarage
1-5 Misc.lterns 500.00 $ 1.500.0o Inspeetionreportmisz. items
TotallrnrnediatsRepaifs $ E}Z50.00
Cost per SF $ 1-14
Costs a bode a reestirnatesonlp.Costs canchangedue to whiehvendor is hued,tirneof rnatersloosts.Bent Nail Inspections is not responsibleof cost of repa ifs of the
Footnotes drfferenee between estirnatesandactualcost.
Page_e 278
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—11
Item#15.
Future Repairs Summary
Bent Nail Inspections earn Nail Inspections Pfo)ect it Lzo1 Tuesday,Febfuafy Z3,ZOZL
2-1 FutufeRepaifsCcstTable Page
Pfowt! La key*wGoIfCoufseMainFacdlty Building Isl Afea 5,50D Squa fe Foot
Location! 4ZODW Ta[aRlofeBKJd_MefidiaN Ida ha83545 No.of Bits! 1
Typeof Clubhouse, Iight office,festaufant,.caftstofageundefgfound PfopeftyAge ZOCo Yea r
Fac dity
No.Stof*s I with caftbafnundefinthebasamant{ fa e
z-1 Roof ITotal $ Z3,0010D $ 23,0010D RC&faplacefnarnlnzto4yaafs,foofsmis7,ICosq{ft due toeye
cNef ha ngs
z-z AC Units 3 Each $ 5,CCO.CO $ 15,CC17.00 ACunit need faplacingin the next Zto4yaafs
Managef Indleatest hat theAC does not cuffentfy woof pfopeffy
z-3 CaftEntry3ufnpPufnp IEach $ Z.5CO.OD $ 2.50O.00 Emploryaalndratedanundefsaedpumpandllfreswafalnstalled
andtha um lu sconstarn .Thlsma notneadtabacom feted
z-4
z-5
TZIIffimedlat_aRepaifs $ 46,500.OD
GostPafSF $ 7.3e
Costs a bove a fe estlRlates only.Ccst5 ca n cha nge due to w hie h wandof is hlfed,tIRla of Rlatsf la I costs. earn Na i I I nspect ions is not fespo nslble fof cost of fepa ifs of the dlffafence
Footnotes between estlfnatesandactuaIcost.
Page_e 280
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—11
Item#15.
Replacement Reserve Summary
BenL Nal In peclia ns Fr.L q.ill n"6n Ficlrsi fl L2aL
3L I.r Ph-nr.L K-1—C 1T.EI1 F.ar4
�Figrs4 Il.ku:w Self Cc..r kW.F.siliky Widi.36)A.— S,Saa Si...r Fx
Eos.tic. z2aa 44T.1.ncir Flvl kkidi..Id.Y.23646 No-cf Ndy L
Tyo-r cf Cl.EYc.sr,lia YL snt 5L .ar..d.......d Fi.p .ky Aar Ma W..
F.AiW
No-9niirs YL"k&s.r.6.i...drii.LYr 6or nr.ya+uar
2.L F—f„PA—.l i.Lk.-114Tr.i�AC I
LIT-- 2303a as 23 as as JAa as $23.03a as
2.2 U.ik!r d+u nr.L:LYr.rxL2 too y..�s I 3 E.s Y 00a as LS as a0 6,030 as $6.00a as
2.3 In mdir,r irp.i.o L Ta l 25a as 6 5a a0 25a as $ r'za as
2.4 C.,L r.L.ys.n o-P.no- LTal $ ;50a as $ 2$aa a0 $2.930 as $'2""0U-.
S.bt l $ 4675a a0 $ fy25a as $ L7.930 as $ .3.00a as $ I$ $ $ $ $ $ $45,75a as
6s.I.Lrd f.sLc�o-* yr. -—. 3 aak $ 15 as $ 438a as fI $ L 915 as
Ta l"k Y E-J.tic.C k $ 6i25a as $ LM25 as $ A.Ma a0 $ �I �.!$ $ $ $ $ $48.65 as
F—q..w fcca $ asa $ 850 $ L L4 $ 3 L8 $ 4 L8 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 85a
G.k 21 —.
Ccou.L—.r ratin.,—.Iy."ksa.sY..ard.r wwL'cL.,.d—ia L'nd.tin, n. d.koou Er.i N.il—prW—ia.IX„gyp LA,fc.sc ka-Pi---kh,diff,..cr L.L„s,.r 6n.ira
Fsca.drs ad.s.J scot
W.i Lk—kis ino-4nr.Lrd is.o-bs.swnri Sony it no Y.-ri..ar sf if,rxo-r Wk ACi.o.no-o-.na..dixf sc.d Er,0—..—krir ficn.cw Lc 5—is
Page_e 281
National Golf Foundation Consulting,Inc.—Lakeview GC Master Plan Study—11