Loading...
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