The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-09-13 Work Session CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:30 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Luke Cavener ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 1. Winco Wells No. 1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 2 2. Final Plat for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0018) by Kent Brown Planning Services, located at the southeast corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd. 3. Final Order for Acclima Subdivision (FP-2022-0020) by The Land Group, located generally North of W. Ustick Rd., South of McMillan Rd. and directly West of and adjacent to McDermott Rd. 4. Final Order of Approval for Brundage Estates Subdivision (TECC-2022-0001) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, generally located 1/4 mile south of W. Victory Rd. on the east side of S. Linder Rd. in the west half of Section 25, T.3N.,R.1W. 5. Final Order of Approval for Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (TECC-2022-0002) by Brighton Development, Inc., generally located on the south side of E. Amity Rd., 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd. 6. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lavender Place Subdivision (H-2022- 0036) by Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd. 7. Development Agreement (Centrepointe Mixed-Use H-2022-0035) Between the City of Meridian and MGM Meridian, LLC and MGM Meridian 2, LLC for Property Located at 3100 N. Centrepoint Way and 3030 N. Cajun Lane 8. Renewal of Agreement for Fire Department Communication Dispatch Services Between Ada County And the City of Meridian for Fiscal Year 2023. 9. Agreement Between the City of Meridian and 1701 W. Cherry Ln., Meridian, ID Allowing a Recycling Enclosure in an Existing Utility Easement 10. Appointment of Justin Northway as a Trustee of the City of Meridian Employee Health Benefits Trust effective December 1, 2022 ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 11. Second Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021- 0070) Denied Motion to deny made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 12. Mayor's Office: 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Findings Report ADJOURNMENT 5:02 p.m. Meridian City Council Work Session September 13, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 4:34 p.m., Tuesday, September 13, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Luke Cavener. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Charlene Way, Jeff Brown, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt _X_ Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, I will call the meeting to order. For the record it is September 13th, 2022, at 4:34 p.m. We will begin this evening's work session with roll call attendance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item is the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as published. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to -- second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Winco Wells No. 1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 2 2. Final Plat for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0018) by Kent Brown Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 2 of 11 Planning Services, located at the southeast corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd. 3. Final Order for Acclima Subdivision (FP-2022-0020) by The Land Group, located generally North of W. Ustick Rd., South of McMillan Rd. and directly West of and adjacent to McDermott Rd. 4. Final Order of Approval for Brundage Estates Subdivision (TECC- 2022-0001) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, generally located 1/4 mile south of W. Victory Rd. on the east side of S. Linder Rd. in the west half of Section 25, T.3N.,R.1W. 5. Final Order of Approval for Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (TECC-2022-0002) by Brighton Development, Inc., generally located on the south side of E. Amity Rd., 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd. 6. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lavender Place Subdivision (H-2022-0036) by Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd. 7. Development Agreement (Centrepointe Mixed-Use H-2022-0035) Between the City of Meridian and MGM Meridian, LLC and MGM Meridian 2, LLC for Property Located at 3100 N. Centrepoint Way and 3030 N. Cajun Lane 8. Renewal of Agreement for Fire Department Communication Dispatch Services Between Ada County And the City of Meridian for Fiscal Year 2023. 9. Agreement Between the City of Meridian and 1701 W. Cherry Ln., Meridian, ID Allowing a Recycling Enclosure in an Existing Utility Easement 10. Appointment of Justin Northway as a Trustee of the City of Meridian Employee Health Benefits Trust effective December 1, 2022 Simison: Next time up is the Consent Agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just going through the Consent Agenda just checking on things. Mr. Mayor, I move approval of the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest. Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 3 of 11 Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in 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] 11. Second Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) Simison: So, we will move on to Item 11 under Department/Commission Reports. That is the second request for consideration of denial of Burnside Ridge Estates, H-2021-0070. Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just for the record's purposes -- so this request for reconsideration was based on the amended denial. If you recall for the record that we had a request for reconsideration of your original denial. It was recommended -- remanded back simply for some corrections to be made to the -- to the document, not for reconsideration of the decision itself. That was -- that was prepared for you. That has been approved. This is a request for you to reconsider it once again. It didn't raise any new issues, but that's up to you on whether or not you want to grant the request to reconsider or deny the request to reconsider or amend it again. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, any questions for Mr. Nary? Okay. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After reviewing the second request for reconsideration from the applicant for Burnside Ridge, I have reviewed the decision, the findings and the minutes of the denial and did not find any error that would cause me to reconsider or remand this decision. Therefore, I move to deny the request for reconsideration. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to deny the second request for reconsideration. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 4 of 11 Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the second request is agreed to not reconsider. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 12. Mayor's Office: 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Findings Report Simison: Next item is Item 12, which is Mayor's Office 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Findings Report. Open this item with comments from Mr. Miles. Miles: Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Here this afternoon for the 2022 Citizen Survey results. I'm not going to bury the lead. We have our consultant with us Jason Morado, who is going to walk through the survey and his presentation and, then, I will come back up and we can have -- address any questions that you might have and go from there. So, with that I will invite Jason up. Simison: Jason, welcome. Nice to see you again in person. Morado: Yes. Great. Thanks, Mayor, Council Members. It's great to be back here. I missed coming here in 2020 because we were in the early stages of COVID, so it's great to be back in Meridian. Today I'm going to walk through the key findings from the 2022 resident survey. The four port is very detailed and comprehensive. So, today I'm going to walk through really our key findings from the survey. The arrow -- it doesn't seem like it -- there we go. Okay. Sorry. Just a quick background about ETC Institute. We are based in the Kansas City area, but we are a national leader in providing market research for local governments. We have been doing this type of work for 40 years now and in the last ten years alone we have conducted surveys in more than a thousand communities all across the country. So, this is really the type of work that we specialize in. Today I will go through the purpose and methodology of the survey, what I call the bottom line up front. Our main conclusions from the survey and, then, I will go through the major survey findings to show how they came to those conclusions and I will be happy to answer any questions as well. So, there are several reasons to conduct a survey like this. One is to get an objective assessment of how satisfied residents are with major city services and also to determine what residents feel the top priorities for the community. We are also able to measure trends from the previous surveys. This is the fourth resident survey and each time we tweak the questions a little bit, but most of the questions remain the same, so that we can measure trends over time and we are also able to compare your results with other communities across the country. So, the survey was administered by a combination of mail and online to randomly selected residents throughout the city. We ended up with 504 completed surveys. Our goal was 500, so we accomplished that. The 504 surveys at the 95 percent level of confidence has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percent. So, essentially, that means that if we conducted this survey the same way a hundred times, 95 times the results would be plus or minus 4.3 percent from what we are reporting. So, the results aren't perfect, but the margin of error is small. Here we have a Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 5 of 11 map of the city. The red dots are households that completed the survey, so we had a good distribution throughout the city. This is similar to what we have had on previous surveys and we also had a good representation from key demographic groups, such as age, gender, and income. So, here are our main conclusions from the survey. We found out residents have a very positive perception of the city. Nearly nine out of ten residents rated Meridian as an excellent or a good place to live and nearly nine out of ten also rate the city as an excellent or a good place to raise a family. Overall the satisfaction ratings are a little bit lower this year than they were in 2020, but that's a trend we have seen all over the country the past couple of years and we think largely COVID related. So, it's not really a surprise, but the satisfaction ratings still remain very high. In fact, you rate above the national average in 40 out of the 41 areas that we compared. The only area that rated lower was public transportation. There is a couple areas I especially wanted to point out. One is the overall quality of city services where you rated 25 percentage points above the U.S. average. That's one of the most important questions on the survey, because they are asking residents to take into account all the services that you are providing and really give an overall satisfaction rating for how well you are doing. If the ratings are high in that area it means they are high in a lot of the other more specific areas that we included on the survey as well and, then, the area where you rated the farthest above the U.S. average is customer service from city employees where you rated 42 percentage points above the U.S. average and the top overall priorities are roads, traffic, and transportation, growth and development and education and schools and those were the top three priorities on the last survey as well. So, we found that residents -- I mentioned have a very positive perception of the city. This was the very first question on the survey. We asked residents to rate their perception in a number of different ways. There is a number of questions on the survey asked on an 11 point scale from zero to 10. So, the dark blue are ratings of nine and ten. Those are the most positive ratings. The light blue is seven to eight. The gray is four to six. So, not a bad rating even more for average and, then, the pink are ratings of zero to three. So, the blue are the positive, the pink or the red -- the pink are the negative. Obviously, the positive range far outweigh the negative overall. If you look at the top of this chart most residents gave very positive ratings to Meridian as a place to live and as a place to raise a family. We also asked residents about the quality of life in the city. Most residents feel like customer service from city employees and the overall quality of city services exceeds expectations. In fact, for customer service from city employees 43 percent feel it greatly exceeds their expectations. Again, the dark blue is a nine or a ten, means it greatly exceeds their expectations. We asked residents how they rate the value they received for city tax dollars and fees. Most residents gave positive responses. Sixty-eight percent gave a rating of seven or above, feeling that they -- they do receive good value for city taxes and fees and here we ask residents to rate major categories of city services. On this question we are asking residents to rate these areas at the big picture departmental level and, then, later on in the survey we asked about some more specific areas within some of these categories. So, once again, the positive range far outweigh the negative. The lowest rated area was planning and zoning, but even for that you have 43 percent that gave positive ratings, 25 percent negative. For most of these areas five percent or less of residents gave negative ratings. So, very very positive ratings really across the board. So, we also found that satisfaction with the overall quality of city services is high in all parts of the city. Here again we have a map of the city Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 6 of 11 and we broke the results out by census block group. So, these are very small areas. We create a map like this for every question asked on that 11 point scale. So, there is well over a hundred maps in the report. This one is for the overall quality of city services. The entire map is blue and, in fact, a couple of areas are dark blue, which is the highest possible rating. So, this means that residents in all parts of the city are satisfied with the overall quality of city services. Sometimes what happens is even if the ratings are very positive overall, once you start breaking into these smaller areas you will see some areas where residents are not as satisfied or don't feel like they are getting as good of services as people in other parts of the city. But here since the entire map is blue means you are doing a great job providing services equally throughout the city. This map is for customer service from city employees. Most of the map here is dark blue, which is the highest possible rating. There is that one area in yellowish, which isn't a bad rating, but just a little bit lower than the blue, but for the most part the ratings are very very positive all across the city when it comes to customer service from city employees and this map is for how residents feel about Meridian as a place to live and not only is the entire map blue, but most of it is dark blue, which, again, is the highest possible rating. So, mentioned earlier that satisfaction with city services is much higher in Meridian than other communities. You rate above the U.S. average in 40 out of the 41 areas that we compared and what also stands out is you rate significantly higher in 37 out of those areas and by significantly means five percent or more above. The area that rated the farthest above the U.S. average was customer service from city employees. Eighty-three percent of respondents gave a positive rating. The national and regional average are only 41 percent and, then, another area that really stood out is 76 percent of residents gave positive ratings for the overall quality of city services and you can see the national average is barely over 50 percent. Here are comparisons for major categories of city services. In all seven areas your ratings were more than ten percentage points above the U.S. average. This includes trash, sewer, water, recycling, code enforcement, communications and traffic enforcement. Here are comparisons. For Parks and Recreation your ratings were above the U.S. average in all seven areas. For pathways for walking and biking trails the ratings were just a little bit above the U.S. average, really more on par, but the areas were -- that really stand out where you rate far above other communities are athletic fields and youth and adult sports programs. Here are the comparisons for public safety. You rated above the U.S. average in all ten areas. This includes the overall quality of the fire department, overall quality of emergency medical services. The overall feeling of safety in the city 92 percent of respondents said they feel safe in the city. You can see the national and regional average are only in the mid to upper 60 percent range and, then, also the overall quality of police services. Then for all three areas of communications, your ratings are more than 20 percentage points above the U.S. average and this chart shows comparisons for perceptions of the city. As I mentioned earlier, almost nine out of ten residents feel Meridian is an excellent or a good place to live. The national average right now is only at 50 percent and nearly nine out of ten also gave positive ratings to Meridian as a place to raise a family and you can see the national average just barely over 60 percent. So, we also compare these results to previous surveys. Overall the ratings are down a little bit compared to 2020, but, again, that's the trend we have seen all over the country the past couple of years. These are the areas with the biggest increases in satisfaction since 2020. A lot of it's related to Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 7 of 11 Parks and Recreation programming, both adult and youth sports programs. Other areas that had the biggest increases were employment opportunities. Meridian as a place to start a business and conduct business and developing a strong local economy. Here are the areas with the biggest decreases since the last survey. Several of these are related to growth, which is common for a fast growing city. How well the city is managing growth, quality of housing and variety of options and, then, development in Meridian. So, now we will take a look at the top overall priorities. Here we asked residents which three priorities should receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next three years. So, the top three priorities were roads, traffic, and transportation. Really that one stands alone as number one. Nearly seven out of ten residents picked that as one of the three highest priorities. The second and third highest priorities were growth and development and education and schools. Those were the top three priorities in your last survey as well. Affordable housing is fourth. It was also fourth in the last survey, but this year the percentage is a little bit higher than it was in the last survey. So, it's still the fourth highest priority, but emerging as a little more of a high priority than it was a couple of years ago. Here we have the important satisfaction rating. This analysis is based on two sets of data. First we asked residents how satisfied they are with services and, then, we asked as a follow up which to receive the most emphasis from city leaders over the next couple of years. So, the idea behind this is that those areas that have a combination of lower satisfaction ratings, but at the same time were the most important should be the highest priorities. It doesn't mean you should ignore the lower level priorities, but making improvements in the higher priorities will impact the greatest number of residents. So, the top priority is planning and zoning. Second is traffic enforcement. Third are police services. The satisfaction ratings for police services are very high, but it's still an area that residents rated as important, which is pretty common in most communities, meaning they want to maintain that level of service. And, then, here we asked residents which transportation improvements they feel should receive the most emphasis over the next two years. The top priority is widening roadways, followed by improving intersections and, then, shared bike and pedestrian facilities. So, that's everything that I had. Just a quick recap. We saw that residents once again have a very positive perception of the city. Overall satisfaction ratings remain very high. They are down just a little bit. But once again they are significantly higher than cities in most areas, especially when it comes to the overall quality of city services and, then, customer service from city employees and the top overall priorities, roads, traffic, and transportation, growth and development, and education and schools. So, with that does anyone have any questions or comments? Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks for the presentation. One concern that I have -- I saw the planning and zoning services satisfaction score and do you have a way of delving in a little more about if people's concern about growth and development is kind of mixed in with that score or if there is a specific concern with those services? Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 8 of 11 Morado: Yeah. I think those are related, but we can also do some more analysis and -- analysis and see if there is a correlation between the two. We also dug deeper and provided some cross-tabs which break the results out by council district, by other demographic questions, such as age, number of years lived in the city, geographic area, such as the census block group. So, that's something we can look a little more into. I feel like they are correlated, but definitely something we can take a closer look at. Strader: Thanks. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I have four or five questions. Can I just shoot them off one after the other? Simison: Yep. Go ahead. Perreault: Thank you. So, a couple of questions about the -- the demographics. Did you -- I know most of these surveys get information on how long the residents have lived in the City of Meridian and, then, of course, the assumption is that they have lived in other cities, so that they can make a comparison of our services versus others. Do you have that information with you, the length of time on average that the residents were here? Morado: That's in the full report. Yes, it is one of the demographic questions, how long they have lived in the city. Perreault: Okay. Because I -- I think Council Woman Strader -- that we are on the same page, which is that a lot of folks don't realize that transportation is not in our control and, then, they kind of roll that in with planning as an element and so that's not something -- you know, that's the challenge with, you know, when -- when questions are posed about what priorities should the city make and transportation being one of them, we don't have any control over most of that. So, I guess, you know, the public -- even folks that have lived here a long time aren't aware that that's the case. So, I don't know how to filter these results through not knowing whether folks really realize -- you know, I have talked with David about this, so maybe you can come and clarify that for me? Thank you. Miles: Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, it's a great question and I think you are hitting -- Perreault: Council Woman Perreault. Miles: Sorry. Council Woman Perreault. My apologies. You are hitting right at some of the heart of these questions. Jason mentioned we have got cross-tab data on how many years have people lived here, age demographics, where they live within the city, so that we can dive deeper into that question to say are they aware. We don't know if they are aware or not right now based on the information we have, but we have -- have to go back, Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 9 of 11 look through the data to say is it rational to -- to think that maybe some of these people just don't know and, then, what are our actions from that going forward. Perreault: Thank you. I just reviewed the summary of that. So, I didn't know -- Simison: If I could just add to that, though. We do -- it is pointed out in the questions that the city doesn't do transportation, you know, so I'm not going to say that they always correlate that information, but when we ask questions we say the city does not do this topic. The city--when we talk about our partners, how will they remember that when they are doing other things I can't say though. Perreault: That's what I thought, because we -- we have had this discussion. So, that's what I -- I just wanted to get clarification and I see a correlation between the number of years that folks have lived here and the realization that that's the case or not the case, because they are used to coming from places where the cities do all of the services. Miles: Yes, Council Woman Perreault. Yes. The -- the questions do say it -- again, you know, what's the brain thinking when you are taking a survey and are you reading that factor or are you more considering the question at hand rather than the clarifier. So, again, I think we have got the cross-tab data that we can dive into and take a look at that. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Curious about the goal of the 500 respondents. Is that -- do you base that on the size of city that we are and that's kind of the amount of respondents that you use for any similar sized city or-- it seems like all the surveys I have seen since I have been involved with the city, that number has stayed the same, even though we have grown. So, I'm wondering how that number comes to be. It seems small to me. Morado: Five hundred surveys is a pretty typical sample size for a city of this size. We could conduct more surveys. They cost more money and it doesn't affect the margin of error a whole lot. So, for example, for 500 surveys the margin of error is 4.3 percent. Let's say you did a thousand surveys to change that margin of error of 3.1 percent. So, just about a one percent more accurate, but it would cost significantly more. So, that's why we stuck with the 500 surveys. It is a pretty typical sample size for a city this size. Perreault: What do you mean by margin of error? What's the error being made? Are you -- I'm not understanding. Morado: So, for anytime you conduct statistical sampling, the results are not a hundred percent accurate. You know, the only way to know a hundred percent what the results would be would be to ask every single person in the city, which is impossible. So, when you do these surveys there is a 95 percent margin of error or 95 percent level of confidence and a margin of error of a certain percent. So, in this case the margin of error is 4.3 percent. It means that if we conducted this survey a hundred times, 95 times the results would be plus or minus 4.3 percent what we report here today. Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 10 of 11 Perreault: Okay. Thank you. That makes sense now. I understand. Simison: And 500 -- 500 can be used for a nationwide survey. It's a base mark bench level for any survey for confidence rating, irregardless of sample size, because, then, it just becomes more -- you know maybe -- Perreault: More of the same? Simison: -- nationwide if you do a thousand that is considered -- you know, you really top it out for a nationwide survey with a thousand people. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. That helps me understand the framework. And one more quick question. The comparison that you did with Meridian in comparison to the northwest and in comparison to the U.S., are those comparisons with, you know, similar sized cities as ours or how -- how were those comparisons -- I mean the percentage is, obviously -- it's based on the percentage of -- and how the respondents answered the question, but how are we comparing -- when we compare the northwest are we talking -- are we comparing with Portland and Seattle? Because they are going to have, you know, different cultural ideas about what cities are supposed to be doing and not -- Morado: Yeah. Those are all different sized cities. I mean there is a lot of ways we can do benchmarking comparisons. We could do it based on similar sized cities instead. We just chose to do it nationally than regionally in all different sized cities. But if you wanted to compare it to more similar sized cities that's something we could definitely do. Simison: I -- I think one of the challenges with anything is not every city does all the same services. So, no matter what you are in, you are always going to -- even now Nampa doesn't have a fire department anymore. They have a rural fire protection district, but they don't do it. So, it's really hard in cities to find real comparisons, other than perception. Mr. Bernt? Mr. Borton? Any questions? Any follow-ups at this time? Okay. Well, thank you. If I could just take a -- take a second -- and we have appreciated the long-standing relationship and the work that you have done for us over the years and I also just want to take a second to thank the city employees. I mean these -- these numbers are pretty phenomenal when it comes to customer service and quality of services that our employees provide day in and day out for our residents and I think that that showcases well. You know, it's -- I think it's -- it's always tough. I mean you -- you -- we want to think that maybe they don't really understand community development and development services. You know, that's my hope, too. My -- my hope is that the perception of growth and development is not a reflection of the department, you know, but it is a survey and we do our best to try to take it all for what it is without cherry picking what we like and what we don't like and what we need to address one way or the other when it comes down to it, so we got to educate the community more about what community development does, so they can do it better or we do have to do more in that area. So, just appreciate it and we will look forward to future conversations with -- Councilman Borton. Meridian City Council Work Session September 13,2022 Page 11 of 11 Borton: Mr. Mayor, I do have one question. It's follow up to Council Woman Strader's and maybe in the next couple weeks if you are able to provide that comparison from those concerned with growth and those respondents concerned with planning and zoning services and -- and see where they overlap and also maybe note on your map, which -- if you have the data that shows the location of each respondent I'm curious where folks might be concerned on one of those topics, but not the other and where they reside. If there is some region in our community that's more concerned than others with the manner in which we provide the service versus growth related concerns that would be great. Morado: Yeah. Absolutely. We can definitely do that. I believe we have maps for those questions already, but we also can -- can compare those two results. Absolutely. Simison: And just so Council is aware, we talked about this a little bit at the director meeting today. Dave's going to be leaving the team, but we are pulling people from Finance, from Public Works who really know data, so that we can do some of the self selection ourselves that help identify just these exact issues that you are referring to a little bit more deeper. We only got that information in pdf form, so we will have to try to get a little bit, you know, sortable data that we could do some of the -- this ourselves. So, we will be working with them on that. These are -- the -- the numbers do suggest we -- we really need to have a good understanding to have a good conversation and potentially if there is anything the Council wants to do on any of these issues moving forward to be able to make informed direction at that time. Thank you. Morado: Thanks, everyone. Simison: Mr. Hoaglun. Borton: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn our work session. Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. 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 5:02 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 9 / 27 / 2022 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Winco Wells No. 1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 2 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-079001 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 09/14/2022 08:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ESMT-2022-0228 Winco Wells No. I Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement No. 2 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS Easement Agreement, made this_ day of 20 between Winco Foods, LLC. - ("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 maintenance, repair and replacement 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 UNDERSTOOD 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 Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.0 1/0 1/2020 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: STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on Sr/2.1Zn— (date) by (name of individual), [complete the following if signing in a representative capac4ty, or strike the following if signing in an individual capacity] on behalf of W 'tyJ L o �=c,)Js*L« (name of entity on behalf of whom record was execute(U,an1thor49jlowing representative capacity:_e7-0 (type of au � cer or trustee) .•A. 0.••• • ,.w ? pTARy t(sPUBO-appy G <\ rl J •. .� .•'• •�, otaty Signature `'••,q OF'�.•'� My Commission Expires: O 0)-3 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-13-2022 Attest by Chris Johnson,City Clerk 9-13-2022 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 9-13-2022 (date) by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, to their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 `` LEGAL DESCRIPTION :� THE Page 1 OF 1 LAND GROUP July 19, 2022 Project No.: 120124 SEWER/WATER EASEMENT WINCO WELLS SUBDIVISION No.1 WINCO FOODS,LLC An easement located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 17,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the South One Quarter Corner of said Section 17, (from which point the Southeast Corner of said Section 17 bears North 89°46'00"East, 2656.84 feet distant);thence on the south line of said Section 17,North 89°46'00" East,690.84 feet;thence leaving said south line,North 00°24'05" East, 1057.45 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence North 84°01'00"West, 15.98 feet; Thence North 05°59'00" East,20.00 feet; Thence South 84°01'00" East, 14.02 feet; Thence South 00°24'05"West, 20.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described easement contains 300 Ft'(0.007 Acres) more or less. Prepared by: The Land Group, Inc. Michael S. Femenia, PLS �pL LA N `rG� 0 a 5 OF� Ei s. 07/19/2022 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100. Eagle, Idaho 83616 208.939 4041 thelandgroupinc corn Sewer / Water Easement for Winco Foods, LLC Being a Portion of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17 Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho �Q— 2022 S84°01100"E 14.02, N05°59100"E 20.00, LA S00024'05"W 20.10, �5tip�NG N N '49" N84°01'00"W 15.98'-1 I POB-1 w I 0 SEWER/WATER I a 1 EASEMENT 0.007Acres± £OF WINCO FOODS,LLC 300 Ft2 I MB OVERLAND WELLS,LLC At S. 2600 E OVERLAND RD 2700 E OVERLAND RD 07/19/2022 I r I I I N Li � o �I r ,N. N I �C z I I z Ww ww RW My 0 CD I rn F/W o Ce ST 690.84� 1965.99' N89°46'00"E 2656.84, / EAST OVERLAND ROAD S114 SEC. 17 SE COR.SEC. 17 0 80, 160' Exhibit "B" Horizontal Scale:l" = 80' Project No.:120124 July 19,2022 THE Sewer / Water Esaemenr LAND Winco Wells Subdivision r s L.GROUP Winco Foods, LLC L. E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Plat for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0018) by Kent Brown Planning Services, located at the southeast corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING 9/13/2022 Legend DATE: JIEJlProject Location TO: Mayor&City Council R-40 I-L FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner R-8 RUT R-15 208-884-5533 IM LSO Q G . SUBJECT: FP-2022-0018 L-O Summertown Subdivision FP LOCATION: 3104 N. Venable Lane,the southeast I-L corner of N. Venable and W.Ustick, in C-G the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 1, 1- RUT C-G C. C G Township 3N, Range lE. C�2 R-15�RUT rR-1TrC=C= I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final Plat consisting of 26 total lots(14 multi-family building lots, 9 detached single-family lots, and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres in the TN-R zoning district,by Kent Brown Planning. IL APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Owner: Shannon Robinett, Summertown LLC—3277 E. Louse Drive, Suite 375,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Applicant Representative: Kent Brown,Kent Brown Planning—3161 E. Springwood Drive,Meridian, ID 83642 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat(H-2022-0005) as required by UDC 11-613-3C.2. The submitted plat includes the same number of buildable lots for the subject plat as was approved with the preliminary plat. Furthermore,the submitted final plat depicts the required street buffers and the same amount of common open space as previously approved. 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. Page 1 V. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 2/1/2022) � � S - - -I-. �' `I -t__A t;o Aw o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1 r� " 'F 9110 s r S s B i BEFORE DIGGING.GALL OIGLINE AT 1400-342-1565 CI[PIGYI�/Mi aN Page 2 B. Final Plat(date: 8/24/2022) I 1/+ S.36 weFe 'a se—'.___6W.USiICK 9ee CK � R0. 20245a -�.iw. S7 5.8 � R5X' ________________________ 2rz5' g e � �� I � • 'I � e� O O �s � iel z6'la a _ W: o W.*PUBLESIONE ill.4e 3'y. e9 W.PMKST E I I.n J (PRIVATE) � 3,00,9E BXX - ` n 1�\y i ' N909COYW 519.22' I �7 Z �* II < y T � Z 3.et.6L60N n o 'I • �«' FYI N- z V) pi�s$m I o�. III •',ii lm NO �=O w $ ➢r 'c 131,39'P z o-I « sm I �w - c N t c IL Z«I I L ly '>- W.STPNHOPE LN. -+.-�'«-� - OZ (PRIVATE) * + s ig j $ l4 - — c$�9�c� 'S3 01.38• + - _. lea — + « ina - F: SeOYS �Nz $ $ , L•,L'� �' NXB'- T P Cz 1023P � W.WRMICLFli ST. ? �" fJ 58 9Y18'E 21 L iozsr s6_oti--�ssao• s3.Xa --s5.00--£-s}oo`--� - -5s.ar-�£-s1.w•' `z -- - WO.4821 E 6+0.90' _ O Cl/4 si O A B6on zz Ir�I IIII I _ D • • ®O 0 O o ;�" N V 0 j ��o f Pi w Page 3 SUMMER TO WN SUBDI VISION a..Wxlw earo.I'll xE, elNExs.x K ImICAA IXY/°M�NAI mrnntt�[rN6Fx°Ie 6 MICALL o LYEIREN pJS NFRIOI°P�1l,PLA15Yi I5 saYw ....o....sae< wl.. wm a.,».o rc wawn.amnm. soilmTm uxvss �..m �o..ry Ta«m..r ww�w rau r w$T K xosz.ecv la z"eii:"s Ix `a 4TsX zm asz°RH°iPCE u•eo�9 SEE SHEET 2 RNt NOTES. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LIrvE h tt1RVE iAB�ES BGGK PAGE IDAHO d°e No,si—sw SURVEY �xi�aaea•o -mw GROUP,LLC Page 4 C. Landscape Plans (date: 8/24/2022) 9 2b - r g z a1.0 n air `s z £ P D oOj A a c ' zsa m n D a > < - z a 4 Eu--� € § a x r��', zoo Cc IM D Aye fn Z pIj � -xx -s r � 3 Q p 4 Z X C/J • NVENABLE LN-(PRIVATE) *- � 77 r--- -- --�--- --,_--' I ) O VENABLE LN. PRIVATE �o = 1 N.VENABL T,LANE 3• - - - -- - - _ - -- - _ - L M 1 1 0 1 O Bill 4 _ - Fc 1 z J I 1 m 1 ' o T 'I P m 1 -V 17- 1 Fl Imm ; z o�; 1 AL r -------1---------- `...... --------- ..., m ' s € ❑ �s M� a -. a kg,i A- 1�;° awOy� 5h S E F F� m k 5 m r - w°n z A m z� a aA gx �mv rn 1 Tm ` - m zp r --I C �- nIN :mmN rn IN og CONSTRUCTION SET-ISSUED DUNE 21,2022 2 o Project - SUMMERTOWN PHASE 2 -u CLUBHOUSE 7—7 0T VV Page 5 R I Mp 1 w5 ■ i .,,�.■. .■w��-00L IjJY� .3MIM �L W IN Fr Ar I _ ■ `� F} y■ �I - _ •�14•� J ,vPf� _W PHASEFUT RE 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-2017-0142 (AZ,DA Inst. #2019-015427);A-2019-0118 (CZC &DES);A- 2021-0025 (CZC &DES renewal); and H-2022-0005 (Preliminary Plat). 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat by May 18,2024, within two(2)years of the date of approval of the preliminary plat(May 18,2022), in accord with UDC I 1-613-7, 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 Idaho Survey Group, stamped on 08/24/22 by Gregory C. Carter,is approved with the following conditions to be completed at the time of Final Plat Signature: a. Correct plat note numbering to be accurately sequential; b. Correct Landscape Buffer note to state that the remaining buffer area is located with ACHD right-of-way; c. Correct note#9 to state"Private Street"easement instead of a common drive easement. 5. The submitted landscape plans, as shown in Section V.C,prepared by South,Beck&Baird, dated 8/24/22, is approved as submitted. 6. 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. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. When submitting sewer&water easements make sure that there is a min of 10 feet from sewer main to edge of the easement. 2. A streetlight plan will need to be submitted for the development. Type 1 streetlights along Ustick Road. General Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 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 Page 7 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 I I"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. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). 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. 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. 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. 7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. 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. 17. 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. Page 8 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 hqp://www.meridiancity.org1public_works.ayx?id=272. 21. 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. 22. 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. Page 9 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Order for Acclima Subdivision (FP-2022-0020) by The Land Group, located generally North of W. Ustick Rd., South of McMillan Rd. and directly West of and adjacent to McDermott Rd. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: 9/6/2022 ORDER APPROVAL DATE: 9/13/2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT ) CONSISTING OF ONE (1) ) CASE NO. FP-2022-0020 BUILDING LOT ON 6.70 ACRES OF ) LAND IN THE M-E ZONING ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL DISTRICT FOR ACCLIMA ) APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT SUBDIVSION. ) BY: THE LAND GROUP, INC. ) APPLICANT ) This matter coming before the City Council on 9/6/2022 for final plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of"PLAT SHOWING ACCLIMA SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE NE '/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 324, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, 2022, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 5/31/2022,by JAMES R. WASHBURN, PLS, ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR ACCLIMA SUBDIVISION(FP-2022-0020) Page 1 of 3 SHEET 1 OF 3," is conditionally approved subject to those conditions of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department dated 9/6/2022, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked "Exhibit A" and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Matthew Adams, The Land Group, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked "Exhibit B" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight(28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR ACCLIMA SUBDIVISION(FP-2022-0020) Page 2 of 3 Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian,pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight(28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-52. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 13th day of September 2022 By: Robert E. Simison 9-13-2022 Mayor, City of Meridian Attest: Chris Johnson 9-13-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 9-13-2022 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR ACCLIMA SUBDIVISION(FP-2022-0020) Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT C�WEIIQI !iv�*-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 9/6/2022 Legend DATE: �Prnjeot Lacaftr � TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: FP-2022-0020;A-2022-0150 Acclima Subdivision(aka Aviator Springs) / LOCATION: 3235 N. McDermott Rd., in the SE 1/4 of Section 32, TAN., R.1 W. f h5 r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat consisting of one(1)buildable lot on 6.70 acres of land in the M-E zoning district for Acclima Subdivision.Note: This is the second phase of the Aviator Springs preliminary plat(H- 2021-0065). Alternative Compliance is also requested to UDC 11-3B-7C.3,which requires street buffers to be planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. The Applicant proposes to plant an orchard on the northern 1/3 of the parcel in lieu of providing trees within the street buffers along future SH-16 and N. McDermott Rd. The reasons for the request are contained in the Applicant's narrative. The Director supports the Applicant's request with conditions requiring shrubs and vegetative groundcover to be provided within the 35-foot wide street buffers along N. McDermott Rd. &future SH-16 per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3; and for the orchard trees to be dispersed evenly over the entire northern portion of the site. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Macy Lui,The Land Group, Inc.—462 E. Short Drive, Ste. 100,Eagle,ID 83616 B. Owner: Scott Anderson—500 Riverheights Dr.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 1 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat(Aviator Springs H-2021-0065)in accord with the requirements listed in UDC 11-6B-3C.2. In order for the proposed final plat to be deemed in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC I I-6B-3C.2,the number of buildable lots cannot increase and the amount of common area cannot decrease. There is no change to the number of buildable lots or amount of common open space; therefore, Staff deems the proposed final plat to be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. Note: The right-of-way for future SH-16 has already been dedicated to ITD; therefore, it wasn't included in the final plat. IV. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions noted in Section VI of this report. V. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(dated: 12/2/2021) �_ - vein g xaP THE LAN uP ir:• =1.ill=.i.1.=dl�1=$_.: ::>I�I�! a :',c,; re9en�: PmOenfOmer. _ r II --F Irrn'- YY f 'L—o� J "''"•- r.�,',.•l;:' —..— ......,.....oi.. Plann er,Engineer,Lantlsca:e Ait-'.e:F. — C I: i r41Wl�1=i TI _ � -EI—iIW �„ .. � aen.nmafk.NAVD-Ba natr.m �L L JL JL_Ip LJLJI JLJ l I r nr r. R2r "�•'' —�y�•I.�•.v:Iril�iN 3 Inning Heq emenla. J ,,.e.� L J__L JL JL•� i Preliminary Plat-Overview i I PP-01 B. Final Plat(dated: 5/31/22) Final Plat for Acclima Subdivision Located in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 32. Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho 2022 o Notes �r � I I I�� - uo nrtun,wu�xrsnre rt�e,vm w°��.,,eauso,c rsixr,°rt as I I �,aux urE^swu ae 1` I j � I� � sac.,,eu.vwmorEoervnwRw'�in®�u,°„eaex�ua�r��un�.�° scale:l-=1oa e�,n,me,r,Emwm x,eva wrtw.irtrvennwl a:-rtcr wrt s Curve Table I 'i I In7Rm� ! T-2 1 i i l Legend �1— �msart®a.sawx1 w a a «Port w rtaea.�w,«,fa n° 1 f i i I �ro,2rta�a�,� IEI C I I I r,maysnc _ I I � as,am ` um uo rrtarwarc I II l ® cuuxn,®mn�„ee�n �-�,m ssiwenn eal�en.°n�zrt�uh m�� f1 l � • f snn a 'q Om� s .� 0 6w,a �srt��a�a,�wieE rm�°nw,wraN®ar,He rr . j �art°tea °� Ce- 2 I 13 + I Iw � I ,I (r1f � r�rracwav I I I n�c�nv nev ve Survey N8CC0�tIVia rw¢„emorertY.,,emn� ff+f I� II I usrouw�noxf�u�ew,,.u,wemes I I I m°z w+R,�s��szs,m reuiome f I I ' rf I I o@°i°r°sm�iEse�zrnz zvea mF«��am.wum�u�u. s 4:` f eu � I I Netelenced Surveys I I I I II II I s,ne move, 31wJVTHE LAK D -GROUP Page 3 C. Landscape Plan(dated: 07/12/2022) 011 Elul �� u.:e im o.vaoai •� � O �5� c I V 1 A11110YA AM MAN ONV HO'NV3 3a 1fWI1JJ1f L — — — — j y ! 8� - ° � • PC S � 1 �� r� Y X gei'p-• �Y � ■ e P■ tl �4 Nil is !1 ,; j Y l % e � L1�,.CP C• Y �� ° g s }I ■fig %e..�IM pi s1 ss � �I�� 1111, � r e r r s A ■ I ft a Fla 311 OIN ALIT 1N3WJ013A30 ONE! H HUS31 VW1133— f SY li , rf I1 11112111 111 Imam I I I k I MEMENNE - - - --------- 'ell RIME] W IN 11MON ;1IN oil! lIg P111 ip 241 s I J --------------- ----------------------- - ------------- ......... . ... .. .... .. . ....... ........... I T ■ Page 5 09; )UMOVA IN3WJ013A30 aNV HOMUSH VWIIOOV ' 9— = !9 = -------- if! El 19 El 0 :k -- - ---------------- �4 + + + + 4 + + + + 4 4 4 + + + �4 + 4'4 14 1 1 4 4 4 +, + + 4 + + } + + 4 + + + 4 + �0, D �+':+4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 1 4 + + 'Ooa 01 + + 4 4 1 �4+'1'4+4} .......... .. ........ .......... 44 m. --------------- -------------- W-7 1k !" AlO Oil ULU1103V A1111M INMOUA313 (INV HOMSH VW11O3V i . ......... tin 1� Mppg MIN INS. mi III I u 11 Val 1 4 - 4 1 1 1 1 4 ir, ;+++%++4+4#4++4+4+,+,4 f+'+'4'+'+%%'4'4%%' III I• .%%%%4,4+1,�,+,+ 4 + + + I I 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4DO 14 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 . (1'1% 4 + + . .Y. �4 0 4 . . . . . 4 4 4 4 4 + + 4 4 !+: : :: 04 0�D+ 4 + + + 4 4 41 4 + + 4 4 . 4 . J4 14�1�1 '4 . . . . . . . .4 1 1 1. .1. f4 4 4 + f f f + 4 44 + +'j !X%%�4 1 %t4tItI%'1'ItIt4 1+%%%% 1 4 t I I I t, • 4 4 . . . +%%+ 4 f f + 4 4 1 4 4 l I 1 4 + + + + . . . . ... . .� .� I I 1 4 1 1 . . I I 4 4 4 * + + 4 ——————————————————————--� ————————— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall meet all terms of the approved annexation(Development Agreement-Inst. #2022-026378) and preliminary plat(M-2021-0065) applications approved for this site. 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the subject final plat within two years of the City Engineer's signature on the previous phase final plat(Aviator Springs No. 1 FP-2022- 0013); or apply for a time extension,in accord with UDC 11-613-7. 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 prepared by The Land Group, stamped by James R. Washburn, dated: 5/31/2022, included in Section V.B shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along N. McDermott Rd., an entryway corridor, in a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer in accord with UDC 11-313-7C.2a. b. Modify plat note#7 as follows: "The landscape buffers shown hereon shall be owned an maintained by the prope owner." A copy of the revised plat shall be submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature. 5. The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated 7/12/2022,included in Section V.C, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict shrubs and vegetative groundcover within the 35-foot wide street buffers along N. McDermott Rd. and future SH-16 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3a. Alternative compliance was approved to the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C.3b, which require trees within the street buffer, to allow an orchard in lieu of street trees on the northern 113 of the property within the street buffers along future SH-16 and N. McDermott Rd. b. Evenly disperse the trees in the orchard over the entire northern portion of the property. The orchard trees are not required to be installed until the time of lot development. A copy of the revised landscape plan shall be submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature. 6. All stormwater swales incorporated into required landscape areas shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-11C. 7. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the M-E zoning district. 8. All fencing shall comply with the standards of UDC 11-3A-7C. 9. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. 10. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall be submitted for the non-residential portions of the development and approved prior to submittal of applications for building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 11. 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. B. Public Works 1. Site Specific Conditions: 1.1 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per building lot. The aggregate amount of the reimbursement fees for the entire preliminary plat area must be paid with the first final plat application. 1.2 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$185.43 per building lot. The aggregate amount of the reimbursement fees for the entire preliminary plat area must be paid with the first final plat application. 1.3 Sewer/water easement widths varies depending on sewer depth. Sewer 0-20 ft deep require a 30 ft easement,20-25 ft a 40 ft easement, and 25-30 ft a 45 ft easement. Adjust easements accordingly. 1.4 Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 1.5 Water Main blow-off required on W. Becky Dr per City standard drawing W 12. 1.6 Unless there are approved development plans for parcels R0486000210 and R0486000450 do not provide water service stubs. If these are not located correctly the developer of those lots just end up having to pay to abandon them. 1.7 Crosses and tees in arterial road(McDermott) are required to have valves in all direction. Add a valves where missing. 2. General Conditions: 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 9-1-28.C). 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. Page 9 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 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. 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. 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 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. 2.17 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. 2.18 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. 2.19 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. 2.20 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.meridianciU.oMlpublic_works.aspx?id=2 72. 2.21 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. 2.22 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. Page 11 VII. Findings In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application, the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds strict adherence to the requirements in UDC 11-3B-7C are feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the Applicant's proposal to provide an orchard on the northern 113 of the site in lieu ofstreet trees within the street buffers along future SH-16 and N.McDermott Rd. a superior means of meeting the intent of the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds the alternative means of compliance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. EXHIBIT B Sonya Allen From: Matthew Adams <matt@thelandgroupinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:29 PM To: Sonya Allen; Clerks Comment Cc: Bill Parsons Subject: Re:Acclima Sub FP ALT FP-2022-0020 REVISED Staff Report External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. Thank you Sonya We are in agreement with the staff report. Matthew Adams From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:54:30 PM To: Clerks Comment<comment@meridiancity.org> Cc: Matthew Adams<matt@thelandgroupinc.com>; Bill Parsons<bparsons@meridiancity.org> Subject:Acclima Sub FP ALT FP-2022-0020 REVISED Staff Report Chris—please include the attached updated staff report in the Council packet for today's pre-Council meeting. Thanks, Sonya Allen I Associate Planner City of Meridian I Community Development Department I Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 1 Direct/Fax: 208-489-0578 �E Built for Business, Designed for Living 0®©0 13 All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention,and may be released upon request,unless exempt from disclosure by law. 1 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Order of Approval for Brundage Estates Subdivision (TECC-2022-0001) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, generally located 1/4 mile south of W. Victory Rd. on the east side of S. Linder Rd. in the west half of Section 25, T.3N.,R.1W. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 ORDER APPROVAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR A TWO (2)YEAR ) TIME EXTENSION ON THE ) CASE NO. TECC-2022-0001 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ) BRUNDAGE ESTATES ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO ) APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION OBTAIN THE CITY ENGINEER'S ) SIGNATURE ON THE FINAL ) PLAT,LOCATED IN THE WEST '/2 ) OF SECTION 25, T.3N.,R.1W., ) MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) BY: ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, ) LLP APPLICANT This matter coming on regularly before the City Council on September 6, 2022, upon the Applicant's submittal of a preliminary plat time extension application for a two (2) year extension within which to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat for Brundage Estates subdivision, which preliminary plat(H-2016-0001) was originally approved on July 26, 2016, as provided in Unified Development Code § 11-6B-7C, and good cause shown. An administrative time extension (A-2018-0231) for two (2) years was previously approved for this subdivision by the Planning Director on July 16, 2018 and would have otherwise expired on July ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION FOR BRUNDAGE ESTATES TECC-2022-0001 Page 1 of 2 26, 2020. A second time extension(TECC-2020-0001)was approved by City Council on September 8, 2020 and would have otherwise expired on July 26, 2022. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The above-named Applicant is granted an additional two (2) year extended period of time, until July 26, 2024, within which to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, subject to the conditions of approval as shown in the Staff Report attached as Exhibit A for the hearing date of September 6, 2022 incorporated by reference. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2022 By the action of the City Council at its regular meeting on the 13th day of September , 2022 DATED this 13th day of September , 2022 Mayor ROBERT E. SIMISON Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,Planning Division,Public Works Department, and City Attorney. BY: Dated: 9-13-2022 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION FOR BRUNDAGE ESTATES TECC-2022-0001 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING 9/6/2022 Legend DATE: P►oject Lacflion R1 R-� � TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner R RUT 208-884-5533 R- R T� SUBJECT: TECC-2022-0001 .�. Brundage Estates R-40 LOCATION: East of S. Linder Rd. between W. R-6 R-16 Victory Rd. &W. Amity Rd., in the west RUT '/2 of Section 25,T.3N.,R.1W. R11 RUT R- ��L I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a 2-year time extension on the preliminary plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 136.63 Existing/Proposed Zoning R-4 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)64+/-acres&Medium Density Residential(MDR)73+/-acres Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 366 buildable lots,20 common lots and 1 other lot Phasing Plan(#of phases) 11 Number of Residential Units(type 366 single-family detached of units) Density(gross&net) 2.68 units/acre(gross)/3.5 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 20.48 acres(or 14.99%)consisting of an 8.24 acre City [%]/buffer/qualified) neighborhood park,2 pocket parks,a linear open space area where the William's Pipeline is located, 'h the street buffer along Linder Rd., street buffers along collector streets and parkways along internal streets. Amenities Tot lot with children's play structure and a park bench, a multi-use pathway within the William's pipeline easement and along the Calkins Lateral,micro-paths and a gazebo. Page 1 Description Details Page Physical Features(waterways, The Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline crosses this site& hazards,flood plain,hillside) lies within a 75' wide easement;the Calkins Lateral runs along the southwest corner of the site&the Sundall Lateral runs along the northeast corner of the site;another small irrigation ditch also crosses the site. Neighborhood meeting date: 7/11/22 History(previous approvals) AZ-13-014(Ord. 14-1594)Victory South; H-2016- 0001 (PP); A-2018-0231 (TED);TECC-2020-0001 A Development Agreement is required to be executed prior to submittal of the first final plat application; the specific provisions of the DA are included in the Findings for the preliminary plat. B. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend LEI a Legend ��Pro}eciLflcaTiar I/el1 I ,= J T lad r _ _ ', - 70!oi -' ig ��Fx7//`A Residential 1Gleawm uensity "sidekal . - s, MU-C III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Shari Stiles, Engineering Solutions— 1029 N. Rosario St., Ste. 100,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Centers Farm,LLC—PO Box 518,Meridian,ID 83680 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 2 IV. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 8/21/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 8/18/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 8/27/2022 Nextdoor posting 8/18/2022 V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD Per UDC 11-6B-7C, "Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsections A and B of this section, 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 this title." The preliminary plat for this project was approved by City Council on July 26, 2016 and was valid for 2 years. Prior to the expiration date, an administrative time extension(A-2018-0231)was requested and approved by the Director on July 16,2018,which granted an additional 2 year period of time until July 26, 2020 in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat. The reason for the time extension was due to incomplete sewer and water line extensions as well as upcoming improvements to Harris Street.No new conditions were placed on the application with the time extension. Another 2-year time extension was approved by City Council on September 8,2020,which expired on July 26,2022; the subject time extension request was received prior to the expiration date. The reason for the request per the Applicant's narrative, is that the Developer has been focusing on development of the adjacent Biltmore Estates and Graycliff Estates and needs additional time to submit a final plat application for Brundage Estates. Construction plans are in the process of being completed for Phase I and the Applicant anticipates design completion of the first phase later this year. Sewer and water lines have been extended in Linder Road to serve this property and improvements to Harris St.with turn lanes on SH-69 are currently under construction. With all extensions,the City Council may require the preliminary plat to comply with current UDC provisions as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7C. Since the preliminary plat and previous time extensions were approved,the qualified open space& site amenity standards have been updated in the UDC to require a minimum of 12%qualified open space (up from 10%) and a minimum of 27 points (pts.) of site amenities (6 site amenities were previously required). See UDC 11-3G-3 for more information. A total of 14.99%(or 20.48 acres)qualified open space was provided with the preliminary plat consisting of an 8.24-acre City neighborhood park,2 pocket parks consisting of 0.8 and 1.3 acres, a linear open space area where the William's Pipeline is located containing a multi-use pathway, 1/2 the street buffer along S. Linder Rd., all of the street buffers along collector streets(Harris, Oakbriar and Smokey Lake),and the parkways along internal streets within the development. Amenities approved with the preliminary plat consist of the following: a tot lot with a children's play structure and seating area(4 pts.); multi-use pathways within the William's pipeline easement and along the Calkins Lateral(0.8+/-miles=6 pts.); open space commons, including a City park Page 3 (450,410+/-s,f. =23 pts.); a gazebo/shelter(3 pts.); and a basketball court with benches (4 pts.), which total 40 pts.,which meet and exceed the updated standards. Approval of the subject time extension will allow the Applicant to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat and proceed with development of the property. If City Council does not approve the requested time extension,the preliminary plat will expire and a new preliminary plat application will be required. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed time extension for a time period of 2 years as requested to expire on July 26,2024. The Applicant is still required to comply with all previous conditions of approval for this project. VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 1/6/2016) WE= _ p k uFT•�i£r E^EiP II TI W'R NE1'E y�y{cl 6 'S iTs..�a..s'lfRlr-.S'euEr- -Em-u-¢civ 'EUI- L-1 -r' i. 4 ` Y«L rI ITIc'M Ir?ITo-F JIF'ITI iIn"' To u`T R i'wir[ss Y '%I_u In le 1 nil III nXIL EIc•LL LiT LI I�LIi`I`IT'li`Tl.�`LT�LLI E. {I'r..wm p'AR9:ra.E14R=1 d --77-77 :w rECE- - 16E v• , I + Sr'S' raj II I I�` _._._._ . .mac w! _- ICI - �r v �\ . � •.,1Y�lJ1„ .. r I'-- +, , arc �.,• Y ��.. C. � -�--�- VVV _ AF k dye' LW 'I e s.. h.e. s n � Y � � •--� mu:+'wnil P9 rS x✓ E i I w. • . ... +.a aim __ -_ __ � ,�--_.- - _— - � .\ _ ,,h 11�• PRE2 Page 4 1 _\ o Q + > - kl " k �I ' s -� 18 ...� w nff mm„•m S 7 , e 5 0 0 �a � agog s m w - a I � 4 I ------------ �1 1 I L� W Gin III ,a ,. rzEr olXON waw,[o _ aReEcc L cauuaxwcnLlH - �,__ Rusr I III � o, s ,5oeoe 1 IVPICAL COLLEC70R SIREEf SECTION(50 R.O.W.) E TYPICAL RESIDENIINL 5IkEEf SECTION(55 R.O.W.) a nore.st sl¢r or,rve wawa rrorcsevre wm " " PRE Page 5 E IDIAN:--- .�/Amu AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Order of Approval for Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 (TECC-2022-0002) by Brighton Development, Inc., generally located on the south side of E. Amity Rd., 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 ORDER APPROVAL DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR A ONE (1)YEAR ) TIME EXTENSION ON THE ) CASE NO. TECC-2022-0002 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HILL'S ) CENTURY FARM COMMERCIAL ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO ) APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION OBTAIN THE CITY ENGINEER'S ) SIGNATURE ON A FINAL PLAT, ) LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF ) SECTION 33, T.3N., RJE, ) MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) BY: BRIGHTON DEVELOPMENT, ) INC. APPLICANT This matter coming on regularly before the City Council on September 6, 2022, upon the Applicant's submittal of a preliminary plat time extension application for a one (1) year extension within which to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the next final plat for Hill's Century Farm Commercial subdivision, which preliminary plat (H-2016-0092) was originally approved on October 11, 2016, as provided in Unified Development Code § 11-6B-7C, and good cause shown. An administrative time extension (TED-2020-0004) for two (2)years was previously approved for this subdivision by the Planning Director on August 28, 2020 and would have otherwise expired on August 29, 2022. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION FOR HILL'S CENTURY FARM COMMERCIAL TECC-2022-0002 Page 1 of 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The above-named Applicant is granted an additional one (1) year extended period of time, until August 29, 2023, within which to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, subject to the conditions of approval as shown in the Staff Report attached as Exhibit A for the hearing date of September 6, 2022 incorporated by reference. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2022 By the action of the City Council at its regular meeting on the 13th day of September , 2022. DATED this 13th day of September , 2022 Mayor ROBERT E. SIMISON Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,Planning Division,Public Works Department,and City Attorney. BY: Dated: 9-13-2022 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION FOR HILL'S CENTURY FARM COMMERCIAL TECC-2022-0002 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT C�WEIIQI !iv�*__ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 9/6/2022 Legend I I I I o DATE: Project Lorca ton TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: TECC-2022-0002 Hill's Century Farm Commercial LOCATION: Generally located on the south side of E. Amity Rd., 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd., in the NW %4 of Section 33, T.3N.,R.IE. rMIffil I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a one-year time extension on the preliminary plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for the second phase of development. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 6.12 acres yet to be platted Existing/Proposed Zoning Neighborhood Business(C-N)&Medium High Density Residential(R-15) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Neighborhood(MU-N) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial Neighborhood meeting date;#of 8/9/2022 attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-15-004(DA Inst.#2015-061375);H-2016-0092(Ist Addendum Inst.#2016-119080);H-2018-0127(MDA 2aa Addendum Inst.#2019-033207);TED-2020-0004 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Josh Beach,Brighton Development,Inc. 2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 1 B. Owner: Robert Phillips,DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 8/21/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 8/18/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 8/26/2022 Nextdoor posting 8/18/2022 V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD Per UDC 11-613-7C, "Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with subsections A and B of this section, 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 this title." VI. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant requests approval of a 1-year time extension on the preliminary plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for the second phase of development. The preliminary plat(H-2016-0092)consists of 20 building lots and 2 common lots on 19.73 acres of land in the C-N and R-15 zoning districts and was approved by City Council on October 11,2016. The final plat(H-2017-0051) for the first phase of development consisted of 10 building lots and one (1)common lot on 10.82 acres of land and was signed by the City Engineer on August 29,2018 and recorded on October 4, 2018. A 2-year time extension(TED-2020-0004)on the preliminary plat was approved by the Director on August 28, 2020 and expired on August 29,2022;the time extension was requested prior to the expiration date, as required. The final plat(FP-2021-0055) for the second phase of development consists of four(4)building lots on 2.79 acres of land and won't be able to be signed by the City Engineer within the required time frame. There are four(4)remaining building lots on 6.12 acres of land for the last phase of development. The reason for the previous time extension and the subject time extension request is the final plat was delayed due to market conditions.No new conditions were placed on the application with the time extension. The Applicant plans to complete the subdivision improvements for the next phase in the Fall of this year. Approval of the subject time extension will allow the Applicant to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat for the second phase of development and proceed with development of the property. If City Council does not approve the requested time extension,the preliminary plat will Page 2 expire and a new preliminary plat application will be required for the remaining area that has not yet been subdivided. With all extensions,the Director may require the final plat to comply with the current provisions of this title. Staff is not recommending any additional conditions of approval for this extension. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed time extension for a time period of 1-year as requested,to expire on August 29, 2023. Page 3 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 7/14/2016) HILL'S CENTURY FARM COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT sgUATEO W w POATIOII OF THE NAN 1/4 OF SEMON 29. TO1M15MP 3NORTH•RANGE 1 EASE,604E MENIMN. C RYOF MENI01AH,AOA OW ,,1O �� •�• JULY 2016 ��—__�____—_---__ ---�x'auYI Y1L_—_.-__.— Y , _ v•.�.�E.'�os'$.P w�7�'..S.WR4Y".'r'1:•� _1 _.._-- .. .�•w. me � 77 i - ---—® - I � � wio an wx f N �HILL•S CEW-URY FARM COMMEP[IAL Su9. .....s..... _ v PPSA Page 4 B. Approved Final Plat for Phase II(FP-2021-0055) PLATBook- __anGe H;LL'S CENTURY FARM COMMERCIAL 5EIBUIVI5ION NO,2 A FOR UOK OF THE W*tNUd I ICI E1 1ME N01wmsr va of stoio,a il. Iov N-10 s NONIH.OANCE S CAST,MU MERIDIAN. ! CITY OI MEAIMN,ADA COUIT.IDAHO !Gt! r,pn0 SwryY V fYx�+Y w•ITIpMr F,AM(Tr Rix 'a.,e•dwlnmera SIIE6r IflClfk. i9 Ii rnpG 1f r[},NG rrxRo NYB aF�kR SIrNOSW srll -silCr610N PUi u ar�T.a_ullTncaE aE erw � 3J -- IAnM -`- IIf.i9• rwv n Banc `�u i]' g W� }Icv�-urFAs,,FTs aro wlwu ' 50m,, rco+BwrM cur�lr $ K �m� yy �SI`I'-F_ In 3.,by CU ro,larnn,a N,IAFpW 22 rr��•�5 i M - 5M45 \ r sSu doll tMod�r RSpp rU7ir n{r_ �+ , ,i n Ior WilQriYxo . `r�°P .It ; I N a M vF'.U's WRAFn rBr xoRm rErm,sa,a,.woE Fp OF { I f,ar5 IT at>7RS D Aw CWrrr.ulY4 OR H •f19[O RII{r 3F 141t RN"/rr'nrl rArM RrIfbICr1 r�.lOr1 I ..r� a1ME]l i _pf%Ar5!R FYOrS.____ 5C<L>A6 V l4 CtYArrY.11Y16 I 4 I � $ EL}r4 YRIW DA°,a6 IIOTfG I f{'AtR�YAm f� � D ApAO S�L+rcx NEYY[MIN r,,a}TC flp 11NYf11 I Ifr r64Y[aQ 4 id I- 'AJ 19aW rA4Eas ra.m miar¢ r N4YA gpRi FWG 4,.M141!'I:rv�n] Y .__r---------- ---- L____-- T rYtq]7-nI�R}r2x�Y- X!LL'SQMIIUIOlfAArA wd —_T__I rr�� NOkIF131lG0141SION F�1S'YJZ IY.tl' 1aJIrLt S Z TR s!r-+o R!r!ArN nix'[.r'urxr¢o ____� .____J r Wd'S CENTURY FARM IV V1-w IS51r InV (gYr.EidlAI SABOIYlLON 5Clf lb!]• II I ,FII�IDR wr�rr� d+Plorr N.I i ea�aw[o ferrua{ r<rpl,w[a re'n I �4� Mrr-rrYa - I � Wr,r.AMEIe l 8 I I ZI I saimx ewerA.w III �`III � � I�I ]4YnY LK 1 Y pI I p - �9MLEIP IOYLLak!JI[ rl4..k.*-I Y.wu) -VMbGA6 W.I.S a"m —'a 9— —iio br— I1Qil6' rMl4}'ffi CY}11.,l- +� M RYOIi N 11lF irRlRa 6 A NIWFf,A IRP p�WSAm r 1Wrf+' 6 d54➢VOR}E 91Y®EIP�r1Ar SMC9�Y41 iR{4�Vr�w IIbtR1R4 bSOk r0•T!R HIxS,er ervY MILS CMTkWV FARM [Llrrt 1NIA P pErIXI T©•E'turl r�I1.4P+R r EYRgM1y �rxr{ e^1t MONTH SWDIVISA01, Raa•� rwf+ 1�rrl ear OMP ABED __ C Y rar.ar rq.S'�Ya n4+i`MFS r a�T4i yrx ar •�r rnc]/�r ss DEVELOPM —win- BRIGHTON CORPORATION Irw rur rfrW-annw A}.w' Y[IYOIAII.� M[ITC} xWur rltorr.xrrrn uo xaC curdlY io rE.n•r T+a•[�laq A the Tua.+FP H Arr.{n W Ax Wpvn rar fart gWpswn�sEa cry cr ' ,K Prm�V snjgm,rt rwrava varu S ar••r1rwl r RivF u x en'ar wrur A ne frl V IIDar�V•i.iadO GI Yi OF SYC�If p YMID SrL�IarORYYY E r Khi frL xV:E51rA6 ra]�Yr4 VO IT6 EIF_' y�ypwp �a W4F lm a wrui r¢Fe'9 a.arrr IaP rS i.rary. Mn r +�RVYRoaaNa a nOF YQOpY r i�rliCl Af Mr!!�11'rA�d�1 Ls•�wp iNF Pf[3tfB MSMf 1TIC4r,YYo/+'RP,L nuPl M I{Hry MILKKrWrRSIlrPwpprlSr�RC45u4I�wG��r�+MSNC NIeR�Rrl,wrSar�EryY�fIr6GW ] FaGa,tlx ur4,r Hli RR IHO/Ir]mrll ISX mlx IlnPpmpl[p�,{��1[xo T MYlCnwi[.1.[4N NIYF S.FRI[5 11YLL rF IKTW W 6L,ArP*,i rfR "nee m6f�uq]I 4 1 cfL.rl NAB EEDMItlX p[OEiN�, m rralN!IIFRDAIr PAKnM SAL F WiLul-0I[hrM1itE 10 111rw1]x 5,41Ti rP/igB M'Nf Sw14rC a6rRC1Q1 RGSE mw rl.rr"w+C WYr'w.1 oeYY4or><PK,P m t r» W ryr.+r a[�r1B'rtti� OR�wx!Yu-rltni rpax A !rrl.[u[[IS W!M f+r FxAlf+ESir:rt[r<a rqE R'YNnc a�r•rwY � FNIOI'Oa D-TiC'rGHn Puna Y Mf,ry{aSr�wfiifix�06AIC% FFT4C'h4 [�I oR[£wa M w SE.a04�mW ' r[H.in KX res.Nsc rR 3].Ifoa P n��Ipe,Jc�i[�nwRy..]ort m r�r•, a]I.dr]LIE.tlri9 Of.M=PX+aE(OR.4'�Rr�+i al+ r . G mtxwlc molmrR,r6 r�u,' w. raTFS-M:bRSUi'AK P'EAA,P E Y 6 wflw i�ySx'� A[TI �YE 4C��u�ArS aMx A�GaW�slr PrFt��wWIX�� f%aA�E+P'MN'J'r 5..i M W BE_OYE a%Waatl.n,w fryq,_ �11�C ,rE:r1uM1 rsO[VH.s Mai�ant. nAp py 4 N 1 1 M C o Farl0.�x'�itl rOM4i YPr'*fR.IBAW,:nr w Fi.1-�+wR,w m IWi i+..r M.O'EfdTAk FfCSrh W yarAENH!.l AOI A alp'ErN(N at Wi11 rILI = lYrr m��y r rou�m,rJ[Itl'If MdtlAb P,W a[RC.NRl,IrIF Alrar �a Ir[1[YVHlfS rtr Y 0.HA alillr YH��n S 4�F N u6. 9Brwww iR.Nf:r rf•La,S irprl](rPrORFP�iR S[LSGfMr VlM*iEY OF 111 rl C�ICIu�pu ICfOd11'�.�61 InM�5'R�i.r9iw1R rK� +r,.�4VPWr4 Pan a mono.mgm�r c '�� fACxi..Fu 9FlRr16S,aM C�fJ4C r+LLry as Ea4MPP n[Itff aoaorf i�rv5 M y%�rN nlfply rFrc+ReN[oAIOWb W s aaa•wfn r.aµ OaWn s M wrmrraT.xi[[aa!>.a ra,x."_, an,aar Page 5 IX. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant shall comply with all terms of the annexation, associated development agreement provisions and the preliminary plat approved for this property(AZ-15-004(DA Inst.#2015-061375); H-2016-0092(1st Addendum Inst.#2016-119080);H-2018-0127(MDA 2°d Addendum Inst.#2019- 033207);TED-2020-0004). 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision No. 2 by August 29,2023 in accord with UDC 11-6B-7 in order for the preliminary plat to remain valid; or, another time extension may be requested. Page 6 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Lavender Place Subdivision (H-2022- 0036) by Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI DIAN:--- AND DECISION&ORDER i In the Matter of the Request for Preliminary Plat consisting of four(4)single-family attached building lots and 26 single-family townhome lots on approximately 3.79 acres of land in the existing R-40 zoning district; Conditional Use Permit to construct 26 townhome lots within the R-40 zoning district; Private Street application for proposed single-family development requiring administrative approval only,by Breckon Land Design on behalf of LH Development,LLC. Case No(s).H-2022-0036 For the City Council Hearing Date of. September 6,2022 (Findings on September 13,2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2022, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6,2022, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6, 2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6,2022,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 Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Lavender Place Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0036) - 1 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6,2022,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 Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6,2022, 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 11-613-7A). 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 I 1-613-713). 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 1I- 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. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.G.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Lavender Place Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0036) -2- 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 I I(UDC 11-5B-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. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of September 6,2022. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Lavender Place Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0036) -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 13th day of September 2022. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 9-13-2022 Attest: Chris Johnson 9-13-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 9-13-2022 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Lavender Place Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0036) -4- EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC� fE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING 9/6/2022 Legend DATE: 0 P,Prciect Location TO: Mayor&City Council �� FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0036 Lavender Place Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Road, approximately 1/4 mile east of S. Locust Grove on the north side of Lake Hazel,in the SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section,'r' ; 32,Township 3N, Range lE. _, I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Preliminary Plat consisting of four(4) single-family attached building lots and 26 single-family townhome lots on approximately 3.79 acres of land in the existing R-40 zoning district; • Conditional Use Permit to construct 26 townhome lots within the R-40 zoning district; • Private Street application for proposed single-family development requiring administrative approval only,by Breckon Land Design on behalf of LH Development,LLC. NOTE: Application also includes three(3)Alternative Compliance requests,discussed in subsequent sections of the staff report. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 3.79 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential 8-12 du/ac Existing Land Uses Vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Attached Single-family Residential and Townhome Residential Lots #and type;bldg./common) 26 townhome lots and four 4 single-family attached lots. Number of Residential Units 30 residential units Density Gross—7.92 du/ac Open Space(acres,total Open Space was approved as part of previous Lavender [%]/buffer/ ualified) Heights approvals Amenity Seating area. Page 1 Description Details Page Physical Features(waterways, Farr Lateral is adjacent to the site along the entire north hazards,flood plain,hillside) boundary. Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 2,2022—No attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2020-0004(Lavender Heights Sub.,AZ,PP);H-2022- 0017(MDA) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study No es/no Access No direct access to Lake Hazel. (Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a new private street connection to S. Bloomerang Hwy/Local)(Existing and Avenue,an existing collector street abutting the west property boundary. Proposed) Stub No stub streets are proposed or required as there are no existing stub streets. Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Access Existing Road Network Lake Hazel and Bloomerang are existing public streets. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Through previous approvals(H-2020-0004),arterial sidewalks and buffer Buffers have been constructed. Proposed Road New private street for access to all proposed lots. Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire 4.1 miles from Fire Station#4(Approximately 600 feet from approved fire Station station#7 on Lake Hazel; response time will fall within the 5-minute response time goal area). • Fire Response Time Project currently does not reside within the Meridian Fire 5-minute response time goal area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 77%(below the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards(open waterway—Farr Lateral) • Accessibility • Proposed project meets all required road widths,access,and turnaround dimensions. Police Service No Comment Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Page 2 Description Details Page • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • Sewer main and manhole must be centered along easement. • Utility easement not listed on Declaration St. 30' easement is required for sewer and water running in parallel. Water • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Per the Pre-application notes applicant to connect to Lake Hazel Road in addition to Bloomerang connection.Connect at the eastern side of the site. • Max length for one-inch lines feeding two lots is 80' from main to water meter vaults. Service to lot 19 and 20 appear longer than 80.Address if line is one-inch. • 20'easement needed up water meter vault and past as space allows. Page 3 1 \■ 1 it - • n - ��■ I 11�� 1 <•, �:. `� '�`�k � - ��c�.. ■111 1 1 1�1��1 ' &S" - . . I - _� ' \. ' ennui ■E ONE NEMN - • - . n a y i 11 �t�� L-AKE HAZEL LAkc nHLEL -- nlllm ■ ,411 • 1101 so �■ �1�� I ��■ /III 1 ��l■■■111�� 1 1�1��1 _ • -. •. - ■mil■■NONE,' �I�Gl11111I ENE= rfr 1 - ■�� IIIIIII rrru i ■� n`it' a' ��i� •• ■II 1 w 111�' L-AKE HAZEL L----A -nH- Et 1 111111: ■ C71111 11111'� !Ii �� n: � p NOON Ilgli� ��~►�� 1111111 � �1111111111111� �L* wl,E� � 111111E IIIIIII � ♦•�•F� I1111—_NOON■ C NOON==NOON� 11 i - 1 1 �- • ' � i 1 �� • i 1 � i i 11 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/5/2022 8/21/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 6/30/2022 8/18/2022 Site Posting 7/22/2022 8/24/2022 Nextdoor posting 6/30/2022 8/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan) Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR)—This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. Lavender Place subdivision is approximately 3.8 acres and was annexed into the City in 2020 as part of Lavender Heights Subdivision.As part of this annexation, the subject site was approved with the R-40 zoning district and was anticipated for a future multi family development. Since these approvals, the Applicant has received a development agreement modification (H-2022- 0017) to change the presumed land use on the subject site from multi family to single-family attached and single-family townhome units.In addition, the subject site and its future use does not require a minimum amount of open space and amenities because it is part of the Lavender Heights development and will share the approved open space and amenity package with the rest of the residents. However, the Applicant is proposing a plaza area with seating to provide an amenity within this specific area of the project. Further, the Applicant is proposing the project to be largely "alley"loaded with all but two of the proposed units fronting on green space to comply with the Private Street applicability standards;subsequently, multiple detached sidewalks are included for added pedestrian access through the site. With the proposed plat of 30 residential units and requested land use of alley-loaded single- family attached and townhome units, the Applicant is proposing its densest product(almost 8 units per acre) along Lake Hazel and introducing a new housing type to the overall Lavender Heights development. Both of these factors help the proposed project further comply with the MHDR future land use designation and the comprehensive plan overall.In addition, the proposed placement and site design offer great pedestrian connectivity to the nearby Discovery Park (across the street) to the south and to the remaining open space and amenities within Lavender Heights.According to the submitted conceptual elevations, the Applicant is proposing to construct the homes within this project of similar style to those within the parent development, Lavender Heights. This furthers Staffs belief that the proposed Lavender Place Subdivision complies with the comprehensive plan and previous approvals. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciV.or /g comQplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Page 5 "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01G).As discussed above, the subject project is proposed with a housing type not seen within the parent development of Lavender Heights nor within nearby developments. Staff finds the addition of single-family townhomes and single-family attached units add to the diversity of housing available in this area of the City. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the Lavender Heights development currently under construction to the north. The abutting public roadways are constructed to their full widths at this time(Lake Hazel is planned for widening in the future)with additional right-of-way dedicated with previous applications. This project does not currently lay within the Fire Department response time goal of 5-minutes but will once Fire Station 7 is constructed and staffed directly south of the property, anticipated in late Summer 2023. Further, the proposed project meets all Fire required turnarounds, road widths, and meets the maximum number of units allowed off of a singular access, 30 homes. West Ada School District has not made comments on this application but an additional 30 homes are expected to generate approximately 24 school aged children. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project that meet code requirements. "Preserve,protect, and provide open space for recreation,conservation, and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The subject property is less than 5 acres in size so code does not require a minimum amount of open space. Furthermore, the subject property is already annexed into the City and is part of a larger development(Lavender Heights) that contains open space and amenities in excess of code requirements at the time of approval. The Applicant is proposing a relatively small area of open space in this project in the form of a plaza with benches for seating and includes other accessory landscape areas in the project for aesthetics and quality of life. Because the subject project will be part of the overall Lavender Heights HOA and is proposed with easy access to a multi-use pathway segment and open space directly to the north, Stafffinds the subject site provides appropriate open space for the proposed project in the larger context of the development and the immediate area. "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks,safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01A). This new subdivision is located between E. Lake Hazel Road, an arterial street, and the Farr Lateral that is proposed with a segment of multi-use pathway previously approved with the Lavender Heights development to the north. The previous approvals included approximately 7 acres of usable open space that interconnects with internal sidewalks and a large multi-use pathway segment throughout the development; the subject project continues this design element while introducing a new housing type to the area. In addition, the proposed development will continue to preserve opportunities for residents to get to Discovery Park;Discovery Park lies across E. Lake Hazel Road, directly south of this project. Staff is recommending slight modifications to the plat to accommodate a more direct path north- south through the site to allow for even easier, more direct access to the park. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity." (2.02.011)). The proposed project includes multiple detached sidewalks and micro paths throughout the site and fronts nearly half of the units towards a new segment of multi-use pathway offering ample pedestrian facilities that connect to the adjacent parent subdivision to the north, Lavender Heights, and to the arterial sidewalk along Lake Hazel. Staff finds the proposed site design and proposed pedestrian facilities will link the Page 6 project to existing and planned development in the area, specifically to Lavender Heights to the north and Discovery Park to the south. "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F). Urban services include services and uses beyond that of utilities and emergency response;gas stations, grocery stores,public parks, and other retail/office uses are essential for a good quality of life. The subject site is relatively far removed from commercial services at this time but the new Albertson's grocery store approximately 1 and a half miles to the northeast and planned commercial approximately % mile to the west will help fill the urban services gap currently existing in this area of the City. Furthermore, the City's soon-to-be largest public park is located directly south of the subject site, Discovery Park. Therefore, despite commercial services not currently being within walking distance of the subject site, Staff finds the planned development in vicinity of the project site constitutes adequate urban services for this project.In addition, Lavender Place Subdivision is an extension of the already under construction Lavender Heights Subdivision to the north and is adjacent to multiple other developments in this area of the City. These facts further Staffs belief the subject site will be adequately served by public and urban services in the near-term future. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed throughout the above sections and comprehensive plan policies. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on the subject site. However, a segment of the Farr Lateral lays within the subject site and runs along the entire north boundary. This waterway is proposed to remain open and was previously approved to do so. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed uses within this project are all residential—single-family attached(2 units connected) and single-family townhomes (3 or more attached units). The proposed single-family attached residential use is a permitted use within the existing R-40 zoning district but the proposed townhouse dwellings require Conditional Use Permit(CUP) approval within the R-40 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant has submitted a CUP with the preliminary plat application for this purpose. The submitted Lavender Place plat is proposed to be constructed in one(1)phase but is essentially phase 4 of the parent development, Lavender Heights Subdivision. Staff supports the residential uses proposed within the Lavender Place Subdivision because they help the project meet the minimum density requirements of the overall Lavender Heights project and will add two additional housing types to this project and to the immediate area. This is supported by our comprehensive plan as discussed above. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the subject CUP request for townhomes within the existing R-40 zoning district. The required findings can be found in Section IX at the end of this report. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The submitted preliminary plat is proposed within existing R-40 zoning district area and requires compliance with the dimensional standards within UDC Table 11-2A-8. Specifically,the plat should depict compliance with the minimum lot size requirement of 1,000 square feet. Because home placement on the building lot is not yet known at the time of preliminary plat submittal, setbacks cannot generally be reviewed at this time. However,per the submitted plat,the Applicant is showing the building envelope on each lot including the proposed zero lot-lines for the attached units. In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Page 7 Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans appear to meet all UDC requirements of the R-40 zoning district including minimum building lot size and building setbacks based on the depicted building envelopes shown. Further, the submitted plat appears to meet all UDC standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3 except for the Common Drive standards and the maximum length allowed for a dead-end street. The Applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance to the common drive standards—Staff analysis on this is in the below Access section (Section V.G). In addition, the Applicant requires Council approval for the proposed dead end street that exceeds 500 linear feet but is less than 750 feet(approximately 680 linear feet),per UDC 11-6C- 3B.4b. Per the allowances noted within this code section, Staff recommends approval of the proposed street length as there is no opportunity for connectivity to the north due to the Farr Lateral abutting the entire north boundary and because staff does not support an additional access to Lake Hazel to the south, an arterial street. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed residential dwellings. Note that attached single-family and townhomes require Design Review approval before building permit submittal. Therefore, Staff will review each set of elevations for compliance with the single-family residential architectural standards. Staff recommends the Design Review application be submitted with the final plat application. The submitted elevations depict two-story homes with two-car garages for each unit.As discussed above, the proposed homes are "alley"loaded and therefore have the garage facades facing the internal private street and the pedestrian access for each home entrance faces green spaces throughout the site. The elevations depict varying color choices with lap siding as the main field material and varying accent materials including stone and architectural wood material(see snip below). G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to Lavender Place is proposed via construction of a new private street(depicted as E. Declaration Street)that connects to S. Bloomerang Avenue(a collector street)at the west property boundary. The private street is proposed at a width of 25 feet measured to the back of the rolled curb,with no sidewalk. Private streets are governed by the standards outlined in UDC 11-3F-4 and the findings in UDC 11-3F-5. Further,vehicular access to each residential building lot is proposed from this private street and provides 5' of concrete beyond the edge of the private Page 8 street to delineate the driving surface from the building lots.NOTE: Two of the homes are depicted with driveways at least 20 feet in depth and width per code and two are shown with driveways less than 20 feet deep but deeper than 5 feet.More analysis on this is below. According to the submitted plat, the proposed private street complies with all UDC standards except for the common lot requirement and the prohibition that a common drive takes access from the private street.According to submitted plat, the Applicant has noted the private street is on a common lot(Lot 2, Block 11) but this common lot encompasses other common area as well. UDC 11-3F-4A requires the private street be on its on singular common lot. Therefore, the Applicant is required to revise the plat to add an additional common lot solely for the private street. The Applicant is requesting Alternative Compliance (ALT) to the Private Street standard that prohibits a common drive taking access from the private street, as allowed per UDC 11-5B-5B. In order to meet the City's desired density in this area and within the Lavender Heights overall development, the Applicant is proposing a common drive off of the private street to serve 4 building lots on its west side. Further, the Applicant is proposing 3 off-street parking spaces at the end of the common drive. Staff supports the inclusion of the common drive within this development to allow additional building lots that increase the overall gross density as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to meet the minimum number of units required within the existing Development Agreement. Therefore, Staff supports the Applicant's Alternative Compliance request to the UDC 11-3F-4A.6 standard. See the required findings in Section IX below. However, Staff does have concerns with the placement and design of the driveways for Lots 32 and 33. Due to the design of the private street, both of these driveways are deeper than 5 feet (minimum garage alley setback) but are not 20 feet deep to accommodate an off-street parking space. Staff is concerned these sub-standard driveways will encourage residents to park in these areas and would prohibit safe vehicular movement on the private street near the entrance of the project. Staff does not have a specific revision but wants to point out this probable conflict so the Applicant can make revisions to the plat and design to mitigate this issue. With the submittal of the final plat,provide an exhibit either showing that the distance between the face of garage and the private street is 20'or 5'. Parking in front of a garage less than 20 feet deep is prohibited. In addition to the ALT needed for the common drive off of a private street, an additional ALT request is being made for an alternative to the common drive standards (UDC 11-6C-3D) to allow four(4) lots to take access from the same side of the common drive where code allows only three(3) lots.As shown on the submitted plat, the Applicant has proposed 4 lots to take access from the west side of the common drive and a 4 plex building directly east of the common drive that takes access from the private street. Staff finds it is feasible to modem the layout of the plat to comply with the common drive standards but finds this would be more wasteful in the overall layout of the proposed plat and would likely reduce the density within the project. Due to its location and future land use designation of medium-high density residential, the City does not envision a reduction in density along this Lake Hazel corridor. So, Staff finds the proposed site design is an efficient use of the subject area and offers an equal means for meeting the common drive standards. Further, Public Works does not have concerns with the common lot and conflicts with services, which is one of the main reasons for this provision in code. See the required findings in Section IX below. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The Applicant has submitted an Alternative Compliance request to these standards per their allowance in UDC 11- Page 9 5B-5. Per the submitted parking exhibit(see snip below), the Applicant is proposing to alternatively comply with the off-street parking standards by providing 18 parking spaces that will be designated for each specific unit. Each of the proposed residential units is shown with a 2-car tuck under garage providing the required off-street parking for 2-bedroom homes and meets the requirement of a 2-car garage for 3-bedroom units. However, due to the odd-shape of the parcel that creates a constrained building area, the Applicant proposed private streets and an alley- loaded product that does not readily allow for the required 20'by 20'parking pad for the nine (9) 3 and 4-bedroom homes. The Applicant placed the parking spaces directly across the private street from each unit to minimize the distance homeowners would have to traverse to access their additional parking spaces. In addition to the 18 parking spaces designated for the residents, the Applicant is also showing 7 additional guest parking spaces. NOTE:Parking is prohibited on the private street as well as along Lake Hazel and Bloomerang, the collector street where the private street takes access from. f i FARR r. r EpiRINCE COVM"LOS 1_ `4§ af�bputi 73 — ..x ff „° as csr��7 . cn"uom w u E25 N'S 1�Nlrp @r aurYn FIFE lei Umr wmrn�wo • I � L`CIIMOH dT HOES �puuow SIIS • I ..: .. ?y'WggCiwE BUFFER Staff finds the proposed alternative as one option to meet the intent of the off-street parking requirements when accounting for the required density of the existing Development Agreement, site constraints, and limited access for the site. However, upon further review,Staff is recommending a modification to the ALT request.Staff recommends one parking space is allocated for each 3 or 4-bedroom unit instead of two spaces.It is difficult to predict the number of cars each unit will produce so Staff finds it more prudent to offer additional spaces for the entire development and not just the units with more bedrooms. Staffs recommendation would increase the number of guest spaces from seven (7) up to 16 spaces which should allow for more appropriate flexibility in their use for future residents and guests of this development. An additional option,should Commission or Council find the amount of off-street parking is not adequate overall, is to limit the number of units containing 3 or 4 bedrooms as a plat condition. Staff's Alternative Compliance findings for this request are below in Section IX at the end of this report. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17) &Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development that provide the main Page 10 pedestrian access for all of the building lots. In addition,the project includes the final 750 feet of multi-use pathway conceptually approved with the Lavender Heights development that runs along the north of the project and provides pedestrian access for half of the proposed units. As part of the previous approvals,there is an existing 5-foot wide pathway connection from this property to the north that crosses the Farr Lateral via a pedestrian bridge and provides interconnectivity between Lavender Heights phase one and the proposed Lavender Place subdivision. This 5-foot pathway connects to the multi-use pathway segment and leads into a 20' wide paved area near the north portion of the site that is required as access for the public sewer main(see blue marked area below). The proposed sidewalks and multi-use pathway meet UDC standards and comply with previous approvals of this site. + :r 3 EP 3 END ! 3 srAFtT 3 f 1� ENO -- f t ! - sr r ! _ 5 2 .1 Q fa '. +.Y. Because of the clear north-south connection from the subject site to the open space within phase I to the north over the pedestrian bridge and the sewer easement, Stafffinds it applicable to help maintain this north-south movement. With the proposed design, two 4 plex buildings impede this natural pedestrian flow and no additional sidewalks are shown to help connect this noted area to the sidewalk along Lake Hazel. As depicted in red above, Staff is recommending a new 5-foot wide micro path is located between Lots 24 and 25, Block 11 (the two 4 plex buildings shown along Lake Hazel) and for the Applicant to add an additional sidewalk segment around the plaza to for better pedestrian connectivity—Staff is open to more than one design to accomplish the goal of increasing pedestrian connectivity in this area. The new common lot need only be 10 feet Page 11 wide to accommodate the 5-foot micro path and approximately 2.5 feet of landscaping on each side; Staff does not find it necessary to provide a tree along this new micro path lot for shade as its purpose is simply to be a cut-through between the two buildings where no other convenient north-south pedestrian access currently exists. This appears to be possible by shifting the eastern 4 plex 10 feet to the east and closer to the guest parking spaces (building would be approximately 8 feet from parking space instead of 18 feet). Staff will work with the Applicant to determine the best possible design for this recommendation. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The required landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development is landscaping along the multi-use pathway segment(UDC 11-3B-12). The required street buffers to Lake Hazel (arterial)and S. Bloomerang(collector)were constructed with phase 1 of the Lavender Heights Subdivision. The submitted landscape plans do not show landscaping along the pathway as this was shown on the previously approved plans for Lavender Heights. Because the subject plat contains this pathway within its property boundary,the Applicant should revise the landscape plans to depict the existing/proposed landscaping along the multi-use pathway to ensure code compliance. The Applicant is proposing a number of trees and landscape beds within the development to offer shade and additional aesthetics to the development. This includes shrubs and other vegetative ground cover within landscape beds along the perimeter of the building lots and trees around the proposed plaza area and adjacent to the proposed parking spaces. In accord with Staffs recommended revision to the plat to include an additional north-south micro path between Lots 24 and 25, Block 11, the Applicant should add some shrubs and vegetative ground cover adjacent to this new micro path. With the final plat application, the Applicant should make these revisions. K. Qualified Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3U): The subject plat is less than 5 acres(approximately 3.8 acres) so no minimum open space or amenities are technically required in order to comply with City Code. Despite not being required, the Applicant is proposing a plaza area along the southern property boundary that includes two benches and a picnic table to add an amenity within this project area.Furthermore, future residents of this plat will be part of the larger Lavender Heights Subdivision HOA currently under development to the north and will share in the approved open space and amenities of the larger project(approximately 7.7 acres of open space,multi-use pathway segment, and a swimming pool). In addition,the subject site is directly north of the City's Discovery Park that is currently constructing phase 2 of its planned development and will contain a total of approximately 70 acres of public park and amenity space. Staff finds the proposed and planned open space and amenities of the Lavender Place and Lavender Heights Subdivisions and the adjacent Discovery Park provide adequate open space and amenities for aesthetic and recreational opportunities. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. 4-foot steel tube fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards.No fencing is shown on the submitted landscape plans within the Farr Lateral easement area. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The subject site contains a segment of the Farr Lateral,an irrigation lateral maintained by Boise Project Board of Control(BPBC). Through the previous Lavender Heights Subdivision approvals,the Applicant was allowed to keep this waterway open and was required to construct a Page 12 10-foot multi-use pathway along its length for a regional pathway connection through this area of the City. With the subject plat and proposed development,the waterway is still proposed to remain open and the multi-use pathway will be installed per the original approvals for this site. Any proposed fencing will have to comply with those standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6& 1I- 3A-7. N. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15. Land Development will review pressurized irrigation plans in more detail when specific plans are submitted with the future Final Plat application. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. The Director and Staff have approved the requested administrative applications associated with this project(Private Streets and Alternative Compliance requests). B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on August 4,2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jon Breckon,Applicant Representative; Taylor Merrill,Applicant. b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Jon Breckon; Taylor Merrill; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. Applicant—desire for project to be approved as conditioned by Staff and for Commission to keep 3-bedroom units and parking alternative as proposed. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Parking Alternative and whether units should be limited to 2-bedroom throughout the entire site due to parking constraints of private street and adjacent public roads; b. Safe access to Discovery Park due to location being so close to park; c. Concept of trash service with proposed private street and design; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Remove parking in hammerhead turnaround; b. Limit all units to no more than 2-bedrooms to help with parking and increase guest parking; 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Applicant has not removed parking in hammerhead in an effort to keep 3 additional guest parking spaces; b. Applicant has revised parking exhibit per Staffs revised Alternative Compliance approval but requests to strike Commission's added condition regarding number of bedrooms per unit—Applicant has alternatively proposed to limit noted units to no more than 3-bedrooms and essentially provide I space per bedroom. C. The Meridian Citv Council heard these items on September 6,2022.At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit requests:the Page 13 Private Street and Alternative Compliance requests were approved by the Director. 1. Summary of the City Council Public hearing=: a. In favor: Taylor Merrill,Developer:Jon Breckon,Applicant Representative. b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Jon Breckon: Todd McDermott,neighbor. d. Written testimony: David Palumbo (Boise resident)—noted overarching concerns with Meridian development around Amity Road and South Meridian(not specific to this project)and notes a lack of planning foresight in South Meridian overall. e. Staff Presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner £ Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Nary, City Attorney 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Support for the project due to its design and housing type. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Parking Alternative and whether Commission recommendation should be upheld to limit number of bedrooms throughout the entire site due to parking constraints of private street and adjacent public roads; b. Private Street design with Common Driveway and overall width of road in relation to potential delivery trucks,large trucks etc. c. Process of reserving noted spots for residents Per Parking Exhibit and ALT request. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. Strike condition limiting bedroom count and comply with Staff s recommended ALT provision. Page 14 VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat Legal Description and Exhibit Map LAVENDER PLACE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT - EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THESE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32,T.3N., RAE., B.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO W 1/4 31 32 Li E. PHENOMENAL ST. a LLJ I I Q vi SS Susp�VIS10��0. 1 N I S eV SOLE 0 10 ~060 R AL S0� z NI coS'7. 9 4 Sr o w NO'09'52"W m_ 72.23' n S75.33 08„ 1� x cDco SIDE z co 3-79 ACRES a NO D9 52"W POINT OF o 86.95'vi ( BEGINNING E, N89'58'24"W 696.48'. 1331.91' a S89'58'24"E LAVENDER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION NO. 1 31 32 S89'57 01 E 78.00' _ - S8958'24"E 1331,96 6 5 w 1/16 E. LAKE HAZEL RD. 5 S 1/4 \OVAL LAlyps 0' 75' 150' 300' S TFR 1y -t Ln �� rf OF 'LpON W NPR CURVE TABLE CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD La Of utlon C1 21-65' 190-00' 6'31'41" N3'25'42"W 21-64' Land surveying and Consulting C2 16.41' 144.00' 6'31'41" N3'25'42"W 16.40' 23t E_ I N sr, 3 a MERIDIAN,ID 83642 )208J 2 L2040 (208)288-2557 fax ww.la ntlso lutions.blz - Page 15 Legal Description Lavender Place Subdivision — Preliminary Plat A parcel of land located in the SE '/2 of the SW'/4 of Section 32,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southwest corner of the SW'/4 of said Section 32, from which an Aluminum cap monument marking the northwest corner of said SW%bears N 0'32'17"W a distance of 2700.11 feet; Thence S 89°57'01" E along the southerly boundary of said SW%a distance of 1331.91 feet to a 5/8 inch iron pin monument marking the southwest corner of the SE '/4 of said SW%-, Thence N 0°09'52"W along the westerly boundary of said SE %of the SW%a distance of 75.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary S 89°58'24"E a distance of 78.00 feet to an angle point on the southeasterly boundary of Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 1, as shown in Book 122 of Plats on Pages 19137-19140, records of Ada County, Idaho being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence along the boundary of said Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 1 the following courses and distances: Thence N 0°09'52"W a distance of 86.95 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 21.65 feet along the arc of a 190.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 6°31'41" and a long chord bearing N 3°25'42" W a distance of 21.64 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 6°41'33"W a distance of 139.28 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 16.41 feet along the arc of a 144.00 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 6°31'41" and a long chord bearing N 3°25'42" W a distance of 16.40 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 0°09'52"W a distance of 72.23 feet to a point; Thence S 70°56'08" E a distance of 107.09 feet to a point; Thence continuing along the boundary of said Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 1 and extending along the boundary of Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 2, as shown in Book 122 of Plats on Pages 19344-19346, records of Ada County, Idaho S 75°33'08" E a distance of 634.36 feet to an angle point on the westerly boundary of said Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 2; Lzil' d 01tit olls Lavender Place Subdivision L d Surveying anc consmnng Preliminary Plat Jab No.17-55 Page 1 of 2 Page 16 Thence continuing along the boundary of said Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 2 and extending along the boundary of said Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 1 S 0°01'36" W a distance of 142.55 feet to an angle point on the boundary of said Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 1; Thence along the boundary of said Lavender Heights Subdivision No. 1 N 89°58'24" W a distance of 696.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 3.79 acres more or less. \oNPL LANs Clinton W. Hansen, PLS 5� TF Gp Land Solutions, PC F May 25, 2022 11118 A 05(25 l�iy97F OF �O �5) TO/V Lan, olutlons Lavender Place Subdivision s—ymg and con-,,.q Preliminary Plat Job No.17-55 Page 2 of 2 Page 17 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 3,130/2022 8/19/2022) LAVENDER PLACE SUBDIVISION-2022 PRELIMINARY PLAT Q idm SITE f 5; VC2 T7. tIII PLLI O O NI W.K. k- ......... --------------- - -- ------------------ PRE Page 18 EXISTING PARK fill EXISTI G LAVENDER IGHTS O HE NE LAVENDER RHASET HASETWO K '•I r h1AIN ENTRY 1 z 2 �4',� 1 FARR LATERAL NA( b 3 + 4 r Gfp L.P p 5 6 A7HWAy p o- 33 7 13 S112 II II 32 � P i-. 28 r 27 f5 + PRIVATg 30 26+ 25 L .' ..r...W.-.'_ 23 22 .-_- ' i 21 19 � 5 PLhZ/f/PICNIC FIFEACCESS 'FewP HAMMERHEAD 20 C�i: Ifp EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUFFER EXISTIN----- �� G LAND . UFFEP LAKE HAZEL ROAD low ` FUTURE DISCOVERY PARK , DISCOVERYPARK FIRE STATION LAVENDER PLACE SUBDIVISION - " 2160 E.LAKE HAZEL ROAD MERIDIAN,IDAHO 83642 _ Page 19 C. Landscape Plans(date: Z/30/2022 8/22/2022) LANDSC a � CALLOUT LEGEND 1 � 8 a � REQUIREMENTS - a it P pa O_ wfiE.�a� CO¢cv a 2! w T PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN - - - - - _ O mw cc)U LANDSCAPE NOTES N NOTES TOPSOIL NOTES U=O LANDSCAPE PLAN Z _ w wgv% N PLANT SCHEDULE LU ILQZ M...a.. � �_- .w° ter.�. ;. Z O ul ,..a m. M....,... LU'n > LL IRRIGATION NOTES '� Q 1` e M M TURF AREA PREPARATION NOTES a s9 gi!€exs• . a �_ - WEED ABATEMENT NOTES: Y - _ ..z.,d.. - . ..M ...�.....�,.° cc AjL1.0 Page 20 -40 a�4/��` 4�; `f 4„1�1 rvµit f 4: t• rr; � t t,'f; /�u1�� O T I —ems. LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 21 D. REVISED Parking Exhibit(NOT APPROVED): OVErn. I . � - --mow�s �. , •_ � ;; I � I m — UCS+ k•'ria�Cl to J LAVENDER PLACE PARKING EXHIBIT -0 — 3 �ieoGoeM VM41 2 �e-olr0ov'l Unl'f5 Page 22 BuildingE. Conceptual VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated Nlafeh 30 August 19, 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to Final Plat submittal the Gi4y Couneil heat r • 11 a*d an additional sidewalk e 4-4-44-pereii-A-4-4-4-we—ar-the plaza area for-added pedestir-i eEmneetivity through the pr-qjeet to the existing after-ial sidewalk aleng E. Lake 14 Read,per-the a*alysis in Seetion N1.1. b. Add an additional common lot solely for the proposed private street per UDC 11-3F- 4A and revise plat note#8 to reflect the new common lot. e. Revise the plaeemen4 and desip of the driveways for-Lots 32 and 33,Bleek 11 f., gar-age loss than 20 feet deep; prohibited. open pafk4fig spaee per-3 of 4 bedr-eem unit ifistead of�wo (2) eensisteat with St analysis in See6on N1.14. e. Revise the Wat to remove the par-kifif_t shwA%-within the hammer-head tumafeupA"4 2. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C,dated Mafeh 30August 22,2022,is approved as submitted. shall be ro oa as follows Prior-to the City r,.une l heaning- a. Devise the!a-a 1s.ape,-.la to mate the pla4 revisions fieted i VIII A 1 abE)Ve • 3. Futufe hemes within this develei3meat shall eepAaia no mefe than 2 bedr-eems i3er-r-esidenfiai 4. City Council approved the submitted preliminary plat with a dead end street greater than 500 feet in length(approximately 680 feet),per provisions in UDC 11-6C-3B.4b. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the previous approvals of the subject site: H- 2020-0009 (Lavender Heights Subdivision), DA Inst. #2020-106343; and H-2022-0017 (MDA). 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit except for those lots noted within the approved Alternative Compliance request and the attached parking exhibit(Exhibit VII.D); said exhibit shall be strictly adhered to by the Developer/Applicant and shall work with Staff to provide proof that each designated parking space is adequately delineated for each noted unit AND that there is a process in place for future residents to have anyone towed should someone park in a designated spot without permission. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. Page 24 9. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 10. Prior to the first Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review(DES)approval for the single-family attached and single-family townhomes in this development. 11. Prior to signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along the Farr Lateral 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). 12. 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. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Flow is committed. 1.2 Sewer main and manhole must be centered along easement. 1.3 Utility easement not listed on Declaration St. 30'easement required for sewer and water running in parallel. 1.4 Per the Pre-application notes, applicant is required to connect to Lake Hazel Road in addition to Bloomerang connection. Connect at the eastern side of the site. 1.5 20'easement needed up to water meter vault and past, as space allows. 1.6 Due to E. Declaration St being private, streetlighting will be up to the developer. 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 Page 25 the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"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 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. 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. 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 Page 26 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 11-12-3H. 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 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. 2.22 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciV.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=265660&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridianciV.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=266645&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=266650&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Page 27 Lty IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; City Council finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; City Council finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section Mfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. B. Conditional Use Permit findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. City Council finds that the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development regulations in the R-40 zoning district in which it resides except for those noted and required to be revised. Page 28 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. City Council finds the proposed use of single family townhome residential is in accord with the comprehensive plan designation of Medium-High Density Residential within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of this title. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. City Council finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, if all conditions of approval are met. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. City Council finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. City Council finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services if all conditions of approval are met. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so City Council finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic will slightly increase in the vicinity with the approval of any additional residential units, the proposed layout offers the best opportunity for safe circulation and provides opportunity for a new housing type within this area of the City. Therefore, City Council finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005,eff.9-15-2005) The Applicant is preserving the existing Farr Lateral along the north property boundary and no other such features are known; therefore, City Council finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. C. Private Street Findings: In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article; Page 29 The design of the proposed private streets complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F- 4. See analysis in Section Vfor more information. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance,or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and Staff does not anticipate the proposed private street would cause any hazard, nuisance or other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity if the street is designed as proposed and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4B. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. The location of the private street does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the regional transportation plan as it is proposed to connect to a collector street consistent with private street standards. With the constraints detailed and analyzed for this development, the Director finds that local street access has been provided via a private street. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. Despite a literal mew not being proposed with the Lavender Place project, the proposed residential development depicts all 30 units to front on green space meeting the intent of this standard. If the conditions of approval are adhered to, the Director finds this development in compliance with this finding. D. Alternative Compliance findings (Common Drive standards UDC 11-6C-3D.1): The Director has approved your request for alternative compliance to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6C-3D.1 for the subject property,based on the required Findings listed in UDC 11-513- 5E, as follows: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds it is feasible to meet the UDC requirement referenced above but it is not the best use of the subject development area as discussed in Section V.G above. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the Applicant's proposed alternative means of complying with the intent of the UDC as proposed in the attached preliminary plat provides an equal means of meeting the requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds that the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use and/or character of surrounding residential properties nor the adjacent public roads. E. Alternative Compliance findings (Private Street standards UDC 11-3174A.6): The Director has approved your request for alternative compliance to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-3F-4A.6 for the subject property,based on the required Findings listed in UDC 11-513- 5E, as follows: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds it is not feasible to meet the UDC requirement to not include a common Page 30 drive off of a private street due to the existing requirements of the DA (minimum number of units and only single-family residential)as discussed above in Section V.G above. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the Applicant's proposed alternative means of complying with the intent of the UDC as proposed in the attached preliminary plat provides an equal means of meeting the requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds that the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use and/or character of surrounding residential properties nor the adjacent public roads. F. Alternative Compliance findings (Off-Street Parking standards UDC 11-3C-6A): The Director has approved your request for alternative compliance to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-3C-6A for the subject property,based on the required Findings listed in UDC 11-5B- 5E, as follows: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds it is feasible to meet the UDC requirement for the number of off-street parking spaces if the Applicant was limited to no more than 2-bedroom homes for all units taking access from the alley as noted. Staff is not recommending this but the Council may require it. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Per the provisions outlined in code, the Director finds that Staffs revision to the Applicant's proposed alternative compliance request is an equal or superior means for meeting the off- street parking requirements as proposed on the preliminary plat and submitted parking exhibit(Exhibit HID above). 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds that the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use and/or character of surrounding residential properties if the proposed conditions of approval are maintained. Page 31 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Development Agreement (Centrepointe Mixed-Use H-2022-0035) Between the City of Meridian and MGM Meridian, LLC and MGM Meridian 2, LLC for Property Located at 3100 N. Centrepoint Way and 3030 N. Cajun Lane ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-079000 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=23 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 09/14/2022 08:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. MGM Meridian,LLC, Owner/Developer 3. MGM Meridian 2,LLC,Owner/Developer THIS ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is dated this 13th- day of __'5e,p ty of Meridian, a municipal 2022, ("ADDENDUM"), by and between Ci corporation oft e State of Idaho("CITY"),whose address is 3 3 E.BroadwayAvenue,Meridian,Idaho 83642 and MGM Meridian, LLC, ("OWNER/DEVELOPER"), whose address is 5 Naranja Way, Portola Valley,CA 94028 and MGM Meridian 2,LLC("OWNER/DEVELOPER"),whose address is 5 Naranja Way, Portola Valley, CA 94028, RECITALS A. CITY originally entered into the existing Development Agreement recorded as Instrument#2019-060877 in Ada County Records with the owner of record at that time,Sadie Creek Commons, LLC, Sadie Creek Commons, LLC subsequently sold the entire property to MGM Meridian,LLC through Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument#2022-015449 in Ada County Records. MGM Meridian, LLC subsequently transferred ownership of a portion oft e property, identified as 3030 N.Cajun Lane(Parcel S 1105110120)to MGM Meridian 2,LLC by Quitclaim Deed recorded as Instrument#2022-024826 in Ada County Records,MGM Meridian,LLC and MGM Meridian 2,LLC, hereinafter referred to as Owner/Developer,and City,hereby acknowledge the property identified in Exhibit"A" is bound by the terms of the existing Development Agreement, recorded as Instrument #2019-060877 in Ada County Records. B. OWNER/DEVELOPER has submitted an application fora Modification ofthe Existing Development Agreement(Instrument#2019-060877)for the purpose of updating the concept plan and provisions to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space and a multi- family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building on 11.1 acres in the C-G zoning district. The Meridian City Council approved said application with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as set forth in the attached Exhibit"B." C. CITY and OWNER/DEVELOPER now desire to amend said Development Agreement,which terms have been approved byte Meridian City Council in accordance with UDC section 11-5B-4. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein,the parties agree as follows: ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-H-2022-0035—Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA Page lof5 1. OWNER/DEVELOPER shall be bound by the terms of the Development Agreement recorded as Instrument#2019-060877, except as specifically amended as follows: a.Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the submitted concept plan and color renderings included in Section VI of Exhibit B and the provisions contained herein. b.Future development shall comply with the standards outlined in the multi-family development specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27. c.All future pedestrian crossings that traverse shared drive aisles within the development shall be constructed with brick,pavers,stamped concrete,or colored concrete to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. d.The required landscape street buffers and multi-use pathway segment shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development along E. Ustick Road and N.Eagle Road; the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with the first phase of development. e.Applicant shall work with ACHD to construct a safe pedestrian crossing from the multi- family site area to the parking lot along the west boundary across N.Centrepoint Way. f. With the future Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family development,the building along the west boundary shall be no more than two-stories in height and the three (3) buildings within the center of the project shall be no more than three-stories in height, consistent with the Applicant's revised concept plan and presentation to Council. g.Applicant shall continue the masonry wall along west property boundary consistent with adjacent development and to help buffer the proposed project. h. Staff and Applicant shall work with ACHD to mark Centrepoint Way as no-parking on both sides, should ACHD allow it. 2. That Owner/Developer agrees to abide by all ordinances ofthe City of Meridian and the Property shall be subject to de-annexation if the Owner/Developer,or their assigns,heirs,or successor shall not meet the conditions of this Addendum,and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian as herein provided. 3. This Addendum shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Addendum shall be binding on the Owner/Developer of the Property,each subsequent owner and any other person(s)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 hereon 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/Developer, to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Addendum if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Owner/Developer have fully performed its obligations under this Addendum. ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-H-2022-0035—Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA Page 2 of 5 4. If any provision of this Addendum is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Addendum and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 5. This Addendum sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition, and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject matterherein,and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or under-standing, 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 Addendum 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. a. Except as herein provided, no condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended within 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. 6. This Addendum shall be effective as of the date herein above written. 7. Except as amended by the Addendums, all terms of the previous Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-H-2022-0035—Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA Page 3 of 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have herein executed this Addendum and made it effective as hereinabove provided. OWNER/DEVELOPER: W,,bwd ,9 /&,,, By: Michael G. Maffia, Manag State of Idaho ) ss: County of Ada ) On this day of _ , 2022, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Michael G. Maffia, known or identified to me to be the Manager of MGM Meridian,LLC and the person who signed above and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: _ Commission expires: ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-H-2022-0035—Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA Page 4 of 5 CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 .spa tttss� .tfa£ zis�aYfi�4fe sK i EFc4 '; =fit A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies onlythe identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy,or validity of that document. State of California County of _ j On I ��1� before me,_� Date t A Here Insert Name and Title of th Officer personally appeared 1�11(jP1 L1"_Ia me? Nome(s)of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the _ laws of the State of California that the foregoing MAREEN MAFFIA paragraph is true and correct. MAREEN [ Notary Public•California jzj San Mateo County WITNESS my hand and official seal. Commission F 2365923 My Comm.Expires Jul 16,2025 Signature Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL — Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: ",Omd aA TDVgL�/�Cf Document Date:, Aqp h .40Z4- _NumberofPages:—b Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _ _ ----- Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Mt /-L 10--too Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Corporate Officer— Title(s): ❑ Partner— ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner— ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ,MtOther: 114A),4ZLk ❑ Other: Signer is Representing:_ Signer is Representing: 02019 National Notary Association OWNER/DEVELOPER: B yA 1 c 0ha G. Maffia,Manager State of Idaho ) ss: County of Ada ) On this day of , 2022, before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Michael G. Maffia, known or identified to me to be the Manager of MGM Meridian 2, LLC and the person who signed above and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Commission expires: CITY OF MERIDIAN Attest: Mayor Robert E. Simison 9-13-2022 Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-13-2022 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this 13th day of_ September 2022,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,ofthe 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: 3-28-2028_ ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-H-2022-0035—Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA Page 5 of 5 CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE §1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy,or validity of that document. State of California County of�SAn/ MAC T I_ On _� bf7� � before me,_ $ L� �ZgAl f�hj, Date Here Insert Name and Title of th ff<cer personally appeared —N/ChaeJ) RdA1 z Nome(s)of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing *my M PubliREEN MAFf1A paragraph is true and correct. Notary Public•Gllfornl�San Mateo County Commission M 2365923 WITNESS my hand and official seal. Comm.Expires Jul 16,2025 1 Signature fi Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp Above Signature of Nota Public OPTIONAL Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Docu�m"e/nt_ Title or Type of Document: _14 dilm a— Document Date: .,W7& a4: 1 lle — Number of Pages: S Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies)Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: —Ml � J�� Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer— Title(s): ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner— ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner— ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ELOther: _ ❑ Other: Signer is Representing: Signer is Representing: 02019 National Notary Association EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION TH E �e ®� Page 10F 1 LAND GROUP May 9, 2019 Project No.: 117108 VILLASPORT PARCEL"E & F" COMBINED DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in Government Lot 1 in the Northeast One 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 point 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 495.33 feet on the north line of said Section 5; Thence South 01°05'59" West, a distance of 41.45 feet to a point on the easterly boundary line of that Parcel as described in Warranty Deed Instrument Number 2017-094272 of Ada County Records, and on the southerly right-of-way line of East Ustick Road, said point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 010 05' 59" West, a distance of 302.81 feet on the exterior boundary line of said Warranty Deed parcel; Thence South 81°54'00" East, a distance of 24.72 feet on the exterior boundary line of said Warranty Deed parcel; Thence South 84°06'00" East, a distance of 428.70 feet on the exterior boundary line of said Warranty Deed parcel to the Northeast Corner of Parcel C as described in Warranty Deed Instrument Number 2017-094272 of Ada County Records,said point being on the westerly right- of-way line of North Eagle Road; Thence South 01' 14'39"West, a distance of 276.81 feet to a point on the Northerly boundary line of Bienville Square Subdivision, as same is shown on the Plat thereof, recorded in Book 102 of Plats at Page 13495 of Ada County Records; Thence North 83°54' 00"West,a distance of 510.21 feet on said Northerly boundary line; Thence North 71°28' 10"West,a distance of 803.90 feet on said Northerly boundary line to a point on the East boundary line of Carol's Subdivision No. 2, as same is shown on the Plat thereof, recorded in Book 39 of Plats at Page 3248 of Ada County Records; Thence North 00° 15' 11"West, a distance of 305.79 feet on said East boundary line to a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of East Ustick Road; Thence on said Southerly right-of-way line of East Ustick Road for the following courses and distances: Thence North 89'39' 20" East, a distance of 125.16 feet; Thence South 45°58' 35" East, a distance of 40.04 feet; Thence North 89'39' 20" East, a distance of 59.00 feet; Thence North 44'47' 01" East, a distance of 53.86 feet; Thence North 89'39' 20" East, a distance of 374.57 feet; Thence South 89°23' 16" East, a distance of 206.36 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. L� The above described parcel contains 11.38 acres more or less. �pA 5TE�q PREPARED BY: The Land Group, Inc. Vl/GW James R. Washburn EIr Pq 7880 2 11P�y 5-9-2019 �gT9Tf OF ,aP�� ' 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 208,939,4041 'WA Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 9,2019— Page 241 of 542 Zbc;o ZbZ abed -6WE'6 Ajnp epua6y bugaayy punoZ)AI!,j ueip paw CAROL'S SOBOIVISION 140. o ITi C Y 'i I IS A g 6 S CiJtiREP INYWAY ��-•��-- K J , R rn IYu;Ilc) / j I N.C�NTAfM01 TWAT 6 - N.CENTREPOINT WAY / / �'I I IPubIIcl 11 cc CD CD b J '''1 I AIIM�1Ei1Y37'N -�_•}/ � I 3 eo 1 ti o � SL emn C4 CD 5 r- / — ? r -T N- i13, s II I N 3 `j G fl. / I I IR i� w e o m = CL o CD jig I o n c"? 223 a� `C c a I I a l O V7 O �► .� CD w I jj � G00 `g -z H-- Sr I I II I�° EI NIN VJ fD r► 3Fgg i� _J 11CD rL �...� soros5�5•r:roxar -i - t? g >a R.CPJM�IA�f E� Y � I I � n'> a t ��IIII I 3 CD Pe€u's L & I I F 0 ^�AY i VY z � z� et I Il� o I ml _N a I le a ss I u• i ® O ® . CL Ea R. 'o R1 fv ..... v7h'. - 7 - --- caU'MJf'E .EM WE BASIS Of SEARING•-- G1•t{ay\Y I! ! ILIAGURDA Wi7ERME I E N.Eagle flood(Publle) u.E:�cEAaSncErsEAu:E-•� € I —Rw R'N Al:• RAY A�w R\c• R'N Rw IV+V� ��_ ! � I ] l�\ o El N b $ m v EXHIBIT B CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW E IDIAN� AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request to modify the existing development agreement(Villasport,Inst. # 2019-060877)for the purpose of updating the concept plan and provisions to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space and a multi-family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building on 11.17 acres in the C-G zoning district,by Givens Pursley. Case No(s). H-2022-0035 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 12,2022 (Findings on July 26, 2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12,2022, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12, 2022, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12, 2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12, 2022, 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 Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035) - 1 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12, 2022, 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 Development Agreement Modification is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12, 2022, 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 11-613-7.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 1I- 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. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.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 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035) -2- 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 11-5B-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 67-651IA. 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. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a),an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 12,2022. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035) -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 26th day of July 2022. AYE COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED AYE COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED AYE AYE COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED___ AYE COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED___ AYE COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) �4 Mayor Robert ison 7-26-2022 .S `3 Slipr nnrl�� IAN ANO � SEAL,P T, Vq{. Chris John n 7- - City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant,Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. B 7-26-2022 y: Dated: City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA—FILE#H-2022-0035) -4- STAFF REPORT C�� W IDIAN - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ®A H O HEARING 7/12/2022 Legend 1 R 8 DATE: R=40 Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner �4 ® 208-884-5533 �� ® C-G SUBJECT: H-2022-0035 -RUT R1 R- CTC Centrepointe Mixed-Use MDA R-15 R-15 Rl I R S R-8 R-2 TR l5 CP - LOCATION: Project is located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane RUT 1 and 3100 N.Centrepoint Way, near the RT R 2 rR 8 RUT-- southwest corner of N. Eagle Road and ®R'14 R1 Rl E. Ustick Road, in the NE 1/4 of the NE I 1/4 of Section 5,Township 3N,Range R-g -®R-2 R1 R.q RUT R-40 R-4 1 E. �ui�RUT C-G I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to modify the existing development agreement(Villasport, Inst. #2019-060877) for the purpose of updating the concept plan and provisions to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space and a multi-family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building on 11.17 acres in the C-G zoning district,by Givens Pursley. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kristen McNeill, Givens Pursley—601 W Bannock Street, Boise, ID 83702 B. Owner: Mike Maffia, MGM Meridian, LLC—5 Naranja Way, Portola Valley, CA 94028 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 6/12/2022 Radius notice mailed to properties within 500 feet 6/10/2022 Page 1 Public hearing notice sign posted 6/17/2022 NextDoor Posting 6/10/2022 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS History The subject application encompasses two(2)parcels surrounding the southwest corner of N. Eagle Road and E. Ustick Road. These parcels were part of a Development Agreement Modification and Conditional Use Permit(CUP)application in 2019 that removed the subject parcels from an existing Development Agreement(DA) for the purpose of entering into a new DA with a new conceptual plan and building elevations(H-2018-0121, DA Inst. # 2019-060877) and a request for a new athletic club and spa(indoor recreation facility), Villasport. The CUP approval for the indoor recreation facility has since expired and the property has been sold to the current owner. Therefore,the current DA contemplates a use that would require a new CUP approval and is under new ownership that has a different vision for the property. Development Agreement Modification& Comprehensive Plan The approved DA(Inst. #2019-060877)depicts an approximate 90,000 square foot 2-story gym with an outdoor pool adjacent to the south boundary and the existing residential development to the south and included some ancillary commercial along Eagle Road. Furthermore,a Traffic Impact Study (TIS)was required as part of the previous approvals and estimated approximately 3,213 additional daily trips in 2018. This volume of trips recommended certain roadway improvements including construction of an eastbound right-turn lane from Ustick Road into the shared private drive aisle— this drive aisle is technically unnamed as it is a commercial drive aisle but it is essentially an extension of N. Cajun Lane from the south.The right-turn lane and internal drive aisle connection to Cajun Lane is constructed and fully functional to date. Through the subject DA Modification,the new owners are proposing to terminate the previous DA in order to enter into a new DA consistent with a new concept plan and associated provisions for a mixed-use development consisting of multi-family residential and commercial space. Specifically, the Applicant's narrative states the inclusion of 259 multi-family units and approximately 9,600 square feet of commercial space on the existing 1 I acres in the C-G zoning district. The submitted concept plan is more detailed when compared to most concept plans submitted with DA Modifications. The Applicant chose this option to provide the City Council and Staff with as much detail as possible to ensure Staff more analysis on the proposed project. Before getting into the details of the submitted concept plan and perspectives, Staff finds it necessary to analyze and discuss the project in a broader scope, specifically how it relates to other development in the area. The subject site is designated Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R) on the future land use map and is part of a much larger area of MU-R along the Eagle Road corridor that includes The Village, Regency at River Valley apartments,as well as multiple other commercial users and a large undeveloped area. Specifically,within the MU-R area in this southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick, there is the Jackson Square development and commercial buildings to the south and on the hard corner to the northeast. The Comprehensive Plan discusses that projects should not contemplate uses across arterials even if they share the same future land use designation as it is not anticipated for users or residents to readily walk or bike across these transportation facilities. However, Staff finds it prudent to analyze all projects in this area with at least the four corners of development around the Ustick and Eagle intersection because,in reality,the transportation impacts and expected users will come from and go beyond just the southwest corner of this intersection. To the north are a number of big box stores(Kohl's, Dick's, and Hobby Lobby) and the new Brickyard vertically integrated development; to the north east is Lowe's and various other Page 2 commercial and restaurant buildings; to the east is Trader Joe's, multiple restaurants, and the Verraso townhomes; and to the southeast are traditional garden style apartments, restaurant users, and the Village. In terms of the ratio of commercial to residential within this area,there is currently a healthy mix of commercial and residential uses within walking distance of each other. Consistent with this discussion, Staff finds the addition of the proposed multi-family development and additional commercial pad sites would offer residential to support the mix of commercial uses in this area. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed project is generally consistent with the MU-R designation because the subject MU-R area currently consists of a number of retail,restaurant,office, and residential uses available to the region and the addition of these units should not over saturate this area with residential. Concept Plan The submitted concept plan(Exhibit VI.B below) depicts five(5) multi-family buildings with internal access(not garden style apartments)and two commercial buildings—the multi-family is split into three(3)4-story buildings on the larger area of the site west of the Cajun Lane and two (2) 3-story buildings between the two commercial buildings Cajun Lane.The submitted plan depicts at least a 25-foot landscape buffer along the entire perimeter of the site except for the southeast area of the site that abuts commercial uses. Further, it appears no building is proposed within 150 feet of the existing residences to the south of the site and includes the 25-foot buffer, carport parking, a drive aisle, and surface parking between the proposed 4-story apartment buildings and the existing homes. For comparison,Villasport was approved approximately 65 feet from the existing homes. Staff finds this separation should significantly help mitigate any issues with the height disparity of the existing two- story homes to the south and the proposed 4-story buildings. The Applicant has provided a perspective drawing from the intersection of Centrepoint and E. Picard looking northeast to help show the view from the street(see section VI.B). Overall, Staff finds the proposed layout to be an efficient use of the space for the proposed multi- family use and provides for the safest access available. However, Staff does have concerns with the viability of the proposed open space to meet code requirements and the design of the southeast portion of the site. According to the specific use standards for multi-family development(UDC 11-4- 3-27),common open space may not be counted towards the required minimum when it is adjacent to arterials unless approved through the CUP process. Therefore, the proposed open space shown may not all be qualified open space if Planning and Zoning Commission do not approve it in its current location. This is concerning because if the Commission does not approve it,the proposed site plan and open space will not comply with the minimum open space standards and major revisions would likely be needed or a relatively major reduction in units would need to occur to reduce the amount of qualified open space needed. Staff's other main concern is in regards to the southeast area of the project that depicts two commercial buildings and two multi-family buildings.The required landscape buffer to Eagle Road is 35 feet and the concept plan depicts a 25 foot buffer instead. In addition, the color concept plan depicts the multi-use pathway segment required within this buffer to be completely out of alignment with the two existing segments to the north and south. Because the design for the commercial and drive-through is shown to be directly abutting the 25-foot buffer,the Applicant will need to shift the entire commercial site west at least 10 feet to comply with UDC requirements. Furthermore, the Applicant will need to extend the multi-use pathway from the existing locations on their north and south boundary and place this pathway within the landscape buffer and not within ACHD right-of- way as currently shown. These required revisions would likely create a need to redesign this area of the project because there will be a reduction in the area available for parking,open space, and circulation. Therefore,to help Page 3 mitigate this,and potentially increase the available commercial area, Staff has specific recommendations to City Council to revise the concept plan prior to the Council meeting: 1. Increase the Eagle Road buffer from 25 feet to 35 feet to comply with the UDC. 2. Continue the multi-use pathway in alignment with the existing locations stubbed to the north and south property lines. 3. Continue the pedestrian network shown along the southern boundary to connect from the west half of the site to the multi-use pathway along Eagle and provide for a connection from the commercial building sidewalks, consistent with code. 4. Remove one or both of two 3-story multi-family buildings or reduce their size to a point that allows more commercial space,more parking,and a plaza that can be more directly shared between the 3-story multi-family buildings and the commercial or the 4-story multi-family and the commercial—there are a number of ways this could be accomplished but Staff is recommending the following: a. Remove building D in lieu of a larger shared plaza in its location. b. Reduce or remove the plaza area currently shown as the noise and smell from the Eagle Road traffic largely reduces the appeal of outdoor seating along this corridor. c. Increase the size of the retail building for added commercial space. With the recommended revisions, the density can be slightly reduced which also reduces the amount of required parking (further discussion below), amount of qualified open space required,and allows the site to comply with dimensional and parking standards—Staff believes these revisions maintain the original intent of the Applicant's design but also increases the available commercial space and area for parking. According to the site data table,the multi-family units consist of 41 studios, 108 1-bedroom units, and 110 2-bedroom units to total 259 units. The minimum parking required for the proposed distribution of unit types and clubhouse is 457 stalls with 218 of them covered; the Applicant is proposing 457 stalls with 218 covered and an additional 20 stalls for the commercial to total 477 parking stalls. The commercial drive-through has already received conditional use permit approval but the proposed multi-family residential would require a CUP in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission should Council approve this DA Modification. However, the site plan contemplates a Starbucks as one of its commercial users which is considered a drive-through restaurant in our code and requires a different commercial parking ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet. Therefore,the minimum commercial parking required for the proposed commercial area is 24 spaces and the Applicant would need to obtain 4 additional parking spaces in this area of the site based on the elements shown on the submitted plan. It has been Staff s experience that coffee shops,especially Starbucks, require parking beyond code minimums so the submitted concept plan causes concern for Staff,as discussed above. Further, should additional restaurant uses be proposed,additional parking would be required to meet code or they would not be allowed. In addition,there are a number of parking spaces proposed west of Centrepoint Way with no other development on this area of the site. In order for future residents to use this parking lot they will need to cross Centrepoint Way which would be anticipated as a busy roadway with the existing residences and the addition of the proposed multi-family. Staff has concerns over the safety of access to this parking lot. Centrepoint Way is public right-of-way so if any crossing is proposed,the Applicant would need to work with ACHD to obtain approval to modify the intersection depicted on the concept plan. Staff supports the inclusion of bulb-outs and striping at a minimum in order to Page 4 help create safer pedestrian access to and from these areas of the property and the Applicant should work with ACHD. In addition to parking, overall access into the site is integral to the analysis of the proposed project. Main access is depicted from Ustick via the shared drive aisle near the center of the development and via Centrepoint Way near the west boundary; no access to Eagle is allowed or proposed. Two access points are depicted to each of these for the multi-family project in the center of the site with the east retail site and 3-story multi-family buildings proposed with an access to the shared drive aisle. All access points are aligned with any access points on opposing sides of the roadways. Because of the proposed use and the existence of the right-turn lane from Ustick to Cajun Lane, Staff supports the proposed accesses and does not find alternatives available without accessing the roadways to the south which are split between public right-of-way and a private lane. As discussed above,the previous use was approved with a CUP and required a TIS,which noted that approximately 3,213 additional daily vehicle trips were anticipated. In anticipation of the proposed use and number of units,the Applicant reached out to ACHD to determine if a new TIS would be required.The proposed use of multi-family and the reduction in commercial area is anticipated to generate less trips than the previous use of an indoor recreation facility. Therefore,ACHD is not requiring a new TIS but instead requested an abbreviated study that includes turn lane analyses, parking analyses,and an updated trip generation study for the multi-family use. The Applicant performed the requested analyses and provided an abbreviated TIS report to ACHD and Staff. According to this document, the proposed multi-family project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,249 daily trips which is a reduction of approximately 1,964 trips per day. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to generate less than 40%of the previously anticipated vehicle trips.This is a significant reduction in vehicles trips for the adjacent local and private streets as well as to the intersection of Eagle and Ustick. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA with the proposed site plan revisions and per the DA provisions in Section VI.C. B. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 28,2022 and July 12,2022. At the public hearing, the Council moved to approve the subject Development Agreement Modification reauest. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Mike Maffia,Owner/Applicant: Deborah Nelson,Applicant Representative Brandon McDougald,Applicant Engineer; b. In opposition: Janet Bailey. neighbor:J.R. Schofield,neighbor:Wendy McKinneyz resident Joe White,neighbor; C. Commenting: Janet Bailey; J.R. Schofield: Wendy McKinney:Joe White: Julie Vrba: d. Written testimony: 2 nieces—Jared Schofield and Steve Grant neighbors e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Nary, City Attorney 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony, a. Traffic and parking concerns with proposed multi-family use,specifically with cross- traffic through private street to the south and out to Eagle Road: b. Concerns with proposed height disparity of existing two-story single-family homes and grogosed 4-story apartment buildings —appreciation for Applicant's change to 3-story but still concerned with traffic circulation: Page 5 Concerns with new proposed building along west property boundary and its transition of density and height to existing R-2 lots west of the site; 3. Key issued of discussion by City Council;. a� Issues presented by written testimony,specifically if any discussion occurred regarding continuing a masonry wall along west boundary: b. Traffic flow for proposed multi-family use in terms of volume and anticipated circulation through existing development to the south: g-s Volume of traffic of proposed use(Multi-family)versus existing approvals(Villasport); d. Height transition of existing approvals and proposed 4-story product type—Council reguested no more than 3-story tall buildings. Proposed narking counts and location—Council was not comfortable with parking area west of Centrepoint Way and expressed a desire for all buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site; f. Does Staff find proposed apartment along west boundary representative of adequate transitional density and use_ g. Appreciation of Applicant's decision to reduce height of proposed buildings and self- park areas of the project per Council's discussion; h. Screening of west building to existing homes—i.e. continuing wall along west boundary, including a buffer along west boundary,and additional dense landscaping beyond what code requires: i. Design of Centrepoint Way and whether parking is allowed or should be restricted; Thought process of Applicant to propose more multi-family instead of office along west boundary—discussion on Applicant's preferred option and market consideration; 4. City Council change(s)to Staff recommendation: a� Strike DA provision VI.C.6: b. Add provision to continue masonry wall along west boundary; C. Limit height of buildings per Staff's recommended provision in presentation: d. New provision to have Staff and Applicant work with ACHD to prohibit parking along Centrepoint Way. Page 6 V1. EXHIBITS A. Existing Concept Plan M1uled Ytommuz .l.tMM L""d- THE ., LAND GROUP [eYwtoe �� USTICKROAV AREA A- _ AAEAO C1.01 AREAL- � " �� AREAD-- A AREA E- � ..`••.�.� �' w '� yYpb V She Plan-Overall — C1 00 Page 7 Project Information: IABBAFBB,,M2F6g16 rpp,�BLIR I� IBBAE: AB.ep.Ep1 5 IUSACXROAD mm 3 AlEAA- �_ - AREA 3- — I All C1 02 _ - C1.01 cii - _ III p �) '® ` - _ m n C I T _ � VIA -Tna y"� AREA C- AREA U- ,t3 -.J AREA E- C1.03 ' C104 !i C1OS x; I €r. v s . Site Plan-Overall - Page 8 B. Proposed Conceptual Site Plan and Perspectives(�F AP QRVELDa(REVISED July 2022): SITE INFORMATION rye :'.:Ls•.�„ —M-,'-�, LEGEND22 CO NCE PT SI TE PLAN -CENTREPOINT Eagle e&Ust ick Mer idian,ID iuly 8,2022- Kimley*Horn Page 9 OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS x�x SITE t As.14 � I +mnawas�e.,v,wu 1 n•W. � ; P SITE unxc. Li I asu nZE iK�NAIrV! pp Cp E la„ r.{�IOo^�,4"IGE P90YCEV. L>�8P • la� mrluomx xrmx pawom. irxa > SITE 1 • \ ii rvw 4 e SITE 1 OPEN SPACE SITE 2 OPEN SPACE -- O • I ® oo+c�rcroaoxx x>.ca��x CONCEPT OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT-CENTREPOINT Eagle&Ustick Meridian,ID July I 02 "Mnrn —) Kiml eyoPage 10 SSS ' i 1 77 fA r rL �u , ®�� ■� � 1 nnmi i 111171101 �uu •1 �A i11111�10 �IIIII !I iluliulil.,. _ ■� � �� ; ��I ".� L i 7r� lIINI F �. tIf .............. ssroRY asraty - ARTMENfS HOME 23TORY HOME APARTMENT PARKING E BOURBON ST SITE SECTION a X BIT V-30'-0" SECTIONS AP3.20 E3D_= 3100 CENTREPOINT MERIDIAN osrzmzazz Page 12 C. Staff s Recommended Development Agreement Provisions: 1. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the submitted concept plan and color renderings included in Section VI and the provisions contained herein. 2. Future development shall comply with the standards outlined in the multi-family development specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27. 3. All future pedestrian crossings that traverse shared drive aisles within the development shall be constructed with brick,pavers,stamped concrete,or colored concrete to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-1913.4b. 4. The required landscape street buffers and multi-use pathway segment shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development along E. Ustick Road and N. Eagle Road; the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 5. Applicant shall work with ACHD to construct a safe pedestrian crossing from the multi-family site area to the parking lot along the west boundary across N. Centrepoint Way. �— ie t�tke C-iy otme #eairfg- eise tl�e sitela�gee see - € s f8eemme datia s Section Al. 7. With the future Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family development,the building along the west boundary shall be no more than two-stories in height and the three(3)buildings within the center of the project shall be no more than three-stories in height, consistent with the Applicant's revised concept plan and presentation to Council. 8. Applicant shall continue the masonry wall along west property boundary consistent with adjacent development and to help buffer the proposed project. 9. Staff and Applicant shall work with ACHD to mark Centrepoint Way as no-parking on both sides, should ACHD allow it. Page 13 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Renewal of Agreement for Fire Department Communication Dispatch Services Between Ada County And the City of Meridian for Fiscal Year 2023. AGREEMENT NO. 12695-5-22 RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES BETWEEN ADA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 THIS RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES BETWEEN ADA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"), by and between Ada County (hereinafter referred to as "County") and the City of Meridian, by and through the Meridian Fire Department (hereinafter referred to as "City" or "Meridian Fire"), also collectively or individually referred to as "Party" or"Parties," is entered into for the purpose of establishing a fire communication dispatch service for City to be supplied by County and for the payment of consideration by City to County for the provision of said service. It is further understood that, operationally, County means the Ada County Sheriff's Office (hereinafter referred to as "ACSO"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, County and City entered into Agreement No. 12695 on April 26, 2018 to allow County to furnish radio and telephone dispatch communication services and facilities to City; and WHEREAS, Agreement No. 12695 provided that it could be renewed upon re-execution by both Parties for successive one-year periods beginning October 1 through and including September 30 of the following year; and WHEREAS, County and City wish to renew Agreement No. 12695 for the term of October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, under the same terms and conditions, except as otherwise provided herein. RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES BETWEEN ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 - PAGE 1 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. By the execution of this Agreement, both Parties hereby agree that Agreement No. 12695 will be renewed for the term October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, and that all terms and conditions of Agreement No. 12695 are hereby incorporated, as if set forth in full, and shall remain in full force and effect unless otherwise provided herein. 2. In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to this Agreement, City hereby agrees to pay to County the sum of One Hundred Thirty-One Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Six and 00/100 Dollars ($131,136.00) for the services provided to City, paid in equal portions quarterly at the end of each quarter, to the ALSO, within thirty (30) days following receipt of invoice. Said total amount shall be invoiced by ACSO in time for City to issue final payment to the ACSO no later than September 30, 2023. 3. City's obligations under this Agreement to provide payment as described herein shall be subject to and dependent upon appropriations being made by the Meridian City Council for such purpose. The Meridian Fire Chief, in preparing Meridian Fire's Fiscal Year 2023 budget, shall include in the proposed budget the amount noted herein, which will be duly considered by the Meridian City Council along with the other proposed expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023. 4. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of an entity represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said entity in accordance with duly adopted organizational documents or contracts and, if appropriate, a resolution of the entity, and that this Agreement is binding upon said entity in accordance with its terms. RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES BETWEEN ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 - PAGE 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have subscribed their names on the following dates: ADA COUNTY CITY OF MERIDIAN Board of Ada County Commissioners Robert E. Simison, Mayor Rod Beck, Commissioner Signed this 13th day of September , 20 22. Ryan Davidson, Commissioner ATTEST: Kendra Kenyon, Commissioner Chris Johnson, Meridian City Clerk Signed this_day of , 20_ ATTEST: Phil McGrane, Ada County Clerk Ada County Sheriffs Office Matthew Clifford, Ada County Sheriff Signed this_day of , 20_. RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES BETWEEN ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 - PAGE 3 Appendix A Projected Costs of Services Fire Contracts FY2023 [I page attached] RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES BETWEEN ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 —APPENDIX A Allocated based on Area FY 2023 Fire 1 EMS Dispatch Contract-By Area Agnecy 2021 Area percent of Total Annual Contract Responses Cost Boise Fire 21,741 28.74% $ 312,990 Whitney Fire 1,572 2.08% $ 22,631 Meridian Fire 9,109 12.04% $ 131,136 Eagle Fire 2,619 3.46% $ 37,704 Kuna Fire 2,099 2.77% $ 30,218 Star Fire 1,480 1.96% $ 21,307 NACFR 1,891 2.50% $ 27,223 EMS 35,133 46.45% $ 505,786 Total 75,644 100.00% Cost per incident E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Agreement Between the City of Meridian and 1701 W. Cherry Ln., Meridian, ID Allowing a Recycling Enclosure in an Existing Utility Easement Mayor Robert E. Simison E I D I A N�- City Council Members Joe Borton Treg Bernt Public Works I D A H 0 Luke Cavener Brad Hoaglun Department Jessica Perreault Liz Strader TO: Mayor Robert E. Simison Members of the City Council FROM: Tyson Glock Staff Engineer II DATE: 9/2/22 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT ALLOWING RECYCLING ENCLOSURE IN AN EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: 1. Approve the attached agreement with the property owner at 1701 W Cherry Ln, Meridian, ID. 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Tyson Glock, Staff Engineer II 208-489-0358 Kyle Radek—Assistant City Engineer 208-489-0343 Warren Stewart, City Engineer 208-489-0350 Laurelei McVey, Director of Public Works 208-985-1259 III. DESCRIPTION A. Background The site is an existing Domino's Pizza. The majority of the site is covered by the building and parking with very little unused space. B. Proposed Project The property owner wishes to place a recycling enclosure along the back end of the property to allow them to recycle materials instead of throwing it away. The Page I of'2 project would include a chain link fence and gate which would house two receptacles for recycling. Due to the layout of the property the location selected is over top an existing water and sewer easement. It would not be over the utility piping but the City standards do not allow permanent structures within easements. The agreement would allow the owner to place the structure within the easement. However, in the event that the City needed to access the water or sewer mains,the structure would be removed and replaced at the owner's expense. This provides the owner flexibility with their site without putting additional financial burden on the City. IV. IMPACT A. Strategic Impact: No impact to the City's strategic plan. B. Service/Delivery Impact: No impact to service C. Fiscal Impact: No financial impact to the City. V. ALTERNATIVES The City could deny the request which would make it so the property owner could not have recycling services at their site. VII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Agreement between the property owner and the City to allow the placement of the recycling enclosure within the City's easement. Approved for Council Agenda: Page 2 of'2 AGREEMENT CONCERNING EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT This Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement("Agreement") is entered into between PDM, LLC ("Grantor") and the City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation ("City"). The Grantor and City are collectively referred to as the "Parties." 1. RECITALS 1.1. The Grantor owns the real property described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B ("Property"). 1.2. The Property is encumbered by a thirty-nine-foot public utility easement("Easement"), as depicted in Exhibit C. 1.3. The City owns, operates, and maintains sanitary sewer and/or water pipelines and related facilities within the Easement. 1.4. No permanent structures shall be erected within the Easement. 1.5. The Grantor intends to erect a trash enclosure ("Trash Enclosure") within the Easement, which shall be constructed of removable fencing material, and which shall not exceed 235 square feet. 2. BINDING AGREEMENT. In consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties shall be legally bound by this Agreement. 3. INCORPORATION OF RECITIALS. The Recitals set forth in Section 1 are contractual and binding on the Parties. 4. TRASH ENCLOSURE. The City deems the Trash Enclosure to be a temporary improvement, and not a permanent structure. The City agrees that the Trash Enclosure is not precluded by the prohibition concerning permanent structures referenced in Section 1.4. At the City's request, which may be made in person, telephonically, by email, or in writing, Grantor shall remove the trash enclosure within 24 hours to facilitate any and all City-related work within the Easement. The Grantor shall be solely responsible for removing and/or replacing the Trash Enclosure at Grantor's expense. If the Grantor fails to timely remove the Trash Enclosure, the City shall be authorized to remove the Trash Enclosure, and Grantor shall timely reimburse the City for any and all expenses incurred by the City. Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement, Page 1 In the event of a utility emergency, the City may remove the fencing and trash enclosure without prior notice to the Grantor. The Grantor shall timely reimburse the City for any and all expenses incurred by the City. 5. NOTICES. All notices, excluding City requests referenced in Section 4, shall be given by depositing a copy of such notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid and registered or certified, return receipt requested, to the respective parties hereto at the following addresses: City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 PDM, LLC 2124 S Broadway Ave. Boise, ID 83706 All notices given by certified mail shall be deemed completed as of the date of mailing. 6. APPROVAL OF TRASH ENCLOSURE. This Agreement shall not be construed as approval of the Trash Enclosure by the City of Meridian Community Development Department. Grantor agrees to comply with any requirements set forth in the Unified Development Code of the City of Meridian which are applicable to the Trash Enclosure. 7. LIMITED APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement pertains only to the Parties and the City-owned utilities referenced in Section 1.3. Grantor acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement does not pertain to other entities which may have a legal right to locate other public utilities in the Easement. 8. RECORDATION. The City is authorized to record this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits. 9. BINDING ON SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. This Agreement shall be binding on the Grantor, subsequent owners of the Property, and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. 10. CHOICE OF LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with Idaho law. Any action brought by the Grantor or the City shall be brought within Ada County, Idaho. 11. ATTORNEY FEES. Should any litigation be commenced between the Parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing parry shall be entitled to court costs and reasonable attorney fees as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 12. FINAL AGREEMENT. This Agreement relates to,but does supplant, the Easement. The Easement and this Agreement, read together, set forth all promises and agreements between Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement, Page 2 the Parties. Amendments to this Agreement, if any, shall only be effective if approved by the Parties in writing. 13. HEADINGS. The bolded paragraph headings are for convenience only and shall not be used in interpreting or construing this Agreement. PDM, LLC �5-/�— )5�-, /,( By: Philip F Mikelonis STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on this day , 2022, by (name of individual) on behalf of (name of entity on behalf of w om record was executed), in the following representative capacity: QHI � (type of authority such as officer or managing member). (stamp) 4 jj SAMANTHAAARON SIgnatOury Notary Public-State of Idaho Commission Number 20191516 My Commission Expires: My Commission Expires Jul 31,2025 Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement, Page 3 City of Meridian By: Robert E. Simison, Mayor 9-13-2022 Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 9-13-2022 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of September , 2022, 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 Residing in Idaho Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement, Page 4 EXHIBIT A The East 62.18 feet of Lot 3 in Block 1 of the Corner at Vineyards, as measured along the South line, according to the plat thereof, filed in Book 60 of Plats at Pages 5876 and 5877, records of Ada County, Idaho. Except these portions thereof conveyed to Ada County Highway District for public right of way by deeds recorded under instrument Nos. 94033051 and 94033052 and 94033053. Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement, Page 5 EXHIBIT B 50 25 O 50 104 150 SCALE IN FEET roum 1 5,iB' REBAR IN POT, POINT ON W. CHERRY LANE CENTERLINE CHERRY LANE BASIS OF BEARING) N 89 33'47'W I65G.5I' 2 1 �" — -- — -- 40.0 t 1 12 S es'33'47_E'V109.22 S 5.00 S 83 51'Os`E *Js 251.25 T _ tr V.m.mo*Gaon 1] ` — — — z5.5T a3�' S 89'33'47'E 210.16 17. .� — .x n 1.Oi �99.15 N. pOp 8 SUBJECT $ a M PROPERTY. 3 EAST HALF " 1d w w OFLOT3 w I� 4 2 g z BLOCK 1 (n x I� I 89'23 27 E iwcflESS-EM 5 AND LMUrr EASEM r p 15.00 9ENEFiT�NG L."1 TARO 5 Fl 00'I36'33"W 118.35 t a.36 6218 7.76 112.26 112-69 425' N as,33'47'W 598.00 Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement, Page 6 EXHIBIT C [See attached Recorded Plat] Agreement Concerning Existing Utility Easement, Page 7 C4 a ZU 0 0 6 z .,N O c z y r z 0 pa E `m o W w v W j z =F nv o i t wo°' 04 2 E oo e• �' aaQo wpm° £7 o 0] P (V r O o n E LJ mi N W 0 C W J Z I0 (7 T z > o Km <�a0 _ z ZN 3 IF216 NU.O. W h WN�U N OVON N30Nn 'N N bo. — — -- — p $� a o no g z4. Nuoi a cY SL_£Bl M.f£,9£_00_S 40'Z9—� O-Z lc2 I .OS �I Q Z O F A N W lJr—,Y OOY£Z 3,CC.9£.00 N W a I W 0 w o ^E Z r ylal I J U o o m Z N -I 0) o z 7 a9o�S` a - E 2 00 a W ¢ ; Va' :v'o = N M < flffZ' 3,ff,9C.00 N ~ O 2Lgr O 2 H Q X Z O ZKaDI I I c 000—° c Qcao D] o ° ro_r 1 Y c �i w o gW3 I I° o`E mE r3 Palo 5 W�O� gI I><c _ _fig ° oEESm S - mE-=` W c=i�"rj s` «Sa5` y we aw E W I �►� _ f O 0014Z J o. I er_ 8o a= �_ I S � I OOY Z 3.f£,9f.00 N n N q Ob I I nl SZW�I I I .9f 00'C4Z _ OOWZ 3°££,9C.00 N a } o: wow Z. zZ v �d Z O311Vld Nn N D OH0_ 20z a o z� Ac— r7(-` LLN w O N � 21 o � � S F w w J mx O w h. CL ozw'R.o < (K o 0 3 < 0., z gym= \ N� fir. <TF U� FYSM1 ��•y/' �60� x a�� Z. 30 c Sao isa„ W�< -let w 8 CJ mg ^ z a a- " z 1. W wa!N 1 z z �z� o� 1a = Y awl �ws W 23iW3,E o Wig iUZQ '< 3 56c - o�ww o f ffi� z =orc Z c�-i S 3oa i€ o J a�< ZZ ZZ ✓ �°di°b <s€ 1�r� <m� JM3z W € W � - �to -joy pixy z SwFa N W _ _ �aZ- ohs 1 4 a LL � a Fo< < � H aza spy � .o€ €s W � `�° `Z _� Oj a F N Vim° �Fw X �Zy LLo N$a °ll " Ewa 6 ova LU O ozw FIR xj,{ o: axe w n1=G F <6 Y=o '/• Q Q• �i6 U�€ 0z _O 6 _ wo •Ow�< o s° w�= (n " :,'4y� S1:' _x _V svl_ nG S <� ! W ;Co ZZZ��*F � €m"x wi �ij gF V�z 0aw LL �O W. " I -IO" GwC ° j �KFS x° Odza j 'xJ �J "w Ifl 5. 'oa€ Z` `a o� oi Fo o13a 10, 'jw' rc a �� Fdw o m El! -- Z k °z w< m m Z. 3 F �y11a€ 3' N N Z�Z� N UGy O3ox N O� _ " <�3 a Z2 o 0 z of zY4 ' - - - __ -w i 6Z ° 6u zw� "Noce wm mN° - u w= u t<j �" m� z< x�o� < o' xwg <o< <6—lS a` z o�°Fmm�w I ZM. ~ ~ 1-a gww F <w •��Nw.y,•'y. 000 xw z Wi �� F Qa�< w M -:la{ V 000 Fm ZyQ1 maN !!N{ $Q imo = - 0°2 = V= m ^: w"m` <� myi3 w3 rc" r3 ~0¢x 2 o - u Id��a V OOa€ x _O Z. wi"^ w w "^`��m OO •'fib)#•<S�.' m-'�t4i ohm o oc. n ri oa ao 10 �� ra"mOrc u`io a�;} Z. �N oo zoZ_oE_ogo- w=www o 1� 3 �z a€ _ z z�Zaza zz z i w _w < �z _ �U E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: second Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H- 2021-0070) DEVELOPMENT REAL PROPERTY ZONINC CLARK WARDLE JOSHUA J.LEONARD 208.388.3868 JLEONARD@CLARKWARDLE.COM RECEIVED August 23, 2022 AUG 232022 CITY OFC>6fmQ.1M i CITY CLERKS OFFICE Sent by personal service to: Mayor and City Council c/o City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 With copies sent via hand-delivery to: City Attorney's Office and Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 306 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Second Request for Reconsideration' -- H-2021-0070. Dear Mayor and Council, As the Applicant, Linder Holdings, LLC, led by Dave Young, has worked on Burnside (Jackson) Ridge over the past three years, it has been apparent that the City Council members and Planning Staff of the City of Meridian are dedicated to maintaining a high standard for Meridian growth and projects. We appreciate their work and dedication. In particular, Sonya and Joe have helped and counseled us as we prepared a compatible, upscale neighborhood design. Our goal from the beginning has been to achieve a higher standard for single-family residential development in the City of Meridian, with a focus on preserving our local agricultural heritage and history. We also spent two years diligently listening to our neighbors and working with them to resolve their concerns. Ultimately, our project enjoyed overwhelming support from its neighbors—in fact, we are not aware of any testimony, at either Planning and Zoning or the City Council, that was opposed to our Burnside (Jackson) Ridge project. We also resolved the Planning and Zoning t The City Council's August 9,2022,Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law modified its findings from its original June 21,2022,Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The City's legal department has taken the position that we need to ask for reconsideration of modified decisions in order to preserve appeal rights. Therefore, we submit this request for reconsideration. T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua J.Leonard Preston B.Rutter T:208.388.1000 251 E Front St.Suite 310 F:208.388.1001 PO Box 639 ciarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701 CLARK WARDLE 8.3868 RIECEIVIvr% JOSHUA J.LEONARD RKWAR LE.COM JLEONARD@CLARKWARD LE.COM AUG 2 2 2022 CITY OF CuJ � August 23, 2022 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Sent by personal service to: Mayor and City Council c/o City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 With copies sent via hand-delivery to: City Attorney's Office and Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 306 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Second Request for Reconsideration' -- H-2021-0070. Dear Mayor and Council, As the Applicant, Linder Holdings, LLC, led by Dave Young, has worked on Burnside (Jackson) Ridge over the past three years, it has been apparent that the City Council members and Planning Staff of the City of Meridian are dedicated to maintaining a high standard for Meridian growth and projects. We appreciate their work and dedication. In particular, Sonya and Joe have helped and counseled us as we prepared a compatible, upscale neighborhood design. Our goal from the beginning has been to achieve a higher standard for single-family residential development in the City of Meridian, with a focus on preserving our local agricultural heritage and history. We also spent two years diligently listening to our neighbors and working with them to resolve their concerns. Ultimately, our project enjoyed overwhelming support from its neighbors—in fact, we are not aware of any testimony, at either Planning and Zoning or the City Council, that was opposed to our Burnside (Jackson) Ridge project. We also resolved the Planning and Zoning t The City Council's August 9,2022,Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law modified its findings from its original June 21,2022,Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The City's legal department has taken the position that we need to ask for reconsideration of modified decisions in order to preserve appeal rights. Therefore, we submit this request for reconsideration. T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua J.Leonard Preston B.Rutter T:208.388.1000 251 E Front St,Suite 310 F:208-388.1001 PO Box 639 clarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701 Memorandum Page 2 of 5 Commission's concerns, and we were pleased that the P&Z commission unanimously recommended approval of our project. We pursued this project because we were following the City's lead. In the summer of 2019, the City invested significant resources to construct new water and sewer lines to serve the area in which our project is located. Additionally, a new fire station was constructed nearby to provide fire protection service. The contiguity of previously annexed land (the Brundage Estates subdivision), the project's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the City's considerable investments in infrastructure and services in this area conclusively demonstrate that annexation of this property is: ...reasonably necessary to assure the orderly development of[the City of Meridian] in order to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tax-supported and fee-supported municipal services, to enable the orderly development of private lands which benefit from the cost-effective availability of municipal services in urbanizing areas and to equitably allocate the costs of public services in management of development on the urban fringe. Idaho Code § 50-222.(1). Burnside(Jackson)Ridge also complies with the City's required findings for annexation under the City of Meridian's Unified Development Code (see Unified Development Code § 11-5B-3.E): • it "complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan" (E.1); • it"complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement" (E.2); • it is not"materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare" (E.3); • it does 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" (E.4); and • it"is in the best interest of city" (E.5). Burnside (Jackson)Ridge achieves the annexation policy established by the Idaho Legislature and complies with the required findings for annexation found in the City of Meridian's Unified Development Code (see Unified Development Code § 11-5B-3.E), and it has overwhelming z This project is required to come before the City precisely because it is contiguous,per the City's area of impact agreement with Ada County.Ada County Code§ 9-4-4.C. Memorandum Page 3 of 5 support from our neighbors. Additionally, it received an extremely positive staff recommendation and a unanimous recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. With all evidence indicating a likely approval, we were taken aback when the City Council denied our project. We were also confused by the reasons for the City's denial. Originally, the reasons given by the City Council for its denial of our project included the following: 5_ The Property is not located in an area that the City has prioritized for near-term.growth_ 6_ s�enl!ces, e roposed annexation and residential subdi3Osion would place additional burdens on City including,but not limited to,public safety services_ 7_ The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would place additional burdens on local ro ads_ [Original] Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Decision, and Order, dated June 21, 2022, in Case No. H-2021-0070. These rationales created an impossible and unenforceable standard for the City and were appropriately reconsidered. After reconsidering its decision "for the limited purpose of clarifying the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning adverse impacts on public services" (oral Motion to Reconsider at the July 26, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting), however, the City Council's revised reasons for denying our project were significantly different—all three of the above reasons had been deleted, with the following reason substituted in their place: F5 �fheperty is contiguous to land to the east(`Brundage Estates"),which serves as a point iguity for the Applicant's proposed annexation.The City approved a prelimiaaiy plat ndage Estates in 2016,but a final plat has not yet been recorded`leading the City l to find that annexation of additional land to the west ofBrundage Estates is not a expansion of the city limits at this time. [Revised] Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Decision, and Order, dated August 9, 2022, in Case No. H-2021-0070. Denying our project because a final plat has not been recorded for the Brundage Estates subdivision(our project's point of contiguity to the City)is similarly flawed. It imposes a standard not found in Idaho Code or the City's Unified Development Code and,to our knowledge,has never before imposed on an annexation application. In fact,in 2016,the same parcels of real property that comprise the Brundage Estates subdivision were used by the City as the sole "point of contiguity" to annex 1,322.14 acres of real property in what was called the"South Meridian Annexation" (see Case No. 2015-0019). The southernmost portion of the Brundage Estates Memorandum Page 4 of 5 properties can be seen in the following image, which was taken from Exhibit A to each of the twenty-three (23) Development Agreements that were approved by the City Council on January 26, 2022, for the South Meridian Annexation: L - -� s Amity lif-, 0715 oil -r XG I J� 1 I The Brundage Estates property is a valid annexation path—both in 2016 and today. Yet, the [Revised] Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,Final Decision, and Order, dated August 9,2022, posit that because Brundage Estates—a wholly unrelated development that was annexed by the City in 2016—has not recorded its final plat, "the annexation of[Jackson Ridge Estates] . . . is not a logical expansion of city limits." The development status of an unrelated, neighboring development—Brundage Estates—is not a standard upon which the City may decide an annexation request; rather, it is the annexation status of the Brundage Estates property that matters. Memorandum Page 5 of 5 Also, the City's revised reason for denial (that "annexation of additional land to the west of Brundage Estates is not a logical expansion of the city limits at this time")misstates the applicable standards, stated above. By denying Jackson Ridges Estates, even though all services are available, the Council is acting arbitrarily. The record before you shows that fire station#6 is in the immediate vicinity(1.4 miles away), the City's police department can respond within critical response times, the dry line sewer and water lines are directly adjacent and readily accessible, and the traffic impact study's few proposed needs will easily be met. It doesn't have to be this way. The Council can still do the right thing. An abundance of evidence in the record demonstrates that each of the actual standards for annexation under UDC § 11-5B- 3(E) are met, allowing you to find that: ✓ Jackson Ridge Estates does comply with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan; ✓ It complies with Meridian's R-2 and R-4 zoning districts; ✓ It is not materially detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare; ✓ It would not result in an adverse impact upon political subdivisions; and ✓ Annexing Jackson Ridge Estates is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. After great time and effort by City staff, the Mayor, the Council, , and Dave and his team, the matter, it seems,ultimately comes down to a policy choice: whether this is in the"best interest of Meridian." All involved have read the Council's policy choice in its August 9, 2022, Findings, which is why we wish to convey our genuine disappointment. Dave and his team, therefore, respectfully request that the Council reconsider its prior policy choice and find that annexing Jackson Ridge Estates is in fact in the best interests of our City. The record overwhelmingly supports such a finding, which, if adopted, would put the Council on far more defensible grounds. To not act on this request,the Council would be applying an annexation standard that does not exist in the Unified Development Code to deny a truly magnificent addition to its community. That certainly cannot be in the City's best interest. Very truly ours, 01A� Joshua J. Leonard CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, C�WER\IDIAN -- FINAL DECISION,AND ORDERI D A H O Date of Order: August 9, 2022 Case No.: H-2021-0070 (Burnside Ridge Estates) Applicant: Kimberly-Horn and Associates, Inc. In the Matter of. Request for(1) annexation& zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts and (2) a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Pursuant to testimony and evidence received regarding this matter at the public hearing before the Meridian City Council on June 7, 2022, as to this matter, the City Council enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, final decision, and order. A. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that: I. The facts pertaining to the 121.29 acres of land ("the Property"), the Applicant's request, and the process are set forth in the staff report for Case No. H-2021-0070, which is fully incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Property is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian. 3. The Applicant is requesting annexation of the Property in order to develop a residential subdivision. 4. The proposed annexation is a Category A annexation under Idaho Code section 50- 222(3)(a). 5. The Property is contiguous to land to the east ("Brundage Estates"), which serves as a point of contiguity for the Applicant's proposed annexation. The City approved a preliminary plat for Brundage Estates in 2016, but a final plat has not yet been recorded, leading the City Council to find that annexation of additional land to the west of Brundage Estates is not a logical expansion of the city limits at this time. 6. The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would result in approximately 157 school-age children, which would adversely impact the West Ada School District's ability to deliver educational services,particularly at Victory Middle School,which is currently operating at 99.6 percent of full capacity, and will be operating at 100 percent of full capacity upon completion of other residential subdivisions previously approved for development in the relevant attendance area. To meet the need for additional school capacity, the West Ada School District states that it may need to transport students to alternate schools, adjust school attendance areas, or add portable classrooms at existing schools. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 1 7. Based on the foregoing, the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. B. Conclusions of law. The City Council concludes that: I. The City Council takes judicial notice of Idaho Code section 50-222, which governs annexations by cities. 2. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Local Land Use Planning Act("LLUPA"), codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Unified Development Code of the City of Meridian(UDC), all current zoning maps, the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, previous land use decisions, and all minutes and maps concerning the priority of growth in the City of Meridian's area of city impact. 4. In order to grant an annexation and rezone, the City Council must make certain findings as delineated in UDC section I I-5B-3, including a finding that the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. UDC § 11-513-3(E)(5). 5. Because the City Council found that the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian, the requirements set forth in UDC section 11-5B-3 have not been satisfied, and the proposed annexation shall not proceed. 6. A city's decision to deny a Category A annexation is not subject to judicial review under Idaho Code section 50-222(6). Black Labrador Investing, LLC v. Kuna City Council, 147 Idaho 92, 97, 205 P.3d 1228, 1233 (2009). 7. The purpose of the UDC is to "[c]arry out the policies of the comprehensive plan by classifying and regulating the uses of property and structures within the incorporated areas of the City of Meridian[.]"UDC § 11-1-2(B) (emphasis added). Because the Property is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian, and because the proposed annexation shall not proceed, the City Council is precluded from granting the Applicant's request for a preliminary plat. 8. Pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6503, the City of Meridian has properly exercised the powers conferred by LLUPA. C. Order. Pursuant to the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby denies Applicant's request for annexation and zoning of the Property. Further,because the Property is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian, the City Council hereby denies Applicant's request for a preliminary plat. D. Final decision. Upon approval by majority vote of the City Council, this is a final decision of the governing body of the City of Meridian. E. Judicial review. Pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code section 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 2 final decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code section 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of right to regulatory takings analysis. Pursuant to Idaho Code sections 67-652 1(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. IT IS SO ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, on this 9th day of August, 2022. Robert E. Simiso -9- 022 Mayor By Brad Hoaglun, Council President Attest: S�L�eSEA].Chris John n 8-9- 2 City Clerk FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 3 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Mayor's Office: 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Findings Report I i�V •s1 �,� 2022 City of Meridian r #` � :' Citizen Survey �� Findings Report Presented to the City of Meridian, Idaho August 2022 lw Contents ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................i Section 1: Charts and Graphs .................................................1 UL Section 2: Importance-Satisfaction Analysis..................66 t Section 3: Benchmarking Analysis..................................... 72 Section 4: Tabular Data.........................................................83 Section 5: Survey Instrument.............................................135 :W+ 12 ■ r a •F ti •• i}�k `r�l� �I � r��' T ~I Y++Itiiw} ly 's• � .�r� i. 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Executive Summary ban ETC Institute(2022) Page i 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Executive Summary Purpose ETC Institute administered a survey to residents of the City of Meridian during the summer of 2022. The purpose of the survey was to help the City focus planning and budget decisions pertaining to the delivery and quality of services provided. The findings of this survey will help the City better understand citizen use of and satisfaction with City services, programs, and citizen impressions about the performance of the City as a whole. Methodology The seven-page survey, cover letter and postage-paid return envelope were mailed to a random sample of households in the City of Meridian. The cover letter explained the purpose of the survey and encouraged residents to either return their survey by mail or complete the survey online. At the end of the online survey, residents were asked to enter their home address, this was done to ensure that only responses from residents who were part of the random sample were included in the final survey database. Ten days after the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute sent emails and text messages to the households that received the survey to encourage participation. The emails and texts contained a link to the online version of the survey to make it easy for residents to complete the survey. The goal was to obtain completed surveys from at least 500 residents. This goal was met, with a total of 504 residents completing the survey. The overall results for the sample of 504 households have a precision of at least +/-4.3% at the 95% level of confidence. This report contains: • An executive summary of the methodology for administering the survey and major findings, • charts showing the overall results for most questions on the survey and trend data from the 2014, 2017, and 2020 citizen surveys, • Importance-Satisfaction analysis; this analysis was done to determine priority actions for the City to address based upon the survey results, • benchmarking data that show how the results for Meridian compare to other communities, • tables that show the results of the random sample for each question on the survey, • a copy of the survey instrument. ETC Institute(2022) Page ii 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Executive Summary The percentage of "don't know" responses has been excluded from many of the graphs shown in this report to facilitate valid comparisons of the results from Meridian with the results from other communities in ETC Institute's Direction Finder database. Since the number of "don't know" responses often reflects the utilization and awareness of city services, the percentage of "don't know" responses has been provided in the tabular data section of this report. When the "don't know" responses have been excluded, the text of this report will indicate that the responses have been excluded with the phrase "who had an opinion." Overall Perceptions of the City Respondents from the City of Meridian were asked to rate items that may influence perceptions of the City. They were asked to use a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor." Eighty- nine percent (89%) of those surveyed, who had an opinion, indicated that the City as a place to live is "excellent" or"good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, indicated the City as a place to raise a family is "excellent" or "good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Residents were least satisfied with the City's ability to provide mobility options other than driving, with 20% giving a rating of "excellent" or "good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Overall Quality of Life in the City Overall, 83% of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, indicated that the overall quality of life in the City exceeds their expectations (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Eighty-three percent (83%) of residents surveyed, who had an opinion, indicated that customer service from City employees is exceeding their expectations (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Value Received for City Tax Dollars and Fees Overall, 68% of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, feel they are getting their money's worth for the value they receive from City tax dollars and fees (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Twenty- five percent (25%) of residents were "neutral" (rating of 4 to 6 on an 11-point scale), and 7% did not feel they are getting their money's worth (rating of 0 to 3 on an 11-point scale). Overall Quality of Services Provided by the City The major categories of City services that had the highest levels of satisfaction, based upon the combined percentage of 7 to 10 ratings on an 11-point scale among residents who had an opinion, were: fire and rescue services (96%), City parks (92%), garbage/trash pick-up services (88%), sewer services (85%), ETC Institute(2022) Page iii 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Executive Summary water services (85%), and police department and law enforcement (84%). For 16 of the 17 major categories of City services that were rated, 50% or more of residents who had an opinion were "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Based on the sum of respondents' top three choices, the City services that residents feel should receive the most emphasis from City leaders over the next two years are: 1) planning and zoning services, 2) police department and law enforcement, and 3) traffic enforcement. Parks and Recreation Services Ninety-five percent (95%) of respondents, who had an opinion, rated the overall quality, appearance, and maintenance of City parks as either "excellent" or "good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Other parks and recreation services that residents rated as "excellent" or "good" include: the quality of athletic fields (89%), the number of City parks (86%), and the quality of youth sports programs (79%). The availability of community center and gym facilities was the only item that a majority of respondents did not rate as "excellent" or "good" (46%) (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Public Safety Services Ninety-seven percent (97%) of residents surveyed who had an opinion, rated the overall quality of the fire department as either "excellent" or "good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Other public safety services that residents rated as "excellent" or "good" include: fire response time to emergencies (96%), overall quality of Emergency Medical Services (96%), location of fire stations (92%), professionalism of emergency responders (92%), and overall feeling of safety in the City (92%). Codes and Ordinances Eighty-seven percent (87%) of respondents, who had an opinion, rated the removal of graffiti as either "excellent" or "good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Other code enforcement services that residents rated as "excellent" or "good" include: abandoned/junk automobile removal (74%) and illegal dumping (73%). City Communication Services Eighty percent (80%) of respondents, who had an opinion, rated the usefulness of online services on the City website as either "excellent" or "good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Other city communication services that residents rated as "excellent" or "good" include: the quality of www.meridiancity.org (76%), and information about City programs and services (75%). ETC Institute(2022) Page iv 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Executive Summary Nearly half (47%) of residents indicated they currently get information about Meridian's services and programs from the City website. Other frequent sources of information include: social media (42%), flyers in utility bills (40%), and television/news (34%). Additional Findings Agreement with Various Statements About the City of Meridian. Eighty-three percent (83%) of residents surveyed, who had an opinion, indicated they either "strongly agree" or "agree" that quality shopping and entertainment are accessible in the City of Meridian (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11- point scale). Other statements about the City with the same level of agreement include: variety of employment opportunities exist (59%), and Meridian has a sense of community (58%). The lowest level of agreement among residents surveyed, who had an opinion, concerns how wisely the City is managing growth (30%). ➢ Ratings of Services Provided by Other Agency Partners. Eighty-five percent (85%) of residents surveyed, who had an opinion, rated the cemetery services provided by Meridian Cemetery Maintenance as either "excellent" or "good" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Other services provided that residents rated as "excellent" or "good" include: library services by Meridian Library District (84%), elections by the Ada County clerk (80%), and cell/mobile/data service by provider in Meridian (74%). Ratings of Road-Related Projects. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of residents surveyed, who had an opinion, rated roadway widening as a "high priority" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Other road-related projects that residents rated as a "high priority" include: intersection improvements (82%) and pathway/sidewalk connections on local streets (76%). Based on the sum of their top three choices, the transportation improvements that residents feel should receive the most emphasis from City leaders over the next two years are: 1) roadway widening, 2) intersection improvements, and 3) shared bike and pedestrian facilities. Importance of Community Issues. Ninety-six percent (96%) of residents surveyed, who had an opinion, rated roads, traffic and transportation as a "high priority" (rating of 7 to 10 on an 11-point scale). Other community issues that residents rated as a "high priority" include: education and schools (90%), growth and development (88%), and jobs and economic development (80%). Based on the sum of respondent's top three choices, the community issues that residents indicated should receive the most emphasis from City leaders over the next three years are: 1) roads, traffic, and transportation, 2) growth and development, and 3) education and schools. ETC Institute(2022) Page v 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report 2022 City of • n Citizen Survey Executive Summary How the City of Meridian Compares to Other Communities Nationally Satisfaction ratings for the City of Meridian rated above the U.S.average in 40 of the 41 areas that were assessed.The City of Meridian rated significantly higher than the U.S. average (difference of 5%or more) in 37 of these areas. Listed below are the comparisons between the City of Meridian and the U.S. average: Service Meridian U.S. Difference Category Customer service from City employees 83.0% 40.6% 42.4% Quality of Life Quality of youth sports programs 79.4% 39.1% 40.3% Parks and Recreation As a place to live 89.4% 49.7% 39.7% Perceptions of the City Usefulness of online services on City website 80.0% 43.4% 36.6% Communication Police safety education programs 74.6% 38.6% 36.0% Public Safety Quality of athletic fields 88.6% 52.7% 35.9% Parks and Recreation Quality of local police protection 90.0% 54.6% 35.4% Public Safety Quality of adult sports programs&sporting events 66.9% 33.7% 33.2% Parks and Recreation Garbage/trash pick-up services 88.2% 56.6% 31.6% Overall Ratings of City Services Fire safety education programs 82.1% 50.7% 31.4% Public Safety Water services 84.9% 53.7% 31.2% Overall Ratings of City Services Police response time to emergencies 88.7% 57.6% 31.1% Public Safety Sewer services 85.1% 54.8% 30.3% Overall Ratings of City Services Swimming pool 65.6% 35.8% 29.8% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Safety in city parks 85.2% 56.0% 29.2% Public Safety Communications 66.4% 38.2% 28.2% Overall Ratings of City Services Quality&variety of special events&festivals 66.8% 38.6% 28.2% Parks and Recreation Information about City programs&services 74.8% 47.5% 27.3% Communication Code enforcement 68.8% 41.5% 27.3% Overall Ratings of City Services As a place to raise a family 88.2% 62.4% 25.8% Perceptions of the City Overall quality of City services provided 76.0% 50.5% 25.5% Quality of Life Quality of Emergency Medical Services(EMS) 96.0% 72.4% 23.6% Public Safety Overall feeling of safety in the City 91.5% 68.0% 23.5% Public Safety Public involvement in local decision-making 57.6% 34.2% 23.4% Communication Fire response time to emergencies 96.2% 73.1% 23.1% Public Safety Overall quality of the fire department 96.6% 77.8% 18.8% Public Safety Library services 84.3% 65.6% 18.7% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Quality&variety of recreation programs&classes 59.8% 44.5% 15.3% Parks and Recreation Clean-up of litter and debris on private property 60.4% 46.0% 14.4% Enforcement of Codes and Ordinances Recycling services 69.8% 56.6% 13.2% Overall Ratings of City Services Traffic enforcement 62.4% 50.6% 11.8% Overall Ratings of City Services Animal control 61.5% 50.4% 11.1% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Availability of community center&gym facilities 46.4% 36.1% 10.3% Parks and Recreation As a place to work 68.2% 58.2% 10.0% Perceptions of the City City roads 47.9% 41.4% 6.5% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Weed abatement 53.1% 47.0% 6.1% Enforcement of Codes and Ordinances Visibility of police in neighborhoods 61.2% 55.4% 5.8% Public Safety Planning for future growth&development 44.6% 39.7% 4.9% Perceptions of the City K-12 education 51.1% 47.4% 3.7% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Quality of pathways for walking and biking 66.0% 62.5% 3.5% Parks and Recreation Public transportation services 1 22.8% 1 37.8% 1 -15.0% Ratings of Services Provided by Others ETC Institute(2022) Page vi 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report 2022 City of • Executive n Citizen Survey ry How the City of Meridian Compares to Other Communities Regionally Satisfaction ratings for the City of Meridian rated above the average for the Northwest Region in 39 of the 41 areas that were assessed. The Northwest Region includes the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. The City of Meridian rated significantly higher than this average (difference of 5% or more) in 36 of these areas. Listed below are the comparisons between the City of Meridian and the average for the Northwest Region of the United States. [service Northwest Meridian Region Difference Category Quality of youth sports programs 79.4% 26.3% 53.1% Parks and Recreation Quality of athletic fields 88.6% 38.3% 50.3% Parks and Recreation Swimming pool 65.6% 21.2% 44.4% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Customer service from City employees 83.0% 40.6% 42.4% Quality of Life Usefulness of online services on City website 80.0% 39.3% 40.7% Communication As a place to live 89.4% 51.8% 37.6% Perceptions of the City Quality of adult sports programs&sporting events 66.9% 30.5% 36.4% Parks and Recreation Safety in city parks 85.2% 48.9% 36.3% Public Safety As a place to raise a family 88.2% 54.0% 34.2% Perceptions of the City Information about City programs&services 74.8% 40.9% 33.9% Communication Code enforcement 68.8% 36.2% 32.6% Overall Ratings of City Services Overall quality of City services provided 76.0% 45.2% 30.8% Quality of Life Quality of local police protection 90.0% 59.5% 30.5% Public Safety Public involvement in local decision-making 57.6% 28.1% 29.5% Communication Quality&variety of special events&festivals 66.8% 38.5% 28.3% Parks and Recreation Overall feeling of safety in the City 91.5% 64.4% 27.1% Public Safety Communications 66.4% 41.9% 24.5% Overall Ratings of City Services Police safety education programs 74.6% 50.2% 24.4% Public Safety Sewer services 85.1% 61.1% 24.0% Overall Ratings of City Services Police response time to emergencies 88.7% 69.1% 19.6% Public Safety Quality&variety of recreation programs&classes 59.8% 40.2% 19.6% Parks and Recreation Water services 84.9% 65.6% 19.3% Overall Ratings of City Services Fire safety education programs 82.1% 63.4% 18.7% Public Safety Garbage/trash pick-up services 88.2% 69.8% 18.4% Overall Ratings of City Services Library services 84.3% 66.4% 17.9% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Clean-up of litter and debris on private property 60.4% 44.3% 16.1% Enforcement of Codes and Ordinances Availability of community center&gym facilities 46.4% 30.5% 15.9% Parks and Recreation Quality of Emergency Medical Services(EMS) 96.0% 80.4% 15.6% Public Safety Planning for future growth&development 44.6% 29.3% 15.3% Perceptions of the City Traffic enforcement 62.4% 48.9% 13.5% Overall Ratings of City Services Animal control 61.5% 48.9% 12.6% Ratings of Services Provided by Others K-12 education 51.1% 39.8% 11.3% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Overall quality of the fire department 96.6% 86.4% 10.2% Public Safety As a place to work 68.2% 58.2% 10.0% Perceptions of the City Fire response time to emergencies 96.2% 86.4% 9.8% Public Safety Visibility of police in neighborhoods 61.2% 55.6% 5.6% Public Safety Recycling services 69.8% 65.0% 4.8% Overall Ratings of City Services Weed abatement 53.1% 51.0% 2.1% Enforcement of Codes and Ordinances Quality of pathways for walking and biking 66.0% 65.6% 0.4% Parks and Recreation City roads 47.9% 52.1% -4.2% Ratings of Services Provided by Others Public transportation services 1 22.8% 1 49.1% 1 -26.3% 1 Ratings of Services Provided by Others ETC Institute(2022) Page vii 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Executive Summary Investment Priorities Recommended Priorities for the Next Two Years. In order to help the City identify investment priorities for the next two years, ETC Institute conducted an Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) analysis. This analysis examined the importance residents placed on each City service and the level of satisfaction with each service. By identifying services of high importance and low satisfaction, the analysis identified which services will have the most impact on overall satisfaction with City services over the next two years. If the City wants to improve its overall satisfaction rating, the City should prioritize investments in services with the highest Importance Satisfaction (I-S) ratings. Details regarding the methodology for the analysis are provided in the Section 2 of this report. Overall Priorities for the City by Major Category. This analysis reviewed the importance of and satisfaction with major categories of City services. This analysis was conducted to help set the overall priorities for the City. Based on the results of this analysis, the major services that are recommended as the top priorities for investment over the next two years in order to raise the City's overall satisfaction rating are listed below: • Planning and zoning services (IS Rating = 0.3129) • Traffic enforcement (IS Rating = 0.1260) The table on the following page shows the Importance-Satisfaction rating for all 17 major categories of City services that were rated. ETC Institute(2022) Page viii 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Meridian2022 City of Executive Summary 2022 Importance-Satisfaction City of • Major • of Most Importance- Most Important Satisfaction Satisfaction I-S Rating Category of Service Important% Rank Satisfaction% Rank Rating Rank Very High Priority(IS>.20) Planning&zoning services 55% 1 43% 17 0.3129 1 High Priority(IS=.10-.20) Traffic enforcement 34% 3 62% 15 0.1260 2 Medium Priority(IS<.30) Police department/law enforcement 43% 2 84% 6 0.0677 3 Building permit services 15% 8 57% 16 0.0644 4 Recycling services 18% 6 70% 12 0.0535 5 Code enforcement 12% 9 69% 13 0.0387 6 Programs for youth 17% 7 79% 9 0.0351 7 Communications 8% 12 66% 14 0.0282 8 Recreation programs 10% 10 80% 8 0.0202 9 Fire prevention and public education 7% 13 77% 10 0.0163 10 City parks 19% 5 92% 2 0.0151 11 Water services 8% 11 85% 5 0.0127 12 Fire/Rescue services 22% 4 96% 1 0.0087 13 Utility billing services 3% 15 81% 7 0.0062 14 Garbage/trash pick-up services 4% 14 88% 3 0.0052 15 Passport Acceptance Agency 2% 17 71% 11 0.0051 16 Sewer services 3% 16 85% 4 0.0042 17 ETC Institute(2022) Page ix 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Charts I • Graphs �mm—pr ETC Institute(2022) Page 1 N O 0) o_ b0 N t0 � � d � O Il • Q O c N M ri J, i a O ri ri C � O O x N LA 01 ° o o O N N Ln in - - O a *, N N o 041 r%% 0, O o O r ° N 0 \ \ M N Vf E 00 M M M o N o � M � � o M o o O aao - M O kD 4- M CL n m ,o M c o o * 00 V v en cm o o , rn W >` O cn ° ° - - - No O li CO M M \ NOR R* + N Ln W M o\° o\° M V M oo v p x M N x ro O — - ro o N o O I •• I - v CU to v �� a 0 / o — —L M � O O 4— C O 0 Q1 v O O (6 C m Z3 O 4— E E [6 N cII D O 0 v E i \ i � Q -0 — — _ O O O O V U 4- — > u 4- t]A O Q1 + Q v O Q � •v*- 4- 4- O O 4- c V) � o c L 0- Q1 QJ C]A O cn O L O O roulO tB blo m Q Ln ++ Li0 � -0 � �11I `n p Um O O +� O O N 0 � — 4-10 cn Q N bA `m Q O m � U L �_ on Y� a W w O _T N • � a O o a U H w m o v n W v m s a c i a O N o o O L O o o o pmj0 U �00 00 a-+ =a C v O o O — — — — — — — — — — — O 0 v rnn ool 00 NO /A ^ \ 0o0u o o LC l0 t0 iD r o o O 1O `O LOLn o `O �°� `O o N N NtN0 0 V tD O OU o oo\o 0 1° 0 N N _ �- s � Ln M o lO m p `" `n o O L V O , N � � o 0 L 4,j r Ln N H - O 0 o O N N 0 M I No \ O .— LI) N N vfu Ln W ' o a o a o +' L v v 3 v ° ° v E o E o 0 0 v - an " O a, pL ns 4- aL+ v, � 3 o o c O Q u N aJ bA 0- C N O L O N n3 O O 4 J u to +� Q ro 4-1 Q C - U bA N p in +1 v a C c Vn p U cv E p Q .� Q — n3 : L O E 4 — 3 o O > O O O m 4 U L dA �_ dA o 0 • w Lu O� co a1 0O a1 M U H w Q d 6� 4- O +� ` Q e m N O (B x O N o u L a � N Q •� G LJ ° o }' o 00 � � � Z co N p - o � � o o � OR LM u1 9.0 c cf) L vON o � co +� N X +, v O E c O O N N cn f� pCE o � o Ln .� E v Q V ° o w Q) o Ln s � v v N - • v a� � p O x CD — 4.1 O Q L li O O E v = buo Q) m N 4� O a-�+ V L °' Co m cr 0 1 O Q 14— U L- u O O ° = v °' _ L > v O O °; +, 4JCT L L V E ° V OQ, } cB N NL O U � L U O N N x > W w t ° N Q CLO v XO o O LL • r-I L s r oo a 00 o u M 00 00 em 0 M o a-+ 00 00 ° 0 DO \ 00 oCT) r-I a . 00 S p 00 00 ^ n o .� - ^ rtp tx( ^ O � 00 o N J X N ONo L U O m � o H •— o L — Q m r-i r- 0 � o }+ � N N L o - o Nr a � � °° o N N � N a> a-+ 4.+ M o M > N N o 0 o o ° 'o Qc L U Q _ C a N O 0 U O >. O p ai N 0 O O v — U O blou o O ca L 0 U N � L � N +m.+ E 0 c o cr 0 N Q O x W w 0 Q o m cu m 0 b-0 tLo 0 0 O LL 'n c o c 0 4J cn ON '.,,0, v Ln M o M o o - ° ° - - - 0 7EbM en o o o M N M o o M � M ^� 4, o M M o lD W O 0 o IRO aA en00 ° M o M M ^ o c o rn •� v = M M LA M N (31 to LA 0 M � M ox o ° •� � u � - N N � 0 4- � C 0 41 _ 0 +� �..a C: >' m o o o a) 4 N — a� c O O � v v +r s - +� +—' •N •� .L O N N v .� •�N QJ U N N �' L O +�' U Q a1 +' O 0 4A O 0 (p L 0 UO 41 0 CL xi N G) dA O a) CL 0 E " 4 � 0 0 0 0 L v ao � 0 a� c "' N s 0 -a N L L O m c >- m > co ai C E 0 v t m Q41 N N 06:Ll .N M Q W a u N V v Q N 4� N O t Q 0 U t H O 0 41 +� c N +_+ N Q) m m ~ E - +' > 0_ N 0 0 v 0 Q o N � U H w t O N to v t o TO N n r > O a) rn Ln O O O O � Y 00 N a 00 A /O/� O i io\-I rm 0 W u m O Ln o U lD mokD moo\° o o N O ooLn Io o o � off°\ \ N 111- 'ID Ln L�Ln M 'fin N Ln o EO c o �n A' � O W qwj O o� N O 0o N o M 0 N O O O °° .i o N o .� r--i N L v O v N c N 0� x �_ xLn + Ln i O U N a)O N E N Ln o v 0 Q 3 1+- O hA O V N L o L :� 0 ao - Q N v a) � a� s N L LQCAAcu a OE v m) � U No 0 v � ca > c +� �, �_ ai +�o v V U M o Cl o U O 4J ate+ cu v sQj ~ E � _ > Q Cf O N O v v o Y VI C U w 00 0 Q m tCL 4� o LL L v m o 4 E - 4 V 0 c a � V) 4- a� v N L O a--+ � O CE C � ZJ O a_+ V b,O � L � . 4 o -� v o v +� ' of o �— C N J- V o o\° oQ ' � Ln +- tX N 00 M Co E rn 3 0 0 u Xi O m v bn 0 4 045 Ln o L N tw Q � o bto r � 4to 41 Q v U i QJ 2- N Q O N 7 v U H w Q v d a) o LL � � O • L v E O s U � O O x I— 0 U _ NN N m (/I00 M VV tc O rn rn o N 1 n •� o 4-0 V Cu 0 00 00 N � `o 7 L. NC � � � � � N I m u NON .Q � v o o �. O V ° o O 4 ' r- v) c O N _ bn bZ LL N 4 '}, a'� (3) N bA bn 4- S O >, O t 75 4-0 IT! C - `F N O a) CL .� 4- 0 v a cc 4- 14ia✓ C: o °J Q1 O I� O N o O O O O v N N N N U H w 0 o n v v on s m a W _ o to U LL L v v E E O O }� o pi Q L U E o N Ov O 1 N L u x n CL c o N c N O • O 4� +' •� N E a Cl H o o E aJ L X 0 Q aJ x \M N f6 N (10 O� ww C O 0. N C L 1 > 72 3 O v O a-+ L E �• O O t V L x +Qj o w, c W �_ �' `� O _ U O N E X > N N +, O L V 2 - v fu �+ L. 4- o C CL -arse A 0 _ c O- L Q- N Mo N � M U N , Q N N O .0 L N ul f A L X f6 Q) W L 4..) aj (13 H L _I-_ } L . 0 a, +, N C C O E 3 s goo L CU N � > N • > a) U Q C C — O � N cr U C O O +J L N O p U �--� o z Q o O N C U H w Q Of CIO LL A N N M M N N O O T 0 \ O O 00 \ ai !'� M _ ^ O No L 0 o v 00 c o N O N ^ O G 'O O M N N -ONO, pp Tt N o o M ^ c N 1040, V M o o o M N O O RT Re o° O c "ONO 00 i - - c O o M vo � o Ln 0 v � M Ln _ M M Noll c *' 0 00 M v .� v : M — M V N C M ONOU w O X • O MO C: O •• m O Q 4-1 O 4- • C li aU E = O �• • 4-1 ,} _ O V 4-1 bA L }� O o � ro O Ln cn in cn cn V) vO Ln t C Ln + in in U L U U U v U O U N 0 w 41 u 4J Q 4J U 0 c�i� t vOi v 0 Q u v U vOi V +, v ? � O u m O Q (6 Ln Z5 N U Q Q N N co L1 O Qu N O V h p o2S — U L U U ro on L.L fL6 QJ - Q Q1 4- 0 Z i bOA i O Q m c6 v C N Q c6 /� v a `/ L N U Q o O QJ v d c U H w t N O Q N UJ bA H 09 O C � O C o O T o Q� J N N o o ��\ 00Ql N O 00 �4d � U N cz o080, 0 0 v O m o O 00 \ o Y ^ o o 00 u — ^ I o m ^ o ci p b o ��ol- N X ^ ^ o O'S to LO Q1 \� a OQ� M N�) N � N to All O N c �uin O N 1 �p N r, 0) o V � o 0 • m N L 0 o � o o 00 N cn O Izil V N `� E 0 o O o °t N N N N i ti h O N t N -1 v v v a m Y Y •� a a In 0 Z Z Z � � O 4-1 � V) V) a-•+ (N Ln t V) 41 V) 4• (N 4-1 of a1 N N c N E +' O U N c c c N N U L U U U O U — c U a) p 0) U u U O •L Q •L •L •L w •L >` U � •L W w •L •L w > w w w U O O L D Q U U U aJ 41 O V) V) V) V) L V) L O L L (n V) l Q " L- O to CL `� 41 uW 0 0 :-' 4Q N v N _0 a-' j, QJ E O N p O Q N m to � a) U _0p w Q r O v v \ 4 N O Q u O U to 06 co iL tio +� Q U • } Nof O L c N a O m cr Q Q > Q L w Q U N o _ L N •O LL v Q � Y VI C v w m o n v v on s N a nn LM a c S o o Ln 0 Ln OCU _U O � W U V _0 o v W/ M w/ x O NO o o ^' U M w .W � U _ t U s o O o RT F M c� +� U Oo u v, o ON N N N V) Ate, N O o 000 Ln '= A v N o o o 0 3 0000 0000 0 V � o s MM0 Q ■ L N " i o O +- " cn V) cn 4� " " cn c cn " " �. v c c a) Y W 4- W c a� c O v v a, U U U c U a) m v O U U U c �LM N � N u u l � O � L- O � O V) V) V Q i C: O O U dA N +' O Q- N a1 N U _ _ O c Q c a1 u U E p coo E y i - N o N s O U a1 aJ aJ 'Z- E -o u 0- _U N Q N �j U Q f6 c ii c (a i a) VO W E m o Q 0- 4� " • Q c V)CA > LL N Cf O v L 0 U Y L LL C U H w y Q CIO Of 110 o d O N o � 0 0 0 p 00 00 r-I M - ILO o N M o N 00 c o 72 (3) ` N 00 p L 4- f N M m o � v o 0/� 0 0 N E l"I QO p O \ o O � - 00 o O ozob 0 o I� o m ,o N 00 o ° �C. � 1"o � _ M M M O rn a) 41 se 0 o M• L o\° _ Ln a� O U L r4- o U . C x LU x N L � • 0 "ONOV E C� v U L Ia1 U L U U 4J O p cn U L c4-i> Ln 0 O E E > QJ vW p N 4-1 U to Oc6 p C N O 4J O •A L J m i� (6 Q N L— - �1N c6 L L U U m 2 Q O � Q N � > O Q C fB E -0 0- Q C O N Q1 >- m Q O O >j � U .2 -0 � � O U t U v O > 4- O_ L U co on Ln i N C Q W 4J w d L L a a� N a > + cn L > O co ate-+ > u l/I U � aO cr + to i O i Q v _ L O aJ U dA Q U) O > �_ O OL 11p 4-1 Ln N aJ J E a _0 Q v� E L f6 N L E v U v ul Q N E v U il C U H w Ln o Q cu m a 0 o O v � N 0 o �� 0 0 o o \ 000 m L ^ �� ^ ^ i s L N M � No O U ■ �o�o x ■ o o O N N xx1.0 O N N L o N N , O U V) N 4- 0 o 0 o � ^�o c-I O o o 0 � o � [t [t d• [t d' d' d' N a N 00 N N N N N N N N N Y Y VV/ a a a a a a a W ++ .. �. �. •� cn Z Zfu Z Z Z Z Z L u v o u u o v 0 a, }' �_ N M a, " L O 0 O � L L o E u in oc E 0 a, o W +- Q cn W V -a L t a1 Q L U U = Q O +� ca 0O N C: O Q `n `� E Q N c E L +� � .� MMAA v aJ c Q E a' 0 3 4- buo O U O cn U c +r a) L t U o tBUji U aJ aJ iE CL Ou a U v) L 3: >. ° — � v N O �. Ln ca cn U u 4- wo E o L L- c — L c- a, c O aJ a, ,"' L � to 0- cn N CL a1 i O O O L v J E a c Y -a a) LnE L ru aJ E }' dJ u L In Q r N E O a) N U 5 N U H w t Q d O CIO Of v V 0 NO o L L 00 0 O Q \ N m t N 00 LL O u c� N ° M \ o o � E � N o0 N N kD o L O 3 � O a� S co _ V/ U U � ' VL c/'f O o - o buo G x C o O E � Q � t v o\° � O O � E � Ln V) �' O c a� LL v r a o E L O } Q > o o > ° +, +.+ v o ra Ul — > 4 �O m OL O � U v C: an v ° L > Q o > u O O O cv a) 4- 14 4 Co a U U N t1A m _ Ln > C f6 t N N cr L O — — v Q c U H w o Q cu m W a o LL p N \ � ^ � o O Ln o o Q o 0 00 w 0 pp z u N o O M o LM o M m •� ObO M ^ O s o M N o p 4- r-I o0 v � V o rn � N N 0 0 LM _ o 0 o N bD cv Q 2 hA O O , E ++ ° c 0 0 Q) E o +� o W L V) V ago o L a) >- 41 ° > � O 3 O u C L` f0 f� Q O LID O o z O U .� Q a1 U 06 i ++ L N i a1 N O v - C Co cB 0 Co m L a1 ° a L Y r r - �, N N N N O 4. ra N C N C U H w t 00 O UL CLO v T v O U Y 00 N a O r2 E ��N v /�� O OO�O c 2 W _0 � oo� c p o �� Ln� 0 ��^ o�n o 0 0 c o 00 N o 000 00 C�� •� sp _ o o� cn I.cll U") Ln LA Q N W o 0 N N c - � c N rn °° o PP! G N O O o m o N O � O O ° t .— 4- � a c v 1 V/ N V) mlB O �n 3 > O CU O � o L ♦i/ 0 E C C O v +) O_ O O c N r +m .— O 0 O U L N U O Q c O p 4- u °6 N a� .— � 4? v L on c ° 3 m a c - u O 0 N Q 7n c N > N v N 4 O f h C C v w t Q W CIO LM o W O � O LZ > Oi LL lu ( i o 5ai 000 U v M W U � W O .� U G N s (A L M - - O o }+ s N o M U E > � L- Ln O O � N L E X U N Q W V) o N Z ? O O � - c - o O S � � Q) co _ N c� cUn m s o v }' ° co 0- O uj L ca L ° ° OUpv o .o +° 0 0 N -- ro CL oc +, Q o U \�/ L V Q - r m o ra m L U o H cr sv U H w o N Q D) N bD p' (6 b- bD C 'O � � Q LL v u _ p A Ln ^ 00 c v ^ O o .O u CL No D- O ° O a a o O1 00 ^ c Z o p O c o 00 c+%� p �o N � N E O N O W 0 o =^ N O o c\° L4=1 C p M M O n H � Y 06 +� 0 C o M ° rn V � 3 c � tx N X L- �_ a- O • c LID = 0 o o o F- E 4- � � o L 0 u v m ew n n c J w ° 0 0 0 L +� v V) N O L� 4- L c6 4J N 0 t LL u O � U � u •� O O O O L L 14- O O O � � N • CLO i > _0 L � v O oc C: Y U i a J N O N U N v u > _0 ° c J N O c Y N U H w ti O N O_ N N M d C C Q V o •� O U p O ` O i o m ^ 00 o O N O O • U V (3x o `° o LM N L i +� 4- � N 0 N � O V � N N 0 ca N OL O O N N00 NON CF; o N N O � O o +� a� U U V C w LL O J D L O O O O 0 0 O N o C L o v U- N Q -C D u U N E O O .� O L aJ ' O ao O + i >O . v i A U L O Q N �n U v N cr N O U H w N O N O N N M Of bq a � • - s N o v b.A E O •� .— +.+ O ULM O Q rx T O cn N W O to > }+ O •— � O " N o Cr r i 'o o O 4-1 t`Vn O Otx O o uncrO T! U N V x °'- O Q) ° O � > OLn N +� .— N h o ° .� W o o o Ln \•— V)- V)- O s � � O 3 Q s O r O� o >' U H w m O N O N N M Of 0 d � Ln O A 0 O \ ^ 0 O \ p O 0 . r-I 01 rl r-1 dl 00 O _ o a X - - - - - 00 - - - - - O V a) N LnN^ -N N c c c p 00 ch o • c O41 r-I o > 2 p M M M M N E M M M p W Or-i M ol lD } - - _ o - - - - - �- - - - - 0 — ir IM 00 0 0 00000 .401 NOR 6) M M o o p p c 00 L -0 M M M en 0 c V °� ' M c N u U N • W O U .• _ _ o Q X O • .• O r/ O +- E c a) L 4- -NO }' S O LO cn LnUl v� Ln vn Ln Ln tap cn Vn Ln Ln qp Ln -0 O ca a co m ca .v O a > > V)i a Ln co i' } ? CO on O u a, u 0- Q om h A a1 O O oLn Ln 2S O OQ ) m OQ m +- an vW +, U aJ '� �, a) �, a co M O -0 N N Ln > dA t�A 2 �.d C: (a Z D U J F `B O O L O O >- >- T — O ra O 4- LnU o o Otw Q0 4-1 O +, 4- _0 4-1 a o NLn Q a) L i E C7 o?S c- L o Q O O 0 Ln 0 U i Q Q z > 0 0 >. coo p C7 06 �o z � Z >, > 41 Q) Q N > o cr Z - C U H w t 0 N Q v to v t o O v O W\�i0 N Y co ra a-•+ A No 0 0 00 ON V0 o o 0 0 •� 0 Y , of x o c-I o o�� N O l0 U_Z7 �� O , �a4om m� m o p N (B Wi o �o Rio O O Lr)Lr) '^ a t0 N N in uti, N v , o o N rl m ',-NO r14 L � N o � Oo O N � N °° o N o L m N Z o aa..+ N N N N N N N N N N N N N {� QJ CID41 co ra Ca > > �C N N N ca � >• o 1.O O N o� " N "06 O ce$ a� 0 4- Q 4- + N N N in 0 QJ � N O O W C C (O hA fv Y > v bp a.+ C QVI c_ (=3 >- >- 0- a) O >- 0 Q O — >� CO _ E O O 4-1 in in 3 m +J 3 a) ca N v O -0 4- 4 — cr O L E O O O O 4- O v cr Q Z N 4- Q C7 > z = Q z — z Cf co + >- > N to }' Q cr C v w Ln O N Q D1 N bD H bD C O L LL v L O v U N U L > O L � O 1 ° a� > O ° ° N c� >. �- _ Z3 ° s ° .. to s ca O V� U N > s ° Q o Q s o ° LA N O v 7 N C U H w t O fl_ v UJ tio m H on 0 C LL L 1 � O ) Q m o 0 c� � rn o ._ Lr, 00 0 u L ON N CL>` 7p 0000 o +- L •� 0 O � � O u 0-01 >% o N °' > O N _0 ul V d' o H o 0 4-J 0 c E 417A Q N > bjo +•+ — cn O � s � o °' Q a) N s o � s 0 a 0 cr0 0 0 0 N N N N Y VI C v w O Q N N M H d bq � C \ O c o v m v i c , - c O Lf� e O O c i--I rq rl v O Ln O� o rl N 72 N �1 O ��-I c o N - - O - N - c - - 000 ° N ns � LA O N M c N a N V O p O c 1 > O , L uo M ° c ° I.A O O M 1 l0 N o M � Y 3: o 4* 06 ai �o M c U ° - rn (A — - o V � x _ •� 1 a, . C r ° O U co O Q O x a O 4 - N -- v � E t O aA 4,1 ro _ o cB C: caJ `1Q C aU V c Ci OE w ° u 4� a v 4-1 aA t ca CL a) U v c L a u Q O Q v a, v ° . a, v 4- >- 4, a, T O O ao a o ca E v' a�i v aJ aJ U a, ° N 2 o w c ° 4, +, o bD aJ aJ 41 ° U 4 ° n a1 n O Q C a1 E �, Q ° ° V) a, = In a) av ai �J bo c6 fa a) L a) U +' L Q v E v c � U O _ > � " N O �O > O O a, a, N O H o L N 7 N C U f- w t 00 0UL N Q CLO v LL �o o • T N o O 0O rn rn .� tom �b' �oo,�°'� � °ate, o�oo; u Y r, 00 V 00 .0 o N � °° � 00 • � \ N 00 Y ° - � -,000 00 doll ^^ 00 N ^ N O " o NN u to O ' V cn O W O V L \ 0 o o O 00 N o +� G N {� m O o c N 4- 0 z � o a 4-1 Ln V) � Ln Ln L s Ln V O o T L w 4-1v Q °o ao �, � Q >. o io +_� o o 0 Q u N V) v L U Q O Q 4- >- N u o O aA oQ o cn o o O 41 o OL c of v fB O W C: Q D Z ai > 4- — v v CL cc o u O o m C M o ca Q c v +, QLn /�• N a� L QCU O u LL ji O �( > a V � N o 0 0 a N a--+ O O L C v w t O N O_ N N M Of 6 d C C 0 T c O - O O O O NOS, O O — O ^ v O I.A 0 O O O O O o N ol O O cv1 V v o00 u N N c N N o M M V � o a-N0 o v M rn c p (N 3 o O o\° o Uk O � 4- ^ U x O U L C o 0 0 - O uu O ° — N vQ a� E s � 1 - a-+ -0 O ° `� °� LO CD O +, o o E Q co a, O Ln ° _0 O O v v > a� •� - N i N 4-1 O O O Z5 Q 0- t 0 Q1 _0 Ln L 4 O- i O 4.1 Q1 (B 0 fB O p cr U � � Qo �} Q o 0- 0 r O U C U H w m sZ v v � ra d s= a O\ w O v O a� ° pQ O N O0000 W O 00 v ° O O O O O 00 t'D� v �p V � N O " o �, 9 o O N vI \ ul 0 O �c O N N ,nm �� \MLn�n �O O � Ln O � o �+ N o � N ro� O H o 0 W ° V 0 N L cr) 0 o o\° o ruo N W v v F t _ tin +, O Oo > v V� w E E 0 Q) — a� ° °' +� ° v o c� o 0 0 > _ v Q v o v +, o v 0 o 0 Ile Z ) v i O 0 v � — o Q = N 1 N � O V — U H w o �^ n v v on s m LL W =o c LL v 7 C v U N L 0 O N V O A' N W O o N N 0 w1/ � O O L s - O O L. } Q ca O " CL > .. m s O O 0 00 cr N N O N N 7 N C U H w t N O fl_ v UJ tio m H on O 0 O � 00 .10 00 � LL rn O • T J > �1 3 C , N U O .� N i O O aT+ N U � o o Q) ma N � O O cV O o bu0 cl, 0 O � i N _0 O0 Q o m E o a� O °' > s � M s � oolISO N O 00 l� 0 O rl ci N N O O O O v N N N N Y VI C v w m o r^ n v v on s m N a °�° o a O � o O v LO r N N O cu N ON NO o V ON o ._ o Lv N N N o 0 +1 � M ^' c W � o N M � N � O O ^ C O o o W .� to 0 O M � o (� 00 V ° M rn 3 0 o -- No 4-1 E m � U C Z3 X LU O O U X , •A o O ( � ro o _ C) c N �.d Eai C • N (6 V c � t O � O o s � w 0-1 41 >. m 3 Q�3 � o (A Q a U E N N N Q O U > _0 Ln cn + E O /�••� u o 0 �V O i ?, y fD _ N � O 4 hA 0) O p U Q • 4 L N E O O U O L in Q Ocr C N >' cNi) 41 O 4- O >- U L N p o N fp W QL Q v V) O O N c U H w O Q N N bD H d bD =a O w O • Q v i ,w O N • + O 00 L � � � G Co o� o-toN o O O LA W c ^ ^ N .�\-I ^ o ^ N 00 N O o ^ O N Z ^ ^ O O V X VJ o N O o O • Lnlp o0\0 0ro O N N - OR a O 4, N N O O (, c Ln Ln N .� Q O N r-I0 � r � O � o O ty V 0 o N � o � N V)ra N V 0cu N °' s � _ o .N O u O v N E Ln � 06 Ln O U E O c� N m 41 N •� Q N W V i E CC 41 `0 E W °J °, o 1 c `° 0 O a� O LnLn v a) O p c o Ln F v > ro > C U u L N N O O Ln C LU v N C U H w `o clo Q v Of v O O1^^ LL W lu C O N C, U aj � O cv o U 0 N .2 �� v NO O N N oO E10 m O b.0 m .� o CL //�� v_ O - o bA r v O Q o N Q }� N O V o i o, C 0 0 V N Q N m Q) L N O o O U L O v W U N � z Q L N 4- O w s2�- LL � s o 10 0 0 0 N o u � U V) N N (N O 4--i � N Q W U H w o �^ n v v on s m a W O LL O_ > Q Ln Ln N N Ln 1-0 0 N oLrbol p00 ,110 o O N N 0 o v C 4-1 "\` N N 0 N O O ) N E N ,� 0 N C o � � M (/• O N O N N O O \ LO u NOR 00 N N 0 L(1 O 2 Ln LM �� \ o Tt E N c-I c-I O 4- p e N LM c L � � 0-01 Ca 00- Y Ol o O V (Av a m � ,� N W O Z c NUCLO io co � 0 3 � °C V u c C }, o ° o W LA U N _N z Q L i N E ate+ >- LLN H w U co s m 4- 3 L � O O O +� U NLn crO U N O N j LU U H w `o CIO Q v Of v b/ d a LL � i C 13 U1 U ra � • v V � r L. o O U O N N O N - s � L M 0 � bo Q4- O u } L 0 O i .• +� Q) > cn O CL 0 • N N O N cU H w t 00 O fl_ v UJ tio m a N to c C LL O T ( J N , C N � O U 00 �. 00 V 00 00 00 o � � a o N Q N OM o N W M M - s s � N � N Q p -0 o CL o O o L ?� O O L. Q mo m 4+ I cn �' o •� }� N N M O CL o O rl ci N N CD N o 0 o N v w o r^ n v v on s m a W c a LL ov L C v U N U N L C O N Q Q � N fo Q Q CL > -0 o M s 0 > +' +- 0 � Z Z o � � Q o s D o ro 0 0 •� l/1 U U 41 N � • • Q +N+ +� o V) 41 o � Co �--i T > MO � N s � O o � � 4- . U O ro Z N N N O N c7 N C U H w (D o 't as a) v on s m d W c a 0 • O o > Ln a, v � m =a ai o O o v N L O S > m ru �a o 0 bn 0 o �• '� N M 0 i m No N C N N 0 +.+ 0 0 o N �, CO N +, O o M o M N � Zo N o O � m ._ - - o �Ln Lnn o O N Lt I to O4- dA 4J dA N _0 O C C U C a_' N Q .5 Q 0- � m � O 0 Q `^ v�i co Q O 0 L1 3 �O Su 0 4- 0 0 Z J `1 aJ - U U i a ' J a)(6 J > 'i • f6 CLO= t O t]A � � N N 4- c o cr Z o z U H w Q Of CIO d c i� LZ V O m � L � v. U O T N C G� O i U � N N O .- C'6- O X •s �..r •� '— N E o N o v i -0 OV o z O M i O O O o ■ � txo ° O E •- - - M a-+ o 0 v LL- O >. O ry O O 3 O }' O •- i G� m (1) m buo V t N N r c V U H w N O O_ N N M d C `u LL X C • O Ln o i U 1-0 O CL V a i N N o btA V N � � ^ '801 O � n 0 X .S _ M O (� • N N = N E O � o +, o N N o O LM (1) O 0- O O O ° N cmoN Ova a, N O E a ._ N aA o CA > +W '_ N o >. O O Q o i Q� V 0 • o 4 L N N N •-cr ° o V Q Q O 0 U H w m o n v s a c L MO mo O v N Mo O L4000 •- O to N O N A' v sW t 72 O >` o 0 A� O W u1 t4 L �t/ ++ ) O s Cti• O N O O O '0 "} \ 3 L O - LO X N O ` O Ln > L c a) ORO �.d co re) L- Q r-I O Q � a� •— O Ln L o � to 4- V i a Ln L O , Q M O N 3 s � ca � cr L s N L C U H w o Q cu OD L a • 4^A O Oo v N G ^ O •� c rl o � p � .� Co 0) Oo\0 c r-I N N o c go o a E rl p N 0 000 z .� o N N N N �- N o N 0ON ° m WLn EY 00 N M +� rn G 0, - - 0 t M M N 0 n O M txo � u M M ON U - - - - o .� c v c o O LA � � M O ° +' L •L —_ CL0 O o 0 _ _ o aE, c - N t OJ E 40J 4' o � 4- aA o L " � c � Ln c c Ln c o a� ai N - ° u 0 U a� 3 t E E z > L m > +-, > V) U Q Q 0 N -0 L � Q 4- 0 � O O Vn 0 V) Ln O Q c a; +� c a� a V) 0 > > Q ++ +, N aJ ° is > > (6 a-+ U U aJ 0 + L m 0 CU +' L N 1 0 _0 L p U 'O }, E O — \ 3 N O L C w 3 O Q 4- QJ v a) 14- m LO NCL GA \ (D Ov ELU t \ Ln C E4- Ln N \ ° N 3 (� = 4- 0 0 0 N v 0 U U L f0 Q) U � d Q Q 0 O v •c c • E E N O o N " ° v U H w Q v v d N \ , LL N i TTT o000 o N Cl) o •_ 4- Co Ln v 00 � �G 5 �00 ^16 o •_ ^ Ln O U ° 0 o x ° °° ° �� ° ° m QC ° Q0 �� o w �° ° ° o Oo N U lD O N Ln \ N O Ln N V o Q No O N N ° O -0 � — ap O — N ol p p o 0 0 cv s N N v o doom �►I ol ° C i U O C > >U E 0_ 0_) o o o a) - v v 0- 0 Ln N O cn o 3 c (U a) v t m } — a) NLn c i c v o _0 0 = U ~ c6 n C U0 4- E U L Q - W O0 Q uJ Q N O L N ._ o — v o m -00 0 N U -C 0 4-1 N f6 a- U O Q) Q 0 U a-.+ L N U_ Q N E N EN N o v cr v Y v U H w o Q cu m 0 o 00 LL L � (Ao v \ 7 /00(w V1 v. WW C o m v A� U ♦V O t S a o ci N u N ° LA O s � U LA W U > �+ w o �+ = t U W _0 V o 0 o N — s � •o aP o o > � of N o •� N 4-LU 16L •� a) LA L � � O " CL — + a o o wn ai C: c c 3: v a� O N O N U _00 41 U U N [6 E t O i O m a--� E E i i O O O vOi x O O V) Ln O cn �n � O 41 4 0O j N 41 j s m o a _ � o O t o v U U — 3 E S Vti o °m Q a) O a) N c� O v -- 0 E ° v s .� 3 s O N °' o Ln E (A °� v 0 _ " U a Q O Ln s iC U N i •c cr E E E N N O oN U v U � c U H w o Q O v cu bD O LL °�° O LL } O v L � M o a v p O � Q c o Z r O 0 N m N O `_ N (M7�`Vl +-+ _ E ( lfl H O 4- IN c O ^ I� to 11 N N c 00 S O N hA c •_ a -a � •L O (� O o a W + x N 00 .o - O H rl O _ �.. cQ - p C + o ° +, c c a) c Ln o a ) a x an �+ L c > L O c ° L a O 3 � O a � v a L o O 0- -3 c -0 ._ c ° v L m O > p 0 N CL O o - L a) CL a O_ 0 O O > O 4 � ,c a T hA a p a O i +�+ C +j +1 a 'O N • CL U O o L U L N Q" > LCL a u a L > 07 Q 0 ca Y s cr U H w 00 Q v v d LL , � N m O _a + o • _0 O � Ln U N pN s x ago U O N Ln — 4- N C N 5 '0 cn M p N M C 00 � N NO 0 CA N O S •— 00 0 �+ C N }.� o •— � O � }+ p N o 4- � o � � Qo axi 'Ln 3 0 E a, 0 +� .— ) 0 c C 4- = v O oQ0 a) = o O LnE Ln 4- ca co p O v v — � E co N � > U o0 cr Q C O 41 4- 0 O a 0) vi i Ln O N a-+ U U U f6 nNi O 4- N o i O U � v 4) O � c U w o Q cu m b o O w C O 4- r-I v ^ o � o � O 4- N M M M M M c d O O - M - - - M � 00O o a) M U N L c KZj- ra E o V o co 0 0 0 �o L o N N M c � o0 O � O M i aro � M o O 6LI Q) c C C o olo o °' .� M N N N o u L N N o O }+ c - N - N C , QX N LLI M r-I L a _ N m o O =Q V o •� E +1 ll cMai '*-IN* aJ m VI N N O �, aJ do c > E (6 5 O O c _0 : ^, t 0 O0 4- 0 O m W a- ,} M L N to J0. -0 o T o O a, Q) i — > -0 U L L ao v O O n3 ao > _ s uo - c V� •� O O - bA X dA O v a, V) }� o ca O LIL - w O U • a) `- O coo a1 N Cf U v N Q O f6 7 N C U H w y o Q v v � d oq LL , N i � N O s O o Vf o a-+ 0 uen N V c N � M M M L `� c M O O ca Q O N W � N � � o N � _ L >. N W M N p ty N N N blo C c6 > O O +� L O }, O O f0 L L fa � to CZA J a t _O o v bjD L N Q) > -0 U O a C: cB blo Q) > •� 0 c = c L OQ v O "' +� c V a •� v v v > oQ c v Lr) OQ) N a LL M Q U X 4- W C N Q) U • U � O N N v o � v c� - 2 U H w c Ln Q v m L W LL LL v C U O ca � (w N N N V •- (A s i *j o V L M o •— �, � z O (Av C a N z o O � N v 14- a m °J tlo V Q).— v — U 0- S Vf � � :• cy _ N o � � o � � � s o ' V N � N O N N 7 N C U H w N O tio Q v UJ m H tlp C � O • C LL O T J N L rl i J , N C N O ca f6 � /w aT+ N N c N O N O V •— a••+ 00 Vf S L 4-0 O CL b-0 � m V L v 00Ln 0 aj O N v o N L O o � o � � s O V N o crO N N N N a O O v N N Y VI C v w m o L^ n ai v on s m M a nn =o c LL Q/ 7 C Q/ U C c� G T U N N O N N -- O o °J +, (A o 0 z o CL a� o 0 Q) E U- 4� L C: v _ v � L cu Q O M cr N N O N aJ 7 N C U H w c Ln Q v m W a LL CV 7 C CV U C c� G (J T U N O � N N O L Q (A O NO z Q + L.t.0 LA N 1 O 0 Lr) �n • U) bQ n O � v U 41 � Q � Q � M M MNON 00 cr N N O N N 7 N C U H w Ln o Ln Q cu m Mo LL v v � o v � o s z a� o X � s N O N O N _ O V N M � o /�• N A � 4J � O O � bAhA � O 3 V 4- o s Q Q _ Q o s 0 +r o7 V N s U M a--� OJ • Q N � M N O N N 7 N C U H w o Q cu CIO v 7 C v U C c� G T N N O N O W L 3 0 VI 4-1 � N w O Q tL N C i 0 0 0 O OD ro U 41 0 Q' 0 0 •• M M cr N N O N N 7 N C U H w c Ln Q v m Mo LL Q > \/ o \\\ N \ O N �J M Ol oN 00 s L^ o �o s o cc 0 Q V) c� a� c L Q m c� a� Ln >, - 4- + o i -q -i m (AO o � o o +� lD N o o cn T-1 0 O O AlvNo N N N O N N 7 N C U H w 00 o Ln Q aj cu on CL LL v 7 C v U C c� G T U N /w O v + 00 r-I mN C V � � V o ,r, O j VI O s a 00Qj Q Q Q O `0 Q Co Q� a- Lf1 O V L (� QJ Q Q- Lf1 txo L GJ L M N N O N N 7 N C U H w t O Ln Q v to v t LL T N 3 N C N U C N w O O M1� ZT V O o O S \ M E N o O LM v O m O ~ � 3 > O ~ m S N O o > - O 0CL cr �o s N o a,o v L t i CL O O 0 k6 M cr 0 00 � z N N O � v N N Y Y VI C v w t o o a a v on m LL on c =a c LL T N 3 N C N U �1• C N M m O �T �L N buo a� N 0 0 N m c m ar > Y � m o � ■ s (A O O N sCL M �� N N O L o4� v L t i CL 0 0 0 k6 M cr 0 00 � z N N VI ON N ■ Y Y VI C v w C tD Q v m N o LA O L N v � �A V L o � N 0 O N N O 'i V �• N N N H O C Q N O G o � N 00 •� o L O O Q \ \ O O O O 0 O ^, v _0 a) _0 L CAA ,G a) a) __Ile L O L Q N O to 4-1 OA C 3 C c _0p co p � dA � V) � Ul) Q � +1 o +� S w E 1 3 1 Vw o 4� c +� o s 1 O 0- N N Q 0 O `- O ,, z Q z O 0 0 M CL z N N ai O cr 4- z N C U H w t N O fl_ N UJ M C T O v V rn Cr, m cr Y � rn N M Y o Ln O M s Ol ' Ql W O Q1 Ln O iJ O Y aLn--+ O O� O m wLn o CY, }+ O O rn +�+ O NNO °r\i Lno m O w, L to ro 4-1 O rn Q* m q./*� Y o O Ln -Ln if')- N � a� — Y � O O � O O N s J � M N a v Y VI C v w m C tD n v v on s m LL W =o c LL v 7 v U C � N � V 0 N N O N 0 s CL o (1) o > o � V V z L au oQ mo N `0 a o c v o an � ro Q. c U N L U 0 , Q 0 J 0 - 0 m ci M cr N N O N N 7 N C U H w 0 Q cu m L W LL LM LL 0 v 7 ^' C W C � U m � N � � O O Q U N � o �v N U N o � v s Y Q o > v - V V �, m n] U o � N r A\ o J M N 0 o N N Q O U oLn Ln s � *� 0 � oN o 0 0 bO m v Q U N Q /7R � C) M N N O N 7 N C U H w Ln 0 Q cu m Mo LL v 7 C U C l i cN G {n U UN o N N L. O CL Q >O O _ 4. Z Lm W � N ^' E t O W N 0 r - O O � s Q o CL � - V) ■ — N V ° 0 s L FL Q O o 06 o N r N Q 4- O o c o � N 4 u > L ( ) A� i T CA M cr N N O N N 7 N C U H w 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report I m portance-Satisfaction F Analysis ETC Institute(2022) Page 66 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Importance-Satisfaction Analysis Overview Today, community leaders have limited resources which need to be targeted to activities that are of the most benefit to their citizens. Two of the most important criteria for decision making are (1) to target resources toward services of the highest importance to citizens; and (2)to target resources toward those services where citizens are the least satisfied. The Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) rating is a unique tool that allows public officials to better understand both of these highly important decision-making criteria for each of the services they are providing. The Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) rating is based on the concept that public agencies will maximize overall customer satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those areas where the level of satisfaction is relatively low, and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high. The rating is calculated by summing the percentage of responses for items selected as the first, second, and third most important services for the City to emphasize over the next 3 to 5 years. The sum is then multiplied by 1 minus the percentage of respondents who indicated they were positively satisfied with the City's performance in the related area (the sum of the ratings of 4 and 5 on a 5-point scale excluding "Don't Know" responses). "Don't Know" responses are excluded from the calculation to ensure the satisfaction ratings among service categories are comparable. I-S Rating = Importance x (1-Satisfaction) Example of the Calculation Respondents were asked to identify the major City services that are most important to emphasize over the next 2 years. More than half (54.8%) of households selected "planning and zoning services"as one of the most important services for the City to emphasize. With regard to satisfaction, 42.9% of respondents surveyed rated "planning and zoning services" as a 114" or "5" on a 5-point scale (where "5" means "Very Satisfied") excluding "Don't Know" responses. The I-S rating was calculated by multiplying the sum of the most important percentages by one minus the sum of the satisfaction percentages. In this example, 54.8% was multiplied by 57.1% (1-0.429). This calculation yielded an I-S rating of 0.3129, which ranked first out of seventeen major categories of City services analyzed. ETC Institute(2022) Page 67 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Importance-Satisfaction Analysis The maximum rating is 1.00 and would be achieved when 100%of the respondents select an item as one of their top two choices of importance and 0% indicate they are positively satisfied with the delivery of the service. The lowest rating is 0.00 and could be achieved under either of the following two situations: • If 100% of the respondents were positively satisfied with the delivery of the service • If none (0%) of the respondents selected the service as one of the two most important areas. Interpreting the Ratings Ratings that are greater than or equal to 0.20 identify areas that should receive significantly more emphasis. Ratings from 0.10 to 0.20 identify service areas that should receive increased emphasis. Ratings less than 0.10 should continue to receive the current level of emphasis. • Definitely Increase Emphasis (I-S >0.20) • Increase Current Emphasis (I-S = 0.10 -0.20) • Maintain Current Emphasis (I-S< 0.10) A table showing the results for the City of Meridian is provided on the following page. ETC Institute(2022) Page 68 0 tD a v cu OD m W a LL Q/ 7 � Y C � a m U bD O ai N M V N ID N c C ei N M V m 1 1, 00 m m m K N N O T 01 C u O U C u 00 N O rl R IA w r-I0 N N M r-Im N n N N m N N m V C N N w w M m m N O l0 I!1 N 00 0 0 M V s m i m a-I N to to IA M M N N .•-I e-I e-I O O O O O 0 0 NO O M ai O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Q Y 00 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v X E m L aL+ N Ul N +• - C 0 0 0 O 0 O r V °Y 0 u m m a-I Ln w 10 rNi rn m o0 00 N I!1 a q 1, M C v L A m - 3 m y v c Vl ,L.+ al ° u�0 3 v a° C v°i ° c° N O1 E M N V n O 01 0) to O rl N N W ei 00 14 Ill m V ID o0 Il1 1, ID 1, ID o0 1, 01 o0 o1 o0 o0 1, o0 N j c C OC a L 0 N O m N E H C '� N Ill a N T N +L.• — v _ a C v U + C ww m v a Y w C a:+ I Y V C O! QI .w O C 14 MN 00 l0 01 rl N O M N ci 1 M V 1l ID — - O m rl rl 1-1 rl rl rl eq 14 O. K v c m E In ° o 0 0 a v o Y c a c 0 ° o N m c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -u Yo • 1 Y O i Illl1 M M IA 00 N 1l o 0 o o N o 0 0\° o 0 n a?i o ° O 1 C ei Iq Iq Iq 00 14 I� N 00 N M N M C a E v o E v c u — O E w ° a 0 ^ • E IA .� • o a L 1 ++ • to C . 4-0 O. 1 E 01 7 C Y 1 • N O - 'O C V Y () 1 U U T W • O ai V U O a V Qj c t • N V N aJ 0 L O0 V i W ^ 3 U IZQ — • 1 O1 N 'O^ N N N.i y, L E v V Y U C • 1 •L > b II aCJ C N C N i U 'L .v " C L N E Y In ° o `O E aE T ° Q.� ° L v n m, o a` .+ o m v U o o a V s a v • • U_ C L on a E o on c° c > �e a N = v Q a L a _ 7 - w N L N H E IJ N • � 2 •� a V 7 aJ U aJ i E v O_ O_ v s >- m Q �, w N Lw U � � v ,D y � Y � � v N rl m ai m O O D v O 2 O w :t m m m ar O O m u >1 a 2 a m cr u IZ u cr LL u cz l7 a z cn O N N O N Q1 7 N C U H w 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Importance-Satisfaction Analysis Importance-Satisfaction Matrix Analysis The Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that public agencies will maximize overall customer satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those areas where the level of satisfaction is relatively low, and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high. ETC Institute developed an Importance-Satisfaction Matrix to display the perceived importance of major services that were assessed on the survey against the perceived quality of service delivery. The two axes on the matrix represent Satisfaction (vertical) and relative Importance (horizontal). The I-S (Importance-Satisfaction) matrix should be interpreted as follows. ■ Continued Emphasis (above average importance and above average satisfaction). This area shows where the City is meeting customer expectations. Items in this area have a significant impact on the customer's overall level of satisfaction. The City should maintain (or slightly increase) emphasis on items in this area. ■ Exceeding Expectations(below average importance and above average satisfaction). This area shows where the City is performing significantly better than customers expect the City to perform. Items in this area do not significantly affect the overall level of satisfaction that residents have with City services. The City should maintain (or slightly decrease) emphasis on items in this area. ■ Opportunities for Improvement (above average importance and below average satisfaction). This area shows where the City is not performing as well as residents expect the City to perform. This area has a significant impact on customer satisfaction, and the City should DEFINITELY increase emphasis on items in this area. ■ Less Important (below average importance and below average satisfaction). This area shows where the City is not performing well relative to its performance in other areas; however, this area is generally considered to be less important to residents. This area does not significantly affect overall satisfaction with City services because the items are less important to residents. The agency should maintain current levels of emphasis on items in this area. A matrix chart showing the results for the City of Meridian is provided on the following page. ETC Institute(2022) Page 70 0 Q cu m CL UOI .7UAIJL)S UDaLU ii L •� O = O v L o (Lai CL) � a� @ W bh0 V O ^` !E L W N� O �U _0 c ao v o �= O a Qm Q 1 C N w NE 03 v tw 4-1 c E- r jE ra i W Ln N m C E 'r L 3 O J N V'f 0 3 C '+1 W U in L L Q V N N " Y A L L Q- W (u t� I.L Q N a aftft o •— L) 'a L V o ° v A\ Q �► � L �J . 6d cn V £ 7 (A `= •— 0 L. E c c E 0 m a L o aW u ap v • OL y C Vf Q. . 0 0 7 Vcuf •5 2 L .V C m •— W GJ c6 0 V 3 L L W0 0 3 a v U N C. La 0 CA 0 O u m — c v O L ► *' v u o N0 0 m Q c Q n, m LL IA °' a o xLLI v a �, i tio O CL O v E E Ln v v W o o C 0rq- �- Lg4D J uolj.7p s DS Y N c U H w 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Benchmarking Analysis ,:4q ETC Institute(2022) Page 72 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Benchmarking Analysis Overview ETC Institute's DirectionFinder° program was originally developed in 1999 to help community leaders use statistically-valid community survey data as a tool for making better decisions.Since November 1999, the survey has been administered in more than 300 cities and counties in 43 states. Most participating communities conduct the survey on an annual or biennial basis. This report contains benchmarking data from two sources: (1) a national survey that was administered by ETC Institute during the fall of 2021 to a random sample of more than 9,000 residents in the continental United States and (2) a regional survey that was administered by ETC Institute during the fall of 2021 to a random sample of residents living in the Northwest Region of the United States. The Northwest Region includes the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. The charts on the following pages show how the results for the City of Meridian compare to the national average and the Northwest regional average.The blue bar shows the results for the City of Meridian,the red bar shows the Northwest regional average, and the yellow bar shows the national average. ETC Institute(2022) Page 73 y o Q v v d LL v H O U N •- O N OLM L _ ° 1A L O L � N N � CL o V m L •— . UJ = Q L V E tea •"- � °; m ,O �� }' 4-0 _ E — •— M L. ca " � � s E w .- s = aA •� }' O •� G� .� i O m E CA H u 00 Z . . +J m +J O .N M O Z s m o ++ iA c N N O N C U H w o clo Of o d o o o 00 000 aj .� U V � O v N O t 0 �+ O A lz o0 Y N . 4- ■/\ N \L O N O 00 00 c O o1-0 o N ♦"i v 111 p s V }' Lno z i O �, I L a o N Ci Ql C L 0 o c v i O O � Z � V) N o N > o > c Q — E O a� v O m 3 E L a--' 4— 0 Q N O 0 v N QJ N • of U > L bA (6 N O O c6 co C U Q u vI c Q ate--+ Q O a.o u a� Q L L O N O U H w Q o d Of o CIO LL N C °' MM U W t° O A, n 00 o W O N • � 0 O � � � s o o � • NU ci N `N 4- / LLn N V +� O L O .� L o +r L Q o GC s cu > " +� ro Vf O O a� Z � � o Q N Vf fa ° > o_ a) E � m Q) L > u .� � +� > 4-1 � N U L v V) L N U U > O L >. N L 07 O = N 4- O N L N N U > U H w 0 Q cu m 0 a =o O ° O LL J l� v L 7 QQ V 00 00 C O v Ln Ln U 00 00 m =a to o O O N AO v � o 0 o o 0 O O_ A � \ ° CIA a� s � V) V � +� w U o o \ 3 •� • x > NLn Ln Ln L ' E L O /�• Ln c Z •AW Ln TO O � � }, TO (� O o N V N °110 v 1.1� s CC o AO C M ,M q:t O �^n' W � O Q N • }� > L � CuD - t C DC z V) O > a v L o o v O L m a v a a) c c n] 41 U U U U N O OJ L N 41 aJ QJ U U v Ln V) V) Ln L L L c L Q� 3 _ c E c U N > >' N � U O U N U co H L N CIA O M N L _5 r� V � C U H w 00 0 Q cu m � d °° N o v W 00 o �+ 00 o o N � • }J N O � N O O N o ja N U O > x N c o w O N � N o � �1 } O1 0L � o cLA rn v O ( 00 0 L— W L � O O a- M C L a ! 3 0b. o � N V 0 - - •\� � z � N O • +- LM Q a Na CL •`� L 14- u o 0 •\� •� °J / L a o o _0 v (10 •U O L O U }4- ' 4-+ O C L CO L L dA O U te.+ N a U N C U 0 aJ L E m a) U C L� > E N O C m J N Q Y i O V V) bacv L •� U N O � N 7 N C U H w 0 Q cu OD d o o > G) 00 v o u 01 vi m n a o 00 0 0 0 N ' C: �I�� N O_ o V D 0 V/ O OC N O ( A' C M Ln o O Ln N O ITt O O O T v QO M 09 N o o M V +�+ M •GJ •�O M M WtwO iD , L � 4.- N Vf v YI 0 O r � i N > i O O cn in Ln Ul L z E � m N /R! N (6 0) > N +� A ' `n > N c 06 > N V) 06 m O L tlo 0- o O - raao •� O � � x a) i _ V) 76Q •� O O E u O O �J LCLN O O 41 u u Q 0 U Q i ro Q - O O > O u +� 06 0 coo 2 > +- `� CS 06 O cu > Z3 Q N u H w (D o 00 n a) v on s m d W o 0 0 LIM O N � p o a 00 0 0000 O 00 L4r) 00 00 o o cn N ^ N n v 00 N • oc OO N 1 \ \ O 0 ocVW sa••� - °J ° o +)� � Ln � a� N °' r' o > E `-n o N � Q) z 0 a, o }� ' L V) .� cn V a, .� O N iL s Q a UD � o0 O z Ln N O i E E o C U Q cLo O Q N i aJ UA 4A L • N iA N +�+ O iA �, O O O m L aJ U i a1 U Q Q -0 aJ T w/ O U O Lap v _0 O cB E N _ Z, W W U }, U U a1 O w +�+ +�+ O V) - } V) lB Q � Q V) Ln O a + U N LL w O _ > O O O o }.' N •� aJ v � C U H w o 00 Q cu m o d o o LL v L 7 C N L/I U 0 3 00 c o p O N b.0 v N af Lm N o O � _ LA z m ' X \ > F m ° Q, •L O -C o a, O '- 4- L , V O N L A, N Ar W }>— W � N O Q do v O p i Z ° O 4 (A r a) > a) Q a) 4-1 LLI Q C m L > �1R p �L N •`V� O i to {� A, - a/ O a"' cn O y G Q txo Q .� L cu O Q N N O U U H w N C Q v N bD a C O O LL rl v 7 C v c 0 C in mu L11 O o � 0 � o V Q 00 .� S O O w v LM U &// N � 00 N V> > E o IZZJ- 3 v m o +� o +� 0 0 p m o �, c z .� •� i R* , }� A' O m W o V o0 N 0O c N N Q N > (10 0 L dA V p o Z 4— • N G 0 y v (A > + v �° U bA a O > WN > p 3 L O v N 7 i � p aui a o U U i > O 41 N a-- Q N _ O U a� — 41 -0 E O ra N O C O O cn .— � — N E U o N c U H w 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Tabular Data ETC Institute(2022) Page 83 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q1. The vision for Meridian is: "By 2035, Meridian will be the West's premier community in which to live, work and raise a family." Several items that may influence your perception of Meridian as a community are listed below. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City of Meridian in the following areas. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q1-1.As a place to live 23.6% 16.3% 30.6% 18.7% 5.2% 3.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% Q1-2.As a place to work 12.5% 10.3% 16.7% 12.5% 10.5% 8.1% 3.2% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 23.8% Q1-3.As a place to raise a family 29.0% 18.1% 25.0% 10.9% 6.0% 3.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 6.0% Q1-4.As a place to start/do business 12.3% 8.1% 18.5% 10.7% 7.5% 6.0% 2.2% 1.0% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 32.3% Q1-5.As a City that is building a strong sense of community 13.9% 10.7% 21.6% 17.9% 12.5% 11.1% 4.8% 3.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.8% 2.0% Q1-6.As a City that is developing a strong local economy 13.7% 12.7% 24.6% 15.1% 10.7% 8.1% 4.8% 2.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 6.5% Q1-7.As a City that is developing a strong local workforce that can compete in today's economic climate 6.9% 7.1% 14.7% 15.3% 15.3% 11.3% 5.2% 4.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.2% 16.1% Q1-8.As a City that is planning for future growth&development 8.9% 7.1% 15.1% 11.7% 10.9% 10.1% 7.3% 7.5% 5.6% 3.8% 7.9% 4.0% Q1-9.As a City that is developing a sustainable &conscious environment 6.9% 5.2% 15.1% 13.9% 12.9% 10.7% 5.8% 6.0% 5.0% 2.8% 4.4% 11.5% Q1-10. How well City is protecting quality of air&water 8.5% 10.3% 15.7% 13.3% 11.1% 9.9% 3.6% 3.0% 4.2% 1.2% 2.6% 16.7% Q1-11.How well City is maintaining high quality neighborhoods 8.9% 13.1% 20.4% 17.9% 10.7% 8.5% 7.1% 4.0% 3.2% 1.6% 2.0% 2.6% Q1-12.How well City is providing options for mobility other than driving 2.4% 1.4% 4.8% 9.1% 7.7% 11.7% 8.9% 12.5% 10.3% 6.0% 15.1% 10.1% Q1-13. How well City is ensuring public safety 14.5% 14.9% 21.2% 15.5% 11.5% 8.9% 4.2% 1.8% 2.0% 1.2% 1.4% 3.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 84 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q1. The vision for Meridian is: "By 2035, Meridian will be the West's premier community in which to live, work and raise a family." Several items that may influence your perception of Meridian as a community are listed below. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City of Meridian in the following areas. Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q1-14.How well City is communicating with the community 9.7% 10.1% 20.2% 16.1% 13.1% 12.5% 3.2% 5.2% 3.0% 1.2% 2.4% 3.4% ETC Institute(2022) Page 85 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q1. The vision for Meridian is: "By 2035, Meridian will be the West's premier community in which to live, work and raise a family." Several items that may influence your perception of Meridian as a community are listed below. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City of Meridian in the following areas. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q1-1.As a place to live 23.7% 16.3% 30.7% 18.7% 5.2% 3.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Q1-2.As a place to work 16.4% 13.5% 21.9% 16.4% 13.8% 10.7% 4.2% 1.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% Q1-3.As a place to raise a family 30.8% 19.2% 26.6% 11.6% 6.3% 3.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% Q1-4.As a place to start/do business 18.2% 12.0% 27.3% 15.8% 11.1% 8.8% 3.2% 1.5% 1.8% 0.3% 0.0% Q1-5.As a City that is building a strong sense of community 14.2% 10.9% 22.1% 18.2% 12.8% 11.3% 4.9% 3.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.8% Q1-6.As a City that is developing a strong local economy 14.6% 13.6% 26.3% 16.1% 11.5% 8.7% 5.1% 2.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% Q1-7.As a City that is developing a strong local workforce that can compete in today's economic climate 8.3% 8.5% 17.5% 18.2% 18.2% 13.5% 6.1% 4.7% 2.4% 1.2% 1.4% Q1-8.As a City that is planning for future growth&development 9.3% 7.4% 15.7% 12.2% 11.4% 10.5% 7.6% 7.9% 5.8% 3.9% 8.3% Q1-9.As a City that is developing a sustainable& conscious environment 7.8% 5.8% 17.0% 15.7% 14.6% 12.1% 6.5% 6.7% 5.6% 3.1% 4.9% Q1-10.How well City is protecting quality of air&water 10.2% 12.4% 18.8% 16.0% 13.3% 11.9% 4.3% 3.6% 5.0% 1.4% 3.1% Q1-11.How well City is maintaining high quality neighborhoods 9.2% 13.4% 21.0% 18.3% 11.0% 8.8% 7.3% 4.1% 3.3% 1.6% 2.0% Q1-12.How well City is providing options for mobility other than driving 2.6% 1.5% 5.3% 10.2% 8.6% 13.0% 9.9% 13.9% 11.5% 6.6% 16.8% Q1-13.How well City is ensuring public safety 14.9% 15.3% 21.9% 16.0% 11.9% 9.2% 4.3% 1.8% 2.0% 1.2% 1.4% Q1-14. How well City is communicating with the community 10.1% 10.5% 20.9% 16.6% 13.6% 12.9% 3.3% 5.3% 3.1% 1.2% 2.5% ETC Institute(2022) Page 86 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q2. While the City is not the sole contributor to your quality of life, it is important to understand the perceptions residents have of the quality of life in Meridian. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Greatly Exceeds My Expectations" and 0 means "Does Not Meet My Expectations at All," please rate the City and its partners in the following areas. (N=504) Greatl- Does y not exceed- meet s my my Don't expec... 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 expec... know Q2-1.Overall quality of life in City 9.9% 19.0% 32.5% 21.0% 7.1% 5.8% 1.6% 1.2% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% Q2-2.Overall quality of City services provided 9.9% 16.9% 28.0% 19.8% 10.3% 8.3% 2.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 1.8% Q2-3.Overall quality of customer service you receive from City employees 14.5% 19.8% 20.0% 12.7% 5.2% 4.2% 1.6% 1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.4% 19.2% Q2-4.Your view of an ideal place to live 12.7% 18.3% 24.8% 20.4% 10.7% 5.8% 2.6% 2.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% • � • • Q2. While the City is not the sole contributor to your quality of life, it is important to understand the perceptions residents have of the quality of life in Meridian. Using a scale of 0 to 10,where 10 means "Greatly Exceeds My Expectations" and 0 means "Does Not Meet My Expectations at All," please rate the City and its partners in the following areas. (without "don't know") (N=504) Greatly exceeds Does not my meet my expectati- expectati- ons 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ons at all Q2-1.Overall quality of life in City 10.0% 19.2% 32.7% 21.2% 7.2% 5.8% 1.6% 1.2% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% Q2-2.Overall quality of City services provided 10.1% 17.2% 28.5% 20.2% 10.5% 8.5% 2.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% Q2-3.Overall quality of customer service you receive from City employees 17.9% 24.6% 24.8% 15.7% 6.4% 5.2% 2.0% 1.2% 1.2% 0.5% 0.5% Q2-4.Your view of an ideal place to live 12.8% 18.4% 25.0% 20.6% 10.8% 5.8% 2.6% 2.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% ETC Institute(2022) Page 87 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q3. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Strongly Agree" and 0 means "Strongly Disagree," please rate your level of agreement with the following. (N=504) Strongly Strongly Don't agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 disagree know Q3-1.Quality housing& a variety of options exist in Meridian 8.7% 10.3% 12.1% 16.3% 11.1% 13.5% 7.7% 5.8% 5.0% 1.6% 5.4% 2.6% Q3-2.Development in City enhances quality of life 7.5% 9.9% 17.1% 18.7% 10.5% 11.3% 6.7% 5.0% 3.4% 1.8% 5.8% 2.4% Q3-3.There are a variety of employment opportunities in Meridian 8.9% 7.5% 16.7% 14.3% 11.9% 10.7% 4.8% 2.0% 2.2% 0.6% 1.0% 19.4% Q3-4.Access to quality shopping&entertainment exist in Meridian 21.0% 18.5% 24.6% 18.1% 8.9% 4.8% 1.0% 1.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% Q3-5.City is managing growth wisely 3.0% 6.7% 10.1% 9.7% 10.9% 11.3% 10.3% 9.9% 6.2% 5.6% 13.7% 2.6% Q3-6. Meridian has a sense of community 10.7% 9.5% 19.0% 17.5% 14.1% 12.3% 6.2% 4.4% 1.2% 1.4% 2.0% 1.8% Q3-7.City continuously improves services 8.7% 7.3% 15.5% 16.5% 13.5% 11.7% 4.4% 4.0% 2.0% 1.6% 1.4% 13.5% Q3-8.City uses your tax dollars wisely 6.9% 8.3% 12.9% 17.5% 9.9% 13.1% 6.0% 2.8% 2.4% 1.6% 4.4% 14.3% Q3-9.City is headed in right direction 6.9% 8.7% 13.3% 18.1% 11.3% 13.7% 6.2% 6.5% 4.0% 2.0% 4.6% 4.8% ETC Institute(2022) Page 88 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q3. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Strongly Agree" and 0 means "Strongly Disagree," please rate your level of agreement with the following. (without "don't know") (N=504) Strongly Strongly agree 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 disagree Q3-1.Quality housing&a variety of options exist in Meridian 9.0% 10.6% 12.4% 16.7% 11.4% 13.8% 7.9% 5.9% 5.1% 1.6% 5.5% Q3-2.Development in City enhances quality of life 7.7% 10.2% 17.5% 19.1% 10.8% 11.6% 6.9% 5.1% 3.5% 1.8% 5.9% Q3-3.There are a variety of employment opportunities in Meridian 11.1% 9.4% 20.7% 17.7% 14.8% 13.3% 5.9% 2.5% 2.7% 0.7% 1.2% Q3-4.Access to quality shopping &entertainment exist in Meridian 21.2% 18.6% 24.8% 18.2% 9.0% 4.8% 1.0% 1.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.2% Q3-5.City is managing growth wisely 3.1% 6.9% 10.4% 10.0% 11.2% 11.6% 10.6% 10.2% 6.3% 5.7% 14.1% Q3-6. Meridian has a sense of community 10.9% 9.7% 19.4% 17.8% 14.3% 12.5% 6.3% 4.4% 1.2% 1.4% 2.0% Q3-7.City continuously improves services 10.1% 8.5% 17.9% 19.0% 15.6% 13.5% 5.0% 4.6% 2.3% 1.8% 1.6% Q3-8.City uses your tax dollars wisely 8.1% 9.7% 15.0% 20.4% 11.6% 15.3% 6.9% 3.2% 2.8% 1.9% 5.1% Q3-9.City is headed in right direction 7.3% 9.2% 14.0% 19.0% 11.9% 14.4% 6.5% 6.9% 4.2% 2.1% 4.8% ETC Institute(2022) Page 89 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q4. If you own a home in Meridian, approximately 34% of your total property tax bill goes to the City of Meridian to fund the City's operating budget for services such as police, fire and parks services. Relating to services and facilities in the City of Meridian, using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Definitely Getting My Money's Worth" and 0 means "Definitely Not Getting My Money's Worth," please rate the value you feel you are getting for City tax dollars and fees. (N=504) Definitel- Definitel- y getting y not my getting money's my Don't worth 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 money's... know Q4-1.Value received for City tax dollars&fees 7.9% 12.7% 20.4% 19.4% 10.7% 8.5% 3.4% 2.6% 1.0% 0.4% 2.0% 10.9% Q4. If you own a home in Meridian, approximately 34% of your total property tax bill goes to the City of Meridian to fund the City's operating budget for services such as police, fire and parks services. Relating to services and facilities in the City of Meridian, using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Definitely Getting My Money's Worth" and 0 means "Definitely Not Getting My Money's Worth," please rate the value you feel you are getting for City tax dollars and fees. (without "don't know") (N=504) Definitel- Definitel- y getting y not my getting money's my worth 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 money's... Q4-1.Value received for City tax dollars&fees 8.9% 14.3% 22.9% 21.8% 12.0% 9.6% 3.8% 2.9% 1.1% 0.4% 2.2% ETC Institute(2022) Page 90 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q5. What is your biggest concern as it pertains to residential property taxes? Q5.What is your biggest concern as it pertains to residential property taxes Number Percent No concern,I pay the right amount 47 9.3 Unpredictability of tax due to the values of homes increasing/ decreasing 239 47.4 Additional bonds&levies for schools&other taxing districts adding to the overall tax burden 80 15.9% Disparity between the rates of residential property tax growth compared to commercial properties 40 7.9% Local budget increases allowed under state law 7 1.4% Current dollar limits of homeowner's exemptions&circuit breaker relief 39 7.7% Other 12 2.4% Not provided 40 7.9% Total 504 100.0% Q5. What is your biggest concern as it pertains to residential property taxes? (without "not provided") Q5.What is your biggest concern as it pertains to residential property taxes Number Percent No concern,I pay the right amount 47 10.1% Unpredictability of tax due to the values of homes increasing/ decreasing 239 51.5% Additional bonds&levies for schools&other taxing districts adding to the overall tax burden 80 17.2% Disparity between the rates of residential property tax growth compared to commercial properties 40 8.6% Local budget increases allowed under state law 7 1.5% Current dollar limits of homeowner's exemptions&circuit breaker relief 39 8.4% Other 12 2.6% Total 464 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 91 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q5-7. Other • Based on "estimated" Market Values- appraisals right now are absolutely RIDICULOUS and we are about to go into a recession. SENIOR Homeowners at some point in time should get a 100%exemption. • Cost of living and property taxes are getting out of hand,too much growth! • Disparity is definitely part of the problem, developers should do more pay higher impact fees to really support things . Current citizens should not be taxed more because the developers are driving up service needs such as police, school ,traffic.Also, Unpredictability of the general government (Biden) makes increased taxes and costs of living a burden on regular citizens • Eagle Road issues • New home buyers from out of state or out of town not paying their fair share upon entry into our community. There should be a property tax upon first purchase to go towards the services we have been paying for years. Otherwise,the city is always behind the growth. • Not sending statements when you have a paid-for home, • Pretty much all of the above are real concerns and all are seriously impacting tax rates, service effectiveness, service efficiency and desirability to live here • Rampant development of housing and apartments that will not share property tax burden • Taxation is theft. • Taxes will increase because of mis management. And greed. • What it will be 5-10 yrs. from now, can I afford it then? ETC Institute(2022) Page 92 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q6. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the quality of the following services provided by the City of Meridian. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q6-1.Fire/rescue services 39.5% 21.8% 16.3% 7.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.7% Q6-2.Fire prevention& public education 19.4% 15.9% 16.7% 10.7% 7.7% 6.5% 2.0% 1.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 19.0% Q6-3.Police department/ law enforcement 29.6% 18.8% 19.8% 9.7% 5.4% 5.0% 1.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 1.2% 7.3% Q6-4.Code enforcement 11.5% 10.7% 17.3% 11.7% 7.7% 7.9% 2.0% 2.2% 1.2% 0.2% 2.0% 25.6% Q6-5.Traffic enforcement 11.7% 14.3% 18.1% 11.7% 7.5% 9.7% 4.6% 3.8% 3.2% 1.4% 3.6% 10.5% Q6-6.Planning&zoning services 5.8% 6.2% 10.5% 9.7% 8.9% 10.7% 4.6% 4.4% 3.2% 2.2% 8.9% 25.0% Q6-7.Building permit services 5.8% 5.6% 7.3% 7.9% 4.4% 6.2% 1.8% 2.2% 1.2% 1.6% 3.0% 53.2% Q6-8.Utility billing services 19.0% 18.8% 23.4% 13.5% 7.1% 6.7% 2.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% 7.1% Q6-9.Sewer services 21.8% 19.2% 24.8% 12.1% 6.0% 4.6% 1.4% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 8.3% Q6-10.Water services 22.6% 20.0% 23.0% 14.3% 5.2% 5.4% 1.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 5.8% Q6-11.Garbage/trash pick-up services 26.4% 23.8% 22.6% 13.5% 5.0% 4.2% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 2.2% Q6-12.Recycling services 17.1% 16.5% 20.8% 12.9% 9.5% 7.5% 3.6% 2.8% 1.8% 1.0% 3.0% 3.6% Q6-13.City parks 36.3% 20.2% 23.0% 9.9% 3.0% 2.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 2.8% Q6-14.Recreation programs 17.7% 11.9% 17.5% 11.7% 8.1% 3.6% 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 26.4% Q6-15.Programs for youth 12.7% 10.1% 14.1% 11.1% 5.4% 3.6% 1.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 38.9% Q6-16.Communications 11.7% 11.1% 16.5% 14.9% 8.3% 8.9% 3.2% 2.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.2% 18.5% Q6-17.Passport acceptance agency 6.2% 5.4% 6.0% 5.2% 2.8% 2.2% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 1.2% 68.3% ETC Institute(2022) Page 93 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q6. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the quality of the following services provided by the City of Meridian. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q6-1.Fire/rescue services 44.7% 24.7% 18.4% 8.3% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Q6-2.Fire prevention&public education 24.0% 19.6% 20.6% 13.2% 9.6% 8.1% 2.5% 1.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% Q6-3.Police department/law enforcement 31.9% 20.3% 21.4% 10.5% 5.8% 5.4% 1.9% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 1.3% Q6-4.Code enforcement 15.5% 14.4% 23.2% 15.7% 10.4% 10.7% 2.7% 2.9% 1.6% 0.3% 2.7% Q6-5.Traffic enforcement 13.1% 16.0% 20.2% 13.1% 8.4% 10.9% 5.1% 4.2% 3.5% 1.6% 4.0% Q6-6. Planning&zoning services 7.7% 8.2% 14.0% 13.0% 11.9% 14.3% 6.1% 5.8% 4.2% 2.9% 11.9% Q6-7. Building permit services 12.3% 11.9% 15.7% 16.9% 9.3% 13.1% 3.8% 4.7% 2.5% 3.4% 6.4% Q6-8. Utility billing services 20.5% 20.3% 25.2% 14.5% 7.7% 7.3% 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.9% Q6-9.Sewer services 23.8% 21.0% 27.1% 13.2% 6.5% 5.0% 1.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% Q6-10.Water services 24.0% 21.3% 24.4% 15.2% 5.5% 5.7% 1.5% 1.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% Q6-11.Garbage/trash pick-up services 27.0% 24.3% 23.1% 13.8% 5.1% 4.3% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% Q6-12.Recycling services 17.7% 17.1% 21.6% 13.4% 9.9% 7.8% 3.7% 2.9% 1.9% 1.0% 3.1% Q6-13.City parks 37.3% 20.8% 23.7% 10.2% 3.1% 2.9% 1.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% Q6-14.Recreation programs 24.0% 16.2% 23.7% 15.9% 11.1% 4.9% 2.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% Q6-15.Programs for youth 20.8% 16.6% 23.1% 18.2% 8.8% 5.8% 2.6% 1.3% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Q6-16.Communications 14.4% 13.6% 20.2% 18.2% 10.2% 10.9% 3.9% 3.2% 1.9% 1.9% 1.5% Q6-17. Passport acceptance agency 19.4% 16.9% 18.8% 16.3% 8.8% 6.9% 2.5% 3.1% 1.9% 1.9% 3.8% ETC Institute(2022) Page 94 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q7. Which THREE of the City Services listed in Question 6 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next TWO years? Q7.Top choice Number Percent Fire/rescue services 28 5.6 Fire prevention&public education 9 1.8 Police department/law enforcement 103 20.4 Code enforcement 9 1.8 Traffic enforcement 58 11.5 Planning&zoning services 148 29.4 Building permit services 8 1.6 Utility billing services 3 0.6% Sewer services 3 0.6% Water services 10 2.0% Garbage/trash pick-up services 7 1.4% Recycling services 28 5.6% City parks 24 4.8% Recreation programs 8 1.6% Programs for youth 24 4.8% Communications 6 1.2% Passport acceptance agency 2 0.4% None chosen 26 5.2% Total 504 100.0% Q7. Which THREE of the City Services listed in Question 6 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next TWO years? Q7.2nd choice Number Percent Fire/rescue services 55 10.9% Fire prevention&public education 10 2.0% Police department/law enforcement 77 15.3% Code enforcement 24 4.8% Traffic enforcement 56 11.1% Planning&zoning services 72 14.3% Building permit services 37 7.3% Utility billing services 4 0.8% Sewer services 5 1.0% Water services 16 3.2% Garbage/trash pick-up services 3 0.6% Recycling services 32 6.3% City parks 31 6.2% Recreation programs 14 2.8% Programs for youth 18 3.6% Communications 16 3.2% Passport acceptance agency 3 0.6% None chosen 31 6.2% Total 504 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 95 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q7. Which THREE of the City Services listed in Question 6 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next TWO years? Q7.3rd choice Number Percent Fire/rescue services 29 5.8 Fire prevention&public education 17 3.4 Police department/law enforcement 35 6.9 Code enforcement 29 5.8 Traffic enforcement 55 10.9 Planning&zoning services 56 11.1 Building permit services 30 6.0 Utility billing services 9 1.8% Sewer services 6 1.2% Water services 16 3.2% Garbage/trash pick-up services 12 2.4% Recycling services 29 5.8% City parks 40 7.9% Recreation programs 28 5.6% Programs for youth 41 8.1% Communications 20 4.0% Passport acceptance agency 4 0.8% None chosen 48 9.5% Total 504 100.0% Q7. Which THREE of the City Services listed in Question 6 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next TWO years? (top 3) Q7.Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent Fire/rescue services 112 22.2% Fire prevention&public education 36 7.1% Police department/law enforcement 215 42.7% Code enforcement 62 12.3% Traffic enforcement 169 33.5% Planning&zoning services 276 54.8% Building permit services 75 14.9% Utility billing services 16 3.2% Sewer services 14 2.8% Water services 42 8.3% Garbage/trash pick-up services 22 4.4% Recycling services 89 17.7% City parks 95 18.8% Recreation programs 50 9.9% Programs for youth 83 16.5% Communications 42 8.3% Passport acceptance agency 9 1.8% None chosen 26 5.2% Total 1433 ETC Institute(2022) Page 96 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q8. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following services provided by other agency partners. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q8-1.Public transportation services contracted with Valley Regional Transit 1.4% 2.0% 3.8% 4.8% 5.0% 7.3% 5.0% 5.2% 5.0% 4.6% 8.5% 47.6% Q8-2.Animal control contracted with Idaho Humane Society 7.3% 5.8% 10.7% 10.3% 3.8% 10.1% 2.6% 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 1.6% 44.4% Q8-3.Programs for seniors at Meridian Senior Center 6.9% 5.8% 8.3% 5.6% 3.8% 5.2% 1.0% 0.4% 1.0% 0.2% 0.2% 61.7% Q8-4.K-12 education by West Ada School District 6.7% 6.9% 13.9% 13.3% 10.7% 7.7% 5.2% 6.3% 3.8% 2.0% 3.4% 20.0% Q8-5.Library services by Meridian Library District 24.6% 15.1% 21.6% 11.1% 3.4% 5.8% 1.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.0% 1.0% 14.1% Q8-6.Swimming pool by Western Ada Recreation District 7.1% 6.2% 12.1% 8.5% 5.6% 5.6% 2.6% 2.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 48.2% Q8-7.State highways operated by Idaho Transportation Department(Eagle Road, Meridian Road,& Chinden Boulevard) 6.3% 5.0% 15.9% 17.5% 11.9% 11.1% 6.7% 5.8% 7.1% 3.4% 5.6% 3.8% Q8-8.All City roads operated by Ada County Highway District 5.6% 5.0% 15.5% 20.4% 12.5% 10.9% 7.7% 6.5% 3.4% 3.8% 5.8% 3.0% Q8-9. Elections by Ada County Clerk 20.8% 14.1% 20.6% 11.1% 5.0% 6.7% 1.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 16.9% Q8-10.Cemetery services by Meridian Cemetery Maintenance District 8.3% 6.5% 8.3% 5.2% 1.6% 2.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 66.7% Q8-11.Cell/mobile/data service by provider in Meridian area 13.9% 12.9% 23.2% 17.1% 6.3% 6.2% 4.0% 2.6% 2.0% 1.8% 0.8% 9.3% Q8-12.Internet service by telecommunications provider in Meridian 11.1% 12.1% 19.2% 14.1% 10.1% 7.9% 6.5% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.4% 8.9% ETC Institute(2022) Page 97 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q8. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following services provided by other agency partners. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q8-1.Public transportation services contracted with Valley Regional Transit 2.7% 3.8% 7.2% 9.1% 9.5% 14.0% 9.5% 9.8% 9.5% 8.7% 16.3% Q8-2.Animal control contracted with Idaho Humane Society 13.2% 10.4% 19.3% 18.6% 6.8% 18.2% 4.6% 3.9% 1.1% 1.1% 2.9% Q8-3. Programs for seniors at Meridian Senior Center 18.1% 15.0% 21.8% 14.5% 9.8% 13.5% 2.6% 1.0% 2.6% 0.5% 0.5% Q8-4. K-12 education by West Ada School District 8.4% 8.7% 17.4% 16.6% 13.4% 9.7% 6.5% 7.9% 4.7% 2.5% 4.2% Q8-5. Library services by Meridian Library District 28.6% 17.6% 25.2% 12.9% 3.9% 6.7% 1.6% 0.9% 1.4% 0.0% 1.2% Q8-6.Swimming pool by Western Ada Recreation District 13.8% 11.9% 23.4% 16.5% 10.7% 10.7% 5.0% 5.4% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% Q8-7.State highways operated by Idaho Transportation Department(Eagle Road, Meridian Road,&Chinden Boulevard) 6.6% 5.2% 16.5% 18.1% 12.4% 11.5% 7.0% 6.0% 7.4% 3.5% 5.8% Q8-8.All City roads operated by Ada County Highway District 5.7% 5.1% 16.0% 21.1% 12.9% 11.2% 8.0% 6.7% 3.5% 3.9% 5.9% Q8-9. Elections by Ada County Clerk 25.1% 16.9% 24.8% 13.4% 6.0% 8.1% 2.1% 1.0% 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% Q8-10.Cemetery services by Meridian Cemetery Maintenance District 25.0% 19.6% 25.0% 15.5% 4.8% 6.5% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% Q8-11.Cell/mobile/data service by provider in Meridian area 15.3% 14.2% 25.6% 18.8% 7.0% 6.8% 4.4% 2.8% 2.2% 2.0% 0.9% Q8-12.Internet service by telecommunications provider in Meridian 12.2% 13.3% 21.1% 15.5% 11.1% 8.7% 7.2% 2.6% 2.8% 2.8% 2.6% ETC Institute(2022) Page 98 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q9. Considering education, the West Ada School District currently utilizes bond and levy funding as one of its major sources of revenue. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the following possible school-related financing methods that should be used to fund education facilities in our community. (N=504) High No Don't priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority know Q9-1.Increased State funding of education programs 43.5% 10.5% 9.9% 9.1% 4.2% 5.4% 1.4% 1.6% 0.8% 1.6% 4.6% 7.5% Q9-2.Through bond& levy approvals by voters 16.7% 6.7% 13.7% 14.5% 6.7% 10.9% 3.6% 2.4% 3.0% 5.8% 7.9% 8.1% Q9-3.Allow impact fees to be charged to development 46.0% 11.1% 11.5% 6.3% 3.6% 3.2% 0.2% 1.2% 0.4% 1.2% 2.4% 12.9% • � • • Q9. Considering education, the West Ada School District currently utilizes bond and levy funding as one of its major sources of revenue. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the following possible school-related financing methods that should be used to fund education facilities in our community. (without "don't know") (N=504) High No priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority Q9-1.Increased State funding of education programs 47.0% 11.4% 10.7% 9.9% 4.5% 5.8% 1.5% 1.7% 0.9% 1.7% 4.9% Q9-2.Through bond&levy approvals by voters 18.1% 7.3% 14.9% 15.8% 7.3% 11.9% 3.9% 2.6% 3.2% 6.3% 8.6% Q9-3.Allow impact fees to be charged to development 52.8% 12.8% 13.2% 7.3% 4.1% 3.6% 0.2% 1.4% 0.5% 1.4% 2.7% ETC Institute(2022) Page 99 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q10.There are a variety of transportation infrastructure improvements needed along roads in Meridian. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the following road-related aspects of our community you would like to see. (N=504) High No Don't priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority know Q10-1.Roadway widening(from single to multiple lanes) 48.0% 15.1% 15.5% 8.3% 3.4% 4.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0% 2.4% Q10-2.Intersection improvements 33.1% 16.1% 16.9% 13.1% 5.4% 6.3% 1.6% 1.8% 0.4% 0.8% 1.6% 3.0% Q10-3.Pathways/ sidewalk connections on local streets 28.2% 13.5% 16.9% 14.5% 7.1% 9.3% 1.8% 2.0% 0.8% 0.4% 1.8% 3.8% Q10-4.Sidewalks on arterial(major)roadways 24.4% 13.3% 15.7% 13.7% 9.5% 10.5% 2.8% 3.0% 1.0% 0.6% 1.8% 3.8% Q10-5.Street lights 20.4% 11.1% 18.8% 15.9% 9.3% 12.7% 3.4% 1.8% 1.2% 0.6% 1.8% 3.0% Q10-6.Shared bike& pedestrian facilities (similar to Boise Greenbelt)detached from roadway 31.5% 13.1% 14.7% 11.5% 8.5% 6.2% 2.4% 1.8% 2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 3.8% Q10-7.Beautification/ landscaping 14.1% 8.5% 16.5% 16.7% 13.7% 12.9% 5.6% 2.6% 2.4% 2.0% 3.8% 1.4% ETC Institute(2022) Page 100 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q10.There are a variety of transportation infrastructure improvements needed along roads in Meridian. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the following road-related aspects of our community you would like to see. (without "don't know") (N=504) High No priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority Q10-1.Roadway widening(from single to multiple lanes) 49.2% 15.4% 15.9% 8.5% 3.5% 4.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0% Q10-2.Intersection improvements 34.2% 16.6% 17.4% 13.5% 5.5% 6.5% 1.6% 1.8% 0.4% 0.8% 1.6% Q10-3.Pathways/sidewalk connections on local streets 29.3% 14.0% 17.5% 15.1% 7.4% 9.7% 1.9% 2.1% 0.8% 0.4% 1.9% Q10-4.Sidewalks on arterial (major)roadways 25.4% 13.8% 16.3% 14.2% 9.9% 10.9% 2.9% 3.1% 1.0% 0.6% 1.9% Q10-5.Street lights 21.1% 11.5% 19.4% 16.4% 9.6% 13.1% 3.5% 1.8% 1.2% 0.6% 1.8% Q10-6.Shared bike&pedestrian facilities(similar to Boise Greenbelt)detached from roadway 32.8% 13.6% 15.3% 12.0% 8.9% 6.4% 2.5% 1.9% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% Q10-7.Beautification/landscaping 14.3% 8.7% 16.7% 16.9% 13.9% 13.1% 5.6% 2.6% 2.4% 2.0% 3.8% ETC Institute(2022) Page 101 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q11. Which THREE of the transportation improvements listed in Question 10 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders in working with partner agencies over the next THREE years? Q11.Top choice Number Percent Roadway widening(from single to multiple lanes) 302 59.9 Intersection improvements 52 10.3 Pathways/sidewalk connections on local streets 20 4.0% Sidewalks on arterial(major)roadways 28 5.6% Street lights 13 2.6% Shared bike&pedestrian facilities(similar to Boise Greenbelt)detached from roadway 52 10.3% Beautification/landscaping 11 2.2% None chosen 26 5.2% Total 504 100.0% Q11. Which THREE of the transportation improvements listed in Question 10 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders in working with partner agencies over the next THREE years? Q11.2nd choice Number Percent Roadway widening(from single to multiple lanes) 43 8.5% Intersection improvements 180 35.7% Pathways/sidewalk connections on local streets 74 14.7% Sidewalks on arterial(major)roadways 24 4.8% Street lights 45 8.9% Shared bike&pedestrian facilities(similar to Boise Greenbelt)detached from roadway 85 16.9% Beautification/landscaping 16 3.2% None chosen 37 7.3% Total 504 100.0% Q11. Which THREE of the transportation improvements listed in Question 10 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders in working with partner agencies over the next THREE years? Q11.3rd choice Number Percent Roadway widening(from single to multiple lanes) 27 5.4% Intersection improvements 61 12.1% Pathways/sidewalk connections on local streets 75 14.9% Sidewalks on arterial(major)roadways 69 13.7% Street lights 64 12.7% Shared bike&pedestrian facilities(similar to Boise Greenbelt)detached from roadway 101 20.0% Beautification/landscaping 50 9.9% None chosen 57 11.3% Total 504 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 102 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report • • ' • Q11. Which THREE of the transportation improvements listed in Question 10 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders in working with partner agencies over the next THREE years? (top 3) Q11.Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent Roadway widening(from single to multiple lanes) 372 73.8 Intersection improvements 293 58.1 Pathways/sidewalk connections on local streets 169 33.5 Sidewalks on arterial(major)roadways 121 24.0 Street lights 122 24.2 Shared bike&pedestrian facilities(similar to Boise Greenbelt)detached from roadway 238 47.2 Beautification/landscaping 77 15.3 None chosen 26 5.2 Total 1418 ETC Institute(2022) Page 103 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q12. Meridian prioritizes roadway and intersection projects that the Ada County Highway District does not currently have in their budget. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate your priority of the following future roadway construction projects in our community. (N=504) High No Don't priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority know Q12-1.Widen Locust Grove Rd.from Fairview to Ustick Rd. 27.2% 14.5% 17.1% 11.7% 6.3% 6.2% 3.4% 2.2% 1.4% 0.4% 3.6% 6.2% Q12-2.Widen Victory Rd.from Locust Grove Rd.to Eagle Rd. 15.1% 9.7% 17.3% 12.1% 9.5% 10.7% 2.6% 4.0% 2.8% 1.0% 4.0% 11.3% Q12-3.Widen Ustick Rd.from Ten Mile Rd. to Linder Rd. 33.5% 13.3% 16.5% 7.9% 6.7% 6.5% 4.2% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 2.8% 6.3% Q12-4.Widen Linder Rd.from Cherry Ln.to Ustick Rd. 31.3% 11.9% 16.3% 11.5% 6.5% 7.1% 2.8% 1.2% 1.6% 0.6% 3.0% 6.2% • � • • Q12. Meridian prioritizes roadway and intersection projects that the Ada County Highway District does not currently have in their budget. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate your priority of the following future roadway construction projects in our community. (without "don't know") (N=504) High No priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority Q12-1.Widen Locust Grove Rd. from Fairview to Ustick Rd. 29.0% 15.4% 18.2% 12.5% 6.8% 6.6% 3.6% 2.3% 1.5% 0.4% 3.8% Q12-2.Widen Victory Rd.from Locust Grove Rd.to Eagle Rd. 17.0% 11.0% 19.5% 13.6% 10.7% 12.1% 2.9% 4.5% 3.1% 1.1% 4.5% Q12-3.Widen Ustick Rd.from Ten Mile Rd.to Linder Rd. 35.8% 14.2% 17.6% 8.5% 7.2% 7.0% 4.4% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 3.0% Q12-4.Widen Linder Rd.from Cherry Ln.to Ustick Rd. 33.4% 12.7% 17.3% 12.3% 7.0% 7.6% 3.0% 1.3% 1.7% 0.6% 3.2% ETC Institute(2022) Page 104 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q13. If a levy were placed on the ballot requesting funding for one or all of the projects listed in Question 12 over two to five years, how much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy to fund one or all of these projects? Q13.How much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy Number Percent $0,not in favor 117 23.2 $10-$25 124 24.6 $25-$50 88 17.5 $50-$75 40 7.9 $75-$100 54 10.7 $100-$200 38 7.5 Not provided 43 8.5 Total 504 100.0 Q13. If a levy were placed on the ballot requesting funding for one or all of the projects listed in Question 12 over two to five years, how much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy to fund one or all of these projects? (without "not provided") Q13.How much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy Number Percent $0,not in favor 117 25.4 $10-$25 124 26.9 $25-$50 88 19.1 $50-$75 40 8.7 $75-$100 54 11.7 $100-$200 38 8.2 Total 461 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 105 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q14. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following parks and recreation services. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q14-1.Number of City parks 30.2% 15.3% 23.2% 12.1% 5.0% 5.4% 1.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 6.2% Q14-2.Quality, appearance& maintenance of City parks 38.5% 21.6% 20.8% 9.9% 2.6% 1.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% Q14-3.Quality of athletic fields 25.2% 15.5% 17.1% 8.7% 5.2% 2.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% Q14-4.Number of special events&festivals 13.5% 8.1% 18.8% 15.3% 9.5% 9.9% 3.8% 2.0% 2.0% 0.4% 0.4% 16.3% Q14-5.Quality&variety of special events& festivals 13.3% 8.9% 17.3% 14.7% 7.5% 10.9% 3.4% 2.6% 1.4% 0.6% 0.6% 18.8% Q14-6.Number of pathways for walking& biking 8.3% 8.9% 13.3% 17.3% 15.5% 12.7% 5.4% 2.6% 2.6% 1.8% 3.0% 8.7% Q14-7.Quality of pathways for walking& biking 12.3% 12.1% 17.3% 16.9% 10.1% 10.3% 3.8% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 2.0% 11.3% Q14-8.Availability of information about recreation programs& classes through social media,activity guides, email updates,website, etc. 10.3% 9.9% 11.3% 14.7% 10.7% 11.9% 4.8% 4.0% 2.6% 1.2% 2.0% 16.7% Q14-9.Availability of community center&gym facilities 6.2% 6.2% 9.7% 10.1% 10.1% 9.7% 4.4% 5.6% 3.6% 1.6% 2.2% 30.8% Q14-10.Number of recreation programs& classes 7.5% 5.8% 14.1% 9.5% 8.9% 8.9% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 0.2% 0.6% 35.5% Q14-11.Quality& variety of recreation programs&classes 7.9% 5.6% 12.1% 9.3% 8.3% 7.1% 1.8% 3.6% 1.4% 0.4% 0.8% 41.7% Q14-12.Number of adult sports programs& sporting events 6.3% 5.6% 9.9% 8.3% 8.3% 5.6% 1.8% 3.2% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% 48.6% ETC Institute(2022) Page 106 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q14. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following parks and recreation services. Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q14-13.Quality of adult sports programs& sporting events 6.2% 5.6% 9.5% 9.7% 5.2% 5.6% 0.6% 1.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 53.8% Q14-14.Availability of youth sports programs through partners,such as Police Activities League(PAL),Meridian Youth Baseball(MYB),& others 12.5% 10.9% 12.3% 9.5% 5.4% 3.6% 1.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% 0.6% 42.1% Q14-15.Quality of youth sports programs through partners,such as Police Activities League(PAL),Meridian Youth Baseball(MYB),& others 12.3% 9.9% 13.5% 8.5% 4.6% 3.6% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 1.2% 44.2% Q14-16.Availability& quality of course& amenities at Lakeview Golf Course 6.0% 2.4% 11.1% 6.3% 2.2% 3.0% 1.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% 1.4% 63.3% ETC Institute(2022) Page 107 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q14. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following parks and recreation services. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q14-1.Number of City parks 32.1% 16.3% 24.7% 12.9% 5.3% 5.7% 1.7% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% Q14-2.Quality,appearance& maintenance of City parks 40.2% 22.6% 21.7% 10.4% 2.7% 1.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Q14-3.Quality of athletic fields 33.6% 20.6% 22.8% 11.6% 6.9% 3.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Q14-4.Number of special events& festivals 16.1% 9.7% 22.5% 18.2% 11.4% 11.8% 4.5% 2.4% 2.4% 0.5% 0.5% Q14-5.Quality&variety of special events&festivals 16.4% 11.0% 21.3% 18.1% 9.3% 13.4% 4.2% 3.2% 1.7% 0.7% 0.7% Q14-6.Number of pathways for walking&biking 9.1% 9.8% 14.6% 18.9% 17.0% 13.9% 5.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.0% 3.3% Q14-7.Quality of pathways for walking&biking 13.9% 13.6% 19.5% 19.0% 11.4% 11.6% 4.3% 1.1% 2.2% 1.1% 2.2% Q14-8.Availability of information about recreation programs&classes through social media,activity guides,email updates,website,etc. 12.4% 11.9% 13.6% 17.6% 12.9% 14.3% 5.7% 4.8% 3.1% 1.4% 2.4% Q14-9.Availability of community center&gym facilities 8.9% 8.9% 14.0% 14.6% 14.6% 14.0% 6.3% 8.0% 5.2% 2.3% 3.2% Q14-10. Number of recreation programs&classes 11.7% 8.9% 21.8% 14.8% 13.8% 13.8% 6.2% 4.6% 3.1% 0.3% 0.9% Q14-11.Quality&variety of recreation programs&classes 13.6% 9.5% 20.7% 16.0% 14.3% 12.2% 3.1% 6.1% 2.4% 0.7% 1.4% Q14-12. Number of adult sports programs&sporting events 12.4% 10.8% 19.3% 16.2% 16.2% 10.8% 3.5% 6.2% 1.5% 1.2% 1.9% Q14-13.Quality of adult sports programs&sporting events 13.3% 12.0% 20.6% 21.0% 11.2% 12.0% 1.3% 3.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.3% Q14-14.Availability of youth sports programs through partners, such as Police Activities League (PAL),Meridian Youth Baseball (MYB),&others 21.6% 18.8% 21.2% 16.4% 9.2% 6.2% 2.7% 1.0% 0.3% 1.4% 1.0% Q14-15.Quality of youth sports programs through partners,such as Police Activities League(PAL), Meridian Youth Baseball(MYB), &others 22.1% 17.8% 24.2% 15.3% 8.2% 6.4% 1.4% 1.1% 0.4% 1.1% 2.1% ETC Institute(2022) Page 108 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q14. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following parks and recreation services. (without "don't know") Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q14-16.Availability&quality of course&amenities at Lakeview Golf Course 16.2% 6.5% 30.3% 17.3% 5.9% 8.1% 4.9% 3.2% 2.2% 1.6% 3.8% ETC Institute(2022) Page 109 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q15. In the past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household visited a City of Meridian park? Q15. Has your household visited a City park in past 12 months Number Percent Yes,I have personally visited a City park in last year 421 83.5 Yes,a household member has visited a City park in last year 26 5.2% No 45 8.9% Not provided 12 2.4% Total 504 100.0% Q15. In the past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household visited a City of Meridian park? (without "not provided") Q15.Has your household visited a City park in past 12 months Number Percent Yes,I have personally visited a City park in last year 421 85.6% Yes,a household member has visited a City park in last year 26 5.3% No 45 9.1% Total 492 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 110 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q16. Public safety has prioritized public outreach using social media, public presentations, citizen academies, and volunteer opportunities like citizen park patrols. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following public safety services. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q16-1.Overall feeling of safety in City 22.4% 24.4% 28.2% 14.1% 3.2% 2.4% 1.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 2.6% Q16-2.Quality of local police protection 29.4% 23.2% 22.2% 9.1% 2.8% 3.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 1.0% 6.7% Q16-3.How quickly police respond to 911 emergencies 17.5% 14.7% 9.3% 3.6% 2.2% 1.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 49.2% Q16-4.Visibility of police in neighborhoods 14.1% 11.7% 17.1% 15.5% 9.9% 10.5% 5.2% 5.2% 1.6% 0.6% 4.2% 4.6% Q16-5.Safety in City parks 19.4% 18.7% 21.4% 14.1% 5.0% 4.2% 0.6% 2.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 13.5% Q16-6.Police safety education programs 9.3% 6.2% 8.7% 5.0% 2.8% 2.6% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 1.4% 60.9% Q16-7.Professionalism of employees responding to emergencies 26.0% 15.9% 11.7% 4.2% 2.0% 1.6% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 37.3% Q16-8.Overall quality of fire department 37.7% 21.2% 11.9% 3.8% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.8% Q16-9.How quickly fire department responds to 911 emergencies 27.0% 15.5% 9.9% 1.8% 1.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.7% Q16-10.Quality of Emergency Medical Services(EMS) 30.8% 16.1% 12.5% 3.8% 1.2% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% Q16-11. Fire safety education programs 11.7% 10.3% 9.5% 4.2% 3.0% 2.4% 1.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 56.5% Q16-12.Current location of fire stations 28.4% 20.8% 19.0% 12.1% 3.8% 1.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 13.1% Q16-13.Fire department public outreach 12.1% 9.3% 11.1% 6.2% 3.6% 2.6% 2.6% 0.6% 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 50.2% ETC Institute(2022) Page 111 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q16. Public safety has prioritized public outreach using social media, public presentations, citizen academies, and volunteer opportunities like citizen park patrols. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following public safety services. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q16-1.Overall feeling of safety in City 23.0% 25.1% 28.9% 14.5% 3.3% 2.4% 1.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% Q16-2.Quality of local police protection 31.5% 24.9% 23.8% 9.8% 3.0% 3.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% Q16-3.How quickly police respond to 911 emergencies 34.4% 28.9% 18.4% 7.0% 4.3% 3.5% 1.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% Q16-4.Visibility of police in neighborhoods 14.8% 12.3% 17.9% 16.2% 10.4% 11.0% 5.4% 5.4% 1.7% 0.6% 4.4% Q16-5.Safety in City parks 22.5% 21.6% 24.8% 16.3% 5.7% 4.8% 0.7% 2.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% Q16-6.Police safety education programs 23.9% 15.7% 22.3% 12.7% 7.1% 6.6% 2.0% 2.5% 1.5% 2.0% 3.6% Q16-7.Professionalism of employees responding to emergencies 41.5% 25.3% 18.7% 6.6% 3.2% 2.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% Q16-8.Overall quality of fire department 48.8% 27.5% 15.4% 4.9% 1.5% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Q16-9.How quickly fire department responds to 911 emergencies 47.9% 27.5% 17.6% 3.2% 2.5% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Q16-10.Quality of Emergency Medical Services(EMS) 46.8% 24.5% 19.0% 5.7% 1.8% 1.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Q16-11.Fire safety education programs 26.9% 23.7% 21.9% 9.6% 6.8% 5.5% 2.3% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% Q16-12.Current location of fire Stations 32.6% 24.0% 21.9% 13.9% 4.3% 1.8% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Q16-13.Fire department public outreach 24.3% 18.7% 22.3% 12.4% 7.2% 5.2% 5.2% 1.2% 1.6% 0.8% 1.2% ETC Institute(2022) Page 112 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q17. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City's efforts in the enforcement of the following codes and ordinances. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q17-1.Weed abatement 6.0% 6.3% 13.5% 13.9% 10.5% 8.3% 5.2% 4.0% 2.2% 1.4% 3.6% 25.2% Q17-2.Removal of graffiti 19.6% 15.5% 19.2% 7.5% 2.4% 3.4% 1.6% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 29.0% Q17-3.Abandoned/junk automobile removal 10.7% 12.7% 16.7% 10.5% 5.4% 4.4% 2.0% 1.8% 2.0% 0.6% 2.2% 31.2% Q17-4.Clean-up of litter&debris on private property 6.9% 7.7% 14.7% 11.5% 7.1% 6.3% 4.2% 4.4% 1.0% 0.8% 3.0% 32.3% Q17-5.Dilapidated houses or buildings 8.1% 9.3% 13.5% 14.3% 8.1% 5.4% 3.8% 3.6% 1.6% 0.4% 2.0% 30.0% Q17-6.Illegal dumping 8.3% 10.5% 12.3% 6.9% 3.4% 4.0% 3.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.4% 1.2% 48.0% • � • • Q17. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City's efforts in the enforcement of the following codes and ordinances. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q17-1.Weed abatement 8.0% 8.5% 18.0% 18.6% 14.1% 11.1% 6.9% 5.3% 2.9% 1.9% 4.8% Q17-2.Removal of graffiti 27.7% 21.8% 27.1% 10.6% 3.4% 4.7% 2.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% Q17-3.Abandoned/junk automobile removal 15.6% 18.4% 24.2% 15.3% 7.8% 6.3% 2.9% 2.6% 2.9% 0.9% 3.2% Q17-4.Clean-up of litter&debris on private property 10.3% 11.4% 21.7% 17.0% 10.6% 9.4% 6.2% 6.5% 1.5% 1.2% 4.4% Q17-5.Dilapidated houses or buildings 11.6% 13.3% 19.3% 20.4% 11.6% 7.6% 5.4% 5.1% 2.3% 0.6% 2.8% Q17-6. Illegal dumping 16.0% 20.2% 23.7% 13.4% 6.5% 7.6% 5.7% 2.3% 1.5% 0.8% 2.3% ETC Institute(2022) Page 113 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q18. Do you have a working smoke detector in your home? Q18. Do you have a working smoke detector in your home Number Percent Yes 493 97.8 No 4 0.8 Don't know 7 1.4 Total 504 100.0 Q18. Do you have a working smoke detector in your home? (without "don't know") Q18.Do you have a working smoke detector in your home Number Percent Yes 493 99.2 No 4 0.8 Total 497 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 114 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q19.The City uses a variety of methods to communicate with the public, including its website, social media such as Nextdoor, Facebook and Twitter, traditional media such as newspapers, radio, and television, and a bi-weekly newsletter. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following communication services. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q19-1.Effectiveness of City communications with the public 12.7% 12.5% 19.8% 17.3% 7.9% 8.3% 3.6% 1.2% 1.4% 0.4% 1.0% 13.9% Q19-2.Opportunities for public involvement in local decision-making 8.5% 7.3% 14.9% 13.9% 9.3% 10.7% 3.8% 2.8% 2.2% 1.0% 3.0% 22.6% Q19-3.Quality of www. meridiancity.org 12.3% 12.3% 18.1% 13.9% 6.7% 6.3% 2.4% 1.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.6% 25.2% Q19-4.Usefulness of online services available on City's website(bill pay/class registration) 16.7% 14.3% 19.2% 9.3% 6.2% 5.2% 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 25.6% Q19-5.Quality of information about City programs&services 10.7% 12.3% 17.1% 15.7% 6.3% 5.2% 3.2% 1.6% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0% 25.4% Q19.The City uses a variety of methods to communicate with the public, including its website, social media such as Nextdoor, Facebook and Twitter, traditional media such as newspapers, radio, and television, and a bi-weekly newsletter. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following communication services. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q19-1.Effectiveness of City communications with the public 14.7% 14.5% 23.0% 20.0% 9.2% 9.7% 4.1% 1.4% 1.6% 0.5% 1.2% Q19-2.Opportunities for public involvement in local decision- making 11.0% 9.5% 19.2% 17.9% 12.1% 13.8% 4.9% 3.6% 2.8% 1.3% 3.8% Q19-3.Quality of www. meridiancity.org 16.4% 16.4% 24.1% 18.6% 9.0% 8.5% 3.2% 1.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% Q19-4.Usefulness of online services available on City's website(bill pay/class registration) 22.4% 19.2% 25.9% 12.5% 8.3% 6.9% 2.1% 1.1% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% Q19-5.Quality of information about City programs&services 14.4% 16.5% 22.9% 21.0% 8.5% 6.9% 4.3% 2.1% 1.3% 0.8% 1.3% ETC Institute(2022) Page 115 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q20. Where do you currently get information about Meridian's services and programs? Q20.Where do you currently get information about City services&programs Number Percent City website 237 47.0 Social media(Nextdoor,Facebook,Twitter,Instagram) 213 42.3 Television/news 171 33.9 Flyers in utility bills 202 40.1 Information booklets/City publications 43 8.5 Newspaper 58 11.5 Radio 69 13.7 Emails from City 149 29.6 Events such as Coffee with the Mayor,Town Halls 10 2.0 Other source 16 3.2 Total 1168 Q20-10. Other sources: Q20-10.Other sources Number Percent Word of mouth 3 18.8 Neighbors 2 12.5 We got very little information 1 6.3 Friends and neighbors 1 6.3 From other locals 1 6.3% Friends 1 6.3% Flyers 1 6.3% Friends who work at City Hall 1 6.3% Community paper 1 6.3% Phone 1 6.3% Word of mouth and personal experience 1 6.3% Friends/word of mouth 1 6.3% Road signs 1 6.3% Total 16 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 116 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q21. Did you visit Downtown Meridian at least once during the past year for a purpose other than work? Q21.Did you visit Downtown Meridian at least once during past year for a purpose other than work Number Percent Yes 429 85.1 No 63 12.5 Don't remember 12 2.4% Total 504 100.0 Q21. Did you visit Downtown Meridian at least once during the past year for a purpose other than work? (without "don't remember") Q21.Did you visit Downtown Meridian at least once during past year for a purpose other than work Number Percent Yes 429 87.2 No 63 12.8 Total 492 100.0 Q21a. When you think about Downtown,why didn't you visit in the last year? Q21a.Why didn't you visit Downtown in last year Number Percent Lack of parking 19 30.2 Lack of open space 3 4.8 Not enough variety of shopping 19 30.2 Not enough variety of restaurants 11 17.5 Lack of walkability 3 4.8% Not provided 8 12.7% Total 63 100.0% Q21a. When you think about Downtown, why didn't you visit in the last year? (without "not provided") Q21a.Why didn't you visit Downtown in last year Number Percent Lack of parking 19 34.5% Lack of open space 3 5.5% Not enough variety of shopping 19 34.5% Not enough variety of restaurants 11 20.0% Lack of walkability 3 5.5% Total 55 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 117 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q22. In general, would you favor or oppose allowing residents of a City the ability to vote on a temporary sales tax (local option tax) increase to provide funding for identified infrastructure improvements in the community? Q22.Would you favor or oppose allowing City residents the ability to vote on a temporary sales tax increase Number Percent Favor 186 36.9 Oppose 203 40.3 Not sure 115 22.8 Total 504 100.0 Q22. In general,would you favor or oppose allowing residents of a City the ability to vote on a temporary sales tax (local option tax) increase to provide funding for identified infrastructure improvements in the community? (without "not provided") Q22.Would you favor or oppose allowing City residents the ability to vote on a temporary sales tax increase Number Percent Favor 186 47.8 Oppose 203 52.2 Total 389 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 118 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q23. Meridian continues to grow, and there has been an indication that preserving farmland is important to the community. One way to preserve vacant open land would be by voter initiative to enact a property tax levy to purchase farmland over two to five years in order to preserve it for agricultural purposes. If a levy were placed on the ballot requesting funding to preserve land, how much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy for the purchase of existing agricultural land? Q23.How much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy Number Percent $0,not in favor 190 37.7 $10-$25 108 21.4 $25-$50 60 11.9 $50-$75 43 8.5 $75-$100 32 6.3 $100-$200 32 6.3 Not provided 39 7.7 Total 504 100.0 • • • m Q23. Meridian continues to grow, and there has been an indication that preserving farmland is important to the community. One way to preserve vacant open land would be by voter initiative to enact a property tax levy to purchase farmland over two to five years in order to preserve it for agricultural purposes. If a levy were placed on the ballot requesting funding to preserve land, how much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy for the purchase of existing agricultural land? (without "not provided") Q23.How much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy Number Percent $0,not in favor 190 40.9 $10-$25 108 23.2 $25-$50 60 12.9 $50-$75 43 9.2 $75-$100 32 6.9 $100-$200 32 6.9 Total 465 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 119 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q24. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the importance of the following community issues. (N=504) High No Don't priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority know Q24-1.Roads/traffic/ transportation 62.1% 15.5% 11.7% 6.0% 1.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 1.2% Q24-2.Growth/ development 53.0% 14.7% 12.7% 6.5% 3.6% 3.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.2% 1.0% 1.4% Q24-3.Education/ schools 54.4% 14.S% 11.3% 5.6% 2.8% 2.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 1.2% 4.8% Q24-4.Homelessness/ social services 17.7% 10.7% 16.7% 13.9% 8.5% 12.7% 4.6% 3.6% 2.0% 1.6% 3.0% 5.2% Q24-5.Affordable housing 41.7% 9.5% 13.5% 10.5% 4.2% 7.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% 1.6% 2.8% 2.4% Q24-6.Jobs/economic development 24.6% 15.9% 23.4% 12.5% 6.3% 7.7% 1.4% 1.8% 0.2% 1.0% 0.2% 5.0% Q24-7.Public transportation 23.2% 12.3% 17.3% 13.5% 6.5% 8.5% 3.6% 3.2% 1.4% 2.8% 2.8% 5.0% Q24-8.Downtown redevelopment 9.5% 7.1% 14.7% 19.2% 11.9% 11.1% 6.2% 3.8% 4.2% 3.4% 6.2% 2.8% Q24-9.Pathway/ sidewalk connections 18.1% 12.7% 17.1% 15.7% 8.7% 11.7% 2.8% 3.6% 2.2% 2.2% 1.8% 3.6% Q24-10.City tax burden 20.8% 12.1% 15.7% 14.5% 6.5% 9.3% 1.8% 0.6% 1.0% 1.8% 1.6% 14.3% Q24-11. Telecommunications (cell phone/internet service) 17.5% 14.3% 18.8% 12.9% 8.9% 10.7% 3.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 3.6% 5.0% Q24-12.Access to mental health services 29.6% 12.7% 16.5% 11.7% 8.5% 7.5% 2.4% 1.0% 1.4% 0.8% 2.0% 6.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 120 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q24. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the importance of the following community issues. (without "don't know") (N=504) High No priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority Q24-1.Roads/traffic/ transportation 62.9% 15.7% 11.8% 6.0% 1.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% Q24-2.Growth/development 53.7% 14.9% 12.9% 6.6% 3.6% 3.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.2% 1.0% Q24-3.Education/schools 57.1% 15.2% 11.9% 5.8% 2.9% 2.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 1.3% Q24-4.Homelessness/social services 18.6% 11.3% 17.6% 14.6% 9.0% 13.4% 4.8% 3.8% 2.1% 1.7% 3.1% Q24-5.Affordable housing 42.7% 9.8% 13.8% 10.8% 4.3% 7.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% 1.6% 2.8% Q24-6.Jobs/economic development 25.9% 16.7% 24.6% 13.2% 6.7% 8.1% 1.5% 1.9% 0.2% 1.0% 0.2% Q24-7.Public transportation 24.4% 12.9% 18.2% 14.2% 6.9% 9.0% 3.8% 3.3% 1.5% 2.9% 2.9% Q24-8.Downtown redevelopment 9.8% 7.3% 15.1% 19.8% 12.2% 11.4% 6.3% 3.9% 4.3% 3.5% 6.3% Q24-9.Pathway/sidewalk connections 18.7% 13.2% 17.7% 16.3% 9.1% 12.1% 2.9% 3.7% 2.3% 2.3% 1.9% Q24-10.City tax burden 24.3% 14.1% 18.3% 16.9% 7.6% 10.9% 2.1% 0.7% 1.2% 2.1% 1.9% Q24-11.Telecommunications (cell phone/internet service) 18.4% 15.0% 19.8% 13.6% 9.4% 11.3% 3.3% 1.9% 1.7% 1.9% 3.8% Q24-12.Access to mental health services 31.4% 13.5% 17.5% 12.4% 9.1% 8.0% 2.5% 1.1% 1.5% 0.8% 2.1% ETC Institute(2022) Page 121 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q25. Which THREE of the priorities listed in Question 24 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next THREE years? Q25.Top choice Number Percent Roads/traffic/transportation 198 39.3 Growth/development 72 14.3 Education/schools 91 18.1 Homelessness/social services 3 0.6 Affordable housing 50 9.9% Jobs/economic development 6 1.2% Public transportation 18 3.6% Downtown redevelopment 2 0.4% Pathway/sidewalk connections 5 1.0% City tax burden 7 1.4% Telecommunications(cell phone/internet service) 6 1.2% Access to mental health services 30 6.0% None chosen 16 3.2% Total 504 100.0% Q25. Which THREE of the priorities listed in Question 24 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next THREE years? Q25.2nd choice Number Percent Roads/traffic/transportation 84 16.7% Growth/development 140 27.8% Education/schools 84 16.7% Homelessness/social services 18 3.6% Affordable housing 52 10.3% Jobs/economic development 13 2.6% Public transportation 18 3.6% Downtown redevelopment 7 1.4% Pathway/sidewalk connections 23 4.6% City tax burden 13 2.6% Telecommunications(cell phone/internet service) 10 2.0% Access to mental health services 25 5.0% None chosen 17 3.4% Total 504 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 122 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q25. Which THREE of the priorities listed in Question 24 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next THREE years? Q25.3rd choice Number Percent Roads/traffic/transportation 62 12.3 Growth/development 50 9.9 Education/schools 78 15.5 Homelessness/social services 20 4.0 Affordable housing 70 13.9 Jobs/economic development 35 6.9 Public transportation 22 4.4% Downtown redevelopment 17 3.4 Pathway/sidewalk connections 27 5.4 City tax burden 39 7.7 Telecommunications(cell phone/internet service) 20 4.0 Access to mental health services 40 7.9 None chosen 24 4.8 Total 504 100.0 Q25. Which THREE of the priorities listed in Question 24 do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from City leaders over the next THREE years? (top 3) Q25.Sum of top 3 choices Number Percent Roads/traffic/transportation 344 68.3 Growth/development 262 52.0 Education/schools 253 50.2 Homelessness/social services 41 8.1 Affordable housing 172 34.1 Jobs/economic development 54 10.7 Public transportation 58 11.5 Downtown redevelopment 26 5.2 Pathway/sidewalk connections 55 10.9 City tax burden 59 11.7 Telecommunications(cell phone/internet service) 36 7.1 Access to mental health services 95 18.8 None chosen 16 3.2 Total 1471 ETC Institute(2022) Page 123 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q26. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the importance of the City Council addressing the following housing affordability issues. (N=504) High No Don't priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority know Q26-1.Develop incentives to encourage developers to provide more housing options 23.6% 10.9% 15.1% 10.3% 7.3% 7.3% 3.4% 2.8% 2.0% 3.0% 8.5% 5.8% Q26-2.Require certain quantity of units in development projects to have affordable housing elements 25.6% 9.3% 13.3% 9.1% 8.7% 7.1% 2.4% 4.4% 2.8% 3.2% 8.3% 5.8% Q26-3.Provide reduced development standards for projects containing affordable housing elements 8.7% 4.6% 10.1% 7.1% 5.4% 8.1% 5.4% 6.2% 6.2% 9.5% 15.5% 13.3% Q26-4.Increase development densities via duplexes, apartments,townhomes, &other multi-family designs 7.7% 5.4% 9.1% 7.9% 5.6% 9.7% 5.4% 6.9% 5.6% 10.7% 19.2% 6.7% Q26. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the importance of the City Council addressing the following housing affordability issues. (without "don't know") (N=504) High No priority 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 priority Q26-1.Develop incentives to encourage developers to provide more housing options 25.1% 11.6% 16.0% 10.9% 7 8°% 7.8% 3.6% 2.9% 2.1% 3.2% 9.1% Q26-2.Require certain quantity of units in development projects to have affordable housing elements 27.2% 9.9% 14.1% 9.7% 9.3% 7.6% 2.5% 4.6% 2.9% 3.4% 8.8% Q26-3.Provide reduced development standards for projects containing affordable housing elements 10.1% 5.3% 11.7% 8.2% 6.2% 9.4% 6.2% 7.1% 7.1% 11.0% 17.8% Q26-4.Increase development densities via duplexes,apartments, townhomes,&other multi-family designs 8.3% 5.7% 9.8% 8.5% 6.0% 10.4% 5.7% 7.4% 6.0% 11.5% 20.6% ETC Institute(2022) Page 124 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q27. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City's level of effort in the enforcement of the following public safety and traffic areas. (N=504) Don't Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor know Q27-1.Handheld use of cell phones&texting while driving 11.9% 6.7% 10.9% 6.7% 5.2% 9.7% 5.4% 6.2% 5.6% 3.0% 13.1% 15.7% Q27-2.Speeding in neighborhoods 7.5% 5.6% 10.1% 11.3% 8.5% 13.1% 4.4% 6.2% 5.4% 4.2% 10.9% 12.9% Q27-3.Red light violations 9.7% 7.5% 8.9% 7.3% 5.6% 14.1% 4.6% 6.0% 3.6% 5.0% 10.7% 17.1% Q27-4.Tailgating 6.2% 4.6% 7.5% 8.7% 6.7% 15.3% 5.8% 6.2% 4.0% 4.2% 10.3% 20.6% Q27-5.Speeding on arterial roads 8.1% 6.3% 11.7% 12.1% 6.2% 13.3% 5.2% 5.6% 3.4% 4.4% 10.5% 13.3% Q27-6.Excessive motor vehicle sound 5.4% 4.2% 8.9% 7 7% 5.8% 12.7% 4.2% 5.4% 4.6% 4.4% 11.9% 25.0% • � • • Q27. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City's level of effort in the enforcement of the following public safety and traffic areas. (without "don't know") (N=504) Excellent 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Poor Q27-1.Handheld use of cell phones&texting while driving 14.1% 8.0% 12.9% 8.0% 6.1% 11.5% 6.4% 7.3% 6.6% 3.5% 15.5% Q27-2.Speeding in neighborhoods 8.7% 6.4% 11.6% 13.0% 9.8% 15.0% 5.0% 7.1% 6.2% 4.8% 12.5% Q27-3.Red light violations 11.7% 9.1% 10.8% 8.9% 6.7% 17.0% 5.5% 7.2% 4.3% 6.0% 12.9% Q27-4.Tailgating 7.8% 5.8% 9.5% 11.0% 8.5% 19.3% 7.3% 7.8% 5.0% 5.3% 13.0% Q27-5.Speeding on arterial roads 9.4% 7.3% 13.5% 14.0% 7.1% 15.3% 5.9% 6.4% 3.9% 5.0% 12.1% Q27-6.Excessive motor vehicle sound 7.1% 5.6% 11.9% 10.3% 7.7% 16.9% 5.6% 7.1% 6.1% 5.8% 15.9% ETC Institute(2022) Page 125 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q28. Do you feel the level of police presence in your neighborhood is sufficient, ensuring that Meridian communities remain a safe place for citizens? Q28.What do you feel the level of police presence in your neighborhood Number Percent Yes 290 57.5 No 121 24.0 Not sure 93 18.5 Total 504 100.0 Q28. Do you feel the level of police presence in your neighborhood is sufficient, ensuring that Meridian communities remain a safe place for citizens? (without "not provided") Q28.What do you feel the level of police presence in your neighborhood Number Percent Yes 290 70.6 No 121 29.4% Total 411 100.0% Q30. Your gender? Q30.Your gender Number Percent Male 246 48.8% Female 252 50.0% Not provided 6 1.2% Total 504 100.0% Q30. Your gender? (without "not provided") Q30.Your gender Number Percent Male 246 49.4% Female 252 50.6% Total 498 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 126 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q31. What is your age? Q31.Your age Number Percent 18 to 34 95 18.8 35 to 44 96 19.0 45 to 54 97 19.2 55 to 64 95 18.8 65+ 96 19.0 Not provided 25 5.0 Total 504 100.0 Q31. What is your age? (without "not provided") Q31.Your age Number Percent 18 to 34 95 19.8 35 to 44 96 20.0 45 to 54 97 20.3 55 to 64 95 19.8 65+ 96 20.0 Total 479 100.0 Q32. Which of the following best describes the home in which you live? Q32.Which following best describes the home in which you live Number Percent A manufactured trailer or mobile home 1 0.2% An apartment 14 2.8% Townhouse or duplex 12 2.4% A detached single-family house 465 92.3% Other 1 0.2% Not provided 11 2.2% Total 504 100.0% Q32. Which of the following best describes the home in which you live? (without "not provided") Q32.Which following best describes the home in which you live Number Percent A manufactured trailer or mobile home 1 0.2% An apartment 14 2.8% Townhouse or duplex 12 2.4% A detached single-family house 465 94.3% Other 1 0.2% Total 493 100.0% Q32-6. Other Q32-6.Other Number Percent Generation home with daughter 1 100.0% Total 1 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 127 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q33. Do you own or rent your home? Q33.Do you own or rent your home Number Percent Own 420 83.3 Rent 80 15.9 Other 2 0.4 Don't know 2 0.4 Total 504 100.0 Q33. Do you own or rent your home? (without "don't know") Q33.Do you own or rent your home Number Percent Own 420 83.7 Rent 80 15.9 Other 2 0.4 Total 502 100.0 Q33-3. Other Q33-3.Other Number Percent Reside with family 1 50.0 Live with parents because I can't afford anything 1 50.0 Total 2 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 128 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q34. How many years have you lived in Meridian? Q34. How many years have you lived in Meridian Number Percent 0-5 134 26.6 6-10 109 21.6 11-15 69 13.7 16-20 74 14.7 21-30 81 16.1 31+ 30 6.0 Not provided 7 1.4 Total 504 100.0 Q34. How many years have you lived in Meridian? (without "not provided") Q34.How many years have you lived in Meridian Number Percent 0-5 134 27.0 6-10 109 21.9 11-15 69 13.9 16-20 74 14.9 21-30 81 16.3 31+ 30 6.0 Total 497 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 129 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q34. How many months have you lived in Meridian? Q34. How many months have you lived in Meridian Number Percent 0 261 51.8% 1 27 5.4% 2 37 7.3% 3 26 5.2% 4 16 3.2% 5 11 2.2% 6 38 7.5% 7 20 4.0% 8 15 3.0% 9 18 3.6% 10+ 28 5.6% Not provided 7 1.4% Total 504 100.0% Q34. How many months have you lived in Meridian? (without "not provided") Q34. How many months have you lived in Meridian Number Percent 0 261 52.5% 1 27 5.4% 2 37 7.4% 3 26 5.2% 4 16 3.2% 5 11 2.2% 6 38 7.6% 7 20 4.0% 8 15 3.0% 9 18 3.6% 10+ 28 5.6% Total 497 100.0% Q35. Including yourself, how many people in your household are... Mean Sum number 2.8 1272 Under age 5 0.2 77 Ages 5-9 0.2 91 Ages10-14 0.2 103 Ages15-17 0.2 79 Ages 18+ 2.0 922 ETC Institute(2022) Page 130 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q36. Does your household have a dog? Q36.Does your household have a dog Number Percent Yes 259 51.4 No 240 47.6 Not provided 5 1.0 Total 504 100.0 Q36. Does your household have a dog? (without "not provided") Q36.Does your household have a dog Number Percent Yes 259 51.9 No 240 48.1 Total 499 100.0 Q36a. How many dogs do you have in your household? Q36a.How many dogs do you have in your household Number Percent One 163 62.9 Two 83 32.0 Three 12 4.6 Four or more 1 0.4 Total 259 100.0 Q36b. Do you know that Meridian requires dogs to be licensed annually? Q36b. Do you know that Meridian requires dogs to be licensed annually Number Percent Yes 178 68.7 No 79 30.5 Not provided 2 0.8 Total 259 100.0 Q36b. Do you know that Meridian requires dogs to be licensed annually? (without "not provided") Q36b. Do you know that Meridian requires dogs to be licensed annually Number Percent Yes 178 69.3 No 79 30.7 Total 257 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 131 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q37. Which ONE of the following best describes your current employment status? Q37.Which following best describes your current employment status Number Percent Employed full time 263 52.2 Employed part time 41 8.1 Self-employed 39 7.7 Not employed outside home,a homemaker 21 4.2 Retired 116 23.0 A full-time student,not working 3 0.6% A student working full time 2 0.4% A student working part time 2 0.4% Not employed due to a disability 7 1.4% Not employed,but seeking work 2 0.4% Not employed,but not seeking work 3 0.6% Other 2 0.4% Not provided 3 0.6% Total 504 100.0% Q37. Which ONE of the following best describes your current employment status? (without "not provided") Q37.Which following best describes your current employment status Number Percent Employed full time 263 52.5% Employed part time 41 8.2% Self-employed 39 7.8% Not employed outside home,a homemaker 21 4.2% Retired 116 23.2% A full-time student,not working 3 0.6% A student working full time 2 0.4% A student working part time 2 0.4% Not employed due to a disability 7 1.4% Not employed,but seeking work 2 0.4% Not employed,but not seeking work 3 0.6% Other 2 0.4% Total 501 100.0% Q37-12. Other Q37-12.Other Number Percent On SSI 1 50.0% Stay at home mom 1 50.0% Total 2 100.0% ETC Institute(2022) Page 132 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q38. What is the approximate total annual family income of all members of your household? Q38.Approximate total annual family income of all members of your household Number Percent Less than$20K 23 4.6 $20K-$34,999 29 5.8 $35K-$49,999 35 6.9 $50K-$74,999 85 16.9 $75K-$99,999 89 17.7 $100K-$149,999 91 18.1 $150K-$199,999 56 11.1 $200K+ 27 5.4 Not sure 69 13.7 Total 504 100.0 PTATMOTTUTIONW.M Q38. What is the approximate total annual family income of all members of your household? (without "not provided") Q38.Approximate total annual family income of all members of your household Number Percent Less than$20K 23 5.3 $20K-$34,999 29 6.7 $35K-$49,999 35 8.0% $50K-$74,999 85 19.5 $75K-$99,999 89 20.5 $100K-$149,999 91 20.9 $150K-$199,999 56 12.9 $200K+ 27 6.2 Total 435 100.0 Q39. How do you make and receive phones calls? Q39.How do you make&receive phones calls Number Percent Landline 8 1.6 Cell phone 439 87.1 Both 50 9.9 Not provided 7 1.4 Total 504 100.0 Q39. How do you make and receive phones calls? (without "not provided") Q39.How do you make&receive phones calls Number Percent Landline 8 1.6 Cell phone 439 88.3 Both 50 10.1 Total 497 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 133 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Q39a. Do you primarily use your cell phone, landline or both to make and receive calls? Q39a.Do you primarily use your cell phone,landline or both Number Percent Primarily use cell phone 17 34.0 Primarily use landline 12 24.0% Both 21 42.0 Total 50 100.0 Q39b. Who is your cell phone service provider? Q39b.Who is your cell phone service provider Number Percent Verizon 241 49.3 AT&T 73 14.9 Sprint 7 1.4 T-Mobile 116 23.7 Other 42 8.6 Not provided 10 2.0 Total 489 100.0 Q39b. Who is your cell phone service provider? (without "not provided") Q39b.Who is your cell phone service provider Number Percent Verizon 241 50.3 AT&T 73 15.2 Sprint 7 1.5 T-Mobile 116 24.2 Other 42 8.8 Total 479 100.0 Q39b-5. Other Q39b-5.Other Number Percent Consumer Cellular 13 35.1 Cricket 4 10.8 Tracfone 4 10.8 Straight Talk 4 10.8 Google Fi 3 8.1 Mint Mobile 2 5.4% Boost Mobile 2 5.4 A service off Verizon platform 1 2.7 X Finity Mobile 1 2.7 Project Fi 1 2.7 Assurance Wireless 1 2.7 Walmart 1 2.7 Total 37 100.0 ETC Institute(2022) Page 134 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey: Findings Report Survey Instrument Nw- ETC Institute(2022) Page 135 Mayor Robert E. Simison ER,lDnIANI�-�.- City Council Members: Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener Liz Strader April 19, 2022 Dear Meridian Resident, What do you think? Meridian is issuing this 2022 Citizen Survey to understand the community's perspective on services offered in Meridian. The survey questions focus on the quality of services that are provided both by Meridian directly, and by our service partners. Whether considering public safety needs, our parks and pathways, an emerging downtown, or road and transportation needs, our goal is to understand how you view the quality of these services. As part of this process, you have been randomly selected to participate in this year's survey. We ask that you take the time to help us understand your customer satisfaction with your community so we can improve the quality of services offered in Meridian. The survey is being conducted by ETC Institute, a national market research firm that specializes in conducting surveys for local governments. The survey is entirely voluntary and should take only 10 to 15 minutes of your time. We ask that you complete it as soon as possible. You can either complete the written survey and return it in the mail using the postage paid envelope, or complete the survey online at www.meridiansurvey.org. Please know that regardless of how you complete the survey, your responses will be completely confidential and combined with the responses of other Meridian residents. Thank you in advance for your participation and feedback. The information we obtain from this survey is critical to understanding the needs of Meridian residents. If you have questions about the survey, please contact the City of Meridian Mayor's Office at 208-489-0529. Otherwise, you can look for the survey results to be posted on the City of Meridian's website (www.meridiancity_org) by early fall. incerely, obert 4Si on Mayor Mayor's Office . 33 E.Broadway Avenue,Meridian,ID 83642 Phone 208-489-0529 . www.meridiancity.org 2022 City of Meridian Citizen Survey Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. Your input is an aVE IMAM- important part of the City's on-going effort to improve the quality of services I DA H O provided in the City. You may also complete this survey on-line by going to meridiansurvey.org. If you have questions, please call the Mayor's Office at (208) 489-0529. Thank you! 1. The vision for Meridian is: "By 2035, Meridian will be the West's premier community in which to live, work and raise a family." Several items that may influence your perception of Meridian as a community are listed below. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City of Meridian in the following areas. Excellent Poor D. Know 01. Asa place to live 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 02. Asa place to work 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 03. Asa place to raise a family 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 04. Asa place to start/do business 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 05. As a city that is building a strong sense of community 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 06. As a city that is developing a strong local economy 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 07 As a city that is developing a strong local workforce that can 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 compete in toda 's economic climate 08. As a city that is planning for future growth and development 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 09. As a city that is developing a sustainable and conscious environment 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 10. How well the City is protecting the quality of the air and water 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 11. How well the City is maintaining high quality neighborhoods 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 12. How well the City is providing options for mobility other than driving 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 13. How well the City is ensuring public safety 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 14. How well the City is communicating with the community 10 9 F87 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. While the City is not the sole contributor to your quality of life, it is important to understand the perceptions residents have of the quality of life in Meridian. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Greatly Exceeds My Expectations" and 0 means "Does Not Meet My Expectations at All," please rate the City and its partners in the following areas. ExceedsGreatly Does NotDon't My Expectations Expectations 1. Overall quality of life in the City 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. Overall quality of city services provided 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Overall quality of customer service you receive from city employees 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 4. Your view of an ideal place to live 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Strongly Agree" and 0 means "Strongly Disagree," please rate your level of agreement with the following. �[Strongly StronglylD. Agree .• • 1. Quality housing and a variety of options exist in Meridian 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. Development in the City enhances the quality of life 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. There are a variety of employment opportunities in Meridian 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 4. Access to quality shopping and entertainment exist in Meridian 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 5. The City is managing rowth wisely 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 6. Meridian has a sense of community 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 7. The City continuously improves services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 8. The City uses your tax dollars wisely 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 9. The City is headed in the right direction 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 ©2022 ETC Institute Page 1 4. If you own a home in Meridian, approximately 34% of your total property tax bill goes to the City of Meridian to fund the City's operating budget for services such as police,fire and parks services. Relating to services and facilities in the City of Meridian, using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Definitely Getting My Money's Worth" and 0 means "Definitely Not Getting My Money's Worth," please rate the value you feel you are getting for City tax dollars and fees. Definitely Getting My Definitely Not Getting D. Money's Worth My Money's Worth Know 1. Value received for city tax dollars and fees 10 1 9 1 8 M 6 1 5 4 3 2 1 E0 99 5. What is your biggest concern as it pertains to residential property taxes?[Choose only one answer.] (1) No concern, I pay the right amount (2) Unpredictability of tax due to the values of homes increasing/decreasing (3)Additional bonds&levies for schools and other taxing districts adding to the overall tax burden (4) Disparity between the rates of residential property tax growth compared to commercial properties (5) Local budget increases allowed under state law. (6)Current dollar limits of homeowner's exemptions and circuit breaker relief. (7) Other: 6. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the quality of the following services provided by the City of Meridian. Excellent Poor D. Know 01. Fire/Rescue services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 02. Fire prevention and public education 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 03. Police department/law enforcement 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 04. Code enforcement 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 05. Traffic enforcement 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 06. Planning&zoning services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 07. Building permit services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 08. Utility billing services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 09. Sewer services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 10. Water services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 11. Garbage/trashpick-up services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 12. Recycling services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 13. City arks 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 14. Recreation programs 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 15. Programs for youth 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 16. Communications 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 17. Passport Acceptance Agency 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 7. Which THREE of the City Services listed above do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from city leaders over the next TWO years? [Write in your answers below using the list from Question 6.] 1st: 2nd: 3rd: ©2022 ETC Institute Page 2 8. Using a scale of 0 to 10,where 10 means"Excellent"and 0 means"Poor,"please rate the following services provided by other agency partners. Excellent Poor D. Know 01. Public transportation services contracted with Valley Regional Transit 10 9 8 7 6 5 47 3 2 1 0 799 02. Animal control contracted with Idaho Humane Society 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 03. Programs for seniors at the Meridian Senior Center 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 04. K-12 education by West Ada School District 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 05. Library services by the Meridian Library District 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 06. Swimming Pool by Western Ada Recreation District 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 07. State Highways operated by Idaho Transportation Department(Eagle 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 Road, Meridian Road, and Chinden Boulevard 08. All city roads operated by Ada County Highway District 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 09. Elections by Ada County Clerk 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 10. Cemetery services by Meridian Cemetery Maintenance District 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 11. Cell/mobile/data service by provider in Meridian area 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 r12. Internet service by telecommunications provider in Meridian 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 0 99 9. Considering education, the West Ada School District currently utilizes bond and levy funding as one of its major sources of revenue. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the following possible school-related financing methods that should be used to fund education facilities in our community. High Priority No Prior. Dona 1. Increased State funding of education programs 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. Through bond and levy approvals by voters 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Allow impact fees to be charged to development 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 10. There are a variety of transportation infrastructure improvements needed along roads in Meridian. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the following road-related aspects of our community you would like to see. High Priority No Priority Know 1. Roadway widening from single to multiple lanes 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. Intersection improvements 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Pathways/sidewalk connections on local streets 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 4. Sidewalks on arterial major roadways 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 5. Street lights 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 6 Shared bike and pedestrian facilities(similar to Boise 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 Greenbelt)detached from roadway 7. Beautification/landscaping Beautification/landscaping 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 11. Which THREE of the transportation improvements listed above do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from city leaders in working with partner agencies over the next THREE years? [Write in your answers below using the list from Question 10.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: 12. Meridian prioritizes roadway and intersection projects that the Ada County Highway District does not currently have in their budget. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate your priority of the following future roadway construction projects in our community. High Priority No Priority Know 1. Widen Locust Grove Rd.from Fairview to Ustick Rd. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. Widen Victory Rd.from Locust Grove Rd.to Eagle Rd. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Widen Ustick Rd.from Ten Mile Rd.to Linder Rd. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 4. Widen Linder Rd.from Cherry Ln. to Ustick Rd. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 ©2022 ETC Institute Page 3 13. If a levy were placed on the ballot requesting funding for one or all of the projects listed in Question 12 over two to five years, how much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy to fund one or all of these projects? (1) $0, not in favor (3) $25-$50 (5) $75-$100 (2) $10-$25 (4) $50-$75 (6) $100-$200 14. Using a scale of 0 to 10,where 10 means"Excellent'and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following parks and recreation services. Excellent Poor D. Know 01. Number of city arks 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 02. Quality, appearance and maintenance of city arks 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 03. Quality of athletic fields 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 04. Number of special events and festivals 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 05. Quality and variety of special events and festivals 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 06. Number of pathways for walking and biking 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 07. Quality of pathways for walking and biking 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 08 Availability of information about recreation programs and classes through 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 social media, activity guides, email updates,website, etc. 09. Availability of community center and gym facilities 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 10. Number of recreation programs and classes 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 11. Quality and variety of recreation programs and classes 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 12. Number of adultsports programs and sporting events 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 13. Quality of the adult sports programs and sporting events 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 14. Availability of youth sports programs through partners, such as the Police 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 Activities League (PAL), Meridian Youth Baseball MYB , and others 15. Quality of youth sports programs through partners,such as the Police 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 Activities League(PAL), Meridian Youth Baseball MYB , and others 16. Availability and quality of course and amenities at Lakeview Golf Course 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 15. In the past 12 months, have you or anyone in your household visited a City of Meridian park? (1)Yes, I have personally visited a city park in the last year (2)Yes, a household member has visited a city park in the last year (3) No 16. Public safety has prioritized public outreach using social media, public presentations, citizen academies, and volunteer opportunities like citizen park patrols. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent' and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following public safety services. Excellent Poor D. Know 01. Overall feeling of safety in the City 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 02. Quality of local police protection 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 03. How quickly police respond to 911 emergencies 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 04. The visibility of police in neighborhoods 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 05. Safety in city parks 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 06. Police safety education programs 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 07. Professionalism of employees responding to emergencies 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 08. Overall quality of the fire department 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 09. How quickly fire department responds to 911 emergencies 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 10. Quality of Emergency Medical Services(EMS) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 11. Fire safety education programs 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 12. Current location of fire stations 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 13. Fire department public outreach 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 ©2022 ETC Institute Page 4 17. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City's efforts in the enforcement of the following codes and ordinances. Excellent Poor D. Know 1. Weed abatement 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. Removal of graffiti 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Abandoned/junk automobile removal 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 4. Clean-up of litter and debris on private property 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 5. Dilapidated houses or buildings 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 6. Illegal dumping 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 18. Do you have a working smoke detector in your home? (1)Yes (2) No (9) Don't know 19. The City uses a variety of methods to communicate with the public, including its website, social media such as Nextdoor, Facebook and Twitter, traditional media such as newspapers, radio, and television, and a bi-weekly newsletter. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the following communication services. Excellent - D. Poor Know 17 Effectiveness of city communications with the public 10 9 F 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. Opportunities for public involvement in local decision-making 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Quality of www.meridiancity.org 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 4 The usefulness of the online services available on the City of 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 Meridian's website bill pay/class registration) 5. Quality of information about city programs and services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 20. Where do you currently get information about Meridian's services and programs? [Check all that apply] (01) City website (07) Radio (02) Social Media (Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) (08) Emails from the City (03) Television/news (09) Events such as Coffee with the Mayor, (04) Flyers in utility bills Town Halls (05) Information booklets/city publications (10) Other Source: (06) Newspaper 21. Did you visit downtown Meridian at least once during the past year for a purpose other than work? (1)Yes[Skip to Q22.] (2) No[Answer Q21a.] (3) Don't remember 21a. When you think about downtown, why didn't you visit in the last year? (1) Lack of parking (3) Not enough variety of shopping (5) Lack of walkability (2) Lack of open space (4) Not enough variety of restaurants 22. In general, would you favor or oppose allowing residents of a city the ability to vote on a temporary sales tax (local option tax) increase to provide funding for identified infrastructure improvements in the community? (1) Favor (2) Oppose (3) Not sure 23. Meridian continues to grow, and there has been an indication that preserving farmland is important to the community. One way to preserve vacant open land would be by voter initiative to enact a property tax levy to purchase farmland over two to five years in order to preserve it for agricultural purposes. If a levy were placed on the ballot requesting funding to preserve land, how much additional would you be willing to pay each year for a property tax levy for the purchase of existing agricultural land? (1)$0, not in favor (3)$25-$50 (5)$75-$100 (2)$10-$25 (4) $50-$75 (6) $100-$200 ©2022 ETC Institute Page 5 24. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the importance of the following community issues. PriorityHigh Priori7 No Know 01. Roads/Traffic/Trans ortation 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 02. Growth/Development 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 03. Education/Schools 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 04. Homelessness/Social Services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 05. Affordable housing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 06. Jobs/Economic development 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 07. Public transportation 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 08. Downtown redevelopment 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 09. Pathway/sidewalk connections 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 10. City tax burden 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 11. Telecommunications cell hone/internet service 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 12. Access to mental health services 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 25. Which THREE of the priorities listed above do you think should receive the MOST EMPHASIS from city leaders over the next THREE years? [Write in your answers below using the list from Question 24.] 1 st: 2nd: 3rd: 26. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "High Priority" and 0 means "No Priority," please rate the importance of the City Council addressing the following housing affordability issues. High Priority • Priority Develop incentives to encourage developers to provide , 1' options 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 more housing 2 Require certain quantity of units in development projects to 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 have affordable housing elements 3 Provide reduced development standards for projects 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 containing affordable housing elements Increase development densities via duplexes, apartments, 4. townhomes, and other multi-familydesigns 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 27. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means "Excellent" and 0 means "Poor," please rate the City's level of effort in the enforcement of the following public safety and traffic areas. Excellent Poor D. Know 1. Handheld use of cell phones and texting while drivin 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 2. S eeding in neighborhoods 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 3. Red light violations 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 4. Tailgating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 15ESpeeding on arterial roads 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 99 6.1 Excessive motor vehicle sound 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 1 3 2 1 0 99 28. Do you feel the level of police presence in your neighborhood is sufficient, ensuring that Meridian communities remain a safe place for citizens? (1)Yes (2) No (3)Not sure 29. Use the space below to address any additional comments you wish to share with the City of Meridian. ©2022 ETC Institute Page 6 DEMOGRAPHICS 30. Your gender? (1) Male (2) Female (3) Prefer not to answer 31. What is your age? years 32. Which of the following best describes the home in which you live? (1)A manufactured trailer or mobile home (4)Townhouse or duplex (2)An apartment (5)A detached single-family house (3)A condominium (6) Other: 33. Do you own or rent your home? (1) Own (2) Rent (3)Other: (9) Don't know 34. How many years and months have you lived in Meridian? years months 35. Including yourself, how many people in your household are... Under Age 5: Ages 5-9: Ages 10-14: Ages 15-17: Ages 18 and over: 36. Does your household have a dog? (1)Yes[Answer Q36a-b.] (2) No[Skip to Q37.] 36a. How many dogs do you have in your household? (1)One (2)Two (3)Three (4) Four or more 36b. Do you know that Meridian requires dogs to be licensed annually? (1)Yes (2) No 37. Which ONE of the following best describes your current employment status? (01) Employed full time (07)A student working full time (02) Employed part time (08)A student working part time (03)Self-employed (09) Not employed due to a disability (04) Not employed outside the home; a homemaker (10) Not employed, but seeking work (05) Retired (11) Not employed, but NOT seeking work (06)A full-time student, not working (12) Other: 38. What is the approximate total annual family income of all members of your household? (01) Less than$20,000 (04)$50,000-$74,999 (07) 150,000-$199,999 (02)$20,000-$34,999 (05)$75,000-$99,999 (08)$200,000 or more (03) $35,000-$49,999 (06)$100,000-$149,999 (09) Not sure 39. How do you make and receive phones calls? (1) Landline (2) Cell phone[Answer Q39b.] (3) Both[Answer Q39a-b.] 39a. Do you primarily use your cell phone, landline or both to make and receive calls? (1) Primarily use cell phone (2) Primarily use landline (3) Both 39b. Who is your cell phone service provider? (1)Verizon (3) Sprint (5) Other: (2)AT&T (4)T-Mobile 40. Would you be willing to participate in future surveys sponsored by the City of Meridian? (1)Yes[Please answer Q40a.] (2) No 40a. Please provide your contact information. Mobile Phone Number: Email Address: This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time! Please return your completed survey in the enclosed postage paid envelope addressed to: ETC Institute, 725 W. Frontier Circle, Olathe, KS 66061 Your responses will remain completely confidential. The information printed to the right will ONLY be used to help identify which areas of the City are having problems with city services. If your address is not correct,please provide the correct information.Thank you. ©2022 ETC Institute Page 7