Public Commenty ~ BRIGTHTON
- ~ ~ ~ORPOR.ATION,
.June 21,~201-1,p: ` -
f It
L~ ~i{
W . ~ -f
1 "~
~;
~~ jf
,`~~.r
~G
a ~~ ~
'k
i
~.
~~
~ +i
~' VIA EMAIL
P
,
Mayor,Tammy de Weerd ~ Meridian City Council ~
' ~
-1 ;`
,
E
. 'Meridian City Hall Meridian City Hall.
,~ I
~
-~'
~
33 E. $r'oadway Avenue 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 - ~
~ ,
~- Meridian, Idaho 83642 . Meridian, Idaho 83642 a -
r mayortammy@meridianciry.org ~ bhoaglun@meridianciry.org, dzaremba@meridianciry.org, b; .i
kbird@meridianciry.org do croundtree@meridiancity.org
' ~ ' ,
,,.
~
' '? °~
Dear Mayor andCouncil Members: 't °i'
~.
i
n ~ 1
The purpose of this letter is to request a remand to staff of the proposed"Performance and, ' u
Warranty Surety for Public Infrastructure" ordinance, which the City plans to read and discuss in 1
. its City Council meeting tonight. Since I will be unable to attend the meeting, I am submitting ~
xhis letter with a partial list of my concerns with the proposed ordinance. '
`~
in the course of my business and. development career I have seldom been as displeased as I am. '
now about both the process and the content of this particular ordinance. Over the years I have ¢ ~ ~
i
watched the City of Meridian grow from a small. town to a .major center of economic activity im ,, r
the state andregian. You may remember a time, as~I do, when Meridian was viewed as a very
difficultplace"to do business. That changed 'quickly and dramatically for the better with new
political leadership that fostered a cooperative relationship with the business community. We ~ , ,
worked together to streamline processes; codes and even`'the customer service_approach of city
'
a
" a
'
~
personnel. Regrettably, I can
t say the sa
me for this p
articular ordinance and. process.. If this ~ ,
r ordinance proceeds as written and on the timetable proposed I and many of my colleagues. will ~ '}
~ ~
-view this as a major step backward.for'the City.
• '
~;
'
Regarding the process of the proposed ordinance, I,was invited along with several other + ~
.~
developers to participate in the City's development of the proposed ordinance. It is clear to me j
_
' now that the train had already left the station: In subsequent conversations witli`fell'ow ° ~ "I
°' `... developers, none of us feel like our input was given any serious consideration After 2=3 `~" ~~ ~ ~ ,
meetings I was never advised of any course of action, never asked to review the ordinance, and
never advised tfiat,the matter was scheduled for'hearing before Planning and Zoning. ,
With regard to the content of the ordiryance,'~I fully understand the City's"desire to protect itself '
from future problems or claims.. The ordinance, however, imposes an undue burden on -~ "' ,
businesses that may hamper economic `activity. We have consulted,with outside sources, ~ _ .
including our own insurance company, Moreton & Company,-which is a large regional insurance
,~
• Brighton Corporation !2601 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 200, Boise,-Idaho 83713
' www.briphtonco~.com Ted (208} 378-4000 Fax (208) 377-8962
~~
1`
I
~,
.
.. .. a. ., a
S
... -" ,~ _
~ ~
+
,
-tontine+ed~-~ ~ ~, :r ' ~
a
,_ Mayor Tamnty'de Weerd - a
~
Meridian. City Council Me+nbers ~ ~
'
Page 2
~ ~ t~
x ~
' . a i;
provider, to assist us. We have~suggested ways that we can aecomplish'the protection the City ~ ~
desires while avoiding undue burdetrs'°on the business community. Our.independent sources in '
,
' the insurance industry, including one that the City has also consulted, have told us, yes, we think
-'
~ a
'
~ i
some alEernative approaches
can work. But each suggestion seems to be summarily rejected by ~ r'
the City without being fully explored or even the most practical_of_questions being asked.. There !
may even be solutions that none of us have considered.
.. _
~ j
'
The issue is somewhat c'omplex,and I frankly don't believe that I can adequately address it in a
•
. -letter or` public. testimony: ,For that reason, along with the concerns that I have raised about the ~
process, I request that you •remand this item back to staff with direction to come up with
~. I
~,
solutions that are acceptable to the City and the development community:~I have alwa
s tried to a f: ~
y
give of my time and"other. resources when askedto help the City. I ask for your consideration of
a~
,
.this request in return. i ;k
~ ~ ~
Since ~ ly, '~
~ ~
d ~
'
4 +
.David urnbull ~ , ` k
.
' j k
s 4
- ~ President
' ~~
I .,_,~
~
o r
-~ -
~ ~ ~
~
~
- ,. :r
,~
,a
' a ~• s
S:. ry
V 1
...iii
J Y! ~ ~ .. ~ w + d ~ ..
- _ r
G,. ~ ,
.r .. c -r `.. y .. aL
, 3
i
r _
k. a a:
f w Y
d
` .. . «
r ~ ~ . ~
,_ ~ i
_, r v ~ ~ . -
.. - ~ 7 , :~ ~~
t
~~
' .~ ~ ~'~
-. - _~~ ~
j
~
~+
a
•
~I W.H. MOORE
C O M P A N Y
Real Estate Development
EI Dorado Business Campus
1940 S. Bonito Way, Suite 160
Meridian, Idaho 83642
P.O. Box 8204
Boise, Idaho 83101-2204
Date: June 28, 2011
To: Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
Meridian Public Works
From: Jonathan R. Seel
Subject: Warranty and Performance Surety Proposal
TELEPHONE (2081323-19191 FAX 323-1523
We support the building department's recommendation to allow bonding as a surety option
for development projects in Meridian.
Currently, surety options are cash or irrevocable letters of credit. The former takes needed
cash and the latter reduces lending limits. Simply put, both impact a developer's ability to
fund a proj ect. The criteria for financing proj ects has only gotten more challenging and
the current surety requirements only add to that burden, regardless of the developer's
financial strength.
Bonding has the advantage of providing the City with necessary protection while not
reducing needed funds to develop a proj ect. In today's economic environment a developer
needs to preserve their capital and bonding allows this.
CAPITAL
DEVELOPMEIITT, Inc.
June 7, 2011
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Meridian City Council Members
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Warranty and Performance Surety
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed changes to Warranty and
Performance Surety. As you gave me the opportunity to participate in the workgroup, I
gained a greater understanding as to the challenge facing the City of Meridian. However, it
was very apparent to me that the City's staff had an agenda and really did not listen to many
of the comments made by the development community. Though a few items were
considered, the most important concerns and solutions were not. The magnitude and timing
of these changes are frankly too much for this industry to bear at this .time.
Personally, the greatest challenge that I see is the requirement of warranty surety from-the
developer. Many developers that do business in your City, including ours, simply cannot
afford the added cost at this time and/or do not carry sufficient staff to implement this
change. As I understand., the contractors doing the work can already provide such a bond, as
is the case when doing work private development work with the Ada County Highway
:District. I am opposed to requiring developers to provide a warranty.
In my reading of the City's report, though the City sought benchmark data from cities in the
region, it appears that the City has selected the highest standard in some of the cases for this
proposal. For example, it appears very few cities require a warranty greater than one year,
however the City is proposing to extend the warranty period to two years. I think an
additional inspection prior to the warranty expiration makes sense, however, I am opposed to
extending the warranty period for more than one year.
Lastly, I am opposed to the City increasing the performance bond percentage to 125 percent
of costs. We recognize in ahigh-inflation environment, an increase in the performance
surety percentage could be necessary to protect the City. However, in today's environment,
costs are stable and I do not believe the City has shown sufficient rationale to justify this
change in today's envirorunent.
I believe this proposal does not solve the City's potential problems with existing
development, but rather it adds cost to future developments with the hope to minimize future
problems for the City. It is my opinion that the warranty problems facing the City today are
a direct result of developments built during the housing bubble, and no one anticipates this
6200 North Meeker Pface Boise, Idaho 83713
Office: (208) 377-3939 Fax: (208) 375-3271
type of growth in the future. Though some of the proposed changes have some merit, I have
great concerns with other portions of the proposal. I believe the added cost and burden to the
development community from some of these proposed changes outweigh the limited benefit
the City may receive. I recognize that some of the proposed changes may help reduce some
problems in the future, but they do not guarantee the City will never have problems.
I respectfully request the City not approve this proposal at this time. Specifically, the three
major concerns are: 1) extending the warranty period, 2) requiring the developer to provide a
warranty surety, and 3) increasing the performance surety percentage to 125 percent. As to
the other proposed changes that will result in an increase in the cost of doing business, I
stated in the focus group meetings, I ask that you consider phasing these changes over time
so that the costs can be accepted in an improved, more normal housing market.
Again, I appreciate your consideration of my continents and I am hopeful that I can continue
to do business in your city in the future.
(Sincerely,
Dave Yorgason
Vice President
Page 1 of 2
Jacy Jones
From: .Peggy Gardner
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:51 PM
To: '8305048@gmail.com'; Jaycee Holman; Jacy Jones
Cc: mayortammy; Charlie Rountree; David Zaremba; Brad Hoaglun; Keith Bird
Subject: RE: Increased Development Bonding Requirements
Dear Mr. Centers,
Your comments have been received by the Mayor's Office. Thank you for taking time to write of your
concerns. Because this will be heard by City Council, the Mayor is unable to respond outside the public
meeting. I also forwarded your comments to our City Clerk to be included in the public record.
Thanks again,
Peggy Gardner
Ad ministrative Assistant to
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City of Meridian
33 East Broad way Aven ue
Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 489-0529
From: meridian_appsClmeridiancity.org [mailto:meridian_apps~meridiancity.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 20114:02 PM
To: Tammy de weerd; Charlie Rountree; David Zaremba; Keith Bird; Brad Hoaglun; Peggy Gardner
Subject: Increased Development Bonding Requirements
Request for Mayor and Council
Name Jake Centers
Last
Name Centers
Email
Addr 8305048@gmail.com
ess
Street
Address 1979 N Locust Grove
City Meridian
State ID
Zip
Code 83646
Increased
S Development
ub~ ect
Bonding
Requirements
Message .
RE: Increased Development Bonding Requirements Dear Mayor and Council
Members, We have just gone through a once in a lifetime event that will, most likely,
not occur again. We do not see the need to forever burden the companies that
weathered the storm, and did the right thing, with these additional expenses. Because
6/13/2011
Page 2 of 2
this was never a problem in the past and very likely will not be in the future, I am
opposed to the proposal: ?Requiring developers to provide a warranty bond when the
sub-contractors that perform the work already provide it. ? To extend the warran
. tY
period to two years. ?Increasing the performance bond percentage to 125 percent of
costs. We do not need to create additional costs and bureaucracy for aone-time event.
If this continues to be a problem, then we would most certainly revisit the issue.
Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Jake Centers Tahoe Homes, LLC
6/13/2011
Page 1 of 2
Jacy Jones
Subject: RE: Increased Development Bonding Requirements
Dear Ms. Kelly,
I believe this information also came through our online system. This is the response sent to Mr. Centers.
Dear Mr. Centers,
Your comments have been received by the Mayor's Office. Thank you for taking time to write of your
concerns. Because this will be heard by City Council, the Mayor is unable to respond outside the public
meeting. I also forwarded your comments to our City Clerk to be included in the public record.
Pegg y Gard ner
Administrative Assistant to
Mayor Tarnmy de Weerd
City of Meridian
33 East Broad way A ven ue
Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 489.0529
From: Amy Kelly [mailto:8305048 a~ gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 20114;03 PM
To: mayortammy
Subject; Increased Development Bonding Requirements
RE: Increased Development Bonding Requirements
Dear Mayor,
We have just gone through a once in a lifetime event that will, most like) ,not occur
y
again, We do not see the need to forever burden the companies that weathered the
storm, and did the right thing, with these additional expenses.
Because this was never a problem in the past and very likely will not be in the future I
am opposed to the proposal:
. Requiring developers to provide a warranty bond when the sub-
contractors that perform the work already provide it.
• To extend the warranty period to two years.
• Increasing the performance bond percentage to 125 percent of costs.
6/14/2011
Page 2 of 2
We do not need to create additional costs and bureaucrac for cone-time even '
Y t. If this
~ continues to be a problem, then we would most certainly revisit the issue.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jake Centers
Tahoe Homes, LLC
6/14/2011
~~ CAPITAL
DEVELOPMENT, Inc.
June 7, 2011
Mayor Tammy de Weerd~
Meridian City Council Members
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83 642
Re: warranty and Performance Surety
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed changes to Warranty and
Performance Surety. As you gave me the opportunity to participate in the workgrou , I
.. .p .
gained a greater understanding as to the challenge facing the City of Meridian. However, it
was very apparent to me that the City's staff had an ,agenda and really did not listen to man
y
of the comments made by the development community. Though a few items were
considered, the most important concerns and solutions were not. The ma nitude and. timin
g g
of these changes are frankly too much for this industry to bear at this .time.
Personally, the greatest challenge that I see is the requirement of warrant Buret from the
y Y
~ developer. Many developers that do business in your City, including ours, simply cannot
afford the added cost at this time and/or do not carry sufficient staff to im lement this
P
change. As I understand., the contractors doing the work can already provide such a bond, as
is the case when doing work private development work with the Ada Count Hi hwa
Y g Y
District. I am opposed to requiring developers to provide a warranty.
In my reading of the City's report, though. the City sou ht benchmark data from cities in the
g
region, it appears that the City has selected the highest standard in some of the cases for this
proposal. For example, it appears very few cities .require a warranty greater than one ear,
. ~ y
however the Clty 1s proposing to extend the warranty period to two years. I think an
additional inspection prior to the,warranfiy expiration makes sense, however I am o osed to
Ap
.extending the warranty period for more than one year.
Lastly, I am opposed to the City increasing the performance bond ercenta e to 125 ercent
p g p
of costs. We recognize in ahigh-inflation environment, an increase in the performance
surety percentage could be necessary to protect the City. However, in toda 's environment
Y
costs are stable and I do not believe the City has shown sufficient rationale to justify this
change in today's environment.
I believe this proposal does not solve the City's potential problems with existing
development, but rather it adds cost to future developments with the hope to minimize future
problems for the City. It is my opinion that the warranty problems facia the Cit toda are
g Y y
a direct result of developments built during the housing bubble, and no one anticipates this
~'"'~
6200 iVorth M~e~cer Piace poise, idaf~a 83? 13
C~ffice~ (208} 3??-3939 i=ax~ (2a8} 375-327 ~
type of growth in the future. Though some of the proposed changes have some merit, I have
~. great concerns with other portions of the proposal. I believe the added cost and burden to the
development community from some of these pro osed chan es outwei h the limited benefit
p g g
the City may receive. I recognize that some of the proposed changes may help reduce some
problems in the future, but they do not guarantee the City will never have problems.
I respectfully request the City not approve this proposal at this time. Specifically, the three
maj or concerns are; 1 }extending the warranty period, 2} requiring the developer to provide a
warranty surety, and 3}increasing the performance surety percentage to 125 percent. As to
the other proposed changes that will result in an increase in the cost of doin business I
g
stated in the focus group meetings, I ask that you consider phasing these changes over time
so that the costs can be accepted in an improved, more normal housing market.
Again, I appreciate your consideration of my comments and I am hopeful that I can continue
to do business in your city in the future.
lncerely,
~r ~~
~~: ~~~
Dave Yorgason
Vice President
Comments on Warranty and Perfomance Surety
Page 1 of 1
Jacy Jones
From: Sonya Watters
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:04 AM
To: Machelle Hill; Jaycee Holman; Jacy Jones
Subject: FW: Comments on Warranty and Perfomance Surety
Attachments: warranty surety Itr to City Meridian.pdf
Sorry....hit reply
From: Dave Yorgason [mailto:dyorgason@cableone.net]
Sent; Wednesday, June 08, 20119:31 AM
To; Peter Friedman; Sonya Wafters
Cc: Anna Canning
Subject: Comments on Warranty and Perfomance Surety
Pete and Sonya,
I understand the City of Meridian is working on a change to its Warranty and Performance Surety
policy. As I will be out of town on the 14th of June, I am hopeful that you can please forward the
attached comments to the Mayor, Council and others prior to the upcoming meetings that are set to
discuss this. I wish I could be there in person to express these comments as I realize the importance
of this change. Unfortunately that is not possible. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Dave Yorgason
6/13/2011
~~i~E IDIAN~-
Public ~ D A H O
Works Department
T0: Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Members of the City Council
FROM: Tom Barry, Director of Public Works
CC: Bill Nary, City Attorney
Anna Canning, Planning Director
DATE: June 16, 2011
SUBJECT: Private Development Surety Evaluation and Proposal
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Ci~y Coun~~l Membexs~
Keith Bird
Brad Hoaglun
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
The public hearings for the proposed modifications to the City's current private development
surety program (one for UDC changes and one for ordinance establishment} have been scheduled fortune
21st. These hearings represent the culmination of nearly 10 months of work, constituting more than 30
meetings with a wide variety of City representatives, specialists from the bonding, insurance, and legal
fields, developers, builders, and elected officials. In preparation of these public hearings, please find
attached the following documents:
1} the framework proposal detailing the recommended changes to our surety program
previously distributed on April 7, 2011} Attachment A}
2} a description of the various types of sureties and their advantages/disadvantages
Attachment B)
I know that this information was shared with you in previous meetings and presentations,
however, as a courtesy, I wanted you to have one complete packet of information for the
hearings.
You should also receive by separate transmittal from the City Clerk the following documents which
are intricately related to this work:
1} From the Planning Department: a Planning Department Staff Report detailing the UDC text
amendments and the Planning Commission's formal recommendation on those amendments
2} From the ~e~al Department: the proposed ordinance enabling the recommended changes
Thank you for your time and consideration on this important issue. I and the team look forward to
discussing this proposal with you next week. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or
concerns in the interim.