Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
14-1596 City Code Impact Fee Update
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ~K ~ `5 7 C,o BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BHZD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CTTY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 12, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE; TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the Ciiy of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Researroh and Consulting ("Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections for the period 2013 to 2023 in order to detemmixme the demand for police, fug, and paks and recreation Capital Improvements to accommodate new ginwth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, dated November 20, 2013 as modified by the City of Meridian Finance Department in the document attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; determines the vests necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees as set forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for detenninhig the impacts of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS, in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans proposed by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMEN'T' Page 1 of 5 additional police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which aze to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protecfion requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS, the "maximum allowable fee" is also referred to as the "full cost recovery fee" under the methodology set forth in the Impact Fee Study. If the adopted fee is less than the maximum allowable fee, the impact fee eligible portions of adopted Capital Improvement Plan will not be fully funded unless general fund revenue or other income sources are used to fund the difference between the maximum allowable fee and the adopted fee; and WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee met on November 20, 2013 and passed a motion to approve the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans and recommend that the City Council hold the required public hearing on the Capital Improvements Plans and the updated Impact Fees and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss, review and hear public comments on the proposed Capital Improvements Plans and the revised Impact Fee as recommended by the Development Impact Fee Committee; and WHEREAS, based upon the Irupact Fee Study, the testimony at a public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and noruesidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has detemuned that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees, as revised, to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted, will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 2 of 5 WIiEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WIIGREAS, the Impact Fees adopted by this Ordinance are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF H)AHO: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council. Section 2. The amendments to the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan and the Impact Fee Study set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto are hereby approved. Section 3. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12 of the Meridian City Code is repealed and replaced as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: A. As used in this chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates; the word shall, will or must is always mandatory; the word may is permissive; and the word should indicates that which is recommended, but not required. B. Nothing in this chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development for which a lawful building permit was issued prior to the effective date hereof. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from requiring a developer to construct reasonable project improvements in conjunction with a project. D. Nothing in this chapter shall limit the ability of the city to enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided in section 67-8204A, Idaho Code. E. 1. The impact fees described in this chapter, and the administrative procedures of this chapter shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years to ensure that: a) the demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such impact fees are still valid; b) the resulting impact fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire, and/or parks and recreation system improvements required to serve new growth and development; c) the monies collected in any impact fee fund have been and are expected to be spent for system improvements of the type for which such impact fees were paid; and d) such system improvements will benefit those developments for which the impact fees were paid. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 3 of 5 2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as follows effective the day of , 2014: Police imnact fee schedule: ~~ Residential -Single Family Residential -Multifamily $135.72 $135.72 per dwelling unit Nonresidential .07 per square foot Fire imnact fee schedule: ~- Residential -Single Family Residential -Multifamily $551.07 $551.07 per dwelling unit Nonresidential per square foot .29 Parks imnact fee schedule: ~- Residential -Single Family Residential -Multifamily $1,080.72 $767.52 per dwelling unit Nonresidential n/a Total fees: Residential -Single Family Residential -Multifamily $1,767.51 $1,454.31 per dwelling unit Nonresidential ~ I .36 per square foot F. Violation of this chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in this code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the city chazged with the administration of this chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this chapter including, without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed development, shall be a violation of this chapter. G. The captions used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this chapter. IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 4 of 5 H. If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho impact fee act, section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions shall be deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. I. This chapter shall be in full force and effect not less than thirty (30) days subsequent to this chapter's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon this chapter, existing on the date hereof, and ail ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this chapter shall be repealed. Section 4: That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7 remain unchanged. Section 5: This Fee Schedule shall be in effect on the ~ day of 2014, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ~~ day of March, 2014. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ~~ day of March, 2014. APPROVED: ATTEST: ~e City Clerk ~ °°w n „c~iYor lonun a SEAL r~?rfR~~~de 111E \510.0 ~pyW GCCn.2~„ ChatCr.e, l~ou.nfit,u.,, Counc~J ~'{sidty~ IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 5 of 5 Exhibit "A" Five Page attachment titled: "Impact Fee Comparison between Current and Proposed Impact Fee Calculations" Dated March 4, 2014 IMPACT FEE ORDINANCEAMENDMENT- EXHIBIT A ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ a 3 3 v f'f P s 3 ~ r~T~ O ~ m~mfD 'C ? ~ O W~WW a _ N N y Y O NY m J W F+ ~. W , C~ VI 2 f! 1"! Qn N m Y+ O O O O ~ F+ O {m!1 H A 1? N iA Vf (~ A n N O N ~ N N O ~J IVV Y m E V W W Y T O O O O O ~ W W W W o v O ~ v ?I Li n ~ ~ W ~ O v 3 C1 QCS G'~ 3 9 ~ d d a 'b 3 ~ ~ ~p'~„ ~J ~ ~~mf0 'b O }_ C `~~~• ~~ H w v. of .n a, N F+ Ol A FN ~ ~J W N W M F+ m Y V P ~'~ W Y Y N N m O , ~ LJ N W Y W pp N N J? n _ } W V p ~ W~ W ~ U 1u in o o° o ~ swtao o o ~ ~ WWW A P N~ n ; N a V W ~ ~ t ll m ul ~-+~o n ~ l0 J a W N w w Y 'C" _ °o °o °o °o ~', WW O Y '" o f p N G T 3 .. m , , O w w NO ~ N u i ` ~ ~ o a o ~ W N10m n f"'~ o i,+ o 'v o ~ N o-'m~-' 3v Y V J m ~ N w O a V ooNO ~ omo aSo ~~ ~ ~~a~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ y ~. A ~ ~'. ~ ~ n W N U ifl L~ ~ i/1 N V! iI~ (~D ~. tl~ IA V~ N III,~~~~ppp A Q pJYO. pYp v.. Y' C~D P~'F N N y~ N t lam. Y N CD 01 A 4 2~ ~ V N VO.N..T ~ ~, MXX2C ~ ~~~ V ~ OOS S T FN+NNJ ~. Ih V1WU y 41NWVf L~NNN 9 ^ ryA ~ ~ - p O H ~~} N ~ t+ }'+u _. vii F+ NtNn ~m 3 ~ t^wON Fm+V 3.~ ~~`4'~ 3 ~~~~ 3 A INn~ ., !r N~ = t., O m a 2 CC p 2 ~ F' Z r"y 2c~X3~ ~mo~~J $°oSS my n~° E'f O N (/~ N O N N ill O N i/1 i/1 P .l a°i ~ 0 0 0 ~, o 0 0~ 0 0 0 C. p1 b •! O b O g~ o a 3 ~ o m '-~ i o ~~ ~ o m ~ h A C ::ii A ~-4 ~ lD w NUNN ~ NNNU1 A. NNi/~N n ~D m ~ m ~ m ~ m ^~F pn~ ~ Y Y ~ ~ f` m N ~' ~ O At W !" CD m w bo o~ w N A Lr fD ipo m m L, fD N N A N~ Op Y N pO~~ N (p O N ~I oo N N W 1+ V N ja tU Y m T O J T T P O N 00 T ('~. P Y 00 P T ("~ N cyyi to ry _ ~'" min bl o = ' m ~i 2 ~. i.i r Ll 'V S y C1 itX 1@X ~ ~~~ ~ ~ A~mw vAiwvair f!G O w .~ .,, ~..,. b W W W W ~ W .~ .~ .,. ~Ap ~, A. Al JryO ,Wy pA W y N Ky H~ W N N IJ... ?N~ ~l Y N 3 W ~ r ~! w 3 'zl V Y 0p m 3 O 3~ ~ ~i 3 Vl tN+ }n ~ m fD w tNil fD: ~ u~{ atJ w y a ~ N y m Y S ('y in 7.i 1.~ 2. fD m a V a '~ N O U N 2 KXXdo ('~ ~ ~ay ~ L'1 mv°3~~ vloo~ O ~ L~il~ V1 O e~~ NNiAU ~ VtNNN O 3 ~. 3 /Wy ~+ 3 ~: r. ~+ 3 t, lp 3 3 d Fl, 1-+ L+ N ~ N l0 m IC VYV W A ID 3 N H Y A Q tao w m ~' P oD ~~ W Y Y '~ om p1 fah ~ 1~ ~•. ~ ~ N ~ m y. ~ b d. x o t0p0 ~+ o x MX X- m w W y W V tm+ ~ O A m 3 _~ NNV~U NNNN "''NNII~N 3 N n n s ~ _ o ,~''' o Y Y ~ }` o Q I+ a w W S ~ LI l0 C a W Y N Q No .Nie ~ oJ~y ~ m~SB ~ ~o~g o ~o i., in W a it oo ~i a °• ay~~' Lpl~_ rn o, tail ~'i w a a X X X X ~ w m m OD N OOH o a o N ny ~~ A 3 fd A y ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~.~ c ~~ ~~~~ g a'~9 s ~~~ I` ~ V `~: ~ e. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~, qsq Q c- ml, V1 NN NNVe InNN. ~ S~ $8S$$R H In NN N{ANNVeN Y Y Y 0~- W a~ V Y~ Y H b N'. N NN NN NNNN: r Y. Fg$+ F` yw~ NY+ Vj ~- vS o ~ t~~n"Nyei. ~ be iu r •11 S- N J T R A W V U1 V Ue. N N to N N iR W 11e N F+ MpY i '~^ pO~ N W ,O,^^ qW oA f~Wp1 CW 8. (J b N 1m0 F~ P V1 V Y N V O 3 3 m v N N N N N N N N ye ; W W W C m m m o °m w g ~ g $ . Ve NN Ve VeNNNile W W ~ W Q ~ ~ g g pppg ~ ~~~ o 0 A T~ T T T '1~ ~ '7 ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ T T r~ m ~ ~ m r3 ~ rv 'm m m ~ ~ ~ A O 3 ~' _T. ~I Z 000000 O ~~~ v ~~~O~m93~...~: ~ T q ~ ~ 4 y~ W m m m ~ ~ ~' Via' 13 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' o a"". 3 ~ a ~J m N NV~ NjIMN~~Nipp?{/~i/1 VTNUVI VrNNNtAW ~"` V "` ~ ~-+ O 01 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ ~~~~o~g~oo~8~~~ 8 8~ 88S8S8$88~SS~S NN NNNNNVINNNNNNNNN Q~ ~N~11 O V V 0UppI r N p Np~1 N OpN N N ~3 N N N Np A Fe Y A V W T Ol W W W W W W W W w NiA VI V~VTNNVIN VIN V)N VI VAN VI O ~ I V I JWJaa O 00 OJNJI JTJ ~ N {~ ~N~++ r1 N (~ ~~N++ N 0 0 Y Ca VI O J J W 03 OG W 00 W W G0 00 iAN NNNNNNNNNNNWN.i/~N -+ N Ot UI W W G tll ~ t/~ ll~ tl~ U~ UI UI ll~ V ~ N F' W O N N VI VI V1 U1 VI lA UI U1 l/~ V1 in 1A NVINNNHNNi/lN WNNNNN NON O p Op O ~ O~++ O p Op O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ 10 S lA W N N A W W S S S O O S S O O S W N NN NNVf 1/hNNNWNNWNNNN N N N G G r r 9 O O O O 0 0 N ~~~,~~, a S ~ oSS SS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °° N N~? NHNNNV)HNNNNNNVIN VI N N y {A N N R~ ~p ~ ~ ~p p~ p~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. O O O O , ' ~~ ~~'a ~~ ~ ~ aQ~Q J° .a ymmm a ~ y `~~~m A. N fD V ~ ~ S C ~' > > m c m- V' 'N iA V~ 1/1 lM 1n. VI ~"' im ~ r ~0 25 'v ws ~ 00 ~ qg ~ ^ g O N As O Vf W O? V! Oa N. O */' O G m- N pN~~ O A J V A eb N N N N N N N N N N IA W N N N N b ~++ ~ O to ~l W W T } ~ A ~ O O N F3 O 1 I A N NN N NNNLI l A0 O N l0 N A N p ~ V11 V V q N p ~ ~ O O~ VIA V! V1 V' H N VI O O s~ O O O ssa N NN N N NNN - y 1p O ~ {p O p O A 8 `~a S ~ O G ~ ~ O C O O ~ 7 OC N N '{I~ N N ~M1 N N y N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ O ~ Fire Departnent Capital Improvement Plav (CIP 0. 41w Mn p R..brn." 4wbnl MuY Nlbnna M awlmmuyfMiunMl f Noamm s rvompm I n sMlnNu-wmn9e x I n9.Rp9.6 S - naEbom l [wlW don-lua.nn 1 I10.0.0W S flpM4W fw IurtM1w.linbnlf bam RUnl 1 IMAUm f 1V9.nn.Ot . RE Mmm.v 1 Lo]opo4io f ].emmom IW R.xxhnN l L)fpepm f 'yL4m9m nn wn l([wdlyMld6mnls 1 f ]wpoom pp 9.R4pml Iw pNRGIx)ntl-fumnN 3 f I.1W 01m ILfWweml Iw iWfnfN•MIW6 1 1y.~6 l f)gagm iw niYYNx1xH-Ixmnn 1 ~ l LIm.01W {LIm.OMmI rw xfnyR.w.l.nm• 1 - 1 sgoo4m 19e9AO0ro1 Nn MWrFNb.Ne S S f%40m b10.M1.Ae M MNax Imm9Mf~ / nO.OAM l {N,Obm iW M}[n YAM[rrwf MlWl 1 LIW.OAW ! L11O,OLLO - M M14uemM1Mf4ll 1 tu,IXYlp f IffA6m - RxY[mFryb•MEBfe 1 fG4W101 f fnA4Ym YW RM.w NW.Mwsl l slamom f f%wom - h. WPhuxyln MNy / N4~m f f]40Am IW MN[YWYMMIW f 1 feµOm p1.0.pW1 MobulnMlq./IxmN 1 y464A9 l yY,OR4] Iw fW L.mnn { ]mo/mm f fAl4fmm Iw IW WMN I LlfCwxm l fA.IX9.0 N4¢QOl OPR•puM]gd-iM 1 N ]6.n n.]]LPVAI M NMlmp•aMEmLP 1 p.yLNE]ml S p]nlmml ] 99E.[mm 1nolOPlmwalP9~xn ] LLRAN® 1 ].EN.NO® 1 ISLa6V.W p xgnnE fxd can w+uM IW OpYnm 1 14bAID Eln 4Nmm 1 ]opoom IM Optlmm ] 14VO.01 11n PWwm f ypWW M Opmm { ]ppppl 'IM Oglmm 1 y9,Qp4] epwui 1 f4Nam Iw DpnYm i ]B.VAW m oMwm l aompm M opamm f ]fpwm M NsNnIWn.-EYmnN / S10.OV.m M xvyMR6nP. x.Wnn 1 A4tlnxf Iw IuMwElxbn9f M1Om Rwil f ILE.~6 IW EMfmm~n ] LNp.KOm iM Ip.emw,h f uroAmm rx.lal MVxf M..M 1~ PerNa Depatpuent Capital ImprovementPlap (CIP 0. uM. 0d~ ~f R.:Naar Y Eamsnf uI Wry lYy9RnyM4xmlbn 6,6b.01 1 HEfMW NN In4nlMivmnbn 1 L9Wµn.W 1 Ln0,06m . I.M Lnb Lxlhn 1 j;N129A { I}99,IwlW . Sup NWrMWn 1 1]99.(m0 1 l.n9AWm . Iwp dYMM1 1 4yl.~m / Llf9.®m - 6.IP SN~rm w.upnl.n l ryLlm4a 1 n9Ae9m pna NM1J,Yhn 1 I¢tl.9A0 1 4fpmll.M - 19N l9mnhn i I.nap9am f 4sllooom rylp flwp Wn 1 N41WW S Ia1,(Wm Nrp :W,NhM1 114RRRPW S ]0.1m,01m Iup loud NUY.nIx9 11f,eI9.N40] 1 lAn.~m ]Lf».MGm Ivp IIM1xIIRInp 1 1¢4pp® { lmlagyp - Ixy Rmmm~dr,YrflMW I f}tp.%9.W l 6wJ.n9m . hN W.tlvllYm'u / 11.0.O.wD 1 y.YL.m - InN i•wyrbn 1 IIAe4m 1 lso6AO I.N pr{fMn Mwnrnl 1 ypggW 1 119~~m - hrp MWIn l U.Ollm S Y}1Vm . Iup aN / 1];Obm f ]YWm Ivb rnM 1 ].1tlm l 9dm - r.m inmyowYnl 1 SD40N.m ! fooo»m lurb 1nMIN 1 ]mamm 1 ]m.4oom IfrY iuafwrvrr i I4d4ao 1 Nam . prY ItllxrlJ6ennw l l4bCA0 1 14wAm hro R.gwvMJxrnalwNmfx 1 vN;9mm 5 ]Anloom - aP.R.q-.n]an-r.nr l wla f f9.rnloom l 1]aN,mem rxp xoym9ra MIP104 IIn.u9PUml lnueaNeml l pR]]f.p9m1 ron101mpmiw.hN 11111AIW l fUf1Y] 1 IpLIfINI 0. [IPd Ibn ^l ,\mpunl InY lUpalrk4mblmex•Nrym f I}14WplA InY rYf4Nlrn1rM4pWpen 1 ]aIAYW IrN IpllAlan4nnspmrMlp/plxix.A.fun 1 )SIIW.m !nY apwRwnm4h[nry 1 NIA9fm NN R[Ib WMlne 1 S1LMIm pN MA WMIni / 11NMm r.[nalmwnl...rxp fL~.(O Po11Ce Oepar[mmt CaPltal Improvement Plag (CIP ~n1 d„mlkn fy mb.eav IN f N Rmp ' IeRn laW fupYMn x[mnN IO,A54(U! I4mtm 1 INb. IeLL YLlemn.Mxnbn Yl 1 l lmlal 1 Ia1.0]lAl l - IYIn IMblWlrmnnlMYLm 1 1]LpAO 1 1Nlpnm l INM rnwadmx Vlln.]I 1 LSb.K09) 1 ).fQpmJAI 1 Wlk. MplmdlYb i$fd4lmurtlfl / I.M.N0.W 1 !µ0.Y0.6 S Idti IaIMIW4mn-IwlndnN l l SUA6.6 1 IfaLMO)1 IWn NYmn pp[nbn I - f 161M.6 1 IxN,[6m1 WRywnYna.hRn 1t416ptlm 1 LLeWaoom l 1 INk. Honmpmin FYY. l W51lNDJI 1 IMS].SbIGI f rntlallml[wpa)ok. f unAlf.61 1 J 1NL6 u1p.6a09 dpnNM11 flPd[ulpdn lmegf ~" IYn IOblWbwn.Ik.xYYOn11 1 14YAW Idl[n IMW I.Yf[mn.Rnllnbnll l n0µA6 INb. IeOnlJnrmnn)IUY4p l ISgWm IaIW in HNC[mxlMn.11 l Le]YfeVn reW UIImIrNMf-INn~ LYM.f CxIwrMNlmmnVgWNwRYnxWWpwlxxgx'ntlvM MYwvH.OtlNVNMNIIYIMNmW 9x RM•xT NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO LC. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 12, MERIDIAN CTIY CODE, KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE; TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE The full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and publication. City of Meridian Mayor and City Council By: Jaycee Holman, City Cleric First Reading: Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-902: YES NO Second Reading: Third Reading: STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 14- The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby cet~tifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance no. 14- of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this day of , 2014 William. L.M. Nary, City Attorney JANUARY 2014 UPDATE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -SUMMARY PAGE 1 OF 1 BBC RESEARCH CONSULTING Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans City of Meridian FINAL REPORT Final Report November 20, 2013 City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvement Plans Prepared for City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 1999 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202-9750 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com V V~ RESEARCH CONSULTING Table of Contents Report Background and Objectives ..................................................................... ......................................1 Definition of Impact Fees ........................................................................ ......................................1 Land Use and Demographics ................................................................... ......................................6 Impact Fee Calculations Considerations ................................................. ......................................9 Current Assets and Capital Improvements Plans .................................... ....................................10 Mechanics of Fee Calculations ................................................................ ....................................19 City Participation ..................................................................................... ....................................22 Cash Flow Analysis ................................................................................... ....................................25 Other Funding Sources ............................................................................ ....................................26 Implementation Recommendations ....................................................... ....................................27 Summary ................................................................................................. ....................................28 Appendices A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fee Ordinances B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist D. Collier's Year- End Real Estate Market Review E. Detailed Demographic Analysis F. Collier's Year- End Real Estate Market Review G. Meridian FY 2014-2024 CIP BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING This report regarding impact fees for the City of Meridian (Meridian or City) is organized into the following sections: ^ An overview of the report's background and objectives; ^ A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; ^ An overview of land use and demographics; ^ A step-by-step calculation of impact fees under the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach; ^ A calculation of the City's monetary participation in those capital improvements defined as requiring repair, replacement or an upgrade, and the City's pro rata share of partially growth-related capital improvements; ^ A cash flow analysis; ^ A list of implementation recommendations; and ^ A brief summary of conclusions Each section follows sequentially. We have also attached several appendices with supporting documentation: Appendix A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances; Appendix B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist; Appendix D. Current Service Standard Approach; Appendix E. Detailed Demographic Analysis; Appendix F. Colliers' Year-End Real Estate Market Review; and Appendix G. Meridian FY 2014-FY2024 CIP. Background and Objectives The City hired BBC Research & Consulting (BBC) in August 2013 to update impact fees for police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. This document presents the full cost recovery fees based on the City's demographic data and infrastructure costs before credit adjustment; calculates the City's monetary participation; examines the likely cash flow produced by the recommended fee amount; and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. Definition of Impact Fees Impact fees are generally defined as one-time assessments used to recover the capital costs borne by local governments due to new growth and development. Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code, known as the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Impact Fee Act), attached as Appendix A, which specifically gives cities, towns and counties the authority to levy impact fees. The Idaho Code defines an impact fee as "... a BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 1 payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements needed to serve development."t Purpose of impact fees. The Impact Fee Act repeats the legislative finding that "... an equitable program for planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the state of Idaho."z Idaho fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law.3 Some of those restrictions include: ^ Impact fees shall not be used for any purpose other than to defray system improvement costs incurred to provide additional public facilities to serve new growth;^ ^ Impact fees must be expended within 8 years from the date they are collected. Fees maybe held in certain circumstances beyond the 8-year time limit if the governmental entity can provide reasonable causes ^ Impact fees must not exceed the proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements needed to serve new growth and development;b ^ Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts within the capital projects fund. t See Section 67-8203(9), Idaho Code. "System improvements" are capital improvements (i.e., improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more) that, in addition to a long life, increase the service capacity of a public facility. Public facilities include: parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital improvements; and public safety facilities, including law enforcement, Eire, emergency medical and rescue facilities. See Sections 67-8203(3), (24) and (Z8), Idaho Code. z See Section 67-8202, Idaho Code. As explained further in this study, proportionality is the foundation of a legal impact fee. To meet substantive due process requirements, an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus) between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital improvements. An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests. This relationship must be of "rough proportionality." Adequate consideration of the factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2) ensure that rough proportionality is reached. See Banbury Development Corp. v. South Jordaa, 631 P.2d 899 (1981); Dollan v. Crty ofTigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). h See Sections 67-8202(4) and 67-8203 (29), Idaho Code. S See Section 67-8Z 10(4), Idaho Code. 6 See Sections 67-8204(1) and 67-8207, Idaho Code. ~ See Section 67-8210(1), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 2 In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following: ^ Establishment of and consultation with a development impact fee advisory committee (Advisory Committee);$ ^ Identification of all existing public facilities; ^ Determination of a standardized measure (or service unit) of consumption of public facilities; ^ Identification of the current level of service that existing public facilities provide; ^ Identification of the deficiencies in the existing public facilities; ^ Forecast of residential and nonresidential growth;9 ^ Identification of the growth-related portion of City Capital Improvement Plans;to ^ Analysis of cash flow stemming from impact fees and other capital improvement funding sources;tt ^ Implementation of recommendations such as impact fee credits, how impact fee revenues should be accounted for, and how the impact fees should be updated over time;1z ^ Preparation and adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same;13 and ^ Preparation and adoption of an ordinance authorizing impact fees pursuant to state law and public hearings regarding the same.l'~ The proposed update to the Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance, which is the ordinance that will amend the City's municipal code, is attached as Appendix B. A checklist for ordinance requirements is found in Appendix C. How Should fees be Calculated? State law requires the City to implement the Capital Improvement Plan methodology to calculate impact fees. The City could implement fees of any amount not exceeding the maximum fees calculated by the CIP approach. This methodology requires the City to describe its service area, forecast the land uses, densities and population that will occur in that service area over the next 20 years, and identify the capital improvements that $ See Section 67-8205, Idaho Code. 9 See Sectia~ 67-8206(Z), Idaho Code. 10 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. tt See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. tz See Sections 67-8209 and 67-8Z 10, Idaho Code. t3 See Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. th See Sections 67-8204 and 67-8206, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 3 will be needed to serve the forecasted growth at the same level of service found in the existing community. 15 This list and cost of capital improvements, along with a time schedule for commencing and completing the construction of all capital improvements, constitutes the capital improvement element to be adopted as part of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan.16 Only those items listed on the CIP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. Each governmental entity intending to adopt an impact fee must first prepare a capital improvements plan.t~ To ensure that impact fees are adopted and spent for capital improvements in support of the community's needs and planning goals, the Impact Fee Act establishes a link between the authority to charge impact fees and certain planning requirements of Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The local government must have adopted a comprehensive plan per LLUPA procedures, and that comprehensive plan must be updated to include a current capital improvement element.l$ This study considers the planned capital improvements for the period between 2013 and 2023 that will need to be adopted as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Once the essential capital planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a "proportionate share" of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. "Proportionate share" is defined as "...that portion of the cost of system improvements ...which reasonab]y relates to the service demands and needs of the project."19 Practically, this concept requires Meridian to carefully project future growth and estimate capital improvement costs so that it prepares reasonable and logical impact fee schedules. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees: are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital improvements by the development being charged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such improvements; and are "earmarked" so as to benefit those that pay the impact fees. is As a comparison and benchmark for the impact fees calculated under the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC also calculated the City's current level of service by quantifying the City's current investment in capital improvements for each impact fee category, allocating a portion of these assets to residential and nonresidential development, and dividing the resulting amount by current housing units (residential fees) or current square Footage (nonresidential fees). By using current assets to denote the current service standard, this methodology guards against using fees to correct existing deficiencies. The calculation of the C ity's current level of service is found in Appendix D and this investment in capital improvements for police, Fire, and parks and recreation is referenced throughout this report. t6 See Sections 67-8203(4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code. ~~ Section 67-8208, Idaho Code. See Appendix A for a description of the requirements of the Impact Fee Act for the capital improvements plan. t8 See Sections 67-8203 (4) and 67-8208, Idaho Code t9 See Section 67-8203(23), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 4 There are various approaches to calculating impact fees and to crediting new development for past and future contributions made toward system improvements. The Impact Fee Act does not specify a single type of fee calculation, but it does specify that the formula be "reasonable and fair." Impact Fees must take into account the Following: ^ Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of ]and, or construction of system improvements; ^ Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; ^ That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by Meridian to system improvements; and ^ All other available sources of funding such system improvements.20 Through data analysis and interviews with City staff, BBC identified the share of each capital asset needed to serve growth. The total projected capital improvements needed to serve growth are then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting amounts divided by growth projections from 2013 to 2023. This is consistent with the Impact Fee Act.zt However, only residential development is charged parks and recreation impact fees since households are the primary consumers of park services. Among the advantages of the CIP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. Other fee calculation considerations. The basic CIP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: ^ The allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is "a standard measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit22 of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvement."23 The service units chosen by the study team are all linked directly to residential dwelling units or nonresidential development square feet. zo See Section 67-8207, Idaho Code. zt The impact fee that can be charged to each service unit (in this study, residential dwelling units and nonresidential square feet) cannot exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements for system improvements attributable to new development to provide an adopted service level by the total number of service units attributable to new development. See Sections 67-8204(16), 67-8208(1 (f) and 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code. 22 See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. zs See Section 67-8203(27), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 5 ^ A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. According to Idaho Code, the CIP must include a "conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial."z'~ In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data and, as a result in this study, impact fees are allocated between aggregated residential (i.e., all forms of residential housing) and nonresidential development (all nonresidential uses including retail, office, agricultural and industrial). Land Use and Demographics In calculating the impact fees, it was necessary to allocate capital improvement costs to both residential and nonresidential development. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of projected new households and nonresidential square footage added from 2013 through 2023. Pursuant to Idaho State law, we gathered data on 20-year land use assumptions in Meridian, including population, households and employment. See Appendix E for the 20-year forecasts to 2033. However, the impact fee calculations in this report are based on the next 10 years of land use data to maintain consistency with Meridian's CIP planning horizon. Residential data. The primary data sources for residential unit counts and square footage numbers are the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS); the City of Meridian; the U.S. Census Bureau. Appendix E provides COMPASS' demographic spreadsheets and details any calculations performed by the study team to arrive at current or projected residential data. Current and future households. To estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from COMPASS' document entitled Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecast by DemographicAreas updated in 2010. This document provides detailed data (from 2010 to 2040 in five year increments) on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). BBC then adjusted the population for these demographic areas down slightly to reflect the population estimates within the city limits as estimated in the COMPASS document 1990-2013 Population Estimates by City Limit Boundaries. See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the derivation of the current and future household numbers and COMPASS' Community Choices Forecast spreadsheet. Single family/multifamily distribution. Communities in Motion was the basis for the allocation of future housing units between single family and multifamily units. Communities in Motion is the Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Treasure Valley to 2040. The Communities in Motion working group collaborated with COMPASS to estimate housing units by type in the Treasure Valley. This report forecasts that Treasure Valley will eventually be 55 percent single zh See Section 67-8208(1)(e), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 6 family and 45 percent multifamily housing units (see Appendix F). However based on previous discussions the City's Planning Department, the study team concluded that this distribution would not be appropriate given recent construction activity. Therefore, in the interim, we believe it is appropriate for the allocation of future housing units in Meridian to be based on city building permit trend data provided to BBC during the analysis. Based on this data, BBC assumed future residential growth will be 75 percent single family and 25 percent multifamily. This housing type distinction is only necessary for calculating residential square footage, a precursor to fee calculations, as discussed below. The impact fees in this report are equivalent for single family and multifamily units. Current and future square footage. In order to distribute the costs for capital improvements to new residential and nonresidential development, a precursor to the calculation of impact fees, it was necessary to estimate the current and future total square footage of residential and nonresidential units in the City. In addition, square footage data are used to calculate the growth-related percentage of certain capital improvements that are only partially necessitated by growth. The particular capital improvements referenced in this study that are only partially growth-related are the police training center, Story Park development, Rails with Trails, and the Recreation Center. The calculations of the growth-related percentage of these capital improvements are found on page 11. Based on national data, BBC used figures of 2,210 square feet for single family units and 1,127 square feet for multifamily units.25 These estimates reflect the average of national annual median square foot figures from 2007 to 2012 and represent the best available data. Figure 1 on the next page presents the number of current (2013) and projected (2023) single Family and multifamily units, and respective square footage estimates. zs US Census Bureau, average figures from 2D07-2012, Median and Average Square Feet of F1oorArea in New Single Family Houses Completed by Location and Median and Average Square Feet of FloorArea in Units in New Multifamily Buildings Completed. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 7 Figure 1. Current and Projected Residential Development, City of Meridian Housing Unitsil) Single Family Multifamily Total Housing Units Square Feet Iz) Single Family (units * 2,210 sq.ft.) Multifamily (units * 1,127 sq.ft.) Total Square Feet 24,150 30,274 6,124 2,994 5,036 2,041 27,144 35,310 8,165 53,150,096 66,628,243 13,478,147 3,375,518 5,676,823 2,301,305 56,525,614 72,305,066 15,779,452 (1) COMPASS for housing units and City of Meridian for allocation of units between single family and multifamily. (2) US Census 5-year trailing average for square footage. Source: COMPASS, U.S. Census Bureau. Currently, there are an estimated 27,144 housing units in the City of Meridian, 24,150 of which are single family units and 2,994 of which are multifamily units. By 2023 the residential housing stock is projected to have increased by 30 percent (8,615 households) for a total of over 35,000 units. Nonresidential data. Colliers' Idaho: Boise and Nampa, 2012 Year-End Real Estate Market Review, tabulates existing office, retail and industrial square footage for cities in the Treasure Valley. The report, located in Appendix G, discusses various submarkets in the Valley, including the City of Meridian, and lists current nonresidential square footage, vacancy rates, building counts, market rents, etc. BBC totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected nonresidential square footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed with Colliers, the Year-End Real Estate Market Review square footage count only includes buildingsgreater than 5,000 square feet. To adjust for this underestimate of nonresidential square feet, BBC obtained City data on the square footage of new commercial development since 2009. The City's data are not a cumulative total of all square footage in the City; rather the data only reflect the square footage of new permitted nonresidential units. BBC calculated the percentage of new units since 2009 that were less than 5,000 square feet in size. As of August 2013, on average, 5 percent of the City's newly permitted nonresidential units were less than 5,000 square feet. Knowing this, Colliers tabulation represents 95 percent of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. By dividing Colliers square footage by 95 percent, the study team arrived at the current total of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This method generates a total of 9,965,834 nonresidential square feet in 2013. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the current nonresidential square feet. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE S Future nonresidential development. ~1o data exist for exact 2023 projections of nonresidential square footage in Meridian. Therefore, BBC developed a logical method for calculating future nonresidential square footage. COMPASS' document, Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecast by Demographic Areas, provides data on current and future jobs in Meridian. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage to 2023. Currently, there are 23,213 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet tota19,965,834. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs in 2013 produces a ratio of 429 square feet per employee in 2013.26 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2023. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to employee remains constant, the study team used this ratio, as described above, to project nonresidential square footage forward. The estimated number of jobs in 2023 (30,908) is multiplied by the square footage per employee (429). This produces a total of 13,269,278 nonresidential square feet in 2023. See Appendix E for a detailed step-by-step calculation of the future nonresidential square feet. Figure 2 below shows the current and projected nonresidential development square feet. Figure 2. Current and Projected Nonresidential Development Note: Total in 2013 9,965,834 Assumes that nonresidential square footage grows in proportion to employment (429 square feet peremployeei. Total in 2023 13,269,278 Source: COMPASS, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2012, City of Meridian and BBC. Difference (2013 to 2023) 3,303,444 Using the methodology described above, the increase in nonresidential square footage from 2013 to 2023 is approximately 3.3 million square feet. Impact Fee Calculation Considerations The fees calculated under the CIP approach were based on the following: ^ City investments in police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements projected to be built from 2013 through 2023; ^ An allocation of investment to residential and nonresidential development, based on new residential dwellingunits and nonresidential square footage; and ^ A fee calculation that involves dividing the appropriate share of capital improvements by projected residential units and nonresidential square feet. z~ This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time, and can be adjusted in future impact fee updates. The 429 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 9 Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CIP approach estimates future capital improvement investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The Impact Fee Act calls for the CIP to "...project demand for system improvements required by new service units ... over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years."27 BBC recommends a 10-year time period based on the City's best available capital planning data. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth over the next 10 years at existing service levels. Equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more is also impact fee eligible under the Impact Fee Act. The total cost of improvements over the 10 years is referred to as the "CIP Value" in Figures 5, 7 and 9. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. Because impact fees are calculated for three impact fee categories in this study (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation), 33 percent of the study's cost is included in all calculations. Additionally, for all three categories, the City's current impact fee fund balance is subtracted From the total CIP value. The existing fund balance will be used to pay for a portion of the future capital improvements and will therefore decrease the amount needed to be collected from future impact fees. In the study team's judgment, the City is obligated to expend this existing fund balance onpre-planned growth-related capital improvements before spending future impact fee receipts on newly identified projects in the following CIPs.2B The forward-looking 10-year CIPs for the police and parks and recreation departments each include some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth BBC spoke with each department to determine a logical metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. The capital improvements mentioned immediately above are calculated to be 22 percent growth-related. The 22 percent ratio is calculated by dividing the accumulated new square footage between 2013 and 2023 (residential and nonresidential) by the total square footage in 2023.29 This percentage is attributed to growth under the philosophy that growth caused the need for such facilities and vehicles, and this growth also necessitates building a proportionately larger facility to accommodate additional personnel (which would otherwise not be necessary with the existing population). For example, the proposed police training center and the community/recreation center construction should be sized according to population and peak period demand. The City needs to size these facilities and vehicles to be able to accommodate the demand created by current residents and demand of future residents. 27 See Section 67-8208(1)(h). 2e "Collected development impact fees must be expended within eight (8) years from the date they were collected, on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis ...." See Section 67-8210(4), Idaho Code. Funds collected prior to July 1, 2006, must be expended within Five (5) years from the date they were collected, on afirst-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. z9 The residential square footage is described in Figure 1 and the nonresidential square footage is described in Figure Z. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 10 It should be understood that growth will be paying only a portion of the cost of these facilities. The City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of these partially growth-related capital improvements with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. As discussed later in this report, the value of this City participation investment is approximately $40.9 million over the next ten years, or more than $3.7 million per year. This investment includes almost $30.5 million of discretionary funding in connection with purely non-growth-related improvements, and nearly $10.4 million of capital improvements which are growth-related and therefore must be funded from the City's General Funds. These funds could come from City revenues, donations, grants or other partnerships. It should also be noted that certain CIP capital improvements are listed in the following figures as zero percent growth-related because City staff relayed that the proposed capital improvements were actually either entirely repair and replacement of existing facilities or represented an upgrade in service levels not triggered by new growth. These non-growth- relatedcapital improvements are listed, nonetheless, in the CIP because municipalities often use the CIP for planning purposes, not just to calculate impact fees. Meridian may find this inclusion in the CIP exhibits useful. Levels of service. Levels of service (sometimes referred to in this study as "service level(s)") must be defined in the capital improvement element of the Comprehensive Plan, and is the basis for establishing additional service capacity need in any system that serves new development. "Level of service" is "... a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities."30 Service levels need to be stated in quantifiable, specific terms, since they measure the benefit new development receives for payment of impact fees. The capital improvement element must clearly identify existing public facilities and service levels and identify any shortfalls in service levels, if at all. Any such shortfall or "deficiency" that Meridian intends to overcome for both existing and new development cannot be funded with impact fees. Likewise, the cost of raising the service level for existing and future development beyond the current service level is ineligible for impact fee funding. If Meridian desires to use impact fees to achieve a higher service level for new development than existing service levels, Meridian must, outside of impact fees, raise the money to bring the existing community to that higher service level as well. This restriction has a general effect of restraining the setting of unreasonably high standards and fees solely for new development. All of the capital improvement costs in the CIPs on the following pages represent improvements that are needed for growth to maintain the current level of service. The City maybe operating at a less than desirab]e level (i.e., operating with deficiencies). In the future, the City may plan to increase the level of service. If this is the case, any capital improvements that increase the current level of service are not impact fee eligible and have been purposely excluded from the calculations. The police department is currently operating at a stated level of service of with 1.10 sworn officers per 1,000 residents based on the full employment at 87 sworn officers and 26 non sworn so See Section 67-8203(17), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 11 staff members. The actual level of service has historically been lower due to frictional hiring difficulties. The capacity of police calls, initiated by both the police and the public, has also been increasing over time. See Figure 3. This is due to an increase in total population, population density, and crime rate. Because of the pressures that growth places on the police services there are capital improvements required to maintain the level of service to current standards which are impact fee eligible. The police department has recently focused on finding efficient solutions in order to meet their future infrastructure needs. In particular, the department's locker room, break room, and patrol area spaces are all either at or near capacity. The police department commissioned the design of a station expansion in response to their spatial needs. The department has been able to reduce the projected cost the future station expansion by 50 percent, because the department hired a consultant in order to efficiently utilize the existing spaces. Additionally, the police department plans to use space within the proposed training center to meet growth related office and meeting space needs. These plans to relocate and expand in the new facility have minimized the cost of the station expansion. Figure 3. Police Calls for Service, 2006-2013 60,000 40,000 20,000 Officer Initiated Calls Note: 2013 totals based on existing data extrapolated to year end. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Public ]nltiated Calls Likewise, the fire department must build new infrastructure in order to maintain its current level of service as Meridian continues to grow. The current and targeted level of fire service is to respond to 80 percent of all calls within six minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and five minutes in transit). BBC analyzed the ratio of fire infrastructure for the city's current and projected land uses and, in conjunction with discussions with members of the finance department, determined that the fire department CIP lists more capital improvements than are necessary to continue this level of service. Therefore, the proposed fire station #8 and the corresponding apparatus cannot be included in the fee calculations. While they are shown on the C[P they are subtracted from the total eligible fee amount. Only growth-related capital BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 12 20D6 2007 2008 2D09 2010 2011 2012 2013t improvements necessary for the continuation of the current level of service are shown to be impact fee eligible. The parks and recreation has plans to increase the level of service in the future. The current level of service is 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents. However the additional 160 acres listed on the CIP represent an increase the level of service to 3.91 acres per 1,000 residents. Of the 160 acres listed on the CIP, 70 acres are impact fee eligible because they are required in order to maintain the current level of service, however the additional 90 cannot be included in the fees. Therefore, the costs associated with developing the additiona190 acres are subtracted from the total impact fee eligible amount. See Appendix D for more details on the calculation. The city also has plans to develop the 77-acre South Meridian Park. The actual development of this park is beyond the 10 year timeframe of the CIP, however, initial work including planning and design and work will take place within the next 10 years and are included in the fee calculations. Current police assets. The provisions of the Impact Fee Act significantly limit the City's use of impact fees. This is particularly true for police service because most costs of serving new development involve adding police officers or patrol vehicles that are not impact fee eligible, even though the demand for added personnel and vehicles might be a direct result of new development. Figure 4 lists the current police assets. The police department is currently operating with 1.10 officers per 1,000 population based on the current employment of 87 officers and 26 support staff. Figure 4. Curent Police Assets source: Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) City of Meridian Police Department. Command VehlCle Police Communications Equipment (198 Radios) K-9 Training Facility K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) Crime Scene/ Evidence Van The 1.10 officers per 1,000 population service standard equates to a current investment of $200 per residential unit and $0.10 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Police Capital Improvement Plan. Figure 5 on the following page lists the future capital improvements that are necessary to maintain the current level of service (i.e., 1.10 officers per 1,000 population) for future residential units and nonresidential development. The figure presents $2.2 million of future capital improvements that are eligible for inclusion in the police impact fee calculation. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "CIP Value" times the "Growth-Related Portion." BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 13 Figure 5. Police 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan Infrastructure Training Center $7,500,000 22 % $1,672,484 Station Expansion 800,000 100 800,000 Replace Vehicles ($300,000 annually) 3,000,000 0 0 Substation in Fire Station #5 60,000 100 60,000 Future Substation #1 120,000 100 120,000 Future Substation #2 120,000 100 120,000 Future Substation #3 60,000 100 60,000 Total Infrastructure $11,660,000 $2,832,484 Fee-Related Research Portion of Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $639,687 100 % $639,687 Grand Total $11,027,646 $2,200,130 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. The police CIP in Figure 5 includes the projected expenditures for four substations which will be located within other, larger facilities such as new fire stations. The precise location of these future substations has not been officially determined. The police department does not need new full size stations, but instead needs smaller police offices throughout the city where personnel can write reports and interact with citizens. The police CIP includes 22 percent of the costs of a new training center. As previously stated, this improvement will serve both the existing population and is also necessary to meet the demands of future growth therefore it is only partially impact fee eligible. This new facility will include a training village and classrooms. It will also be open for use by other public service departments and the local community. Current fire assets. The fire department responds to 84 percent of all calls for service within six minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and five minutes in transit). BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 14 Figure 6. Current Fire Assets, 2013 Source: City of Meridian Fire Department. Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) Training Tower @ Station #1 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) 1993 Pierce Engine (304) 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 2006 Pierce Engine (304) 2008 Pierce Engine (305) 2008 Pierce LADDER (T-31) 2000 International Water Tender (320) 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) 2009 FORD F550 Brushpumper 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) Command Trailer luipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls 17 Vehicle Radios 5 Base Station Radios The current level of service equates to a current investment of $510 per residential unit and $0.24 per nonresidential square foot (see Appendix D for calculation). Fire Capital Improvement Plan. The fire department is not currently operating with deficiencies. The fire department's CIP includes improvements which are designed to service areas but would increase the current level of service beyond responding to 80 percent of all calls for service within six minutes (i.e., one minute "turn out" time and five minutes in transit). Therefore, the improvements that would increase the service level, station #8 and the engine for station #8, have been subtracted from the impact fee eligible amount and those that remain represent the improvements necessary to continue of the current level of service. See Appendix D for more details on the calculations. Figure 7 reflects the future fire capital improvements needed to maintain the current level of fire service. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT, PAGE 15 Figure 7. Fire 10-year Capital Improvement Plan Buildings Fire Station #5 Ito repay Rural Fire) $806,DD0 100 % $806,000 Fire Station #6 2,230,000 100 $2,230,000 Fire Station #7 2,020,000 1D0 $2,020,000 Fire Station #8 2,020,000 100 $2,020,000 Vehicles Quint Ladder T- Station #4 $1,100,000 0 % $0 Heavy Rescue Engine Station #6 700,D00 100 $700,000 Quint Ladder T for Station #7 1,100,000 100 $1,100,000 Fire Engine for Station #8 520,DD0 100 $520,000 Fire Engine MF005 520,000 100 $520,000 Heavy Rescue Tender 380,D00 0 0 Replace Engine #38 520,DD0 0 0 Replace Engine MF009 520,DD0 0 D Replace Ladder Truck MF021 1,1OD,00D 0 0 Replace Brush MF022 145,DD0 0 0 Replace Engine MF010 520,DD0 0 0 Replace Engine MF014 520,000 0 0 Replace Engine MFD18 520,D00 0 D Equipment "Opticom" Traffic Signal Controls $200,DD0 100 % $200,000 Replace Air Unit MFDO 98,000 0 0 Replace Breathing Apparatus 380,D00 0 0 Total 2014-2023 CIP $15,919,000 $10,116,000 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Minus Increase in Level of Service Fire Station #8 and Engine #8t $2,540,000 $2,540,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $861,861 100 % $861,861 Grand Total $12,524,472 $6,721,472 Note: t This station was removed in order to maintain the current level of service. Service level calculated by comparing fire stations to developed land uses in the city. Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, and BBC Research & Consulting. The City is expected to purchase $16 million dollars in fire capital improvements, $6.7 million of which is impact fee eligible from 2013 to 2023. Current parks and recreation assets. The total number of currently developed park acres is 245.5, which equates to a service standard of 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents. Figure 8 lists the City's current parks and recreation assets that are responsible for the 3.04 acres per 1,000 residents service standard. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 16 Figure 8. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2013 Source: City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Paths & Trails Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) Neighborhood & Mini-Parks Gordon Harris/Kiwanis Park (11.1 Acres) Renaissance Park (6.5 Acres) Season's Park (7.1 Acres) Chateau Park(6.7 Acres) 8th Street Park (2.8 Acres) Champion Park (6.0 Acres) Centennial Park (0.4 Acres) Generations Plaza (0.24 Acres) Heritage MS Ball Fields (4 Acres) Bark Park (.8 Acres) Fire Station #4 Park (0.6) City Hall Plaza (0.9) Cox Monument (0.1 Acres) William Watson (7 acres Land only) Community Parks Heroes Park (30.1 Acres) Tully Park (18.5 Acres) Bear Creek Park (18.8 Acres) Storey Park (19.0 Acres) Borup Park (47 acres Land Only) Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (56 Acres) Kleiner Park (60 Acres) Meridian Community Center The level of service for parks and recreation equates to a current investment of $2,052 per residential unit (see Appendix D for calculation). Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. Currently, Meridian's 10-year population growth would justify slightly 70 acres of new parks at the current 3.04 developed acres per thousand residents level of service. The CIP lists development of 90 additional acres that are beyond what is necessary to maintain this service level, as described on page 13. Any capital improvements that assist in the augmentation of the service level are not included in the fee calculation. Figure 9 below lists the entire CIP, but the costs associated with the 90 acre increase in the level of service are removed the impact fee eligible value. The three items on the CIP listed as partially growth related are partially included in the fee calculation. The current population will have access to these facilities; however, they are not designed exclusively to increase the current level of service for the existing population. These BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 17 facilities will also meet the demand of the future growth, which enables a portion of the costs to be recovered through the impact fee. Park values are calculated at $177,000 per acre. This includes $142,000 for development costs and $35,000 for land costs. These values were calculated from weighted historical data provided by the City. See Appendix D for details on this calculation. For Borup and William Watson parks only the development costs are applied because the land has already been purchased and exists on the list of current infrastructure. Figure 9. Parks and Recreation 10-year Capital Improvement Plan Pathways & Trails Pathway Connections $1,150,000 0 % $0 Neighborhood & Mini-Parks Isola Creek (7 acres) $1,239,000 100 % 51,239,000 Highlands (7 acres) 1,239,000 100 1,239,000 Oaks (7 acres) 1,239,000 100 1,239,000 William Watson Development Only (7 acres) 994,000 100 994,000 Community Parks Hillsdale (20 acres) $3,540,000 100 % $3,540,000 Borup Park Development Only (47 acres) 6,674,000 100 6,674,000 Storey Park (5 acres) 885,000 22 197,353 Aldape Construction (60 acres) 10,620,000 100 10,620,000 Large Urban Parks South Meridian Park $1,050,000 100 % 51,050,000 Parks Amenities Rails with Trails $1,000,000 22 % $222,998 Recreation Center (YMCA Partnership) 4,000,000 22 891,991 Equipment Sweeper/Blower $18,000 100 % $18,000 Truck/Plow 35, 000 100 35, 000 Large Area Mowers(2) 110,000 100 110,000 Mules (4) 48,000 100 48,000 ATV 12,000 100 12,000 Trailer 7,500 100 7,500 Trim Mowers (5) 100,000 100 100,000 Trucks (4) 100,000 100 100,000 Tu rf Sprayer 40,000 100 40,000 Ball Field Groomer 10,000 100 10,000 Replace Vehicles and Equipment 2,032,000 0 0 Tota12014-2023 CIP $36,142,500 $28,387,842 Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Minus Increase in Service Level 90 acres at $177,000t per acre $15,930,000 100 % $15,930,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $3,378,970 100 % $3,378,970 Grand Total $16,840,863 $9,086,206 Note: $177,000/acre in land and development costs Source: City of Meridian, Capital Improvement Plan, personal interview with parks and recreation staff and BBC Research & Consulting. BBC RESEARCH gt CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 1S Future parks and recreation capital improvements are expected to total $36 million, of which over $9 million is impact fee eligible. Mechanics of Fee Calculations Impact fees are calculated using the costs summarized in Figures 5, 7 and 9 and the demographic information from previous figures. As required by the Impact Fee Act, prior to fee adoption, the Advisory Committee must consider the following factors: ^ The means by which existing system improvements have been financed (for example, if grant money has been consistently used to finance system improvements, it may be reasonable to postulate that this will continue in the future); ^ The extent to which new development will contribute to financing system improvements through (past and future) taxes, assessments and contributions; ^ The extent to which new development has provided system improvements, without charge, for other properties in the service area; ^ Extraordinary costs incurred by the City in serving new development; and ^ The availability of other sources of funding for system improvements (e.g., local improvement district assessments, general tax levies).31 Upon consideration of all these factors, the Advisory Committee may recommend that the City Council adjust the full cost recovery impact fee.sz Future land use assumptions. Figure 10 displays the City's incremental increase (from 2013 to 2023) in square footage distributed between residential and nonresidential land uses. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate capital improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. Figure 10. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013 to 2023 Note: Residential 15,779,452 83 % May not total due to rounding. Single Family 13,478,147 71 Multifamily 2,301,305 12 Source: Nonresidential 3,303,444 17 City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Total 19,082,896 100 ~o ~~ See Sections 67-8707 and 67-8209, Idaho Code. 3z These factors are to be considered while the City is in the process of developing a proportionate impact fee. After the adoption of an impact fee, credits maybe calculated on aproject-by-project basis in connection with an individual assessment. See Section 67-8209, Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 19 In 2023, the City's residential development is expected to increase by 15,779,452 square feet, and the nonresidential development is estimated to increase by 3,303,444 square feet. Therefore, the future allocation of land uses is projected to be 83 percent residential and 17 percent nonresidential. The study team has calculated all impact fees per residential unit, regardless of unit type, and per nonresidential square foot, regardless of type. BBC does not recommend imposing fees at a more detailed level of analysis (i.e., fee differentials for single family and multifamily units and differentials for commercial, agricultural and industrial square footage). In our judgment, such distinctions are unwarranted by empirical evidence. After allocating costs to the appropriate land-uses, impact fees for residential and nonresidential development are calculated by dividing the residential service costs by new residential units, and by dividing nonresidential service costs by new nonresidential square footage. Police impact fees. Figure 11 presents police impact fees of $223 per residential unit and $0.12 per nonresidential square foot. This represents the full cost recovery impact fee under Idaho's Impact Fee Act. Figure 11. Police Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Figure 45 Police Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. (2) See Figure 10. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013 to 2023 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Allocated Value for Police Infrastructure 111 $2,200,130 Future Land Use PercentagelZl Residential 83 3'0 Nonresidential 17 % Costs by Land Use Category Residential $1,819,265 Nonresidential $380,865 Growth to 2023 Residential (in dwelling units) 8,165 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,303,444 Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) $223 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.12 BBC used the current service standard as a benchmark to double check the forward-looking CIP approach. The team is pleased that the calculated fee amounts are quite similar to Meridian's current investment in police infrastructure ($200 per residential unit and $0.10 per nonresidential square foot -see Appendix D). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10- Year Police CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 20 Fire impact fees. Figure 12 calculates the impact fees for fire capital improvements based on the future growth projections and anticipated future capital improvement costs described in earlier exhibits. Figure 12. Fire Impact Fee ~ ~ ~ . - Calculation. Notes: Value of Future Fire Capital Improvements ~1~ $6,721,472 (1) See Figure 7. Fire Capital a- Improvement Plan for a list of CIP Future Land Use Percentage investments required to maintain the ReSldentldl 83 current level of service. (2) See Figure 10. Distribution of Land Nonresidential 17 % Uses 2013 to 2023. Allocated Value by Land Use Category source: Residential $5,557,917 City of Meridian and BBC. Nonresidential $1,163,555 Growth to 2023 Residential (in dwelling units) 8,165 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,303,444 Impact Fee by Land Use Residential (per dwelling unit) $681 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.35 The full cost recovery impact fees for fire capital improvements total $681 per new residential unit and $0.35 per new nonresidential square foot. These fees are within the same range as the value of Meridian's current investment in fire infrastructure ($510 per residential unit and $0.24 per nonresidential square foot). It is to be expected that the full cost recovery fees slightly exceed this current level of investment. Natural cost increases in providing the same level of service and the addition of several new types of infrastructure triggered by growth, but not wholly applicable to growth, increase the future investment in fire infrastructure. Many factors are responsible for higher fire fees as compared to the current investment in Appendix D. For example, as the city and the need for fire services have grown, additional fire engines are required to be held in reserve. Since the requirement for the additional engine is triggered by growth the costs of are impact fee eligible. Current investment does not reflect any such type of large improvement, which explains why the fees under the CIP approach are higher. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 21 Parks and recreation impact fees. Parks and recreation impact fees are shown in Figure 13, which is based on Figure 9 and demographic projections. Parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Figure 13. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Calculation Notes: (1) See Figure 8. Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan for a list of CIP investments required to maintain the current level of service. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Value of future Parks & Recreation improvements Ili $9,086,206 Current Land Use Percentage Residential 100 ~° Nonresidential 0 Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $9,086,206 Nonresidential $0 Growth to 2023 Residential (total dwelling units) 8,165 Nonresidential (in square feet) 3,303,444 Impact Fee by Unit of Development Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,113 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A The full cost recovery impact fee for parks and recreation capital improvements is $1,113 for any new residential unit. The study team is pleased that the calculated fee amount does not exceed Meridian's current investment in parks and recreation infrastructure ($1,763 per residential unit). These similar amounts suggest that Meridian's 10-Year Parks and Recreation CIP is not overcharging new development for its proportionate share of new capital improvements. City Participation Because not all the capital improvements listed in the CIPs are 100 percent growth-related, the City would assume the responsibility of paying for the portion of the capital improvements that are not attributable to new growth. These payments would come from existing funds, donations and/or ongoing revenue sources that are not tied directly to growth. To arrive at the City participation amount, the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility amount need to be subtracted from the total CIP value. Figures 14 through 19 calculate the City's participation between 2013 and 2023. The participation amount includes the cost of purely non-growth-related improvements, and portions ofgrowth-related improvements that are attributable to repair, replacement, or upgrade, and not impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 22 Figure 14. City Participation -Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 Note: (11 Directly from Figure 6. Police Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023. (21 City Participation amount is equal to the amount of repair/replacement/upgrade capital improvements and the non-growth amount required bythe CIP. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. If the City adopts the full cost recovery police fees as calculated in this report, the City would potentially be responsible for approximately $8.8 million in police capital improvements. The City's participation would ensure that police service levels in Meridian do not decline. Again, the City's participation amount does not include ongoing operation, maintenance, repair and replacement costs that will also be borne by the City and not paid by impact fees. Figures 15, 17 and 19 on the following pages further analyze the City's participation amount by separating the City's total participation amount into two categories: the purely non-growth improvements total, and the non-growth improvements total attributed to portions of impact fee eligible improvements. It should be noted that the participation amount associated with purely non-growth improvements is discretionary. The City can choose not to fund these capital improvements (although this could result in a decrease in the level of service if the deferred repairs or replacements were urgent). However, the non-growth-related portion of improvements that are impact fee eligible must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. Figure 15. Analysis of City Participation, Police Capital Improvement Plan Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $3,000,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required) $5,827,516 Total $8,827,516 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. To maintain the current level of service, 1.1 officers per 1,000 population, the City must contribute $5.8 million between 2013 and 2023. The City must contribute this amount since the capital improvements reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. At the time this study was completed, the only purely non growth related item in the CIP was the amount allocated to replace vehicles. These are not impact fee eligible because they are replaced more frequently than the 10 year useful life required in order to include equipment in impact fee calculations. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 23 Figure 16 presents the City's participation in fire capital improvements, comprised of capital improvements that are repair, replacement or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Figure 16. City Participation -Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 $15,064,472 - $6,721,472 = $8,343,000 Note: )1) Net the Impact Fee Fund Balance )2) Directly from Exhihit il. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 )3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Based on the maximum fire impact fees calculated in this report, the City's participation amount could total approximately $S million. Figure 17 below distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are repair, replacement, or upgrade (discretionary funding) and capital improvements that reflect the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Figure 17. Analysis of City Participation, Fire Capital Improvement Plan Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related improvements (discretionary) $8,343,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements {required) 0 Total $8,343,000 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. In the above analysis, the City has the discretion to contribute $8 million toward capital improvements that are purely non-growth-related. The city is not obligated to contribute any amount in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee because none of the items on the CIP are partially growth related or partially included in the impact fee calculation. Figure 18 outlines the dollar amount that the City should contribute, in addition to impact fee receipts, to parks and recreation capital improvements between 2013 and 2023. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 24 Figure 18. City Participation -Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 $32,770,863 - $9,086,206 = $23,684,658 Note: ll) Net the Impact Fee Fund Balance 12) Directly from Exhibit il. Fire Capital Improvement Plan, 2013 to 2023 i3) City Participation amount is equal to the amount for repair/replacement/upgrade and the non-growth amount required by the CIP. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. Based on the full cost recovery parks and recreation fees calculated in this report, the City's participation amount could total approximately $23.7 million. Figure 19 distributes the participation amount between the capital improvements that are purely non-growth-related (discretionary funding) and improvements that reflect the non- growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements (required funding). Figure 19. ~ , Analysis of City Participation, Parks and Recreation Capital Amount attributable to purely non-growth-related Improvement Plan improvements (discretionary) $19,112,000 Amount attributable to the non-growth-related portion of source: I impact fee eligible improvements (required) $4,572,658 BBC Research & Consulting. Total 523,684,658 Of the $23.7 million of calculated City participation, $19 .1 million is discretionary because the associated capital improvements have been defined as purely non-growth-related. However, $4.6 of the City's participation is required in order for the impact fee analysis to remain whole. Cash Flow Analysis It is important for the City to assess revenues that would be generated by the full cost recovery impact fees as presented in this study, prior to further consideration by the Advisory Committee. Figure 20 below displays the impact fee cash flow from 2013 to 2023 using the fees calculated by the CIP methodology. Figure 20. Projected Cash Flows-CIP Methodology Projected New Residential Units 817 Projected New Nonresidential Square Feet 330,344 Cumulative Cash Flow $1,800,781 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting. 4,083 8,165 1,651,722 3,303,444 $9,003,904 $18,007,808 BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 25 If impact fees were adopted at the full cost recovery amounts, the City would collect nearly $18 million in impact fee revenues from 2013 through 2023. This amount is mathematically designed to finance the entire growth-related portion of Meridian's CIP. Other Funding Sources Impact fees are just one of several funding sources for capital improvements. No one source is likely to fund all of the identified public facility needs. The City must be committed to addressing and alleviating deficiencies in service levels and addressing the expansion of service levels through exploration in connection with the following, without limitation, possible funding sources: ^ General Fund: The City's General Fund takes in revenues and makes expenditures for the ongoing operation of City functions. ^ General Obligation Bonds: With these bonds, the City borrows money for public facility development to be repaid with funds generated by an increase in property taxes. These voter-approved (two-thirds of all voters required) bonds establish an increase in property taxes for a period of time (typically 20 - 30 years) necessary to repay the bonds. The money raised can only be used for capital improvements and cannot be used for maintenance. ^ Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds may be issued based on leasehold values of land, facilities and operating entities that create a specific cash flow used to repay the bonds. Voter approval is required. ^ Certificates of Participation: With this option, the City would sell COPS to a lending institution in return for a loan used to make improvements in connection with a public facility. The lender would securitize the loan by taking title to the facility prior to the repayment of the COPS. The loan is repaid from revenue generated by the facility or from the City's general operating budget. This option is subject to judicial approval. ^ Grants: Grants are available from a variety of sources, including private foundations and government resources. ^ Joint Public/Private Partnership: This approach to funding would entail the City entering into a working agreement with aquasi-public or private entity to help fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 26 Implementation Recommendations As the City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Improvement Plans and impact fees, we also offer the following information for your consideration. Please note that this information will be included in the City's impact fee enabling ordinance (Appendix B). Capital Improvements Plan. Should the Advisory Committee recommend this study to the City Council and should the City Council adopt the study, the Finance Department should revise the City's existing Capital Improvement Plans using the information in this study. The existing City Capital Improvement Plans for these departments is attached to the study as Appendix H. A revised capital improvement plan would then be presented to the City for adoption as an element of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the procedures of the Local Land Use Planning ACt.33 Impact Fee Ordinance. Following adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City should review the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance (Appendix B) for adoption as reviewed and recommended by the Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee is in a unique position to work with and advise several departments and the City Council to ensure that the capital improvement plans and impact fees are routinely reviewed and modified as appropriate. Impact fee service area. Some municipalities have fee differentials for various city zones under the assumption that some areas utilize more or less current and future capital improvements. The study team, however, does not recommend the City assess different fees by dividing the City into zones. Police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements inherently serve asystem-wide function. If, for example, a serious accident occurs in one part of the City, the fire department may call on engines and equipment from other stations to assist. Therefore, it is more appropriate not to differentiate fees based on City zones. In practice, all areas of the City have an equal demand on the infrastructure because the parks, fire, and police department function most efficiently on asystem-wide basis. Donations. If the City receives donations for capital improvements listed on the CIP, the City must account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for anon- or partially growth-related improvement, the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is for agrowth-related project in the CIP, the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Grants. If a grant is expected and regular, the grant amount should be reflected upfront in the fee calculations, meaning that the impact fees will be lower in anticipation of the contribution. If the grant is speculative or uncertain, this should not be reflected up-Front in the fee calculations since the City cannot count on those dollars as it undergoes capital planning. 33 See Sections 67-8Z03(4) and 67-SZO8(1). BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 27 The rational nexus is still maintained because the unexpected higher fund balance, due to the receipt of a grant, is deducted from the calculations as a "down payment on the CIP" when the fee study is updated. Credit/reimbursement. If adeveloper constructs or contributes all or part of agrowth- relatedproject that would otherwise be Financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category or, at the developer's choice, be reimbursed from impact fees collected in the future.3'~ This prevents "double dipping' by the City. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they made the City aware of the construction or contribution. If credit or reimbursement is due, the City must enter into an agreement with the fee payer that specifies the amount of the creditor the amount, time and form of reimbursement.ss City participation. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City of Meridian may choose not to adopt the CIPs as stated in this report, in which case the City will need to prepare revised capital improvement plans for review and adoption. Impact fee accounting. The City should continue to maintain an Impact Fee Fund (already established for the existing parks and recreation fees) separate and apart from the General Fund. All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital improvements. The City's General Fund should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest earnings, and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital improvements not related to growth. Spending policy. The City should establish and adhere to a written policy governing its expenditure of monies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for City operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth. In cases when growth-related capital improvements are constructed, impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capita] improvements are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve newgrowth, cost sharing between the General Fund and Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures. The City is expected to grow very rapidly over the 10-year span of the CIPs. Therefore, the fees calculated in this study should be updated annually as the City invests in additional infrastructure beyond what is listed in this report, and/or as the City's projected development changes significantly. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. sa See Section 67-8209(3), Idaho Code. 3s See Section 67-8209(4), Idaho Code. BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 28 Summary Using the CIP methodology, the state mandated approach, BBC calculated the total (i.e., police, fire, and parks and recreation) full cost recovery impact fee for residential units at $2,016 and $0.47 per nonresidential square feet as seen in Figure 21 below. This full cost recovery fee is being presented to the Advisory Committee for its review and consideration in light of statutorily identified factors. Figure 21. Summary of Impact Fees Source: B8C Research & Consulting. Police fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $223 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.12 Fire Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $681 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.35 Parks & Recreation Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $1,113 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A Tota I Fees Residential (per dwelling unit) $2,016 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.47 It is the study team's assessment that the City could reasonably charge impact fees of any amount up to the $2,016 per residential unit and $0.47 per nonresidential square foot. This amount is sufficient to pay for the growth-related portions of Meridian's Capital Improvement Plans. Summary of City participation. Figure 22 summarizes the total amount the City is required to contribute and the amount the City could contribute discretionarily over the next 10 years to police, fire, and parks and recreation capital improvements. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 29 Figure 22 City Participation Summary, 2013 to 2023 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research & Consulting Discretionary Amount (Purely Non-Growth Improvements) Police $3, 000,000 Fire $8, 343,000 Parks & Recreation $19,112,000 Total $30,455,000 Required Amount (Partially Non-Growth Improvements) Police $5,827,516 Fire $0 Parks & Recreation $4,572,658 Total $10,400,174 The total amount the City would need to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt fees at the full cost recovery amount, will be approximately $40.9 million. The required $10.4 million reflects the non-growth-related portion of impact fee eligible improvements. The amount attributable to capital improvements defined as purely non-growth equals nearly $30.5 million; the City can choose not to fund this total amount, however, service levels could decrease. If the City plans to fund all repair, replacement or upgrade capital improvements in addition to the required amount, the City will need approximately $40.9 million over the next 10 years. This equates to approximately $3.7 million per year that the City will have to finance by drawing from the General Fund, donations or other revenue sources. However, fairness and maintaining the integrity of the impact fee system require the City to fund nearly $1 million per year in non- growth-related capital improvements that are impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH gc CONSULTING FINAL REPORT. PAGE 30 Appendix A. Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fee Ordinances IDAHO TITLE 67 STATE GOVERNMENT AND STATE AFFAIRS CHAPTER 82 Minimum Standards and Requirements for Development Impact Fees Ordinances 67-8204. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCES. Governmental entities which comply with the requirements of this chapter may impose by ordinance development impact fees as a condition of development approval on all developments. (1) A development impact fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements determined in accordance with section 67-8207, Idaho Code. Development impact fees shall be based on actual system improvement costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. (2) A development impact fee shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities adopted in the development impact fee ordinance of the governmental entity that are applicable to existing development as well as new growth and development. The construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing public facilities for which a development impact fee is imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new development. (3) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify the point in the development process at which the development impact fee shall be collected. The development impact fee maybe collected no earlier than the commencement of construction of the development, or the issuance of a building permit or a manufactured home installation permit, or as may be agreed by the developer and the governmental entity. (4) A development impact fee ordinance shall be adopted in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 67-8206, Idaho Code. (5) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process whereby the governmental agency shall allow the developer, upon request by the developer, to provide a written individual assessment of the proportionate share of development impact fees under the guidelines established by this chapter which shall be set forth in the ordinance. The individual assessment process shall permit consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the developer to adjust the amount of the fee. The decision by the governmental agency on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee, including an explanation of BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 1 factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code, and shall specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (6) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide a process whereby a developer shall receive, upon request, a written certification of the development impact fee schedule or individual assessment for a particular project, which shall establish the development impact fee so long as there is no material change to the particular project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the impact fee schedule. The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee including an explanation of factors considered under section 67-8207, Idaho Code. The certification shall also specify the system improvement(s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used. (7) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision for credits in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8209, Idaho Code. (8) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a provision prohibiting the expenditure of development impact fees except in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8210, Idaho Code. (9) A development impact fee ordinance may provide for the imposition of a development impact fee for system improvement costs incurred subsequent to adoption of the ordinance to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the system improvements. (10) A development impact fee ordinance may exempt all or part of a particular development project from development impact fees provided that such project is determined to create affordable housing, provided that the public policy which supports the exemption is contained in the governmental entity's comprehensive plan and provided that the exempt development's proportionate share of system improvements is funded through a revenue source other than development impact fees. (11) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide that development impact fees shall only be spent for the category of system improvements for which the fees were collected and either within or for the benefit of the service area in which the project is located. (12) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for a refund of development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8211, Idaho Code. (13) A development impact fee ordinance shall establish for a procedure for timely processing of applications for determination by the governmental entity regarding development impact fees applicable to a project, individual assessment of development impact fees, credits or reimbursements to be allowed or paid under section 67-8209, Idaho Code, and extraordinary impact. (14) A development impact fee ordinance shall specify when an application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted to be made by a BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 2 developer or fee payer. An application for an individual assessment of development impact fees shall be permitted sufficiently in advance of the time that the developer or fee payer may seek a building permit or related permits so that the issuance of a building permit or related permits will not be delayed. (15) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for appeals regarding development impact fees in accordance with the requirements of section 67-8212, Idaho Code. (16) A development impact fee ordinance must provide a detailed description of the methodology by which costs per service unit are determined. The development impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in section 67-8208(1)(f), Idaho Code, by the total number of projected service units described in section 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code. If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the projected new service units described in section 67-8208(1)(g), Idaho Code, by the total projected new service units described in that section. (17) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for various land uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to pay a project's proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development project's proportionate share of system improvement costs, except as provided in section 67-8214(3), Idaho Code. (18) After payment of the development impact fees or execution of an agreement for payment of development impact fees, additional development impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes. In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the additional development impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units or change in scope of the development. (19) No system for the calculation of development impact fees shall be adopted which subjects any development to double payment of impact fees. (ZO) A development impact fee ordinance shall exempt from development impact fees the following activities: (a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of its destruction; BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 3 (b) Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units; (c) Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on the same lot, provided that the number of service units does not increase; (d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; (e) Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of service units; and (f) Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements. (21) A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records, either: (a) That a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of the development impact fee ordinance; or (b) That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the installation of a modular building, manufactured home or recreational vehicle on that same lot or space. (22) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a process for dealing with a project which has extraordinary impacts. (23) A development impact fee ordinance shall provide for the calculation of a development impact fee in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A development impact fee shall not be deemed invalid because payment of the fee may result in an incidental benefit to owners or developers within the service area other than the person paying the fee. (24) A development impact fee ordinance shall include a description of acceptable levels of service for system improvements. (25) Any provision of a development impact fee ordinance that is inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter shall be null and void and that provision shall have no legal effect. A partial invalidity of a development impact fee ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance that are consistent with the requirements of this chapter. BBC RESEARCH Se CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 4 Appendix B. Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance City of Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Attached is the Impact Fee Ordinance Revision. The ordinance in its entirety can be found at the following link: htt~//www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book id=306&chapter id=6495 BBC RESEARCH Sc CONSULTING APPENDIX B, PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, HOAGLUN, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 12, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE; TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICE, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code, the City of Meridian ("the City") may impose Impact Fees to fund expenditures by the City Police Department, the City Fire Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department on Capital Improvements needed to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the City retained BBC Research and Consulting ("Consultant") to analyze and assess new growth and development projections for the period 2013 to 2023 in order to determine the demand for police, fire, and parks and recreation Capital hmprovements to accommodate new growth and development in the City and the City's area of city impact; and WHEREAS, the City of Meridian Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plan, prepared by BBC Research and Consulting, dated November 20, 2013 (the "Impact Fee Study"), sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determining and quantifying the impacts of various types of new residential and nonresidential Development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities; quantifies the reasonable impact of new growth and development on the System Improvements addressed therein; determines the costs necessary to meet demands created by new growth and development; and determines Impact Fees as set forth in this Chapter that are at a level no greater than necessary to defray the cost of planned Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of the City's existing police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. The City hereby establishes as the City standards the assumptions and Level of Service standards referenced in the Impact Fee Study as part of the City's current plans for future expansions to the police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities. WHEREAS, based on reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of new growth and development on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities, the Impact Fee Study quantifies the impacts of new growth and development on Public Facilities, and establishes Impact Fees on new growth and development no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements that will increase the service capacity of Public Facilities to serve new growth and development. WHEREAS, in preparing the Impact Fee Study, Consultant reviewed and has relied upon the City's ten (10) year Capital Improvements Plans adopted by the City, and has reviewed and analyzed what elements of new growth and development are or would generate demand for additional police, fire. and parks and recreation Capital Improvements addressed therein; and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page I of 5 WHEREAS, all of Capital Improvements planned for and included in the Impact Fee Study, which are to be funded by police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees are directly related to services that the City is authorized to provide, and are services required by the general policies of the City pursuant to resolution, code or ordinance; and WHEREAS, an equitable program for planning and financing Capital Improvements to increase the service capacity of Public Facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City and City's area of City impact. Such protection requires that the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities be expanded to accommodate new growth and development within the City, and the City's area of city impact. WHEREAS, the "maximum allowable fee" is also referred to as the "full cost recovery fee" under the methodology set forth in the Impact Fee Study. If the adopted fee is less than the maximum allowable fee, the impact fee eligible portions of adopted Capital Improvement Plan will not be fully funded unless general fund revenue or other income sources are used to fund the difference between the maximum allowable fee and the adopted fee; and WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee met on November 20, 2013 and passed a motion to approve the Impact Fee Study and Capital Improvements Plans and recommend that the City Council hold the required public hearing on the Capital Improvements Plans and the updated Impact Fees and WHEREAS, after due and timely notice, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss. review and hear public comments on the proposed Capital Improvements Plans and the revised Impact Fee as recommended by the Development Impact Fee Committee; and WHEREAS, based upon the Impact Fee Study, the testimony at a public hearing and a review of all of the facts and circumstances, in the reasonable judgment of the City Council, the police, fire, and parks and recreation Impact Fees hereby established are at levels no greater than necessary to defray the cost of Capital Improvements directly related to the categories of residential and nonresidential land Development listed herein; and WHEREAS, in adopting the police, tire, and parks and recreation Capital Improvements Impact Fees, the City Council intends and has determined that such Impact Fees are designed to and do address Capital Improvements needs that are brought about by new growth and development, which needs are separate and distinct from the impacts and needs addressed by other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances, and in no circumstance do the Impact Fees set forth herein address the same subjects as other requirements of the City's codes and ordinances for site specific dedications or improvements; and WHEREAS, the police, fire. and parks and recreation Impact Fees, as revised, to be imposed on new growth and development will be and are hereby legislatively adopted. will be generally applicable to a broad class of property and are intended to defray the projected impacts on such Capital Improvements caused by new growth and development as required by law; and IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted hereby shall be collected and accounted for in accordance with Section 67-8201, et seq., Idaho Code; and WHEREAS, the Impact Fees adopted by this Ordinance are fair and rational, charge new growth and development according to new growth and development's impact on the City's police, fire, and parks and recreation Public Facilities and benefit those who pay Impact Fees in a tangible way. BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council and that Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12 of the Meridian City Code is repealed and replaced as follows: 10-7-12: ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: A. As used in this chapter, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates; the word shall, will or must is always mandatory; the word may is permissive; and the word should indicates that which is recommended, but not required. B. Nothing in this chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development for which a lawful building permit was issued prior to the effective date hereof. C. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the city from requiring a developer to construct reasonable project improvements in conjunction with a project. D. Nothing in this chapter shall limit the ability of the city to enter into intergovernmental agreements as provided in section 67-8204A, Idaho Code. E. 1. The impact fees described in this chapter, and the administrative procedures of this chapter shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years to ensure that: a) the demand and cost assumptions and other assumptions underlying such impact fees are still valid; b) the resulting impact fees do not exceed the actual costs of providing police, fire. and/or parks and recreation system improvements required to serve new growth and development; c) the monies collected in any impact fee fund have been and are expected to be spent for system improvements of the type for which such impact fees were paid; and d) such system improvements will benefit those developments for which the impact fees were paid. 2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated, paid and accepted pursuant to an independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as follows effective the day of , 2014: IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 3 of 5 Police impact fee schedule: Residential per dwelling unit Nonresidential per square foot Fire impact fee schedule: Residential i per dwelling unit Nonresidential per square foot Parks impact fee schedule: Residential per dwelling unit Nonresidential n/a Total fees: Residential per dwelling unit Nonresidential per square foot F. Violation of this chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in this code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the city charged with the administration of this chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this chapter including, without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed development, shall be a violation of this chapter. G. The captions used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of any portion of the text of this chapter. H. If any paragraph, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason, held to be invalid, inconsistent with the provisions of the Idaho impact fee act, section 67-8201 et seq., Idaho Code, unconstitutional and/or unenforceable, such provisions IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 4 of 5 shall be deemed to be separate, distinct and independent and the remaining provisions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. I. This chapter shall be in full force and effect not less than thirty (30) days subsequent to this chapter's passage, approval, and publication, according to law, whereupon this chapter, existing on the date hereof, and all ordinances or parts of ordinances, codes or parts of codes, in conflict with the provisions of this chapter shall be repealed. Section 2: That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7 remain unchanged. Section 3: This Fee Schedule shall be in effect on the day of , 2014, which shall be no sooner than thirty (30) days after adoption and publication of this Ordinance. 2013. 2013. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of December, APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian. Idaho, this day of December, APPROVED: Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Page 5 of 5 Appendix C. Impact Fee Ordinance Checklist Idaho Impact Fee Act CIP Requirements See, Section 67-8208, Idaho Code Re uirement Re ort Section (a) A general description of all existing public facilities Exhibits 4, 6, and 8 (existing facilities) • and their existing deficiencies within the service area or areas of the governmental entity Also see Appendix D. • and a reasonable estimate of all costs and a plan to develop the funding resources related to curing the existing deficiencies o including, but not limited to, the upgrading, updating, improving, expanding or re lacin of such facilities to meet existin needs and usa e; (b) A commitment by the governmental entity to use other available sources of revenue to See "Other Funding Sources" cw-e existing system deficiencies where practical; page 29. (c) An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments fo-- usage of Requirement addressed in fee ordinance. capacity of existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional planner or by a qualified engineer licensed to perform engineering sewices in See fund balance discussion on this state; page 11. (d) A description of the land use assumptions by the government entity; See land use discussion on page 6 and 7. (e) Current Asset tables and • A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, supporting text: Exhibits 4, 6, and 8. generation or discharge of a sewice unit For each category of system improvements • and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to Also noted in Appendix D. various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial; See p. 5, Other fee calculation considerations. Re uirement Re ort Section (f) A description of all system improvements and their costs necessitated by and attributable Exhibits 5, 7, and 9 regarding Capital Improvements to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, to Plans. provide a level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact Fee ordinance; (g) The total number of service units necessitated by and attributable to new development See Exhibits 1 and 2. within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; (h) The projected demand for system improvements required by new service units projected See CIPs 2013-2023, Exhibits 5, 7, and 9. over a reasonable period of time not to exceed twenty (ZO) years; (i) Identification of all sow-ces and levels of funding available to the governmental entity for See "Other Fw~ding Sources" page 29. the financing of the system improvements; (j) If the proposed system improvements include the improvement of public Facilities under Meridian currently does not collect fees for the jurisdiction of the state of Idaho or another governmental entity, then an agreement development activity beyond its city limits. This updated between governmental entities shall specify the reasonable share of funding by each unit, study does not propose fee collection beyond city limits. provided the governmental entity authorized to impose development impact Fees shall not !f the city desires, it could obtain an IGA with Ada assume more than its reasonable share of funding joint improvements, nor shall the County to collect impact fees in the cow~ty (i.e., area of agreement permit expenditure of development impact fees by a govermnental entity which impact). is not authorized to impose development impact fees unless such expenditure is pursuant to a developer agreement under Section 67-8214, Idaho Code; and (k] A schedule setting forth estirnated dates for commencing and completing construction of See CIPs 2013-2023, Exhibits 5, 7, and 9. all improvements identified in the capital improvements plan. Appendix D. Current Service Standard Approach The Current Service Standard approach was used to calculate the City's current investment in capital infrastructure. This approach is only shown for comparison purposes and serves as a double check against the CIP approach in the main report. If the current investment in improvements were considerably lower than the calculated fees in the body of the main report, then the City would need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. If this were the case, it is likely projects were attributed to growth at an inaccurately high percentage, or, alternatively, some of the growth projects have elements of repair, replacement or upgrade that have not been identified. On the other hand, if the current investment in improvements were considerably higher than the fees calculated under the CIP approach, the City would also need to reassess the Capital Improvement Plans. In this case, it is likely the City would need more future improvements to maintain current levels of service, or the City did not allocate enough of the capital improvements to growth. The Current Service Standard methodology utilizes the current distribution of residential and nonresidential square footage in the City as a basis for allocating improvement costs. This conservative allocation is based upon the theory that current investment reflects the current level of service provided by the City, and this current level of service should be maintained in future growth. In order to evaluate the City's current capital improvements, BBC met with City staff to review the replacement costs and equity percentages (portion owned) of current capital improvements If the equity percentage for any project is less than 100 percent, this indicates that the project is debt financed and the loan has not yet been retired. For the portion of current improvements that is not yet owned in its entirety, taxes are used to pay the debt service payments. This prevents "double dipping" so that growth would not pay twice for improvements with taxes and impact fees. The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities to serve growth at existing service levels. The cost of the fee study is also eligible for inclusion into the calculation for all fee categories. All current capital improvement figures include 33 percent of the fee study cost since the total cost is shared between three impact fee categories (police, fire, and parks and recreation). Unspent impact fee funds are also considered a city asset and are included in the calculation. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 1 Figure 1 below presents the total replacement value of current police assets. The "Amount to Include in Fees" is derived from multiplying the "Replacement Value" times the "Equity Percentage" percentage. Figure 1. Current Police Assets, 2013 ,; '; . Police Station (1401 E. Watertower) $4,000,000 100 ~ $4,000,000 Command Vehicle 30,000 100 30,000 Police Communications Equipment (198 Radios) 990,000 100 990,000 K-9 Training Facility 400,000 100 400,000 K-9 Training Facility Land (2.5 Acres) 275,000 100 275,000 Crime Scene/ Evidence Van 40,000 100 40,000 Tota I $S, 735,000 $ 5,735,000 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study 57,38 100 % 57,33 Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $639,687 100 ~ $639,687 $6,382,021 $6,382,021 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research Sc Consulting. Figure 1 lists approximately $6.4 million in replacement costs for the City's police improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more. Under the Current Service Standard approach (not allowed as the fee calculation methodology in Idaho), this would all be impact fee eligible. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 2 Figure 2 presents the current capital improvements identified by City staff for the fire department. Figure 2. Current Fire Assets, 2013 Facilities Fire Station # 1 (540 E. Franklin Rd) $1,900,000 100 % $1,900,000 Fire Station # 3 (3545 N. Locust Grove) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Fire Station # 2 (2401 N. Ten Mile Rd) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Fire Station # 4 (2515 S. Eagle Rd) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Fire Station # 5 (N. Linder Rd) 1,600,000 100 1,600,000 Training Tower @ Station #1 1,449,725 100 1,449,725 Fire Safety Center (1901 Leighfield Dr) 167,000 100 167,000 Vehicles 1982 Pierce Engine (311) $520,000 100 % $520,000 1993 Pierce Engine (304) 520,000 100 520,000 2000 Pierce Engine (302) 520,000 100 520,000 2002 Pierce Engine (301) 520,000 100 520,000 2004 Pierce Engine (303) 520,000 100 520,000 2006 Pierce Engine (304) 520,000 100 520,000 2008 Pierce Engine (305) 520,000 100 520,000 2008 Pierce LADDER (T-31) 1,000,000 100 1,000,000 20001nternational Water Tender (320) 240,000 100 240,000 1996 Dodge Squad Vehicle (351) 85,000 100 85,000 2009 FORD F550 Brushpumper 85,000 100 85,000 1980 GMC Squad Vehicle (341) 85,000 100 85,000 Command Trailer 60,000 100 60,000 Equipment Opticom Traffic Signal Controls $200,000 100 % $200,000 17 Vehicle Radios 68,289 100 68,289 5 Base Station Radios 26,500 100 26,500 Tota I $15,406,s14 $15,406,s 14 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $861,861 100 % $861,861 Grand Total $16,275,709 $16,275,709 Note: (1) Equity percentage reflects debt service payments through August 2006. If the equity percentage is 100 percent, the City owns the capital improvement outright. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research ix Consulting. The City has approximately $16.3 million invested in fire improvement. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly all of the current investment would be impact fee eligible. BBC calculated the level of service for the fire department as a ratio between the amount of fire station square footage and the size of developed area within the city. This calculation, see figure 3, indicated that only 1.8 stations would be necessary to maintain the current service level. However, because fire stations are necessary to protect public safety, BBC rounded to the nearest whole fire station indicating that 2 stations would be necessary to maintain the level of BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 3 service. However, the CIP listed 4 stations, meaning by these calculations, 2 stations were not eligible for inclusion in the impact fees. Through discussions with the Fire Department and the Finance Department, BBC decided that it is more realistic that the City will actually need 3 new stations because fire service levels are dependent on station location and response times in addition to the number of stations. Therefore only one of the four stations was removed from the final fee calculation. See Figure 5 for calculation. Figure 3. Fire Department Level of Service Calculation Station Square Built Square Footage Built Square Foot Per Footage in Meridian Station Square Foot 2014 38,839 66,491,448 1,712 2023 69,047 85,574,343 1,239 Required to Maintain Increase in Constant Level: 49,985 Service 19,363 Sq. Ft. or 2.2 Stations (~) Note: (1) Based on an average station square footage of 8,631 Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research and Consulting BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 4 Figure 4 shows the City's current parks and recreation assets. Figure 4. Current Parks and Recreation Assets, 2013 Paths & Trails Five Mile Creek Path (2.12 Acres) $233,200 100 % $233,200 Kiwanis Park to Eagle Road (2 Acres) $220,000 100 220,000 Blackstone Pathway (1.50 Acres) $165,000 100 165,000 Sutherland Farm Pathway (1.1 Acres) $121,000 100 121,000 Fothergill Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 100 110,000 Locust Grove Pathway (1.0 Acre) $110,000 100 110,000 Bear Creek Pathway (.25 Acres) $27,500 100 27,500 Neighborhood & Mini-Parks Gordon Harris/Kiwanis Park (11.1 Acres) $1,964,700 100 % $1,964,700 Renaissance Park (6.5 Acres) $1,150,500 100 1,150,500 Season's Park (7.1 Acres) $1,256,700 100 1,256,700 Chateau Park (6.7 Acres) $1,185,900 100 1,185,900 8th Street Park (2.8 Acres) $495,600 100 495,600 Champion Park (6.0 Acres) $1,062,000 100 1,062,000 Centennial Park (0.4 Acres) $7,080 100 7,080 Generations Plaza (0.24 Acres) $42,480 100 42,480 Heritage MS Ball Fields (4 Acres) $708,000 0 0 Bark Park (.8 Acres) $141,600 100 141,600 Fire Station #4 Park (0.6) $106,200 100 106,200 City Hall Plaza (0.9) $159,300 100 159,300 Cox Monument (0.1 Acres) $17,700 100 17,700 William Watson (7 acres Land only)t 245,000 100 245,000 Community Parks Heroes Park (30.1 Acres) $5,327,700 100 % $5,327,700 Tully Park (18.5 Acres) $3,274,500 100 3,274,500 Bear Creek Park (18.8 Acres) $3,327,600 100 3,327,600 Storey Park (19.0 Acres) $2,653,000 100 2,653,000 Borup Park (47 acres Land Only)t 8,319,000 100 8,319,000 Urban Parks Meridian Settler's Park Developed (56 Acres) $9,912,000 100 % $9,912,000 Kleiner Park (60 Acres) $10,620,000 100 10,620,000 Meridian Community Center 64,350 100 64,350 Total $53,027,610 $52,319,610 Fee Related Research Impact Fee Study $7,333 100 % $7,333 Impact Fee Fund Balance FY 2013 Beginning Fund Balance $3,378,970 100 % $3,378,970 Grand Total $56,413,913 $55,705,913 Note: f acres not included In the level of service calculation because i[ is not developed and in use. $177,000/acre in land and development costs. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research Sc Consulting. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE S The City's replacement cost for the current parks and recreation improvements totals approximately $56 million. Under the Current Service Standard approach, nearly the entire current amount of investment would be impact fee eligible. The cost per acre ($177,000) reflects an estimated average dollar amount. Therefore, because this cost is an average, it considers land priced higher than $177,000 per acre due to prime geographic locations as well as land that costs considerably less due to geographic hindrances and less desirable locations. This value includes $142,000 per acre for development costs and $35,000 per acre for land. It was calculated by taking the weighted average costs of four, existing or planned parks. It includes sample parks from community, and neighborhood park categories. See Figure 5 for calculation. Figure 5. Park Valuation _ Calculation Settler's 56.1 $8,719,223 $1,146,069 $9,865,292 Gordon Harris 11.1 1,054,221 550,308 1,604,529 source: Renaissance Park 6.5 495,482 913,942 1,409,424 City of Meridian BBC Research & Borup (Planned) 30.0 4,470,000 N/A Consulting Total 103.8 $14,738,926 $2,610,319 $12,879,245 Average Per Acre Cost (Weighted) $142,022 $35,380 $177,402 The level of service for parks was calculated by estimating how many acres of parks would be necessary to maintain the current ratio of 3.04 acres per 1,000 population (246 acres for 81,000 people). In order to maintain this level of service, 315 acres would be necessary or 70 additional acres. However the CIP lists an additional 160 acres of developed parkland. Therefore, This is an increase in the service level by 90 acres, valued at $16,000,000 (90 X $177,000). Figure 6. Parks and Recreation level of Service Year Acres Population (1,000) Acres per Population Calculation 2014 246 81 3.04 2023 406 104 3.91 cres equire o source: Maintain Constant City of Meridian BBC Research ~ LOS: 315 Increased LOS: 90 acres Consulting Figure 7 displays the Ciry's current distribution of square footage between residential and nonresidential land uses, based on the demographic figures in the main report. The distribution is used to appropriately allocate improvement costs (and thereafter impact fees) to the various land uses. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 6 Figure 7. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013 Note: Residential 56 525 614 85 (1) May not total due to rounding. , , Single Family 53,150,096 80 source: Multifamily 3,375,518 5 Nonresidential 9 965 834 15 City of Meridian, Colliers Mternotionol Boise and Sun Nampn ,Year-End , , Real Estate Moricet Review, 2072 and BBC Research St Consulting. TOtaI il) 66,491,448 100 % Currently, 85 percent of total square footage in Meridian is comprised of residential development and the balance (15 percent) is nonresidential development. Impact fee calculation. Figures 8 through 10 present the impact fee calculation based on the improvement costs in Figures 1, 2, and 4. Fees are calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of service costs by total residential units and nonresidential square feet. Again, since Idaho law mandates the use of the Capital Improvement Plan approach, fees calculated under the Current Service Standard approach serve only as a conservative double-check to validate the fee levels calculated under the CIP approach. Figure 8. Calculation of Police Impact Fees Note: (1) See Figure 3. Current Police Assets. (2) See Figure 9. Distribution of Land Uses, 2013. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team. Current Value for Police Infrastructure (''~ Current Land Use Percentage 12i Residential Nonresidential Costs by Land Use Category Residential Nonresidential Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) Nonresidential (in square feet) Impact Fees by Land Use (rounded) Residential (per dwelling unit) Nonresidential (per square foot) $6,382,021 85 15 $5,424,718 $957,303 27,144 9,965,834 Under the Current Service Standard approach, the City has a current investment in police improvements of $200 per residential unit and $0.10 per nonresidential square foot. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 7 Figure 9 below calculates the current investment in fire improvements under the Current Service Standard approach. Figure 9. Calculation of Fire Impact Fees Note: (1) See Figure 4. Current Fire Assets. (2) See Figure 9. Distribution of Land Uses,2013. Source: City of Meridian and Impact Fee Study Team Current Value for Fire Infrastructure Ill $16,275,709 Current Land Use PercentagelZl Residential 85 Nonresidential 15 Costs by Land Use Category Residential $13,834,352 Nonresidential $2,441,356 Current Land Use Residential (in dwelling units) 27,144 Nonresidential (in square feet) 9,965,834 Impact Fees by Land Use Residential (per dwelling unit) $510 Nonresidential (per square foot) $0.24 As of 2013, the City has $510 per residential unit and $0.24 per nonresidential square foot invested in fire improvements. Figure 10 below displays the current parks and recreation investment per residential unit. Parks and recreation investment is only allocated to residential development since households are the primary consumers of park services. Figure 10. Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Note: (1) See Figure 6. Current Parks and Recreation Assets. Source: City of Meridian and BBC Research ~ Consulting Current Value for Parks & Recreation Ili $55,705,913 Current Land Use Percentage Residential 100% Nonresidential Oho Allocated Value by Land Use Category Residential $55,705,913 Nonresidential $0 Current Land Use Residential (total dwelling units) 27,144 Nonresidential (in square feet) N/A Impact Fee by Land Use (rounded) Residential {per dwelling unit) $2,052 Nonresidential (per square foot) N/A The City's current investment in parks and recreation improvement is $2,052 per residential unit. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX D, PAGE 8 Appendix E. Detailed Demographic Analysis The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act defines "Land Use Assumptions" as a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 20-year period. The 2013 and 2023 current and forecasted residential land uses for the City of Meridian are based on COMPASS' demographic area as calculated in the COMPASS document; Communities (n Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas, updated in October 2012. The basis for the City's nonresidential square footage was Colliers' International Boise and Nampa, Year-End Rea(Estate Market Review, 2012. This report is located in Appendix G. This appendix details the calculations and assumptions used to arrive at current and future residential units and current and future nonresidential square footage. This appendix should be read in conjunction with the main report text, which summarizes the study team's approach to the demographic data analysis. Residential Data COMPASS produces two types of demographic estimates/forecasts: Trend Forecasts and the Community Choices Forecast. COMPASS explains that "the goal of [the Trend] forecast was to allocate future growth based on prevailing residential patterns and densities...Since Trend is based on current development (everything built to date) and on-going development (approved and preliminary development proposals), Trend will be adjusted each year to reflect changing pattern." ~ The second forecast, the Community Choices Forecast, "does not reflect the way the region has been growing, instead it incorporates a vision for how we would like to grow."' In other words, this forecast allows for changes in the Trend forecast reflecting the way in which the community desires to grow. This forecast takes into account denser growth within existing areas of impact, higher density development around transit corridors, and open space between communities. The study team has chosen to use the Community Choices Forecast data because we believe it provides a more accurate vision of the future and it has been adopted by COMPASS as the preferred growth forecast used in the regional long-range transportation plan. The COMPASS document is entitled Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas, last updated in October 2012. t Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), Frequently Asked Questions about COMPASS Forecasts. 2 Ibid. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 1 The document cited on the previous page provides detailed data on population, households and jobs by three Meridian-specific sub areas (North Meridian, Central Meridian and South Meridian). Current and future households. As stated in the main report text, to estimate the current and future number of households in the City, the study team used household estimates from the aforementioned COMPASS document. Based on previous input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee, the study team has chosen to use COMPASS' data (demographic area) as a reasonable proxy for the area of impact. The maps on the following pages portray the current City limits and COMPASS' demographic areas. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 2 J Cite of ~icridian 'o..n Future Land Use Map .v.c. Legend ~ , es<sc~ -- -~ • sxs ¢ Tr3nnn Sratnrt ~ ±~j FULr6 F2C]iri66 ~~ T.n~ M~ liilerclwbe. SNer~fn: ...... Fr~heN WuM.ap F W WC IniCMYUn9c - -f ~..~ Fryve O~erpazs EritryNa7 CO(!ld'X EN36^G lV~tn-war -__ __ .1 ~~(F IDI~ IAN,.- ~J C Nora3.~~.......... ~~....re..nr.u... r, Fulurc Land Uscs Cit}~ idc Tcn Milc lntcrchangc Spccitic Arca ...+~.. F~t.~lc Rp-ACeo~i II I_ ~.< pox ynsrt: 2?s4n.e Nn. Viers:-). ert.E'r~mun: _cn _ar.Sry ROSba~¢!J~C-vrn M~._m V 6EM~'..a _ Y6M1 51cEi_~DCS.91y RL SOOnLY Rli.~Ux 'JCq'%~M~OE Mot NV~"Oa~`i R~.ECn:~~ Mace Emp~l~m¢:l Sin. HeJi nnwtr Rr_,. sa.+.a AWG Ux Ganmuvh _ _ lfrp+PenxtY lZNWrfttd M~eO Ux Rq~slrel N=_^'~e~-sry Resitlerrial - M.an: iiv rv~e.Rr_a>naM Rp-a ~ Eav»rr~t Muetl Use CmnYacial _ ~ rrrrpr~: ~ I Mrd lKe Re~w~ Crvr i Lint1Y~ C. xr u t.Fxaa use . tmxu+arge ~ ~xac+ S~ePM yarn . ncusne ~ tAV Oercfy Empvyirscnt Adopted March 5. 2013 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 3 Ada (~rn~nty BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 4 The data below reflect the COMPASS-defined demographic areas in the report Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas. These data were the basis for current and future residential estimates/forecasts. Z 1 E imat s 2 1 mmuni h i 2 2 mmunit h i 2 2 mmu ni h i Demo ra hic Area Po ulation Household lobs` Po ulation Households lobs' Po ulation Household lobs" Po ulation Households Jobs" Air art 890 35] 10,080 907 358 11,537 889 363 13,181 910 371 15,359 Boise Foothills 9,362 3.331 3,465 10,024 4,035 3,496 10,416 4,258 3,530 10,787 4,410 3,575 Boise Northwest 14,259 6,198 3,487 14,661 6,366 3,767 15,010 6,590 4,079 16,499 7232 4500 Central Bench 38,374 17,017 21,120 39,692 ]7,150 22,592 39,147 17,336 24,250 42,061 18,718 26,442 Downrown 3,406 2,21 30,278 3,942 2,271 33,18] 3,922 2,273 36,473 4,349 2,542 40,810 East End 6,785 3,196 3,215 7,075 3,233 3,315 7,009 3,287 3,428 7,147 3,347 3,577 North End 17,576 8,273 3,357 17,702 8,332 3,60 17,429 8,395 3,889 18,192 8,758 4,260 Southeast-ea rber Valle 1,662 637 489 2,491 992 522 3,417 1,390 560 3,906 1,592 610 Southeast 8nise 33.315 14,708 19,590 35037 15,008 21,181 35,200 15,367 22,980 36,817 1.6.112 253:9 1~ ~ ..aue 40,683 1953 13993 43098 14,819 14.648 45 ]Ot 15,g6] 15383 43311 ]7.L2n L6359 69072 elr gn394 .7935 37,066 11..348 I0.41~ - 580 J-1,SJ3 ~a 97T '4198 a -~1~~`~ Boise total 235,38 96,905 149,468 245.565 99.630 160.195 247,957 102,800 172,296 264,019 109,709 188,316 Ea le Total 21299 7,582 5136 23,918 8,510 6,272 27,428 9,852 7,546 30,740 11000 9,232 Garden Cit Total 1 OS 4923 7033 1 315 5036 772 11445 5242 8 1263 5793 9509 Kuna Total 17,850 5,657 2135 20311 6,419 3,282 22,397 7,515 4,595 29192 9,489 6,329 Star Total 6222 209 496 7 46 253 750 9,58 32 1036 1213 4147 411 Censer R~leridiar+ 409]4 14,920 16,924 4,260 1.517 19433 44.183 1459 ?2,007 47,937 77,953 25,439 North Mehdian 3G 319 7940 2,352 37,795 7,856 3,137 40,673 12,590 3732 44,149 13673 4,527 South Mer idian 14,957 4,915 4,097 18,888 6,148 4,727 23,845 7,892 5,419 26,514 8,786 6,353 MeridianT --~ $ ~ 3631 Blocks Creek RU rat 15 180 3,059 5 1,007 3,058 5 1,009 3,058 5 1,011 Call foothills Rural 393 141 58 431 155 176 488 181 178 920 349 261 Northwest Rural Ada 3,978 1,299 302 5,985 2,016 400 9,438 3,252 507 10,912 3,804 651 Southeast Rural 1,190 375 131 1,242 392 161 1,311 421 195 2,29 744 239 West Foothills 177 72 47 249 99 73 367 146 702 421 167 141 Southeast Rural 946 296 252 1,035 324 254 1,101 360 256 1,166 380 258 fen Mile Creek Rural 1,410 497 1,67-0 3,563 508 807 3,533 520 870 3,572 535 837 West Faothil is ],320 445 116 1,403 472 277 1466 513 456 4,563 1,598 694 Ada Rural Total 9 429 313 2 70 16,967 3,97 3 5 20 762 5398 3,523 26,90 7,582 4,092 A un T I 4 1 1 2 27 41 11 1 7 7 2 11 271 171 22 42 4 4221 1 1 2 2 2 Central Caldwell 9,934 3,670 2,384 10662 3,744 2,482 10,819 3,867 2,589 11,597 4,155 2,732 Downlo wrr Caldwell 3,800 1,366 4,126 4,752 1,433 4,401 4,586 1,460 4.711 5,121 1,670 5,173 Northeast Caldwell 16,082 5,131 2,917 19,622 6,332 4,856 25,201 8,459 7,040 28,683 9,648 9,934 South Caldwell 14,249 4,407 1,694 17,021 5,384 1,962 21,777 7,161 2.753 26,314 8,712 2,649 West Caldwell 6,417 2352 2,069 6,875 2,485 2,181 7,426 2,724 2304 7,916 2,901 2,472 Caldwell Total 50482 16 92 13 19 58,932 19 378 15 2 69 809 23,67 ]8 902 79 63 27086 22 910 Downtown Nam a 5,027 2,039 3,094 5,063 2,053 3731 4,865 2,063 4,449 5,7)0 2,444 5,403 East Narn a 16,077 5,415 5,687 16,493 5.554 6,676 16,481 5,758 7.409 18,878 6,623 8379 North Nam a 9,562 3,162 7,013 12,062 3,813 8584 14,854 4,808 10,858 17,843 5,826 13,095 Southeast Nam a 22,958 7,971 4,363 24,24? 3,183 4.601 24,872 8,560 4,867 26.109 8,981 5,718 West Nam a 36,736 12,763 8,77 ?9./17 ]3,627 9,262 43,072 14995 9,808 44,981 15657 10535 Nam a Total 90 3 3135 28 931 97 580 33 23 32 5 1041 36 37 39 113 537 39 3 a2 63 Middleton Total 7,22 242 865 7 836 2 62 9 B 5 2967 10 9,16 3 362 148 West RUral-Green leaf Total 1,119 395 79 1,137 401 88 1,134 407 99 1,511 538 115 South RUral-Melba Total 823 270 205 8 277 243 859 288 285 1,08 365 341 Northwest Rural-NOtus Total 7 265 131 808 273 1 816 285 2W O6 355 262 Northwest RU rat-Pa rma TO[al 2,295 81 638 2,382 84 686 2,500 897 741 3,126 125 810 west RUral-Wilder Total 715 525 235 806 55 285 1910 61 3 265 86 413 gar theist Rural total G.85G 2,386 806 7280 ~ 535 833 7905 "t 797 861 8,442 2_,991 907 r th~,+~es: Rural total 5.060 1.638 666 .226 1,695 715 5,376 1,793 1!1 5,570 1,860 844 South aural Total ]2,104 4,006 1,800 13407 4,447 1,856 15,264 5,177 1915 16,799 5,703 1,995 West Rural foal 7,386 2,579 2,636 7,854 2,732 2,687 8,442 2,990 2,746 8,881 3,144 2,823 ~~~~-I TOtaI 3 70 S~ 337 1 6 6 63 n n un T I 1 211 1 1 2 7 1 72 1 22 7 7 2 2 2 21 7 1 2 R i n IT I 7 2 211 24 24 22 2 42 74 7 24 1 74 2 2 COMPASS document: Communities in Motion 1090 Vision Forecasts by Demographic Areas . According to COMPASS' Community Choices report, the population in Meridian in 2010 was 82,250, households totaled 27,775 and there were 23,373 jobs in the demographic area. The data presented above are all 2010 numbers. Data are only provided for 5-year increments beginning in 2010. Therefore, the study team calculated the annual percent change between 2010 and 2015 to estimate residential data in 2013. The study team used the same approach to calculate data for 2023 (necessary for the Capital Improvement Plan approach).] s Annual percent change = ((In(new population)-ln(old population))/number of years. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE S The final table portrays how the study team arrived at 2013 and 2023 residential data. Residential Calculation for 2013 to 2023 Population 74,529 80,806 2.7% 85,438 98,498 103,739 1.7% 107,467 Households 25,168 27,144 2.6% 28,593 33,473 35,310 1.84 36,619 Jobs 21,179 23,213 3.1% 24,735 28,233 30,908 3.1% 32,905 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data and BBC Research Sc Consulting Twenty-year projection data. The table on the following page lists COMPASS' forecasts to 2030 for all the demographic areas in Ada and Canyon Counties. Twenty-year forecasts are necessary to include in this report to meet the requirements of the State Statutes. However, these data are not used in the calculation of impact fees, since the timeline of the CIP is only 10 years. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 6 2010 Estimates 2015 CommunitvC hoices 2020 CommunitvC hoices 2025 CommunitvCh oices 2030CommunituCh oices 2035CommunitvCho ices Demo ra hicArea Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs" Population Households lobs' Population Households lobs' Alr ort 890 351 10,080 907 358 11,537 889 363 13,181 910 371 15,359 936 381 17781 965 393 20400 Boise Foothills 9,362 3,881 3,465 10,024 4,035 3,496 10,416 4,258 3,530 10,787 4,410 3,575 11,093 4,533 3628 11451 4676 3683 Boise Northwest 14,259 6,198 3,487 14,661 6,366 3,767 15,010 6,590 4,079 16,499 7,232 4,500 18,422 8,065 4964 20915 9147 5466 CentralRench 38,374 17,017 21,120 39,692 17,150 22,592 39,147 17,336 24,250 42,061 18,718 26,442 46,308 20,742 28885 51947 23437 31516 Downtown 3,406 2,214 30,278 3,942 2,271 33,181 3,922 2,273 36,473 4,349 2,542 40,810 5,013 2,957 45650 5900 3515 50879 East End 6,185 3,196 3,215 7,075 3,233 3,315 7,009 3,287 3,428 7,147 3,347 3,577 7,253 3,398 3744 7376 3457 3923 North End 17,576 8,273 3,357 17,702 8,332 3,608 11,429 8,395 3,889 18,192 8,758 4,260 19,291 9,281 4661 20744 9976 5132 Southeast-Barber Valle 1,662 637 489 2,491 992 522 3,417 1,390 560 3,906 1,592 610 4,297 1,758 666 4803 1971 727 Southeast Boise 33,315 14,708 19,590 35,037 15,008 21,181 35,200 15,367 22,980 36,817 16,112 25,359 38,950 17,118 28003 41788 18456 30859 Southwest Boise 40,683 13,953 13,993 43,098 14,819 14,648 45,105 15,961 15,383 48,374 17,129 16,359 52,229 18,491 17453 57168 20236 18610 WestDench 69,072 26,477 40,394 70,936 27,066 42,348 ID,413 21,580 44,543 74,977 29,498 47,465 81,221 32,135 50725 89473 35627 54225 Boise Total 235,384 96,905 149,468 245,565 99,630 160,195 247,957 102,800 172,296 264,019 109,709 188,316 285,013 118,859 206,180 312,530 130,891 225,420 Eagle Total 21,299 7,582 5,136 23,918 8,510 6,212 27,428 9,852 7,546 30,740 11,000 9,232 34,136 12,195 11,103 38,269 13,658 13,126 Garden City Total 11,051 4,923 1,033 11,315 5,036 7,720 11,445 5,242 8,488 12,630 5,193 9,509 14,140 6,504 10,643 16,137 7,443 11,865 Kuna Total 1],850 5,657 2,115 20,311 6,419 3,282 22,397 7,515 4,595 29,192 9,489 6,329 35,961 12,147 8,264 46,079 15,618 10,361 StarTOtal 6,222 2,090 496 7,54fi 2,536 750 9,561 3,260 1,036 12,134 4,147 1,411 15,103 5,197 1,836 18,931 6,560 2,289 Center Meridian 0.0,974 14,920 16,924 4,260 1,551 19,A33 44,183 16,459 22,007 47,937 17,953 25,439 53,136 20,030 29,245 60,030 22,784 33,355 North Meridian 36,319 7,940 2,352 32,795 9,856 3,137 40,673 12,590 3,732 44,]49 13,673 4,522 47,071 14,581 5,402 50,707 15,705 6,345 SouthMeridlan 14,957 4,915 4,097 18,888 6,148 4,727 23,845 7,892 5,419 26,514 8,786 6,353 29,262 9,713 7385 32,833 10,917 8,501 Meridian Total ~ _ ~/77~ I 3. 31,.555 37,297 :,308,701 , 36,314 129,469 ~ I .143,570 . ~'; '_ Blacks Creek Rural 15 S 180 3,059 5 1,007 3,058 5 1,009 3,058 S 1,011 3,058 5 1,014 3,060 6 1,017 East foothills Rural 393 141 58 431 155 116 488 181 178 920 349 261 1560 598 355 2415 931 455 Northwest Rural Ada 3,978 1,299 302 5,985 2,016 400 9,438 3,252 507 10,912 3,804 651 12400 4380 811 14290 5113 986 Southeast Rural 1,190 375 131 1,242 392 161 1,311 421 195 2,294 744 239 3766 1227 286 5745 1876 336 WestFOOthills 177 72 47 249 99 73 367 146 102 421 167 141 424 169 185 434 173 231 Southeast Rural 946 296 252 1,035 324 254 1101 360 256 1,166 380 258 1169 381 261 1171 382 264 Ten Mlle Creek Rural 1,410 497 1,620 3,563 508 807 3,533 520 820 3,572 535 837 3614 550 856 3672 571 875 West Foothills 1,320 445 116 1,403 472 277 1,466 513 456 4,563 1,598 694 9308 3263 960 15681 5498 1245 Ada Rural Total 9,429 3,130 2,706 16,967 3,971 3,095 20,762 5,398 3,523 26,906 1,582 4,092 35,299 10,513 4,726 46,468 14,550 5,409 Ada Count Total 383 491 148 062 190 327 419 911 157 657 208 611 448 271 171008 228 642 494 221 188132 255 203 549 121 209 799 284 788 621990 238126 316 671 Central Caldwell 9,934 3,670 2,384 10,662 3,744 2,482 10,819 3,867 2,589 11597 4,155 2,732 12,653 4,547 2891 14,037 5,062 3,060 Downtown Caldwell 3,800 1,366 4,126 4,752 1,433 4,401 4,586 1,460 4,711 5,121 1,670 5,123 5,907 1,979 5,579 6,950 2,392 6,070 Northeast Caldwell 16,082 5,131 2,917 19,622 6,332 4,856 25,201 8,459 7,040 28,683 9,648 9,934 32,367 10,915 13,152 36,997 12,506 16,635 South Caldwell 14,249 4,407 1,694 17,021 5,384 1,962 21,777 7,161 2,258 26,314 8,712 2,649 31,703 10,572 3,060 38,573 12,953 3,543 West Caldwell 6,417 2,352 2,069 6,875 2,485 2,181 7,426 2,724 2,304 7,916 2,901 2,472 8,396 3,078 2,654 9,006 3,303 2,853 CaldwellTatal 50,482 16,926 13,190 58,932 19,378 15,882 69,809 23,671 18,902 79,631 27,086 22,910 91,026 31,091 27,356 105,563 36,216 32,161 Downtown Nam a 5,027 2,039 3,094 5,063 2,053 3,731 4,865 2,063 4,449 5,720 2,444 5,403 7,049 3,037 6,459 8,530 3,832 7,603 East Nam a 16,077 5,415 5,687 16,493 5,554 6,676 16,481 5,758 7,409 18,878 6,623 8,379 22,156 7,813 9,460 26,449 9,375 10,623 North Nampa 9,562 3,162 7,013 12,062 3,813 8,584 14,854 4,808 10,858 17,843 5,826 13,095 21,871 7,204 15,563 27,253 9,046 18,261 Southeast Nampa 22,958 7,971 4,363 24,243 8,183 4,601 24,872 8,560 4,867 26,109 8,981 5,218 27,674 9,521 5,610 29,681 10,215 6,035 WestNam a 36,736 12,763 8,774 J9, 719 17,627 9,262 43,072 14,995 9,808 44,987 15,657 10,535 46,453 16,188 11,345 48,171 16,820 12,216 Nampa Total 90,360 31,350 28,931 97,580 33,230 32,854 104,144 36,184 37,391 113,537 39,531 42,630 125,203 43,763 48,457 140,384 49,288 54,758 Middleton Total 7,227 2,427 865 7,836 2,628 934 8,544 2,947 1,029 9,767 3,362 1,148 10,915 3,751 1,284 12,277 4,212 1,430 West Rural-Greenleaf Total 1,119 395 79 1,137 401 88 1,134 407 99 1,511 538 115 2,086 737 133 2,860 1,005 151 South Rural-Melba Total 823 270 205 844 277 243 859 288 285 1,086 365 341 1,419 477 402 1,863 627 464 Northwest Rural-NotusTotal 184 265 131 808 213 168 816 285 Z09 1,061 355 262 1,421 456 322 1,893 588 386 Northwest Rural -Parma Total 2,295 814 638 2,382 844 686 2,500 897 741 3,126 1,125 810 3,984 1,440 890 5,113 1,854 974 West Rural - Wilder Total 1115 525 235 1,806 556 285 1,910 614 340 2,654 861 413 3 680 1,200 495 5 028 1645 581 Northeast Rural total 6,856 2,386 806 7,280 2,535 833 7,905 2,797 861 8,442 2,991 901 8,681 3,082 945 8,939 3,180 992 Northwest Rural Total 5,060 1,638 666 5,226 1,695 715 5,376 1,793 771 5,570 1,860 844 5,630 1,882 925 5,699 1,905 1,013 South Rural Total 12,104 4,006 1,800 13,402 4,442 1,856 15,264 5,177 1,915 16,799 5,703 1,995 18,173 6,175 2,085 19,591 6,765 2,182 West Rural Total 7,386 2,579 2,636 7,854 2,732 2,687 8,442 2,990 2,746 8,881 3,144 2,823 8,975 3,179 2,909 9,079 3,218 3,000 l Thal R r r ~ ~ ~ 09! ' ' ., . h~ 318 ~ ,, 7 u a , _ ! _ _ - _ _ l- i . , n n n T l 1 211 1 1 2 2 7 1 72 1 22 7 2 2 2 21 7 2 1 7 1 11 2 R i n l T I 2 4 2 22 4 2 4 7 74 24 2 74 2 27 14 7 2 7 7 4 2 414 7 COMPASS document: Communities in Motion 2040 Vision Forecasts 6y Oemographir Areas . In 2035, Meridian will have 143,570 persons, 49,460 households and 48,201 jabs. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 7 The table below presents the annual percent change between 2030 and 2035, which is used to estimate residential data in 2033. Residential Calculation for 2033 Population 129,469 137,667 2.1~° 143,570 Source: Hou52hOId5 44,324 47,274 2.2% 49,406 COMPASS Community Choices Forecast Jobs 42,032 45,581 2.7% 48,201 data and I mpact Fee Study Team. The demographic data in 2033 are as follows: 137,667 persons, 47,274 households and 45,581 jobs. Nonresidential Data Colliers' Idaho Boise and Nampa, Year-End Real Estate Market Review, 2012, was the basis for calculating current and future nonresidential square footage. The study team totaled the retail, office and industrial square footage to arrive at a base number of nonresidential square feet in Meridian. This base number was used to calculate the total current and projected square footage in the City. Current nonresidential development. As discussed in the main report text, Colliers report only tabulated buildings greater than 5,000 square feet. In order to adjust the square footage upwards to include smaller buildings, the study team calculated the percentage of new commercial units since 2009 that were less than 5,000 square feet in size. As of August 2013, on average, 4 percent of the City's newly permitted commercial units were less than 5,000 square feet. The following exhibit shows the City data that were used to quantify the proportion of units less than 5,000 square feet. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 8 BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 9 In the spreadsheet on the previous page, the method to calculate the percentage of units less than 5,000 square feet is as follows: 1) Calculate the average square footage of built units to determine if, in that particular month, the units built were, on average, 5,000 square feet or less. New SQF column/New Commercial column = Average SQF per Unit column 2) Use an Excel formula to quickly identify the months that "qualified" as having units with an average square footage of 5,000 or less. > 1= "yes" (the average of all units was 5,000 square feet or less); 0 = "no" (the average of all units was not less than 5,000 square feet). 3) Tabulate the total square footage of the "qualifying" months with unit averages of 5,000 square feet or less. Total square footage of "qualifying" months = 163,196 sq. ft. 4) Determine the proportion of total square footage that can be attributed to buildings that are 5,000 square feet or less. > 163,196 total square feet of "qualifying" months / 3,286,947 total square feet of all commercial buildings = 5 percent. Knowing that 5 percent of the City's new commercial square footage was less than 5,000 square feet, the study team deduced that Colliers tabulation thus represents 95 percent (100 percent -5 percent) of the actual nonresidential square feet in Meridian. The study team arrived at the final (2013) nonresidential square footage in Meridian by dividing Colliers number (9,471,529 square feet) by 95 percent. This method generates a total of 9,965,834 nonresidential square feet in 2013. Future nonresidential development. Based on the current nonresidential data, the study team developed a ratio of nonresidential square feet per employee. This ratio is used to project nonresidential square footage in 2023. Currently, there are 23,213 jobs in Meridian. According to the methodology described above, current nonresidential square feet total 9,965,834. Dividing the square footage by the number of jobs produces a ratio of 429 square feet per employee in 2013 (9,965,834/23,213). h This ratio of square footage per employee may change over time. The 4Z9 square feet per employee is the study team's best estimate given the available data. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 10 COMPASS' report also projects jobs in 2023. Therefore, assuming the ratio of square feet to workers remains consistent; the study team used this ratio to project nonresidential square footage forward. The estimated number of jobs in 2023 (30,905) is multiplied by the square footage per employee calculated on the previous page (429). This produces a total of 13,269,278 nonresidential square feet in 2023. See the spreadsheet below for details on the calculation of current and future nonresidential square footage. Current Square Footage Calculation Total SFT Total SFT per Colliers Report including units over (all buildings greater 5,000 SFT than 5,000 SFT) (see below for calculation) 9,471,529 9,965,834 Calculation of Total Current SFT 9,471,529 (Colliers) + x (SFT total of units less than 5,000) = y (total SFT) x = .0496 y (4.96 percent oftotal square footage is less than 5,000 -see City data spreadsheet) Substitute y for x 9,471,529 + ..0496 y = y 9,471,529 = y-.0496y 9,471,529 = .95y 9,471,529 /.95 = y Y= 9,965,834 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2012 and City of Meridian. 2013 Total Employment 2012 SFT 23,213 9,965,834 2023 SFT 2023 (2023EmploymentX Employment SFT per Employee) 30,908 13,269,278 SFT per Employee (2013 Employment/ 2012 SFT) 429 Source: COMPASS Community Choices Forecast data, Colliers Year End Real Estate Market Review, 2012, City of Meridian and BBC BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING APPENDIX E, PAGE 11 Appendix F. Colliers' Year-End Real Estate Market Review ~ i. ,~ . ,~ 1 '1 - :-~ .a .._ ° . ~~ :• . ^ d ./`' ` P~~~~ ~~ • -. _.. ~l ~' LANO i ~ t~l 55 ... ._ _ , Nampa ~-------• -----~ ©Idaho Center ,!y Downtown Nampa Q Karcher ©Northsidc ©South Nampa Contents Canyon County Submarkets J MARKET REVIEW Retail • MARKET REVIEW Industrial MARKET REV: ~';V Investment 8 1,1ARKE7 REVIEYJ l~Y MARKET REViEVl Land ~ P,taRKE7 REViCYJ ~~ COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS Retail COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS Industrial COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS [3015E 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 C301SE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, 10 83687 ,I : ~~~~2 I ; ~_-~,~-~r~ -- ~ - f _I ~----. - ~ ~ it--~~~` 1 ~ '~ a ~ I ~ I~ ~~ ~~ J ~1 ~ k~, I I~ Q ~ ~. I ~~~ -~ - ~ ~ ~ --II ~\ ~ --II ~~ _ ` J ` '~ I I~ ,, I t I J ~~ ~~ ~> I II L-------------II _~, 1 Y uownlown rsolse J Hirporl © Garden City Q Eagle ~ :,~, North End ©Central Bench 0 West Bench '~J Meridia ®Southeast ~ Northwest J Southwest Ada County Submarkets COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL IDAHO MANAGING OWNER GEORGE ILIFF george.iliff(dcolliers.cam 208.472.2858 For Questions or Additions! lnjormafion, Please Concoct: RESEARCH ANALYST LEVIJOHNSON levi.johnson2colliers.cam 208.472.2860 DIRECTOR OF MARKETING DAVE FERNANDEZ dave.fernandezCdcolliers.com 208.472.2868 Afl in/ormotion provided in this report is /ram sources we deemed reliable. Colliers Infernotianol makes no represenfntian or wnrronty as to ifs accuracy. /, ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved Overview The Treasure Valley office market improved during 2012, end- ing the year with a 15.4% overall vacancy rate, down from 17.2% twelve months ago. Leasing activity was slightly stronger in the second half of 2012 compared to the first half of the year. The Treasure Valley office market experienced 558,091 square feet of absorption in the second half of 2012, surpassing the 315,686 square feet absorbed during the first half of the year. The down- town periphery had the greatest absorption of any submarket in 2012, with 100,043 square feet of newly leased office space. All other submarkets in the trade area experienced positive absorp- tion with the exception of the southwest submarket. 2012 was a positive year for existing projects such as the 269,000 square foot 8th & Main building in Downtown Boise. Slated for completion in 2014, it is over 76% leased at the time of this publication. Speculative building is still not an op- tion for most developers. Banks remain cautious, requiring significant preleasing for office projects to break ground. Notable transactions from January -June, 2012 include: ~ Sorenson Communications - 25,643 square foot lease at Silverstone Corporate Center in Meridian. ~ CTA Architects - 21,000 square foot lease at 8th & Main in Downtown Boise. ~ Pinebridge 1 Building in Meridian - 26,037 square foot sale in the first half of 2012. Notable transactions from July -December 2012 include: 2 01 Lm of Available Office SF 6y Building Class &submarket ^ Boise State University - 8,852 square foot purchase in Bobo. ~ Berkley North Pacific - 18,000 square foot lease in the Water Tower Building in Meridian. ^ EPA - 9,800 square foot lease in the Banner Bank Building in Downtown Boise. 35oaoo BUILDING CLASS -35°~ 3aoooo J a - 30% ©c ~ _, 450000 t Vacancy -25% 23.0% 9~ 21.4% 16.4% 21.4% p 200000 19.ii16 -2U% N LL ^y d 7 `m ~ 15.2% K lc 150000 -15% '100000 9.6% ~ ~ -'ta°/a 48% 50000 ~ - ~ _ 5% 0 ^ ~ ~ 0°~ Central Downtown Downtown Eagle Meridian Southeast Southwest West Bench Bench Periphery BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, 10 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 -~o~ 2 Inventory & Vacancy Colliers International tracks approximately 18.2 million square feet of space in 893 office buildings 5,000 square feet or larger in fif- teen different submarkets throughout Ada and Canyon Counties. Vacancy continues to decrease slowly throughout the Treasure Valley. The Eagle & North End /Northwest /Garden City submar- kets posted the largest declines in vacancy from mid-year 2012, 10.2% and 5.1% respectively. Canyon County, Meridian and the Cen- tral Bench were the only submarkets in which vacancy increased, posting vacancy rate increases of 3.5%, .4% and 4.1% respectively. Asking Rates Overall asking rates declined slightly in 2012 to an average of $15.22 full service, down from $15.79 at the beginning of 2012. 20~--, Year=End Office Average Full Service Direct Asking Rates I L !5,000 sr•1 530.00 525.00 N 520.00 sn.45 st9.92 st6.% frr.% ~ 515.00 ~ su.a ~~ star 510.00 ~~`~ 55.00 50.00 0ac` c`a'c Qa`~ a~ Da ~~i `eay~ r~ay~ 0ac` Jc~~ ~c`~a Oo3 ° ~` kr fie` ~a`a¢c ~Or tio,` fey` c~o`o V c~o~ boy va a a\~. o''' ~c ?' 2 0 1 YY~-End Office Inventory by Submarket c5,ooo 25% n~ tsw ° 15"~~ 1496 G ~ ~ !196 1196 109< a~ 10°~0 . c d c 0% c v ac ~~ ~ ~i y y~ ~a .~ o vc •~a• ry eC JC ea ~ a40 V• 3c~ ~ e~ ~~Q ~ ~o ~'~ Jr ~ ac Oo ey ~' Qe `~a ec yo y° a~D ~ ~,c ac ~~ ~C~ `o V `a 3~y. ~~ O° a~2' ~c ?' z The most significant change in asking rates came from the Southwest, Southeast and Central Bench submarkets. These - finished the year with asking races of $14.35, $15.70 and $9.99 m respectively. Class "A" office products in Downtown Boise are experiencing lease rates very close to asking prices. ~,=; Outlook We expect continued improvement in the office market during 2013. As the market gains strength, rates will begin to increase. In our estimation there are fewer landlord conces- sions being made now as compared to a year ago. l l 1 Y ar-End Office Vacancy by Submarket 50% 38% ~ 26% a.a96 n:696 rzo96 '° tsrw >4~ 14% to % ~ ~~ ~ t 48% 2% c`' 'tc a`~ ~ ac V a~ m`' c~ c •10°1° 0a ~ . a ~a D ~ ra r ma oa ~ c c o c a~ '~ C',aD qo~ yc y~°y ~°c O Vm co ~~ ac 3 O \~'. 0 ca 2 Year.-End Ranked Office Absorption by Submarket 20~~ I L c5,000 sr•~ 165,000 135,000 ~ 105,000 ~ 75,000 a 45,000 "~ 15,000 T ~' -_ N~ ~~ a~= ~c 2' ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved L3~ Overview The Treasure Valley retail market picked up momentum in the second half of 2012, and is trending better than similar sized met- ropolitan areas across the West. The overall vacancy rate has dropped to 9.1%, down from 12.3% a year ago. This is due in large part to the increased absorption in the "B" and "C" locations, as well as these three key events: i~~ Local businesses have been adding back employees. ~~~ New-to-the-market retailers, either start-ups or fran- chisees are opening new stores. ~~ Chain retailers have adjusted to the shopping habit changes of their customers and are growing and morphing to meet their customer's needs. Rents are climbing, mainly on the "A" located centers. There remains a dichotomy between absorption and rents in the "A" locations versus the rest of the market. Even though "A" location absorption, lack of leasable space, firmer rents and fewer conces- sions have been a positive point in a dreary economy, other trends are emerging, such as leasing activity in off "A" locations. RETAI L market reviev~ Areas that were hit hardest are bouncing back, such as Glen- wood & State Street. Eighteen months ago, the vacancy rate at this intersection stood at 40%. Plantation Shopping Center was a "zombie" center, meaning it had space for lease but the owners were unwilling or unable to deliver space to prospects. Northgate Shopping Center was 25% vacant and an unanchored strip-center in front of Wal-Mart had one tenant and 80% vacancy. The recovery at these properties is like a snapshot of how the commercial market is rebounding. First, an investor/developer bought the note for Plantation Shopping Center. After foreclosing on the shopping center, he spent $2 million renovating the center. Today, Ross is open and anchors the newly renovated Plantation Shopping Center, which is 90% occupied. The unanchored strip center in front of Wal-Mart was bought by a tenant who took advantage of the best owner/user financ- ing market in 30 years. Northgate Shopping Center leased their problem space to Goodwill for a thrift store, bringing their occupancy up to 92%. 2 O 1 Anchored vs. Unanchored Vacant SF by Submarket 180000 ' 45°10 PRIMARY USE 160000 ~ Anchored - 40% !J Unanchored Shops 140000 ~r Vacancy - 35°10 120000 ~ i - 30% d ~ --r d ~ ` 100000 - 25% w .o ~ to 80000 13.55E ~~ ~ 20% ~ 60000 - ~ 15% 40000 8.4g' 9.vst, 8251, ' 10% 7.556 736 20000 - 5% 0 0% ee~`r ~agve r~ey~ cC.`~`l ~~a`a~ r~~a `reay~ r~es~ 0er~r a\ o`` <ae d`¢ ~~~ oJ oJ` s, Ge~`~ ~ Ga d ~ y ~e BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 .t. >C?1 Inventory +& Vacancy Colliers International tracks approximately 20.7 million square feel of inventory in the Boise Metro market. This is based upon buildings and retail centers 5,000 square feet and larger (excluding the Boise Towne Square Mall). Vacancy declined dramatically in all but the following three submarkets in 2012: Meridian, Central Bench and the Southeast submarkets. Triple Net Asking Rates tJverall retail asking rates have risen in the second half of 2012. moving to $13.38 from $13.31 six months ago. Individual submarkets showing the highest increases in rental rates in 2012 were Can- yon County; increasing by 51.97 to X13.76 per square foot and the Northwest submarket; increasing by $1.05 to $12.50 per square Foot. 2 0 1 Y~-End Retail Inventory Distribution 35% 30~~~ ~~ ~ 25°~ 20°, ae 15'x'0 9796 0 10°!° ~ c we 796 yX, °, -~ ~ 5% 4~. a~ ~ _ ~ 0% , c.~ '°~ c~ ay. a ~ e ~~ Qo cD `p ~`a 0a r J,ca mac `r a` ~a ``~v Vac~oc ~ ~ay yoo yo Crac``a 20 Va~D =o 2 0 1 Y/eLa~r-End Retail Average Triple Net Annual Asking Rates r 525.00 520.00 Staoo _d 51 5.00 su.23 s>a29 ~~ >•>~ 513 76 '0 ~ m 51 [i i;' i sit r/, ~yt 512.50 . (12.26 55 ra 50 00 . c°` a~ ~'~~ ~ .aac ~ . ~VCD Say ' . ~ aay .a~ay r ac` J~`~ ~ ac ~~ a `r r J c J r `o ye n`` ~ ?o ra~D 2o yo Oo o a ~ ~ C~1 Tenants continue to lock into longer leases, averaging close to five ~ years, as opposed to the three year average term length prevalent A three years ago. ,,_ Outlook Expect more new retailers, especially quick service restaurants to enter the Treasure Valley in 2013. There will also be more deals - on "off-the-market" properties. For example, Chick-Fil-A made - a deal on Broadway to take a site where there was an operat- ' ing restaurant. More tenants will make plays for "A" properties ' and pay the high cost of the location. All grocery stores, includ- ing gourmet, Wal-Mart neighborhood, convenience, independent and discount grocery stores, will be major news stories in 2013. oY~a~ d Retail Ranked Absorption by submarket 475.000 375,000 _~ ~ 275,000 .a ~ 175,000 Q tit n+~e 75,000 0 v mac ~a ~~ a`' ~ v h y cD 0ac ~a dam `oDC r °c~ mac `aa 1 a r ~ a D ~ ~ ~ i Say ~ hoc ho ~a~ ca ~o ~0 20 mac Cra 2 01 Y/eLa~r-End Retail Vacancy by submarket 30% 25% 20 ° ~ tai96 T c 15°~~, tas% m u m 1U`~~ 8696 7.9f6 9.9% 6.296 6.891 A9% 7.0% ~ h796 5>, ~~~ A 0°,;, c~ ~ ~~ `ac cD aye aye aye c~ c~~ 0a 4'a ~~' ~a r `"a~ Jra r 0a `o~ Gac~`a ~a`D ~ 20` ?o` ~o you Say ac~oc V ®2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved Overview Lease rates throughout the Treasure Valley stabilized in the second half of 2012, and the gap between owner/tenant value expectation continues to close. The stabilization of rates has led to asking rates being much closer to deal rates in the second half of 2012. Industrial sales activity has increased during the second half of 2012, but is limited by the amount of inventory for sale. This demand is driven by two factors: companies purchasing space instead of leasing it, and healthier construction and trade sectors in the market. Attractive financing and a drop in prices allows users to purchase facilities and lease them back to corporate entities while maintaining a strong balance sheet. Inventory and Vacancy Colliers International tracks 1,136 industrial buildings containing more than 35.5 million square feet. A total of 3,330,999 square feet of industrial space is currently vacant, giving the valley a total vacancy rate of 9.4%. 2 O 1 Sum of Available SF by Primary Use and Submarket ^ Southwark Meta! Manufacturing - Purchased 12.7 acres in Sky Ranch Business Park, Caldwell, and built a 79,500 square foot manufacturing plant expansion in Idaho. 58 lnvesUnents, LLC -Purchased 255 Steelhead Way in Boise, a b2,000 square foot former Applied Materials industrial facility; the buyer had a tenant in-tow. ^ ATCO Structure & Logistics - Leased a 203,500 square foot building with 17 acres at the Gateway West Industrial Center in Pocatello for a new manufacturing site in Idaho. ^ Dixon Contoiner Co. -Purchased 3210 E. Amity Road in Boise, a 53,000 square foot expansion facility located near their corporate headquarters. ^ Greenstar Building Systems -Purchased 1425 Sun- nyside Road in Weiser, a 67,000 square foot manufac- turing building for a new production site. 250000 -25% PRIMARY USE I] Flex 200000 ~] Industrial /Manufacturing to o% -20% I~ Warehouse /Bulk Space t Vacancy ti 150000 ~ -15% ~ a, ` a m ~ ~ `c 'n 100000 to.3% 11 e`~ -10% 8.6% 7.2% 7.3% 7.0% b.7% 50000 ~ - 5% ., 0 0% Airport Central Downtown Eagle Garden Cily Meridian Southeast Southwest West Bench Bench Periphery NDUSTRIAL market review Notable transactions include: BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5bb0 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 I X01?_ Outlook Vacancy rates in 2013 will continue tv decline due to limited new costruction. Leasing activity should remain steady as the market recovers and landlords regain negotiating power. This may be the last year owner/users can take advantage of the low interest rates and SBA financing opportunities, as interest rates are expected to increase later in 2013. Owner/ users are looking to take advantage ofgovernment-backed financing options as well as historically low interest rates in 2013, hedg- ing that the financing market will change in the near future as the national economy continues to work through fiscal legislation. Sales activity will remain strong and values of existing buildings will increase as demand continues to exceed quality supply. In- 2 O 1 Y~-End Industrial Absorption by Submarket 350,000 340,000 250,000 ~ 200,000 i ~ 150,000 0 1DD,000 ~ 4 50,000 ~ ~ ~ lwll -50,OD0 •100 000 ~~ '~ ~ ~e ti~ Q y~ y~ 4 a v ~ Os .a a m Q Qa ~a ~V a3 ~~D ,ce .,~ 0mc 2aF SG mac P , ~`. a ~a ~ oJ . y ~ o~ c ~a °i c~ ~a ~~ -150,000 ~ 0 3 I ac ~o 3c Qo 2 O 1 Y~-End Industrial Inventory by Submarket 30°J° zm 25`. ~ 20 ; ~, 0 0 15'S',; t395 1296 ~ ~ . ~ 995 995 a 1a° ~ ~ O 6% U 5°%° . - ~ 4% 4% > ~ c ~ 0°0 . '~ aFQa `ya`O `D3a Dec` ~~Qo`` `aae ~¢~~ c ~ ,c a`0 Qe`~ Ravi y 1,ay ~ ao`~a ~a~ y° 3c V o 3c. O° D Z dustrial development will be limited to local developers who 0 are building to accommodate current relationships. While in- t` dustrial development will be limited, 2013 could be the year Cn when new speculative development is planned in anticipation of ~ increasing demand and the corresponding increase in lease rates. D There is still significant interest in distressed, bank owned, and ; property for auction, however there are few available sites. ~ making it a competitive segment. - Due to the lack of quality existing facilities available to purchase, ~ the industrial land market will gain momentum in Q3 and Q4 of ~_' 2013. ~eavEn~d IL stria) Average Triple Net Direct Asking Rates 51.20 51.05 50.90 d SODS ,o ~ 50.60 m.59 Y 50.45 so.go iQA9 ~'~ ~,,,~ s0.so soa2 s0.a3 ~,~ f0.i4 9.46 a 50.30 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t• 50.15" St1.00 ' o~. c~ a~~ ~ ~~ `ac aye ~ °y~ ~~ Qa c`~a ~c c ~a~D ~! ~o ~o~ wag C, V° ~o 3c Qo 2 O Y a End Industrial Vacancy by Submarket I L 35°~~ 28°0 u 21 % ~.l)•96 c {~ e u 1a ^ > ~.~ B,tiY: 72% 6.7% ~ ~~ 7.096 5.895 3496 ~ D°l° ~` 4 t~ ~Q' \~ aC N y~ 4 Qa y P``Qo 0~c ``Qv, ~aQ' d` ~a` oraa `3c 0°c ~aF a3 ec`~a c a ~a~D ~lr yo °J boy C, G o.~ 3c. Qo ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved C1 The Investment Market Sales of commercial real estate in 2012 continue to increase, recording over $283 billion worth of significant transactions, which represents a 24°~ increase from 2011. Apartments were the biggest mover, with transaction volume up 47%. Over one- third of all transactions were done on a portfolio or REIT basis. The primary drivers of this increase are: an improved econom- ic sentiment, a stronger lending environment, and an increased appetite of various funds to get off the sidelines. According to RC Analytics, overall commercial prices are within 20% of peak levels, albeit there are variations in value swings amongst property types. None of the 35 core markets have re- covered back to peak pricing, but 15 of those markets' apartment sectors have recovered back to, orabove peak pricing. The following West-based cities have apartment pricing that is higher than it was during the prior peak: San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Denver, and Oakland. These markets also saw some of the largest increases in transaction volume during 2012. Investment Year in Review Sales Volume ~ Pricing Trends Dlndlvidual QPoMollo QEnlYty Billions "~ (`) YoY Lhange 200° ~ oo°~° m- D°/ -10D°!o 01 '02 03 ~Dd '05 -06 '07 'Otl '09 '10 '11 '11 GOISG 755 WEST FRONT STREET. SUITE 300 DOISE. ID 83702 Lending According to Amherst Securities, new defaults of commercial mort- gages fell to their lowest levels of the cycle in the fourth quarter of 2012. 80% of CMBS loans maturing were paid off, which is a vast improvement from where it's been. According to RC Analyt- ics, of the $394 billion of commercial mortgages becoming troubled over the past cycle, 58% have now been resolved and $164 billion remains to be worked out. Lenders have continually shown a healthier appetite to lend. Life insurance companies are starting to compete with Fannie and Fred- die on apartment loans. The CMBS market is making its way back, and local banks have improved their appetite for commercial loans on investment property. National Outlook The national sentiment is that the market looks healthy. Investment dollars will continue to chase core assets at a premium. The lending market should continue to support the transaction volume. Outside of core assets, the hottest sectors will continue to be apart- ments and single-tenant NNN, grocery-anchored, drug or dollar- store based retail. Regional Regionally, the West seems to be recovering at a healthier rate with more focused interest from investors. Three of the top five performing markets in 2012 in terms of overall volume were on the West coast (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles). Sentiment from vested players is that 2013 will see continued improvement. Western cities account for nine of the top 20 performing apart- ment markets (San Jose, San Francisco, Orange County, San Diego, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Denver, and Oakland). According to a survey done by Western Real Estate Business, most vested players believe that the market will continue to improve in 2013. Retail will continue to be strong, primarily because out-of-state investors understand quick-serve restaurants and dollar stores. They can translate well-located, high traffic locations with a good retail concept into a performing asset in any market. NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 -~1~12 Local The local investment market saw more activity in 2012 than re- cent years, and Boise has garnered national attention in 2012 as abusiness-friendly, recovering market. The Brookings Institute listed Boise as one of the 20 fastest recovering cities in the nation based on housing prices, growth, and employment statistics. KPMG declared that Boise is the lowest-cost city to do business in the West. From a transaction standpoint, the most active segments in the local market have been apartments and retail. Some sales of note occurring 2012 include: ^ Doubletree Club Hotel, (158 rooms) ^ Park River Apartments, (91 units) ^ Woodbridge Apartments, (200 units) Lodge at Maple Grove Apartments, (154 units) ~ Lancaster Apartments, (30 units) ^ Pinebridge office (26,000 square feet) ~ Eagle View Plaza retail (20,000) ^ Chcrry Wood Plaza retail (15,800) From a development standpoint, strong indicators in multi- family have led to a healthy amount of building. From 2012 through 2013 we should see an increase in inventory of 8-10°~ to our market. Apartments completed or under construction: Boise State 1350 beds), River and 12th Sr. Housing l53 units), Affinity Senior Housing 1150 units), Union Square 1120 units), Regency at River Valley 1240 units), Gramercy l48 units), Crossfield 180 units), Brassy Cove (255 units), and Avondale Place 1200 units). Here are some other exciting projects of note: ~ 8tli & Main: 269,000 square foot office tower anchored by Zions Bank, Holland & Hart, Ruths' Chris. ^' Whole Foods: 150,000 square foot retail anchored by Whole Foods and Walgreens. ^' )LIMP: 100,000 square foot urban-interactive park with parking garage developed by Simplot. Z ^ The Village at Meridian: 723,000 square foot ^. (200,000 carnplete) retail/lifestyle center in Meridian ~ on Eagle Road. ~ ^ St Luke's Canyon County Expansion: 80,000 square feet Local Outlook The local market has experienced healthy absorption in the ~ office and retail segments. It has also seen stable occupancy in ~ apartments for the past 2'/z years. This has led to a strong push ~ in development of retail, office, and apartments. ~ Local transaction focus will be similar to national trends, with investors being primarily interested in apartments and retail. 02013 Colliers Paragon LLC - Afl Rights Reserved 2 O 1 Yea -End Average Cap Rates -United States 9 Outlook Activity throughout Canyon County was very strong in the second half of 2012. The declining unemployment rate, currently at 7.5%, has direct correlation to vacancy in the retail, office and indus- trial specialties, and has had a positive impact on real estate in the county. This was most notable in Downtown Nampa where the vacancy rate fell by 1.7% to its current rate of 4.4%. Canyon County vacancy rates have declined in the retail and industrial markets, ending the year at 8.9% and 10.9% respectively. How- ever, the overall Canyon County office market experienced an in- crease in overall vacancy, ending 2012 at 10.6%. There was an increased demand for mid-size industrial properties forsale ranging in size from 5,000-10,000 square feet in 2012. This demand was also present in the office market, which experienced an increase in owner/users who purchased office buildings in 2012. Available office space above 4,000 square feet in Canyon County is in short supply. Signature transactions and projects in 2012: ~ Sout/twarks Building -Caldwell: 79,000 square (ool build to-suit manufacturing plant for HVAC ducting. ~ Franklin Flex -Nampa: 40,000 square foot invest- ment purchase of flex space ~ Library Square -Nampa: 60,000 square foot new library, 34,500 square foot office /retail space, and 300-space parking garage ~ I-84 Construction: The completion of an 8-lane ex- pansion from Nampa to Boise and the new 10-Mile ramp have greatly improved the connectivity between Ada and Canyon Counties. 2 0 1 Yep a -End Canyon County Office Market Caldwell 29 388,470 47,977 12.4% 0 0.0% 47,977 12.4% 510.75 Downtown Nampa 38 420,280 18,679 4.4% 0 0.0% 18,679 4.4% 511.41 Idaho Center 12 208,128 24,020 11.5% 0 0.0% 24,020 11.5% 510.53 Karcher 25 292,955 25,996 36.3% 0 0.0% 25,996 8.9% n/a Middleton 1 6,000 0.0% 0 O.D% 0 0.0% n/a Norihside Nampa 3 38,194 11,015 28.8% 0 0.0% 11,015 28.8% n/a South Nampa 33 337,248 48,667 14.4% r 2760 .r 0.8% r 51,427 15.2% ~ 510.66 r .... .. : A::.~:<, •i; fir.: ru,t"~.f r,r., Ji.:~CJ.:. J:: 2 O ~ Yea -End Canyon County Retail Market Caldwell 44 945,865 88,174 4.3% 0 0.0% 88,174 9.3% 510.20 Downtown Nampa 54 175,987 26,382 3.4% 14,326 1.8% 40,708 5.2% S9.T5 Idaho Center 36 1,327,091 148,953 11.2% 0 0.0% 148,953 11.2% 516.21 Karcher 75 2,668,643 222,346 8.3% 3,000 0.1% 225,346 8.4% 514.52 Northside Nampa 12 196,841 1,500 0.8% 0 0.0% 1,500 0.8% n/a South Nampa 30 709,961 60,217 8.5% 0 0.0% r 60,217 8.5% 513.15 BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SVITE 300 BOISE, 10 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD. SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 ~t ~ ?012 Nampa Submarket Activity in the Nampa subrnarket was very strong in 2012, espe- cially the demand for office space under 1,000 SF. The Down- town Nampa retail market experienced an increase in vacancy of 3.8%, and a decrease in asking rates of $0.23. There were several significant transactions in Nampa over the past 12 months that include: ~ The Idaho Hop House leased 6,580 square feet in Downtown Nampa. ^ The former Crescent Brewery sold in June, 2012. Wal-Mart purchased 12.51 acres of development ground. ^ Deseret Industries leased 12,844 square feet of retail space in Holly Plaza. Caldwell Submarket 10 f7 Office vacancy rates in Caldwell increased in 2012 by 6.1% to 12.4%, while office asking rates decreased by $3.11 per square Z foot, ending the year at $10.75 per square foot. The Caldwell ~ Industrial market has remained stagnant in 2012, with a few Z large vacant facilities keeping vacancy high. ~ 0 Significant activity in Caldwell includes: C ^ Sale of the former Blue Elephant car wash Idaho Center Submarket The Idaho Center Submarket is another bright spot in Canyon County, experiencing a decrease in office vacancy of 6.3%, and a decrease of 7.6°~ in retail vacancy over the past twelve months. I<archer Submarket Activity in Caldwell remained challenging in 2012. However, Gard- The Karcher Submarket experienced increased activity with ner Company announced a new 60,000 square foot medical office several new single end-user buildings constructed in 2012. development next to West Valley Medical Center, with construction Competitive lease rates are generating interest in good retail scheduled to begin in 2013. locations. Canyon County Industrial Market Caldwell 139 4,410,566 • 257,970 5.8% 0 0.0°k 257,970 5.8% 50.46 Downtown Nampa 14 234,723 2,500 1.1% 0 0.0% 2,500 1.1% n/a Idaho Center 52 1,851,026 364,870 19.7% 0 0.0% 364,870 19.7% 50.38 Karcher 29 1,078,994 52,346 4.9% 0 0.0% 52,346 4.9% 50.40 Northsidc Nampa 110 5,789,248 796,250 13.8% 12,500 0.2% 808,750 14.0% 50.49 South Nampa 20 707,826 32,242 4.6 f, 0 0.09E 32,242 4.6% EO.48 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Canyon County '----j ,I ~J ~l' Submarl<ets t I - ~ © .:dletOn II -.-+ - -, 0 _ _ ~i , J ~ '10 •~ 1 _ ~ I i © i :.rho Center I I, - I I----------li I ~,,,• . , ~y ,wntown i - Q uth Nampa Ir =____~-__ ~tI-Nampa ~ ------ i ~., ., ~ ,rcher - - - t . N.,.~ ~. 02013 Colliers Paragon LLC - Atl Rights Reserved 11 Overview Farm ground, commercial land, residential development, and finished residential lots were very active in 2012, however land for industrial use experienced a very low demand in 2012. The highest priced farm ground transaction reported in 2012 was an auction for $10,000 per acre on a 300 + acre property in Pleasant Valley, northwest of American Falls. This high price was due to the high rental rate for potato land in Eastern Idaho, which averages $800 per acre. By comparison, southwest Idaho farm ground leases have increased to $250 per acre with rates as high as $450. In all markets we saw medical, retail, service and commercial users taking advantage of lower land prices. In the summer of 2012, Ridley's Grocery Store, asmall-footprint regional grocer, purchased a 30+ acre site in North Kuna for a future store. Supply and Demand Ab~~orption of single fornily house lots continues at a manageable and sustainable level in Southwest Idaho with 3,916 single family detached home building permits issued for all of southern Idaho in 2012. Demand for development land is low with most builders and investors concentrating their efforts on the vacant developed house lots left over from the housing market downturn in 2007. Canyon County residential lots are experiencing an increase in demand. Outlook In 2013 we expect a slight leveling in residential land prices. The recent rapid increases in residential land, lot and finished new home pricing will create a price pull-back. Industrial land prices and demand will continue at their current low level throughout 2013. Farm land prices will spike even higher with the next round of land offerings driven by an increase in demand. Expect transactions to occur in the $4,000 to $6,000 per acre range. The supply of new single family lots in Ada County will continue to come from the con- struction of small, manageable phases of existing and new subdivi- sions. Canyon County still has too many vacant developed lots to warrant much new-lot construction. However, just like Ada County, where demand has absorbed the supply of existing lots, Canyon County developers will build new lots in specific areas of demand. 2 01 N we Construction Home Sales & Inventory by County 7000 Sum of Supply, Ncw COnStrUCllOn 6000 Sum of Sales, Ne Canslr ction w u 5000 ~, 400D c a 3000 2000 ~ ~ ' rv ~' IODD' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IAA ~ 0 .D N 07 p~ O N ~ 0, ~, ~, O~ O O O I O ~T ~ O O .o N m V~ O .- N_ .p h O O O O Q, Q, O p~ O N n v of .O 1~ m o~ O_ ~_ N ~, O~ O O O O O O O O O O p. p. O" p, O O O O r r r r N N N I N O O N N O O O O O O O p, p. N N N N N' N N ~ r p. p. O O O O O O O O O O O O O r r N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ada Canyon BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 83702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 '012 l1~` ~~ ILL ~.UI i I~I CI It=i iJi v~ ~~~ilJ~l~_ _ .~ ~'1 office market changes f rom 2011 -~ 2 ~ 1 ~ number of number of Asking ~ CEASES SAES RATES VACANCY OFFICE - i i i %~i r i CenlralBench 101 1,914,454 409,275 0 409,275 21.4% 18,822 Downtown 77 3,701,536 288,625 94,357 382,982 10.3% 78,923 Downtown Periphery 76 1,891,463 84,031 6,800 90,831 4.8% 100,043 Eagle 59 725,538 108,322 2,150 110,472 15.2% 79,813 Meridian 142 2,484,094 481,453 0 481,453 19.4% 115,775 N. End/N. West/Garden City 44 557,537 81,877 0 81,877 14.7% 33,170 Southeast 51 1,375,929 225,960 0 225,960 16.4% 46,192 Southwest 50 872,674 186,733 0 186,733 21.4% -4,623 West Bench 145 2,719,396 581,142 45,532 626,674 23.0% 39,696 Canyon County 147 1,751,657 179,114 0 179,114 10.2% 50,280 2 O 1 Y~-End Office Full Service Asking Rates by Building Class es.ooo. sFt Central E3ench 59.99 515.08 59.76 59.20 Downtown 517.45 519.83 316.12 511.75 Downtown Periphery 519.92 522.87 517.29 n/a Eagle 513.88 515.06 511.98 n/a Meridian 516.96 517.41 515.33 n/a North/Northwest/Garden City S1T.96 516.85 514.90 513.50 Southeast 515.70 576.03 f15.75 513.50 Southwest 514.35 514.35 n/a n/a West Bench 512.96 514.66 512.53 511.17 Canyon County 512.98 516.55 512.29 512.00 n/o -Hers ServKt Rm eQe~tO m CMns / S~ov+e m2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved 13 retail market changes from 2011 number of number of Asking LEASES SAES RATES VACANCY ~ ~ ~, i ~ ~ i `.~_ i I err -.u ~ Retail Submarket Statistics at a Glance i Central Bench 55 1,339,402 181,051 0 181,051 13.5% 57,306 511.44 Eagle 27 b55,850 54,000 1,327 55,327 8.4% 256,707 514.23 Garden City 30 770,614 57,810 0 57,810 7.5% 101,624 59.91 Meridian 114 3,650,196 250,295 0 250,295 6.9% 289,335 514.24 North End 10 193,772 13,499 0 13,499 7.0% 33,227 516.00 Northwest 32 831,222 82,239 0 82,239 9.9% 51,664 312.50 Southeast 45 1,430,919 260,825 0 260,825 18.2% 60,261 514.82 Southwest 38 1,667,308 110,327 1,820 112,147 6.7% 109,577 513.64 West Bench 100 3,547,527 288,256 1,431 289,687 8.2% 416,126 512.28 Canyon County 261 6.624,388 564,898 17,329 582.227 9.8^/ 136.838 313.76 i i~ •i ~ i O 1 Yea -End Retail Full Service Asking Rates by Primary Use cs,ooo sa:+1 Central Bench 511.44 514.50 511.25 59.29 Eagle 514.23 520.00 513.47 514.40 Garden City 59.91 n/a 510.60 59.27 Meridian 514.29 517.18 513.26 315.16 North End 516.00 n1a 518.38 510.00 Northwest 512.50 570.67 511.64 E12.25 Southeast 514.82 513.87 516.62 512.85 Southwest 513.64 E13.39 515.78 512.13 West Bench 512.28 E13.84 571.76 511.39 Canyon County 573.76 513.50 513.59 512.20 BOISE 755 WEST FRONT STREET. SUITE 300 BOISE, ID 93702 NAMPA 5660 EAST FRANKLIN ROAD, SUITE 110 NAMPA, ID 83687 :?012 INDUSTRIAL comprehensive statisticC INDUSTRIAL Yom, zoo industrial market changes from 2011 number of number of Asking LEASES SALES RATES VACANCY Industrial Submarket Statistics at a Glance i ~ Airport 91 3,351,156 263,235 25,865 289,100 8.6% 259,049 50.40 Central Bench 73 2,005,936 143,945 0 143,945 7.2% 180,836 50.41 Downtown Periphery 35 766,652 51,589 0 51,589 6.7% -1,856 50.48 Eagle 10 289,132 21,028 0 21,028 T.3% 16,020 50.59 Garden City 108 1,563,604 163,564 0 163,564 10.396 61,875 50.44 Meridian 137 3,337,239 232,638 0 232,638 T.0% 280,193 50.50 Southeast T9 4,613,095 145,650 9,690 155,340 3.4% 72,308 50.42 Southwest 87 1,577,300 274,042 25,359 299,401 19.0% 108,888 50.43 West Bench 152 3,862,514 426,716 27,000 455,716 11.8% 284,679 50.42 Nampa 225 9,661,817 1,248,208 12,500 1,260,708 13.0% 60,500 50.44 C~Idwrll 139 4,410,566 257,97Q 0 257,970 5.8% 57,??7 50.46 \ ~ ~ ~~r ~ ~ / 2 01 Y~-End Industrial Full Service Asking Rates by Primary Use cs,ooo ss.1 Airport 50.40 50.59 50.35 50.37 Central Bench 50.41 50.52 50.57 50.38 Eagle 50.59 50.6? 50.55 n/a Garden City 50.44 50.52 50.49 50.33 Meridian 50.50 50.64 50.42 50.49 Southeast 50.42 n/a 50.48 50.41 Southwest 50.43 50.50 50.48 50.48 West Bench 50.42 50.77 30.37 50.39 Canyon County 50.44 50.43 50.50 50.37 ' No - M1b ruY So~+c'>3.a q'~aM ar Wu! S+tmwfm 14~ ©2013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved •1~~~~~I• CCIh1 ?012 Management George Iliff Managing Owner & Office Assaiate '52.472.2858 Tr - - ;. ~ ,-age I w Manglos caM. slog .+ ,ciatc H~ /2.2841 Karen warner, caM Asociate 7084846172 t.n un .rear rer!dwlln-r,tnm '=,cr~t' Fei:~f~rncr ,~ A•:;ociate f 7!!8 443 5107 Matt Palmer Associate 7nx 477 2a36 i , t I;elr ;c nr..~rl ..•i ~, t r;,.. ~~,~_~ . C~rokcrage Mike Christensen A~ssaaate zox 47z za66 ~~ r•.d.,=._i.~...~a_.,~•riT~.,ILr~,iarr ~ ,--,~.oualc a s„721047- ~~~~ r Crrart~_C are .7l; - As~.auale qua ~,~z.2a3s t'"0o'~_blJkCSlte f~COlliefS.COT '~~1~~.~ ~ -••~~~; r~1 Research C.ive Fernandez Cn-ector of Marketing _1.5472.2868 „_.yr `r.. n3 r,.~r 'tir..,'.,ia.• gyp-^~ ,.~:,, Johnson ~' ~ ••^:r•:carch Analyst • '. '!~~: 477 7860 II-.v._ ,r-.~~1 Brokerage Clay Anderson cPA. MBA Associate ,` Z08.494.6i77 _'.dy. d nd~f5pn:'~COiii~ fS.C4m ~ir:vid war ~ '". actor of Investment Services x 477 7R44 ~~ 1 .,.. ~ r r :. • Dyne Slaughter cctM.MeA .ociate ~~ " ~~ 472 2853 .r , .. n.~.p-r' r,llir r-~,. _;r ~~an 'A'all ~ w F r.rnsaclion Coordinator 70& 472.2854 ~~ ~ 6i :an-~h al "I1culliNr ec urr Steve Foster Associate F 7fr$ 472 7834 )rvni C1~UCn, ~..~~a ~~ ~ a Associate 208472.1b68 ~~~ j h'',ck Scruton ~ ''~'.SOCIatC ;ii 477 2857 ~~c Tucker ~~ ::ociate ~' .'riR Kf7 78~i2 I inda King h+akcr Assistant 3:;8.472.2863 hr~da king(dcolliers.com Camille Shaffer Research Assistant ''J8 4 /2 "1857 cry ., ;n.... r-~mi 412013 Colliers Paragon LLC -All Rights Reserved l ~~ ,ge ?nn Starr ' ~ Associate 208.472.2838 .... - Jimmy Rourn6ni~ a %,ssociate ~~ o~n r~ 2840 rrr ~r,.~r r~ ., wnty Brokerage ~ Todd Moss M:~:ociatc r~ ; f)x ri'l71665 P,f,kP i'en~e ~,~ Associate ..~ ' ZOB 472 16G6 :rid., ~ •i,:'"lr:~ i ~ , ~ _ir.i ~~'' t ~ncoln Hagood ~ ~r, Associate i" 'nR 47? 1667 .~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ,:r:i nl . ~ -.err -;~.; u~t ;ors;.~. n ::ociare T:)ft 472 1663 'n Vrint ~: u,,r,°. rh n1~^r. r nrn Au ~ -~~'I ~:rices ~?,i[11 Pltl(ett CAI, AARE "•,~:ociate 'U8 250 4767 I:'~ _:nagement l:1 ~.e Attiani Ilrector of Property Services i, ,rte r;.9 477 2867 ., 4 Project Manager ~~ 7U8 472 2664 ~~ pr.`r•.dr~pr.-r +i[rd: b`ry r;, r.r 0 r r m -1 D Q D r n 0 ~~ N n O 3 c 0 ~' o c ~ ~,~ -• cn m ~ ~ - W tD p O w ~ O "" W T ~i O O ~ N Appendix G. City of Meridian FY2014-FY2025 Capital Improvement Plan Admin Parking Lot Development $300,000 $300,000 $2,000 Sum of Admin $300,000 $300,000 $2,000 Fire Fire Engine -Heavy Rescue Tender $380,000 $380,000 $5,000 Fire Engine - MF005 $520,000 $520,000 $5,000 Fire Engine -Station #4 -Quint Ladder T $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,000 Fire Engine -Station #6 -Heavy Rescue $700,000 $700,000 $10,000 Fire Engine -Station #7 -Quint Ladder T $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,000 Fire Engine -Station #8 $520,000 $520,000 $5,000 Fire Station #6 $2,230,000 $2,230,000 $150,000 Fire Station #6 Staff (12) $0 $1,243,592 Fire Station #6 Staff (3) -Floaters $0 $310,898 Fire Station #7 $2,020,000 $2,020,000 $150,000 Fire Station #7 Staff (3) -Floaters $0 $310,898 Fire Station #7 Staff {9) $0 $932,694 Fire Station #8 $2,020,000 $2,020,000 $150,000 Fire Station #8 Staff (12) $0 $1,243,592 Fire Station #8 Staff (4) -Floaters $0 $414,531 Fire Station Staff (1) -Fire Inspector $0 $103,632 Fire Station Staff (3) -Battalion Chiefs $0 $421,738 Fire Station Staff (9) -Floaters $0 $932,694 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Opitcom $20,000 $20,000 Purchase Station #5 from Rural $806,000 $806,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 1 of 6 Replace Brush MF022 $145,000 $145,000 Replace Engine MF009 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Engine MFO10 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Engine MF014 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Engine MF018 $520,000 $520,000 Replace Ladder Truck MF021 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Replace Staff MF015 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF016 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF020 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF023 $41,600 $41,600 Replace Staff MF024 $41,600 $41,600 Replacement Equipment- Air Unit MF00 $98,000 $98,000 Replacement Equipment- Breathing Ap $380,000 $380,000 Sum of Fire $8,231,000 $7,376,000 $15,607,000 495 000 5,914,269 IT Additional Operating Costs $0 $20,000 Dark Fiber $500,000 $500,000 Network Administrator $0 $43,000 Phone Purchase-VOIP $212,500 $212,500 Replace Computers $115,150 $115,150 Replace Computers $148,800 $148,800 Replace Computers $108,750 $108,750 Replace Computers $117,250 $117,250 Replace Computers $491,000 $491,000 Replace Computers $365,000 $365,000 Replace IT Hardware $80,000 $80,000 Replace IT Hardware $80,000 $80,000 $14,000 Replace IT Hardware $30,000 $30,000 Replace IT Hardware $80,000 $80,000 $40,000 Replace IT Pool Car $20,000 $20,000 Software Engineer $0 $43,000 Web Developer $0 $43,000 Sum of IT $2,348,450 $2,348,450 $74,000 $129,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 2 of 6 Parks 77 Acre Park Design (77 Acres) $750,000 $750,000 Aldape Park Construction (60 Acres) ($2,100,000) $0 Aldape Park Construction (60 Acres) $8,520,000 $2,100,000 $10,620,000 $360,000 ATV/Trailer $12,000 $12,000 $500 Ball Field Groomer $10,000 $10,000 $500 Borup Park Construction (47 Acres) $6,674,000 $6,674,000 $282,000 Field House (YMCA) $460,000 $1,540,000 $2,000,000 Field House (YMCA) $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $142,000 $75,000 Grounds Keeper I $0 $45,000 Grounds Keeper I $0 $45,000 Grounds Keeper I $0 $45,000 Grounds Keeper II $0 $59,000 Grounds Keeper II $0 $59,000 Highlands Park Construction (7 Acres) $994,000 $245,000 $1,239,000 $21,000 Highlands Park Construction (7 Acres) ($245,000) $0 Hillsdale Park Construction (20 Acres) $3,540,000 $700,000 $4,240,000 $60,000 Hillsdale Park Construction (20 Acres) ($700,000) $0 Isola Park Construction (7 Acres) ($245,000) $0 Isola Park Construction (7 Acres) $994,000 $245,000 $1,239,000 $21,000 Large Area Mower $55,000 $55,000 $2,000 Large Area Mower $55,000 $55,000 $2,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Mule $12,000 $12,000 $1,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $100,000 $100,000 Pathway Connections $150,000 $150,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $150,000 $150,000 $5,000 Pathway Connections $150,000 $150,000 $5,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 3 of 6 Pathway Connections Pathway Connections Rails With Trails Rails With Trails Replacement Equipment -Adventure Isl Replacement Equipment- Bear Creek Pa Replacement Equipment -Gordon Harri Replacement Equipment -Renaissance Replacement Equipment- Seasons Park Replacement Equipment- Storey Park Replacement Equipment -Tully Park Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Replacement Vehicles/Equipment Storey Park Construction (5 Acres) Sweeper/Blower The Oaks Park Construction (7 Acres) The Oaks Park Construction (7 Acres) Trailer Trim Mower Trim Mower Trim Mower Trim Mower Trim Mower Truck Truck Truck $150,000 $150,000 $385,000 $385,000 $690,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $710,000 $994,000 $115,000 $115,000 $18, 000 $7,500 $20,000 $20, 000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 ($245,000) $245, 000 $150,000 $5,000 $150,000 $5,000 $500,000 $500,000 $690,000 $40,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $128,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $710,000 $25,000 $18,000 $1,000 $0 $1,239,000 $21,000 $7,500 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $20,000 $1,000 $25,000 $3,000 $25,000 $3,000 $25,000 $3,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 4 of 6 Police Code Enforcement Officer (1) Crime Prevention (1) Parking Enforcement Officer (1) Planning and Research (1) Police Attorney (1) Police Corporals (2) Police Detectives (2) Police Detectives (2) Police Lt (2) Police Officer - K9 (1) Police Officer -Motorcycle (1) Police Officers (2) Police Officers {3) Police Officers (3) Police PIO (1) Police Sgt {1) Police Station Expansion $800,000 Police Substation -Fire Station #5 Police Substation -Fire Station #6 Police Substation -Fire Station #7 Police Substation at The Village Police Trainer {1) Police Trainer {1) Replace Vehicles $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $60,000 $120,000 $60,000 $120,000 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $60,000 $120,000 $60,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $100,000 $62,000 $77,000 $63,000 $80,000 $121,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $244,000 $101,000 $97,000 $170,000 $255,000 $255,000 $70,000 $111,000 $95,000 $95,000 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 5 of 6 Truck $25,000 $25,000 $3,000 Truck/Plow $35,000 $35,000 $3,000 Turf Sprayer $40,000 $40,000 $1,000 William Watson Park Construction (7 Ac $736,030 $736,030 $21,000 Sum of Parks $16,930,030 $12,134,500 $0 $2,790,000 $35,389,530 $1,020,000 $328,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicles $300,000 $300,000 Training Center $1,775,000 $1,225,000 $3,000,000 $300,000 Sum of Police $5,575,000 $1,585,000 $7,160,000 $400,000 $2,496,000 Grand Total 533.384.480 512.134.500 57.376.000 $1.585.000 50 52.790.000 $60.804.980 51.991.000 58.867.269 Thursday, November 07, 2013 Page 6 of 6